I could yet become a theist! :) [Archive] - Two Plus Two Newer Archives

thylacine

05-24-2007, 07:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
From Chris Hedges opening statement (http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070523_chris_hedges_i_dont_believe_in_atheists/) during his recent debate with Sam Harris.

[ QUOTE ]
God is a human concept. God is the name we give to our belief that life has meaning, one that transcends the world’s chaos, randomness and cruelty. To argue about whether God exists or does not exist is futile. The question is not whether God exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

That much I can follow, pity he follows with:

[ QUOTE ]
The question is whether we concern ourselves with, or are utterly indifferent to, the sanctity and ultimate transcendence of human existence. God is that mysterious force—and you can give it many names as other religions do—which works upon us and through us to seek and achieve truth, beauty and goodness.

[/ QUOTE ]

As long as it is "our" doing against the evil force of "creation" whatever that is, I could be a theist. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Ho-hum. This is just a standard bait-and-switch tactic, and it just goes to show the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of advocates of theism. /images/graemlins/mad.gif

Taraz

05-24-2007, 07:09 AM

Since I know everyone isn't going to actually read the link, so here are the parts that I find the most persuasive . . . here is Hedges with regard to Harris's proclamation that Islam is an inherently violent religion:

[ QUOTE ]
Now after studying 600 hours of Arabic, spending seven years of my life in the Middle East, most of that time as the Middle East bureau chief for The New York Times, I do not claim to be a scholar on Islam. But I do know the Koran is emphatic about the rights of other religions to practice their own beliefs and unequivocally condemns attacks on civilians as a violation of Islam. The Koran states that suicide, of any type, is an abomination. More important, the tactic of suicide bombing was pioneered as a weapon of choice by the Tamils, who are chiefly Hindu, in Sri Lanka long before it was adopted by Hezbollah, al-Qaida or Hamas. It is what you do when you do not have artillery or planes or missiles and you want to create maximum terror.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the "real danger":

[ QUOTE ]
The danger is not Islam or Christianity or any other religion. It is the human heart—the capacity we all have for evil. All human institutions with a lust for power give their utopian visions divine sanction, whether this comes through the worship of God, destiny, historical inevitability, the master race, a worker’s paradise, fraternite-liberte-egalite or the second coming of Jesus Christ.

Religion is often a convenient vehicle for this blood lust. Religious institutions often sanctify genocide, but this says more about us, about the nature of human institutions and the darkest human yearnings, than it does about religion. This is the greatest failing of Sam’s book. He externalizes evil. And when you externalize evil, all tools, including violence and torture, become legitimate to eradicate an evil that is outside of you. This worldview—one also adopted by the Christian right—is dangerous, for if we fail to acknowledge our own capacity for evil it will grow unchecked and unheeded. It is, in essence, the call to live the unexamined life.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the real crux of the argument:

[ QUOTE ]
The danger of Sam’s simplistic worldview is that it does what fundamentalists do: It creates the illusion of a binary world of us and them, of reason versus irrationality, of the forces of light battling the forces of darkness. And once you set up this world you are permitted to view as justified military intervention, brutal occupation and even torture, anything, in short, that will subdue what is defined as irrational and dangerous. All this is done in the name of reason, in the name of his god, which looks, like all idols, an awful lot like Sam Harris.

[/ QUOTE ]

siegfriedandroy

05-24-2007, 07:32 AM

yeah, but nonadvocatesof theism are morally and int bankful. in an atheistic framework your terms have abs no meaning

JussiUt

05-24-2007, 07:34 AM

I'm not going to go in-depth about this and I'm certainly no expert but here are some things to ponder:

[ QUOTE ]
Koran is emphatic about the rights of other religions

[/ QUOTE ]

And it is not. It's both. It's filled with paradoxes like the Bible. You can pick and choose however you like. But the Quran advocates both tolerance and intolerance.

[ QUOTE ]
The danger is not Islam or Christianity or any other religion. It is the human heart.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course this is right. I don't think Harris or any other has claimed that religion is a source of "evil". How can any concept created by humans be a definite source of anything? Naturally humans are the source of human actions. Religion is simply a tool, a crutch, a pathway for people to be more violent. If the human heart is the danger then why not prefer to remove temptations of doing evil things? I don't quite get how Harris "externalizes" evil. He's simply stating in his book (didn't read the debate) that religion is a channel of irrationality and a major factor in human hearts' evildoings.

[ QUOTE ]
The danger of Sam’s simplistic worldview is that it does what fundamentalists do: It creates the illusion of a binary world of us and them, of reason versus irrationality, of the forces of light battling the forces of darkness. And once you set up this world you are permitted to view as justified military intervention, brutal occupation and even torture, anything, in short, that will subdue what is defined as irrational and dangerous. All this is done in the name of reason, in the name of his god, which looks, like all idols, an awful lot like Sam Harris.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rationality is a preferrable goal. Humans create chaos and evil, the concept of religion often helps them do that. Then why not attack against religion? It's not the fundamental cause of violence since humans are naturally responsible for their own actions but it can aid violence.

As what comes to justifying interventions, I don't believe Harris is an advocate of a literal war against religious people. And claiming rationality is a religion, Sam Harris considers himself a God or that reason is God is just simply missing the point the same way many theists claim atheism is a religion.

The basic point: Religion isn't the only reason for human misery nor is it the most fundamental one. But it is irrational, it is dividing people unnecessarily into different sects and that causes violence.

Rduke55

05-24-2007, 12:07 PM

Siegfriedandroy, I reversed your ban but consider yourself on probation.
Drunken, profanity-filled, no-content posts will get you re-banned.

m_the0ry

05-24-2007, 12:47 PM

Humans are not divine.

Nature is divine, humans are an emergent property of nature. This is somehing a theist will never admit.

[ QUOTE ]
the first statement, whether or not u can follow it, is [censored]. hitler did not care about truth beauty and goodness. hitler was [censored] evil. so was stalin.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not "[censored]." Hitler cared about truth beauty and goodness and so did stalin. It was their definitions of these concepts that were flawed.

m_the0ry

05-24-2007, 12:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The danger of Sam’s simplistic worldview is that it does what fundamentalists do: It creates the illusion of a binary world of us and them, of reason versus irrationality, of the forces of light battling the forces of darkness. And once you set up this world you are permitted to view as justified military intervention, brutal occupation and even torture, anything, in short, that will subdue what is defined as irrational and dangerous. All this is done in the name of reason, in the name of his god, which looks, like all idols, an awful lot like Sam Harris.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a completely speculative argument. The atheist nation has never been given a chance, ever. The closest anyone has ever come is buddhist asia. How many wars are fought there? Hedges, please show me the pain and suffering.

I'm not a huge Sam Harris fanboy but I also agree with many of his views. From what I've read, he is promoting atheism in the most strict sense of the word - a lack of theism or diety. I haven't read anything of his that argues against spirituality or humanism. I also haven't read anything of his arguing against the practice of buddhism. I also will staunchly posit that if the entire world were buddhist (or any other form of non theistic framework for morality and spirituality) you wouldn't see any 'rationality crusades'.

It's far too hypothetically hyperbolistic for Hedges to make this claim.

PairTheBoard

05-24-2007, 03:16 PM

Would you go for this?

God is a human concept. We have a belief that life has meaning, one that transcends the world’s chaos, randomness and cruelty. God is the name we give to the Source of that meaning. To argue about whether God exists or does not exist is futile. The question is not whether God exists.

The question is whether we concern ourselves with, or are utterly indifferent to, the sanctity and ultimate transcendence of human existence. God is the Source of that mysterious force—and you can give it many names as other religions do—which works upon us and through us to seek and achieve truth, beauty and goodness.

PairTheBoard

JussiUt

05-24-2007, 03:46 PM

I'm not sure if this is meant to be answered by me but I'll answer anyway.

[ QUOTE ]
We have a belief that life has meaning, one that transcends the world’s chaos, randomness and cruelty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do we? I'm not sure if we have a higher meaning here on this Earth. Why should we have? If life is pointless it doesn't mean that we have to experience it as pointless. See what I mean? Even though there could be no higher reason whatsoever for my existence it doesn't mean that I'm going to dwell on it, I'm just enjoying my existence.

[ QUOTE ]
The question is whether we concern ourselves with, or are utterly indifferent to, the sanctity and ultimate transcendence of human existence. God is the Source of that mysterious force—and you can give it many names as other religions do—which works upon us and through us to seek and achieve truth, beauty and goodness.

[/ QUOTE ]

What mysterious force? I don't follow your logic but I guess that's because I didn't recognize any compulsory sanctity of human life. We have conciousness, we have self-awareness. Is that what you mean by "the mysterious force"?

PairTheBoard

05-24-2007, 03:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure if this is meant to be answered by me but I'll answer anyway.

[ QUOTE ]
We have a belief that life has meaning, one that transcends the world’s chaos, randomness and cruelty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do we? I'm not sure if we have a higher meaning here on this Earth. Why should we have? If life is pointless it doesn't mean that we have to experience it as pointless. See what I mean? Even though there could be no higher reason whatsoever for my existence it doesn't mean that I'm going to dwell on it, I'm just enjoying my existence.

[ QUOTE ]
The question is whether we concern ourselves with, or are utterly indifferent to, the sanctity and ultimate transcendence of human existence. God is the Source of that mysterious force—and you can give it many names as other religions do—which works upon us and through us to seek and achieve truth, beauty and goodness.

[/ QUOTE ]

What mysterious force? I don't follow your logic but I guess that's because I didn't recognize any compulsory sanctity of human life. We have conciousness, we have self-awareness. Is that what you mean by "the mysterious force"?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not an argument. It's a presentation of The Faith. You can take it our leave it. But in this form it may make the faith more amenable to those who have difficulites with other forms.

PairTheBoard

JussiUt

05-24-2007, 04:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But in this form it may make the faith more amenable to those who have difficulites with other forms.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry but I'm not fluent in English so I don't really follow. Or perhaps I just don't get it otherwise. What are these other forms you're talking about? Maybe others can chip in.

Silent A

05-24-2007, 04:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But in this form it may make the faith more amenable to those who have difficulites with other forms.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry but I'm not fluent in English so I don't really follow. Or perhaps I just don't get it otherwise. What are these other forms you're talking about? Maybe others can chip in.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he's talking about more sectarian and/or scriptual literalist forms. A lot of people who are unconfortable with Fundamentalist Christian religions (for example) tend to gravitate towards the more open-ended beliefs described by PairTheBoard.

JussiUt

05-24-2007, 04:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But in this form it may make the faith more amenable to those who have difficulites with other forms.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry but I'm not fluent in English so I don't really follow. Or perhaps I just don't get it otherwise. What are these other forms you're talking about? Maybe others can chip in.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he's talking about more sectarian and/or scriptual literalist forms. A lot of people who are unconfortable with Fundamentalist Christian religions (for example) tend to gravitate towards the more open-ended beliefs described by PairTheBoard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah yes, now I understand. Thanks.

So basically all religious people think that life has a higher meaning. So faith in some sort of deity includes a belief that there's a higher meaning for our existence. I guess that's self-evident but now I at least undertand what PairTheBoard means.

This thread has gone way off-topic though since this was originally about the debate.

Taraz

05-24-2007, 04:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]

This is a completely speculative argument. The atheist nation has never been given a chance, ever. The closest anyone has ever come is buddhist asia. How many wars are fought there? Hedges, please show me the pain and suffering.

I'm not a huge Sam Harris fanboy but I also agree with many of his views. From what I've read, he is promoting atheism in the most strict sense of the word - a lack of theism or diety. I haven't read anything of his that argues against spirituality or humanism. I also haven't read anything of his arguing against the practice of buddhism. I also will staunchly posit that if the entire world were buddhist (or any other form of non theistic framework for morality and spirituality) you wouldn't see any 'rationality crusades'.

It's far too hypothetically hyperbolistic for Hedges to make this claim.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, he deals with this in his article. If you would bother to read it . . .

[ QUOTE ]

His idealized version of Buddhism is part of his inability to see that it too has been used to feed the lusts of warriors and killers, it too has been hijacked in the name of radical evil. Buddhist Shinto warrior cults justified and absolved those who carried out the worst atrocities committed by the Japanese in Nanjing. By the end of World War II Buddhist and Shinto priests recruited and indoctrinated kamikaze (divine wind) pilots in the name of another god. It is an old story. It is not the evil of religion, but the inherent capacity for evil of humankind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Taraz

05-24-2007, 05:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not going to go in-depth about this and I'm certainly no expert but here are some things to ponder:

[ QUOTE ]
Koran is emphatic about the rights of other religions

[/ QUOTE ]

And it is not. It's both. It's filled with paradoxes like the Bible. You can pick and choose however you like. But the Quran advocates both tolerance and intolerance.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true as far as I can tell. But Harris isn't calling Christianity a death cult. It's just in vogue to do so because of the present terrorist threat.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The danger is not Islam or Christianity or any other religion. It is the human heart.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course this is right. I don't think Harris or any other has claimed that religion is a source of "evil". How can any concept created by humans be a definite source of anything? Naturally humans are the source of human actions. Religion is simply a tool, a crutch, a pathway for people to be more violent. If the human heart is the danger then why not prefer to remove temptations of doing evil things? I don't quite get how Harris "externalizes" evil. He's simply stating in his book (didn't read the debate) that religion is a channel of irrationality and a major factor in human hearts' evildoings.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno, when Harris says the following it sure sounds like he is claiming that Islam is the source of much evil:

[ QUOTE ]

"We are at war with Islam,” Harris writes. “It may not serve our immediate foreign policy objectives for our political leaders to openly acknowledge this fact, but it is unambiguously so. It is not merely that we are at war with an otherwise peaceful religion that has been ‘hijacked’ by extremists. We are at war with precisely the vision of life that is prescribed to all Muslims in the Koran, and further elaborated in the literature of the hadith, which recounts the sayings and teachings of the Prophet” (P. 110).

He assures us that “the Koran mandates such hatred” (P. 31 ), that “the problem is with Islam itself” (P. 28). He writes that “Islam, more than any other religion human beings have devised, has all the makings of a thoroughgoing cult of death” (P. 123).

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The danger of Sam’s simplistic worldview is that it does what fundamentalists do: It creates the illusion of a binary world of us and them, of reason versus irrationality, of the forces of light battling the forces of darkness. And once you set up this world you are permitted to view as justified military intervention, brutal occupation and even torture, anything, in short, that will subdue what is defined as irrational and dangerous. All this is done in the name of reason, in the name of his god, which looks, like all idols, an awful lot like Sam Harris.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rationality is a preferrable goal. Humans create chaos and evil, the concept of religion often helps them do that. Then why not attack against religion? It's not the fundamental cause of violence since humans are naturally responsible for their own actions but it can aid violence.

As what comes to justifying interventions, I don't believe Harris is an advocate of a literal war against religious people. And claiming rationality is a religion, Sam Harris considers himself a God or that reason is God is just simply missing the point the same way many theists claim atheism is a religion.

The basic point: Religion isn't the only reason for human misery nor is it the most fundamental one. But it is irrational, it is dividing people unnecessarily into different sects and that causes violence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's the point right there. Religion needn't be irrational. We should be fighting against irrationality. I agree with Hedges when he points out that it's dangerous to make it an 'us versus them' kind of thing.

I am all for disproving all the ridiculous things that fundamentalists believe. But that will hardly get rid of religion. Hedges comments more on it:

[ QUOTE ]
If civil or religious authority enforces an iron and self-righteous conformity among members of a community, then faith loses its uncertainty, and the element of risk is removed from acts of faith. Faith is then transformed into ideology. Those who deform faith into creeds, who use it as a litmus test for institutional fidelity, root religion in a profane rather than a sacred context. They seek, like all who worship idols, to give the world a unity and coherency it does not possess. They ossify the message. And once ossified it can never reach an existential level, can never rise to ethical freedom—to faith. The more vast the gap between professed faith and acts of faith, the more vast our delusions about our own grandeur and importance, the more intolerant, aggressive and dangerous we become.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Faith is not in conflict with reason. Faith does not conflict with scientific truth, unless faith claims to express a scientific truth. Faith can neither be affirmed nor denied by scientific, historical or philosophical truth. Sam confuses the irrational—which he sees as part of faith—with the non-rational. There is a reality that is not a product of rational deduction. It is not accounted for by strict rational discourse. There is a spiritual dimension to human existence and the universe, but this is not irrational—it is non-rational.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Reason allows us to worship at the idol of our intrinsic moral superiority. It is a dangerous form of idolatry, a form of faith, certainly, but one the biblical writers knew led to evil and eventually self-immolation.

[/ QUOTE ]

JussiUt

05-24-2007, 05:55 PM

I don't have time to reply to everything but this striked me as odd:

[ QUOTE ]
There is a spiritual dimension to human existence and the universe

[/ QUOTE ]

How can he claim that as a fact?

And you say that "religion needn't be irrational". Well, I'd be more than happy to see religions that are rational. But I think by its very nature religion cannot be rational. The fact that faith doesn't need to conflict with scientific truth (which it unfortunately often does) doesn't make it less irrational. I don't get the word "non-rational" but I guess it stems from the odd assumption that "there is a spiritual dimension to human existence".

Taraz

05-24-2007, 06:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have time to reply to everything but this striked me as odd:

[ QUOTE ]
There is a spiritual dimension to human existence and the universe

[/ QUOTE ]

How can he claim that as a fact?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess it depends on what your definition of spiritual is. Obviously, Hedges is a Christian, so I would keep that in mind when you're reading his arguments. I still think he raises some compelling arguments against Harris.

[ QUOTE ]

And you say that "religion needn't be irrational". Well, I'd be more than happy to see religions that are rational. But I think by its very nature religion cannot be rational. The fact that faith doesn't need to conflict with scientific truth (which it unfortunately often does) doesn't make it less irrational. I don't get the word "non-rational" but I guess it stems from the odd assumption that "there is a spiritual dimension to human existence".

[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno, I think it makes sense. Think about falling in love. It's not really rational. It's not necessarily irrational either though. I guess he would call love one of these "spiritual" dimensions.

I guess I just don't agree that religion is by it's nature irrational. I think that you can follow any major religion and still be rational. I mean, as long as you don't think it gives you any scientific truths, what exactly makes it irrational? Could you elaborate a little bit?

MidGe

05-24-2007, 09:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Would you go for this?

God is a human concept. We have a belief that life has meaning, one that transcends the world’s chaos, randomness and cruelty. God is the name we give to the Source of that meaning. To argue about whether God exists or does not exist is futile. The question is not whether God exists.

The question is whether we concern ourselves with, or are utterly indifferent to, the sanctity and ultimate transcendence of human existence. God is the Source of that mysterious force—and you can give it many names as other religions do—which works upon us and through us to seek and achieve truth, beauty and goodness.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you loose me with "We have a belief that life has meaning". This is in direct contradiction with what I see and experience, Life is much too chaotic and accidental to have any meaning. As a human being however, I can impose meaning on my life by going "contra naturam" (against nature). That is the redeeming value of human experience as I see it. I do however think that this capability is accidental and may even not be evolutionary advantageous.

m_the0ry

05-24-2007, 10:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This is a completely speculative argument. The atheist nation has never been given a chance, ever. The closest anyone has ever come is buddhist asia. How many wars are fought there? Hedges, please show me the pain and suffering.

I'm not a huge Sam Harris fanboy but I also agree with many of his views. From what I've read, he is promoting atheism in the most strict sense of the word - a lack of theism or diety. I haven't read anything of his that argues against spirituality or humanism. I also haven't read anything of his arguing against the practice of buddhism. I also will staunchly posit that if the entire world were buddhist (or any other form of non theistic framework for morality and spirituality) you wouldn't see any 'rationality crusades'.

It's far too hypothetically hyperbolistic for Hedges to make this claim.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, he deals with this in his article. If you would bother to read it . . .

[ QUOTE ]

His idealized version of Buddhism is part of his inability to see that it too has been used to feed the lusts of warriors and killers, it too has been hijacked in the name of radical evil. Buddhist Shinto warrior cults justified and absolved those who carried out the worst atrocities committed by the Japanese in Nanjing. By the end of World War II Buddhist and Shinto priests recruited and indoctrinated kamikaze (divine wind) pilots in the name of another god. It is an old story. It is not the evil of religion, but the inherent capacity for evil of humankind.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

That paragraph is completely oxymoronic. Shintoism was an amalgam of Buddhism and, you guessed it, deism. Reiterated from that excerpt of hedges,

[ QUOTE ]
Shinto priests recruited and indoctrinated kamikaze (divine wind) pilots in the name of another god.

[/ QUOTE ]

Buddhism was practiced for centuries with nothing but peace to show for it. The Japanese empire selectively took what they wanted from it and then modified the religion to include deities worshipping everything from the sun to the emperor himself and then told people to kill themselves in the name of said Gods. I could just as easily argue this is an example that shows the introduction of theism into an otherwise peaceful philosophy immediately makes it give birth to suicide bombers.

Now if that paragraph by Hedges is simply attempting to say, "look at what these bad men did, and they are Buddhists!" you can replace the entirety of my rebuttal above with, "Hitler called himself a Christian."

In summary, my original argument is that when "God" doesn't exist it is much harder for people to justify causing other people pain. It doesn't mean they stop trying to hurt other people all together but it does mean there is no blatantly obvious vehicle to indoctrinate the masses and maim kill and rape. I still see nothing in Hedges responses that addresses this.

Taraz

05-24-2007, 11:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[
That paragraph is completely oxymoronic. Shintoism was an amalgam of Buddhism and, you guessed it, deism. Reiterated from that excerpt of hedges,

[ QUOTE ]
Shinto priests recruited and indoctrinated kamikaze (divine wind) pilots in the name of another god.

[/ QUOTE ]

Buddhism was practiced for centuries with nothing but peace to show for it. The Japanese empire selectively took what they wanted from it and then modified the religion to include deities worshipping everything from the sun to the emperor himself and then told people to kill themselves in the name of said Gods. I could just as easily argue this is an example that shows the introduction of theism into an otherwise peaceful philosophy immediately makes it give birth to suicide bombers.

Now if that paragraph by Hedges is simply attempting to say, "look at what these bad men did, and they are Buddhists!" you can replace the entirety of my rebuttal above with, "Hitler called himself a Christian."

In summary, my original argument is that when "God" doesn't exist it is much harder for people to justify causing other people pain. It doesn't mean they stop trying to hurt other people all together but it does mean there is no blatantly obvious vehicle to indoctrinate the masses and maim kill and rape. I still see nothing in Hedges responses that addresses this.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you're missing is that every religion can claim the same thing. "Oh, they weren't really Christians, they just called themselves that."

And I guess I just plain disagree that the non-existence of God makes it harder for people to justify causing others pain. It's one of many, many vehicles that people use for justification. Democracy vs. Communism is a pretty good example. All kinds of nationalism and ethnocentrism also qualify. Whenever you create an us vs. them paradigm you're screwed.

This doesn't mean that nationalism and democracy are evil things though.

JussiUt

05-25-2007, 05:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't have time to reply to everything but this striked me as odd:

[ QUOTE ]
There is a spiritual dimension to human existence and the universe

[/ QUOTE ]

How can he claim that as a fact?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess it depends on what your definition of spiritual is. Obviously, Hedges is a Christian, so I would keep that in mind when you're reading his arguments. I still think he raises some compelling arguments against Harris.

[ QUOTE ]

And you say that "religion needn't be irrational". Well, I'd be more than happy to see religions that are rational. But I think by its very nature religion cannot be rational. The fact that faith doesn't need to conflict with scientific truth (which it unfortunately often does) doesn't make it less irrational. I don't get the word "non-rational" but I guess it stems from the odd assumption that "there is a spiritual dimension to human existence".

[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno, I think it makes sense. Think about falling in love. It's not really rational. It's not necessarily irrational either though. I guess he would call love one of these "spiritual" dimensions.

I guess I just don't agree that religion is by it's nature irrational. I think that you can follow any major religion and still be rational. I mean, as long as you don't think it gives you any scientific truths, what exactly makes it irrational? Could you elaborate a little bit?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I guess we need a definition of 'religion'. Can you follow a major religion and still be rational? Is it rational to believe that Jesus was a a son of God and he died for our sins etc.? I don't think so. Any of the religious dogmas aren't reasonable. They are based on faith. Well, what's left if we remove all the dogmas? A sense of mystery, a sense of something bigger that we can't describe? Well, I have nothing against that kind of spiritualism but I wouldn't consider it a religion. That's basically a very Einsteinian sense of God - the feeling of mystery. Dawkins, Harris etc. don't criticize this kind of spiritualism because it isn't "an enemy of rationality".

I guess it's just semantics if you call 'love' irrational or 'non-rational'. We don't really know what love is. You can call that a spiritual dimension if you so want. Like I said, I have nothing against spiritualism without any dogmas or truth claims per se but unfortunately religions include those elements. I would even say that I have a spiritual part in me and so have most of the other atheists too if by 'spiritual' we mean basically our feelings. There's no need to organize a movement or make any truth claims based on my feelings though.

MidGe

05-25-2007, 06:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I guess it's just semantics if you call 'love' irrational or 'non-rational'. We don't really know what love is. You can call that a spiritual dimension if you so want.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you so want? Of cpourse, don't just call the tribulation, pain and suffering of evry human and probably to a lesser dgree, every animals, a manifestation of love by the "designer".

Platitudes are easy for someone with faith, those platitudes just don't stand scrutiny and they are precisely the opportunity for the breach of the irrational in the rational domain, avery dangerous and harmful opportunity to justify any position and act "as" based on love, whilst "based" on its preeminent model.

NotReady

05-25-2007, 08:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Is it rational to believe that Jesus was a a son of God and he died for our sins etc.?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it rational to believe the universe has no cause or a non-rational cause? Is it rational to believe that which has the appearance of design is in fact undesigned?

JussiUt

05-25-2007, 10:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Is it rational to believe that Jesus was a a son of God and he died for our sins etc.?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it rational to believe the universe has no cause or a non-rational cause? Is it rational to believe that which has the appearance of design is in fact undesigned?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do we have to 'believe' anything? Why can't we just say that we don't know why the universe exists? And again, believing that Jesus was a son of God and he died for our sins isn't rational. That rational position here is to say that "we don't know". That doesn't make all propositions as likely though.

And I'm not going to debate about evolution. That's pretty much an American thing, this weird denial about one particular scientifical theory.

JussiUt

05-25-2007, 10:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess it's just semantics if you call 'love' irrational or 'non-rational'. We don't really know what love is. You can call that a spiritual dimension if you so want.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you so want? Of cpourse, don't just call the tribulation, pain and suffering of evry human and probably to a lesser dgree, every animals, a manifestation of love by the "designer".

Platitudes are easy for someone with faith, those platitudes just don't stand scrutiny and they are precisely the opportunity for the breach of the irrational in the rational domain, avery dangerous and harmful opportunity to justify any position and act "as" based on love, whilst "based" on its preeminent model.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I understand what you mean. I personally don't like the concept 'spiritual dimension' because it easily creates misunderstandings and well, it's pretty much completely a subjective concept.

What's worth noticing is that religious people like the guy of the debate, PairTheBoard etc. say that there's a spiritual dimension to existence as a cold fact. I don't think it's a fact at all, it's just one interpretation of the universe created by our minds.

NotReady

05-25-2007, 12:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Why do we have to 'believe' anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

Believing isn't optional. Saying "I don't know" is a cop-out. If you don't believe in a personal God who created the universe then the only other option involves a lack of rationality for us.

[ QUOTE ]

And again, believing that Jesus was a son of God and he died for our sins isn't rational

[/ QUOTE ]

People say this all the time. No one has yet demonstrated it. I have good reasons for believing. But human reason can't justify itself rationally. Trusting in reason is itself an act of faith.

Taraz

05-25-2007, 03:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Well, I guess we need a definition of 'religion'. Can you follow a major religion and still be rational? Is it rational to believe that Jesus was a a son of God and he died for our sins etc.? I don't think so. Any of the religious dogmas aren't reasonable. They are based on faith. Well, what's left if we remove all the dogmas? A sense of mystery, a sense of something bigger that we can't describe? Well, I have nothing against that kind of spiritualism but I wouldn't consider it a religion. That's basically a very Einsteinian sense of God - the feeling of mystery. Dawkins, Harris etc. don't criticize this kind of spiritualism because it isn't "an enemy of rationality".

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that they do. They attack religious "moderates" because they supposedly shelter extremism. And I really don't think that you've had enough exposure to the breadth of views within each religion. There is a huge number of religious folk who doubt or reject most religious dogma.

Taraz

05-25-2007, 03:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Why do we have to 'believe' anything? Why can't we just say that we don't know why the universe exists? And again, believing that Jesus was a son of God and he died for our sins isn't rational. That rational position here is to say that "we don't know". That doesn't make all propositions as likely though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree with you on this one. I think it's important that we show theists the fact that they really don't "know". But it's also important to show atheists that they don't know all that much either.

JussiUt

05-26-2007, 06:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why do we have to 'believe' anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

Believing isn't optional. Saying "I don't know" is a cop-out. If you don't believe in a personal God who created the universe then the only other option involves a lack of rationality for us.

[ QUOTE ]

And again, believing that Jesus was a son of God and he died for our sins isn't rational

[/ QUOTE ]

People say this all the time. No one has yet demonstrated it. I have good reasons for believing. But human reason can't justify itself rationally. Trusting in reason is itself an act of faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Believing isn't optional? Really? So I do not have an option to say that I don't know why the universe exists? I hope I'm misunderstanding you because that's just crazy talk.

If someone believes in a personal God there's no scientifical evidence to back that up. It's really that simple. People can have emotional reasons for believing in God but that isn't by definition 'rational'. And once again, I understand that religious people have had mystical experiences and that based on those experiences it feels logical to believe in God but if you've interpreted those feelings as a connection with a higher power etc. it still doesn't give you any reason to suspect that the christian concept of God is correct. On the contrary, there's much evidence to show how the current dogmas etc. have been modified by humans.

This is all very self-evident of course. You might think you have good reasons to believe in God but those reasons are not rational. It's blunt but that's how it goes. Trusting in reason is a fundamental part our our human lives. Rationality, scientifical enquiry, critical thinking etc. are the best ways for us to gather information about the world. I'm not willing to discard reason. It would be chaos if we did that. We can't live by our urges or feelings alone. Reason is what makes us humans. There's no "reason" to discard reason.

Damn, I'm still hung over so I'm probably just rambling. The point is that you're right, I'm a champion of reasoning. I would find it terrible if we didn't value that. I think you agree because you're here on this discussion board trying to discuss things analytically.

It's fascinating that thinking, curious religious people often discard religious dogmas because they see the problems with those. In the words of my father (the biological one), "church, religion and faith are completely different things". I would be more than happy if more people would realize the lack of substance of the first two and would just be religious in a mystical, non-dogmatic agnostic way. Then again, I'm not sure if that counts as a religion anymore.

JussiUt

05-26-2007, 06:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Well, I guess we need a definition of 'religion'. Can you follow a major religion and still be rational? Is it rational to believe that Jesus was a a son of God and he died for our sins etc.? I don't think so. Any of the religious dogmas aren't reasonable. They are based on faith. Well, what's left if we remove all the dogmas? A sense of mystery, a sense of something bigger that we can't describe? Well, I have nothing against that kind of spiritualism but I wouldn't consider it a religion. That's basically a very Einsteinian sense of God - the feeling of mystery. Dawkins, Harris etc. don't criticize this kind of spiritualism because it isn't "an enemy of rationality".

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that they do. They attack religious "moderates" because they supposedly shelter extremism. And I really don't think that you've had enough exposure to the breadth of views within each religion. There is a huge number of religious folk who doubt or reject most religious dogma.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're confusing religious "moderates" to mean very liberal religious people. It's not the same. Basically religious moderates in the sense Dawkins or Harris use the word are just religious people who aren't fundamentalists. Most moderates do believe in dogmas.

Religious moderation which is naturally a difficult concept to define is still I would say a whole lot different than an Einsteinian sense of God. Harris, Dawkins etc. criticize irrationality (belief in dogmas etc.). And if you have very liberal, mystic, agnostic sense of a god then particularly Dawkins criticizes the use of the word "God" here. The point is, Dawkins aims his "attack" against a creator God, not against an Einsteinian god. Harris attacks against irrationality, not against "spiritual" experiences.

And is there "a huge number of religious people who reject most or all of the religious dogma"? First of all, I'm very glad if this is true in America (it's true partly in Europe) and second of all these people are then not "true" Christians or whatever. I'm aware that many people go to church who don't actually believe a whole lot of what is said there. Many of them are people who have been brought up in some religion and then as adults they see the "weaknesses" in their mind but can't shake the it off completely. They still use the word god though and they accept the role and status of religion so in that sense they are harmful, "sheltering the fundamentalism".

NotReady

05-26-2007, 10:27 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Believing isn't optional? Really? So I do not have an option to say that I don't know why the universe exists? I hope I'm misunderstanding

[/ QUOTE ]

Belief isn't an option. What you believe is. To repeat, If you don't believe in a personal God who created the universe then the only other option involves a lack of rationality for us. You even said it yourself later in the post:"Trusting in reason is a fundamental part our our human lives." So is belief or trust in reason itself rational?

[ QUOTE ]

If someone believes in a personal God there's no scientifical evidence to back that up. It's really that simple

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't that simple. There is evidence for Christianity, beginning with the Bible and its reliability. And science isn't the only means of knowledge.

[ QUOTE ]

People can have emotional reasons for believing in God but that isn't by definition 'rational'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Theism isn't based on reason but it isn't irrational, it doesn't contradict reason. It can be rationally defended because it isn't irrational to think that that which appears to be designed, is in fact designed. It isn't irrational to believe that there really is meaning and purpose to the universe and to my life. I can't find any basis for such a view in any non-theistic worldview. Science and reason are themselves idiotic if God doesn't exist.

[ QUOTE ]

Rationality, scientifical enquiry, critical thinking etc. are the best ways for us to gather information about the world. I'm not willing to discard reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not contesting this or asking you to discard reason. I'm not against science. God created human reason and science and properly done they reflect something about Him. But He isn't something you can put in a lab and examine through a microscope. Nor is He subject to the limitations of your knowledge and reasoning ability.

[ QUOTE ]

I would be more than happy if more people would realize the lack of substance of the first two and would just be religious in a mystical, non-dogmatic agnostic way

[/ QUOTE ]

I can defend theism rationally. You want me to abandon that behave completely irrationally.

JussiUt

05-26-2007, 11:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Believing isn't optional? Really? So I do not have an option to say that I don't know why the universe exists? I hope I'm misunderstanding

[/ QUOTE ]

Belief isn't an option. What you believe is. To repeat, If you don't believe in a personal God who created the universe then the only other option involves a lack of rationality for us. You even said it yourself later in the post:"Trusting in reason is a fundamental part our our human lives." So is belief or trust in reason itself rational?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish. Yes, what we believe in is optional. I still don't understand how saying "I don't know" is a cop-out. That's just silly.

We have our ability to feel emotions and we have our ability to rational reasoning. Our emotions don't have ever by themselves revealed any external truths about the concrete world around us. That requires thinking. We are prisoned by our bodies and minds. It's as simple as that. We could be so wrong about everything but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to understand. And that understanding comes from reasoning, not from our urges or desires. To question whether to have belief in reason is the same as to question whether that tree in front of me is actually a tree.

We humans have what we have. We have noticed that by using reason we have been able to make great discoveries and improvements to our lives. Therefore it's reasonable to think rational thinking is in itself rational.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If someone believes in a personal God there's no scientifical evidence to back that up. It's really that simple

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't that simple. There is evidence for Christianity, beginning with the Bible and its reliability. And science isn't the only means of knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you think the Bible is enough evidence to believe in a personal God? I don't. I'm not going to start talking about the Bible and its history because I'm sure you're aware of that. Let's just say that if one book is enough evidence for anything then, well, we have to believe in Zeus and stuff.

And science isn't the only means of knowledge? So you really think that your emotions and your feelings and your own subjective experiences will reveal huge truths about the universe? How weird and in some way very egoist thinking.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

People can have emotional reasons for believing in God but that isn't by definition 'rational'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Theism isn't based on reason but it isn't irrational, it doesn't contradict reason. It can be rationally defended because it isn't irrational to think that that which appears to be designed, is in fact designed. It isn't irrational to believe that there really is meaning and purpose to the universe and to my life. I can't find any basis for such a view in any non-theistic worldview. Science and reason are themselves idiotic if God doesn't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't contradict reason? So believing that Jesus raised the dead doesn't contradict reason? Really?

It indeed isn't irrational to think that what appears to be designed is designed in lack of better explonation. If I see a thing which is just like an apple it's reasonable to assume that it's eatable. But if we have information which states that that thing is actually poison it's silly to still believe that it's eatable unless you don't believe the information we have. And if you don't believe in evolution, I'm shocked. Belief here isn't even a right word to use. Who's questioning the gravitation theory? If evolution turns out to be false then so be it but there's overwhelming evidence to think that explonation is the best right now.

You can think that there's a reason for existence but you can't rationally back that up. However you wish to claim that your beliefs about the existence and God are rational they are not. You might think you have good reasons to believe in such things but by closer look these reasons are always based on something else than rational thinking. Like you claimed that science isn't the only mean of knowledge. Do NotReady's feelings tell us truths about the universe? Again, silly and...irrational. Not rational means the same as irrational.

The claim that science and reason are idiotic if God doesn't exist is just your subjective opinion and nothing else.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Rationality, scientifical enquiry, critical thinking etc. are the best ways for us to gather information about the world. I'm not willing to discard reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not contesting this or asking you to discard reason. I'm not against science. God created human reason and science and properly done they reflect something about Him. But He isn't something you can put in a lab and examine through a microscope. Nor is He subject to the limitations of your knowledge and reasoning ability.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand that you are not against science. That's a great thing. Other parts of that paragraph are only just proclamations of your faith.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I would be more than happy if more people would realize the lack of substance of the first two and would just be religious in a mystical, non-dogmatic agnostic way

[/ QUOTE ]

I can defend theism rationally. You want me to abandon that behave completely irrationally.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can try to defend theism rationally but that defense is always doomed to fail. A statement like "the world is designed by a Creator" is just pure speculation. You might think that the Bible for example is enough evidence to defend theism rationally and succesfully but I disagree and fortunately so do most other human beings. Your arguments in the end lack evidence, they lack meaningful, scientifical, rational substance or whatever way you want to put it.

NotReady

05-26-2007, 12:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I still don't understand how saying "I don't know" is a cop-out. That's just silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

First I want to say that all of the things you talk about in your post I've covered many, many times and don't care to address in this post. Because of that I'm going to deal with only one issue at a time. If you want to continue with the other topics after each one, fine.

So, why do I say saying "I don't know" is a cop-out concerning the issue involved? Before people tell me I've taken an "I don't know" position on things, such as the age of the earth, I want to clarify.

It's basically irrelevant what the answer is to a fact question like the age of the earth - unless your belief system requires a given age, which mine doesn't. The earth can be 10K years or 10b, it doesn't change the important doctrines of Christianity.

But why the universe exists is critical for any belief system. You are making a statement of what you believe is the answer to that question, even if you never think about the question. If you never think about it then you don't think it's important and that must logically mean you don't think there's any knowable purpose for existence. That is a faith position that logically (even if not practically) impacts what you think about everything else, and that impacts how you live your life.

You may not know why the universe exists but if you leave it at that you are saying either it doesn't matter or it's unknowable. Either position is a sweeping, universal judgement on the nature of all reality. Everyone is always making this judgment and acting on it - it's part of the definition of rational being.

And you might want to notice that science can never answer the question of why the universe exists - a question we have to answer every waking moment.

JussiUt

05-26-2007, 02:18 PM

The reason for the existance of the universe is a huge issue for people whether they think about it a lot or not. We all want to understand why we're here etc.

[ QUOTE ]
You may not know why the universe exists but if you leave it at that you are saying either it doesn't matter or it's unknowable. Either position is a sweeping, universal judgement on the nature of all reality. Everyone is always making this judgment and acting on it - it's part of the definition of rational being.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I'm making a judgement that we don't have the capabilities at least for now to understand the nature of all reality (I'm skeptical whether we can ever understand it). I don't believe NotReady's or anyone elses emotions reveal any universal truths about the concrete world around us. That's my position, my assumption. Therefore I'm interested in continuing with the topic of "science isn't the only way of getting knowledge". Do you really believe your feelings reveal "ultimate truths" about the universe? Like I said in my previous post, that sounds kind of egoistical.

NotReady

05-26-2007, 03:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I don't believe NotReady's or anyone elses emotions reveal any universal truths about the concrete world around us.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never said emotions reveal any truth. Why do you insist on reading it that way? You think I'm irrational and you're going to insist on it even if you have to be irrational to do so?

JussiUt

05-26-2007, 03:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't believe NotReady's or anyone elses emotions reveal any universal truths about the concrete world around us.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never said emotions reveal any truth. Why do you insist on reading it that way? You think I'm irrational and you're going to insist on it even if you have to be irrational to do so?

[/ QUOTE ]

Tell me then. What is the other way of finding out facts about our universe besides the scientific way?

Taraz

05-26-2007, 04:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Well, I guess we need a definition of 'religion'. Can you follow a major religion and still be rational? Is it rational to believe that Jesus was a a son of God and he died for our sins etc.? I don't think so. Any of the religious dogmas aren't reasonable. They are based on faith. Well, what's left if we remove all the dogmas? A sense of mystery, a sense of something bigger that we can't describe? Well, I have nothing against that kind of spiritualism but I wouldn't consider it a religion. That's basically a very Einsteinian sense of God - the feeling of mystery. Dawkins, Harris etc. don't criticize this kind of spiritualism because it isn't "an enemy of rationality".

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that they do. They attack religious "moderates" because they supposedly shelter extremism. And I really don't think that you've had enough exposure to the breadth of views within each religion. There is a huge number of religious folk who doubt or reject most religious dogma.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're confusing religious "moderates" to mean very liberal religious people. It's not the same. Basically religious moderates in the sense Dawkins or Harris use the word are just religious people who aren't fundamentalists. Most moderates do believe in dogmas.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you differ here with Dawkins and Harris in your definition of moderate. They believe anyone who doesn't want to do away with religion altogether is a moderate. That Andrew Sullivan debate was a good example of this. Harris wants to do away with his brand of Christianity even though he is ridiculously liberal in his thinking.

[ QUOTE ]

Religious moderation which is naturally a difficult concept to define is still I would say a whole lot different than an Einsteinian sense of God. Harris, Dawkins etc. criticize irrationality (belief in dogmas etc.). And if you have very liberal, mystic, agnostic sense of a god then particularly Dawkins criticizes the use of the word "God" here. The point is, Dawkins aims his "attack" against a creator God, not against an Einsteinian god. Harris attacks against irrationality, not against "spiritual" experiences.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but even if one have this sense of an Einsteinian God but still wants to remain active in his religious community, you would rail against him. You want to do away with the entire idea of religion. I personally think it is unnecessary and impossible to do this and makes the struggle against "irrationality" more difficult.

NotReady

05-26-2007, 04:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Tell me then. What is the other way of finding out facts about our universe besides the scientific way?

[/ QUOTE ]

My earlier statement was that science isn't the only way to acquire knowledge. Math and logic aren't facts about the universe and aren't knowledge based on empirical investigation.

Art conveys truth through aesthetic means. What is said in a great work of music or poetry can't be expressed by science. Does that mean it isn't knowledge?

Knowledge about meaning and purpose, if they exist, doesn't come through empirical investigation. If the Bible is God's word then the truth of Scripture is given to us by God and no, I can't prove it's truth to you scientifically. But it certainly isn't just an emotional display, nor is it a deduction of reason - it's revealed truth.

Science is one small, narrow way of looking at reality - with a certain temporal, contingent validity and undeniable utility, but a meagre way of understanding truth, beauty, love, justice - all that's really worthwhile.

m_the0ry

05-26-2007, 08:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Math and logic aren't facts about the universe and aren't knowledge based on empirical investigation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Science is the definition of empiricism. Math and logic are both subsets of science. This statement is just wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
Science is one small, narrow way of looking at reality - with a certain temporal, contingent validity and undeniable utility, but a meagre way of understanding truth, beauty, love, justice - all that's really worthwhile.

[/ QUOTE ]

Science is by definition the study of meaningful inference. The concepts of 'beauty', 'love' and 'justice' are obviously outside of the scope of science because they are undefined. Ask 100 people what is beautiful, get 100 different answers. They are suitcase words; they describe nothing more than their meaning to the reader. These ideas are nothing like 'truth' and you lump them together far too easily. A proposition is only a truth when it holds for all conditions. Any truth will always find comfort in the realm of science because of its inherent rigor. Science is not a meager way of understanding truth, it is the only meaningful way for truth to exist.

NotReady

05-26-2007, 08:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Science is the definition of empiricism. Math and logic are both subsets of science. This statement is just wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know that 1,000,000,000,000 + 1 = 1,000,000,000,001 by observation? You can discover that if all men are mortal and Socrates is a man that therefore Socrates is mortal through empiricism?

m_the0ry

05-26-2007, 08:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You know that 1,000,000,000,000 + 1 = 1,000,000,000,001 by observation? You can discover that if all men are mortal and Socrates is a man that therefore Socrates is mortal through empiricism?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, no, respectively. Please see dictionary for definition of what 'empiricism' is.

NotReady

05-26-2007, 08:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Yes, no,

[/ QUOTE ]

You just finished counting it up?

Then logic isn't empirical?

m_the0ry

05-26-2007, 08:58 PM

whoops, I misunderstood the second question, it's yes to both. Still not seeing your point though..

NotReady

05-26-2007, 09:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]

whoops, I misunderstood the second question, it's yes to both.

[/ QUOTE ]

Answer the math question and this one:

You follow Socrates around until he drops dead?

JussiUt

05-27-2007, 04:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Art conveys truth through aesthetic means. What is said in a great work of music or poetry can't be expressed by science. Does that mean it isn't knowledge?

[/ QUOTE ]

Art doesn't convey any "truths". How you interpret a painting or what kind of a feeling you get from a song is always subjective. There are no universal truths in art. An artist has created a piece of art with his own motives behind the creation process and we subjectively interpret that piece of art through our conciousness. There is not any hidden or new knowledge in art that only art can tell us. Its method is to primarily touch us via emotions and not via rational thinking but these emotions are always just that, emotions that we subjectively rationalize.

[ QUOTE ]
Knowledge about meaning and purpose, if they exist, doesn't come through empirical investigation. If the Bible is God's word then the truth of Scripture is given to us by God and no, I can't prove it's truth to you scientifically. But it certainly isn't just an emotional display, nor is it a deduction of reason - it's revealed truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't say that knowledge about meaning or purpose doesn't come through empirical investigation. It's unlikely but not impossible. What if we suddenly discover that we and the whole universe is just a laboratory experiment of super alien race? Our "purpose" for existance is therefore clear. You can claim that you have find out other purposes for your existance but they are again just emotions and feelings. You could ask where did this alien race come from, what is the original cause of everything but if our science can only go as far back as the aliens then that question is still open. Perhaps you think that while watching a Picasso painting you found out a higher meaning or some transcendent truth but I find even the idea of that preposterous.

Saying that it's "a revealed truth" is a cop-put. A huge cop-out. After you say that you get "revealed truths" you can say bye bye to your claim of "being able to defend my position rationally". And you're so eager to say that it's not only emotional. Ok, so you don't get this revealed truth through your rational mind nor through your emotions. It just comes to you? The fact that you feel it's something bigger than just "mere emotions" doesn't mean that it is. You just feel that way. Schizophrenic feels that he has multiple personas but I think we can fairly safely assume it's probably not the case.

[ QUOTE ]
Science is one small, narrow way of looking at reality - with a certain temporal, contingent validity and undeniable utility, but a meagre way of understanding truth, beauty, love, justice - all that's really worthwhile.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're positioning reason against emotions here. That's silly. There is a cold hard concrete world around us which is investigated through empirical studies. Then there are our emotions and feelings which are by the way also being studied scientifically. Just because we have this amazing capability to love doesn't mean that it somehow conveys truths about the universe. They are feelings, chemical prosesses of our mere human bodies. You can always claim that it's more than that and "you don't know there isn't a higher meaning for our awesome feelings". I don't. But again, there's no reason suppose that there is.

Admit it or not, you're putting your feelings, NotReady's feelings into a huge pedestal here. We all interpret works of art differently, we are unique. Our minds are unique. If your emotions tells you that there is higher meaning and purpose in your life you are entitled to that opinion but claiming that you can defend that position rationally is ridiculous.

And believing in some sort of a higher power and believing we have a higher purpose is still a long way off from believing that one particular mythology is the correct form of this higher power.

NotReady

05-27-2007, 10:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Art doesn't convey any "truths".

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, ok, we can skip this part I guess.

[ QUOTE ]

You can't say that knowledge about meaning or purpose doesn't come through empirical investigation

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry but I really can't follow what you're saying in this paragraph.

[ QUOTE ]

Saying that it's "a revealed truth" is a cop-put. A huge cop-out

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. What I mean by revealed truth is the Bible, God's revelation to us. I don't get this through my emotions, but from reading it and trying to understand it using my mind, and I can defend it through evidence and reasoning.

[ QUOTE ]

You're positioning reason against emotions here.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm saying science is one means of knowing about reality, but not the only one. You should understand that because somethng, say art, invokes an emotional response, doesn't mean that knowledge isn't involved. Didn't Dawkins get all teary eyed at the beginning of "The God Delusion"? Does the fact that he became emotional mean he wasn't using his brain or trying to understand?

Or this quote he gives from Einstein
"To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious."

Surely Einstein was talking about more than emotional feeling. Christians would say "The heavens are telling of the glory of God", and no matter how feebly, Einstein could an least detect the echo.

PairTheBoard

05-27-2007, 11:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that you feel it's something bigger than just "mere emotions" doesn't mean that it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that you say it isn't doesn't mean that it isn't.

PairTheBoard

JussiUt

05-27-2007, 05:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Well, ok, we can skip this part I guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you. I'm glad I got my point across. It's an important point.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry but I really can't follow what you're saying in this paragraph.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think my silly little speculation is that hard to follow. What I'm basically saying is that you can't say that we can't some day find out our "purpose" for existence with scientifical methods. It's unlikely that we do (in my subjective opinion) but you can't rule that out as impossible.

[ QUOTE ]

I disagree. What I mean by revealed truth is the Bible, God's revelation to us. I don't get this through my emotions, but from reading it and trying to understand it using my mind, and I can defend it through evidence and reasoning.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're talking about the Bible. If you claim that you can rationally and through reason defend the claim that the Bible is God's revelation to us I think you're basically deluded. What makes this one book so special compared to all the other books? The are tons of other mythological tales there. Why not say that Quran is a revealed truth?

[ QUOTE ]
No, I'm saying science is one means of knowing about reality, but not the only one. You should understand that because somethng, say art, invokes an emotional response, doesn't mean that knowledge isn't involved. Didn't Dawkins get all teary eyed at the beginning of "The God Delusion"? Does the fact that he became emotional mean he wasn't using his brain or trying to understand?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how you're disagreeing with me here. Art invokes an emotional response. We often try to rationalize that emotional response. The fact that Dawkins or Einstein got emotional when they thought about the beauties of the universe didn't mean that they valued the actual emotional response and thought that revealed some truths to them. They simply were motivated by that beauty or in Dawkins' case he still is.

This is a hugely important point and I think you're not being very sharp here. The fact that we get emotional and the fact that we have feelings doesn't mean we should think that these feelings in themselves have any knowledge hidden into them.

Your Einstein quote and referral to Dawkins are not backing up your claim in any way. I don't think Einstein was talking about more than emotional feeling. Einsteinian sense of God was that of mystery. Dawkins values the mystery of the universe. The fact that we recognise that there are huge mysteries in the universe and that we get great emotions when trying to think about them doesn't mean that that emotional experience or mystical experience or spiritual experience would be some sort of connection with a higher power. It could be. And so could Thor exist. But your passionate claims of how you can defend theism rationally falls short here.

I'm happy that we have reached this point because I truly believe this is the key or at least one of the keys to understand the difference between the religious and non-religious. We have come to the point where we are talking about religious experiences.

PairTheBoard says that "the fact that you say the mystical experience is just mere emotions doesn't mean that it is". That's absolutely correct. This is where the fundamental disagreement lies. You can believe that this experience was or continues to be something other than mere emotions but what has been the whole point of my discussion with NotReady is the fact that this statement cannot be defended rationally.

If you claim that your spiritual experience contains some transcendend truths you're free to feel that way. Just understand that atheists will disagree and this is one of the core differences between us.

PairTheBoard

05-27-2007, 07:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
but what has been the whole point of my discussion with NotReady is the fact that this statement cannot be defended rationally.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree this is your point of disagreement. But once again, saying it's a fact doesn't make it so. This is one more example of proclaiming the premise. It's a tricky point here because I don't think NotReady claims to be able to prove the assertion with reason. Only that he can give a rational defense for it. It's a fine distinction and one you may say is really nill. But I think it's on that razor's edge that the disagreement hangs.

PairTheBoard

NotReady

05-28-2007, 02:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Thank you. I'm glad I got my point across. It's an important point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't mean I agree wtih you. To debate this issue would require too many posts and isn't important to the main topic. But I think you're dead wrong.

[ QUOTE ]

you can't say that we can't some day find out our "purpose" for existence with scientifical methods.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still can't follow this. All the modern science I've heard of insists there is no teleology whatsover in the universe. How can science discover that which it insists doesn't exist?

[ QUOTE ]

If you claim that you can rationally and through reason defend the claim that the Bible is God's revelation to us I think you're basically deluded.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure you do think that. I'm sure you also have never studied the Bible, it's history and it's accuracy. The fact there are lies doesn't mean the Bible is a lie and the differences between the Koran and the Bible are so immense that to even ask reveals you have little acquaintance with either.

[ QUOTE ]

Art invokes an emotional response. We often try to rationalize that emotional response

[/ QUOTE ]

But why? If there is no knowledge content in art, what causes the emotion? If we aren't perceiving truth what makes us react? I don't see how you can read the Einstein quote and think he was only talking about his emotions. I would point out that Dawkins disagreed with the part about our minds not being able to grasp - he insists we will someday be able to grasp that which is beyond us now - how can that not involve knowledge?

[ QUOTE ]

Just understand that atheists will disagree and this is one of the core differences between us.

[/ QUOTE ]

But except for you they don't seem to disagree with the truth content, just the idea of God.

JussiUt

05-28-2007, 04:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Thank you. I'm glad I got my point across. It's an important point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't mean I agree wtih you. To debate this issue would require too many posts and isn't important to the main topic. But I think you're dead wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is extremely related to the issues that you continued to debate with me. You claim art has hidden absolute non-subjective truths. I disagree. This is major.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

you can't say that we can't some day find out our "purpose" for existence with scientifical methods.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still can't follow this. All the modern science I've heard of insists there is no teleology whatsover in the universe. How can science discover that which it insists doesn't exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

Science can insist that humans weren't created as humans. Science can't insist nor do they actually insist that the cause of all life, the cause of all existence isn't some sort of a Creator or a super alien form or whatever. There are no scientifical evidence for that but that doesn't mean we couldn't some day find out that Big Bang was actually somehow some alien species' laboratory experiment. Therefore we would have some kind of an explonation for our existance. We were created by a process which was started by aliens.

You can ask that where did these aliens come from or you can say that you feel there's another reason for our existence but can you claim that if we found out the above hypothetical scenario we wouldn't have found out a reason or meaning for our existence?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If you claim that you can rationally and through reason defend the claim that the Bible is God's revelation to us I think you're basically deluded.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure you do think that. I'm sure you also have never studied the Bible, it's history and it's accuracy. The fact there are lies doesn't mean the Bible is a lie and the differences between the Koran and the Bible are so immense that to even ask reveals you have little acquaintance with either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, ok. I'm not interested in getting on this debate right now. If you have somewhere earlier revealed your arguments about this I'd be happy to read them. But I personally feel that this stronly indicates that you're deluded and that you twist and ignore facts and basically create yourself a nice happy illusion. That's fine but that's far from rational. But like I said, I'd appreciate a link to your position on this but you don't need to go into it now.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Art invokes an emotional response. We often try to rationalize that emotional response

[/ QUOTE ]

But why? If there is no knowledge content in art, what causes the emotion? If we aren't perceiving truth what makes us react? I don't see how you can read the Einstein quote and think he was only talking about his emotions. I would point out that Dawkins disagreed with the part about our minds not being able to grasp - he insists we will someday be able to grasp that which is beyond us now - how can that not involve knowledge?

[/ QUOTE ]

You simply are not getting this. This is absolutely related to the point that you dismissed as irrelevant. The fact that art invokes our thoughts doesn't at all implicate that there are hidden absolute truths hid into it. I can look at a rock and it can cause an emotional reaction in me. Does that mean that the rock has hidden facts hid into it?

You claim that Einstein felt more than emotions. That's fine but that's pure faith. You claim that there's some third dimension in us humans that we can experience things not only on a emotional level and not only on a rational level but also on this holy level which reveals truths to us. That's fine if you believe so but like I said, that claim cannot be defended rationally. And by this I mean that cannot be based on anything else than on your feelings.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Just understand that atheists will disagree and this is one of the core differences between us.

[/ QUOTE ]

But except for you they don't seem to disagree with the truth content, just the idea of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think atheists believe in the "truth content". I don't think they believe you can get hidden truths from your mystical experiences. Others can chime in of course. I'd be very suprised that they would agree with you, it's more likely that you have misunderstood.

Like I said, this is the absolute key difference between the religious and non-religious at least in my opinion. The religious value these spiritual experiences and they think they are not mere emotions but a message from a higher spirit and they think that it contains hidden truths about this universe. Everyone can judge for themselves how they perceive that line of thinking.