Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Bushman
climber
The state of quantum flux
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2017 - 11:24pm PT
|
Nobody's Business
Logic and reason are funny things, and can be totally subjective in the abstract. I sometimes think that the existence of god, one way or the other, is none of my business. Does that mean I am strictly a business person in relation to work and spiritual matters? Then to say spiritual matters are none of my business would mean I am almost all business all the time? Would that mean that business is my religion? Hardly, I hate business! I only use it as a means to an end. Does that mean that hating business is my religion and hating religion is my business? I could reply that those things are also none of my business. But, then lying would also be my business and that too should be none of my business. Upon occasion I stick my nose in other people's business only to be reminded that that too is, you guessed it; innovative or enterprising. God, I really do hate business. Oh Einstein, I've really gone and done it this time.
-bushman
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2017 - 11:33pm PT
|
there seems to be a choice made in dictionaries, whether to define "religion" or "religious"
relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religious
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion
The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/religion
Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/religious
the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/religion
the OED is in the other room and inaccessible to me now...
Certainly the first definition includes atheism if it were considered an "acknowledged ultimate reality" but the other definitions certainly seems to exclude atheism.
A belief can be something other than a religion.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 07:19am PT
|
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a Possibility that I can't prove does not exist
Do I need have faith in it just to be PC/honest with Not Knowing?
Having a debate on the existence of God is Proselytizing?
I am always amazed how these debates go, the Christians just can't stick to the subject and instead rely on cowardly victimization.
No one is making you open this thread and read these posts.
Please don't whine abut us debating.
Here is the question, why should I believe in God?
I don't see any reason there needs to be one, wouldn't Occam's Razor apply here more than anywhere, the Universal Expanse.
No consciousness's have been found to exist w/o a physical brain, so any kind of God seems like pure fiction to me, how can God exist?, Who created God?
The stance taken by atheists is the most plausible explanation,
especially when you subtract the historical human imagination of Gods
from the first day that a prehistoric man asked "where did I come from? What controls Reality?"
His only answer before science was "Some type of God was responsible"
He would have no other options to evaluate, he had no scientific explanation because there was no science that considered other options at the time.
We have only redefined what God is or can be to the point that he "Just a possibility, so you must have faith in him"
but this God has no apparent action upon reality, it is hidden from us at every angle, you can never know.
The next question would be why is God hidden?
If there is a God of any sort, why would God not be able to investigated like anything else? Why should we never be able to know?
Sounds like a con job to me, and looks like one when you look at the history of the religions that promote this kind of God
and this is for any type of possible God, meaning you can't say that God is different than you think, any possibility of a God includes the Gods I can't comprehend or imagine.
Skeptics have debunked many other similar paradoxes, and Occam's Razor always wins in the end.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 07:30am PT
|
Here is the question, why should I believe in God?
You shouldn't believe until you find the proof.
So remain an atheist, and quit yer incessant whining.
God is easily proven using the correct scientific method.
But you've experienced it ALL, so you are god now.
You're still insane .....
|
|
Bushman
climber
The state of quantum flux
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 07:45am PT
|
See No Godill
See no godill
Hear no godill
Speak no godill
Think no godill
Funny I don't
Sense a godill
Feel no godill
Taste no godill
Smell no godill
Need no godill
Informs me I don't
Believe there's a godill
-bushman
06/12/2017
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 07:49am PT
|
Craig Fry, Nice sermon.
It smells like abuse of Occam's Razor -
one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything
Occam's Razor is a construct from this statement -
it is vain to do with more what one can do with less.
~ William of Occam
William of Occam was an English Franciscan friar (1287-1347)
It is very common for those who worship science rather than practice science to fail to discern the distinction that reductionism and mechanism are incredibly useful models, but they are just that abstract methods for observing and contextualizing observation of phenomena. They are not actually real.
"The map is not the terrain."
~ Abraham Maslow
I think there is a place for reviewing the scientific method and considering whether considering the god question is worth the consideration of science or a scientist. For me it comes down to a question outside of scientific concern - it's just not a question worth scientific inquiry.
Personally, just based on opinion, there is a range of belief around the god question from a personal anthroprmorphic concept of god that alters the laws of nature because of personal protestation (a patently ridiculous idea IMHO) to the concept of an impersonal universal principle that modulates the dance between entropy and order to there is a merely mechanistic universe.
There are some tantalizing tastes of the possibility that initention may actually translate to material influence on the environment - Princeton Electronics Anomolies Research Lab, Conscious Acts of Creation by William Tiller. In my practice and observation for 47 years, experiencing and observing and measuring human systems has solidified my opinion we are an example that mechanism doesn't completely account for the expression of allostasis and homeostasis. My observation of those professing the atheist position is that there is a tendency in that "cohort" to mistake scientific models for reality and end up professing scientism to the detriment of impartial science.
It seems that in the recent past - think Oppenheimer, Einstein or Edison - there was a clearer distinction between science and not science.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 07:56am PT
|
What's less
a natural reality
or one that has some type of God that created this natural reality
and is still at the helm in some way
yet hidden
and you must pray to it
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 08:36am PT
|
Natural reality has enough intelligence and vitalism in it as is. That is the magic in and of reality. I am, after all, a taoist.
Was there an intelligent catalyst that "begat" evolution?
Hmmm...
Yes, my model for the magic of reality isn't congruent to Dawkins.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 08:41am PT
|
They are not actually real.
this is a rabbit hole that once you descend you will never emerge.
From a factual standpoint, you throw in with MikeL, that even the slightest "uncertainty" makes the "model" untruthful. But if you seek Truth, it is probably better to look elsewhere than science.
What the reduction of a problem to its component parts, and the assembly of these parts to build a mechanism are are simply methods for understanding the phenomenon. Philosophers of science recognized these as doctrines, and some posit that they are part of the "socialization" of scientists.
There is an alternative view that these methods are tools in the tool box for understanding physical phenomena, and that they are not applied in a doctrinaire manner to solve any and all problems. Scientists, by and large, recognize the limitations of their methods, and seek other methods to understand phenomena.
"What is real" is often a criticism of the explanation, which if a scientific one, has known limitations due to the accuracy and the precision of the data for which the explanation applies. It is important to note that this is a quantitative statement regarding "uncertainty."
However, we often overlook the criticism of "reality" when those explanations are applied to utilitarian works we benefit from. And example might be the machinery of genetics, which in some thinking is acceptable when applied to medicine but apparently not acceptable to many, when applied to evolution. People might "want the medicine" but state that evolution is "just a theory."
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 08:46am PT
|
People might "want the medicine"
Medicine will act whether you believe or not .......
God will act whether you believe or not.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 09:02am PT
|
You've misunderstood my argument and partly made my argument.
There is an alternative view that these methods are tools in the tool box for understanding physical phenomena, and that they are not applied in a doctrinaire manner to solve any and all problems. Scientists, by and large, recognize the limitations of their methods, and seek other methods to understand phenomena.
Exactly!
I am a "true believer" in science. It is a big part of my life.
What I'm arguing is that scientific models and practice have limitations, especially mechanism (useful as it is), especially with regard to complex systems where the science gets "squishy."Those complex systems for me are my patients. No matter how much science I bring to bear or how many metrics I use, there are still mysteries I see that stretch my left brain - dammit!
When we ignore the limitations, we indulge in scientism - a faith-based belief in science. The biggest thing that bugs me about scientism is that it degrades science! IMHO ;-)
MikeL and I aren't actually close in our views on what is real and we've had fun conversations/arguments about our differences.
Werner, You seem to confuse cause and effect with the god idea.
Ed, You do agree that the model for understanding reality and the reality itself are not one and the same. Don't you? Yes, I know the model can be incedibly precise!
We have many models that look at many things and those models can be incredibly precise. What about the dynamics between the models? What about the uncharted space between the space we've modeled? Just wondering.
Don't we practice better science when we are clear about the limits of our observations and modeling?
Ed, The difference in our perspective may be the vast difference in the precision of physics and the inherent imprecision of the "art" of medicine.*
*Here the referral to medicine is the generic term. I am just a dumbass chiropractor and not a real doctor, after all. But, then I don't want to be an allopath anyway - the model is too limited for treating functional illnesses.
A backtrack -
I think to state unequivocally that there is a God is also nonsense. ~Ed
That's what I've been sayin'!
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 09:14am PT
|
(Someone call my name?)
Bushman: I hate [business]! I only use it as a means to an end.
Well, this might be a crux and conundrum for many people. It would seem to be the result of instrumentalism, having objectives, being oriented to intentions, looking for answers, seeing questions, materialism, physicality, objectivity, and even subjectivity itself. People are often addicted to being addicted, to the contents of experiences, to purposes, to values. Most people seem compelled to be busy, doing things, making contributions, making their lives meaningful.
It’s not necessary. It can be fun, I suppose, but all those things seem to me to be diversions. It’s sort of like culture . . . interesting and all, but fluffy. (Of course, fluffy can be just fine.)
I don’t mean to pick on him individually, but so many of us are like Craig. We are hot to do things, to search, to find meaning, to have noble objectives, to get achievements under our belts, to find the truth of this or that.
Mark has made references to the Tao. The Tao, along with other radical (spiritual and psychological) points of view suggest poetically (as all myths seem to do) that What This Is (“living?”) is indescribable, enigmatic, profoundly engaging, and infinitely infinite in every way and direction. Anything that one might say, do, point to is like picking out a grain of material at the base of Everest.
Religion seems to be an expression of something like that, rather than a definition. Ditto for science.
By this light, a search to say what things are or are not would seem to constitute a fool’s errand. Fun, oh sure, but not anything that really leads anywhere final, accurate, or complete.
I’ve recently become flummoxed by a technical problem in creating an art project. Certain materials aren’t working as I expected, and I’ve been experimenting and talking to authorities to close the gap between what I have in front of me and a vision. I’ve seen (once again, for the thousandth time) that what looks to be a technical issue is really an issue that revolves around an image or vision that my mind seems to have of how things are or need to be. Whether it is scientific, spiritual, material, academic, aesthetic, or even moral, the base of such issues seems to be revolving around vision . . . the vision of “me,” the world, others, community, the aether, of the definitions of “things.”
As I think Paul makes clear now and then, all these views would seem to be the effects of what some call the human condition. At best we can only point to those effects. Other than perhaps having interesting conversations about those effects, it doesn’t seem to be useful to be attempting to do anything about them. If anything, it just brings us more in contact with the human condition, which is like the ouroboros (the snake that eats its own tail).
(Back to my art project.)
Be well.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 09:18am PT
|
Hi.MikeL!
Wow. Ouroboros...
...haven't seen ouroboros show up for a while though she is ever-present...
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 09:50am PT
|
Having spiritual and mystical experiences do not require the existence of a god
Some things may never be proven as fact in the strictest sense, but we can still call them facts or truth enough for communication purposes
Sure evolution is just a theory, but it is so well represented in theory and evidence that it is considered true and can't be denied
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 09:55am PT
|
I flat out laugh whenever I hear someone say "Well, you know evolution is just a theory.."
My usual riposte is "Well, you know gravity is just a theory so why don't you go and try challenging that?"
There is a disturbing lack of basic science understanding in our society and a broad swath of our "culture" that prides itself on being ignorant.
A lot of people actually believe a scientific theory is just waking up on morning and thinking, "I have a theory.."
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 10:15am PT
|
As one who travels throughout the world I will say that America, with it's beauty and abundant natural resources is truly blessed. I will also say that our "culture," relative to the rest of the world, is certainly not enviable.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 10:25am PT
|
From wikipedia
Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2][3][4] Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist.[5][6] In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities
some posters on this thread contend that Atheism IS a religion
based on the above definition, how is it?
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 10:30am PT
|
It's ridiculous Norton, why waste your time on it?
It's obvious their minds are made up and there's no changing them.
As if it's cool to be "agnostic" about Aphrodite or Horus... lol
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 10:31am PT
|
Just see how crazy these fool atheists are.
Now they are defending their beliefs after telling others their beliefs are not evidence based on their so called science/
LOL, just can't get any more ridiculous .......
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 10:33am PT
|
As if it's cool to be "agnostic" about Aphrodite or Horus... lol
Word of the day: disingenuous
Now they are defending their beliefs after telling others their beliefs are not evidence based on their so called science/
I certainly don't always agree with you, Werner, but we stand together on that point.
When I've posted an argument. it often seems the scientism acolytes are too busy formulating a response to digest the argument.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!