Nice to see O'Bama working on getting rid of midnight Bush rules

[Jester]

Hi,
Not quite. It is now speculation. But it may be, one day, testable. If that day comes, it will be because of speculation. Thus, we cannot, a priori, consider the speculation fruitless.

Too lazy to look up the source, but a prominent scientist of the past listed things that would always be beyond our knowledge. Among these was the composition of the sun. Not only did he turn out to be wrong, but the element helium was first observed in the spectrum of the sun (and thus its name). That physicist failed to predict the technology of spectrometry. It wold be a fun speculation to predict the technology that would make other present unknowables future observables. Making those fun speculations is a large part of theoretical physics.

Making speculations about the nature of the universe is fine, and you're absolutely right, much of the fun in physics seems to be (watching vicariously from the sidelines through Hawking, Green, Feynman and the like) the imaginative element, when hypothetical universes come together with surprising consequences.

What I suppose I mean is that the god of the gaps always has a place to hide; no matter how long our reach gets, even if our reach grows beyond what we currently think of as the "universe", it is always possible to put god one further step past that. Therefore, the "god from beyond" hypothesis lacks falsifiability.

But, who knows. Maybe he's out there somewhere. If only we had scientists with the chutzpah to really dig deep into the square root of the second time dimension.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

This is a very different thing than speculating about the "first cause" of the universe. This is assigning oneself, and one's species, a fundamental cosmic role. With no evidence of the divine powers that have apparently granted us this special treatment, it seems like no more than than self-aggrandizement. We are very small, we evolved from tiny proteins, and we could be wiped out by any one of a hundred fairly minor astronomical events at any time. That is the measure of our importance at present.

That was in response to your statement, "But this is does not appear to be what five billion (or so) people are engaged in when they are engaged in Religion." Religion is not science, if that is what you meant to say. Even the epistemology of religion is only speculative, whereas science has the benefit of dealing with a reality that is testable. For those that ascribe to option C, that some external force created the universe, they wonder why. They wonder if that force created them purposefully, and anecdotally over the ages this speculation has accumulated into that body of philosophical speculation we call theology. Sprinkle in a few unexplainable phenomena which we call "miracles", and its easy to see why 5 billion people would find sufficient reason to walk the smooth well worn wide path of one of the modern religions. It's tradition, it's family, it's community, it gives a purpose for some, it provides some hope for others, and its all pretty harmless, and in fact, mostly beneficial to the well being of the species. At least it is better than the brutal barbarism of raw "survival of the fittest". I'm a direct descendant of a people that believed that random violence insured a glorious reception in Valhalla. I think Christianity was not such a bad thing in pacifying that aggression (although they did squabble with the Catholics over Pomerania for awhile) and it eventually brought the world to a more enlightened place.

I'm with Douglas Adams on this one. Our "role" in the universe is so extraordinarily trivial that to even grasp the true dimensions involved in our cosmic insignificance would be psychological suicide. (Thankfully, we're not equipped to do that, no matter how hard we try.)

And, yet, I was just contemplating yesterday the importance of creating something of extraordinary beauty, like Michelangelo, Schubert, Mozart, Da Vinci, etc. At least religion has had the benefit of inspiring some of the most passionate expressions of artistic talent. So, what value is that joy, love, or adoration in the big cosmic scheme? For me, I think it is an aspect of complete fulfillment for those that experience it, for that moment of time. A split second later it was destroyed to make room for an interstellar bypass.

Being concerned enough for someone think about and empathize with their problems is one thing. Asking the invisible, unknowable creator of the universe to give them a hand is another. I'm sure some people do both at once, but it's the first that seems considerate to me, and the second bizarre (not to mention ineffective).

You at least get the benefit of the former, so perhaps you might overlook the awkwardness of the latter. I can relate to how you feel since I live in a liberal area where people appeal to pagan earth, air, water, and fire spirits sometimes in ceremonies. But, hey, it makes them feel better.

Even this is just talking about prayer as a harmless personal issue, where nobody really expects tangible results. People die each year because they or their family believe in the literal healing power of prayer, and refuse medical treatment and put their faith in god. So, prayer, on the whole, is certainly not harmless. It impedes people's ability to take the world seriously on its own terms.

Yet, I wonder what small percentage (of the already small percentage of people who trust solely to faith healing) of them regret their decision. I also believe that people should have the freedom to die in the manner of their choosing, so I don't get worked up about it.

[Jester]

I'm a direct descendant of a people that believed that random violence insured a glorious reception in Valhalla. I think Christianity was not such a bad thing in pacifying that aggression (although they did squabble with the Catholics over Pomerania for awhile) and it eventually brought the world to a more enlightened place.

Those "squabbles over Pomerania" killed hundreds of thousands of people, both directly on the battlefield, and from the extreme deprivation caused by hunger, taxation, or pillage. The Great Northern War was christians all around, and yet it didn't moderate them one iota. Quite the contrary, the Swedes thought their King had been blessed with invulnerability by god, propelling them to yet further heights of valour and conquest. (Not that the Russians were any better, probably much worse.)

Modern (and vastly less religious) Sweden, on the other hand, seems pretty peaceful. The most religious parts of the world, on the other hand, seem hell-bent on blowing themselves to smithereens. Even the Buddhists, normally among the better-behaved religionists, are killing each other over very trivial matters.

Enlightenment was a move away from religion, not a move towards it.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Those "squabbles over Pomerania" killed hundreds of thousands of people, both directly on the battlefield, and from the extreme deprivation caused by hunger, taxation, or pillage. The Great Northern War was Christians all around, and yet it didn't moderate them one iota. Quite the contrary, the Swedes thought their King had been blessed with invulnerability by god, propelling them to yet further heights of valor and conquest. (Not that the Russians were any better, probably much worse.)

It's not really fair to place at the feet of a religion the thirty years war. There were factors like the reformation, but by in large it was the politics and policies of the time that of expanding and contracting empires that caused the wars and deaths. Gustavus Adolphus is remembered as a brilliant general, a religious man, and pretty much the founder of the modern Swedish society. I think Sweden has been pretty peaceful, because it lost the bulk of its population due to emigration before WWI. The thirty years war, while devastating locally, only reached about 7 million deaths, and it was considered the worst war in European history. It pales in comparison to the general carnage which has no religious under currents. Explain the millions who died in WWII, in the bombings, in the battles, in the genocides and the purges, in Germany, Russia, and China. Explain the millions that died in the Mongol conquests. Explain the Khmer Rouge. If you are looking at Islam specifically, you will find that it has been in constant war since 632, with the worst portion being during the Timurid dynasty. Since then, through the Ottoman Turks, to the present day, it is a culture and religion founded by a warrior, and steeped in blood. I don't know if there is a "kinder, gentler" side to that religion, but there are portions of the Koran that promote peace, tolerance, and justice. Most of Islam follows that more peaceful path, however there are these violent sects that give them all a bad reputation. We do owe the Islamic scholars a debt for our system of mathematics and algebra.

Modern (and vastly less religious) Sweden, on the other hand, seems pretty peaceful. The most religious parts of the world, on the other hand, seem hell-bent on blowing themselves to smithereens. Even the Buddhists, normally among the better-behaved religionists, are killing each other over very trivial matters.

Enlightenment was a move away from religion, not a move towards it.

I disagree. This is you totally denying any contributions made my religion in furthering culture. Universities, hospitals, and even societal concepts in peace and harmony are a result of religious influences. You know, people like Mother Teresa are an example of what religious people do, not some weird aberration.

[Jester]

It's not really fair to place at the feet of a religion the thirty years war. There were factors like the reformation, but by in large it was the politics and policies of the time that of expanding and contracting empires that caused the wars and deaths. Gustavus Adolphus is remembered as a brilliant general, a religious man, and pretty much the founder of the modern Swedish society. I think Sweden has been pretty peaceful, because it lost the bulk of its population due to emigration before WWI. The thirty years war, while devastating locally, only reached about 7 million deaths, and it was considered the worst war in European history. It pales in comparison to the general carnage which has no religious under currents.

I have not made the argument that religion is the exclusive cause of violence. That would be stupid. There is no lack of reasons why people slaughter each other. What I am claiming is that religion is, in general, a contributing rather than a mitigating factor.

Also, that wasn't the Swedish war I was talking about, not that it particularly matters. There were quite a few wars in Pomerania over the years.

I don't know if there is a "kinder, gentler" side to that religion, but there are portions of the Koran that promote peace, tolerance, and justice. Most of Islam follows that more peaceful path, however there are these violent sects that give them all a bad reputation. We do owe the Islamic scholars a debt for our system of mathematics and algebra.

Yes. And we owe Islamic scholars the suppression of those other Islamic scholars who gave us mathematics and algebra. (And the world's first great historical theorist.) Fanatical religion has doing just fine since the time of Al Kwarizmi, and Islamic science decidedly not doing so hot. If religion played a role in creating these things, a doubtful proposition to my mind, then it played double that role in suppressing them. This is not dissimilar to the Christian experience.

You are correct that religion has been the inspiration for great aesthetic works in all artistic disciplines. I would only add that the same is true of horrible, gut-wrenching suffering.

(Edit: It occurs to me that a good example of the flaw in that argument is that the same thing is true of Monarchy. Without Spanish absolutism, we would not have Las Meninas, to name only one of a thousand great works inspired by aristocrats, but that hardly sounds like a convincing argument for Monarchy.)

I disagree. This is you totally denying any contributions made my religion in furthering culture. Universities, hospitals, and even societal concepts in peace and harmony are a result of religious influences. You know, people like Mother Teresa are an example of what religious people do, not some weird aberration.

Yes, Mother Teresa is an excellent example of what religious people do. She took a lot of poor, sick people, brought them together under one roof, did absolutely nothing to help them stop being either poor or sick, gave them an extended set of last rites, and sent them on their way to the invisible man in the sky. Funds donated to her cause go towards replicating this method of not helping poor sick people around the world.

To use logic similar to yours above, what about Oxfam? What about Medecins Sans Frontieres? There are dozens of entirely secular groups that help out the poor and the sick far better than Mother Teresa ever did.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

What I suppose I mean is that the god of the gaps always has a place to hide; no matter how long our reach gets, even if our reach grows beyond what we currently think of as the "universe", it is always possible to put god one further step past that. Therefore, the "god from beyond" hypothesis lacks falsifiability.

Well, yeah. But a religion truly based on a 'god of the gap' which does not try to proselytize nor make its 'morals' the common laws is not something I have any quarrel with.

I don't think that the 'god from beyond' concept is an hypothesis. It is not an axiom put forward to be extrapolated from and to be tested. It is simply a concept to be accepted (or not) on faith. It has no ontological basis (unlike the disputed ontological argument for an unlimited god) and makes no predictions. Thus, it is a viable, harmless, and vacuous belief which, if it gives comfort to some, if it relieves them of the uncertainty of their reason for being, has some value. Myself, I fill the gaps with "I don't know."

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

So, if as Pete, Jester, or others here believe that they have the "right" answer and everyone else are "deluded by fairy tales", then move past it and do something useful with this insight.

I truly don't understand this.

First, I cannot speak for Jester, but these discussions are, to me, the equivalent of discussions of the weather or of sports. The serious business of my life was doing science. I hope that one day soon it will be teaching science.

Second, in these discussions I do try to do something minor but useful. I try to lay out the position of those who are not convinced by the attitude of the multitude or the precedents of the ancients. I try to instill a questioning attitude that may lead someone, sometime, to introspection. To rational self doubt. And, possibly, to a reconciliation and acceptance of the unlimited ignorance which is our common heritage. When a person can accept 'I don't know' as a valid explanation in place of 'god did it', then that person is, I think, on the path to truth. If the path ends with god, so be it. But if it starts with god, then there is no path at all -- the destination is the start and no progress exists to be made.

--Pete

[Bun-Bun]

Myself, I fill the gaps with "I don't know."

I like to follow that with "Let's find out."

[kandrathe]

I truly don't understand this. First, I cannot speak for Jester, but these discussions are, to me, the equivalent of discussions of the weather or of sports. The serious business of my life was doing science. I hope that one day soon it will be teaching science.

I guess what I was trying to say, (and I know you know this), is that there is more to the body of philosophy than merely science. While some things remain unprovable, that does not diminish the importance of critical, rational thought. I'm not willing, as it seems that some are, to throw the baby out with the bath water. While I have questions about specifics in biblical/religious texts, I don't try to read them as history, or science, or anything except as a moral story that is meant to convey principles. For example, "The book of Job" couldn't possibly factually exist because no one could have witnessed the conversation between God and Satan. I view it as a story meant to teach perseverance in the face of overwhelming adversity. A person with this kind of inner strength is uncrushable, no matter from where this strength is derived. He may have been deluded in his faith, but that faith brought him through his crisis. We might in a similar way view "Ch'i" (the life force), the symbolic power of eastern (martial, healing,etc.) arts. It may be irrational to believe in a power that one can channel through fists and feet, but the technique does result in human beings being able to "use mind over matter" in an effective way. This is why I believe that not all so called "delusions" are useless. When needed, one can use irrational thought in powerful rational ways. I find that the same is true in healing, in that "positive thinking" can lead to improved health. Probably for entirely rational reasons, however the "how" is usually secondary to the effect itself.

Second, in these discussions I do try to do something minor but useful. I try to lay out the position of those who are not convinced by the attitude of the multitude or the precedents of the ancients. I try to instill a questioning attitude that may lead someone, sometime, to introspection. To rational self doubt. And, possibly, to a reconciliation and acceptance of the unlimited ignorance which is our common heritage. When a person can accept 'I don't know' as a valid explanation in place of 'god did it', then that person is, I think, on the path to truth. If the path ends with god, so be it. But if it starts with god, then there is no path at all -- the destination is the start and no progress exists to be made.

I agree with that sentiment. I try to be open minded, and skeptical. "I don't know" is a good starting place. I think that Jester was confusing "Enlightenment" as in the secular, intellectual "The age of" with my use which was the Eastern philosophical usage meaning wisdom or understanding enabling clarity of perception (to become one with the universe). While much of the ancient bodies of accumulated human "knowledge" are not based on logical scientific foundation, I think it would be an arrogance of modernity to burn them. I believe they have uses beyond quaint amusement and historical reference, but can also provide insights and philosophical frameworks which can inspire progress.