Rationality & Christianity: Mutually Exclusive?

[Idaho]

Taking one's religion seriously is rather the antithesis of British values.

Such nonsense! And bizzare coming from you. This has been a very devout christian country, and a radical and revolutionary religious country.

The move to secular humanism has been dramatic in the last 100 years - but that's something that you have always been against.

I suppose, as a religious man, you shouldn't be expected to be rational.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Such nonsense! And bizzare coming from you. This has been a very devout christian country, and a radical and revolutionary religious country.

Religion hasn't really been taken seriously in the UK since the ascension of Queen Victoria. It was taken seriously by people in the colonies, to be sure, but that's why those people went out to the colonies.


The move to secular humanism has been dramatic in the last 100 years - but that's something that you have always been against.

Secular Humanism is an invention of the last few decades, but Humanists have always tended to be secular. Christian and Islamic Humanists frequently had more in common with each other than with the tradionalists and fundamentalists in their own camp.


I suppose, as a religious man, you shouldn't be expected to be rational.

That's rather like me say that, as an atheist, you shouldn't be expected to be kind.

Isn't it?

[Idaho]

That's rather like me say that, as an atheist, you shouldn't be expected to be kind.

Isn't it?

No, because it isn't an essential feature of atheism to not be kind. But you can't be a christian unless you embrace the irrational.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No, because it isn't an essential feature of atheism to not be kind. But you can't be a christian unless you embrace the irrational.

You claim is baseless and can be easily disproved, it depends on all Christians being a certain type, which they are not.

Again, it's like me saying all love and kindness comes from God - and because Atheists reject God they are neither loving nor kind. Now, to be clear, this statement would apply only to atheists.

[Idaho]

I'm intrigued as to how you can be a rational christian. I accept that you can be a Christian and be rational in your everyday life. But how about with regard to a magic man who had special powers and was created by God impregnating a woman who gave birth a month later?

[Pannonian]

I'm intrigued as to how you can be a rational christian. I accept that you can be a Christian and be rational in your everyday life. But how about with regard to a magic man who had special powers and was created by God impregnating a woman who gave birth a month later?

It's possible to be rational with values derived from Christianity though. The best of the British left is descended from movements relating to or derived from the UK's various Christian denominations. Probably the most dominant of all philosophical feelings though is a dislike of evangelism of any kind, whether religious or otherwise. Atheist evangelism is just as bad as Christian evangelism. As long as one does not impose one's values on others, it doesn't matter much what kind of rational or nutcase being one is.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm intrigued as to how you can be a rational christian. I accept that you can be a Christian and be rational in your everyday life. But how about with regard to a magic man who had special powers and was created by God impregnating a woman who gave birth a month later?

At the end of the day everybody's metaphysics and cosmology are "irrational" because we all start from a point where where there is no evidence.

Atheists believe the universe spontaneously came into existence, Christians believe the universe was created by God.

Atheists believe the universe operates according to logical and consistent laws (except for Quantum Theory), Christians believe that the universe operates according to logical and consistent laws (except for Quantum Theory and Divine Intervention).

Once one accepts the existence of an omniscient being then things like virgin conception and walking on water are trivial and the existence/non-existence of God is a neutrally weighted question because there's no evidence one way or the other.

As regards Jesus specifically, most Christians accept that he violated the laws of Physics (although he was born after nine months, not one) and therefore they don't try to explain his miracles using Cod science, they simply say that Jesus "cheated" by being outside the rules that govern the universe. If you think that's a lot to accept, given that he was INSIDE the universe whilst also being OUTSIDE it and was able to pick and choose then you really should look at some of the modern theorems in Physics because they sound just as odd.

This viewpoint is fundamentally different to people who say the universe is 6,000 years old despite all the evidence to the contrary.

[Papewaio]

Quantum theory is highly logical and consistent. I think you are confusing it with String theory...

If the Universe requires a complex being to create it, the complex being requires an even more complex one to create it. Until Christians can show proof of God's mum and other ancestors, I will go with emergence since we see it all the time.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Quantum theory is highly logical and consistent. I think you are confusing it with String theory...

I don't think I am - The Uncertainty Principle was what I was referring to - the equation can have any one number of solutions and we don't know which.


If the Universe requires a complex being to create it, the complex being requires an even more complex one to create it. Until Christians can show proof of God's mum and other ancestors, I will go with emergence since we see it all the time.

Firstly -

The Universe is infinitely complex, therefore the likelihood of the universe spontaneously coming into being via "emergence" is infinitely unlikely due to the infinite number of alternative outcomes.

Secondly -

All evidence point towards God being simple, not complex. God is neither one thing nor another, is not divisible, has no dimension of space or time and no discernible qualities other than existence.

Thirdly -

The atheist position is that an infinitely complex system came into being spontaneously. The theist position is that an infinitely simple being created an infinitely complex universe. The two positions both involve infinity and therefore you cannot apply Ockham's Razor because both propositions are equally likely because whilst the theist position initially appears more complex in reality infinity multiplied by infinity, or divided by infinity, is still infinity.

Fourthly -

The suggestion that God himself requires a "cause" i.e. parents would imply that the universe requires a cause - and if we accept that then we accept the existence of God. One could, if one wishes, argue infinite regress but in reality both the atheist and theist positions deny it. The difference is that the theist position posits an extra-universal cause for the creation of the universe. Now, an extra-universal cause may or may not be subject to the problem of infinite regress of creation - it is impossible to know.

In summation -

Atheists and theists have been having the same arguments fore at least 2.5 millenia and neither has ever found a single jot of evidence to support their position. Whilst the argument has become more nuanced over time the reality is that for each point made there has always been an equally valid counter-point because, ultimately, both sides are making a fundamentally unprovable claim.

So - it we could stop calling the religious irrational and the atheists soulless, I think that would be a nice advance in human society - even if it's just on this forum.

[Beskar]

If the Universe requires a complex being to create it, the complex being requires an even more complex one to create it. Until Christians can show proof of God's mum and other ancestors, I will go with emergence since we see it all the time.

Clearly you have no understanding of metaphysics, Papewaio. Your hypothesis is fatally flawed as there is nothing complex about the omnipotent omnipresent supernatural being of such divine power doing everything as if causing a vibration on a string to shape the cosmos to their whim. Their power is as such as a lucid dream as they can make anything happen if they desire it, and like most playthroughs of games, the being gets to the point he hands over the nations to the A.I (freewill) just to see what happens for giggles, just intervening now and then when they feel like it. You should turn your back on your heathen ways and accept his noodly appendage (https://player.vimeo.com/video/31543194) into your life.

How complex can it be just to accept and not question?

[Montmorency]

Very quickly you all come to play fast and loose with terminology.

What is "simple"? What is "complex"? What is "likely"? What is "rationality"?

[Gilrandir]

Atheists and theists have been having the same arguments fore at least 2.5 millenia and neither has ever found a single jot of evidence to support their position.


Similar things I notice about philosophy - issues discussed by Plato and Aristotle are still open to debate. Which is why I consider it a pseudoscience.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Very quickly you all come to play fast and loose with terminology.

What is "simple"? What is "complex"? What is "likely"? What is "rationality"?

A simple thing has few qualities, a complex thing has many qualities. Imagine it like a machine. You can have a see-saw and a pully winch. Both can be used to raise a load from one level to another, but one has few qualities (moving parts) and the other has many. Therefore, one is simple and the other complex.

God is posited to have only one quality (existence) whilst the universe is made up of an apparently infinitely regressing series of particles with infinitely multiple interrelationships (ugh).

So God is simple and the universe is complex.


Similar things I notice about philosophy - issues discussed by Plato and Aristotle are still open to debate. Which is why I consider it a pseudoscience.

Well, this is philosophy. If you study metaphysics you'll see that all sciences regress to a point where we rely on unprovable laws, and there is no pure knowledge.

Personally, I think the study of philosophy is important because it promotes self-awareness, particularly of our own infallibility. A Physicist who does not study metaphysics will likely fail to realise that his experience of the world is filtered through a flawed lens. As a result he may conclude he has THE FACTS and therefore can discover THE TRUTH.

This is a dangerous intellectual position - and one which should be avoided at all costs.

Beyond that, I find philosophical intercourse enjoyable.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Quantum theory is highly logical and consistent. I think you are confusing it with String theory...

There is a difference between quantum theory working as a reliable predictive framework of natural phenomena and whether the theory itself makes sense. I am reminded of Feynman saying, "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."

To be clear, quantum theory is definitely consistent. Just maybe not logical.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well, this is philosophy. If you study metaphysics you'll see that all sciences regress to a point where we rely on unprovable laws, and there is no pure knowledge.

Personally, I think the study of philosophy is important because it promotes self-awareness, particularly of our own infallibility. A Physicist who does not study metaphysics will likely fail to realise that his experience of the world is filtered through a flawed lens. As a result he may conclude he has THE FACTS and therefore can discover THE TRUTH.

This is a dangerous intellectual position - and one which should be avoided at all costs.

Beyond that, I find philosophical intercourse enjoyable.

As for the bold part, I point to the New Atheists.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As for the bold part, I point to the New Atheists.

I miss Christopher Hitchens - a genuinely brilliant man who made absolutely no pretensions to "Goodness" and openly despised God.

He was a man you could respect for his conviction.

[Montmorency]

A simple thing has few qualities, a complex thing has many qualities. Imagine it like a machine. You can have a see-saw and a pully winch. Both can be used to raise a load from one level to another, but one has few qualities (moving parts) and the other has many. Therefore, one is simple and the other complex.

Are qualities and components the same thing? One could invent an infinite number of qualities to ascribe to any given "thing", or obviate any quality they like by naming it derivative or tangential.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Are qualities and components the same thing? One could invent an infinite number of qualities to ascribe to any given "thing", or obviate any quality they like by naming it derivative or tangential.

Well that's the rub, isn't it?

I'll say this - the argument (enumerated by Richard Dawkins and since taken up generally) is that God is complex, however there is no evidence of this - such evidence as their is suggests God is simple with a simple (but infinitely powerful) nature.

In any case, it doesn't actually matter because (as I said) the universe is infinitely complex and therefore its creation is infinitely unlikely. Being as it's already infinitely unlikely it can't be less likely and therefore you can't use the argument that "emergence" is more simple than a "complex God". Ockham's Razor is only applicable when one argument is less complex than the other - but in this case both arguments are infinitely complex.

The "Gomplex God" argument is an attempt by Dawkins specifically to control the bounds of the debate and as an Oxford Don he's good at using his gravitas to persuade other people that he should be allowed to control the bounds of the debate - he shouldn't be.

I'm not trying to argue for God, I'm simply pointing out that Idaho and Pape have made claims that don't stand up to inspection philosophically or metaphysically.

I see belief in God as a choice, or perhaps an inclination, and I think that it's equally possible to support both arguments using logic. I'm a logical person, when I first went to university I met a guy at Officer Training Corps selection who was a Christian, over dinner he told me about his uncle. His uncle was a Bishop, and one day he woke up and realised he just didn't buy it any more. Rather than throw in the towel he dove into philosophy and theology and eventually proved to himself that belief in God was as rational as not believing. This gentleman then recovered his faith once he was satisfied it was rational. At the time I believed, as Idaho does, that belief in God was irrational and therefore rejected Him despite my natural inclinations.

I spent a couple of years in study (whilst taking an English degree) and eventually I too was satisfied that belief in God is rational. It all depends on your metaphysics. Your metaphysics can support belief in God or not but either way they're a set of unprovable assumptions and therefore they're essentially arbitrary articles of faith.

Belief in God is an obviously arbitrary metaphysical belief, but there are others. Belief in a logical universe and linear time are two other essentially arbitrary beliefs. Like belief in God these convictions stem from our experience of the universe, and the point about that is that it is fundamentally limited by our perceptions and therefore flawed.

The only thing you can know for certain is that you know nothing for certain.

[Greyblades]

I miss Christopher Hitchens - a genuinely brilliant man who made absolutely no pretensions to "Goodness" and openly despised God.

He was a man you could respect for his conviction. I miss him too. Seems these days that too few people are willing to openly criticise religions either out of fear of violent reprisal or pressure to be overly politicaly correct.

A lot of athiest community has gone to shit over the last few years. When the most recent crop of college grown liberals started gaining authority they began stigmatising everyone who had world views they didn't like.

It's got to the point where athiests are being declared pariahs for a lack of idealogical purity. Don't adheire to the unrelated social values of the group leaders and you're out. Now athiesm's become known less for rational debate and more for youtube slap fights.

[Beskar]

The problem with us British is that we are not Americans, so things are skewed. Not sure why, but American culture always whips up a fanatical fury when it comes to religion which is not matched in British culture whatever direction it goes into. So whilst PFH would be a rather conservative Christian by British standards, in the US, he would be a moderate and leaning towards liberal Christian.

[Montmorency]

In any case, it doesn't actually matter because (as I said) the universe is infinitely complex and therefore its creation is infinitely unlikely.

I won't look into the details of Dawkins' specific argument, but your bit here is just weird. Even granting some arbitrary evaluation of complexity (you might be compounding with the infinite nature of ignorance), how do you evaluate the likelihood of creation (i.e. "Creation")? Should such a thing even have the property of likelihood? And in principle, why would "likelihood" be a linear function of "complexity"?

[Gilrandir]

A simple thing has few qualities, a complex thing has many qualities. Imagine it like a machine.


I'm afraid the difference between "few" and "many" is as vague as between "simple" and complex". What is the number which turns "few" into "many"? Like 5 - is it still few or is it already many?



If you study metaphysics you'll see that all sciences regress to a point where we rely on unprovable laws, and there is no pure knowledge.


So it is a pure supposition that 2+2=4? I'd rather say that being itself very opaque/oblique metaphisycs/philosophy wants other sciences to look like that. Just not to feel that singled out.



Personally, I think the study of philosophy is important because it promotes self-awareness, particularly of our own infallibility.

Beyond that, I find philosophical intercourse enjoyable.

It seems like one must study philosophy not not discover something about the world, but to excel and to have fun. Are we talking of MTW yet, or is it still that pseudoscience?





Rather than throw in the towel he dove into philosophy and theology and eventually proved to himself that belief in God was as rational as not believing.



Don't take it as an offence or nitpicking - it is just professional interest. Is "dove" past tense of "dive"? And if it is, has this verb become an irregular one in modern English?

[Montmorency]

Both "dove" and "dived" are in use, though by most accounts "dived" is more common. "Dove" has mostly come up in modern English by analogy to the pattern seen in "strive - strove" and "drive - drove".


I'd rather say that being itself very opaque/oblique metaphisycs/philosophy wants other sciences to look like that. Just not to feel that singled out.

You're conflating the academy and the questions.

[Idaho]

Atheists believe the universe spontaneously came into existence, Christians believe the universe was created by God.

No they don't. Atheists, by definition, do not believe in God. There is no specifics under the definition as to what they *do* believe in. You are creating a straw man.


Atheists believe the universe operates according to logical and consistent laws (except for Quantum Theory), Christians believe that the universe operates according to logical and consistent laws (except for Quantum Theory and Divine Intervention).

Nope. Straw man again.


Once one accepts the existence of an omniscient being then things like virgin conception and walking on water are trivial and the existence/non-existence of God is a neutrally weighted question because there's no evidence one way or the other.


This is argumentum ad ignorantium. You can't argue that a proposition is true because it has not been declared false.

Your Christianity is interfering with your logic circuits.

[Pannonian]

I miss him too. Seems these days that too few people are willing to openly criticise religions either out of fear of violent reprisal or pressure to be overly politicaly correct.

A lot of athiest community has gone to shit over the last few years. When the most recent crop of college grown liberals started gaining authority they began stigmatising everyone who had world views they didn't like.

It's got to the point where athiests are being declared pariahs for a lack of idealogical purity. Don't adheire to the unrelated social values of the group leaders and you're out. Now athiesm's become known less for rational debate and more for youtube slap fights.

Or maybe Thatcher's Britain has actually resulted in a more tolerant Britain, in that no one cares what others think, as each is concerned only with themselves. Criticising other religions, when those religions don't actively impinge on you, involves caring what those religions say. If people don't care what those religions say, then they don't bother criticising.

[Gilrandir]

Or maybe Thatcher's Britain has actually resulted in a more tolerant Britain, in that no one cares what others think, as each is concerned only with themselves.

Sounds like it is an indifferent Britain, not a tolerant one.

[Pannonian]

Sounds like it is an indifferent Britain, not a tolerant one.

Not much difference at the sharp end.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I won't look into the details of Dawkins' specific argument, but your bit here is just weird. Even granting some arbitrary evaluation of complexity (you might be compounding with the infinite nature of ignorance), how do you evaluate the likelihood of creation (i.e. "Creation")? Should such a thing even have the property of likelihood? And in principle, why would "likelihood" be a linear function of "complexity"?

Yes, it's weird, or possibly Wyrd. The likelihood of anything is a function of the complexity of the outcome. Boil it down to it's most simple - if you roll a six-sided die the probability of getting a 6 is 1/6, roll two dice for two sixes and the probability is 1/36.

With me so far?

OK - so Pape referenced the "complex God" argument. The argument, which is fallacious, is that because God is complex he is unlikely and therefore it is less likely that he exists and decided to create the universe than that the universe simple came into being.

The reason the argument is fallacious is that, according to current best estimates in Science the universe is infinitely complex, that means that an infinite number of dice had to roll an infinite number of sixes for the Big Bang to go off and not be just a Little Pop that petered out. That means the likelihood of the universe coming into being as it is is infinitely unlikely, according to our best science.

Therefore the creation by God (complex or simple) is irrelevant to the probability of creation itself - it's already infinitely unlikely, so it can't be less likely.

Now - the caveat.

If Scientists subsequently discover that the universe is less than infinite then the probability of the creation of the universe becomes finite and therefore the above argument collapse. I don't think that's actually going to happen, though. I think the reason we conceived of "infinity" is that it is actually a property of the universe.


I'm afraid the difference between "few" and "many" is as vague as between "simple" and complex". What is the number which turns "few" into "many"? Like 5 - is it still few or is it already many?

They are not finite numbers, they are terms of comparison. A thing with two properties is complex next to a thing with one property but simple next to a thing with ten properties. The the case of the current discussion the quantities are infinite, so the only way to describe them is using terms of comparison like "simple" and "complex".


So it is a pure supposition that 2+2=4? I'd rather say that being itself very opaque/oblique metaphisycs/philosophy wants other sciences to look like that. Just not to feel that singled out.

That is, in fact, a supposition based on observation. Immanuel Kant wrote on this extensively, but the problem was best expressed by Erasmus when he said "Cognito Ergo Sum" which is "I think therefore I Am". The problem, you see, is that it's not possible to actually prove anything other than that you ARE thinking.

That's not to say that we should throw out mathematics and physics, far from it, but we should recognise that they are a theoretical system we use to explain the world rather than a universal truth contained within the world.


It seems like one must study philosophy not not discover something about the world, but to excel and to have fun. Are we talking of MTW yet, or is it still that pseudoscience?

Theoretical philosophy will not feed the hungry or heal the sick, but it has a practical use in restraining behaviour.

To go back to religion for a moment.

Suppose the Pope declared that all Black were inherently evil because God had shown him - non-Catholics would ignore him because they recognise his authority is grounded in the Christian System of thought and is not intrinsic to the universe - or you can't prove it is at any rate. Now suppose a biologist declared that all Black people were evil and presented Scientific evidence that conformed to the science of the day.

There are people today who, because of how they see "Science", might be tempted to accept that evidence but a philosopher understands that "Science" is a theoretical method based on a set of assumptions and that, therefore, there are multiple ways the biologist can be wrong even if his "Science" stands up.

The same can be applied to any proposition because all thought is grounded in metaphysics and therefore you can always kick out the theoretical legs. You don't have to obsess over that (I certainly don't) but you should be aware of it.


Don't take it as an offence or nitpicking - it is just professional interest. Is "dove" past tense of "dive"? And if it is, has this verb become an irregular one in modern English?


Both "dove" and "dived" are in use, though by most accounts "dived" is more common. "Dove" has mostly come up in modern English by analogy to the pattern seen in "strive - strove" and "drive - drove".

I had to sit and think about this. The tense of "dove" is the past or "perfect" sense whilst "dived" is the "plu-perfect". So In this case I said "dove" because that was what he did, he "dove" in. On the other hand I could have said, "after he dived into...". So Dived indicates something that happened and has finished, while Dove indicates something that may be ongoing.

Compare "Hung" and "Hanged". Pictures are "Hung" on the wall but men are "Hanged" and then cut down - but while they're on the gibbet they're being "Hung".


No they don't. Atheists, by definition, do not believe in God. There is no specifics under the definition as to what they *do* believe in. You are creating a straw man.

Atheists are not simply people "who do not believe in God" they are more correctly "People who believe God does not exist".

Atheism is a belief - it is not a neutral stance - the neutral stance is agnosticism. The confustion comes from historical use of language but it's still not philosophically correct.


Nope. Straw man again.

Demonstrate that the two propositions are not logically balanced - declaring Staw Man is itself a fallacy unless you can demonstrate it. Logic itself is not proven, it is merely presumed.


This is argumentum ad ignorantium. You can't argue that a proposition is true because it has not been declared false.

All scientific arguments are based on the proposition that a hypothesis may be presumed to be true until it is proved false. The scientific method constructs a hypothesis and then attempts to disprove it.


Your Christianity is interfering with your logic circuits.

I have provided arguments using logic, probability, the scientific method, and metaphysics.

My proposition is that the "logical" atheist's world-view is ultimately built on sand as insubstantial as the Christian's. I have gone to great pains to write out my argument as clearly as possible.

Now you either have to disprove it or concede, it's not sufficient for you just to object to my preamble and declare "straw man" because I've already written about two-thousand words supporting my point and addresses your objections before you actually replied. It's clearly not a straw man, it's all based on very well documented and valid philosophical arguments - most originally made by non-Christians.

That's not an appeal to authority, it's a reminder that I didn't imagine all this, I'm drawing on previous arguments between people with my view and people with yours. You can't just dismiss the entire history of a debate unless you can show it was all fallacious.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I'm intrigued as to how you can be a rational christian. I accept that you can be a Christian and be rational in your everyday life. But how about with regard to a magic man who had special powers and was created by God impregnating a woman who gave birth a month later?

Christians do not believe in a magic man or a sky fairy or other such nonsense, nor is belief in a Supreme Being comparable to them.

If you want to use that silly language then by the same token I suppose you believe in a magic explosion, which is a similarly untestable hypothesis since of course we can't recreate the conditions of the Big Bang.

[Montmorency]

Yes, it's weird, or possibly Wyrd. The likelihood of anything is a function of the complexity of the outcome. Boil it down to it's most simple - if you roll a six-sided die the probability of getting a 6 is 1/6, roll two dice for two sixes and the probability is 1/36.

With me so far?

What does any of that have to do with complexity? Is one roll of the dice as complex as one roll of two dice? Is one roll as complex as the next?


according to current best estimates in Science the universe is infinitely complex

Where do you get that?


The problem, you see, is that it's not possible to actually prove anything other than that you ARE thinking.

That would be one of the most difficult things to prove, actually - right up there with the existence of God.


I had to sit and think about this. The tense of "dove" is the past or "perfect" sense whilst "dived" is the "plu-perfect". So In this case I said "dove" because that was what he did, he "dove" in. On the other hand I could have said, "after he dived into...". So Dived indicates something that happened and has finished, while Dove indicates something that may be ongoing.

Actually, either "dived" or "dove" can be used in either of those contexts. I don't know about relative frequency or geographical distribution, but they are pretty much interchangeable for most speakers.


Compare "Hung" and "Hanged". Pictures are "Hung" on the wall but men are "Hanged" and then cut down - but while they're on the gibbet they're being "Hung".


This is a different matter entirely. We are speaking of two distinct verbs that happen to be homophonous except for these participle forms.

For example:

I ringed the fire with rocks; I rang John on the phone.

[Greyblades]

You people need to get laid.

[Idaho]

We are not discussing my beliefs, so all reference to what you might imagine they are is off topic. It's a discussion about how belief in God is irrational.

Atheists do not believe in God. That is the raw definition. Individuals who call themselves Atheists may say that they believe there isn't a God, but that's their business. And is actually a different proposition.

You have misdefined agnosticism. It is not the belief that we don't know if God exists but a specific philosophical stance declaring that God is unknowable .

I do not have to prove God doesn't exist. That is ludicrous. And as for your synthesis of the scientific method... Well I don't have the time or patience to correct you, but please be advised that it most certainly isn't coming up with any old crazy idea, giving it a cursory test to try and falsify it, then declaring it true.

I don't have any problem whatsoever with human irrationality. I have plenty of irrational beliefs. But I identify them as such, and try not to let them influence my thinking.

[Montmorency]

You have misdefined agnosticism. It is not the belief that we don't know if God exists but a specific philosophical stance declaring that God is unknowable .

As it turns out, there are a number of different ways to be an agnostic. Taking propositions and a number of other things for granted, all you need to be an agnostic as regards a supreme God is to acknowledge the claim as meaningful and from there declare ignorance, indifference, or incompetence (related to knowability or lack thereof).


Can one of you explain what "rationality" is already?

[Idaho]

You may find this quick atheist quiz handy:

http://atheist-faq.com/quiz.php

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

We are not discussing my beliefs, so all reference to what you might imagine they are is off topic. It's a discussion about how belief in God is irrational.

I'm not discussing your beliefs specifically - I'm arguing that believing in God is no more or less rational than not believing in God.


Atheists do not believe in God. That is the raw definition. Individuals who call themselves Atheists may say that they believe there isn't a God, but that's their business. And is actually a different proposition.

More specifically Atheism is a refusal to believe in a God where there are multiple Gods - there are of course multiple Gods. I only believe in one and reject all others - you reject all Gods. We are both, in fact, Atheists but I'm just slightly less of an Atheist than you.

Granted, if you go all the way back to the pre-Socratics then you have "atheism" is a lack of faith in the Gods but even then you have descriptions of "atheists" afraid the enter the temple - so it really more of a lack of faith in some cases than an actual refusal to believe. I'll see if I can dig up that quote.


You have misdefined agnosticism. It is not the belief that we don't know if God exists but a specific philosophical stance declaring that God is unknowable .

This is usually considered to include the unkowability of his existence - being utterly unknowable is the same as being undetectable. We can split hairs on this all day. The fact is that asserting something does not exist is not, philosophically speaking, a neutral position. The neutral position is "I don't know".


I do not have to prove God doesn't exist. That is ludicrous

I didn't say you had to prove God doesn't exist - I said you had to prove that believing he exists is less rational than believing he doesn't.


And as for your synthesis of the scientific method... Well I don't have the time or patience to correct you, but please be advised that it most certainly isn't coming up with any old crazy idea, giving it a cursory test to try and falsify it, then declaring it true.

Observe - Hypothesise - Test - Disprove.

If you can't disprove it then it might be true.


I don't have any problem whatsoever with human irrationality. I have plenty of irrational beliefs. But I identify them as such, and try not to let them influence my thinking.

I think it's irrational to think they don't influence your thinking.

[Greyblades]

Or maybe Thatcher's Britain has actually resulted in a more tolerant Britain, in that no one cares what others think, as each is concerned only with themselves. Criticising other religions, when those religions don't actively impinge on you, involves caring what those religions say. If people don't care what those religions say, then they don't bother criticising.

No i dont buy that explanation, especially when i referr to the entire west and not britain in particular.

Yeah it is a good thing that beliefs which dont affect anyone but the practicioner are left alone but I feel that whenever religious beliefs result in abhorrant action on a regular basis all too often anyone even suggesting the beliefs being at fault are shut down by either by fear of violent retaliation, unwarranted accusations of racism or accusations of racism caused by fear of violent retaliation..

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What does any of that have to do with complexity? Is one roll of the dice as complex as one roll of two dice? Is one roll as complex as the next?

Rolling two dice is more complex than rolling one - rolling two dice has more potential outcomes.


Where do you get that?

The universe is infinite in time and space, yes? Matter regresses to infinitely smaller particles, yes?

Correct me if either of these statements hase actually been rejected by the school of Physics.


That would be one of the most difficult things to prove, actually - right up there with the existence of God.

The hardest thing to prove except for everything else.



Actually, either "dived" or "dove" can be used in either of those contexts. I don't know about relative frequency or geographical distribution, but they are pretty much interchangeable for most speakers.

This is a different matter entirely. We are speaking of two distinct verbs that happen to be homophonous except for these participle forms.

Disagree - analysis of the formation of the verb indicates they are/were different tenses.

strive, striving, strove, strived

thrive, thriving, throve, thrived

dive, diving, dove, dived

hang, hanging, hung, hanged

sling, slinging, slung, slinged? Pretty sure I can find that usage in middle English.

Then you have -

drive, driving, drove, driven

sing, singing, sung, sang.

Your example of ringed/rang actually reinforces my point.

You "ring" someone of the phone because of the "ringing" sound the bell made on the first telephones.

there you have -

ring, ringing, rung, rang.

They're not wholly interchangeable but because English is no longer an inflected language you can mostly get away with using either. Still, if you look at the verb ending you can see they group into regular conjugations like an inflected language.

Edit -

I took the quiz -

Edit 2 -

That Quiz describes the theoretical position of Skeptical Atheism - or just Skepticism really - but that doesn't mean the majority of people who identify as "atheists" actually believe that.

[Gilrandir]

They are not finite numbers, they are terms of comparison. A thing with two properties is complex next to a thing with one property but simple next to a thing with ten properties. The the case of the current discussion the quantities are infinite, so the only way to describe them is using terms of comparison like "simple" and "complex".


Still, the difference between one and more than one is obvious while between "few" and "many" is vague. Like if you have three children - for Uzbeks it would be few, for Ukrainians (at present) - many. Thus, using such terms should be very limited for the sake of accuracy in debates on philosophy.



The problem, you see, is that it's not possible to actually prove anything other than that you ARE thinking.

That's not to say that we should throw out mathematics and physics, far from it, but we should recognise that they are a theoretical system we use to explain the world rather than a universal truth contained within the world.


All sciences can be roughly divided into those that study human and groups of humans aka societies (those are humanities) and those that study the world around the human (natural sciences). Some sciences thrive as a case of overlapping (technical sciences in the broad sense - those that explain how humans can profit by knowing what's going on around them, e.g. pharmaceutics, agronomy, engineering). Philosophy fits neither category as it aims to expose the most general laws which rule the world, the society and the mind. Trying to study everything results in discovering nothing. Practical application equals zero. Hence, pseudoscience.



I had to sit and think about this. The tense of "dove" is the past or "perfect" sense whilst "dived" is the "plu-perfect". So In this case I said "dove" because that was what he did, he "dove" in. On the other hand I could have said, "after he dived into...". So Dived indicates something that happened and has finished, while Dove indicates something that may be ongoing.

Compare "Hung" and "Hanged". Pictures are "Hung" on the wall but men are "Hanged" and then cut down - but while they're on the gibbet they're being "Hung".






Actually, either "dived" or "dove" can be used in either of those contexts. I don't know about relative frequency or geographical distribution, but they are pretty much interchangeable for most speakers.
This is a different matter entirely. We are speaking of two distinct verbs that happen to be homophonous except for these participle forms.

For example:

I ringed the fire with rocks; I rang John on the phone.

Having been teaching the history of English for 5 years I know what were Old English and Middle English like. In the former the number of irregular verbs (they were strong verbs back then) was much greater that it is now, with the course of time a significant part of them turned into what is now regular verbs (weak verbs back then) because of the general tendency towards analytization which has become increasingly stronger since V century a.d. Some of such changes were indeed based on analogy. At the same time some weak verbs (much fewer in number) became strong. In some cases the process is still going on (like double forms of learnt/learned, dreamt/dreamed). Sometimes these differences are rather lexical than grammatical (hang can form its past simple and past participle in two ways which depends on the meaning of the verb - it is regular if it means to execute and irregular in other meanings). But this is polysemy - several meanings of one word. If we consider lie, then different meanings aren't related thus they are two different homonymous words (to be in horizontal position is irregular (lie - lay - lain) while not to tell the truth is regular (lie - lied - lied). The case of dive is clearly one of borderline cases when lanugage changes are in process and modern norm evidently allows two parallel forms, but they are not marked by any lexical or grammatical differences. Being aware of the language facts I was interested in speech facts, that is how extensive is the usage of dived vs dove. According to Montmorency, the former dominates, yet if I remember correctly, he is an American, so his observations may be accurate for the USA only (and perhaps only for the part of the country he lives in).


Christians do not believe in a magic man or a sky fairy or other such nonsense.


Tolkien was a most devout Catholic, but look at the world he has created.

[Beskar]

Summary of terms in thread.
https://i.imgur.com/TXkIIH0.png

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That is inane and insulting, and if you're going to make posts like that you shouldn't be moderating the Backroom.

It's enough that I put up with people who have no understanding of my field of study constantly denigrating it and making snide comments, I should not have to put up with that sort of thing from the site Admin.

It might be forgiveable if you had a point but you don't.

In your analogy Metaphysics is actually like watching the Scientists looking for the black cat with the flashlight and wondering whether the cat, the flashlight and the Scientists are actually real or not.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Still, the difference between one and more than one is obvious while between "few" and "many" is vague. Like if you have three children - for Uzbeks it would be few, for Ukrainians (at present) - many. Thus, using such terms should be very limited for the sake of accuracy in debates on philosophy.

I am talking about terms of comparison because "real" numbers are impossible to come by. You're asking the right question but rather missing the point of it. If I ask "what is 'many'" the answer is "more than few" and the reverse is likewise. You are correct that the terms "few" and "many" only have meaning when you attach a concrete number to one term, that's because they are comparatives.

The point I was making was, very simply, that a universe created by God is not *less* likely than one which came into being with God - that's all I have to prove to undermine the "complex God" argument. I'm not trying to prove that it's more likely God created the universe, although I suggested that was possible.

I'm not trying to convince you to my world-view. If you thought I was that may explain why you don't understand my point.


All sciences can be roughly divided into those that study human and groups of humans aka societies (those are humanities) and those that study the world around the human (natural sciences). Some sciences thrive as a case of overlapping (technical sciences in the broad sense - those that explain how humans can profit by knowing what's going on around them, e.g. pharmaceutics, agronomy, engineering). Philosophy fits neither category as it aims to expose the most general laws which rule the world, the society and the mind. Trying to study everything results in discovering nothing. Practical application equals zero. Hence, pseudoscience.

Well "pseudoscience" means "not real science" which can be reasonably applied to anything which does not rigidly adhere to the scientific method, and depending on how strict you are you could exclude everything up to Pure Mathematics.

A lot of this is down to a branding exercise, in the late 19th Century "Natural Philosophy" became "Natural Science" and started to define itself by its method of enquiry rather than its quest for knowledge. That was an effort to distance itself from the Academy at large and concentrate on "hard science". That approach has manifest practical advantages but it creates the impression that "Science" is not subject to metaphysics - but it is.

Metaphysics asks "how do we know what we know?" and the answer, ultimately, is that we have to take it for granted. You can't "test" the Scientific Method because no test you devise would be outside the Method and therefore you're stuck in a logical paradox.

Let's try a simile - If I want to test the strength of a piece of steel I could cut it in half and then use one half to test the other half by striking it until it broke. This tells me how strong the steel is against itself but not against, say, granite or diamond. There's no point of comparison, so I only know how the steel stands up to itself, but I don't actually know how strong it is against anything else. The steel could be very strong, or very hard, or very brittle, or it could be none of those things. Logic has the same problem, you can construct many logical problems to demonstrate the internal consistency of logic but it's impossible to construct a logical problem to prove that logic actually applies to the real world. the reason is that all logical problems rely on logic and therefore logic must be accepted as functional a priori ​before you even begin to construct a logical problem.

[Fisherking]

Summary of terms in thread.
https://i.imgur.com/TXkIIH0.png

The analogy is flawed.

First Philosophy is the study of the general and fundamental nature of reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. It is the study of wisdom. It uses logic and critical thinking skills to arrive at answers or solutions to problems.

The fact is that the other three are branches of philosophy.

The Scientific Methodology is the underlying Philosophy of Science. It is what makes science work. Otherwise science is only the collection of data. Science can tell you that there are rooms, cats, and flashlights.

Metaphysics would postulate that black cats could hide easily in dark rooms.

Theology would look for the greater meaning of black cats hiding in dark rooms.

Only logic and critical thinking would tell you to use a flashlight to examine the room for black cats, without stepping in all your metaphoric dung.

[Beskar]

That is inane and insulting, and if you're going to make posts like that you shouldn't be moderating the Backroom.

It's enough that I put up with people who have no understanding of my field of study constantly denigrating it and making snide comments, I should not have to put up with that sort of thing from the site Admin.

It is an alternative view which the authorship was not done by myself. Because some ones views don't align with your own, it does not make them inherently insulting, as I have not mentioned anywhere in the post any personal attacks aimed towards you. If this was the case, then reading the Backroom must be a torturous exercise and that is not including the times there are personal attacks against your character by certain posters.

As for your field of study, I believed that it is history?

It appears I unintentionally hit at nerve with that post due to circumstances I was not aware of and situations I am not involved in, I apologise for any distress caused.


...without stepping in all your metaphoric dung.

Your explanations to some degree follow the metaphoric dung when it comes to the big questions. :laugh4:

[Fisherking]

Your explanations to some degree follow the metaphoric dung when it comes to the big questions. :laugh4:

It would seem that the human mind is for some reason always searching for higher meanings.

Logically you are left with it playing some unknown role in our survival. When something cannot be explained we search for the reasons and the meaning of that secret.

The drive behind metaphysics and theology are the same as the drive behind science. That which cannot be proven or disproven always requires further study.

There is much that could be termed irrational that was proven, often times by people who's primary occupation was as a theologian.

We are still waiting for the existence of a higher power to be proven or disproven. It may be as far fetched as the existence of microbes or atoms but I’ll wait.

[Gilrandir]

I'm not trying to convince you to my world-view. If you thought I was that may explain why you don't understand my point.


I was not talking of any point , still less of any worldview. I was pointing to the inadequacy of terminology to use in any debates on any points.



Well "pseudoscience" means "not real science" which can be reasonably applied to anything which does not rigidly adhere to the scientific method, and depending on how strict you are you could exclude everything up to Pure Mathematics.



When I called it the way I did, I did so not because of any methods philosophy uses, but because in 2500 years it has failed to produce any tangible results of its "researches". We still are not sure what was primary - the mind or the matter. And what exasperates me more, is that one can't PROVE anything and never will. So when one starts any philosophical carreer one is already sure he will reveal nothing to the world. Hence, pseudoscience.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I was not talking of any point , still less of any worldview. I was pointing to the inadequacy of terminology to use in any debates on any points.

The terms I used are sufficient to demonstrate my original point, they don't need to have any further utility than that.

You can't use any actually number when discussing infinity, you can only make vague comparisons.


When I called it the way I did, I did so not because of any methods philosophy uses, but because in 2500 years it has failed to produce any tangible results of its "researches". We still are not sure what was primary - the mind or the matter. And what exasperates me more, is that one can't PROVE anything and never will. So when one starts any philosophical carreer one is already sure he will reveal nothing to the world. Hence, pseudoscience.

Well, you don't have to spend your life studying it, but you should take not of philosophy. Most especially you should take note of the essential point that, as you say, we cannot actually prove anything.

The same is true of science - because all science is based on unprovable a priori assumptions.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It is an alternative view which the authorship was not done by myself.

The structure of your post implies it is your view. How else am I supposed to take the statement "Summary of terms in thread."

Hmm?


Because some ones views don't align with your own, it does not make them inherently insulting, as I have not mentioned anywhere in the post any personal attacks aimed towards you.

That image is an anti-religious propaganda poster - it's an argument from ignorance, designed to convince people who do not understand the fields under attack that Science is the one with the "flashlight".

The imagery is hardly subtle.


If this was the case, then reading the Backroom must be a torturous exercise and that is not including the times there are personal attacks against your character by certain posters.

Most of my life is an exercise in physical or mental torture, the Backroom doesn't rate highly on the list of God's implements of torture, though.


As for your field of study, I believed that it is history?

My field of study is medieval heretical thought - this naturally encompasses philosophy, metaphysics and theology as well as history.


It appears I unintentionally hit at nerve with that post due to circumstances I was not aware of and situations I am not involved in, I apologise for any distress caused.

No, you posted something designed to insult me and convince others I am stupid and/or backward.

One notes that the only reason this thread exists it because I responded to a comment Idaho made in another thread and you apparently found that a cause to split this off so that my views could be analysed in detail. well, I'm game for an intellectual sparring match, to be sure, but perhaps you could have picked a less prejudicial thread title?

[Greyblades]

the Backroom doesn't rate highly on the list of God's implements of torture, though.
Damn, evidently I need to work harder.

[Beskar]

One notes that the only reason this thread exists it because I responded to a comment Idaho made in another thread and you apparently found that a cause to split this off so that my views could be analysed in detail. well, I'm game for an intellectual sparring match, to be sure, but perhaps you could have picked a less prejudicial thread title?

Nothing to do about analysing your views in detail. The content was off-topic and unrelated to the French Terror attacks and was a subject matter in its own right. I have done this to several other ones as well with no personal bias involved.

Idaho questioned how you could be "rational" and "Christian" at the same time. Thus, the title is "Rationality & Christianity: Mutually Exclusive?", because your argument is that it wasn't, and his comment was suggesting there is an assumption that it was. I think the title was a rather fair description of the argument, where does the prejudice come into it? On the side note, it can be argued the title 'leans' in your favour, as it is questioning the assumption as it being false.

[Beskar]

The structure of your post implies it is your view. How else am I supposed to take the statement "Summary of terms in thread."

Admittedly, I don't agree with the metaphysics one, not quite sure how that would work as an example, but the others are pretty accurate in that simple metaphoric dung-sense.


That image is an anti-religious propaganda poster - it's an argument from ignorance, designed to convince people who do not understand the fields under attack that Science is the one with the "flashlight"

Picture arguments explained:
Philosophy is searching for the truth (black cat), but it doesn't have the tools to do so. There is no intrinsic methodology and investigative method to search for it, and in many ways, it is attempting to grasp the truth in the dark.
Science is searching for the truth (black cat), but it does have tools to help it, (flashlight), but even then, it it will still have to search for it and find it which is a difficult task, but it has the best chance of doing so.
Theology one is searching for a 'truth' (black cat) that doesn't exist, and claiming they found in it a 2000 year old book, pyramid, or any other relic depending on belief. This would better renamed as 'Religion', not Theology.

On side note: Site admins are allowed personal opinions, it is whether or not it doesn't creeps into moderation which is something I actively avoid doing, and if I feel I cannot be impartial, I defer it to another staff member to handle.


My field of study is medieval heretical thought - this naturally encompasses philosophy, metaphysics and theology as well as history.

That sounds like an interesting field topic. Perhaps you should share some of your views the different arguments on that in a different topic sometime.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Admittedly, I don't agree with the metaphysics one, not quite sure how that would work as an example, but the others are pretty accurate in that simple metaphoric dung-sense.

It's pretty poor all over.


Picture arguments explained:
Philosophy is searching for the truth (black cat), but it doesn't have the tools to do so. There is no intrinsic methodology and investigative method to search for it, and in many ways, it is attempting to grasp the truth in the dark.
Science is searching for the truth (black cat), but it does have tools to help it, (flashlight), but even then, it it will still have to search for it and find it which is a difficult task, but it has the best chance of doing so.
Theology one is searching for a 'truth' (black cat) that doesn't exist, and claiming they found in it a 2000 year old book, pyramid, or any other relic depending on belief. This would better renamed as 'Religion', not Theology.

And here we see two flaws in the argument.

1. Philosophy searches for truth, Science searches for fact - if you have the two confused you need to read more philosophy. So, in fact, Philosophy asks why the Cat is called a "Cat" and not a "Dog", Metaphysics asks whether the Cat is really, Theology asks why God created the Cat and Science measures the length of the Cat's tail and the sharpness of its claws.

2. To say that Theology is "searching for a Black Cat that doesn't exist" is both foolish and prejudicial. Again, lack of study of Metaphysics. We don't actually know whether the cat exists - to say that it doesn't is a statement of belief, not truth or fact. All statements of belief are essentially theological - ergo when one says God does not exist one is practicing theology.

I'm going to call this "Argumentum ignorantum de magisteria" - An argument reliant on ignorance of the field of study. Basically, the poster appeals to people who support science but have never studied philosophy, metaphysics or theology.

It's worth pointing out that Newton studied all four, and was perfectly happy with God (although he was a heretic). It has been argued that "today Newton would be an atheist" be the New Atheists but in fact Newton knew what he was about better than many people do today. He believed in a logical God and he saw the ordered, mathematically explicable, universe as an expression of God's design. Indeed, his belief in such a God was THE driving force behind his physics because he refused to accept anything was random or arbitrary. Lesser Scientists were willing to accept that the planets has elliptical orbits "because God willed it" but to NEwton the orbits had to be explained logically, because God was logical.


On side note: Site admins are allowed personal opinions, it is whether or not it doesn't creeps into moderation which is something I actively avoid doing, and if I feel I cannot be impartial, I defer it to another staff member to handle.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't like the glib way you've taken to expressing your opinions of late.

Do you suppose I write thousand word answers to browbeat people?

I give the fullest answer I can on topics where I actually know what I'm talking about - if you look back through this thread you'll see I've been generally very careful in responding to people's questions but I've hardly received the same in return, have I?

Posting a sentence fragment followed by someone else's political poster is not conducive to better practices of debate - is it?


That sounds like an interesting field topic. Perhaps you should share some of your views the different arguments on that in a different topic sometime.

It's of little interest to people who don't believe in God - no atheist wants to hear that the people burning heretics at the stake were the morally superior ones and those abiding the heretics were corrupt hypocrites without a moral compass.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Nothing to do about analysing your views in detail. The content was off-topic and unrelated to the French Terror attacks and was a subject matter in its own right. I have done this to several other ones as well with no personal bias involved.

Idaho questioned how you could be "rational" and "Christian" at the same time. Thus, the title is "Rationality & Christianity: Mutually Exclusive?", because your argument is that it wasn't, and his comment was suggesting there is an assumption that it was. I think the title was a rather fair description of the argument, where does the prejudice come into it? On the side note, it can be argued the title 'leans' in your favour, as it is questioning the assumption as it being false.

Let's be frank - the first post in the thread you created is Idaho insulting me - there's really no other way to describe it.

I was done by post six of this thread - I've already proved the argument several times over, and all I've had back is disagreement - but no counter-arguments except Gilrandir who made a valid point about terms.

By all means think me an arrogant prick if you want but I know I've won because we've been having this argument for centuries, and the only way to win is to admit that neither side can prove their claim. I've seen this a great deal online, people from the "sciences" will fight tooth and nail to undermine metaphysics as a discipline because it undermines the a priori basis of the scientific method and brings "science", which has replaced God for these New Atheists" back down to the level of the rest of philosophy.

[rory_20_uk]

So......


Anyone got any rationale behind God yet?

I'm personally leaning to the belief that the Universe was created 150 years ago and everything was put there to look older than it in fact is.

~:smoking:

[Beskar]

It's of little interest to people who don't believe in God - no atheist wants to hear that the people burning heretics at the stake were the morally superior ones and those abiding the heretics were corrupt hypocrites without a moral compass.

That's silly, you watch the new Starwars and you don't believe in the force, and got a keen interest in Science fiction. Same time, you probably got an interest in mythology and fantasy. In short, you don't need to "believe" to have an interest in something, I always have found the arguments interesting and the political power games at stake when the authority of the church being sole provenance with reaching divinity through priests, or that there was a divine connection through prayer without the priests, for example.

I am sure there is a difference between us though, I might not possess the same zeal for the difference views that you might have.


By all means think me an arrogant prick if you want but I know I've won because we've been having this argument for centuries, and the only way to win is to admit that neither side can prove their claim. I've seen this a great deal online, people from the "sciences" will fight tooth and nail to undermine metaphysics as a discipline because it undermines the a priori basis of the scientific method and brings "science", which has replaced God for these New Atheists" back down to the level of the rest of philosophy.

The thing is, burden of proof is on the 'believer', not the null hypothesis. If you came to me with "I have a degree in History", and I go "Okay, show me", and you don't show it me, it wouldn't make sense for me to start phoning up universities and searching for any possible trace of your degree, you would simply get your degree certificate and go "Here it is, Beskar!" then I go "Cool, I heard good things about that Uni too". As such, if I was to claim the Universe is part of Stephen Hawkings' pocket-universe in a multi-universe is the truth, I would have to go and prove to a satisfactory level.

Either way, my "atheism" is a position easy to defend because you are right, there is currently no way to prove what is the 'truth' because it is unknown, and we don't even have a unambiguous definition of what a 'god' is. Now, to think about all the different religions in the world, there is no way prove what is more correct than the other. So why allow these things to guide my principles? I rather stick to my humanism based on reason, than some fairy tale passed down during generations which has distorted from what it originally was anyway, which was based on errors.

[Gilrandir]

The terms I used are sufficient to demonstrate my original point, they don't need to have any further utility than that.

You can't use any actually number when discussing infinity, you can only make vague comparisons.

Perhaps. But I believe science discussions should operate more rigid terms. Evidently it applies not to all sciences.



The same is true of science - because all science is based on unprovable a priori assumptions.

I heard that Pythagoras actually managed to prove some nonsense about hypotenuse (whatever it means - an insect of some kind, not unlikely). ~;)



My field of study is medieval heretical thought - this naturally encompasses philosophy, metaphysics and theology as well as history.





That sounds like an interesting field topic. Perhaps you should share some of your views the different arguments on that in a different topic sometime.

Burn him at the stake, PFH. You are sure to know your way about it.



I rather stick to my humanism based on reason, than some fairy tale passed down during generations which has distorted from what it originally was anyway, which was based on errors.
... but which equally doesn't make them false (but not true either).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's silly, you watch the new Starwars and you don't believe in the force, and got a keen interest in Science fiction. Same time, you probably got an interest in mythology and fantasy. In short, you don't need to "believe" to have an interest in something, I always have found the arguments interesting and the political power games at stake when the authority of the church being sole provenance with reaching divinity through priests, or that there was a divine connection through prayer without the priests, for example.

I am sure there is a difference between us though, I might not possess the same zeal for the difference views that you might have.

The thing is, burden of proof is on the 'believer', not the null hypothesis.

Actually, that's not true.

Depending on the probability of the hypothesis it may be necessary to prove the null. In the case of "God" it is recorded that the majority of people throughout the majority of history have believed in some form of "God". In this instance you have a lot of circumstantial evidence that God exists, so if you can't prove the Null (God does not exists) then it's not unreasonable to think he does.

The problem here is that you're trying to use probability and logic to prove or disprove something unquantifiable and the lack of quantifiable data means you can't say either way how likely it is God exists or not. Despite that you are left with the fact (and it is a fact) that huge quantities of people believe in Him.

Idaho would have you write those millions of people off as irrational.

[Beskar]

Depending on the probability of the hypothesis it may be necessary to prove the null. In the case of "God" it is recorded that the majority of people throughout the majority of history have believed in some form of "God". In this instance you have a lot of circumstantial evidence that God exists, so if you can't prove the Null (God does not exists) then it's not unreasonable to think he does.

And these accounts vary greatly in their telling and they are discussing various different 'gods' and not the same one. After all, the Emperor of Rome was a god, but I think he was a mortal with a superiority complex. Similar with the Pharaohs of Egypt.

I have to be honest though, it would suck to be a catholic for example, then find out Mormons were right all along. Or to simply discover it was actually some died off faith from the antiquity thus we are all doomed to the eternal hell fires for not being true believers..

Problem rises is not only do you have to some how come up with evidence that there is something there, but you have to also support that you are correct and all these other ones are wrong. Then you have to come up with a definition which isn't unambiguous to what is actually the case.

I will put my hand up and say I don't know the answer, I haven't got the slightest clue what the truth is, and I don't think I will ever find out. However, I don't feel I am wrong in being honest about it, but it always could be worse and be a supporter of the Goa'uld or Ori.


Idaho would have you write those millions of people off as irrational.

It isn't irrational, but it doesn't make it the truth. There are many reasons why religion exist, I put it this way, did your grandmother say things like break a mirror for 7 years bad luck? This isn't part of any organised religion, but it is the basic principle of why religion exists, people believe in things which are not true, they pass on their beliefs, sometimes effective, sometimes not, but these meme's pass through our society. Now you get these beliefs organised, you set up a few temples, and now you have a religion. In history, this is either used as a way to justify an unfair system, or to justify oppression, and in other cases, these are also sometimes used to justify altruistic behaviour.

I have no inherent problem with people who follow a religion, it only becomes a problem when it is used to justify things which are plainly wrong. Then again on the other hand, you have the Salvation Army is going out their way to help the homeless? Give them a few quid, it goes to a good cause.

I am more interested in the person, not the religious identity they belong to.

[lars573]

Tolkien was a most devout Catholic, but look at the world he has created.
An extraordinarily Latin Christian one. Gandalf is a straight up Angel (albeit of a lesser host) after all.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

An extraordinarily Latin Christian one. Gandalf is a straight up Angel (albeit of a lesser host) after all.

Yes, and it's all overseen by a God that may or may not get directly involved - we're not exactly sure.

[Gilrandir]

I have to be honest though, it would suck to be a catholic for example, then find out Mormons were right all along. Or to simply discover it was actually some died off faith from the antiquity thus we are all doomed to the eternal hell fires for not being true believers..


The latter a flawed premise since the idea of hell as a pit full of fire is the Christian one. Other religions have different visions on what is hell and what can cause your abiding there. Who knows, you may get to Valhalla, after all.


An extraordinarily Latin Christian one. Gandalf is a straight up Angel (albeit of a lesser host) after all.
There are many more parallels (or invocations) of the Bible in Tolkien's works. I have a book called The battle for Middle-earth in which the author exposes all religious implications of Tolkien's legendarium (perhaps even those of which Tolkien wasn't conscious).


Yes, and it's all overseen by a God that may or may not get directly involved - we're not exactly sure.

As The Silmarillion shows, the last direct intervention of Eru (the God) happened when Numenor was destroyed. But even before that such interventions were extremely rare. Eru's will worked rather through the will of the Valar.

Oops, I'm sorry. If Beskar spots as much as three sentence in a row on a deviant topic, he will split the thread. Be cautious guys.

[Fisherking]

I seem to recall discussions among the wise of Tom Bombadil being Eru.

[Gilrandir]

I seem to recall discussions among the wise of Tom Bombadil being Eru.

The Wise or the wise of these boards? Because according to Tolkien Bombadil was a Maia of a kind.