How are intelligent, critical thinkers still religious?

21-09-2010 11:32AM

raah! wrote: »

The pont made was unaffected by this. It doesn't matter how much you understand something. A purely rationalistic account of the unvierse is "purely rationalistic". Of course, the more you understand the more there is to appreciate, that's not the point.

Excuse me, that's exactly the point.
You said:

The reason rationality is "cold" is that it plays no part in appreciating the beautiful universe.

Can you explain how understanding and adding more to try to understand and appreciate does not add?

raah! wrote: »

I don't know that that's a proper way to use the word amazed either. The word has connotations of surprise with it, and surely the more you understand somethign the less surprised you'll be.

Then you do not understand science, in any sense.
Constantly the more I learn about the universe through that horrible cold rationalism and science the more and more I am surprised.

Zombrex · 21-09-2010 11:35AM

Nemi wrote: »

But this doesn't work, as I think Dawkins even explains in 'The Selfish Gene'. Natural selection would favour the free rider - the person who accepts your protection of his child, but who doesn't reciprocate.

There is no long term way that can work.

Natural selection will de-select the people who mind other people's children but never gets anything back (since that is all disadvantage and no advantage), and with them gone the free rider has no one to mind his children. Such a system is an evolutionary cul de sac

With evolution you can't simply think what gives me the most benefit in the immediate short term. Evolution doesn't work like that, we are talking about traits surviving hundreds of thousands of years.

raah! · 21-09-2010 11:38AM

King Mob wrote: »

Can you explain how understanding and adding more to try to understand and appreciate does not add?

Of course if you include the word appreciate in your sentence like that you will have more to appreciate. If you look to the sentence, wicknight had a problem with "cold rationality", and he said he couldn't understand the term. I explained it. Rational and emotional responses are generally seen as separate. Rartional responses alone preclude aesthetic appreciation.

Then you do not understand science, in any sense.
Constantly the more I learn about the universe through that horrible cold rationalism and science the more and more I am surprised.

This is saying "the more you understand the more you realise you don't understand, and therefore the more there is to surprise you". This is quite different from simply understanding something more. This is thinking you understood something and then realising you do not. Note the wonder or surprise here comes from what you do not understand.

The only sense in which to understand science is that it is a methodology using mathematical modelling and empirical observation. "Understanding beauty" has got nothing to do with science.

Zombrex · 21-09-2010 11:39AM

raah! wrote: »

I don't know that that's a proper way to use the word amazed either. The word has connotations of surprise with it, and surely the more you understand somethign the less surprised you'll be.

Surprise is about the unexpected. The more we learn about the universe the more the answers we get back are unexpected, thus the more surprising and amazing they are.

Contrast this with say religion which produces "answers" only within the range of limited human imagination. God is human like and does human like things for human like reasons because the 4th millennium farmers who came up with the idea couldn't imagine anything else. It is about as surprising and amazing as a Katy Price novel.

raah! · 21-09-2010 11:43AM

Wicknight wrote: »

Surprise is about the unexpected. The more we learn about the universe the more the answers we get back are unexpected, thus the more surprising and amazing they are.

Contrast this with say religion which produces "answers" only within the range of limited human imagination. God is human like and does human like things for human like reasons because the 4th millennium farmers who came up with the idea couldn't imagine anything else. It is about as surprising and amazing as a Katy Price novel.

Ah now, harken ye back to that thread on the complex subject of the simplicity of god, and the lively discussion generated from that. Surely those ideas of Aquinas and those other fellows were not in the same category as a Katy Price novel.

Anyway, If we continue in our discussion of morality, then even if what you are saying is correct, I think you will be able to view it in a different light.

Zombrex · 21-09-2010 12:06PM

raah! wrote: »

Ah now, harken ye back to that thread on the complex subject of the simplicity of god, and the lively discussion generated from that. Surely those ideas of Aquinas and those other fellows were not in the same category as a Katy Price novel.

Of course they are. Aquinas didn't come up with anything amazing or surprising. People can say things like God is all powerful and ultimately simple all they like, it is just words with no meaning or context in the real world. It was purely mental masturbation, like asking what a round square is, or supposing all the different ways Darth Vadars mask might work. All entirely limited by the human imagination.

Take a single discovery from quantum physics within the last 100 years and it is more surprising and amazing than the entire history of Christian theology.

A lot of people don't like that. They want things limited by the human imagination because if things can only be what humans can imagine then they can relate to it. They want amazing within the context of what they can relate to, surprising within the range of what they can easily understand. Which is where religion and theology comes in.

raah! wrote: »

Anyway, If we continue in our discussion of morality, then even if what you are saying is correct, I think you will be able to view it in a different light.

What is "it" in this sentence?

raah! · 21-09-2010 12:22PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Of course they are. Aquinas didn't come up with anything amazing or surprising. People can say things like God is all powerful and ultimately simple all they like, it is just words with no meaning or context in the real world. It was purely mental masturbation, like asking what a round square is, or supposing all the different ways Darth Vadars mask might work. All entirely limited by the human imagination.

Well saying things are limitted by the human imagination is a bit silly. I see what you are getting at, that material things are not. But if they were not we would be completely unable to comprehend them.

Also, does this mean you think maths is only useful insofar that it is applicable to physics? And that physics is only so usefule insofar as it is applicable to technology. I'll tell who else said this sort of thing... the nazis!!!

And another thing, pointing out that someone has mentioned the nazis isn't much of a statement. The reason people do it is because it is an objective standard of badness or wrongness, that's how good or bad works. We compare them to some arbitrarily bad thing.

Take a single discovery from quantum physics within the last 100 years and it is more surprising and amazing than the entire history of Christian theology.

Well that really is a matter of opinion. Something which would not be surprising to you would be very surprising to a christian theologian.

A lot of people don't like that. They want things limited by the human imagination because if things can only be what humans can imagine then they can relate to it. They want amazing within the context of what they can relate to, surprising within the range of what they can easily understand. Which is where religion and theology comes in.

Well, if you read the thread I mentioned, you'll see the things being discussed were far less possible to imagine that anything we've discussed so far.

What is "it" in this sentence?

Theology. Or all other branches of philosophy that do not have a direct bearing on things like atoms and stones. People go on about emperor's new clothes and then make theological arguments (yourself in that thread for example), people go on about evolutionarily derived morality (this is actually an impossibility by the way, hume's gap) and then make tacit appeals to moral absolutes.

Turtwig · 21-09-2010 12:41PM

Firstly the idea, or concept, that the view of the world as truly rational would be cold and desolate is only ever going to be academic. Not because the idea is right or wrong, but because Human Nature simply doesn't allow us to make decisions using the "rational" part of our brain. People tend to think the scientific view of the world is cold and detached, the way science gathers its data may be, but the scientific view of the world is purely subjective and depends on the individual. Most people, simply don't find the view of the universe as atoms, physicals laws enticing or poetic. I'd argue not because it isn't beautiful, but because at its core science goes against our own intuition nearly all the time. It is so much easier for humans to visualise supernatural agents, e.g Nobody here should have any trouble visualising an angel healing somebody. At the same time everyone, not one person here, can visualise a light wave as a stream of discrete packets of photons. Visualising the supernatural stuff just comes easier, much easier. This leads to the undeniable fact that when it comes to the supernatural we are nearly all experts, we can all discuss it, feel it, proclaim its transcendence. When it comes to science we can only see logical and mathematical approximations attempting to explain stuff. These nearly always appear cold and abstract to the majority so we have to construct analogies, but in doing so we lose the details. Regardless of the analogy we use, the supernatural stuff is simply always going to be more beautiful and exciting. Does something being beautiful mean it is true though? I think this is fruitless and shallow exercise to try and argue that something is beautiful than something else. In my mind, beauty is something that is subjective.

Secondly, morality is really bloody complicated. Suggesting it is a evolutionary mechanism ignores the stark reality that social evolution of humans has been in effect for thousands of years. That said, the idea that empathy is something all mammals share with one another is pretty much scientifically demonstrated. Of course, the thing that I think both the proponents and critics of that as the basis for morality missed was that evolution doesn't deal in absolutes. Evolution deals in percentages of a population and as long as that percentage is high enough a specific trait will be passed on. It doesn't require every single organism in that species to adhere fully to the trait. - it just requires a significant number.

Des Carter · 21-09-2010 12:43PM

Dades wrote: »

Atheism doesn't require Dawkins or science as far as I'm concerned.

Step (1) (For us products of the Irish school system)
Take the Christian story and sum it up on a single piece of paper. Read it out loud. In a blinding flash of logic it becomes abundantly clear how absolutely barmy it is, how it is simply a half-baked human creation with mythical characters and a human-like God.

Step (2)
Repeat for any other religion someone tries to peddle you.

Ok this is exactly what I mean when I say a closed-minded Atheist you just go oh there is no proof of God therefore he mustn't exist and will refuse to believe in one unless there is certain proof.

for step 1 of your argument the main thing that hit me is that you believe all the characters are fictional. This is completely false and even Atheists admit this as there has been proof that Jesus did infact exist.

as for it being "barmy" I agree with you but this is down to the failings of the Catholic Church pushing their own agenda and failing to interpret the bible in anyway apart from the literal way, with the best example being the man-like God. Im a Christian yet I believe that God is not like a man all yet no one (either Atheists or Catholics) will even entertain this notion.

As for step 2 thats another example of your ignorance as you do not know a thing (im assuming) about the vast majority of religions yet you already dismiss them.

Its statements like these that give Atheists a bad name.

Zombrex · 21-09-2010 12:43PM

raah! wrote: »

Well saying things are limitted by the human imagination is a bit silly. I see what you are getting at, that material things are not. But if they were not we would be completely unable to comprehend them.

I wouldn't say our comprehension is limited by our imagination. We can comprehend things we could not have imagined ourselves. It is very hard, granted, but still possible.

raah! wrote: »

Also, does this mean you think maths is only useful insofar that it is applicable to physics?

I'm not sure what you mean. Maths is useful in any area that it provides use. Ultimately everything is physics, but I assume you mean the scientific disciple of physics. In which case I would say no, I use maths in computer science all the time and it is very useful.

raah! wrote: »

And that physics is only so usefule insofar as it is applicable to technology. I'll tell who else said this sort of thing... the nazis!!!

Haven't you heard, we aren't doing that any more :pac:

http://www.rallytorestoresanity.com/

raah! wrote: »

Well that really is a matter of opinion. Something which would not be surprising to you would be very surprising to a christian theologian.

That is why they are still Chrsitian theologians :P

raah! wrote: »

Well, if you read the thread I mentioned, you'll see the things being discussed were far less possible to imagine that anything we've discussed so far.

No they weren't. They were, as I said, mental masturbation, putting illogical words and concepts together and then saying it was all unimaginable. We can't imagine what God is like because he is all these contradictory things I've just imagined and slammed together to stand back and think I've discovered something new.

That isn't what I'm talking about with relation to science, which is actual discovery. A blue green thing is unimaginable but only because it is nonsense. A round square like wise. They all fit within the realm of easy to imagine concepts, they are just slammed together to form nonsense terms and saying how wondrous it all is (which is basically all theology is) is not a serious exploration of reality.

If you find that amazing more power to you. I personally find it idiotic.

Zombrex · 21-09-2010 12:44PM

Des Carter wrote: »

Ok this is exactly what I mean when I say a closed-minded Atheist you just go oh there is no proof of God therefore he mustn't exist and will refuse to believe in one unless there is certain proof.

Do you believe in every concept it is possible to imagine?

Or do you believe only in the things you have reason to believe in?

Des Carter · 21-09-2010 12:47PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Contrast this with say religion which produces "answers" only within the range of limited human imagination. God is human like and does human like things for human like reasons because the 4th millennium farmers who came up with the idea couldn't imagine anything else. It is about as surprising and amazing as a Katy Price novel.

Why do you assume God is human like I mean by being Atheist Im assuming you are saying institutionalised religion is wrong yet you still hold the same irrational views as them when it comes to God (something that is seoperate from any 1 religion)

Des Carter · 21-09-2010 12:50PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Do you believe in every concept it is possible to imagine?

Or do you believe only in the things you have reason to believe in?

I believe in the things I have reason to believe in but I also believe that every concept should be examined with an open mind before it is ruled out.

Zombrex · 21-09-2010 12:50PM

Des Carter wrote: »

Why do you assume God is human like

I don't, religion does. Can you name me one world religion with gods where the God or gods are not human like? Judaism, Christian, Islam, Hinduism, Greek, Norse all have human like gods

Turtwig · 21-09-2010 12:52PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Surprise is about the unexpected. The more we learn about the universe the more the answers we get back are unexpected, thus the more surprising and amazing they are.

Contrast this with say religion which produces "answers" only within the range of limited human imagination. God is human like and does human like things for human like reasons because the 4th millennium farmers who came up with the idea couldn't imagine anything else. It is about as surprising and amazing as a Katy Price novel.

The problem is though that you taking a very pragmatic approaching to deciding which method of enquiry is the best. I don't think one should judge a philosophy on the basis of how practical it has turned out to be. It should instead be judged on how logical and rational it is. There are atheist theologians who take time to understand the subject and criticise it, simply stating that it hasn't produced practical outputs is unfair. The subject and method of study itself needs to be shown as logically unsound and irrational.

Zombrex · 21-09-2010 12:55PM

Des Carter wrote: »

I believe in the things I have reason to believe in but I also believe that every concept should be examined with an open mind before it is ruled out.

Since they all probably grew up in religious societies I would imagine most if not all atheists examined religious claims before ruling them out.

Your objection seems to be that we can't prove God doesn't exist so we must continue to believe he does. How does that work? You don't do that I imagine with the infinite number of other things we can imagine, can't disprove, yet don't believe are real.

When was the last time someone disproved the existence of the Native American spirit guides? You think they exist? Or what about the traditional Irish fairies? You believe they are real?

raah! · 21-09-2010 12:57PM

Wicknight wrote: »

I wouldn't say our comprehension is limited by our imagination. We can comprehend things we could not have imagined ourselves. It is very hard, granted, but still possible.

I could equally say we can imagine things not comprehensible to us. Or perhaps think of some abstract concept which is inherently un-understandable. (that thread gives a taste of this)

I'm not sure what you mean. Maths is useful in any area that it provides use. Ultimately everything is physics, but I assume you mean the scientific disciple of physics. In which case I would say no, I use maths in computer science all the time and it is very useful.

It seems you missed the point somewhat. There are many parts of mathematics that have yet no application. My point was, if you think that the only use of science of maths is it's application then you are saying somethign which the vast majority of scientists and mathematicians would disagree with. See Einstein's thing about the different reasons people do physics.

Haven't you heard, we aren't doing that any more :pac:

http://www.rallytorestoresanity.com/

Well I didn't read all of this, but are you saying that my exclamation mark there was like shouting? If so I'd rather we don't stoop to such a level in this discussion, although I know that can be hard for some people in this forum.

I guess I'll reply to the rest in a while.

Zombrex · 21-09-2010 12:57PM

Malty_T wrote: »

The problem is though that you taking a very pragmatic approaching to deciding which method of enquiry is the best. I don't think one should judge a philosophy on the basis of how practical it has turned out to be. It should instead be judged on how logical and rational it is. There are atheist theologians who take time to understand the subject and criticise it, simply stating that it hasn't produced practical outputs is unfair. The subject and method of study itself needs to be shown as logically unsound and irrational.

Not in relation to how amazing or surprising it is. If a person is only working with their own mind then the only thing they can come up with is what they can imagine. It doesn't matter if this is practical or impractical, logically sound or unsound. It will still only be what they can imagine.

Des Carter · 21-09-2010 12:58PM

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't, religion does. Can you name me one world religion where the God or gods are not human like?

Not off hand but Im sure some do exist. Also I believe most gods are portrayed as human like because it is the easiest way for humans to understand God. I see the whole idea of God being a human as an analogy for God (a simplified version thats easier to comprehend).

Also you are referring to the failings of organised religion or the Catholic Church which should base its teachings on the word of Jesus but instead teaches concepts from the old Testament. For example Jesus never said God was like a human (or anything similiar) yet the Catholic Church teach this idea from the old testamont ("and God created man in his likeness" (not exact quote))

Zombrex · 21-09-2010 01:04PM

raah! wrote: »

I could equally say we can imagine things not comprehensible to us. Or perhaps think of some abstract concept which is inherently un-understandable. (that thread gives a taste of this)

True but that isn't relevant to the point. We can imagine a blue green thing simply by getting the concept of a blue thing and a green thing and combining the parameters. We can imagine a small big thing, or a heavy light thing. But none of those things are amazing or surprising.

Same with theology. Theology just slams concepts together and sees which ones they like the best. None of that is amazing or surprising. It just produces incoherent nonsense, because people pick the concepts to keep not based on how they relate to reality (since there is no way to examine if any of the theological concepts are actually real) but on how pleasing to the eye ear or mental faculties they are. As such it is the exact opposite of surprising or amazing.

So you end up with nonsensical concepts like "infinite love", which mean nothing at all on proper examination but sound really nice (if I love my wife this amount then God loves me an infinite amount, ah that is nice)

And the vast amount of people are happy with that because the true nature of reality is not the motivation for any of this, it is to be comforted and warmed by nice concepts.

raah! wrote: »

It seems you missed the point somewhat. There are many parts of mathematics that have yet no application. My point was, if you think that the only use of science of maths is it's application then you are saying somethign which the vast majority of scientists and mathematicians would disagree with.

I never said that the only use of maths was its practical application, did I?

raah! wrote: »

Well I didn't read all of this, but are you saying that my exclamation mark there was like shouting?

No, I'm saying comparing things to the Nazi's is so 2009. If you don't watch the Daily Show with John Steward you probably won't get the reference.

Des Carter · 21-09-2010 01:07PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Do you belive in coincidence?luck?chance/randomness.

Yes, no, yes yes

I don't believe in fate or luck or pre-destiny.

Ok so you believe in randomness/coincidence/chance yet there is no proof that randomness/coincidence/chance exists yet you still believe in it but you dont believe in a God?

is this not an accurate statement?

however I do not believe in randomness/coincidence/chance in that I believe that things happen as a result of previous things happening in the past.

For example if I flip a coin the result will not be random, it will be determined by a large number of factors (the size,weight of the coin, the direction the coin is facing before its flipped, the velocity at which its flipped, the angle it hits the ground at etc).

Zombrex · 21-09-2010 01:08PM

Des Carter wrote: »

Not off hand but Im sure some do exist.

Why?

The concept of gods in nature is the produce of the human instinct to see human agency in nature. We evolved this instinct to help us more easily process the chaotic natural world, since so much of our brain is given over to human to human interaction.

Des Carter wrote: »

Also I believe most gods are portrayed as human like because it is the easiest way for humans to understand God. I see the whole idea of God being a human as an analogy for God (a simplified version thats easier to comprehend).

Again why do you believe that? You are basing that on what reasoning?

Des Carter wrote: »

Also you are referring to the failings of organised religion or the Catholic Church which should base its teachings on the word of Jesus but instead teaches concepts from the old Testament. For example Jesus never said God was like a human (or anything similiar) yet the Catholic Church teach this idea from the old testamont ("and God created man in his likeness" (not exact quote))

Jesus also said that the Old Testament was infallible. This comes back to the question of why you pick and choose what bits of Jesus' words you believe.

Zombrex · 21-09-2010 01:11PM

Des Carter wrote: »

Ok so you believe in randomness/coincidence/chance yet there is no proof that randomness/coincidence/chance exists yet you still believe in it but you dont believe in a God?

There is no proof anything exists (see philosophy of science), there is how ever strong evidence that randomness exists from quantum mechanics.

Randomness can also be used in layman terms for systems that are far far to complex to make predictions, or where there is no direct involvement from an intelligence. For example if I get hit by a piano because the rope some guys were lifting it up by snapped at the moment I was walking under it I would call that a random coincidence, despite it actually being probably possible to predict that was going to happen if you modeled every element of the system (ie the universe).

21-09-2010 01:20PM

raah! wrote: »

Of course if you include the word appreciate in your sentence like that you will have more to appreciate. If you look to the sentence, wicknight had a problem with "cold rationality", and he said he couldn't understand the term. I explained it. Rational and emotional responses are generally seen as separate.

No you said:

The reason rationality is "cold" is that it plays no part in appreciating the beautiful universe.

I gave you a very valid part it plays in appreciating the beautiful universe.
Separated but not exclusively so or at odds with each other.

raah! wrote: »

Rartional responses alone preclude aesthetic appreciation.

Unless of course you're rationally examining the concept of aesthetics.
Or in the example of art, learning about the life and times of the artist to understand his work.
Or any of nearly endless other examples.

raah! wrote: »

This is saying "the more you understand the more you realise you don't understand, and therefore the more there is to surprise you". This is quite different from simply understanding something more. This is thinking you understood something and then realising you do not.

Actually it's more along the lines of "Oh! phenomenon A exhibits behaviour X, this can explain phenomenon B, and that's pretty awesome."

Or in the example given by Richard Feynman in the video which you apparently didn't watch, rationality lets you understand the processes that lead to the flower and the processes still going on in the flower, and appreciate both these as well as the amazing fact that they led to the flower in the first place.

Now the question is how does the absence of rationality in this add anything?
Or worse, saying the equivalent of "a wizard did it!"?

raah! wrote: »

Note the wonder or surprise here comes from what you do not understand.

The only sense in which to understand science is that it is a methodology using mathematical modelling and empirical observation. "Understanding beauty" has got nothing to do with science.

Again showing a complete lack of understanding on your part.
Go watch Carl Sagan's Cosmos.

robindch · 21-09-2010 01:30PM

Des Carter wrote: »

yet there is no proof that randomness/coincidence/chance exists

Fail.

Des Carter · 21-09-2010 01:51PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Not off hand but Im sure some do exist.
Why?

Because of the sheer volume of religions that exist for example I think wikka doesnt believe in a human like god.

Wicknight wrote: »

Also I believe most gods are portrayed as human like because it is the easiest way for humans to understand God. I see the whole idea of God being a human as an analogy for God (a simplified version thats easier to comprehend).

Again why do you believe that? You are basing that on what reasoning?

Because If God exists then surely he would be far more complex than humans and so it would be/is impossible fior humans to understand God so they explain him through an analogy of a human.

Im not sure about other religions but I know that in Christianity etc these analogies and parables are very common (God as the shepard/king/etc also all the Old Testament).

Wicknight wrote: »

Jesus also said that the Old Testament was infallible. This comes back to the question of why you pick and choose what bits of Jesus' words you believe.

I really dont think he did I think thats what the Catholic Church wants you to believe but if you can give me the quote or show me where he said that I will have to reconsider all my views!

Des Carter · 21-09-2010 01:54PM

Wicknight wrote: »

For example if I get hit by a piano because the rope some guys were lifting it up by snapped at the moment I was walking under it I would call that a random coincidence, despite it actually being probably possible to predict that was going to happen if you modeled every element of the system (ie the universe).

so your saying randomness doesnt exist

Des Carter · 21-09-2010 01:55PM

robindch wrote: »

Fail.

Please explain. Can you prove randomness exists?

Zombrex · 21-09-2010 02:11PM

Des Carter wrote: »

so your saying randomness doesnt exist

I'm saying that literal randomness does seem to exist at a quantum level, but also people commonly call randomness when describing very large chaotic systems.

Perhaps you should clarify exactly what you are asking me. How are you using "randomness" in this context.

robindch · 21-09-2010 02:29PM

Des Carter wrote: »

Can you prove randomness exists?

The concept of random exists because it has been defined in the mathematics of probability. Behaviour which is essentially random exists in many places in nature -- fluid-flow, weather, behaviour of markets etc, etc -- despite the causal properties of the physical world at a non-quantum level. At the quantum level, random behaviour appears to be an intrinsic property of nature.

I think if you defined what you mean by "randomness" and "exists", there might be less confusion.

How are intelligent, critical thinkers still religious?

Comments