[woodsyi]

Scott,

I enjoy your diatribes.   It makes for much spicier reading than some of those boring tomes on theology.  I mean good --  not perfect.  No human being is perfect.  I am talking about those people who display the presence of agape and try to do good and suceed for the most part.  I have seen, heard and read about them from all nations and religions.  

We all come from different backgrounds and are at different places on our spiritual/religious journey.  I respect you for being where you are -- you have clearly examinied yourself and have come to decisions.  I disagree that "your" way is the only way and I would offer that there are parallel roads to the narrow gate.  

Now for a teaser, what would this world be if god made us perfect from the beginning?   Why didn't he?

[Tyson]

I have to say thank you to the contributors to this thread.  It has lead to a "moment of clarity", an epiphany, if you will.  I've finally realized why I always had such a hard time with religion and belief in god, and why so many other people have no problems with it.  

It has to do with purpose and meaning.  One of the things I've not realized how fundamental it is, is the need for meaning in the universe and (a greater) purpose in life.  It is specifically this desire that gives religion and god such a magnetism and appeal.  And I've now realized that this is specifically a desire/need that I lack.  I now realize (thanks to this thread and some introspection), that I truly don't feel like there is (or needs to be) a reason for the universe's existence, and I also don't feel a desire for my life to "mean something" in that sense.  Looking back on my life, I also realize those are feelings that I've never had.  That is the epiphany I've had.  Now that I realize that, I'm free to take a look at why I still strugle with the idea of God and with religion.

I find (ironically), that my struggle comes from an intellectual standpoint, not from an emotional one.  Steping back a bit, it is easy to see that the atheist/skeptic view point is perfectly valid and logical, once the premise that there is no god is accepted.  On the other hand, if you accept the idea that there is a god, then it is perfectly reasonable that his nature and his wishes would be laid down in a set of holy writings which he more or less commisioned.  

The issue for me is that from within the skeptic context, all claims of religion completely lack weight and are generally ridiculous on the face of it.  However, from within the religous context, only godly explanations are fully satisfying and are broad enough (and personal enough) to cover the pressing questions.  This is shown with great clarity to me in Scott's writings on this post, and CS Lewis' writings as well (which is probably why Scott recommends them).  

I see even more clearly than before that the choice to believe in god or not is truly fundamental, in that it sets the context for all later knowledge and observations.  Unfortunatly, knowing that the choice is fundamental does not in any way help me in actually making that choice.  To be more specific, what I need (from God, if he exists), is proof or evidence that transcends the skeptic context (which I'm in), and shows me, "THIS IS THE PATH".  But until/unless something like that comes along, if I'm truly honest with myself, I know that I'll stay in the skeptic context.  I can't "make" myself believe in something that I just don't believe.  I'm open to it happening one day, but

[ScottMayo]

Scott,
I mean good -- not perfect. No human being is perfect. I am talking about those people who display the presence of agape and try to do good and suceed for the most part. I have seen, heard and read about them from all nations and religions.

And frankly, the track record of those calling themslves Christian has not been so great, so it's not like any clever Christian goes around pointing fingers for long.

It's wonderful to be loving and to try to be good - that's what we call "Necessary, but not Sufficient" in my line of work.

I disagree that "your" way is the only way and I would offer that there are parallel roads to the narrow gate.

Paul nearly agrees with you. That is,

Rom 2:14 For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.  For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:  Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them ...

The "or even defend" is fascinating. Paul is clearly letting people off the hook who do not *know* God's demands, but are trying to do what is right, succeed to some degree and can be forgiven because they recognised their own uncertainties. Or to paraphrase Lewis - we know men are saved only through Christ - we just don't know if, in all cases, the men know that's what's happening.

My beef with this (and it's *always* fun when a fundie takes issue with the Bible), is that the ice is so thin. A Christian who believes and has faith, knows where he stands. Someone inadventantly trying this "I didn't know anything about God, I was just trying to muddle through" defense... will it work? We don't know. We have this one fragment of a sentence out of Paul that suggests it could. Would *you* want to risk it?

At any rate, it's a failed defense in this part of history. Someone that's never heard the gospel, knows nothing of God, and just tries to do his best - sure, he's a candidate for this "inadvertent salvation", if I read Paul right. But Christianity is taught in every part of the world now, in virtually every language. Almost anyone who hasn't heard the gospel, at least enough to investigate the claims, is putting his fingers in his ears. Does *that* strike you as the posture of the honest truth-seeker, bound and determined to learn and do what is right?

I am reminded of the good Roman fellow that Jesus talked to (apparently good Romans were rare enough that this conversation deserved a write up). "You are not far from the kingdom of God," Jesus told him.

Kind of gives you a shiver, doesn't it? "Not far" is good, but it's not Arrived. And that's still a scary place to be.

Now for a teaser, what would this world be if god made us perfect from the beginning? Why didn't he?

Well, and who said he didn't? We're all sinless at the start in my view, it's a question of keeping it that way. Seems to me that Adam got off on the wrong foot, and the whole's parade has kept step with that.

Still, I can speculate what a perfect world would be. I wouldn't need audio gear for one thing, because people who sang well would get together in the evenings and sing glorious music for free.    Food would be shared out better and it would never, ever occur to anyone to kill over a pretty stone or a piece of real estate. Wire manufacturers would stop claiming that cryo treatments do anything, and people would have given up tribalism; and if Augustine was right, the sex would have been better (though this makes me wonder about Augustine a little). We wouldn't need Jesus or Christianity; you don't need a mediator when you can experience God directly.

It's *really* a pity we missed that boat.

[John Casler]

You're saying there's no reason to believe; have you read through the reasons that exist? Because I haven't seen any discussion of them here; I've just heard you assert that you expect someone else (God) to do things the way you'd do them, if He exists at all. And that's simply not an argument of any sort.

I am open to hearing any reasons, but in over 50 years haven't encountered anything compelling.  Also I haven't encounterd any emotional emptiness, nor do I find any lack of purpose in my life, so I am not in a search, other the the intellectual exploration of how and why people beleive what they do.

I don't expect your vision/version of God to do anything.  In fact, as I see it, he cannot, has not, and will not.  You cannot point to any single act, event or incident in history that can be proven to be that of the God you belive in.

That is an argument.

I could sit here today and issue a challenge to the most powerful and intelletual being you claim exists, and "nothing" will come directly from him/her/it.

Not a word, not a sign, not a revelation, not an epiphany.  Nothing.

I don't mean that to belittle the power and majesty you find in your belief, but it simply doesn't put wind in my sails.

It's the real amateur philosophers, who have never looked at either side of the equation, that get dogmatic.
 

I admit to not being a professional philosopher  But I have had a fair look at the equation.  I ask the hard questions and to this point the answer is always "faith", as if that is an end in itself.

Dogmatic?  Only to the point that I won't accept the blind faith of others as a reason to accept blind faith for myself.

I regret that is a frustrating point for beleivers, and certainly don't find it unusual that some easily accept what I dont' find credible without a challenge.  It happens everyday. (even in audio )

You have a religion? Do tell.

Well to the point of having an inate sense of self, and how it relates to infinity, yes.  But as a system of worship to a godlike diety, no.

Good thing that it doesn't require any "worship".  It also doesn't require that I suspend reality to know it.  It makes perfect sense in the Universe as I know it, and it is elegantly simple.

It is a product of reductive analysis as much as possible.

It does not provide "purpose", origin or destination, since they are not something I need, to complete me.  It has no morality beyond what I find moral in my everyday life.  

It is not based on fear, control, or guilt.

It has no ritual, or paternal design.  

It is the simplicity of accepting reality.

[Anarchist]

An inate sense of self and a materialist only universe are mutually exclusive. If there are only atoms randomly bouncing around, then the "self" can not and does not exist. You can not have both world views simultaneously.

Of course, you may want to interject that you aren't a believer in a materialist only universe, so you can hang onto belief in the self or in yourself. But, as an anarchist, I say you can't concede that much ground in the discussion. It should be obvious to you that there is no such thing as the non-material. It doesn't exist. Neither does the self. Yourself. Your ideas. Your thoughts. Your epiphanies. Your revelations. Your will. Nothing. Atoms only.

[ScottMayo]

I have to say thank you to the contributors to this thread....

Glad to be of service.

It has to do with purpose and meaning. One of the things I've not realized how fundamental it is, is the need for meaning in the universe and (a greater) purpose in life. It is specifically this desire that gives religion and god such a magnetism and appeal. And I've now realized that this is specifically a desire/need that I lack.

Desire for a purpose in life... yeah, that varies among people. Some people are happy with a day job, a hobby, and a few friends or family. They never look up. Hey, not everyone wants to be a philosopher when they grow up.

A need for meaning, though...

Things either have meaning or they don't. Here's an example of a statement with meaning:

I am convinced that the sky appears blue.

Here's an example of meaninglessness.

jklsdn oh ekl ewleoe nqldeoe nw ow kwoie nwjw xand ohos nhhn ndio nnwjiwiow asywdsduiequiwd nxcjqhw mcdeehqw jeqwjk jolpjwe ncznae wqodn ngq

Now imagine that everything you ever read, heard or thought was meaningless. If you can do it at all, it's the stuff of nightmares. (Fans of the old Outer Limits show: contemplate the sentence "he barely touched his dinosaur." Remember that one? Outer Limits was frequently a Philosophy 101 class.)

So like it or not, you're a very firm believer in meaning. I know this because you believe in communication, or you wouldn't be typing, and communication is utterly predicated on meaning.

But how is meaning possible? It's not that simple a question. If you believe in the purely materialist view, you believe that the universe came out of nowehere, by chance (ie, there was no meaning to the fact that it happened, no one made it happen), and became a lot of particles bouncing around, without meaning. The particles continue to bouce around, some of them as me, some of them as you, quite a lot of them as Oprah, and they continue to do so without meaning, because no one is able to show how time, plus random chance, plus meaninglessness, can ever give rise to meaning. If love, thought, music and all the rest are purely mechanical phenomena, blind particles in our heads following blind physical laws that arose by meaningless chance, then, frankly, ghdfo so s bhasos lnawp s nslosqao uge.

But we don't believe that. People rescue babies from burning buildings because they do not believe that the baby is just another meaningless accretion of meaningless particles, just another gfdpvgfvhs. In fact if you saw someone calmly watching a baby die in a fire (on the grounds that saving the baby is just as meaningless as watching it burn, since it's all meaningless anyway), you'd assume they were extremely evil. And you do this because you believe in meaning, and in fact you have an extremely developed sense of meaning which differentiates things into right and wrong, or at least good and bad.

So don't feed me this "I don't need meaning" shtick. Anyone with that philosophy who bothers to write down such a sentence, is in a deep state of self-contradiction.

[ScottMayo]

Of course, you may want to interject that you aren't a believer in a materialist only universe, so you can hang onto belief in the self or in yourself. But, as an anarchist, I say you can't concede that much ground in the discussion. It should be obvious to you that there is no such thing as the non-material. It doesn't exist. Neither does the self. Yourself. Your ideas. Your thoughts. Your epiphanies. Your revelations. Your will. Nothing. Atoms only.

I can't tell if this is irony, but I'm still giggling. There's something very wonderful about the idea of someone admitting that thoughts are nothing and them writing them to someone else anyway, as if writing nothing could possibly matter.

On the off chance that you mean it, could you please stop typing? Thinking and typing both increase entropy (entropy increases anytime something changes), and we've got a limited supply of order we're trying to hang on to in the universe. Using it up for *nothing* is, well, seeing as you think it's all meaningless anyway, it doesn't really matter, does it. Carry on.  

Though I need to ask - have you murdered anyone today, anarchist? Why not? Murder is, after all, an act totally devoid of meaning (as you at least will *definitely* appreciate), and it's said to be kind of a kick. At any rate, it means one less person competing for your food, and you get to keep their stereo gear...  

[John Casler]

An inate sense of self and a materialist only universe are mutually exclusive. If there are only atoms randomly bouncing around, then the "self" can not and does not exist. You can not have both world views simultaneously.

Of course, you may want to interject that you aren't a believer in a materialist only universe, so you can hang onto belief in the self or in yourself. But, as an anarchist, I say you can't concede that much ground in the discussion. It should be obvious to you that there is no such t ...

Hi Anarchist,

I didn't say I was into a "materialist" only universe.

You lost me with the rest.  Remember, I'm an amatuer

[ScottMayo]

I don't expect your vision/version of God to do anything. In fact, as I see it, he cannot, has not, and will not. You cannot point to any single act, event or incident in history that can be proven to be that of the God you belive in.

That is an argument.

Yes, I think it's your first concrete claim since I joined the thread. And having been handed some concrete, it's time to get the jackhammer out.  

You use the word "proven". This is a tricky word. What standard of proof do you accept? If you need something proven with the mathematical rigor of geometry, then you're right. No question concerning reality can ever be proved. "I exist" doesn't even have a proof, at that level.

How about logic? Let's pick some facts we agree on - there are bound to be a few - and extract a few consequences. If those consequences lead to an "unlikely" but coherent conclusion, would you call that a "proof"?

Or does it all have to pass your personal rules for what's "likely", which are based on whatever set of facts you've personally decided to accept and reject?

I'm willing to take a stab at upsetting your apple cart, but I need to know the rules.

I could sit here today and issue a challenge to the most powerful and intelletual being you claim exists, and "nothing" will come directly from him/her/it.

Could you? Let me ask it differently. Ever tried it?

[Anarchist]

While we're proving things, prove to me that the non-material exists. I'll accept proofs from any of you believers in the existence of non-material realm, John C. especially, since we now know that he believes in the existence of such a thing.

Failing such a proof, I would be most interested in why you believe in such a stupid idea. (I learned a lot about ridicule on this thread so I thought I would try it.)

It would also be most helpful if someone could explain the origin of this thing (or is it a non-thing).

[ScottMayo]

While we're proving things, prove to me that the non-material exists. I'll accept proofs from any of you believers in the existence of non-material realm, John C. especially, since we now know that he believes in the existence of such a thing.

Failing such a proof, I would be most interested in why you believe in such a stupid idea. (I learned a lot about ridicule on this thread so I thought I would try it.)

Hey, it's not ridicule, it's merely pointed comments intended to elicit a response. It's only an insult if I mean it, you miserable murderer-in-potential-form.  

Anyway, you yourself believe in meaning, which is not a material object. You prove you believe in meaning by writing in a language you believe (belief assumes meaning, remember) to be capable of communicating information (which also requires a context of meaning.) You haven't left me anything to prove.  

[John Casler]

While we're proving things, prove to me that the non-material exists. I'll accept proofs from any of you believers in the existence of non-material realm, John C. especially, since we now know that he believes in the existence of such a thing.

Failing such a proof, I would be most interested in why you believe in such a stupid idea. (I learned a lot about ridicule on this thread so I thought I would try it.)

It would also be most helpful if someone could explain the origin of this thing (or is it a non-thing).

Anarchist,

I cannot prove that the non-material exists, nor can anyone.  I simply stated I recognize the possibilities.

[Tyson]

So don't feed me this "I don't need meaning" shtick. Anyone with that philosophy who bothers to write down such a sentence, is in a deep state of self-contradiction.

I've been respectful of your views, please do not take a condescending tone with mine.

To address your point - to be more specific, I don't think life (my life or anyone else's) has a "higher" meaning, ie a meaning that goes beyond the fact of life itself.  I want to live.  I want to feel happy in my life.  So, do I believe that words have meaning?  Of course I do, that's a straw man argument you've set up and knocked down.  It may work with those that say "Nothing has meaning", because they are in self contradiction with that statement (or any statement at all, for that matter).  What I am saying is that some things have meaninig and other things don't.  To me, the question of "Life, the Universe, and everything" fall in the "don't have meaning" category, whereas the words I'm typing right now fall in to the "do have meaning" category.

To follow that train of thought to the end, many people ask "Why are we here?  What is the purpose of our existence?  Why does the universe exist? etc...".  You can see how very quickly this train of thougth leads one to god.  I'm merely saying that since I personally don't feel these questions are relevant, and therefore it does not lead me to god.  

I am a skeptic in the sense that I don't believe in the supernatural.  But I am not a skeptic in the sense that I recognize that skepticism is only valid in a certain context (only the natural world exists), and not valid in another context (that a supernatural world also exists).  Since I've not seen first hand any evidence that would point out it's existence, logically I have to fall back on the negative position.  And to take it further, since the supernatural is specifically that which is above or beyond the natural, I don't expect to ever see "evidence" in the traditional scientific/logical sense of the word.  I realize that the only "evidence" that would truly convince me would be something above and beyond reality.  Something extraordinary.  But I feel that's pretty fair, since extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

[Anarchist]

OK,

I'll try Tyson. Do you or do you not believe in the non-material?

Another question: What's the point of using prepositions like above or beyond in the discussion of material (or your word in this case - natural)? Either the stuff exists or it doesn't. I don't get it.

The location of this non-material seems like presuppositions you are making that are in no way commonly agreed upon. If you don't believe in god why do you have a notion of its location?

I guess what I am suggesting, Tyson, is that you forget about God until some basics are cleared up. Specifically, prove that the non-material exists, then, failing the ability to do that satisfactorily, explain why you believe in it, and finally, explain its origin. Once you have done that, then words like above, beyond, meaning, thought, will etc. will actually mean something.

As for _SM_'s  idea that my very question of asking for a proof of the existence the non-material proves that it exists, all I can say is that isn't what I would call a scientific proof but more of a demonstration of what is axiomatic. Unfortunately, that doesn't satisfy me.

[Tyson]

Do I believe in the non-material?  Depends on what you mean by non-material.  If you can tell me your definition of that, then I can tell you if I believe in it or not

[Marbles]

Anarchist, why do you feel the need for multiple alias's..

Right now you are registered as:

 Seminarian
 Anarchist
 Zoe

inquiring minds want to know......

[Anarchist]

Promotes anarchy.

[ScottMayo]

I've been respectful of your views, please do not take a condescending tone with mine.

Sorry. I've argued with enough people who do take "meaning" to be all-inclusive (or claim to, and try to make that work), that I take a pretty hard line on it.

To address your point - to be more specific, I don't think life (my life or anyone else's) has a "higher" meaning, ie a meaning that goes beyond the fact of life itself.  I want to live.  I want to feel happy in my life.  So, do I believe that words have meaning?  Of course I do, that's a straw man argument you've set up and knocked down.  

No. It's not. Because once you accept that there is meaning behind words and thoughts, that there's such a thing as information and that it can be conveyed, you've left behind the strict materialist position, and things open up. The two positions that no one can argue with are strict materialism (because you can't commuicate with those people), and the radical "it's-all-someone's-dream" philosophy (the Maya argument). Those two positions are closed and unassailable, impossible to prove false and impossible to prove anything from, so if anyone takes those positions, I just throw up my hands and leave them alone. Any other position - the rest of us out here in the "cogito ergo sum" world - I'm willing to talk through.

Now maybe you'd say, duh, no one could be a materialist in that strict a sense, that's ridiculous, why even bother to point out that communication implies information implies meaning? And you're right - strict materialism is an easily shredded position in actual practice, because no one actually lives as if it was true. But a number of people argue as if they implicitly believe in strict materialism, once you start to lean on their position, without ever once considering if it makes sense. So I take a strong line on people who seem to be veering that way.

OK, so you believe that words have meaning, but some "higher" questions might not. So let's work our way up towards some of those "higher" questions and see where you draw the line.

Do you believe that murder is wrong? (I'm not talking about executing criminals or other questions of justice - I mean the raw "He has a shiny watch and I want it, so I'll cut his throat and take it"). And because that's such an obvious question I'll go further and ask "WHY is it wrong?"

[ScottMayo]

I am a skeptic in the sense that I don't believe in the supernatural

In fairness, you probably make one exception, because pretty much everyone does. You probably believe (becasuse our physicists tell us so) that the universe had a beginning, a time 0. Before that (and it's very dicey using the term "before" in this context, because what we call time is part of the universe, not something that existed before it, as far as we know), something happened which got the whole ball of wax going.

I'm not arguing (here) that this means God acted, or that it requires you to believe in magical fairies. I'm just pointing out that supernatural means "not within nature" and that the origin of the universe did not happen within what we call nature - since what we call the natural order didn't exist at that point. So we know definitively of one supernatural event. Most of us have heard rumor of others.

If the reason to disbelieve in God is a determined disbelief in anything supernatural at all, then you're just one difficult problem away from having a completely consistant position. Though I might be able to add some others.  

[Tyson]

Do you believe that murder is wrong? (I'm not talking about executing criminals or other questions of justice - I mean the raw "He has a shiny watch and I want it, so I'll cut his throat and take it"). And because that's such an obvious question I'll go further and ask "WHY is it wrong?"

To answer the question, I do think it is wrong.  But that begs the question of what is right and wrong?  Where do these ideas come from?  I will note that these ideas are questions of morality.  So then the question becomes, where do we get morality from.  Obviously a religious person will answer they are "from god", because in their context, man is by definition evil (or at the very least "flawed"), so there for all goodness (and ability to discern goodness) comes from that absolute good they associate with god.  In fact this is not too far from the track that Lewis takes, it's pretty effective, but to me it isn't a compelling case.

Here's why.  In my context (skeptical), I do NOT view man as evil, or even flawed.  I see man as a being of volition (free will).  The fact that we are volitional means we have to choose to do good or choose to not do good.  And part of being able to choose the good is actually knowing what the good is.  

And this brings us to the question of "concience".  Why do humans seem to know "instinctively" when they are doing something wrong, and why are they bothered by it.  Since we have discounted the god explanation, we should look at nature.  Here are my observations.  Certain animals (including man) are "social" or herd animals.  The likelihood of their survival (as a species) is higher if they stick together.  2nd observation - within a species, you see intense competition (especially for mating), between species members, but it is rare that you actually see members of these social species actually turn on each other and start killing the competition.

From that, here are my conclusions - that survival of the species supercedes survival of the individual.  Millions of years of evolution have programmed this in to almost all walks of life, and it is especially strong in social species that often have better survival chances via cooperation instead of mortal conflict.  

So, we are biologically programmed to value human life above all.  But of course, being creatures of volition, we can choose to ignore or go against that imperative.  When we do, we feel "bad", and have twangs of concience.  And if you follow it out with specific examples, most things that we feel "bad" about almost always have a component of harm done to another human being.

So, to sum up, I would posit that morality is the result of our species valuing human life above all.  If that is the standard, then morality not only makes sense from a social stance, but from a biological stance as well.

In fairness, you probably make one exception, because pretty much everyone does. You probably believe (becasuse our physicists tell us so) that the universe had a beginning, a time 0.

Actually, I don't.  Physicists are capable of mistakes, like anyone else.  I happen to think this is simply a mistake on a massive scale.  It's certainly far in to the realm of "speculative" physics (ie, there's some evidence that "might" be interpreted this way, but it's far from definitive at this point).  Besides, the very idea of the universe being created voilates the basic truth of physical reality that nothing is created or destroyed, it merely changes form.  Toss in to that that most physicists that seriously advocate the big bang will admit that once all that mass and energy is reduced to a certain size (and therefore, density), that "the laws of physics as we know them break down".  Well, once you admit that the very tools you've used to get you to this point are no longer valid, you've evicted yourself from the realm of science and landed in the realm of speculation and make believe.  It's a cop-out on a massive scale.

I believe there is a fundamental mistake being made in that they are "setting out" to find the "beginning" of the universe.  But what if there is no beginning.  What if the Universe is simply eternal?  You might say "If the universe is eternal, why is everything moving away from everything else and a constant rate, which is consistent with the big bang theory?".  Good question.  Here's an alternative interpretation (and believe me, it's ALL interpretation once you get past the basic data), it's that we know black holes exist on a local scale.  What would happen if a looooooong time ago a "black hole" became so massive that it simply sucked in (or most) matter/energy in the universe, then when it reached a certain density level, the process voilently reversed, creating what appears to us now to be a "big bang".  

Now, you can certainly say that "that's not provable, we have no idea what happened before the "big bang", and that's precisely my point.  WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE THE BIG BANG.  It's ALL speculation, and that's true no matter how much scientific lingo you dress it up in.  So, given those criteria, my interpretation is just as valid as the standard interpretation that everything was "created" in a single instance (which is ridiculous on the face of it.  Created?  From what?  How?  No answer from the scientists, that's for sure).