patrick.net

Bap33 says

elliemae says

Bap33 says

great post marcus

Yes, it was a great post. But remember, just as there's no proof that God exists, there's no proof that he doesn't. It's all beliefs.

Eschew Obfuscation

That was the point we all made to Dan and Leo just a few million lines above, and they said, "No, Bap, You big dumb ape, we do not believe in your sky daddy because we use nothing but "logic" to explain all things!! You only believe in sky daddys because you are a buffoon!!" (paraphrased a little)

love the dog story, by the way.

Bap your paraphrasing is grossly inaccurate, while you indeed may be a "big dumb ape" --as you put it-- no where in the above posts did I say that I do not believe in "your sky daddy". For one I don't know which of the sky daddies/mommies you have chosen to believe in.

Also, I have been very clear that religion/atheism is all beliefs. I don't see why this seems to be some shocking revelation to you. The big difference that you seem unable to grasp is that religion is a belief contrary to the evidence, while atheism is a belief because there is no evidence to believe otherwise.

Now when I say religion, I am not referring to a "clock maker god(s)" theory, for whom there is no evidence for or against, but that is another discussion.

Just in-case you did not get it the first time around:
Your sky daddy = A belief contrary to the body of evidence
Atheism = A belief, because there is no evidence to suggest otherwise

So, just like you choose to be an atheist about Thor --still not sure what god(s) you believe in so I could be wrong here-- because the possibility that Thor exists lacks credible evidence; atheists choose to not believe in any gods.

I hope this clears things up for you a little bit.

BTW, I am still waiting for your proof that I am not god.

marcus says

Sure they can . Many choose not to believe in God, or to live their life based on the existence of and worship of God. But this is a far cry from asserting with certainty that God does not exist. That sounds like religious dogma to me. It's very much like some Christians who arrogantly feel that what they have found to be true for themselves is true for everyone, and that they need to spread the word so that others can have the same enlightened experience.

What about when a kid asks you if Santa Clause is real? Do you say, "maybe"? So as to be impartial and reasonable concerning the existence of Santa?

So, if I assert, with certainty, that the next time you step on a sidewalk you will not fly up into the air. Does that sound like religious dogma? What if there was a group of people that thought you very possibly would fly into the air, and I was making my assertion contrary to their beliefs [ http://www.theonion.com/articles/evangelical-scientists-refute-gravity-with-new-int,1778/ ]? Would my comment be religious dogma then?

No one can prove that you will not go flying into the air, it just might happen. Would you remain purely agnostic on the idea that you may or may not go flying into the air the next time your foot touches a sidewalk?

Philosophically one can never be certain about anything, but the probability of some events being "true" is so close to zero they might as well be untrue. In fact it is logical and wise for us to operate as if they are untrue (this is not just restricted to religion). Is knowledge so loose weave that people are stepping out of second story windows, expecting to gently float to the ground? They might, who knows! No one can prove that the next person to step out will not float.

I don't see the big deal of some people saying that something is untrue when the chance of it being true is that low.

I really don't care what people believe. What consenting adults do in privacy is their own business, and I understand that the religious mystical experience can be very real to people. What annoys me is when people legislate their religious system, or thrust their beliefs into the lives of others.

CL says

That's why the Tao says, "Those who know don't say, those who say don't know".

Doesn't this pearl of wisdom invalidate every-other thing written in the Tao Te Ching? Or is it implied that while those who know "don't say", they write a book of wisdom! Then they never talk about their book.

elliemae says

Organized religion is often about who is more reverent and believes the most.

BINGO!

You never see people gathered together in a building chanting

"All Hail the several organic elements of the Periodic Table!"
"Friction causes heat, oh yes it does, I believe!"
"The Sun appears to rise in the East, and Set in the West!"
"Go out and tell the world, that at room temperature, H2O is a liquid!"

In other words, the faithful doth praise too much.

So if I get cancer, should I sit around all day and pray it gets better? There are a lot of people that think so. AFAICR, the effectiveness of that method is equal to a placebo. Me, I'll take science any day. As shoddy and iffy and human as it is still, it's got a better record of success.

CL says

No need to reply! :)

I see what you did there.

leoj707 says

Or is it implied that while those who know "don't say", they write a book of wisdom! Then they never talk about their book.

Not sure that the knowledge referred to in the quote was the same as the knowledge shared in the rest of the TaoTe Ching, but if it were, you might have a point.

I was more partial to Chuang Tzu. It's interesting that Thomas Merton, a famous Catholic trappist monk, was very interested in Eastern Spirituality and did a lot of Chuang Tzu translations, put together in this book.

http://www.amazon.com/Way-Chuang-First-Directions-Paperbook/dp/0811201031

(editted Chuang Tzu not Lao Tsu; what can I tell you, it's been a long time. Great book though, highly recommended. Probably time for me to get back to it again)

leoj707 says

What about when a kid asks you if Santa Clause is real? Do you say, "maybe"? So as to be impartial and reasonable concerning the existence of Santa?

So, if I assert, with certainty, that the next time you step on a sidewalk you will not fly up into the air. Does that sound like religious dogma? What if there was a group of people that thought you very possibly would fly into the air, and I was making my assertion contrary to their beliefs

Well, I guess that's check and mate. MY hat is off to you sir, for finding such a perfect analogies to make your point that I am speechless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VrFV5r8cs0

I would encourage you to listen to the short videos in the seriesI posted yesterday. In my view all of the "experts" in the series had interesting ideas to share. Well, one guy didn't actually say much, and another sounds like an arrogant twit, but I was impressed with all of the other 6.

http://bigthink.com/series/38/series_item/4821

Vicente says

So if I get cancer, should I sit around all day and pray it gets better? There are a lot of people that think so. AFAICR, the effectiveness of that method is equal to a placebo.

Actually, it's even worse than getting a placebo. As The Chicago Tribune reports (and Seattle Times republishes)

Praying for a sick heart patient may feel right to people of faith, but it doesn't appear to improve the patient's health, according to a new study that is the largest ever done on the healing powers of prayer.

The new study, which appears in the April issue of the American Heart Journal, was designed to be large enough to see if patients who knew they were being prayed for had better recoveries.

Of course, the people funding the study wanted to see a positive correlation between prayer and recovery so they could get more people to pray. Funny, when the correlation turned out to be negative, no one has the balls to state that people should refrain from praying.

Correction above. Chuang Tzu. Doh !!

leoj707 says

Just in-case you did not get it the first time around:
Your sky daddy = A belief contrary to the body of evidence
Atheism = A belief, because there is no evidence to suggest otherwise

So, just like you choose to be an atheist about Thor --still not sure what god(s) you believe in so I could be wrong here-- because the possibility that Thor exists lacks credible evidence; atheists choose to not believe in any gods.

Actually atheists go beyond "not believing" they go all the way to asserting that THEY KNOW with as much certainty as they know that Santa Clause doesn't exist (although, he does in a way - sometimes), that God does not exist.

I always try so hard with my students to emphasize the importance of understanding the question. When you or Richard Dawkins looks at the question of Gods existence, as far as I can tell, you don't even understand the question. You certainly don't understand what the answer is that many believers would give.

To make your argument, you need to frame God as "Sky daddy" or as a human like interventionist God.

Check this out (not from that series I posted before, but from one of the "experts" in it.) I like this lady and think I need to read her book.

"What is God?" (Karen Armstrong)
http://bigthink.com/ideas/17656

@Victor,
Everyone is going to die.
Everyone faces that fact differently.
Cancer, bullets, violent, peaceful, young and old ... each faces the exact same ending. Some folks just want one more breath.

But, as for your question about praying for health, I read the Bible and it does not say to do it that way. It says, have faith that you can heal in the name of Jesus ... but, it also promises that everyone will die .... so, at some point, we all get old and die. A complex situation, no doubt. What we die from don't matter to anyone but the living.

I oft ponder if those raised from death by Jesus are still roaming around, since they have already went through death once, as is the agreement.

marcus says

I would encourage you to listen to the short videos in the seriesI posted yesterday.

I agree with your assessment, interesting overall, but a couple were meh...

Yes, religion and science answer different questions, and over the millennia questions originally posed religion have been slowly answered by science. The problem is that religion does not want to let go of their "answers", and let science do it's job. This holds humanity back. I do realize that there are many people who don't let their faith get in the way of accepting science.

If religious questions --those that science can't and/or may never answer-- remained benign philosophical musings on the nature of god I don't think atheists would concern them selves at all with religion.

marcus says

Actually atheists go beyond "not believing" they go all the way to asserting that THEY KNOW with as much certainty as they know that Santa Clause doesn't exist (although, he does in a way - sometimes), that God does not exist.

Dan8267 seems to be a good example of what you are talking about here, but as with religion there are many flavors of atheists. By definition to be an atheist all that is required is to not believe in gods. Being that both Santa and gods have the same level of proof that they are real I can understand why someone would say they know with certainty both are not real.

The videos you posted have some good examples of religious-agnostics, and they are not mutually exclusive. While religion and atheism are mutually exclusive atheism and agnosticism are not.

marcus says

To make your argument, you need to frame God as "Sky daddy" or as a human like interventionist God.

Yes, that is why I put this disclaimer in a previous post:
leoj707 says

Now when I say religion, I am not referring to a "clock maker god(s)" theory, for whom there is no evidence for or against, but that is another discussion.

I have had very little discussion with true believers where their god was not a sky daddy/mommy. Karen Armstrong had a few examples, but I think that these believers are a small minority. People like to anthropomorphism their cars, pets and gods. Yes, it is a totally different discussion when someone is asserting a belief in a clock-maker god or some other totally foreign being.

That said the level of evidence for a clock-maker is the same as for Thor.

Bap33 says

But, as for your question about praying for health, I read the Bible and it does not say to do it that way. It says, have faith that you can heal in the name of Jesus ... but, it also promises that everyone will die .... so, at some point, we all get old and die. A complex situation, no doubt. What we die from don't matter to anyone but the living.

I oft ponder if those raised from death by Jesus are still roaming around, since they have already went through death once, as is the agreement.

Hmmm... not sure why you would say that everyone has to die. I don't know what version of the bible you are reading, but in my King James version Jesus is very clear on the powers of prayer.

Matthew 17

17:20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

Matthew 21

21:22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

John 14

14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
14:14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

It looks to me like nothing is impossible, and that should include preventing death. Not only that, but you get whatever you ask for in prayer. All you need is a tiny bit of faith (the size of a mustard seed) in Jesus and if you ask him he will do anything for you. So, anyone who has a little faith in Jesus should be able to pray for eternal life.

leoj707 says

but I think that these believers are a small minority.

Every atheist would think that more sophisticated spiritual views were a minority. In fact, if they truly comprehended even a single of these, then by my reckoning they would be agnostic if not religious, but certainly not limited to their atheism.

leoj707 says

I do realize that there are many people who don't let their faith get in the way of accepting science.

Bravo. That at least is some progress. Very big of you.

leoj707 says

Being that both Santa and gods have the same level of proof that they are real I can understand why someone would say they know with certainty both are not real.

You surprise me with this one.

Leo, dear, dear, Leo,

Turn to Gen 1, read that there was no death planned for Adam or Eve until they sinned, and then God told Eve, "since you screwed everything up, you will have to drop kids in a most painful fashion.", and then read the part where the life of man was shortened after Noah to 75 years or so. These are the basic standards of physical life that are detailed in the Bible for all men, and have not yet been changed.

All physical life dies.

All spiritual life never ends. Ever.
The physical life must end ... even those who are standing around when Jesus returns must be/and will be/ "changed in the twinkle of an eye."

Watch for the UFO that gets credit for removing a bunch of the nicest people on your block ....

I'm still stuck on:

marcus says

they know that Santa Clause doesn't exist (although, he does in a way - sometimes),

In my house, Santa smoked Marlboros and drank whiskey. He also swore like a sailor and looked amazingly like my dad.
We would gracefully accept the bikes he put together - then go out back & grab the extra pieces he'd thrown out and my brother would put them together correctly.

So, in summation, Santa looks like my brother too.

Bap33 says

Leo, dear, dear, Leo,

Turn to Gen 1, read that there was no death planned for Adam or Eve until they sinned, and then God told Eve, "since you screwed everything up, you will have to drop kids in a most painful fashion.", and then read the part where the life of man was shortened after Noah to 75 years or so. These are the basic standards of physical life that are detailed in the Bible for all men, and have not yet been changed.

All physical life dies.

All spiritual life never ends. Ever.

The physical life must end ... even those who are standing around when Jesus returns must be/and will be/ "changed in the twinkle of an eye."

Watch for the UFO that gets credit for removing a bunch of the nicest people on your block ....

So then in Matthew 17:20 Jesus is lying when he promises you can do the impossible through prayer? Sounds like you don't have much faith in Jesus.

Bap33 says

Watch for the UFO that gets credit for removing a bunch of the nicest people on your block ....

The Rapture (the ascension into heaven of the faithful prior to the end of days) was a widely held Christian belief until the 19th Century. It still is not part of most Christian sects' belief systems, and is found generally only among American Evangelicals and those they converted in the past 150 years.

Why did it take 1800 years for this to be 'revealed'?

Also, Jesus is coming soon. Is 2000 years "Soon"?

"I'm nigh, at the very door. I'll see you in a couple of thousand years"

"Well, he meant soon in God-perspective time".
"But he was talking to humans. Hopefully God is smart enough to put it in their own terms. Why not? He put all his parables in human terms. Not only human terms, but in cultural context appropriate to the time and place. Why did he not do this with the 'coming soon' promises?"

Let's see some Mountains Move. Or better yet, a limb grow back. After all, ANYTHING is possible in Christ. Although he seems to only heal stuff that's hard to verify, like back pain. A regrown leg, or even a finger, would be a definite sign of faith.

leoj707 says

CL says

That's why the Tao says, "Those who know don't say, those who say don't know".

Doesn't this pearl of wisdom invalidate every-other thing written in the Tao Te Ching? Or is it implied that while those who know "don't say", they write a book of wisdom! Then they never talk about their book.

Ha! Well, of course. Which is why religion is paradoxical, yes? But I find the Tao to be the most logical consistent on this front.

Which, to answer Patrick's riddle, is why that does not apply. One is applying human knowledge and experience to that which is by definition, transcendent.

These questions are like Koans..the sound of one hand clapping....they aren't meant to be answered, especially with the logic center of the human brain.

How many angels are on the head of that pin? :)

In other words, prove to me now that something entirely unknowable does not exist? Something beyond human comprehension. In the Tao, the Tao does not care if you believe in it or don't. It just is.

How are things proven that are not perceivable by human senses?

That's why it is best saluted by saying, "I don't know". It's really the only thing you can know.

RE: Santa---he could exist, but one has to make assumptions about his existence either way to move forward. But an assumption is not logical proof.

I personally don't believe in Santa, but I find a striking similarity between Jesus and Frosty. "He'll be back again someday!"

leoj707 says

Dan8267 seems to be a good example of what you are talking about here, but as with religion there are many flavors of atheists. By definition to be an atheist all that is required is to not believe in gods

Originally, the words were defined as such:

atheism - Coming from the prefix "a" meaning without, atheism is the lack of a belief system. An atheist neither believes nor disbelieves in any god or theological system.

agnostic - Holding the specific belief that it is not possible to know whether or not a god or gods exist. A "weak" agnostic believes that while a person is alive, he cannot know if there is a god, but once he dies he can find out if and only if there happens to be a god. A "strong" agnostic" believes that it is not possible to know whether or not a god exists even if you die, go to heaven, and meet the god face-to-face, because you can never be sure that the god is really a god and that the afterlife is the final state.

However, over time these definitions have changed. Today people use the word agnostic to mean neither believing nor disbelieving in god and the word atheist to mean disbelieving in every god, as oppose to a monotheist who just disbelieves every god but one.

As for me, yes I disbelieve in all gods, so I'm like a monotheist who just applied my reasons for disbelieving in other gods and applied them to the god whose religion I was born into. Unlike the religious, I didn't go into the argument with the conclusion that god exists and then looked for ways to justify that conclusion. I went into the argument with no conclusions and through knowledge and reasoning came to the inescapable conclusion that god doesn't exist.

That's an important difference. If you start with a conclusion and refuse to yield, there's no reasoning that will make you change your mind. This is nothing more than willful ignorance. I'm more than willing to accept that all of creation came into being from a unicorn taking a crap, if you can show clear reasoning and evidence that this is true. [Note to Tea Party members: This isn't actually true. The universe came from Jesus taking a crap.] However, I'm not going to take The Unicorn Shit Hypothesis of the Origins of the Universe as an article of faith. I demand at least a reason for considering it to be plausible. So far, The Unicorn Shit Hypothesis has the same level of credibility as The God Hypothesis of the Origins of the Universe, i.e., none.

Both conjectures offer no testable predictions, no mathematical proof, no logical reasoning, and no empirical or physical evidence to support them. In fact, proponents of these types of assertions go to great lengths to argue that this type of thing cannot be subject to testing or verification. After all, if they were, they'd be easily disproven. So whenever argued against, supporters keep backpedalling to vaguer and meaningless abstractions so as to make the whole subject so confusing that no one can discuss it in a clear manner. This is simply taking a falsehood and piling on more and more layers of bullshit so that you cannot touch the original falsehood.

For example, supporters of a god may say, well you can disprove the specific myths in the bible, but you can't disprove god in general. Well, I can disprove the specific myth of Bigfoot -- it was a guy in an ape suit -- but that doesn't mean that there isn't some yet-to-be-discovered ape. However, if we do find a new species of ape in North America and it does look like our image of Bigfoot that does not make it Bigfoot even if some dumbasses decides to call it Bigfoot. After all, that newly discovered ape isn't what appeared in all the faked pictures of Bigfoot, so it has nothing to do with the myth even if it coincidentally has similar properties. By the same token, if something eventually does resemble what theists call a god or the god, that won't make it a god. It would just be a coincidence that has nothing to do with all the made up stories that theists passed down for thousands of years. You can trace every single story in every single religion back to some guy making up bullshit, usually while high on some drug. God is a socially accepted form of Bigfoot.

By the way, I have previously shown that I (and you) have the same properties as Bronze and Iron Age gods. I can walk on water, fly, project my image across the world, and even control lightning for only $20.10 plus shipping and handling. Eat that Zeus!

marcus says

Every atheist would think that more sophisticated spiritual views were a minority.

I guess it depends on what one thinks of as sophisticated. People's spiritual views are often complicated, and they have to be because much of yesterdays dogma is rendered obsolete by science, so one mush cherry-pick from their chosen religion. This makes things complicated... but I don't think complicated necessarily = sophisticated.

Look at the religious demographics. Almost everyone in the world is associated with a religion who's primary dogma is one of a sky daddy. Yes, as Karen Armstrong points out there are those that question the primary dogma, but they are the exception not the rule.

In fact, if they truly comprehended even a single of these, then by my reckoning they would be agnostic if not religious, but certainly not limited to their atheism.

Mmmm... yeah, people often understand the religions of others much better than is realized. Many non-belivers (an atheist or anyone who believes in a different god) have felt true faith, and "comprehend" what it means to "know god". What believers have difficulty comprehending is that someone of another religion (or atheist) can have a genuine spiritual experience, and yet not believe.

The problem is that faith is a personal thing, and a person from religion X will often think that if just everyone understood gods the way they did everyone would be a believer of religion X. Believers of religions Y and Z feel the same, and no one has any proof that can not also be used to prove any religion.

I do agree that anyone understanding religion from a philosophical perspective would come away as an agnostic. However, when making life choices in the world I think that it is OK for someone to state more concretely that they either believe or don't believe. What most believers have difficult accepting is that it is faith not reason that moves them past agnosticism.

marcus says

leoj707 says

I do realize that there are many people who don't let their faith get in the way of accepting science.

Bravo. That at least is some progress. Very big of you.

Why, have I posted something here to make you think I felt otherwise?

marcus says

leoj707 says

Being that both Santa and gods have the same level of proof that they are real I can understand why someone would say they know with certainty both are not real.

You surprise me with this one.

What is surprising? Is there some new evidence, I am unaware of, that indicates that Santa is indeed real? If so perhaps I should quit the Santa analogy, and use the Easter Bunny instead.

CL says

Ha! Well, of course. Which is why religion is paradoxical, yes? But I find the Tao to be the most logical consistent on this front...

In other words, prove to me now that something entirely unknowable does not exist? Something beyond human comprehension. In the Tao, the Tao does not care if you believe in it or don't. It just is.

How are things proven that are not perceivable by human senses?

That's why it is best saluted by saying, "I don't know". It's really the only thing you can know.

Well, Taoism is as much a philosophical pursuit as it is a religion, and in fact Taoism is not incompatible with atheism or other religions for that matter.

There is only one philosophical question that I am aware of that has an answer other than "I don't know". That question is: "Am I experiencing what appears to be a consciousness".

CL says

One is applying human knowledge and experience to that which is by definition, transcendent.

Nothing in the universe is transcendent. That's why we can understand anything about the universe. It all follows mathematical laws.

The ancient Greeks thought that the universe contained two incompatible realms. The realm of the Earth, which was subject to one set of laws, and the realm of the heavens, which was subject to a different set of laws. Newton showed that heavenly bodies were subject to the exact same laws as Earthly bodies. Heavenly bodies are not transcendent as once thought.

Since Newton's time, rationalists have been trying to teach this lesson to mystics, those who believe in the supernatural including gods, souls, an afterlife. We're still having the same damn argument about their being two incompatible set of laws, one for reality and the other for "the supernatural". You would think that three and a quarter centuries after Principia Mathematica people would finally just get this idea.

The really bad thing is that until people get this simple idea that has stood the test of time, they won't be able to even fathom more advanced ideas. Shit, I can't even discuss most of the ideas that go through my head to people who don't even understand 17th century physics. The thing is that the more advanced ideas are even more interesting. Forget about your myths on heaven, the really interesting questions are things like how can one create immortality and heaven given the constraints of our universe. Once you abandon the false notion of god, you can start to address the problems that the myth of god was created to handle.

PersainCAT says

wiki "rapture": "The Rapture theory was largely developed by American evangelists from the 17th century onwards, although certain Roman Catholics had espoused similar ideas before."

There were only a handful of references to it in the 17th and 18th Centuries, and it was first postulated - but rejected - in the 7th Century. Rapture theory is also rejected by the majority of Protestant organizations.

A guy named Darby, who wrote in the early 19th Century was responsible for turning Rapture theory from an obscure philosophy known (and largely rejected) only to a tiny number of theologians, into a popular philosophy.

And dividing the world into ages based on a very complex exegis of the Bible - far from the "plain meaning".

All educated people read Latin. Latin was taught to pretty much all students at any school or university, whether in Protestant or Catholic countries, until well into the 19th Century.

Interesting how 1800 years of Christianity discounted the theory.

Dan8267 says

Nothing in the universe is transcendent. That's why we can understand anything about the universe. It all follows mathematical laws.

Are there universes outside of our own? What form does life take on a gaseous planet? If you couldn't see, taste, smell or measure it, would it still exist, or does the universe have to be limited to the sensory abilities of our bodies?

I agree that the sky daddy is silly, but I think it wrong to constrain the whole of the cosmos to what I can measure, see or even comprehend.

leoj707 says

Well, Taoism is as much a philosophical pursuit as it is a religion, and in fact Taoism is not incompatible with atheism or other religions for that matter.

There is only one philosophical question that I am aware of that has an answer other than "I don't know". That question is: "Am I experiencing what appears to be a consciousness".

True, true. I use the Tao only to illustrate that what the atheist discounts may be the "Sky Daddy" creationist stuff, more than the esoteric philosophies.

Since the Tao does not make many positive statements, I find it hard to disprove. Even the relativity aspect of it appeals to the logical.

For example, one can easily see the pivotal role that Satan and Judas play in the Christian salvation story. No betrayal, no resurrection, no salvation. Judas was doing the Lord's work when he stabbed him in the back, no?

Who knows what's good or bad?

And science seems to prove the volatile pairs of opposites daily, on the gigantic and on the molecular level.

CL says

For example, one can easily see the pivotal role that Satan and Judas play in the Christian salvation story. No betrayal, no resurrection, no salvation. Judas was doing the Lord's work when he stabbed him in the back, no?

Yes, there is a whole christian philosophy about how Judas got a bad rap, and was in fact Jesus's BFF. Now there just has to be a christian philosophy about satan being a good guy.

CL says

Who knows what's good or bad?

Science may be able to answer that question someday:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/a-science-of-morality_b_567185.html

PersainCAT says

the concept may be "newish" from the standpoint of being heavily discussed, but remember very few actually even read the bible till it was widely translated in anything but Latin.

Does that mean we should reconsider all of the Apocrypha for inclusion? Those were rejected also.

How about the Book of Hebrews? Luther himself suspected it was a forgery and didn't belong in the Bible.

When a part of theology was rejected by the Early Church, and is still rejected (Arianism, Monophysitism, etc.) its used as evidence for its Error.
When a part of theology was rejected by the Early Church, but has come into popularity in modern times, it doesn't mean anything.

It's odd because many modern Christian sects claim they "Go Back to the Early Church, when all belief was perfect and not corrupted by man or organized religion". Rapture theory then belongs in the dustbin, since the Early Church rejected it.

CL says

Are there universes outside of our own?

Perhaps, but they would still obey the laws of physics. The universal constants might be different, but the other universes would still have natural, not supernatural laws. If there is any connection between our universe and the others, which is to say those other universes bear any meaning to us, then they would form a multiverse system which would have a set of natural laws that subsume the laws in our universe, i.e., the natural laws in our universe or any other would be a special case of the natural laws of the multiverse. Physicists have already considered this possibility. Nothing in the multiverse conjecture or in M-Theory contradicts The Big Bang Theory.

[I have a pet conjecture that the relative rotation of colliding membranes determines the ratio of matter to anti-matter in the resulting big bang, perhaps in accordance with the inverse tangent function. But that's pure conjecture at this point. If my conjecture is true -- and that's a big if -- and if the universe isn't full of alternative matter / anti-matter galactic clusters ,then the membranes that collided to form our universe must have had extremely little, but non-zero rotational energy (well little relatively speaking, it could be massive compared to the energy contained in our universe).]

CL says

What form does life take on a gaseous planet?

I don't see how this question relates to the natural vs. supernatural debate. The existence of life on a gas giant neither supports nor detracts from the supernatural hypothesis.

However, there have been many discussions of life in gaseous planets from both the science and scientific communities. Arthur C. Clarke wrote about gas life forms in his novel 2010. The game Starcon II featured a race of intelligent gas dwellers whose technology was limited to what they could get to float in their planet's dense atmosphere. Sure, it's possible that life could form in a gas giant's atmosphere since chemistry could take place there. Such life could even be intelligent, but I wouldn't expect them to build spaceships.

CL says

If you couldn't see, taste, smell or measure it, would it still exist, or does the universe have to be limited to the sensory abilities of our bodies?

What would make you think that the universe "has to be limited to the sensory abilities of our bodies"? Our bodies are the result of some pretty arbitrary evolutionary history and our senses are not even able to pick up the same signals as the senses of other species. Some birds see ultraviolet light. Some predators see near infrared. We know of a great number of things that exist and we cannot directly observe from atoms to black holes, from virtual particles to space-time frame dragging. Of course, we always have reasons to believe these things. Everything that interacts in the universe leaves an effect. If a star explodes, it leaves a ring of debris called a nova. The big bang left background radiation. Dinosaurs left fossils. My dog left a poo on the kitchen floor. Even black holes leave a gravitation field that affects distant objects and causes gravitational lensing. There's always proof of the existence of anything that actually does exist.

CL says

but I think it wrong to constrain the whole of the cosmos to what I can measure, see or even comprehend.

And every scientist and every atheist including myself would agree. Rationality does not imply that, and conversely that does not imply the existence of anything supernatural.

There is plenty of legitimate mystery in the universe. Man does not have to make things up to make the universe a more interesting place.

Dan8267 says

There is plenty of legitimate mystery in the universe. Man does not have to make things up to make the universe a more interesting place.

Totally true. My point was that things exist that are beyond our comprehension. Some things used to be and we discovered them. We used science to prove and disprove a lot of notions.
Maybe some things never will be? Are there planes that we don't participate on?

My point of the planet stuff is that it seems anthropocentric even when we define "life". I could be wrong, but doesn't it all seem to be based around cell division? Why can't life be something unrecognizable to us?

PersainCAT says

You honestly think there would still be 100s or protestant denominations if it was simply a matter of "new" concepts.

There are :)
Currently there are 33,000 unique Christian Denominations worldwide.

And of course, groups change their theology over time. Catholicism has done so, Lutheranism has done so, Anglicans have certainly done so... etc.PersainCAT says

the difference is after the council the catholic church DEFINED the "correct" belief based on its own dogma of the council, not necessarily the "correct" answer.

I'm glad you brought up the Church Councils.

The early Church Councils mostly depended upon how many bishops showed up from various parts of Christendom. Had the Councils been held in Alexandria, the decisions would have been very different.

It wasn't the majority opinion that won, it was the bishops who were able to make the conference that won.

Many Christians believe the Bible emerged in full by the Hand of God, they don't realize that Church Councils - composed of Men - decided what books were part of the New Testament and which ones weren't. Most Christians aren't even aware that they exist.

CL says

My point of the planet stuff is that it seems anthropocentric even when we define "life". I could be wrong, but doesn't it all seem to be based around cell division? Why can't life be something unrecognizable to us?

How we define a word does not influence the nature of the universe or what is possible and what is not. A word is just a word, a tool for communication. As such, our words and definition are not important except for communication.

So whether we define "life" to include entity X or not does not change the properties of entity X. Just like whether we define "sport" to include golf or not does not change the properties of the game of golf. Golf is more like baseball than chess is, but it is less like baseball than football is. Where you draw the set of sports in your Venn Diagram has no baring on the similarities among golf, baseball, football, and chess.

That said, I don't know of a "cell-centric" definition of life. I think most biologist consider viruses to be life-forms even though they don't have or are cells and they don't perform their own metabolic processes. They do, however, have genetic code and evolve.

As for me, I define life as "self-reproducing information" and viruses, despite using a host's metabolic systems, do meet that definition because they are directing their own reproduction. Computer viruses also meet my definition of life even though their code is usually not genetic. Of course, I'm not a biologist, and the scientific community is free to define life in a different way.

CL says

Are there planes that we don't participate on?

If there is a reality separate from our own that we cannot, even in principle, interact with, then it is meaningless to us and is certainly no basis for a theological belief system or a basis for morality or worship.

If some other reality does interact with ours, then that interaction with be govern by a set of natural laws, either the natural laws we know or a set that subsumes, and therefore does not contradict, the natural laws that we do know. After all, that hypothetical reality would be part of nature, not the supernatural. And as part of nature, that other reality would be intelligible. We'd be able to answer questions like "how does gravity work in that reality?" and "what is the speed of light in that reality?".

Dan8267 says

The universal constants might be different, but the other universes would still have natural, not supernatural laws. If there is any connection between our universe and the others, which is to say those other universes bear any meaning to us, then they would form a multiverse system...

My understanding is that the universe includes everything that we can experience (touch, see, measure, etc.). If there was another "universe" out there --and we could prove that it existed-- would it not then become a "part" of our universe?

leoj707 says

Dan8267 says

The universal constants might be different, but the other universes would still have natural, not supernatural laws. If there is any connection between our universe and the others, which is to say those other universes bear any meaning to us, then they would form a multiverse system...

My understanding is that the universe includes everything that we can experience (touch, see, measure, etc.). If there was another "universe" out there --and we could prove that it existed-- would it not then become a "part" of our universe?

That is what I would say. And in terms of the commonality of religious thought there are small points at which the transcendent becomes immanent. Like an Avatar in Hinduism--the supernatural pushes through the membrane that separates this world and that.

Verifiable? No. But I'd say without the tools to understand the other side of the membrane how would we know? Couldn't it be akin to Climate change deniers looking out their windows and "disproving" the science? We lack the tools.

But from an analytical and psychological/sociological perspective, the mystics seem to have the same experiences throughout recorded history. They have similar themes and mythologies.

We can disregard them as collective nonsense or primitive thought. We can surmise that they must've learned this from some migrating group (or space aliens!). Or we can believe that they've experienced something extra-ordinary. I don't think we can dismiss it out of hand though.

CL says

Verifiable? No. But I'd say without the tools to understand the other side of the membrane how would we know? Couldn't it be akin to Climate change deniers looking out their windows and "disproving" the science? We lack the tools.

No, it is not like climate change. We have tools to measure and "prove" climate change, and the issue is simple enough that even a layman (who does not have an opposing agenda) can understand the science.

You are however correct that we do not have the tools to detect this "membrane".

CL says

But from an analytical and psychological/sociological perspective, the mystics seem to have the same experiences throughout recorded history. They have similar themes and mythologies.

We can disregard them as collective nonsense or primitive thought. We can surmise that they must've learned this from some migrating group (or space aliens!). Or we can believe that they've experienced something extra-ordinary. I don't think we can dismiss it out of hand though.

Yes, the mystical experience is a very real thing that people experience as part of the human condition, and not limited to "the mystics". It can be very similar for most people, but there are some who the experience is different or perhaps they don't have them at all. If you are capable of having this mystical experience you probably know by the time you are an adult.

Many religions will claim that they hold the true keys to having this mystical experience, but they do not. Yes, some may even claim that a space alien called Xenu is part of the mystical experience. I don't think that there is anything extra-ordinary going on, no super powers involved. In fact so many people seem to have these mystical experiences --even without drugs-- that it is very... well... ordinary...

It is just often difficult for people to explain some things that happen to them. Imagine if you were walking down the street and your leg suddenly gave out; you don't know the cause, and the doctor you consult can't tell why. A mystery yes, but extra-ordinary no.

leoj707 says

It is just often difficult for people to explain some things that happen to them. Imagine if you were walking down the street and your leg suddenly gave out; you don't know the cause, and the doctor you consult can't tell why. A mystery yes, but extra-ordinary no.

Right. In the case of the Climate Change non-believer, they believe they have the tools to determine, without science, whether or not such a phenomenon is occurring. It's really politically motivated hubris.

But for most of the world who picks sides, they don't have the scientific background, education or understanding even to determine which scientist is correct. That's why we on the left find solace in the fact that 10s of thousands of research scientists, the overwhelming majority- have come to that conclusion. We don't actually participate in the studies, we believe in those who have, honor the results, and incorporate their findings into our worldviews.

Now, regarding the mystics. If they claim to have the true keys, I'd say that's when they've broken down into tribalism, and tithe-seeking. :)

CL says

Now, regarding the mystics. If they claim to have the true keys, I'd say that's when they've broken down into tribalism, and tithe-seeking. :)

Haha, yes, I say that falls into this category:
CL says

That's why the Tao says, "Those who know don't say, those who say don't know".

With all the different ideas floating around it is difficult to know what in the bible is true. If only there was some sort of business --that could say charge me a subscription fee based on my salary-- that would tell me what is true.

leoj707 says

My understanding is that the universe includes everything that we can experience (touch, see, measure, etc.). If there was another "universe" out there --and we could prove that it existed-- would it not then become a "part" of our universe?

Your question is one of semantics rather than science. If you define "universe" to be everything, then yes. If you define "universe" to be everything that resulted from the big bang, then maybe no. If you prefer the later definition for universe, then you can use the multiverse or the cosmos to mean the entire system of everything.

There was a time when we thought the Milky Way galaxy was the entire universe. We then corrected our view by creating the word galaxy to mean our island of star systems and interstellar gas.

If a structure larger than that which resulted from the big bang is discovered, then perhaps we will redefine universe to include that larger structure. Or perhaps we will use a new word. Either way, it is simply a question of semantics and does not bear any deeper meaning.

Recently, the astronomical community already had a long and pointless debate about whether or not to consider Pluto a planet. Science doesn't require rigid categorization. Only human language does.

Jung

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M6ZakIPaQ4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UO5roM3wnGg&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icDc4Om71ns&feature=related