Strident atheists would indeed like to participate in heaven if it exists, but what I'm getting at is a more practical issue. How do you convince them that God and/or heaven exists in the first place? This notion you have about atheists, even yourself, is not evidence-based. So far as I'm aware, our so-called strident atheists have not been confronted with irrefutable proof of God's existence, let alone with evidence that an entire religion surrounding a particular concept of God is correct. Consequently, we have no way of knowing whether they would embrace it, grasp at straws in disbelief, employ cognitive dissonance and essentially ignore the proof, or accept that it seems to be correct but assume that we must be missing something and spend the rest of their lives trying to figure out what it is.IJ wrote:What makes me think atheists would be happy to accept proof if it came? Well, I can't speak for all of them, but generally we think there's a reason why heaven is described as it is (eg, for islam, water and sex are featured, apparently). It's what we long for--it's heaven. We would all like to live on in heaven. Who wouldn't? We would all like a powerful being looking after us. We have yearning for what the theists believe--but there's an evidence gap. We would believe a clear example of God's work because we would like the evidence to support God. It just doesn't. When it does, we'd be thrilled. C'mon, evidence!
Lawsuits to protect Free Speech against Religious Violence?
Moderator: Available
Mike
In the absence of God making an obvious demonstration on the earth, yes, we don't know if strident atheists could have weird responses. But this is also true of everyone else on the earth. Personally, I don't think they would have too much trouble with it. It wouldn't be that hard for a supernatural being to impress me. It's much as with aliens. I see no evidence that any exist. I'm a nonbeliever but can't rule it out. If a vulcan lands a space ship in front of my house and warps me to seti alpha six to hang out with Khan, then I'm in. Done. Believes in aliens.
Why would the atheists be so rejecting of clear evidence of God? The thinking ones, at least all the ones I've read about have merely pointed out the gaps in the thinking of organized religion and the absence of proof. That doesn't mean they can't adapt. If God showed up and whisked one around the world by God-zap in front of hundreds of witnesses and cameras, then made water into wine, why would they go and have a psychotic break trying desperately not to believe it?
It's a little like God is to an atheist. Possible, but why would I buy in without a better rationale?
Why would the atheists be so rejecting of clear evidence of God? The thinking ones, at least all the ones I've read about have merely pointed out the gaps in the thinking of organized religion and the absence of proof. That doesn't mean they can't adapt. If God showed up and whisked one around the world by God-zap in front of hundreds of witnesses and cameras, then made water into wine, why would they go and have a psychotic break trying desperately not to believe it?
It's a little like God is to an atheist. Possible, but why would I buy in without a better rationale?
--Ian
I'm not saying that they wouldn't accept it. Some would, some wouldn't, I think, but I'm just guessing. I'm saying I don't think you have any good reasons to believe that they would. It's got nothing to do with psychosis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
This is normal (if unflattering) human psychology. Why should strident atheists not be susceptible to the belief disconfirmation paradigm, same as strident religious people? Seems like a clear possibility to me. I mean we are talking strident atheists here, i.e., people who have made a name for themselves speaking out on the issue. They consequently have a lot of their reputation invested, more than your usual skeptic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
This is normal (if unflattering) human psychology. Why should strident atheists not be susceptible to the belief disconfirmation paradigm, same as strident religious people? Seems like a clear possibility to me. I mean we are talking strident atheists here, i.e., people who have made a name for themselves speaking out on the issue. They consequently have a lot of their reputation invested, more than your usual skeptic.
Mike
Oh i agree, most victims or terrorism are other muslims. And terrorist attacks IN MUSLIM COUNTRIES are done more so by muslims. But these europols show that in western countries, most terrorism is done by western citizens.cxt wrote:AAAhmed
Not sure the above really holds---while its true that terrorists are a problem for many places, regions and faiths Islamic terrorists are far and away the most dangerous for everyone including fellow muslims.
The threat of muslims "killing" is certainly not "exaggerated."
This should not be some sort of weird contest on whom has the worst terrorists.........but even a random sample of terrorist violence of pretty much any time in the last 50 years would likely skew heavily one direction.
And dispite what you posted on specific muslim communities doing what they can...which I belive they do.
Almost every poll taken overseas (from the US) shows considerable support for violence in general and extremist groups in particular.
That seems to be an historical problem as well. One of the main reasons that the Spanish were able to take control of Spain back from the Moors in the first place was that they were seriously weakend by internal
warfare with a group of very orthodox muslims that felt that the then rulers of Andlusia were essentially not "good enough muslims" and needed to be replaced.
There seems to be considerable support for violence against other people and other muslims in the Islamic community worldwide.
The actual moderates don't get nearly enough press and support.
As just one example The Imam that refused to allow the Mumbai terrorist to be buried in his graveyard----an--act for which he and his community received serious threats BTW----did not get hardly any press and very few people even mentioned it.
The press needs to show as much interest in people of faith that are laying their lives on the line for peace and tolerence as they do for murderous thugs that revel in wanton slaughter.
Of course its the slaughter that sells. So that is what they push.....mores the pity.
Ive read the pew polls and Gallup polls done by the U.S. overseas. The questions garnered support for violence by civilians FOR SPECIFIC questions. Such as 'do you support violence in the face of occupation' and they said yes. If we polled americans and said that if they were occupied by a foriegn power, do you honestly think they would say they would lay down and submit? Of course not, afterall, your country was founded on breaking away from foreign occupation. Not wanton killing of civilians.
It's all on how a question is asked and what the qusetion is.
Yes i agree, moderates do not get nearly enough air time as they deserve. I am well aware of the Imam that refused to bury the Mumbai terrorists, because i had to look in specific places to find out. But CNN nor FOX nor MSNBC or anyone actually covered it.
I also agree about spain with internal fighting, in historical context to call those 'orthodox' muslims who thought they were not 'muslim enough' isn't accurate. At the time the 'orthodox' muslims mentioned were not orthodox really, at the time they were really actually a fringe movement, that remained small historically until the 1800s, where they have become fairly powerful.
Last edited by AAAhmed46 on Thu Oct 21, 2010 7:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This supports Alexanders claims of how al-qaeda recruite using material motives for members.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-1 ... -care.html
What does this prove? What actual professional analysts have been saying all along, Al-Qaeda can be dealt a death blow with committed campain to expose the truth about them. This guy left as a matter of principle. In between the lines what he basically said was how in the world can you guys really be who you say you are, yet allow my pregnant wife to beg in the streets for money? If left to these righties, who feel the best way to win is to lump all Muslims in with Al-Qaeda and disrespect and misinform at every turn, we will never win.
On death threats against religious critique being mostly a muslim thing:
Someone doesn't like what he has to say.
Joshua Evans, a former Christian missionary and youth minister from South Carolina, converted to Islam some years ago. He began preaching again, but this time explaining why he converted religions. Evans relocated to Florida, and someone detonated a pipe bomb in front of the Jacksonville mosque in which he worships. Just this week, Evans’ received in the mail an envelope full of white powder which he feared might be anthrax. The Florida Muslim preacher was rushed to the hospital, and the substance was tested. Thankfully, it was no more than a scare, and officials determined that the powder did not pose a biological threat.
Can you imagine for an instant if it had been the creators of South Park who had received such an envelope? Or perhaps if a former Muslim converted to Christianity (such as Fathima Rifqa Bary) had? Just flip “former Christian” to “former Muslim” and “convert to Islam” to “convert to Christianity” and you would have the ingredients necessary for a front page news article. All the networks would be covering such a story non-stop, and pontificating pundits would point out the existential threat of radical islam. Also to note, this has also not been picked up by mainstream media when it happened, other than local news.
http://washingtonindependent.com/86507/ ... n-the-mail
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-1 ... -care.html
What does this prove? What actual professional analysts have been saying all along, Al-Qaeda can be dealt a death blow with committed campain to expose the truth about them. This guy left as a matter of principle. In between the lines what he basically said was how in the world can you guys really be who you say you are, yet allow my pregnant wife to beg in the streets for money? If left to these righties, who feel the best way to win is to lump all Muslims in with Al-Qaeda and disrespect and misinform at every turn, we will never win.
On death threats against religious critique being mostly a muslim thing:
Someone doesn't like what he has to say.
Joshua Evans, a former Christian missionary and youth minister from South Carolina, converted to Islam some years ago. He began preaching again, but this time explaining why he converted religions. Evans relocated to Florida, and someone detonated a pipe bomb in front of the Jacksonville mosque in which he worships. Just this week, Evans’ received in the mail an envelope full of white powder which he feared might be anthrax. The Florida Muslim preacher was rushed to the hospital, and the substance was tested. Thankfully, it was no more than a scare, and officials determined that the powder did not pose a biological threat.
Can you imagine for an instant if it had been the creators of South Park who had received such an envelope? Or perhaps if a former Muslim converted to Christianity (such as Fathima Rifqa Bary) had? Just flip “former Christian” to “former Muslim” and “convert to Islam” to “convert to Christianity” and you would have the ingredients necessary for a front page news article. All the networks would be covering such a story non-stop, and pontificating pundits would point out the existential threat of radical islam. Also to note, this has also not been picked up by mainstream media when it happened, other than local news.
http://washingtonindependent.com/86507/ ... n-the-mail
Ahmed, I agree that it's totally insane for people to be mailing threats or bombs or powders to people because of their views, but the South Park creators are not exactly a valid comparison. They're famous. That said, yes, this should have been bigger news, but mostly because it was in the USA. You really think it would be that big of a news item if Muslims threatened a Christian who'd left Islam? I'm not sure--it sure would sound juicy, but at the same time, isn't that a routine risk? Islam doesn't seem to look too kindly on the matter.
Mike, there's no doubt that people may cling to their beliefs in the face of other evidence, and depending how strident an atheist you're talking about, this may be definitional. BUT, to answer your question, "Why should strident atheists not be susceptible to the belief disconfirmation paradigm, same as strident religious people?" the easy answer is they have based their beliefs, and their public face, on a sensible interpretation of events and evidence. This again goes along with the alien parallel. I am maintaining, right now, that there is no valid evidence of life off earth. I believe it's possible but has not been shown. Tomorrow, if the Skyline plot becomes reality instead of just a trailer, and aliens start vacuuming us out of our cities and interplanetary war begins, I'll happily accept that they exist, fight if I can, and go on any functioning talk shows to explain that I was right yesterday and am right today to change my belief in the face of new data. If God wants to impress an atheist, or the world, it probably wouldn't be through some possible healing of someone who maybe believed in Mother Teresa. He can put on quite a show. I'd be shocked to see evidence oriented atheists denying that God violated the laws of physics in front of thousands to millions of witnesses. Maybe if they weren't there and there was no footage?
The wiki article talks a lot about modifying preferences to reduce dissonance, but the best example of people confronted with their error were the people who thought aliens would end the earth at an appointed time. Obviously, they didn't, but the group made up a story about a second chance and became even more convinced. The thing here is that they did not deny the obvious reality. The earth hadn't ended. Neither would Dawkins deny that God had, I dunno, made a minaret out of solid gold in a split second that climbed a mile and flown Dawkins to the top? He's not psycho--but I'm sure he'd do some calculations in his brain to lessen the pangs of having been wrong.
Mike, there's no doubt that people may cling to their beliefs in the face of other evidence, and depending how strident an atheist you're talking about, this may be definitional. BUT, to answer your question, "Why should strident atheists not be susceptible to the belief disconfirmation paradigm, same as strident religious people?" the easy answer is they have based their beliefs, and their public face, on a sensible interpretation of events and evidence. This again goes along with the alien parallel. I am maintaining, right now, that there is no valid evidence of life off earth. I believe it's possible but has not been shown. Tomorrow, if the Skyline plot becomes reality instead of just a trailer, and aliens start vacuuming us out of our cities and interplanetary war begins, I'll happily accept that they exist, fight if I can, and go on any functioning talk shows to explain that I was right yesterday and am right today to change my belief in the face of new data. If God wants to impress an atheist, or the world, it probably wouldn't be through some possible healing of someone who maybe believed in Mother Teresa. He can put on quite a show. I'd be shocked to see evidence oriented atheists denying that God violated the laws of physics in front of thousands to millions of witnesses. Maybe if they weren't there and there was no footage?
The wiki article talks a lot about modifying preferences to reduce dissonance, but the best example of people confronted with their error were the people who thought aliens would end the earth at an appointed time. Obviously, they didn't, but the group made up a story about a second chance and became even more convinced. The thing here is that they did not deny the obvious reality. The earth hadn't ended. Neither would Dawkins deny that God had, I dunno, made a minaret out of solid gold in a split second that climbed a mile and flown Dawkins to the top? He's not psycho--but I'm sure he'd do some calculations in his brain to lessen the pangs of having been wrong.
--Ian
Still arguing that their schit doesn't stink? Why should the basis of their beliefs exempt them? It doesn't. It's irrelevant. And now they are "sensible" and by extension religious people are not. Nice!IJ wrote:BUT, to answer your question, "Why should strident atheists not be susceptible to the belief disconfirmation paradigm, same as strident religious people?" the easy answer is they have based their beliefs, and their public face, on a sensible interpretation of events and evidence.
Frankly, I think your argument that a miracle (i.e., a really cool magic trick) or two would convince you undermines your argument. That stuff played really well 2000+ years ago, but nowadays a person who is skeptical and scientifically minded would not jump to the conclusion that God did it and convert to some particular theistic religion simply because they witnessed an event that cannot (currently) be explained. The Big Bang wasn't good enough for you? I'm being a little facetious because what I really think is that a proof of God is not possible, whether or not God exists. All that is necessary to explain any event, in the absence of a natural explanation, is that a natural explanation exists but may be unknowable or, as a last resort, that a sufficiently advanced entity has done it. It's quite a distance from there to the existence of God, even further to the validation of any particular theistic religion. I don't see that cosmology could provide more than it already has.
The aliens analogy is interesting but misses the salient point. Humans are creatures of emotion as well as reason. I assume you have exactly nothing invested in your notion that aliens do not exist. Get back to me when you've written a couple of books and lectures on why it's irrational to believe aliens exist based on existing evidence. I think it would be fascinating to see you try, since I believe the scientific consensus is that intelligent aliens probably do exist, that it would be astonishing if we were the singular case of it in the universe.
Mike
I think this is hitting more of a nerve for you than for me, Mike.
"Why should the basis of their beliefs exempt them? It doesn't. It's irrelevant."
Of COURSE it matters. Religious people say they believe what they believe because of faith, they feel it. They don't point to a "most likely it's true based on a review of the evidence argument," or if some do, I haven't met them (and they must not be that specific with their faith!). Atheists (the ones that write books, at least), often explain that they can't prove God does exist and accept this imprecision as part of their thinking (e.g., Dawkins, The God Delusion). Does the Pope hedge his bet? No way. Dawkins lays out the evidence and asks which is more likely (e.g., cranes or sky hooks for skyscrapers, meaning that building from the ground up via evolution is plausible whereas creation from a higher power simply makes the problem of explanation most difficult because now you have to explain God). You seem to think that because they're passionate about this they're fanatics without reason; I don't see that. I see them applying science to the question. When new evidence arrives, the science changes. It is not an error free process, but why not consider the amazing pace of scientific discovery (say, from the geocentric universe and 4 elements to relativity and quantum physics) and if you need any specifics, you can look them up, say, on your iphone, or alternatively, a Bible. Their passion, importantly, comes from a distaste for wishy washy thinking, not from the idea that the God concept would be instrinsically bad in a world where evidence existed.
Proving that God does not exist is definitely not possible, but I am completely confused as to why we couldn't prove he DOES. He could work obvious, public miracles that would require us to admit that amazing power is on display. If a scientist resorts to saying that it might be an omnipotent alien rather than God, well, what then is the difference? Dude or lady coulda created us either way. We're dealing with omnipotence and omniscience vastly beyond our comprehension. How omnipotent is it if it cant prove it exists? I'm basically an idiot and I can prove I exist.
"Get back to me when you've written a couple of books and lectures on why it's irrational to believe aliens exist based on existing evidence."
Hmm, the closest I can come here is that I've given lectures, and made a DVD, and contributed to a book CHAPTER, on preventing blood clots in the hospital setting. You can bet your butt that I will jettison any an all conceptions I have about that science if and when new information comes out. In fact, each lecture is different because the data is evolving. It's a major pain in my butt. I would love if it were like the Bible and at least didn't mutate (quickly). Additionally, I am awaiting news on whether an evaluation of the safety of the widely prescribed treatment will be published. That is, I specifically investigated the safety of the treatment I have been taught, and teach others, to provide, to make sure it was the right thing to do (my first real self-generated research, as such, my little chromosomally unbalanced baby).
And come to think of it, when I was a trainee, I absorbed a lot of dogma on sepsis management, and wrote a review article on it (Ian Jenkins. (2006) Evidence-based sepsis therapy: A hospitalist perspective. Journal of Hospital Medicine 1:5, 285-295). Since it was published, it's all be called into question, more or less. Activated protein C failed in 2 subsequent studies after its initial success. Steroids for sepsis were challenged by the failure of the CORTICUS trial, and are severely restricted in use and based on totally different criteria. Even antibiotics in speedy fashion has been shown to have some risk, e.g., overtreatment in the ER in an attempt to meet deadlines for care. Intensive insulin was blown up by several papers and is dead; I use a graph showing it's rise and fall to explain how ALL sepsis care is under studied and can be subject to change. Now, the mantra in my powerpoint is that we may well be wrong about most of it and to question it and follow for updates. FYI, I mention this little turnaround from the time my paper was published in my talk.
Note on aliens: many scientists DO believe they are likely to exist. They're not saying they DO or that there is evidence; they are merely playing the odds (that aliens could form spontaneously somewhere out there, in a primative state, in the right conditions, an evolve toward intelligence. Unguided). I just said I didn't see any evidence that they existed. Sadly, from what I've read on warp drives, and worm holes, it may be practically impossible to travel to meet them or even talk to them, what with the distance, relativity constraints, and the expansion of space time zooming them away from us. Makes me feel like Jodie Foster in "Contact."
Disclaimer: all the the opinions of this author and contained in this post are only valid at the time of posting because new evidence about the existence of God and blood clot prevention or sepsis may be discovered at any time.
"Why should the basis of their beliefs exempt them? It doesn't. It's irrelevant."
Of COURSE it matters. Religious people say they believe what they believe because of faith, they feel it. They don't point to a "most likely it's true based on a review of the evidence argument," or if some do, I haven't met them (and they must not be that specific with their faith!). Atheists (the ones that write books, at least), often explain that they can't prove God does exist and accept this imprecision as part of their thinking (e.g., Dawkins, The God Delusion). Does the Pope hedge his bet? No way. Dawkins lays out the evidence and asks which is more likely (e.g., cranes or sky hooks for skyscrapers, meaning that building from the ground up via evolution is plausible whereas creation from a higher power simply makes the problem of explanation most difficult because now you have to explain God). You seem to think that because they're passionate about this they're fanatics without reason; I don't see that. I see them applying science to the question. When new evidence arrives, the science changes. It is not an error free process, but why not consider the amazing pace of scientific discovery (say, from the geocentric universe and 4 elements to relativity and quantum physics) and if you need any specifics, you can look them up, say, on your iphone, or alternatively, a Bible. Their passion, importantly, comes from a distaste for wishy washy thinking, not from the idea that the God concept would be instrinsically bad in a world where evidence existed.
Proving that God does not exist is definitely not possible, but I am completely confused as to why we couldn't prove he DOES. He could work obvious, public miracles that would require us to admit that amazing power is on display. If a scientist resorts to saying that it might be an omnipotent alien rather than God, well, what then is the difference? Dude or lady coulda created us either way. We're dealing with omnipotence and omniscience vastly beyond our comprehension. How omnipotent is it if it cant prove it exists? I'm basically an idiot and I can prove I exist.
"Get back to me when you've written a couple of books and lectures on why it's irrational to believe aliens exist based on existing evidence."
Hmm, the closest I can come here is that I've given lectures, and made a DVD, and contributed to a book CHAPTER, on preventing blood clots in the hospital setting. You can bet your butt that I will jettison any an all conceptions I have about that science if and when new information comes out. In fact, each lecture is different because the data is evolving. It's a major pain in my butt. I would love if it were like the Bible and at least didn't mutate (quickly). Additionally, I am awaiting news on whether an evaluation of the safety of the widely prescribed treatment will be published. That is, I specifically investigated the safety of the treatment I have been taught, and teach others, to provide, to make sure it was the right thing to do (my first real self-generated research, as such, my little chromosomally unbalanced baby).
And come to think of it, when I was a trainee, I absorbed a lot of dogma on sepsis management, and wrote a review article on it (Ian Jenkins. (2006) Evidence-based sepsis therapy: A hospitalist perspective. Journal of Hospital Medicine 1:5, 285-295). Since it was published, it's all be called into question, more or less. Activated protein C failed in 2 subsequent studies after its initial success. Steroids for sepsis were challenged by the failure of the CORTICUS trial, and are severely restricted in use and based on totally different criteria. Even antibiotics in speedy fashion has been shown to have some risk, e.g., overtreatment in the ER in an attempt to meet deadlines for care. Intensive insulin was blown up by several papers and is dead; I use a graph showing it's rise and fall to explain how ALL sepsis care is under studied and can be subject to change. Now, the mantra in my powerpoint is that we may well be wrong about most of it and to question it and follow for updates. FYI, I mention this little turnaround from the time my paper was published in my talk.
Note on aliens: many scientists DO believe they are likely to exist. They're not saying they DO or that there is evidence; they are merely playing the odds (that aliens could form spontaneously somewhere out there, in a primative state, in the right conditions, an evolve toward intelligence. Unguided). I just said I didn't see any evidence that they existed. Sadly, from what I've read on warp drives, and worm holes, it may be practically impossible to travel to meet them or even talk to them, what with the distance, relativity constraints, and the expansion of space time zooming them away from us. Makes me feel like Jodie Foster in "Contact."
Disclaimer: all the the opinions of this author and contained in this post are only valid at the time of posting because new evidence about the existence of God and blood clot prevention or sepsis may be discovered at any time.
--Ian
OK... I have and basically will remain out of the "Prove God exists" debate. However, I will point out that the existence of a higher power or God does not contradict science. Who's to say that science (such as evolution, the big bang, etc.) hasn't been part of the "master plan". Just pondering...
On whether extraterrestrial aliens exist... it's probability and statistics. Think of the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field showing thousands and thousands of never before seen galaxies each containing hundreds of thousands of stars each of which statistically we are finding have a high probability of having multiple planets around them with at least one of those planets orbiting within the "sweet spot" where life (as we know it) could exist. To give an idea of how small a region of the known universe the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field contains, take a standard #2 pencil, hold it at arms length... the area of the sky being looked at was about the size of the eraser. From a probability and statistical standpoint, there is a pretty darn high probability that intelligent life has evolved somewhere else in the vastness of our known universe. Besides, as Sagan once said, "if there isn't any other intelligent life in the universe, that's an awful waste of space." (paraphrased)
I know a lot of scientists... PhD-types who are atheists. I also know a number of them who are religious. The back and forth I'm reading here mirrors the back and forth that those two groups have on the same subject in the same way. Neither side is willing to concede or change their position. Why can't people or God prove the existence of God? That's the whole "faith" argument that can't be truly won by either side.
If you believe in God, good for you. If you don't, good for you. Fundamentally, a (dis)belief only effects you and your "soul" (or lack thereof), so it isn't something to get upset about when someone disagrees. From a religious perspective (in particular, a Christian perspective), once you've discussed the bible with someone and stated your belief, you've done what you're told to do as far as "spreading the gospel". After that, even the bible tells you that everyone has their own freewill to accept or deny as they wish. Most other religions are similar. (Not all, but most.)
So... it may be best to let those who believe, believe and those who don't, not. Oh, and I must also agree with things changing as far as our understanding of the universe on a minute by minute basis. Just remember that it was once thought (not too long back) that IF someone could go faster than the speed of sound, they would be torn apart. Even Einstein pointed out that relativity doesn't prevent traveling faster than the speed of light, just that it is very difficult to do so. Then again, most interpretations of relativity support a notion that at the speed of light, one is "everywhere at once". There are problems with that assertion as well...
Just MNSHO...
On whether extraterrestrial aliens exist... it's probability and statistics. Think of the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field showing thousands and thousands of never before seen galaxies each containing hundreds of thousands of stars each of which statistically we are finding have a high probability of having multiple planets around them with at least one of those planets orbiting within the "sweet spot" where life (as we know it) could exist. To give an idea of how small a region of the known universe the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field contains, take a standard #2 pencil, hold it at arms length... the area of the sky being looked at was about the size of the eraser. From a probability and statistical standpoint, there is a pretty darn high probability that intelligent life has evolved somewhere else in the vastness of our known universe. Besides, as Sagan once said, "if there isn't any other intelligent life in the universe, that's an awful waste of space." (paraphrased)
I know a lot of scientists... PhD-types who are atheists. I also know a number of them who are religious. The back and forth I'm reading here mirrors the back and forth that those two groups have on the same subject in the same way. Neither side is willing to concede or change their position. Why can't people or God prove the existence of God? That's the whole "faith" argument that can't be truly won by either side.
If you believe in God, good for you. If you don't, good for you. Fundamentally, a (dis)belief only effects you and your "soul" (or lack thereof), so it isn't something to get upset about when someone disagrees. From a religious perspective (in particular, a Christian perspective), once you've discussed the bible with someone and stated your belief, you've done what you're told to do as far as "spreading the gospel". After that, even the bible tells you that everyone has their own freewill to accept or deny as they wish. Most other religions are similar. (Not all, but most.)
So... it may be best to let those who believe, believe and those who don't, not. Oh, and I must also agree with things changing as far as our understanding of the universe on a minute by minute basis. Just remember that it was once thought (not too long back) that IF someone could go faster than the speed of sound, they would be torn apart. Even Einstein pointed out that relativity doesn't prevent traveling faster than the speed of light, just that it is very difficult to do so. Then again, most interpretations of relativity support a notion that at the speed of light, one is "everywhere at once". There are problems with that assertion as well...
Just MNSHO...
Not saying it hits a nerve for you. You are a model for dispassionate debate on the forum. I can't say that I've ever seen evidence that anything hits a nerve for you. Maybe some things do and you just hide it well. If so, I'm still impressed by that.IJ wrote:I think this is hitting more of a nerve for you than for me, Mike.
Absolutely not! Scientists do let go of old scientific "beliefs" pretty easily, even though it is often said that the major frameworks die by generations. My point is that in no case would they interpret anything as evidence of God because in no case would it be scientifically reasonable to do so. I know you think otherwise, but I'm a trained scientist, too, and we disagree (perhaps famously by now) on this point. I made the point about the belief disconfirmation paradigm as but one possible factor because you seemed to ignore that psychology even could play a role in how they would choose to intepret new data that might seem to suggest the existence of God. They are, as you say, passionate about their conclusions. To me, it seems their thinking goes beyond a scientific perspective to social and cultural. They have a goal for all of society in speaking out. I don't see the point in comparing their potential psychology to any example without this level of importance.You seem to think that because they're passionate about this they're fanatics without reason
Mike
Panther wrote:OK... I have and basically will remain out of the "Prove God exists" debate. However, I will point out that the existence of a higher power or God does not contradict science. Who's to say that science (such as evolution, the big bang, etc.) hasn't been part of the "master plan". Just pondering...
On whether extraterrestrial aliens exist... it's probability and statistics. Think of the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field showing thousands and thousands of never before seen galaxies each containing hundreds of thousands of stars each of which statistically we are finding have a high probability of having multiple planets around them with at least one of those planets orbiting within the "sweet spot" where life (as we know it) could exist. To give an idea of how small a region of the known universe the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field contains, take a standard #2 pencil, hold it at arms length... the area of the sky being looked at was about the size of the eraser. From a probability and statistical standpoint, there is a pretty darn high probability that intelligent life has evolved somewhere else in the vastness of our known universe. Besides, as Sagan once said, "if there isn't any other intelligent life in the universe, that's an awful waste of space." (paraphrased)
I know a lot of scientists... PhD-types who are atheists. I also know a number of them who are religious. The back and forth I'm reading here mirrors the back and forth that those two groups have on the same subject in the same way. Neither side is willing to concede or change their position. Why can't people or God prove the existence of God? That's the whole "faith" argument that can't be truly won by either side.
If you believe in God, good for you. If you don't, good for you. Fundamentally, a (dis)belief only effects you and your "soul" (or lack thereof), so it isn't something to get upset about when someone disagrees. From a religious perspective (in particular, a Christian perspective), once you've discussed the bible with someone and stated your belief, you've done what you're told to do as far as "spreading the gospel". After that, even the bible tells you that everyone has their own freewill to accept or deny as they wish. Most other religions are similar. (Not all, but most.)
So... it may be best to let those who believe, believe and those who don't, not. Oh, and I must also agree with things changing as far as our understanding of the universe on a minute by minute basis. Just remember that it was once thought (not too long back) that IF someone could go faster than the speed of sound, they would be torn apart. Even Einstein pointed out that relativity doesn't prevent traveling faster than the speed of light, just that it is very difficult to do so. Then again, most interpretations of relativity support a notion that at the speed of light, one is "everywhere at once". There are problems with that assertion as well...
Just MNSHO...
Good post.
It depends on what else you have to say about the master planner. If by "God" you mean some entity that, having set the proverbial wheels in motion, does not interfere, then the answer is, I guess, "nobody". Where Dakwins, Harris, et al., gain traction is when you identify a particular religion (any of the major theistic ones) with a rich collection of detailed beliefs and teachings. IMO, they, and Bertrand Russell before them, have many excellent points. While the whole truth and nothing but the truth may yet be almost anything, when you're actively trying to figure out who knows what they are talking about and who is just making things up, it's hard to ignore contradictions.Panther wrote:Who's to say that science (such as evolution, the big bang, etc.) hasn't been part of the "master plan". Just pondering...
Mike
Crap... I said I wasn't going to get into it.
We should all know and recognize the false logic that is inherent in saying something along the lines of "It is best to hedge your bets by being a believer because if God exists, you're just fine and if God doesn't exist, then what difference does it make" ... the main issue, as you point out, is that there are a lot of different religions which say that they have the one and only, biggest and bestest "God", so if you decide to chose one, you can't be sure you've chosen the RIGHT one. Then again, that's all a matter of "faith"... isn't it.
With that in mind, I happily maintain my pseudo-scientific, Judeo-Christian, Hindu, Shinto, Buddhist, Taoist religious purity intact!
And BTW, I'm also at least kind of sort of a "scientist"... at least that's what it says on the business card they gave me! 
We should all know and recognize the false logic that is inherent in saying something along the lines of "It is best to hedge your bets by being a believer because if God exists, you're just fine and if God doesn't exist, then what difference does it make" ... the main issue, as you point out, is that there are a lot of different religions which say that they have the one and only, biggest and bestest "God", so if you decide to chose one, you can't be sure you've chosen the RIGHT one. Then again, that's all a matter of "faith"... isn't it.
With that in mind, I happily maintain my pseudo-scientific, Judeo-Christian, Hindu, Shinto, Buddhist, Taoist religious purity intact!
And BTW, I'm also at least kind of sort of a "scientist"... at least that's what it says on the business card they gave me! Every religion also has it's universalists and mystics. Kabbalic tradition, Gnostic christianity, Sufism in islam, a million different mystic sects in hinduism, zen buddhism, Daoism. I find the 'purity' in faiths, the best of faiths around the world can be traced to the mystics of these faiths, most of the time.Panther wrote:Crap... I said I wasn't going to get into it.
We should all know and recognize the false logic that is inherent in saying something along the lines of "It is best to hedge your bets by being a believer because if God exists, you're just fine and if God doesn't exist, then what difference does it make" ... the main issue, as you point out, is that there are a lot of different religions which say that they have the one and only, biggest and bestest "God", so if you decide to chose one, you can't be sure you've chosen the RIGHT one. Then again, that's all a matter of "faith"... isn't it.
With that in mind, I happily maintain my pseudo-scientific, Judeo-Christian, Hindu, Shinto, Buddhist, Taoist religious purity intact!
