A prayer for William and Kate

Natman

#32

"A starving person raised in a society that has no concept of personal ownership would not recognise stealing as wrong."

What has 'starving' got to do with it? Why single out 'starving' people?

I think my tag quest has taken a turn for the worst.

Natman (@ 35) -

You wrote: "I have stated, several times now, that I'd be quite happy to consider the existence of any god if suitable experiment that can give both reproduciblity and repeatability could be devised. Afterall, that's only what I expect from any other hypothesis."

I assume, therefore, that you don't believe in the Big Bang, since that was a single event, and therefore it cannot be reproduced and repeated? What about much of evolution? Can all the putative steps in the process be reproduced and repeated? (And even if they could be, does that prove that they actually occurred?)

Do you believe in the following statement (as stated by Sir Harry Kroto in his rant last week - 7th April - in The Times re Lord Rees' acceptance of the Templeton prize)? : "Martin Rees ... has made a mistake in accepting £1 million from the Templeton Foundation. In doing so, he supports its primary aim, which is to undermine the most precious tenet of science: that it is the only philosophical construct we have to determine truth with any reliability."

If you accept that this is the status of 'science' then please let me know which scientific experiment proves that "science is the only philosophical construct we have to determine truth with any reliability". How can you arrive at a belief in that concept by means of a reproducible and repeatable empirical experiment? If you cannot show me which experiment has proven this concept to be true, then, according to your own definition of 'evidence', you cannot claim to accept it. And if you cannot accept it, then, by default, you have to acknowledge that science is limited and that there are other ways to determine truth.

So I very much look forward to the details of this scientific experiment. Failure to provide details of this experiment will tell me all I need to know about your claims.

I'll be waiting...

Andrew

Regarding italics and other 'tags'.

I'm thinking that maybe we should ask Natman to pray about the issue.

That's very bold, Peter.

LSV,

Evidently you've not done much reading into subjects like the big bang or evolution if you think their coherance or validity is suspect or based on some form of faith.

What I think about the big bang is largely irrelevant, as it is some of the more technical aspects of evolution, so the specific details regarding the first nano-second of the universe are presently unknown, so a few aspects of highly complex molecular biochemistry are under debate; -this doesn't mean your ideas are automatically valid!- Grief, if you've descended into picking points with minor aspects of highly researched concepts then you're clearly feeling pushed. Trying to turn this debate around into another attack on the stance of those who actually do some research into these matters is trying to avoid the subject matter at hand.

Again and again you push the idea that somehow, the lack of emperical evidence of philosophical naturalism destroys the validity of methodological naturalism, and that's not the case.

You're dodging the issues, as you always do, by attempting to swing the debate around to show how us evil atheists are just as bad as the holy theists. So what?! If the end point in this is that you show, somehow, that the core concepts in our metholodgy are flawed, it doesn't make the massive body of evidence supporting all the scientific theories disappear. All you've done is put us on the same level as you! Is your stance so bad that you want to bring us down to your level and then claim it as a victory?

The null hypothesis of 'gods do not exist' still stands, as it always has, and you, or infact any theist, has yet to show a scrap of conclusive evidence that either gods exists (which one is upto you to decide) or that prayer works.

Fortunately for progress, the evidence that a god isn't required (and that's not the same as non-existence, in case you want to twist it around) is very large. Not only do you have to show the null hypothesis is invalid, you also have to show that the evidence against your concepts is also invalid.

Peter2m, Andrew,

Why pray? I'll do a houdoun ritual for you if you want, or perhaps cast some augers in chicken guts. The evidence so far suggests they're just as useful.

Natman

Have you read anything I have written on this thread?

Continue with your own understanding of prayer if you wish, but please, don't assume I share it.

Natman

If you think it'll help, I'd try anything to solve my tag problem.

Andrew

Not that I'm a techie or anything, but, what OS or browser are you using, could it be that? Or are you copy/pasting the html tags in from a word processor? It seems that sometimes that can be an issue.

There is a stepping stone- all you have to do is google *Atheist prayer* to see the subject of prayer is an accepted one, that it's felt by some atheists as a connection with others- the good & the just

Perhaps more worrying is the control some leading Athiests wield, who seem to dictate a narrowing of thought and acceptance of others in their quest for what they regard as purity.
Ayatollah's of Science like Dawkin's who issue fatwa's of disassociation to anyone who doesn't comply with their rigid orthodoxy.

Peter

I usually type my comments up in OneNote and then copy and paste. I don't think this is the problem though. It looks like the supported tags have changed. The standard italics tags don't seem to work anymore the bold tag still works, I think.

I do seem to be having some weird browser problem on this thread, in Firefox, IE and Chrome. Displays fine on Safari and my phone.

...If you accept that this is the status of 'science' then please let me know which scientific experiment proves that "science is the only philosophical construct we have to determine truth with any reliability...

I don't know about Natman, of course, but I accept that science has determined many truths with reliability. There are countless experiments that form a sufficient body of evidence to "prove" this in the non scientific sense you mean, in that you can take a particular experiment and do it over and over again and it will produce the same result, confirming, for all intents and purposes, the truth, of say, quantum mechanics, Newton's Law of Gravitation, relativity (and if you are in a smart arras mood, relativity demonstrated Newton's law to be incomplete, not false), gas laws (ditto ideal gas laws and real gas models) etc etc etc.

Now, if Sir Harry meant "truth" as a whole (and I've not read the article, cheapskate as I am) you might have a point. But it still raises the question I have asked you many times on here, in various forms: What other philosophical construct have you got to establish truth, and by what means do you establish its reliability?

Andrew.

Some info

They use the em tags for italics, apparently

And you should be able to use blockquote for quoting, which is pretty

Strong and bold should both work.

Not a geek or owt :)

Yep. They work for me.

Thanks grokesx

I tried the li tags in an earlier post which don't seem to work to well.

I like the idea of blockquote

I seem to be having a problem with the preview function on this thread, unless the post is short. I have written replies to Natman and grokesx, but they may not see the light of day. Hey ho.

(Perhaps I ought to cut them down into a multitude of shorter posts? Maybe I will...)

This reply may take several goes (as per my comment in #53)...

Natman (@ 43) -

"Evidently you've not done much reading into subjects like the big bang or evolution if you think their coherance or validity is suspect or based on some form of faith."

But you have said that the validity of something is based on 'reproducibility' and 'repeatability'. This is your criterion for determining whether something is true. Let me remind you of your comment in post #35: "I have stated, several times now, that I'd be quite happy to consider the existence of any god if suitable experiment that can give both reproduciblity and repeatability could be devised. Afterall, that's only what I expect from any other hypothesis."

So I was only applying your method of verification. Can you prove the truth of the Big Bang and evolution by means of the method of 'reproducibility' and 'repeatability'? If not, then, according to your own thinking, why do you believe that these things are true?

Surely, Natman, you must have sufficient intellectual integrity to appreciate that you cannot apply double standards in debate.

In fact, I do indeed believe that many of the 'explanations' consistent with the philosophy of materialism are based on what could be termed 'faith'. Of course, we need to define what we mean by 'faith', but if 'faith' is to be understood as a means of arriving at a conclusion by circumventing empirical scientific evidence (not my understanding of 'faith', by the way) then the entire philosophy of materialism has to be accepted as an 'act of faith'. After all, empiricism cannot prove or validate itself, as I have pointed out many times.

to be continued...

Natman (@ 43) continued...

What I think about the big bang is largely irrelevant, as it is some of the more technical aspects of evolution, so the specific details regarding the first nano-second of the universe are presently unknown, so a few aspects of highly complex molecular biochemistry are under debate; -this doesn't mean your ideas are automatically valid!

I never said that my ideas are automatically validated because of any unresolved issues or 'loose ends' in the theories concerning the origin of the universe and origin of life. What I am asking for is intellectual consistency. If you reject something as 'untrue' or irrelevant or unknowable on the basis that it cannot be subjected to the method of 'reproducibility' and 'repeatability', then you should be consistent about this, and apply this thinking to your own view of reality. It really is not a lot to ask, is it?

Again and again you push the idea that somehow, the lack of emperical evidence of philosophical naturalism destroys the validity of methodological naturalism, and that's not the case.

I have no problem with 'methodological naturalism'. In fact, I believe in it. Christianity affirms it, because it affirms the reality and intelligibility of the natural world. But methodological naturalism does not imply philosophical naturalism. The two are completely separate, as I have been at pains to point out more times than I care to remember. So by means of methodological naturalism we can study the structure of living systems and observe what takes place within these mechanisms, but it doesn't follow that the study of natural systems implies that "matter is all that exists" and therefore there cannot be other realities which could interact with matter. Science is limited in its scope. Science, by its very nature, cannot provide a complete explanation for the whole of reality.

to be continued...

Natman (@ 43) - final instalment...

"Fortunately for progress, the evidence that a god isn't required (and that's not the same as non-existence, in case you want to twist it around) is very large. Not only do you have to show the null hypothesis is invalid, you also have to show that the evidence against your concepts is also invalid."

Why do I have to? It sounds like you are imposing an 'ought' on me. Where do you get this 'ought' from? Are you making an ethical decision based on some idea of 'purpose'? Certainly the phrase 'fortunately for progress' seems to imply that you have some concept of right 'purpose' in your mind. Yet according to your post #32, morality and purpose are subjective - i.e. just 'made up'.

So again I ask you: why do I have to do anything? By what authority? What scientific experiment tells me that I have to show that the null hypothesis is invalid? There is no scientific experiment which tells me that I have to do anything at all, because 'having to' do things is a moral question, and it relates to the concept of purpose!

@Andrew

I'd forget the blockquote - I've just just checked and on a Windows machine they only show in Firefox. Em and bold work in Firefox, IE and Chrome, though. In Firefox for lists, ol and ul both worked as un-ordered. I gave up then.

That's improvements for you.

I don't know if any of you have seen this. Michael Shermer, we'll call him a biologist, and Dr Georgia Purdum, "scientific director" at Ken Ham's Creation Museum in Kentucky, have a chat. Purdom says her doctorate is in molecular genetics, something she appears to have studied so she could bring her expertise to the team over at the museum, give thanks for the $27,000,000 it brings in annually, and run Creation 101 classes for the kind of people who need some confirmation of their bias in nice, sciency sounding language.

I warn you, there's almost half an hour of this. Hey Logica, learn from a real pro. You couldn't hold a match to Ms Purdum.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_CLIGJW6Ic

grokesx

I'm using firefox 4, and this thread looks a mess ever since I used the li tag. No idea.

I tried blockquote in my last post, didn't work.

Stick with em then. As long as there's some way of quoting, I suppose.

AF -

"Hey Logica, learn from a real pro. You couldn't hold a match to Ms Purdum."

Well, I watched some of it, and I didn't really agree with the way she was going about things. However, she was right about the fact that we need to interpret data, and our interpretation is dependent on the presuppositions we bring to our observations.

But such a simple idea is a bit beyond some people on this blog. As I don't want to overburden your tired little brains, I'll say no more about that.

(Clearly Ms Purdum is a genuine freethinker, since she is not intimidated by the scientific inquisition into accepting the dogmas of the Church of Materialism. But, of course, we know that 'freethinking' in practice means that "you are free to think whatever you like as long as it agrees with a particular materialistic ideology". What is it about the word 'free' that some people just don't understand? Put down your bottle for a minute and answer me that one, chum.)

It is deeply concerning that so many people appear to visit the "museum"!

Well, now I know that infants suffer cancer because they are sinners and that the world is around 6000 years old.

On Wednesday I was visited by two Jehovah Witnesses who invited me to attend a "special event" where I could find out how Jesus takes away the sin of the world. I might just go and find a cure for cancer!

newlach -

"It is deeply concerning that so many people appear to visit the "museum"!"

Why??

If, as the materialists tell us, there is absolutely no meaning or purpose to life, then what does it matter what people do? I just can't get my head round the illogicality of people like you. You're acting as though your view of reality is like a religion, and you need to proselytise.

If we are all just lumps of matter randomly thrown together by a completely blind and mindless process, then what the heck does it matter what people believe as they go through their pointless lives on the way to eternal oblivion? As Natman has pointed out, the idea of 'purpose' is entirely subjective within the philosophy of materialism, and so why do people like you suddenly express a 'purpose' - "Ooh, I'm just soooo concerned blah blah blah" - and even attempt to impose a kind of 'morality of scientific materialism' on those poor lost reprobate souls who don't toe the ideological line! Talk about fundamentalism!

Why don't you learn to live consistently with your own philosophy? (Oh, of course, I forgot... you can't!)

@LSV

Hokay, you can post again now, and you have made your usual arguments about the limits of science and other people's philosophies, but have left the rather basic question unanswered, as per. I'll use the newly discovered - to me and Andrew anyway - italics, just in case you miss it:

What philosophical construct, other than science, have you got to establish truth, and by what means do you establish its reliability?

De-baiting a moron. I suppose that has to happen after baiting one, then catching it. So, this is sport fishing? Like a buncha guys sitting along a canal all after the same fish? You develop a relationship with your prize carp?

Some, like Shermer get them out from their holes, when no-one else is around, just like with Purdum at the museum, just so they can look at them - the gentler sportman? "Get it to talk carp: See if we can understand it better."

Others, mostly found on blogs, want to catch the thing. This type wants carp out of the water yesterday. And I can sympathise with him. The other type can sit for ages with his rod in the water, day after day, watching the wildlife on the banks pass from the youngest shoots of nettle in spring to the sloes in autumn and the snow hoped for but rued as soon as it appears in winter. He'll also be there, fishing out the carp.

All of a sudden I feel I've done carp an injustice. I mean all those great fat dominators of the canal system mostly, that manmade canal system, mostly, want is to be left alone.

The wikipedia entry on carp states: "In Europe, even when not fished for food, they are eagerly sought by anglers, being considered highly prized coarse fish that are difficult to hook.[7] The UK has a thriving carp angling market. It is the fastest growing angling market in the UK and has spawned a number of specialised carp angling publications such as 'Carpology',[8] 'advanced carp fishing', 'carpworld' and 'TotalCarp' also many an informative carp angling web site such as Carpfishing UK [9] and Carpit[10]".

I particularly like the last one.

So Caprit: This month, we're hooking morons. To keep them off the er, canals. The whole thing would give me a heart attack but meet my calm old mate...

LSV,

So do you want to drag us down to your level or not? And if that's a not a bad thing, why would you claim it as some form of victory?

And that Creationist place isn't a museum, it's a theme park. There's a review in Vanity Fair that just about sums it up.

Natman -

You wouldn't be trying to claim the intellectual high ground, would you? Well, I never! Trying to go up in the world, I see!

If this is really what you are doing (rather than just resorting to a 'route one' insult), then perhaps you may be up to addressing the issues I have raised?

Or is proper debate just too demeaning for you, now that you have ascended to the sublime height of intellectual incontrovertibility?

But please don't forget the fundamental rule of your ideology: all 'freethinkers' are equal, but some 'freethinkers' (the materialistic ones) are more equal than others. (To paraphrase George Orwell).

LSV,

You've clearly stated that you're not a freethinker;

"no amount of their criticism is going to make the slightest difference to those who believe in God"

That definitively states that no matter what, regardless of anything put to you, that you're not prepared to accept the god doesn't exist.

ie, not a free thinker.

And the null hpyothesis stands, as it has for thousands of years. The big bang theory is tested and repeatable through physics and mathematics. If you're suggesting that the only valid form of experimentation is in the field, then you're clearly mislead, or perhaps just biased against less practical forms of science.

As for taking the high ground, you are the one attempting to bring us down to your level by suggesting that all materialism is based on faith and cannot be proven (just like your idea that there's a god). If having something based on faith and unable to be proven isn't so bad, like your belief in god, why are you desperate to put us on that level?

Natman -

"That definitively states that no matter what, regardless of anything put to you, that you're not prepared to accept the god doesn't exist."

I have already explained what I meant in some of the earlier posts on this thread, and I even admitted that perhaps I had not worded my statements as accurately as I could have done (#33) - but don't let that stop you from continuing to press your point!

I suppose there is a sense in which - totally hypothetically and 'academically' - I would be prepared to consider the idea of the non-existence of God, in much the same way that I would consider the idea of the non-existence of Natman. The problem is that the theory of the non-existence of God - i.e. the theory of atheism - is based on the philosophy of materialism. Since this philosophy cannot account for the existence of reason itself, then it seems absurd to try to use 'reason' to prove that the philosophy of materialism is true.

Knowledge and reason only make sense if they are objectively valid, and they cannot possibly be so in a universe that operates according to total mindlessness as well as material determinism. Reason can only be objectively valid if an intelligence exists by which reality exists. So it is utterly absurd to then argue that we can use reason to disprove the existence of the only basis by which reason has any validity at all!

Thus my apparent 'closed-mindedness' is not so 'closed-minded' after all. It seems that I have thought through this issue far more deeply than you ever have.

So don't start accusing me of not being a freethinker. At least I believe in the validity of thought and free will - neither of which make sense in the mindless and deterministic philosophy of materialism! Thus atheism is a total epistemological absurdity and therefore completely untrue - and I have come to this conclusion not by your idea of 'faith' or by deciding to be a mindless bigot, but on the basis of reason and evidence.

But if you wish to try to convince me of the 'non-existence of God', do please be so good as to provide some evidence. I have yet to see any. I have presented numerous arguments to support my viewpoint. Perhaps you may like to attempt to reciprocate one day?

grokesx -

I have not forgotten about you. I'll try to get back to you this evening.

grokesx (@ 63) -

My reply to you is too long for this thread (the preview function is messing around again, which means the 'post comment' function is probably going to as well), so I am going to have to split it.

"...you have made your usual arguments about the limits of science and other people's philosophies, but have left the rather basic question unanswered, as per."

I don't quite know why you feel the need to add the little phrase 'as per'. I think I might start throwing that phrase around, since there are others who seem to avoid my questions.

"What philosophical construct, other than science, have you got to establish truth, and by what means do you establish its reliability?"

OK, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that there isn't one. Let's assume that 'science' - by which we mean, of course, the empirical scientific method - is the only means to establish what we term 'truth'. Let's investigate this and see where we go...

First of all, the scientific method cannot tell us that 'science is the only philosophical construct by which to establish truth', since this is a decision we bring to our scientific studies. It's a philosophical conclusion that we have drawn based on some prior belief system. We have arrived at this notion by drawing the logical implications of some philosophical presupposition. So even this idea of the exclusive intellectual authority of 'science' presupposes a higher authority, namely, that of logic working on some other construct.

So logic therefore provides us with a philosophical construct by which to establish truth. Some may argue that logic is merely a method, but then so is science. If the latter can be termed a 'philosophical construct' then why not the former?

to be continued...

grokesx (@ 63) continued...

Then we come to the notion of 'truth' - or 'knowledge', which is the content of truth. Science is not the subject that fundamentally deals with the nature of knowledge and truth. That subject is the one that I believe you may perhaps be allergic to: epistemology.

So if we want 'science' to be the only philosophical construct to establish truth, then we have to first establish the correct epistemological theory which enables us to do this. But then what we are saying is that there is an area of study prior to science, which is epistemology. And then we get on to that old chestnut - our dear friend, empiricism. (Would you like to break off your reading at this point, and go and take a walk to bring your blood pressure down? I know this is a sensitive subject for you!)

Well, we know what I am going to say, as I have said it so many times before. Clue: something to do with the phrase 'self-refuting'.

So we have logic and epistemology that precede science. And then there is something else that actually precedes science - not absolutely, but in practical terms life would be a nightmare if science did not obey this. What am I talking about? Answer: ethics.

Could 'ethics' or 'morality' count as a philosophical construct separate from science? Well, of course this is separate from science, since the empirical scientific method tells us nothing about morality. There is nothing in the chemical composition of a stick of dynamite that tells us what we should actually do with it. Open an average newspaper and take out all the articles relating to moral issues, and I can assure you that there will not be much left - certainly not in the first half of the paper. Are we therefore to assume that all news reports involving moral issues are just lies, since the subject matter falls outside the purview of 'science'?

to be continued...

grokesx (@ 63) continued...

Now suppose we decide that science is the only philosophical construct that establishes truth. How do we live our lives then? If everything in life is reduced to its material properties, what wisdom does that analysis provide?

What is the news media supposed to report on? Take the subject of this thread (from which we seem to have drifted somewhat - as per!): the royal wedding. How is this event going to be reported on? I mean reported on truthfully. Since 'science' is apparently the only philosophical construct we have to establish truth, then I presume that the commentary will focus exclusively on such things as the rate of motion of the wheels of the royal carriage, and the chemical structure of the fibres in the dress of a certain important female of the species. When the two particular living organisms being scrutinised do what is 'subjectively' termed 'kiss', are we then going to be subjected to a commentary on the release of dopamine, endorphins, and phenylethylamine? I think not. But if the commentary is not strictly scientific, then the commentator would be lying, if 'science' is the only means of establishing 'truth'.

So to add to logic and epistemology we also have morality and the whole world of human experience and meaning. None of this can be reduced to an analysis of material properties.

Reality shows us that science cannot possibly be the only philosophical construct that establishes truth. This proves that the philosophy of materialism is bankrupt, and easily falsified. We therefore know that there is more to reality than merely matter. Of course, as I've mentioned, this is only a process of falsification - a process that the materialists are very happy to resort to in seeking to establish their philosophy: "there is no alternative, therefore we fall back onto materialism". So you can hardly criticise me for employing the same method.

This leads us to the position where spiritual views are validated. Having laid that secure foundation, we can then begin to investigate the different spiritual options, but it is hopeless discussing these with those who won't even accept that their materialistic presupposition is invalid. Thus we are left with a certain agnosticism, and I have no quarrel with the respectful agnostic. The dogmatic atheist, however, will always attract my criticism, since his position is so utterly irrational and philosophically invalid, as I have explained umpteen times.

LSV,

You seem to think that because (in your view) philosophical materialism is self-refuting = there is a god.
You don't explain why this is so.

You also don't explain why if the above is true, it is your god that is the only one and why that god would create a universe that plainly doesn't need it.

You place a lot of emphasis onto this 'truth' thing.

Science isn't about getting the 'truth', I can see now why you seem so confused about the whole thing.

Sorry to reduce your entire 3 stage posting into an abstract mess of concepts.

Also, morality is subjective; something science doesn't touch with a barge-pole.

If your concept is so amazing, so definitively destroying of the established scientific community, strange how it's not used more against those highly vocal and very famous atheists out there taking down theism one narrow-minded person at a time.

Is it perhaps they see the gaping flaw in it?

https://firstchurchofatheism.com/

@LSV

Hokay. First up, separating logic out from science is a waste of time – the scientific method includes logic. It includes the formal, deductive kind in working out all those tricky formulae, and also the sometimes intuitive inductive kind that provides the creative ideas.

So, you can't actually take science and empiricism and place them in your trophy cabinet in a less exalted position than logic and epistemology, because it doesn't work like that. You've got the grouping all wrong.

What we have in actuality is deductive logic, inductive logic and empiricism utilised in an endeavour called science. All three elements have their strengths and weaknesses. The weakness of deductive logic is laid out in its definition: in short, the process of going from “true” premises to “true” conclusions. Metamathematics, Godel and all that mullarkey underlines the point. Inductive logic only gives us probabilistic outcomes, so serves as a basis for further study and confirmation/otherwise by experiment. Empiricism, well it is self refuting, if you hadn't heard.

And so we come to epistemology. Pass the loratadine for this one. It does come before science in one respect – philosophers thought at one time that they could get to the truth by thinking hard and making stuff up, or to carry on the metaphor I used before, drawing ever more sumptuous dragons on the empty parts of their maps. The clever natural philosophers went on and explored the territory using – and this is the important bit - the tools they had at their disposal, empiricism and reason, (or logic if you prefer), fully aware that they were imperfect tools, but equally aware that centuries of mistaking the map for the territory had led to many blind alleys and many discussions of pin dancing.

I'll skip the morality and ethics stuff for now, and go on to the last paragraph. Of course, I don't agree with the bonkersness of:

This leads us to the position where spiritual views are validated. Having laid that secure foundation, we can then begin to investigate the different spiritual options

But clearly, with science being limited in scope by the uncertainties of logic and empiricism (bearing in mind the many discussions we have had about what this actually means and that “cannot be known to be true” doesn't translate as “is false” no matter how much you want it to) there is the possibility that there are some truths that science can't nail down yet, perhaps ever. In that sense, pretty much every atheist I know is agnostic about deism, even some formulations of theism, if only to a tiny degree. We could get into a boring argument over definitions of atheism, at this point if you like.

But that wasn't the point of my question. Despite all your accusations, most scientists are fully aware of the limitations of science, although the language of methodological naturalism may give the opposite impression – especially if you are pre-inclined to believe the opposite (btw, you really should read up on cognitive biases) – and that it is possible to throw the baby out with the bathwater. But jeebs, it's one big bath, containing homeopathy, astrology, reiki, quantum woo, Thor, Odin, thirty thousand flavours of Christianity, Islam, thousands of Hindu gods, Buddhism, wicca etc etc etc into infinity and beyond.

My question is actually about this bit:

we can then begin to investigate the different spiritual options

For me, your endless wibbling about materialistic assumptions and pious declarations that to discuss spiritual options is a waste of time because we are all just disrespectful philosophical philistines contains a multitude of obfuscations. Plainly speaking, you are so convinced that your god is real that nothing anyone can say can convince you otherwise, yet you can offer no good reason for that conviction other than a bunch of pre-suppositions that apparently double up as evidence.

The funny thing is that religious people are so used to this mangling of reason, it doesn't seem to strike them as embarrassing. Actually it does, that's why they invented such concepts as transcendence, ground of all being and, the piece de resistance, apophatic theology.

Grokesx, Don't most Agnostics fall into that category- of apophatic theology- without ties to any specific religion, but where God is abstract- beyond existing or not existing. Seems very often , agnostics are sympathetic with atheists especially as a unified force against organised religion, but by your reasoning they're to be treated with the same disdain. That would cover a very sizeable chunk of the population you look down on

@Ryan

Don't most Agnostics fall into that category- of apophatic theology- without ties to any specific religion, but where God is abstract- beyond existing or not existing.

I don't think so, no. From what I've seen, the apophatic theologian believes just fervently as anyone that a god exists, it's just his/her/its properties that are elusive and have to be considered negatively. Anyone who says "God is..." no matter how airy fairily abstractly they say it, is not agnostic.

The people I think you are talking about are these types.

Grokesx, "I don't think so,no."

You're at least being speculative I guess. Are people able to distinguish the word *God* and detangle it from its meaning by simply putting a negative infront? You would think a new vocabulary with positive affirmations of Atheism would be more effective than constantly invoking the words *God* and religion. I just wonder what image is created in the mind of an Atheist everytime they use the word, for it seems- at least here- some Athiests use the word *God* with more frequency than anyone else. It's curious that a religious blog would attract an Atheist, it's almost like an atheist has the need for some spiritual, religious or Godly dimension to their lives, even if it is to stand on the sidelines just to say they refute it. Like you, who comes to drink from the font of LSV each nite before sleep.An atheist, writing in a religious blog, interacting with a Christian about God is perhaps as close to a night time prayer you can get. An atheist, if they were true to their world-view surely wouldn't spend time on a religious blog would they.There must be better applications of "time" for someone who feels spiritualism and religion is a waste of "time",rather then spending "time" at the same table debating it

@Ryan

Well, someones' got to keep this blog alive and it's no fun arguing with people you agree with. LSV is interesting and exasperating in equal measure and since Bernard's Insight and Graham Veale departed, is the only theist left here who likes to chew the fat about science, philosophy and that god character.

As for my interest - for one, I find the religious impulse fascinating and for another, whether one is atheist, agnostic, Christian, pagan or whatever, that impulse has an effect, for good or ill on the world. I've watched muderous mobs of hindus and muslims tear into each other and seen one of the most bustling, vibrant, overcrowded cities in the world turned into a ghost place because of that religious hatred. I've known people lost to religious cults and seen the long, painful process of someone breaking away from one. Religion affects us all - fundies trying to redefine science, young men strapping bombs to themselves or flying planes into buildings at one end and good people doing good things inspired by their religion at the other.

Why wouldn't I be interested in all that, even if I think it's a load of dingo's kidneys?

I agree with you in many respects. I don't like how religion & tribalism become interwoven, especially when God is used as a weapon. My understanding of Atheism (pre this) was as something neutral- a question that didn't need answered and that Agnostism was like an overview of all religion- understanding what bits work well and what bits don't and coming to the conclusion no human society has got it right-That you'd have to mix all of humanity up into a big multicultural soup to start extracting some universal truths. I guess sometimes, it can look like Atheists are using God as a weapon, in much the same way religions use God to separate and create tribalism.That isn't to say good can't come out of an Atheist approach, but it would be fair to say some good can also come out of a theistic approach- it at least has to be recognised. My own personal take on it is LSV is ultimately right, but the scientific approach is the way to go, rather than an unbalanced reliance on religion and its holy books. I would just hope that some of the Atheist fundies won't stifle the creativity of science the same way some religions have done in the past

Ryan...

Atheist fundie, lol. That's like saying open-minded theist.

Funny how science never progressed so fast than from the moment it decoupled the divine from the equation.

Unless, of course, you can point to an aspect of science that's actually benefited from including the supernatural into its process?

Atheist fundie, lol. That's like saying open-minded theist

I guess if there's an opening, it'll be filled lol

Isaac Newton springs to mind - he was involved in theology, as well science and mathematics. If someone's spiritual/religious outlook on life can be a strength & driving force to do good, to keep on going,to keep getting up, then it's a faith well accessed - BBC4 Beautiful Minds series (again lol), the 1st programme focused on Jocelyn Bell Burnell, and how her faith as a Quaker inspired her drive & accomplishments. I share the same concerns about religion/faith being accessed irresponsibly, as a weapon, to discriminate etc but I don't think the answer is to ditch all spiritual belief because chunks of humanity have shown themselves incapable of handling it properly. Atheism isn't a panacea if you have people using God as a weapon (again) or to hinder creativity & diversity (again) It's just humans acting out the same behaviours under a different guise. I wonder if spirituality / belief becomes such an off-topic in science that sometime in the future we could end up with a mirror image of what happened to Galileo. Humanity has a tendency to make the same mistake over and over again

LSV, post 30,

"....all you have ever presented are ideas along the lines of "what could have happened" - i.e. pure supposition....."

"....considering the fact that you daren't even talk about philosophical issues,..."

"I can't help but notice that you conveniently ignored the first part of my previous post on this thread concerning the limitations of 'science'. How very interesting..."

As mentioned on the 'This week's top stories' thread already, the reason I am not interested in your bits about pre-suppositions, your pseudo-philosophy, boring limits of science talk etc is that it is nothing but goal post moving, inconsistency and the application of double standards. When you think you have some empirical evidence against evolution or abiogenesis then you don't worry anything about methodological naturalism, the philosophy underlying science, etc. You are happy to engage in empiricism as long as the creationist nonsense you blindly follow leads to goddunnit. Then I point out the flaws in the reasoning again and explain to you why in the various areas of science you made claims in, science doesn't show any evidence for there being god(s).

The honest thing there for you to do would be to accept that. But you are a true creationist fundie, so you won't. Instead you seek to change the rules in mid-play. Whereas you were happy to accept the results of empiricism when I hadn't shown the errors in your claims yet, the moment I show them to be deeply flawed once again, your mind cant handle defeat for god at the hands of science. So you seek a way of not accepting the defeat. And yapping on about presuppositions you didn't care a damn about until the moment before seems to be the most frequently used way to run.

grokesx and I have both left you lengthy posts on the other thread. Why don't you answer them, without fleeing into the boring old presuppositions bit again?

"It's curious that a religious blog would attract an Atheist, it's almost like an atheist has the need for some spiritual, religious or Godly dimension to their lives, even if it is to stand on the sidelines just to say they refute it. Like you, who comes to drink from the font of LSV each nite before sleep.An atheist, writing in a religious blog, interacting with a Christian about God is perhaps as close to a night time prayer you can get."

I'll take ten deep breaths and not say what sprang to mind when I read that, and instead say this. Every atheist I know tends to have an interest in religion, because to be an atheist is not to stop being human, and religion impacts massively upon individuals and humanity as a whole. Apart from that, I would guess that the absurdity of religion becomes rather apparent to people who incline to an atheist dint of mind. That is fascinating itself. Religion is one trait - there's strong evidence that it is an adaptive trait in evolutionary terms - that has occurred in every culture in every time since before history was even being recorded. Given what it has produced - good and bad (I make no apology for thinking that the net bad outweighs the good in the greater scheme of things) - what inquisitive, open minded individual could help but be fascinated.

I fail to see what it is you find "right" or remotely admirable about LSV. I fail to see what Grokesx finds "interesting" about him. What is interesting or admirable or right about a person who is not unintelligent but is singularly intent on being impervious to reason. What is admirable about watching an undignified parading of wilful ignorance and arrogant conceit? You suggested before I "would be better off" with this person than Andrew. Well on pain of death give me Andrew but I think I'm better off with neither of them thankyou. And yes, the fact that he's religious, and because of the absurdity of it, and respect it unduly garners, and its frankly barmy position of such esteem in the law that it gets religious people off with all manner of wickedness, great and small, veiled and explicit, yes, that does make him harder to stomach.

The simple fact that being religious still equals to many minds being a paragon of virtue is hard to stomach. It also leads to injustice. What can you expect when the opinion of people who - to a man in my experience - are either dumb, damaged, dishonest or in denial is given such distinction.

The following (I hope you'll take the time) is the Oxford Amnesty Lecture of 1997 by Nicholas

@Ryan

I would just hope that some of the Atheist fundies won't stifle the creativity of science the same way some religions have done in the past

I really don't know what to make of this. What can atheists do to science? Smuggle less god into it? There wasn't any in the first place. Newton didn't take god into account in his calculations, no matter what he believed. So, why should we take account of his beliefs that didn't impinge on his work? We know he was deeply mistaken about alchemy and that he enthusiastically sent counterfeiters to be hung, drawn and quartered, which, I think it is fair to say, is not a mainstream recommendation these days. That makes no difference to calculus, the laws of motion or the law of gravitation, though.

The thing is, you can't have a little bit of methodological naturalism. You don't allow for angels mucking up your results but not leprechauns. The things that stifle the creativity of science aren't a lack of a spiritual direction and a denial of god, but more mundane matters like funding, having to justify research commercially, a concentration of resources on "defence projects", clueless politicians dictating policy, corporate greed in the pharmaceutical industry,a public that thinks anti vaxers are rational people and that climate change "sceptics" have a point because of a couple of warm summers.

"I share the same concerns about religion/faith being accessed irresponsibly, as a weapon, to discriminate etc but I don't think the answer is to ditch all spiritual belief because chunks of humanity have shown themselves incapable of handling it properly. Atheism isn't a panacea if you have people using God as a weapon (again) or to hinder creativity & diversity (again) It's just humans acting out the same behaviours under a different guise."

First of all I don't see or use religion as a "weapon".

Secondly every man who commits an atrocity in the name of religion has his tract. And if ethics stands apart from religion, then religion becomes an irrelevant indulgence, not a guide. If, since it has all the seeds of every act of wickedness carried out in its name within it, then religion itself becomes iniquitous to me. It is an unhealthy indulgence. It is a dangerous indulgence, because how good or bad it is depends on the moral strength of the culture that surrounds it. It cannot stand as a beacon on its own. That much is plain. And it can eat the culture that surrounds it, and when it has done that in the past the results have always - always - been horrific. Heinous.

Thirdly - atheism is something at which one arrives on one's own. It is not anywhere presented as a panacea, but what tends to lead to it might be: critical thought. Healthy scepticism is not taught in our schools. It can easily be taught and it should be.

Oops! No Link? Is there a word limit? The link to Humphrey's Amnesty Lecture: https://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/humphrey/amnesty.html

@AF

I fail to see what Grokesx finds "interesting" about him. What is interesting or admirable or right about a person who is not unintelligent but is singularly intent on being impervious to reason. What is admirable about watching an undignified parading of wilful ignorance and arrogant conceit?

Lol. This week ay be mostly cultivating an inner calm.

That's very good of you! Has all this supping "from the font of LSV" (yuck, I hope that wasn't a Freudian slip ryan) put a bit of god in your belly? Have you found contributing to a brick wall on William Crawley's blog a bit redemptive? Or did you come here looking for *that special feeling* in the first place?

Ryan,

Issac Newton was a slightly unhinged religious loon who just also happened to have one of the world's greatest ever minds and applied it to some physical laws. During his lifetime actually wrote more on Biblical hermeneutics and occult studies than science. A good example;

Do you know why there are seven colours in the rainbow? Newton originally put in 5 colours, because whilst the spectrum isn't incremental, our eyes can only detect three (and the combinations thereof). He later added 2 more so it would tie-in with the musical scale; hardly the workings of a true scientific mind.

Science has never benefited from the inclusion of religion into it and has performed far better when religion stays well away from matters of a scientific nature.

Nat,You seem more willing to put religion into science than I am. No wonder you go arrgghh. You think I'm saying science should be inclusive of religion? I'm not & never have. Just to keep an open mind -as you claim you have - that people can choose freely & if faith can inspire drive & accomplishments, as in the case of Jocelyn Bell Burnell then they've accessed spirituality on a healthy level. It's easier I guess to make sweeping generalisations at a group because it's de-sensitizing & you can view it more as an object maybe.We group people up and do it all the time

That's it ryan! Confess!

First of all I don't see or use religion as a "weapon"

Haha!

Thirdly - atheism is something at which one arrives on one's own

Says the Spiritual Agnostic


Btw, I never said I was part of any Religion, so you run can along

No you're one of those cafeteria Christians, a very convenient, and also the most intellectually lazy, position to assume. Whether you're a member of a religion or not you're still pushing the envelope and you're still religious. Clever clogs. So by not being a member of an actual religion - is that how you deal with the cognitive dissonance that you must suffer from being gay and pretty much hated by all the major religions? Just escape to some Narnia in your head where Jesus loves you nonetheless? That's quite unfortunate.

Just shows you how pathetic you really are when you come out with drivel like that. My interests are wide ranging & in a spiritual sense , defined by a wider range of interests than I'd bother wasting my time discussing with you. Putting it briefly I have a respect for aspects of Buddhism, Taosism, learnt alot at Uni about Native North American belief systems that struck a chord with me. Not that it's any of your aggressive little business, but as I said before- I dont think any particular religion or belief structure has got it totally right. You only have to look at the state of the world to see that, but I'm not gonna be bullied or pigeon holed by you into something Im not just because I have a respect for certain aspects of Christianity

I'm surprised you haven't mentioned fish again- seems to be a running theme for you- like a cross between Joan Collins and Captain Birdseye

What fun. So easy to provoke!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

A running theme? I eat a lot of fish. I think I mentioned having eaten it once after trying a new recipe with great success.

What a curious mind you have, m'learned friend.

grokesx (@ 74) -

Thanks for your response to my three-in-one post (the trinitarian methodology having been necessitated by a rather fractiously functioning thread). And this post will have to be cut into two, as I have just discovered.

Frankly, my friend, I have no idea exactly why we are even arguing. What is our dispute with one another about? So science is limited and I believe in God and you don't. So what?

Ah, yes, of course, I remember now. It's to do with "science being the only philosophical construct we have to determine truth with any reliability". We have a difference of opinion about this. Again I ask: so what?

In the real world it boils down to this: I believe that there is an ultimate meaning to reality, whereas I can only assume that you don't. You seem to want to disabuse me of my belief that there is an ultimate meaning to reality, but why? For what purpose? Since, according to your thinking, life is ultimately meaningless (as it must be, if life is just the result of a totally blind and mindless process), then I just can't grasp why you are even bothering. I could understand your position if I were trying to force you to accept what I say, but the days of the rack and the stake are long gone, and I wouldn't support that approach anyway.

Natman has made the point that the idea of 'purpose' is entirely subjective. Does that mean 'purpose' is irrelevant? If so, then what is your purpose in debating with me? It seems to me that the atheists on this blog do have a purpose, but I can't see why they should, if the idea of 'purpose' is merely subjective - i.e. 'made up'!

Apparently morality is also made up. But it seems that atheists are forever going on about moral issues. They seem to have a purpose and morals, both of which are subjective and therefore not really 'true'. So why embrace them at all?

to be continued...