Monkey Men vs. Bible Thumpers (Evolution vs. Creationism)

[Kapitano]

Then there the old favorite of Pascals Wager

There's lots of problems with Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit). One is that it applies to all vengeful gods in all religions, including those that are dead, or indeed potential.

Religion A says "If you don't believe in the great god Bimblepoose you'll go to the Really Bad Afterlife". Pascal says "If it's a choice between believing something stupid and going to hell, I'll believe something stupid."

Religion B says "If you don't believe in The Pointy Headed Big Man In The Sky, he will sit on your face forever when you die." Pascal says "Oh dear, I'll have the believe that one too. Even though I can't believe in more that one. Nevermind, I'll fudge it somehow."

Religion C comes along, and Pascal has a nervous breakdown.

Other problems:
* It places the burden of proof on the sceptic, not the believer.
* It assumes you can genuinely believe something simply because you're afraid of what happens if you don't.
* It makes a nonsense of free will. According to Pascal, we have a choice, but only hobson's choice.

we must agree that God operates beyond the realm of physics. This gives us a framework for our discussion

No it doesn't. It removes all frameworks. If we agree that god can do and know absolutely anything, even if that entails self-contradiction, then it becomes impossible to have any discussion.

Why? Because any discussion of what god is and can do involves by implication of what he isn't and can't do.

[sparks]

I was referring to the accuracy of the historical accounts. I can say from my experience that history in the 1960s was only beginning to move into its more modern, analytical shape. Some of the things even intelligent historians (or armchair historians, as we'd have to qualify Asimov) believed were occasionally pretty hilarious.

Jesus, man, don't you recognize my name by now? I feel slighted. I'm not a fly-by-night, I'm sure someone who's been around can verify, even if I'm a little irreverant of internet posting etiquette from time to time when I get riled up with a thread.

Though, I actually do feel slighted. What's with the animosity? Wasn't that an earnest question? I'm not familiar with the book, though I'm familiar with his fiction.


Edit: Did you just edit away your barb?

Anyway, Pascal's Wager might have some merit to it if you were to invent some sort of quantitative measurement of the relative severity of the punishment proposed by each religion, along with the level of importance that religion places in belief. You could, at best, play the odds well, even if you wouldn't be that likely to win. But all that aside, as was said, you can't believe in that kind of thing just because you want to.

[sparks]

A good paradox is the great love of science.

I always preferred:
"[A] paradox is a pointer telling you to look beyond it." - Frank Herbert

What you're quoting are not paradoxes, but "paradoxes". The fact that the title of the article/theory includes the word paradox does not mean that a self-contradictory event is actually taking place.

I think you'll find most things people -call- paradoxes are actually just apparently contradictory things that give rise to something the opposite of their original. That's not a paradox any more than "-X*-Y=XY". The ratchet analogy used in the second article is a good example of this.

I am, however, sorry to've used the word "moron" in describing the popular fascination with apparent paradoxes. But people are very easily caught up in the presumed magic of something that appears contradictiory but is not. It's understandable--it's a great learning opportunity, and that's something the human mind is geared toward recognizing. The problem comes when people start to believe that they -are- magic, that they -are- true paradoxes.

I disagree. Consider this paradox:
Can God violate the physical laws of the Universe? More specifically, does God have true "universal" omniscience, which requires the ability to gather information from all points in the Universe simultaneously, an act that violates the fundamental laws of physics?

The examination of this paradox is not the realm of hopelessly obsessed morons. Rather, those questions go to the very heart of theology, the nature of God. And something more relevant to the debate at hand: to resolve the paradox, we must agree that God operates beyond the realm of physics. This gives us a framework for our discussion, without which further discourse regarding God's powers is futile.

These are invented situations, and so you have to regard them as invented paradoxes--logical puzzles. Words like "omniscience" and "all-powerful" are simply words, and are faulted by the fact--they're blanket statements meant to represent something that may or may not actually be able to exist.

A hypothesis that contradicts its own foundation is not magical, mysterious, or important--it's flawed. This is why you should not take up an intellectual discussion of any god as "all-powerful"--it's a very clumsy word.

All that said, your faith is your own, and faith defies reasoning. Drown yourself in it, if it pleases you.

[Adam!]

You know what I never understood? The ontological argument for God's existence:

1. Define God as being perfect
2. Define existence as an attribute of perfection
3. Now suppose God as defined doesn't exist.
4. If God didn't exist then He wouldn't be perfect.
5. But because we know God is perfect, assuming He doesn't exist leads to a logical contradiction.
6. Therefore God exists.

Now, let's look at that argument again, but this time replace the word God with the words "a unicorn".

1. Define a unicorn as being perfect
2. Define existence as an attribute of perfection
3. Now suppose a unicorn as defined doesn't exist.
4. If a unicorn didn't exist then it wouldn't be perfect.
5. But because we know a unicorn is perfect, assuming it doesn't exist leads to a logical contradiction.
6. Therefore a unicorn exists.

I haven't given this much thought, but can anyone think of a more succinct, logically binding way of arguing against the ontological argument for God's existence without walking people through the unicorn example? Which is a fallacy, after all.

[Kapitano]

I was referring to the accuracy of the historical accounts. I can say from my experience that history in the 1960s was only beginning to move into its more modern, analytical shape. [...]

Jesus, man, don't you recognize my name by now? [...]

Edit: Did you just edit away your barb?

You made some stupid posts, then started posting like someone with a brain as well as an education. So I revised my judgement of you as idiot or troll. Falsificationism in action, if you like.

If you think history writing has only been 'anylitical', rigorous or accurate in recent decades, you're just plain wrong. For as long as there's been historians (since Herodotus at least) there's been careful ones and careless ones.

I don't know what other name you might have posted under, and I don't see how it matters much.

[Kapitano]

[The ontological argument. The unicorn counterargument.]

can anyone think of a more succinct, logically binding way of arguing against the ontological argument

When Anselm (Saint Anselm to his friends) proposed his version of the ontological argument, which is the version we know today and the version you quote, a monk called Gaunilo made the same objection. In his case he used the idea of a perfect island paradise instead of your unicorn, but the logic is the same.

Anselm's response was, in paraphrase, "Existence is part of the perfection of God, but it isn't part of the perfection of perfect islands." In other words, the rules of inference are different where god is concerned.

As for a refutation, here's my stab:

If god is infinite, then he contains not only every good attribute, but every bad one. If existence is good and nonexistence is bad, then he must both exist and not exist.

Actually, I recall some theologins recognizing this problem with the notion of an infinite god. Their 'solution' is to say "God is beyond existance and nonexistance."

[erik]

I haven't given this much thought, but can anyone think of a more succinct, logically binding way of arguing against the ontological argument for God's existence without walking people through the unicorn example? Which is a fallacy, after all.

If you yourself define the terms to be discussed in your proof, you can "prove" damn well near anything. I can imagine any number of perfect things which do not exist; I don't understand why existence is necessary for perfection.

[c hack]

"If it turns out that I've been wrong all along, and there is in fact a god, and if it further turned out that this kind of legalistic, cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back, Clintonian hair-splitting impressed him, then I think I would choose not to worship him anyway."

-- Douglas Adams, noted atheist.

To which I would add, to all believers: do you really think that saying the words "I believe," or even coming to the conclusion that God is around, is all you need to do to find eternal bliss in the afterlife?

[erik]

To which I would add, to all believers: do you really think that saying the words "I believe," or even coming to the conclusion that God is around, is all you need to do to find eternal bliss in the afterlife?

Is there any reason you have, besides that it makes personal sense to you, for believing that an afterlife of eternal bliss will not have such an arbitrary acceptance policy?

[deshead]

we must agree that God operates beyond the realm of physics. This gives us a framework for our discussion

No it doesn't. It removes all frameworks. If we agree that god can do and know absolutely anything, even if that entails self-contradiction, then it becomes impossible to have any discussion.

In fairness, you knocked the ends off what I said. I didn't mean the statement to apply absolutely, just within the context of a discussion about the effect of special relativity on God's powers. I think, then, we're saying the same thing: serious discussion is impossible without agreed-upon ground rules.

These are invented situations, and so you have to regard them as invented paradoxes--logical puzzles. Words like "omniscience" and "all-powerful" are simply words, and are faulted by the fact--they're blanket statements meant to represent something that may or may not actually be able to exist.

OK, so it's semantics. FWIW, though, I agree with you. (But also FWIW, the speed of light as a limit on the speed at which information can move around the universe is not an "invented situation". It's a basic physical law upon which the structure of our universe depends. God either has to deal with it or has found a way around it. But whichever it is, the parties to a discussion about the nature of God must agree, otherwise they're talking apples and oranges.... was more my point.)

This is why you should not take up an intellectual discussion of any god as "all-powerful"--it's a very clumsy word.

Yup.

[c hack]

To which I would add, to all believers: do you really think that saying the words "I believe," or even coming to the conclusion that God is around, is all you need to do to find eternal bliss in the afterlife?

Is there any reason you have, besides that it makes personal sense to you, for believing that an afterlife of eternal bliss will not have such an arbitrary acceptance policy?

Plenty. For instance, Christ said "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into the kingdom of heaven." But if a rich man could just say "I believe in God," that would be quite a bit easier than putting a camel through the eye of a needle. Another example: Many Christians say "In order to get into heaven, you have to have Jesus Christ in your heart." (I don't know if that specific verbage is in the Bible or not, but let's say it is.) Most people take that in a sentimental way, figuring it means you have to love Christ like you love your puppy dog. But I think you have to take it almost literally -- that became clear to me after reading Franny & Zooey, and then reading The Way of a Pilgrim.

But, maybe most importantly, if you're of the habit of learning about all religions and trying to use what they all have in common to get an understanding of the God they're all pointing to, as I am, most of the eastern ones don't have such an arbitrary acceptance policy. They mostly say you have to not only lead a certain type of life, but also totally change your spiritual self (awaken at least the 4th chakra, etc.). I think Christ gets at the same thing, but it gets glossed over.

[HeuristicsInc]

Most people take that in a sentimental way, figuring it means you have to love Christ like you love your puppy dog. But I think you have to take it almost literally -- that became clear to me after reading Franny & Zooey, and then reading The Way of a Pilgrim.

This is interesting. What do you mean?

I think Christ gets at the same thing, but it gets glossed over.

Yes, He does... here's one example:

28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”

29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.[e] 30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[f] 31The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[g]There is no commandment greater than these.”

32“Well said, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. 33To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”

34When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.

See, it's more than just saying something.
That's just one example.
-bill

[c hack]

Most people take that in a sentimental way, figuring it means you have to love Christ like you love your puppy dog. But I think you have to take it almost literally -- that became clear to me after reading Franny & Zooey, and then reading The Way of a Pilgrim.

This is interesting. What do you mean?

"The Way of a Pilgrim" (which is what Franny is reading in "Franny") is about this Russian peasant who decides he won't rest until he finds out what Saint Peter meant by "You should pray constantly." He travels all over and is eventually taught the Jesus prayer, which is to meditate and repeat the phrase "Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me" over and over again. After a while of doing this, it starts to become unconscious, and you get to the point where you're saying it all the time in the background throughout the day. But the thing is, you have to imagine it going on not in your head, but in your heart. Which happens to be (not coincidentally, IMO) the same place the easterners tell us is the 4th chakra.

32“Well said, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him.

This is interesting. When you first read it, you assume he means, "There is not other God but Him," because that's what we're used to. But I think he means exactly what he's saying, "There is no other but him" meaning, "There is nothing that isn't God."

[erik]

But, maybe most importantly, if you're of the habit of learning about all religions and trying to use what they all have in common to get an understanding of the God they're all pointing to, as I am, most of the eastern ones don't have such an arbitrary acceptance policy. They mostly say you have to not only lead a certain type of life, but also totally change your spiritual self (awaken at least the 4th chakra, etc.). I think Christ gets at the same thing, but it gets glossed over.

Different religions may point to different Gods. Some religions may point to Gods that don't exist. The fact that a lot of eastern religions promote different things doesn't mean that believing that acknowledging that Jesus is your savior isn't a perfectly valid belief-system for how to get into Heaven.

[thehipcola]

how does your post relate to the quote you used, 15-16?

[sparks]

If you think history writing has only been 'anylitical', rigorous or accurate in recent decades, you're just plain wrong. For as long as there's been historians (since Herodotus at least) there's been careful ones and careless ones.

I don't know what other name you might have posted under, and I don't see how it matters much.

I don't think I implied that modern history is some ultimate representation of objective analysis--but if you were to qualify it against history from say, even the late 1800s, you're looking at a pretty huge divide. The 1960s certainly represent progress toward modern study (which is not ideal, but which is an obvious improvement), but you're still looking at a very, very different norm of style.

There have always been "better" and "worse" historians, but I'm talking more about style than quality, to be more articulate. There have always been a lot of different approaches to history--there are some with a heavy reliance on lifeless detail, those with a strict concept of progression (like the Marxist approach, but also like others), and then there are however many splinters and personal styles you could image. I was simply looking for your opinion on the presentation of the book.

And I've always been sparks. Don't get me wrong, I don't wear post counts like a badge of honor, but I was a thorough nuisance on the Dumbrella SF forums for three or four years before I took my little break. I just want to make it known that I'm a troll with persistence!

[sparks]

To which I would add, to all believers: do you really think that saying the words "I believe," or even coming to the conclusion that God is around, is all you need to do to find eternal bliss in the afterlife?

Is there any reason you have, besides that it makes personal sense to you, for believing that an afterlife of eternal bliss will not have such an arbitrary acceptance policy?

Has anyone read Job: A Comedy of Justice by Heinlein? Fantastic semi-comedy on the subject, and something of a deviation from what you'd expect from the author.


And I don't see what you're getting at, Hip-Cola. Erik made a pretty good point, and a relevant one to the quote, though I guess you could say a rhetorical one. Or Socratic, I guess, if not rhetorical--there was a point to it. Religions make plenty of arbitrary statements, and the religions heavily formed (at least by most interpretations of those religion) on a text or texts tend to make even more, I think. There's no reason their indications about the afterlife shouldn't be just as arbitrary.

While I wouldn't ever suggest against learning about new religions, I think a lot of people (and I mean a lot) fall victim to the appeal of something simply because it is new to them, picking out every nice feature and ignoring every awful one. Some people additionally like certain Eastern religions because they're less detailed in their makeup and proscriptions, which I think most of us might agree makes for a more pleasant religion from the "consumer" side of the affair.

[Kapitano]

The 1960s certainly represent progress toward modern study (which is not ideal, but which is an obvious improvement), but you're still looking at a very, very different style of research.

You're looking at postmodern relativism, historians turned into historians of historical method, postcolonial handwringing in europe, new colonialism in america, and history fragmented into histories of gender, of sexuality, of technology, ideas, food, media, witchcraft and a thousand other subdisciplines.

There have always been "better" and "worse" historians, but I'm talking more about style than quality, to be more articulate.

Read Edward Gibbon. Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Very articulate, lots of intriguing details. Falls apart, oddly enough, in it's central thesis, that the empire collapsed for 'moral' reasons as opposed to economic.

In short: it went bankrupt and was in denial about it. Think Enron.

There have always been a lot of different approaches to history--there are some with a heavy reliance on lifeless detail, those with a strict concept of progression (like the Marxist approach, but also like others)

Oh what a surprise, you take a sideswipe at marxism, and in doing so display your complete ignorance of the subject. There is nothing teleological about the marxist approach, and it's one of the few that can make sense of things like empires falling.

I just want to make it known that I'm a troll with persistence!

Are you trying to be charming?

[sparks]

I am fucking charming.

I think it's more than fair to say that the modern study of history (the professional study, at least) places less and less reliance upon supposition than it did two, three, ten generations ago. That's a very broad generalization, but it wasn't meant to be the topic of protracted discussion. Relativism and perhaps-invented subcategories of historical research found their place in more modern study, but those are only single elements in a greater picture. Style changes. Research method and intensity changes. I'm not asking you if Asimov chose to study the history of the Bible through a dissection of the period's foods, I simply pointed out that the study of history has -changed- in the past fifty years. Not as much as it has in the past hundred, granted, but it has changed. I was musing about the fact that a 1960s approach to something that's been approached to my knowledge in hundreds of books and articles in recent history might be rather different than this modern approach.

There's more that distinguishes modern historiography from that of previous periods than the kind of fluff you've pointed out, anyhow (e.g. "food history"). It's not a value judgement or a great topic for debate, it's a plain observation.

As for Marx, I don't see the sideswipe. I listed it in very casual passing as a school of history (though rather defunct in these days--does simply mentioning it imply insult now?). And I wasn't referring to creation when I referred to Marx, but historiography. We got sidetracked, remember? I asked for more of what you thought of the Asimov work and we got into the whole pros-and-cons-of-modern-historiography debate, somehow.

[c hack]

Different religions may point to different Gods. Some religions may point to Gods that don't exist. The fact that a lot of eastern religions promote different things doesn't mean that believing that acknowledging that Jesus is your savior isn't a perfectly valid belief-system for how to get into Heaven.

The fact that eastern religions promote different things is only a part of why I believe that merely acknowledging Jesus as your savior isn't going to get you very far. Most of it is how I interpret the Christian gospel.

As far as your first sentence goes, there's two kinds of religions: the kind that point to God, and the kind that are bullshit. Scientology is, IMO, bullshit. Christianity and Buddhism, IMO, both point to God. They're like different hands pointing at the same thing. It's not like Christ and the Buddha (or Vishnu or whatever) are equally valid Gods that are at odds with each other. I think that's completely missing the point.

[roymond]

It's not like Christ and the Buddha (or Vishnu or whatever) are equally valid Gods that are at odds with each other. I think that's completely missing the point.

exactly. they are but icons of an indescribable essense which needs something to allow folks to focus on it. cultures create their own vision of god for obvious reasons.

[Dan Wrekenhaus 2]

Jesus said, ""I am the way, and the truth, and the life" - John 14:6. Lest anyone misunderstand what He meant by "the way", He went on to say, "No one comes to the Father but through Me." Rather explicit. It was also confirmed by Peter. "There is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved" - Acts 4:12.

My point with this is that it seems illogical to me to think that the Bible could be just as correct as another book or teaching. Versus such as these don't leave much room for "meeting in the middle," so to speak. I guess it could be argued that there are some other options, such as 'Biblical Christianity' not being included in the 'all religions point to the same god' idea, or that these versus do not belong. My interpretation, however, is you either should accept it as the one valid source, or dismiss it as not an option.