Why are geeks often atheist?(m4th.com)
m4th.com
Why are geeks often atheist?
http://m4th.com/Articles/Why-are-geeks-often-atheists.php
235 comments
I became an atheist gradually over my first year of university. That's when I took General Chemistry and realized that science really does work. Then I realized that the Earth really is very old, not 20,000 years old like my parents had taught me. From that point I just had to examine every one of my beliefs and see which ones crumble before the light of reason.
It's been a long process. I'm still discovering beliefs that need examination.
I think the hardest part about losing one's religious beliefs is that the differing belief systems become a barrier the relating to family and friends. And how can one avoid coming across as a know-it-all when talking with folks who are ignorant of science?
It's been a long process. I'm still discovering beliefs that need examination.
I think the hardest part about losing one's religious beliefs is that the differing belief systems become a barrier the relating to family and friends. And how can one avoid coming across as a know-it-all when talking with folks who are ignorant of science?
"And how can one avoid coming across as a know-it-all when talking with folks who are ignorant of science?"
I don't see any way that science is incompatible with god. If science shows that something is false (eg. the age of the earth) then it is false. Science cannot disprove the existence of god by the very nature of what god is (outside of this reality). Science can show a need for a god or a multiverse, but it can't prove or disprove it.
You make it sound like people who learn about science automatically abandon a belief in the supernatural. There is some comfort to be had in believing that this physical world is the extent of reality, but that doesn't make it true.
I don't see any way that science is incompatible with god. If science shows that something is false (eg. the age of the earth) then it is false. Science cannot disprove the existence of god by the very nature of what god is (outside of this reality). Science can show a need for a god or a multiverse, but it can't prove or disprove it.
You make it sound like people who learn about science automatically abandon a belief in the supernatural. There is some comfort to be had in believing that this physical world is the extent of reality, but that doesn't make it true.
Science itself may not have anything to say about religion per se, but a scientific worldview is incompatible with a christian worldview, as a scientific worldview demands evidence and falsifiable claims and a christian one demands the opposite, faith.
> a scientific worldview is incompatible with a christian worldview
I beg to disagree. It is incompatible with the New World Neo-Protestant Christian (Baptist etc) worldview. Most Old-World Churches (Catholic and the church I was raised in, Eastern Orthodox) fully accept scientific discoveries, including evolution. They do not hold the Bible (especially Genesis) to be literally true. Fundamentalist Christians do, they are defined by this. For example, the story of creation from Genesis is understood as a metaphor: the seven days are not literally days, but epochs etc. The metaphor is undestood to have been created to avoid confusing the ancient people. The Creationism debate in the US is watched with disbelief and smirks - don't they have worthier stuff to debate? - and is believed to stem from bigotry and plain anti-intellectual bias. Of course, we Old Worlders (especially Eastern Europeans) have a strong elitist (in the US sense) intelectual bias, like the US East coast. Calling someone ignorant is a very strong insult.
> a scientific worldview demands evidence and falsifiable claims and a christian one demands the opposite, faith.
Christianity has looked for proof since its inception. The Holy Books are nothing more than written testimonies of witnesses (By today's cynical standards, quite weak evidence). All theologians since have looked for logical proofs. Unfortunately, they have not found one. But it would be hasty to ignore the tradition of Christian theology's search for it.
I beg to disagree. It is incompatible with the New World Neo-Protestant Christian (Baptist etc) worldview. Most Old-World Churches (Catholic and the church I was raised in, Eastern Orthodox) fully accept scientific discoveries, including evolution. They do not hold the Bible (especially Genesis) to be literally true. Fundamentalist Christians do, they are defined by this. For example, the story of creation from Genesis is understood as a metaphor: the seven days are not literally days, but epochs etc. The metaphor is undestood to have been created to avoid confusing the ancient people. The Creationism debate in the US is watched with disbelief and smirks - don't they have worthier stuff to debate? - and is believed to stem from bigotry and plain anti-intellectual bias. Of course, we Old Worlders (especially Eastern Europeans) have a strong elitist (in the US sense) intelectual bias, like the US East coast. Calling someone ignorant is a very strong insult.
> a scientific worldview demands evidence and falsifiable claims and a christian one demands the opposite, faith.
Christianity has looked for proof since its inception. The Holy Books are nothing more than written testimonies of witnesses (By today's cynical standards, quite weak evidence). All theologians since have looked for logical proofs. Unfortunately, they have not found one. But it would be hasty to ignore the tradition of Christian theology's search for it.
I can't see how you can incorporate a belief (faith) without strong evidence, by your own admission, into a scientific worldview which would demand evidence precede belief.
I agree that some christian sects are more open minded about science than others, but at the end of the day, it's the scientific worldview that doesn't lend itself to the christian worldview, not the other way around.
I agree that some christian sects are more open minded about science than others, but at the end of the day, it's the scientific worldview that doesn't lend itself to the christian worldview, not the other way around.
In rejecting an organized religion, why make a leap to rejecting the entire inquiry? We're already well-into that technological future you imagine. Indeed, we're communicating across the globe at sometimes the speed of light. But the most difficult questions of our humanity still have yet to be answered. I can't see that ever changing save for God incarnate descending (again?). :)
A very influential book for me: A Common Faith by John Dewey - a pragmatic philosopher with a realistic approach and hope.
The real problem, to me, is one of literalism vs. metaphor. I read the Old and New Testaments for insight but not history or science. Some would find that appalling. Others appealing. The choice is mine and ours to believe what we want.
A very influential book for me: A Common Faith by John Dewey - a pragmatic philosopher with a realistic approach and hope.
The real problem, to me, is one of literalism vs. metaphor. I read the Old and New Testaments for insight but not history or science. Some would find that appalling. Others appealing. The choice is mine and ours to believe what we want.
The thing is, if god exists, all is hopeless, because everything is arbitrary (at the whim of said god). Only without a god is there any hope for us humans to make sense of things.
I think in a way the existence of god would be very depressing, because it would make everything meaningless.
I think in a way the existence of god would be very depressing, because it would make everything meaningless.
There is a caveat to this assertion; If said god is entirely internally consistent, then his whim is no more arbitrary than the laws of nature.
Perhaps this is contained in the definition "God", perhaps this is why religious types are always on about "holiness" (which I have gathered mostly means "internally consistent") .
Perhaps this is contained in the definition "God", perhaps this is why religious types are always on about "holiness" (which I have gathered mostly means "internally consistent") .
Wouldn't "internally consistent" be equivalent to "god doesn't exist"?
Again, that's a specific definition that I don't ascribe to. Not that I have an answer either that I can easily describe. But it works for me.
"In rejecting an organized religion, why make a leap to rejecting the entire inquiry?"
They spoiled it for us.
But if you're serious^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hrational in your inquiry, you'll come to discover that, like Santa Claus, God does not exist, at which point you will also reject the inquiry. All of it.
They spoiled it for us.
But if you're serious^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hrational in your inquiry, you'll come to discover that, like Santa Claus, God does not exist, at which point you will also reject the inquiry. All of it.
Belief in God and belief in Santa Claus are not equivalent. There is no reason inherent in usual descriptions of Santa Claus that one would expect him not to show up on radar, for example, so you can take his absence as evidence of nonexistence. While there are a lot of specifics in the Bible that can be similarly tested, the usual view of (non-fundamentalist) Christians today is that the miracles and such aren't necessarily literal, so there's nothing to test: belief in God-the-Creator is a given, and no amount of evidence or reason can legitimately sway a believer to disbelieve, or a non-believer to believe.
Indeed; I'm familiar with this. If you believe in the Christian God, it's possible to rationally assert that no test can prove Him, but that after death everyone will know that He exists.
The simulation argument, linked to recently here, I believe, has much the same features without the religious baggage: there is no experiment you can do which will provide direct evidence that you are, or are not, in a simulation. In the extreme case, the simulators could just stop the sim, back up, and change the outcome of the experiment (or just your perception of the outcome), and continue on.
However, it might still be important to your future survival whether you act as though you are or are not in one, in either case.
The simulation argument, linked to recently here, I believe, has much the same features without the religious baggage: there is no experiment you can do which will provide direct evidence that you are, or are not, in a simulation. In the extreme case, the simulators could just stop the sim, back up, and change the outcome of the experiment (or just your perception of the outcome), and continue on.
However, it might still be important to your future survival whether you act as though you are or are not in one, in either case.
Unfortunately, you first have to define something before you can say whether it exists. And a proof for God has remained elusive. Santa Claus I don't know about because I never believed in him (or the Easter Bunny!).
Still, there are some definitions you might offer for God that I'd agree with. And your conclusion would be to reject the existence. Mine would be to ask for better a definition.
Still, there are some definitions you might offer for God that I'd agree with. And your conclusion would be to reject the existence. Mine would be to ask for better a definition.
Keep weakening (or twisting) the definition until the answer to that question is "Yes"? Is there a rationale for doing this?
I love how you worked WTC, supposedly a victim of religion, into your story :-)
> It might make sense to think that many such geeks simply find something as simple as a creator an overly simplistic explanation for something so elegant.
"Overly simplistic" is nearly the opposite of the problem. We want our first principles to be simple -- the fewer axioms, the better. By contrast, a god is something mind-bogglingly complex, far more complex than the universe itself. That makes it a thoroughly unsatisfactory explanation.
"Overly simplistic" is nearly the opposite of the problem. We want our first principles to be simple -- the fewer axioms, the better. By contrast, a god is something mind-bogglingly complex, far more complex than the universe itself. That makes it a thoroughly unsatisfactory explanation.
But see it's up to you (if you accept the challenge) to come up with a satisfactory answer. I know I have - for myself. And my wife and I mostly agree. That's enough. We won't teach our (eventual) kids dogmatically but we will teach them a healthy appreciation of the power and pitfalls of religious thought. To us, it's a part of what it means to be human. An atheist, to me, is simply saying "No, that definition is wrong and I don't believe in it!". To me, that's a weird perspective for folks who come up with definitions day after day.
On topic, I do wish folks down-voting me throughout this thread would explain why. I started posting because I'm very interested in the question but lack an answer. Down-voting me only proves the point and necessitating the very question!
On topic, I do wish folks down-voting me throughout this thread would explain why. I started posting because I'm very interested in the question but lack an answer. Down-voting me only proves the point and necessitating the very question!
We could argue with you, but it would accomplish little.
1. I'm not looking for a satisfactory answer. I'm looking for the answer that is most plausible. I go where evidence leads me. In this case, there is as much evidence for god as there is for unicorns. This is not sufficient to dismiss the concept of god entirely, but it should at least give you pause.
2. I have debated religious people for hours and hours. I don't know any atheist who hasn't seriously evaluated his beliefs. My position is very close to the one of Richard Dawkins. Read his books (especially Selfish Gene and The God Delusion). The last book is not as confrontational as the title suggests. Dawkins has done a few programmes for the BBC, you can easily find them online.
3. There doesn't -need- to be an answer. When a problem is very complex, it is always better to honestly admit you don't know than to make something up that sounds nice or gives comfort.
4. You can't expect people to explain their position again and again on forums like these. Reading books is a far more efficient way to understand alternative points of view. Only when you have -specific- questions does it make sense to challenge people online.
1. I'm not looking for a satisfactory answer. I'm looking for the answer that is most plausible. I go where evidence leads me. In this case, there is as much evidence for god as there is for unicorns. This is not sufficient to dismiss the concept of god entirely, but it should at least give you pause.
2. I have debated religious people for hours and hours. I don't know any atheist who hasn't seriously evaluated his beliefs. My position is very close to the one of Richard Dawkins. Read his books (especially Selfish Gene and The God Delusion). The last book is not as confrontational as the title suggests. Dawkins has done a few programmes for the BBC, you can easily find them online.
3. There doesn't -need- to be an answer. When a problem is very complex, it is always better to honestly admit you don't know than to make something up that sounds nice or gives comfort.
4. You can't expect people to explain their position again and again on forums like these. Reading books is a far more efficient way to understand alternative points of view. Only when you have -specific- questions does it make sense to challenge people online.
All models are false but some models are useful. http://is.gd/MnP
Usefulness of the God model depends on the context. Therefore it does not make sense to discuss such things without a context.
Usefulness of the God model depends on the context. Therefore it does not make sense to discuss such things without a context.
4. You can't expect people to explain their position again and again on forums like these.
If this thread is any indication, then actually, you can expect people to explain their position again and again. The tough thing is getting them to stop.
/me is guilty as charged...
If this thread is any indication, then actually, you can expect people to explain their position again and again. The tough thing is getting them to stop.
/me is guilty as charged...
I wasn't interested in an "argument". I was interested in an answer to the question posed by the post and specifically to this community. Thank you for your perspective. Dawkins I find unsatisfactory as specified elsewhere here.
Geeks aren't religious? I think Emacs would be a good OS if it came with a halfway-decent text editor.
Hehe, so true. Geeks usually place their religion all over licenses, languages, editors, operating systems, methodologies, etc.
Some people choose ideologies. There must be an evolutionary explanation for religion somewhere.
Some people choose ideologies. There must be an evolutionary explanation for religion somewhere.
Maybe this Usenet group is for you?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.emacs/topics
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.emacs/topics
DIE HERETIC SCUM!
I have to say that this thread shows why I'm so impressed with the YC community. Ordinarily this sort of discussion is very thorny; and almost always ends up as a flame fest within the first 10 posts.
Instead, we're drinking tea in the middle of the brier patch.
Instead, we're drinking tea in the middle of the brier patch.
"this thread shows why I'm so impressed with the YC community"
I was actually thinking the opposite. I come here for news and articles relating to technology start ups, and this thread shows how far off track hacker news has gotten.
I was actually thinking the opposite. I come here for news and articles relating to technology start ups, and this thread shows how far off track hacker news has gotten.
This site is now "Hacker News", not "Startup News". http://ycombinator.com/hackernews.html
Site guidelines: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Site guidelines: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I'm well aware that hacker news is not limited to stories about technology or start ups. However, that is the origin of this site and those are still the topics where it shines.
This discussion, however, is pure fluff. I equate it to the videos of pratfalls and cute animal pictures that the guidelines admonish against.
This discussion, however, is pure fluff. I equate it to the videos of pratfalls and cute animal pictures that the guidelines admonish against.
I was thinking the same thing. I thought about posting a "please stop" thread to this but decided against it. I figured that if I ignored it then it might go away.
It's not that I don't appreciate this sort of discussion. I like the openness of asking these questions. It's just that I can go to any corner of the internet with a forum and see most of the same.
They say you're not supposed to discuss religion and politics, I'd personally prefer to keep to this guide, and we don't see much of politics here.
It's not that I don't appreciate this sort of discussion. I like the openness of asking these questions. It's just that I can go to any corner of the internet with a forum and see most of the same.
They say you're not supposed to discuss religion and politics, I'd personally prefer to keep to this guide, and we don't see much of politics here.
"They say you're not supposed to discuss religion and politics"
That advice is for situations where you need to "just get along", but it's an actively harmful stance if you're trying to seek truth, understand reality, fight regressive politics, etc.
That advice is for situations where you need to "just get along", but it's an actively harmful stance if you're trying to seek truth, understand reality, fight regressive politics, etc.
>They say you're not supposed to discuss religion and politics
Fuck the man
By that, specifically, I mean that a mysterious ethereal social convention is not a good reason for me to do or not do something, especially on the internet.
Fuck the man
By that, specifically, I mean that a mysterious ethereal social convention is not a good reason for me to do or not do something, especially on the internet.
[deleted]
Simple. Geeks respect and understand the scientific method. Anything that cannot be observed and tested is considered speculation and not fact.
Being an atheist in no mean requires that you remain an atheist forever. Scientists have believed, at many times, in things that we now know are not strictly correct. Once evidence arrives and experiments are performed, scientific consensus changes.
Being an atheist in no mean requires that you remain an atheist forever. Scientists have believed, at many times, in things that we now know are not strictly correct. Once evidence arrives and experiments are performed, scientific consensus changes.
Frankly, I believe that a lot of people who call themselves Athiests are in fact Agnostics; and don't really stop to think about the difference.
I would venture to guess that most scientists especially are agnostic because it fits the scientific method better - we can not presume to know what we cannot measure, and all that.
Atheism is the idea that we know that there is know higher power. Any scientist has to know that it is impossible to have that absolute knowledge because we have no tests to prove or disprove the hypothesis.
I would venture to guess that most scientists especially are agnostic because it fits the scientific method better - we can not presume to know what we cannot measure, and all that.
Atheism is the idea that we know that there is know higher power. Any scientist has to know that it is impossible to have that absolute knowledge because we have no tests to prove or disprove the hypothesis.
I disagree. I think most atheists are, strictly speaking, agnostics (even if some may not know the term agnostic). When pressed, we'll concede that, no, we don't _really_ know whether a Creator exists. However, our doubts are so very small that, for all practical purposes, it's more convenient, and not really any less honest, to think and argue as though we were entirely sure.
Conversely, I think that intellectually honest believers have a similar but opposite belief. Although, as a nonbeliever myself, I have a hard time putting myself in their shoes, or my brain inside their skulls, so maybe I'm mistaken here.
Conversely, I think that intellectually honest believers have a similar but opposite belief. Although, as a nonbeliever myself, I have a hard time putting myself in their shoes, or my brain inside their skulls, so maybe I'm mistaken here.
No, it's worse than that. I think we know well enough that we're agnostic. It's just that agnostics have even worse PR than atheists.
Look at the digg survey this article links to: there's no option for "agnostic". Did the agnostics choose "atheist" or "other"? Either way, they're hidden.
Look at the photo spread: it lists "Famous Agnostics/Atheists", as if they're the same thing, but at least half are arguably agnostic:
- Darwin: self-described agnostic; claimed he had "never been an athiest"
- Einstein: "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic."
- Edison: apparently a lifelong agnostic
- Gates: can't find a clear statement, but said in an interview "I don't know if there's a god or not"
Look at the article itself: there's no mention of agnosticism at all. They're simply using a photo of a famous agnostic to bolster an argument about atheism.
I believe that a lot of us who are (and rightfully claim to be) agnostic are being labeled "atheist" by people who don't know or care.
Look at the digg survey this article links to: there's no option for "agnostic". Did the agnostics choose "atheist" or "other"? Either way, they're hidden.
Look at the photo spread: it lists "Famous Agnostics/Atheists", as if they're the same thing, but at least half are arguably agnostic:
- Darwin: self-described agnostic; claimed he had "never been an athiest"
- Einstein: "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic."
- Edison: apparently a lifelong agnostic
- Gates: can't find a clear statement, but said in an interview "I don't know if there's a god or not"
Look at the article itself: there's no mention of agnosticism at all. They're simply using a photo of a famous agnostic to bolster an argument about atheism.
I believe that a lot of us who are (and rightfully claim to be) agnostic are being labeled "atheist" by people who don't know or care.
Even atheists don't -know- whether there's a god or not. So the statement Gates made sounds like the statement from a politically correct atheist. Einstein also considered the idea of a personal god very implausible.
I think an agnostic is somebody who doesn't know whether god exists, but considers it a 50/50 situation. Both sides are equally plausible. A fence-sitter, if you will. An atheist thinks extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that the evidence for god doesn't stack up. Therefore atheists are forced to conclude there probably is no god. Or simply said: there is no god. Even though we all admit we may be wrong.
I think an agnostic is somebody who doesn't know whether god exists, but considers it a 50/50 situation. Both sides are equally plausible. A fence-sitter, if you will. An atheist thinks extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that the evidence for god doesn't stack up. Therefore atheists are forced to conclude there probably is no god. Or simply said: there is no god. Even though we all admit we may be wrong.
I disagree with you on this point. Atheists make the claim that there is definitively no god, just as theists make the claim that there is one definitively.
All people I know who label themself atheist accept they might be wrong. I don't think atheists exist that claim to know with absolute certainty that no god could possibly exist.
In fact, I'm pretty sure not a single person reading HN is an atheist by your definition. Even Richard Dawkins is an agnostic by your definition. I can only conclude that your definition does't make sense.
Challenge: find me an atheist who fits your definition.
You'll find none.
In fact, I'm pretty sure not a single person reading HN is an atheist by your definition. Even Richard Dawkins is an agnostic by your definition. I can only conclude that your definition does't make sense.
Challenge: find me an atheist who fits your definition.
You'll find none.
I'm not saying that they reject the possibility that they might be wrong; they couldn't do that any more than they could reject the possibility that they're wrong about anything immeasurable (to themselves).
The very definition of Athiesm is to deny the existence of a god or a higher power.
As soon as you admit there is a real possibility that there may be a god or a higher power; bam, you're an agnostic.
Which is the crux of my point - the definition of Atheist is often misused, as in this article. There are far more Agnostics than Atheists, it's just that Atheism gets used more frequently.
This page discussing the differences far more eloquently than I ever could:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html
The very definition of Athiesm is to deny the existence of a god or a higher power.
As soon as you admit there is a real possibility that there may be a god or a higher power; bam, you're an agnostic.
Which is the crux of my point - the definition of Atheist is often misused, as in this article. There are far more Agnostics than Atheists, it's just that Atheism gets used more frequently.
This page discussing the differences far more eloquently than I ever could:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html
There is some confusion here, I'll agree.
I made the argument earlier in this thread that not only do we have no tests to prove or disprove theism, we cannot have any such tests, because theism and atheism are statements about what's beyond our (philosophical) universe. Any god you can formulate a test for isn't really God-the-Creator-of-All in the first place.
So, belief in God, or the lack thereof, is just an assumption. This assumption will influence your actions, of course, and belief or the absence of it may well be beneficial or harmful. Either you live your life as if God exists, or you don't. If you don't, you might as well call yourself an atheist... and that's why I do.
I made the argument earlier in this thread that not only do we have no tests to prove or disprove theism, we cannot have any such tests, because theism and atheism are statements about what's beyond our (philosophical) universe. Any god you can formulate a test for isn't really God-the-Creator-of-All in the first place.
So, belief in God, or the lack thereof, is just an assumption. This assumption will influence your actions, of course, and belief or the absence of it may well be beneficial or harmful. Either you live your life as if God exists, or you don't. If you don't, you might as well call yourself an atheist... and that's why I do.
The difference is subtle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
And largely an exercise in classification. Still, it's handy knowledge to have, should you enjoy that sort of thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
And largely an exercise in classification. Still, it's handy knowledge to have, should you enjoy that sort of thing.
Ack, what a terrible typo I've made. I intended to state that "Atheism is the idea that we know there is NO higher power."
This is why you should not comment before your first coffee of the day.
This is why you should not comment before your first coffee of the day.
I know several atheists (some of them are scientists) who became Islam, Christian, etc, because they need HOPE in life. And they did not have to wait until science provides them the evidences that show God does exist.
If you choose to ignore science and logic in one area of your life, that is your choice and not necessarily a bad thing. It is often necessary psychologically to hide from the truth, but it doesn't make the untrue any more true.
Some people find it impossible to accept or not accept all manner of things, but whether or not you accept or do not accept something does not change whether or not that something is true.
Some people find it impossible to accept or not accept all manner of things, but whether or not you accept or do not accept something does not change whether or not that something is true.
Unfortunately though we put too much faith in the scientific method. I'm still waiting for an adequate explanation of Gravity but I believe in it.
Proving that something exists is the first step, before getting an "adequate explanation." The scientific method already proves that gravity exists. It doesn't matter if we don't have an explanation for it, but it exists. The same cannot be said for a god / gods at this stage.
The scientific method is used to make educated guesses based on prior evidence.
Using newton's models we have figured out how (and why) planets orbit the sun, why objects fall equally quickly in a vacuum, etc. The scientific method has nothing to do with finding absolute answers. Still we're able to accomplish remarkable things simply by testing what works and what doesn't. Man on moon. Proves pretty conclusively that it's not about having ultimate answers, it's about having a model of the world that's so awesome you can stick people on a giant rocket and hurl them into space without anything going boom.
For every answer a scientist gives you you can answer a more specific question, until the scientist answers; "I don't know". Always. The ultimate answer is always "don't know". But every decade or so we have one extra answer in the chain of knowledge before we have to admit we don't know.
Using newton's models we have figured out how (and why) planets orbit the sun, why objects fall equally quickly in a vacuum, etc. The scientific method has nothing to do with finding absolute answers. Still we're able to accomplish remarkable things simply by testing what works and what doesn't. Man on moon. Proves pretty conclusively that it's not about having ultimate answers, it's about having a model of the world that's so awesome you can stick people on a giant rocket and hurl them into space without anything going boom.
For every answer a scientist gives you you can answer a more specific question, until the scientist answers; "I don't know". Always. The ultimate answer is always "don't know". But every decade or so we have one extra answer in the chain of knowledge before we have to admit we don't know.
here's an explanation of gravity http://www.amazon.com/Gravitation-Physics-Charles-W-Misner/d...
long story short, gravity is the curvature of spacetime. objects of mass cause the curvature, and the curvature in turn causes objects to move locally along geodesics (shortest-distance paths), which causes the curvature to shift
when you throw a ball and it's moving through a parabola, that curve taken with time in a riemannian space is actually the straightest line possible from one end of the throw to the other
this is Einstein's magnum opus General Relativity
long story short, gravity is the curvature of spacetime. objects of mass cause the curvature, and the curvature in turn causes objects to move locally along geodesics (shortest-distance paths), which causes the curvature to shift
when you throw a ball and it's moving through a parabola, that curve taken with time in a riemannian space is actually the straightest line possible from one end of the throw to the other
this is Einstein's magnum opus General Relativity
A few years ago I was arguing with a mormon that, if he wanted some scientific theory to attack with bile, he'd have his best shot at gravity. Evolution, on the other hand, has been very well explained from all possible fronts.
The problem with gravity is that, as a daily experience, it fades out into uninteresting routine (except perhaps for rocket scientists and other specialists.)
The problem with gravity is that, as a daily experience, it fades out into uninteresting routine (except perhaps for rocket scientists and other specialists.)
I've always found it extremely ironic that the religious crowd (yes, I know I'm over-generalizing) spends so much time arguing against evolution, which has nothing whatsoever to say about gods or the origins of life. But they say nothing about quantum mechanics, which not only elegantly eliminates the need for any sort of "prime mover", but blows the possibility of a god existing completely out of the water.
Color of bike-shed.
How does quantum mechanics "blow the possibility of a god existing completely out of the water"?
This is why I believe in God: based on some unusual personal experiences that made it difficult to reject the supernatural, I came to the conclusion at one point that, in fact, consciousness is not an illusion, and that there is no such thing as randomness, and that our course along the quantum "tree" is chosen by some being for a purpose (or purposes). This doesn't mean that we live in a deterministic world, but that we live in a physical one that is constantly taking "pushes" from a spiritual beings. This seems supernatural and unlikely, but if we believe that the spirit (consciousness) is not an illusion, then we accept that a complex physical system, the brain, can be affected by a spiritual entity, human consciousness, and so it doesn't seem implausible that there are other spiritual beings among us, doing things like rigging the seemingly "random" collisions of particles so that 10^-20000 improbabilities (life) actually happen. This, coupled with the direct experience of mystics, makes it likely that there are vastly superior spiritual beings in existence, which could be construed as gods or facets of God.
This is why I believe in God: based on some unusual personal experiences that made it difficult to reject the supernatural, I came to the conclusion at one point that, in fact, consciousness is not an illusion, and that there is no such thing as randomness, and that our course along the quantum "tree" is chosen by some being for a purpose (or purposes). This doesn't mean that we live in a deterministic world, but that we live in a physical one that is constantly taking "pushes" from a spiritual beings. This seems supernatural and unlikely, but if we believe that the spirit (consciousness) is not an illusion, then we accept that a complex physical system, the brain, can be affected by a spiritual entity, human consciousness, and so it doesn't seem implausible that there are other spiritual beings among us, doing things like rigging the seemingly "random" collisions of particles so that 10^-20000 improbabilities (life) actually happen. This, coupled with the direct experience of mystics, makes it likely that there are vastly superior spiritual beings in existence, which could be construed as gods or facets of God.
First of all - you should disregard unusual personal experiences if you don't know of any way to repeat them. I dream. I even start halucinating when I don't sleep enough. People can even dream and halucinate under fairly ordinary circumstances. Given the tendency for people to halucinate, I see no reason to seek for supernatural explanations.
"Human consciousness" doesn't need to be something metaphysical. The brain is basically a big petri dish. Chemical reactions everywhere. Our understanding of it is poor, but we're making lots of progress. We know which regions serve which purpose, and we can make people laugh or cry by sticking electrodes in somebody's head during brain surgery. We can see people enjoying music, by watching electrical activity, and we can see how brains of savants differ from ours. The more we learn, the less of a mystery the brain becomes. But we still have 95% to explain.
As you make computer programs more complex you realize that sooner or later you have to start meta-programming. Only by making a program introspect itself or the system around it can you give it additional functionality. Windows Vista is a good example - it's all about processing watching other processes work. Watching memory patterns, to improve cache efficiency. Monitoring which programs are run often. Watching which clusters on the hard drive are suspiciously unresponsive. Meta. Meta meta meta.
Windows Vista is conscious in the sense that it feels when programs are unresponsive, or when the system has trouble shutting down. And it will try to take measures to fix it. Isn't this just basic consciousness? Nothing spiritual about it. And when you can explain consciousness by just saying it's a function of complexity of a brain we have a pretty plausible answer.
Does your cell phone have consciousness? Yes, but very little. Less than an ant, probably.
How about babies? Yes, but only as much consciousness as a cat.
How about a rock? Yes, about as much consciousness as a "Hello World" program. That's simply no consciousness at all.
Consciousness doesn't need to be a binary switch. A spark that people get at some point. A "soul" doesn't explain anything.
You probably don't agree with the way I frame my answers. So what's do you think the difference is between the capacity for introspection (think about self) and consciousness?
"Human consciousness" doesn't need to be something metaphysical. The brain is basically a big petri dish. Chemical reactions everywhere. Our understanding of it is poor, but we're making lots of progress. We know which regions serve which purpose, and we can make people laugh or cry by sticking electrodes in somebody's head during brain surgery. We can see people enjoying music, by watching electrical activity, and we can see how brains of savants differ from ours. The more we learn, the less of a mystery the brain becomes. But we still have 95% to explain.
As you make computer programs more complex you realize that sooner or later you have to start meta-programming. Only by making a program introspect itself or the system around it can you give it additional functionality. Windows Vista is a good example - it's all about processing watching other processes work. Watching memory patterns, to improve cache efficiency. Monitoring which programs are run often. Watching which clusters on the hard drive are suspiciously unresponsive. Meta. Meta meta meta.
Windows Vista is conscious in the sense that it feels when programs are unresponsive, or when the system has trouble shutting down. And it will try to take measures to fix it. Isn't this just basic consciousness? Nothing spiritual about it. And when you can explain consciousness by just saying it's a function of complexity of a brain we have a pretty plausible answer.
Does your cell phone have consciousness? Yes, but very little. Less than an ant, probably.
How about babies? Yes, but only as much consciousness as a cat.
How about a rock? Yes, about as much consciousness as a "Hello World" program. That's simply no consciousness at all.
Consciousness doesn't need to be a binary switch. A spark that people get at some point. A "soul" doesn't explain anything.
You probably don't agree with the way I frame my answers. So what's do you think the difference is between the capacity for introspection (think about self) and consciousness?
"First of all - you should disregard unusual personal experiences if you don't know of any way to repeat them."
I disagree. Experiences are not always under your control and therefore you can't always repeat them even if they are true. This is true in relationships with other humans and it seems likely that it would also be true with a personal god.
Let's say your girlfriend does something nice for you and you feel like you love her for it. Let's say she then dumps you for hottie that doesn't even know how to code and never talks to you again. You can't repeat that experience with her because her free choice made it possible. That doesn't mean that the experience was fake, it just means that it is outside of your control.
I'm sure there are some wholes in that logic, but hopefully it was able to shed some extra light on the subject.
I disagree. Experiences are not always under your control and therefore you can't always repeat them even if they are true. This is true in relationships with other humans and it seems likely that it would also be true with a personal god.
Let's say your girlfriend does something nice for you and you feel like you love her for it. Let's say she then dumps you for hottie that doesn't even know how to code and never talks to you again. You can't repeat that experience with her because her free choice made it possible. That doesn't mean that the experience was fake, it just means that it is outside of your control.
I'm sure there are some wholes in that logic, but hopefully it was able to shed some extra light on the subject.
"First of all - you should disregard unusual personal experiences if you don't know of any way to repeat them. I dream. I even start halucinating when I don't sleep enough. People can even dream and halucinate under fairly ordinary circumstances."
I was talking about paranormal experiences I've had, such as the ability to predict dates and details of major events. I don't believe that anyone (certainly not me) is "psychic" and I can't reproduce this at will, but there have been enough paranormal events in my life that I cannot ignore the likelihood of a conscious will directing the things we consider "random".
In October 2005, I predicted that I'd meet a girl at a very specific place (a particular coffeeshop) on a specific date, four months into the future, and had a rough vision of her appearance, knew her ethnicity and about six other details about her, all of which turned out to be correct. This ended up leading to a relationship that lasted over two years. There could be a "self-fulfilling prophecy" at work, but the mind-boggling number of details that matched leads me to find it unlikely. Although I cannot possibly explain why, I've had 5 or 6 occurrences like this (and a couple that didn't come true). I've also had limited success in drawing on past lives to develop talents that I never thought I had, although I haven't seen enough strength in this department to rule out non-paranormal explanations.
Frankly, my opinion is that "the paranormal" almost certainly exists, although 99% of it is complete bunk, and the remaining 1% is nearly impossible to control or contain.
I was talking about paranormal experiences I've had, such as the ability to predict dates and details of major events. I don't believe that anyone (certainly not me) is "psychic" and I can't reproduce this at will, but there have been enough paranormal events in my life that I cannot ignore the likelihood of a conscious will directing the things we consider "random".
In October 2005, I predicted that I'd meet a girl at a very specific place (a particular coffeeshop) on a specific date, four months into the future, and had a rough vision of her appearance, knew her ethnicity and about six other details about her, all of which turned out to be correct. This ended up leading to a relationship that lasted over two years. There could be a "self-fulfilling prophecy" at work, but the mind-boggling number of details that matched leads me to find it unlikely. Although I cannot possibly explain why, I've had 5 or 6 occurrences like this (and a couple that didn't come true). I've also had limited success in drawing on past lives to develop talents that I never thought I had, although I haven't seen enough strength in this department to rule out non-paranormal explanations.
Frankly, my opinion is that "the paranormal" almost certainly exists, although 99% of it is complete bunk, and the remaining 1% is nearly impossible to control or contain.
But we still have 95% to explain.
More like 99.99 % to explain, but we are working on it (neuroscientist here.)
As for consciousness: the ghost in the machine. That is, one can explain the machine with and without it -- the ghost is just one's perception of the other self, one's generalization and oversimplification of the other self.
More like 99.99 % to explain, but we are working on it (neuroscientist here.)
As for consciousness: the ghost in the machine. That is, one can explain the machine with and without it -- the ghost is just one's perception of the other self, one's generalization and oversimplification of the other self.
on a more general note, i see it from the perspective of obvious design (natural or otherwise)
what's more reasonable from a survival point of view, that that cut you just received on your left arm from a knife show up in some sort of terminator-like HUD...
.
.
.
[DAMAGE TO LEFT ARM]
.
.
.
[AVOID RECURRENCE IF POSSIBLE]
.
.
.
or that you are made to "feel" the cut as intrinsic to you? which are you more likely to heed? that's basically what i think consciousness arises from -- the need to internalize sensations so that you respect them. so that you respect the fact that some maniac with a knife just took a slice at your arm, or that your fingers are burning on the stove while you're standing there being absent minded and you NEED TO GET YOUR FINGERS OUT OF THERE RIGHT NOW
a HUD would be very poor for that sort of thing. i see consciousness as the best solution
what's more reasonable from a survival point of view, that that cut you just received on your left arm from a knife show up in some sort of terminator-like HUD...
.
.
.
[DAMAGE TO LEFT ARM]
.
.
.
[AVOID RECURRENCE IF POSSIBLE]
.
.
.
or that you are made to "feel" the cut as intrinsic to you? which are you more likely to heed? that's basically what i think consciousness arises from -- the need to internalize sensations so that you respect them. so that you respect the fact that some maniac with a knife just took a slice at your arm, or that your fingers are burning on the stove while you're standing there being absent minded and you NEED TO GET YOUR FINGERS OUT OF THERE RIGHT NOW
a HUD would be very poor for that sort of thing. i see consciousness as the best solution
10^-20000 improbabilities
Spluh, it's because they're smart.
Isaac Newton was highly religious and he was smarter than any Digg user. In fact, most smart people in Newton's time were religious. Atheism in those days was associated with poor uneducated people, the same way racism is today. Doesn't that disprove the hypothesis that intelligence causes people to be atheist?
Wait, I know what you're going to say to that. You're going to say that Newton et al. don't count because they lived before Darwin. The theory of natural selection, you say, was the first non-religious explanation of life that smart people could believe. Before that, everyone just defaulted to religion because there was no better theory available.
It's a nice idea, but I don't buy it. When I became an atheist as a teenager, I wasn't thinking about evolution; I didn't even have the foggiest understanding of Darwin's theories. I've encountered many other atheists who don't. Obviously, evolution is not usually what causes people to reject religion.
I think the real difference is that, in Newton's time, it was fashionable for smart people to be religious, whereas in our time it's fashionable for smart people to be atheist. Evolution was just the fashion's tipping point.
Specifically, Darwin caused a few very smart people to change their minds about religion, and the greater bulk of somewhat smart people (who desperately wanted to seem like very smart people) followed suit. Now anyone who wants to be considered smart will reject religion out of conformance.
Basically, people will believe anything as long as their being wrong has no noticeable impact on their lives. Intelligence has little to do with it. And the moral of this story is not that you are all conformist sheep, but that it doesn't matter. If Isaac Newton struck out on the big questions, then you probably will too. Just stop trying to answer impossible questions, and go live your life.
Wait, I know what you're going to say to that. You're going to say that Newton et al. don't count because they lived before Darwin. The theory of natural selection, you say, was the first non-religious explanation of life that smart people could believe. Before that, everyone just defaulted to religion because there was no better theory available.
It's a nice idea, but I don't buy it. When I became an atheist as a teenager, I wasn't thinking about evolution; I didn't even have the foggiest understanding of Darwin's theories. I've encountered many other atheists who don't. Obviously, evolution is not usually what causes people to reject religion.
I think the real difference is that, in Newton's time, it was fashionable for smart people to be religious, whereas in our time it's fashionable for smart people to be atheist. Evolution was just the fashion's tipping point.
Specifically, Darwin caused a few very smart people to change their minds about religion, and the greater bulk of somewhat smart people (who desperately wanted to seem like very smart people) followed suit. Now anyone who wants to be considered smart will reject religion out of conformance.
Basically, people will believe anything as long as their being wrong has no noticeable impact on their lives. Intelligence has little to do with it. And the moral of this story is not that you are all conformist sheep, but that it doesn't matter. If Isaac Newton struck out on the big questions, then you probably will too. Just stop trying to answer impossible questions, and go live your life.
Here's a data point for you - I changed my mind because of evolution.
Here we're not really interested in smart people - many smart people believe in God. We're interested in the subset of smart people with a special kind of honesty, the kind great scientists almost always have, and great philosophers often do. The 'smart people' you claim changed their minds because of fashion aren't the ones we're really interested in talking about.
Also, I like to distinguish between deliberate atheists (like myself) and people who are atheists by default. Some people are apathetic about philosophical questions and will say they don't believe in God simply because they weren't brought up with any religion.
Also, I like to distinguish between deliberate atheists (like myself) and people who are atheists by default. Some people are apathetic about philosophical questions and will say they don't believe in God simply because they weren't brought up with any religion.
Atheism in those days was associated with poor uneducated people, the same way racism is today.
Citation?
Don't you mean paganism, rather than atheism? And by pagan I mean the jumble of indigenous beliefs that you get with a pre-literate people, freely mixing local superstitions and the official religion (in this case Christianity).
Citation?
Don't you mean paganism, rather than atheism? And by pagan I mean the jumble of indigenous beliefs that you get with a pre-literate people, freely mixing local superstitions and the official religion (in this case Christianity).
OK, as per your theory of conformism, smart people want to be accepted as smart by other smart people. That is why they are atheist in the current times. The fallacy of this argument is so transparent in that smart people are generally considered non-conformist. That is the essence of geekiness if one can put it that way.
That there is god is for the theist to prove and not the atheist to disprove. What anyone who is rational chooses to believe is the sum total of his knowledge and his experience. You have lumped smart people as characterless by calling them conformist. So either you are a charlatan theist trying to get in a word sideways or someone who is truly and hopelessly wrong.
That there is god is for the theist to prove and not the atheist to disprove. What anyone who is rational chooses to believe is the sum total of his knowledge and his experience. You have lumped smart people as characterless by calling them conformist. So either you are a charlatan theist trying to get in a word sideways or someone who is truly and hopelessly wrong.
Geeks do not conform as much to the norms of society at large, but they do conform within their own groups. Conformity is a universal human trait.
Also, I don't see what your ad hominems contribute to this discussion.
Also, I don't see what your ad hominems contribute to this discussion.
Think about Galileo. For every stereotype you cite, I can quote exceptions and make it a circular argument. You did lump every "smart person" in your argument and I wanted to call you out on that. No ad hominems there, just a progression of my counter-argument.
I'm not sure what your point is, but I think you're attacking a straw man. I didn't say that all people conform to the expectations of their peer group in all ways at all times. That statement is trivial to disprove.
That reminds me of something that happened a few years ago. I was sitting in my cube working. I shared a cube wall with the office secretary and she was chatting to another woman who had stopped by. It was typical girl-talk. I pretty much drowned it out until the woman said: I don't understand why all the really smart guys never believe in God...
I burst out laughing. I don't know if they realized what I was laughing at.
Oh my god, no lie, I just overheard almost exactly this conversation at my local Starbucks.
"I don't know if God is testing me or something, but none of the smart nice guys I meet are even willing to hear the word of our Lord."
"I don't know if God is testing me or something, but none of the smart nice guys I meet are even willing to hear the word of our Lord."
Or lazy.
Coming late to this game, I'm still surprised by this attitude in CS circles. To me, an atheist has refused to see the problem in defining one simple term: "God". Rejecting one definition (after a half-hearted explication) doesn't solve anything except by ignoring further inquiry.
As a neuroscientist, I know that finite matter gives rise to visions of the infinite. To me, that itself is an awe-inspiring moment for which I have no rational basis. Call it what you will (even delusion) but the challenge is to explain it away when no explanation seems adequate.
Of course, solving for "God" need not be tied to a particular faith. On it's own, it's a personal undertaking where rejecting an understanding in being atheist is certainly one's right. But replace the loaded term "God" with something else, say "Nature" or "Infinite" or "Universe" or even "Matter", and I can't see how one doesn't tumble back to a more humble position.
Coming late to this game, I'm still surprised by this attitude in CS circles. To me, an atheist has refused to see the problem in defining one simple term: "God". Rejecting one definition (after a half-hearted explication) doesn't solve anything except by ignoring further inquiry.
As a neuroscientist, I know that finite matter gives rise to visions of the infinite. To me, that itself is an awe-inspiring moment for which I have no rational basis. Call it what you will (even delusion) but the challenge is to explain it away when no explanation seems adequate.
Of course, solving for "God" need not be tied to a particular faith. On it's own, it's a personal undertaking where rejecting an understanding in being atheist is certainly one's right. But replace the loaded term "God" with something else, say "Nature" or "Infinite" or "Universe" or even "Matter", and I can't see how one doesn't tumble back to a more humble position.
Or lazy.
No, the lazy choice is to have the visions of the infinite you mention and instead of trying to understand them, simply to describe them in terms of whatever traditional concepts are floating around in your culture-- which in this case are at best 99% anthropomorphizing fable, and often consciously designed to enslave you.
No, the lazy choice is to have the visions of the infinite you mention and instead of trying to understand them, simply to describe them in terms of whatever traditional concepts are floating around in your culture-- which in this case are at best 99% anthropomorphizing fable, and often consciously designed to enslave you.
...at best 99% anthropomorphizing fable, and often consciously designed to enslave you.
Ironically, in the modern West the relationship between church and state has been almost entirely severed. Christianity is now mostly harmless. The truly dangerous religions are the civic/nationalistic religions. Instead of pledging to God, we pledge to the flag. Instead of wearing crosses we wear lapel pins. We even get to elect a high priest every four years ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY&feature=relat... ). And unlike Christianity, nationalism has conscription and nuclear bombs. The history of the 20th century shows that dropping the "God" label did not get rid of religion, it made religion far more insidious and dangerous.
Ironically, in the modern West the relationship between church and state has been almost entirely severed. Christianity is now mostly harmless. The truly dangerous religions are the civic/nationalistic religions. Instead of pledging to God, we pledge to the flag. Instead of wearing crosses we wear lapel pins. We even get to elect a high priest every four years ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY&feature=relat... ). And unlike Christianity, nationalism has conscription and nuclear bombs. The history of the 20th century shows that dropping the "God" label did not get rid of religion, it made religion far more insidious and dangerous.
You're mainly talking about the modern USA, not the modern West. And USA happens to be the most Christian of Western nations. In other Western countries, too, the state religion is roughly proportional to Christianity. UK, for example, is midway between USA and Sweden in both respects.
Unless state religion causes Christianity (unlikely, IMO), that leaves us with two possibilities: either Christianity causes state religion, or they are both just different faces of the same mentality. In either case, your assertion that "Christianity is now mostly harmless" is wrong.
Unless state religion causes Christianity (unlikely, IMO), that leaves us with two possibilities: either Christianity causes state religion, or they are both just different faces of the same mentality. In either case, your assertion that "Christianity is now mostly harmless" is wrong.
No, the lazy choice is to have the visions of the infinite
you mention and instead of trying to understand them,
simply to describe them in terms of whatever traditional
concepts are floating around in your culture.
Perhaps some of us have grown out of our traditional concepts designed to enslave us and have managed not to have visions of the infinite (study of infinities is a fairly mature science, btw) but still understand the need for a taxonomy of the unknowable?
The lazy is on you, it seems, for making all kinds of straw man arguments here. Surely 99% of belief in God is based on culture and anthropology, but 99% is not 100%. You do the topic a disservice to say that it is.
Personally? I find it funny when people say they're an atheist. "How do you know what not to believe in?" is my first question, and usually that shuts them down. You see, atheism is a response to those traditional cultural ideas of religion (and the history of how they have evolved), not to the real concept of a God. To the atheist, God, santa clause, the christian church, the easter bunny, etc -- it's all the same thing. Stuff you can't prove. They haven't grown to understand where the definitional fault lines are.
That's lazy.
The lazy is on you, it seems, for making all kinds of straw man arguments here. Surely 99% of belief in God is based on culture and anthropology, but 99% is not 100%. You do the topic a disservice to say that it is.
Personally? I find it funny when people say they're an atheist. "How do you know what not to believe in?" is my first question, and usually that shuts them down. You see, atheism is a response to those traditional cultural ideas of religion (and the history of how they have evolved), not to the real concept of a God. To the atheist, God, santa clause, the christian church, the easter bunny, etc -- it's all the same thing. Stuff you can't prove. They haven't grown to understand where the definitional fault lines are.
That's lazy.
"How do you know what not to believe in?"
There are an infinite number of things we can believe in. This makes it necessary to come up with a rational framework based on what we know to make probabilistic inferences. This is basically an argument handled as such:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
I don't want to come off as attacking faith or your beliefs, either. I know what it is like to believe and to not believe so I can respect your experience even though I don't share it.
There are an infinite number of things we can believe in. This makes it necessary to come up with a rational framework based on what we know to make probabilistic inferences. This is basically an argument handled as such:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
I don't want to come off as attacking faith or your beliefs, either. I know what it is like to believe and to not believe so I can respect your experience even though I don't share it.
Hey -- I have very little faith, so no harm done. I'm not a religious person.
You are answering in the positive -- how you know _what_ to believe in. That is not the question, and the two are not logical opposites of one another.
Let's try a thought experiment, shall we? Let's say you and I meet on a train.
If I told you my barn was red, would you believe me? You might or might not. We might have a discussion about science and how we know things. I'm sure we could come to some sort of understanding about levels of proof and this and that.
Why is that? Because reasoning and logic work inside of a web of meanings that we call language. That's what science is built on. It's both part of everyday knowledge and part of advanced reasoning.
We are dealing with concrete things: nouns with meanings, lists of things, perceptions and the relationship of formal systems, empiricality and positivism. But what happens if I introduce an item without common meaning? Perhaps things without any meaning at all. Let's say you are a caveman and I am from the year 4000.
I say "I have something that you do not understand. It is so outside your understanding such that that I cannot describe it to you inside of our limited window of conversation. I cannot even begin to describe the generics of the things that lead to those concepts"
Now you're perfectly capable of saying "I don't believe that. I only believe things that have a strict order (not realizing, of course, that all of "common sense" is tenuous at best. Read up)"
That's cool. Nothing wrong with that. But it does not impact the veracity of my statement. In fact, without language, reason, observation, theory, and reproduction, _you're unable to make any conclusions about my statement one way or another_. Things outside our web of understanding exist in a place where we can make no conclusions one way or another.
All I am saying is that there is a class of such statements. There always have been, and there always will be. Most of these statements -- perhaps 99.99999% of them -- are eventually dealt with as our experiential and smenatic toolbox expands. God, to me, is the set of those true statements that we are unable to understand.
Now I'm not talking about reasoning in common language and logical space -- I think science probably forms the interface between the true and unknowable and the true and knowable. In that sense, science and religion are like yin and yang -- one is simply the thing the other is not (and likewise, one is contained inside the other)
Looking back over written history, we can see the wonderful dialectic of reason and faith. One can look at this as the war of reason over superstition, or one can look at it as the conquest of universal concepts of morality and faith over political, tribal, and primitive power systems -- the species learning what part of God-belief is critical to its survival and what is not. Same thing, different viewpoint.
You are answering in the positive -- how you know _what_ to believe in. That is not the question, and the two are not logical opposites of one another.
Let's try a thought experiment, shall we? Let's say you and I meet on a train.
If I told you my barn was red, would you believe me? You might or might not. We might have a discussion about science and how we know things. I'm sure we could come to some sort of understanding about levels of proof and this and that.
Why is that? Because reasoning and logic work inside of a web of meanings that we call language. That's what science is built on. It's both part of everyday knowledge and part of advanced reasoning.
We are dealing with concrete things: nouns with meanings, lists of things, perceptions and the relationship of formal systems, empiricality and positivism. But what happens if I introduce an item without common meaning? Perhaps things without any meaning at all. Let's say you are a caveman and I am from the year 4000.
I say "I have something that you do not understand. It is so outside your understanding such that that I cannot describe it to you inside of our limited window of conversation. I cannot even begin to describe the generics of the things that lead to those concepts"
Now you're perfectly capable of saying "I don't believe that. I only believe things that have a strict order (not realizing, of course, that all of "common sense" is tenuous at best. Read up)"
That's cool. Nothing wrong with that. But it does not impact the veracity of my statement. In fact, without language, reason, observation, theory, and reproduction, _you're unable to make any conclusions about my statement one way or another_. Things outside our web of understanding exist in a place where we can make no conclusions one way or another.
All I am saying is that there is a class of such statements. There always have been, and there always will be. Most of these statements -- perhaps 99.99999% of them -- are eventually dealt with as our experiential and smenatic toolbox expands. God, to me, is the set of those true statements that we are unable to understand.
Now I'm not talking about reasoning in common language and logical space -- I think science probably forms the interface between the true and unknowable and the true and knowable. In that sense, science and religion are like yin and yang -- one is simply the thing the other is not (and likewise, one is contained inside the other)
Looking back over written history, we can see the wonderful dialectic of reason and faith. One can look at this as the war of reason over superstition, or one can look at it as the conquest of universal concepts of morality and faith over political, tribal, and primitive power systems -- the species learning what part of God-belief is critical to its survival and what is not. Same thing, different viewpoint.
God, to me, is the set of those true statements that we are unable to understand.
Isn't that basically just a restatement of the whole non-overlapping magisteria argument? Ie, Science talks about things we know, and religion talks about all the things that are also true, but unprovable.
Some assumptions there that should definitely not be accepted at face value:
1. Science is about talking.
2. Religion says true things.
3. It is reasonable to accept these things as true despite being unprovable.
Science is not: a body of information, a group of people, a way of speaking, or the use of technology. Science is a method of analyzing the unknown, which boils down to a simple rule: Theories are verified by evidence.
Yes, any sufficiently complicated axiomatic system will contain unprovable true statements. But we're not living in an axiomatic system, we're living in the universe, where the technical term for the class of statements which are fundamentally and forever unverifiable is "meaningless". That's why Einstein's theories, while elegant and useful, were not accepted until they made a risky prediction that came true. To paraphrase Popper, if a theory makes no risky predictions, then it might be an interesting story, but that's all it is.
Another way to put this is that the meaning of a proposition is the difference between two hypothetical universes, alike in every way, except that in one (A), the proposition is false, and in the other (B), it is true, and the necessary differences implied by this. This isn't all that crazy; whenever you start a statement with "That means...", this is what you're mentally doing, calculating the delta between the world with and the world without.
Take the statement "God exists." If there is not, and can never be, any observable difference between universes A and B, then that statement has no meaning, and we shouldn't even bother talking about it when we could be petting cats or folding socks.
But that's not the case, for most values of "God" that people talk about. A universe designed intentionally by a benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent fairy would very likely be very different from the one that fell together by random chance, in ways very much NOT outside our web of understanding.
the conquest of universal concepts of morality and faith over political, tribal, and primitive power systems -- the species learning what part of God-belief is critical to its survival and what is not
We don't get our morality from religion. If we did, then how would christian parents know that they're not supposed to stone their children? (It's not the law, either, because those laws were made mostly by christians, so how did the lawmakers know that stoning ought to be immoral?)
The common response is, It's not all meant to be taken literally, but if that's the case, how do you know which parts to take literally, unless you get your moral sense from somewhere else?
To the extent that truth exists and can be found, science--that is, making up logically coherent stories and then testing those stories against evidence--is the way to find it.
I include in that the very real human need for morality and the experiences commonly described as spirituality. If those types of experiences are valuable and psychologically useful, great; let's investigate and study them. There is a wealth of literature in the Buddhist tradition doing just that. (Buddhism has some warts, but it's always struck me as the least irrational religion, overall.)
The non-overlapping magisteria argument basically amounts to filling in any gaps in our knowledge with the sticky goo of religion to make ourselves feel better until science can come along and clean up the mess. But doesn't that just add friction to the progress of understanding? Is it really so torturous to just admit we don't know something, and live with it, letting it spur us on to more investigation?
Isn't that basically just a restatement of the whole non-overlapping magisteria argument? Ie, Science talks about things we know, and religion talks about all the things that are also true, but unprovable.
Some assumptions there that should definitely not be accepted at face value:
1. Science is about talking.
2. Religion says true things.
3. It is reasonable to accept these things as true despite being unprovable.
Science is not: a body of information, a group of people, a way of speaking, or the use of technology. Science is a method of analyzing the unknown, which boils down to a simple rule: Theories are verified by evidence.
Yes, any sufficiently complicated axiomatic system will contain unprovable true statements. But we're not living in an axiomatic system, we're living in the universe, where the technical term for the class of statements which are fundamentally and forever unverifiable is "meaningless". That's why Einstein's theories, while elegant and useful, were not accepted until they made a risky prediction that came true. To paraphrase Popper, if a theory makes no risky predictions, then it might be an interesting story, but that's all it is.
Another way to put this is that the meaning of a proposition is the difference between two hypothetical universes, alike in every way, except that in one (A), the proposition is false, and in the other (B), it is true, and the necessary differences implied by this. This isn't all that crazy; whenever you start a statement with "That means...", this is what you're mentally doing, calculating the delta between the world with and the world without.
Take the statement "God exists." If there is not, and can never be, any observable difference between universes A and B, then that statement has no meaning, and we shouldn't even bother talking about it when we could be petting cats or folding socks.
But that's not the case, for most values of "God" that people talk about. A universe designed intentionally by a benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent fairy would very likely be very different from the one that fell together by random chance, in ways very much NOT outside our web of understanding.
the conquest of universal concepts of morality and faith over political, tribal, and primitive power systems -- the species learning what part of God-belief is critical to its survival and what is not
We don't get our morality from religion. If we did, then how would christian parents know that they're not supposed to stone their children? (It's not the law, either, because those laws were made mostly by christians, so how did the lawmakers know that stoning ought to be immoral?)
The common response is, It's not all meant to be taken literally, but if that's the case, how do you know which parts to take literally, unless you get your moral sense from somewhere else?
To the extent that truth exists and can be found, science--that is, making up logically coherent stories and then testing those stories against evidence--is the way to find it.
I include in that the very real human need for morality and the experiences commonly described as spirituality. If those types of experiences are valuable and psychologically useful, great; let's investigate and study them. There is a wealth of literature in the Buddhist tradition doing just that. (Buddhism has some warts, but it's always struck me as the least irrational religion, overall.)
The non-overlapping magisteria argument basically amounts to filling in any gaps in our knowledge with the sticky goo of religion to make ourselves feel better until science can come along and clean up the mess. But doesn't that just add friction to the progress of understanding? Is it really so torturous to just admit we don't know something, and live with it, letting it spur us on to more investigation?
"Isn't that basically just a restatement of the whole non-overlapping magisteria argument?" -- No. I do not believe it to be. "Unprovable" and "Unable to understand" are different concepts. Some overlap exists, obviously, but not the same game. I found the magesteria argument unpersuasive when I heard it. Quite frankly, it smelled of desperation on the side of the theists.
Gee - Isaac. Now we're getting into what science is? LOL Now the water is REALLY going to get deep. What's science is a non-trivial question.
I'd like to point out that this format is really prohibitive. Most of the people we're talking about wrote entire books covering some of these issues. To reduce it to a few word bites is going to be a huge undertaking. I want to apologize in advance for mucking up my own argument.
Popper is definitely the man. As you point out, science is nothing if not bold. But Popper was not into the metaphysical -- in fact, just the opposite. The whole late 19th and early 20th century philosophy of science movement was based on "where does science end and pseudo-science begin?" I believe this to be a different, but orthogonal and interesting, debate. If anything, by the time we get to Kuhn we finally realize that the scientific method has built-in limitations -- a discovery which I believe supports my thesis.
I'll agree that my definition of God is meaningless in the strictness terms. Oddly enough, however, language allows us to describe and converse to some degree about this while having a common understanding. So "meaningless" in this case is only in the most formal of terms. Once again, because it is meaningless, the argument holds true -- no conclusion can be reached one way or another.
I never spoke of intelligent design, benevolence, etc -- so not sure where you are going with that. Seems like a non-sequiter. Likewise, I also did not make the case that we get morality from religion. I simply stated that a God-belief may be as genetically useful as rationalism. This is simply because I observe both to be universally prevalent in the species.
And with your question of how to find morality, ie, "it's not all supposed to be taken literally" I have no idea what you are talking about. Myth? Supposedly holy scriptures? I never made any sort of claim about any of that. Confusing religion with a discussion on God doesn't do either subject much good.
"To the extent truth exists and can be found, science... is the way to find it" -- hey I'm all for relying on inductive reason, hypothesis, and experimentation to construct more and more complicated models which have greater and greater fidelity to reality. I believe that's the only chance we have as a species to conquer major problems and progress beyond the caves and to the stars. But "truth" is an emotionally laden term both sides use. How about "it just works"? I think once you use the magic word "truth", you've started smoking crack, no matter what side of this discussion you are on. My opinion only.
Love Buddhism, from what I know about it. Wonderful ideas in there. Wish I knew more.
Yeah the sticky goo of religion between hard science is definitely not what I am talking about. I think this view misunderstands science (by believing it to be firm ground when it is always provisional) and religion (by believing it to be gooey) I'm happy to conclude my argument with God simply being the unknowable, not the unknown. I think I make my case by restricting the discussion in this way. I've got no problem discussing the non-overlapping magesteria argument, but the argument is not mine and I think there are a lot of holes in it.
Gee - Isaac. Now we're getting into what science is? LOL Now the water is REALLY going to get deep. What's science is a non-trivial question.
I'd like to point out that this format is really prohibitive. Most of the people we're talking about wrote entire books covering some of these issues. To reduce it to a few word bites is going to be a huge undertaking. I want to apologize in advance for mucking up my own argument.
Popper is definitely the man. As you point out, science is nothing if not bold. But Popper was not into the metaphysical -- in fact, just the opposite. The whole late 19th and early 20th century philosophy of science movement was based on "where does science end and pseudo-science begin?" I believe this to be a different, but orthogonal and interesting, debate. If anything, by the time we get to Kuhn we finally realize that the scientific method has built-in limitations -- a discovery which I believe supports my thesis.
I'll agree that my definition of God is meaningless in the strictness terms. Oddly enough, however, language allows us to describe and converse to some degree about this while having a common understanding. So "meaningless" in this case is only in the most formal of terms. Once again, because it is meaningless, the argument holds true -- no conclusion can be reached one way or another.
I never spoke of intelligent design, benevolence, etc -- so not sure where you are going with that. Seems like a non-sequiter. Likewise, I also did not make the case that we get morality from religion. I simply stated that a God-belief may be as genetically useful as rationalism. This is simply because I observe both to be universally prevalent in the species.
And with your question of how to find morality, ie, "it's not all supposed to be taken literally" I have no idea what you are talking about. Myth? Supposedly holy scriptures? I never made any sort of claim about any of that. Confusing religion with a discussion on God doesn't do either subject much good.
"To the extent truth exists and can be found, science... is the way to find it" -- hey I'm all for relying on inductive reason, hypothesis, and experimentation to construct more and more complicated models which have greater and greater fidelity to reality. I believe that's the only chance we have as a species to conquer major problems and progress beyond the caves and to the stars. But "truth" is an emotionally laden term both sides use. How about "it just works"? I think once you use the magic word "truth", you've started smoking crack, no matter what side of this discussion you are on. My opinion only.
Love Buddhism, from what I know about it. Wonderful ideas in there. Wish I knew more.
Yeah the sticky goo of religion between hard science is definitely not what I am talking about. I think this view misunderstands science (by believing it to be firm ground when it is always provisional) and religion (by believing it to be gooey) I'm happy to conclude my argument with God simply being the unknowable, not the unknown. I think I make my case by restricting the discussion in this way. I've got no problem discussing the non-overlapping magesteria argument, but the argument is not mine and I think there are a lot of holes in it.
100% agreed about the format. We really should have retreated to our own blogs a long time ago :)
I suspect that no deep satisfaction will really be had here. But it's been enjoyable and entertaining, that's for sure.
language allows us to describe and converse to some degree about this while having a common understanding.
That's a neat thing about language and the power of the human brain, for sure. We can probe into the unknown to make stories, and then reason about the world in which those stories would be true, and then test to see whether or not we live in that world or not. Sometimes, it takes quite a long time to figure out if there would be any differences to be tested.
But "truth" is an emotionally laden term both sides use. How about "it just works"?
And so instrumentalism enters the discussion... We ARE getting into deep waters here!
And with your question of how to find morality, ie, "it's not all supposed to be taken literally" I have no idea what you are talking about.
I was referring to your comment about the conquest of universal concepts of morality and faith over political, tribal, and primitive power systems -- the species learning what part of God-belief is critical to its survival and what is not. I don't consider morality a "part of God-belief", but apparently you don't either, so I seem to have misunderstood where you were going with that. My bad.
I simply stated that a God-belief may be as genetically useful as rationalism.
What if God-belief was an emergent property resulting from other beneficial traits, but not itself beneficial at all?
For example, our mucous membranes, social customs, and fondness for living indoors are all---themselves---very beneficial traits. However, together, they make us very susceptible to the common cold, which is definitely not beneficial to us at all.
Likewise, our agent-fixation, our creativity, and our way of passing wisdom on to our children are all beneficial behaviors, but together, they open the door for bugs to creep into the system. Science is our unit-test framework :)
Love Buddhism, from what I know about it. Wonderful ideas in there. Wish I knew more.
Nothing stopping you :)
The science of spirituality is a very interesting subject, which has sadly been stymied in the west by the success of Yahweh. For centuries, to avoid being persecuted, scientists have had to avoid any subjects that might impede upon religion's "magisterium". If the two do not overlap, it is only because religion has been so aggressive and successful in defending its turf.
I suspect that no deep satisfaction will really be had here. But it's been enjoyable and entertaining, that's for sure.
language allows us to describe and converse to some degree about this while having a common understanding.
That's a neat thing about language and the power of the human brain, for sure. We can probe into the unknown to make stories, and then reason about the world in which those stories would be true, and then test to see whether or not we live in that world or not. Sometimes, it takes quite a long time to figure out if there would be any differences to be tested.
But "truth" is an emotionally laden term both sides use. How about "it just works"?
And so instrumentalism enters the discussion... We ARE getting into deep waters here!
And with your question of how to find morality, ie, "it's not all supposed to be taken literally" I have no idea what you are talking about.
I was referring to your comment about the conquest of universal concepts of morality and faith over political, tribal, and primitive power systems -- the species learning what part of God-belief is critical to its survival and what is not. I don't consider morality a "part of God-belief", but apparently you don't either, so I seem to have misunderstood where you were going with that. My bad.
I simply stated that a God-belief may be as genetically useful as rationalism.
What if God-belief was an emergent property resulting from other beneficial traits, but not itself beneficial at all?
For example, our mucous membranes, social customs, and fondness for living indoors are all---themselves---very beneficial traits. However, together, they make us very susceptible to the common cold, which is definitely not beneficial to us at all.
Likewise, our agent-fixation, our creativity, and our way of passing wisdom on to our children are all beneficial behaviors, but together, they open the door for bugs to creep into the system. Science is our unit-test framework :)
Love Buddhism, from what I know about it. Wonderful ideas in there. Wish I knew more.
Nothing stopping you :)
The science of spirituality is a very interesting subject, which has sadly been stymied in the west by the success of Yahweh. For centuries, to avoid being persecuted, scientists have had to avoid any subjects that might impede upon religion's "magisterium". If the two do not overlap, it is only because religion has been so aggressive and successful in defending its turf.
"What if God-belief was an emergent property resulting from other beneficial traits, but not itself beneficial at all?" -- nice adbuction. Like to see more hypotheses.
In regards to Buddhism, I'm happy with where I am right now. But it does seem that Buddhism would be a good "fit" for me. I've always been a Great Pumpkin man -- hate to leave it without good cause.
"Science is our unit-test framework" -- more like our design review. Living would be the unit-test. Society might be more like a system test. (E-gads, an extended metaphor! Would be fun to chase that one down :) )
As far as Judaism and the various sequels (I won't use the Y word as it offends those of faith), beats me why they are so popular. Intuitively I would think it's because they offer more to the species than they take away in the competitive market of creative narratives to existence -- sort of the same reason start-ups do well because they offer a unique and worthwhile value proposition to their users. But that's just idle speculation. I always had a weak spot for Hegel's historicism and dielectric as a way to understand the role of person, religion, and society. But these ideas went _way_ off the rails later with Marx and others, as you know. Popper had a field day with them, yet I feel there's value to be had here. Seems like a lot of great thinkers get a glimmer of an insight, then spend the rest of their careers taking it too dang far.
Great discussion. Thanks!
In regards to Buddhism, I'm happy with where I am right now. But it does seem that Buddhism would be a good "fit" for me. I've always been a Great Pumpkin man -- hate to leave it without good cause.
"Science is our unit-test framework" -- more like our design review. Living would be the unit-test. Society might be more like a system test. (E-gads, an extended metaphor! Would be fun to chase that one down :) )
As far as Judaism and the various sequels (I won't use the Y word as it offends those of faith), beats me why they are so popular. Intuitively I would think it's because they offer more to the species than they take away in the competitive market of creative narratives to existence -- sort of the same reason start-ups do well because they offer a unique and worthwhile value proposition to their users. But that's just idle speculation. I always had a weak spot for Hegel's historicism and dielectric as a way to understand the role of person, religion, and society. But these ideas went _way_ off the rails later with Marx and others, as you know. Popper had a field day with them, yet I feel there's value to be had here. Seems like a lot of great thinkers get a glimmer of an insight, then spend the rest of their careers taking it too dang far.
Great discussion. Thanks!
Like to see more hypotheses.
Read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. He spends a good chunk of the book analyzing some of the human traits that make us susceptible to religion, as well as the evolutionary advantages of each.
Read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. He spends a good chunk of the book analyzing some of the human traits that make us susceptible to religion, as well as the evolutionary advantages of each.
To what do you ascribe the success of Yahweh?
That's a great question deserving some serious analysis. I'm not an expert in sociology or history, so you're getting peanut-gallery guesswork instead :)
I'd guess it had to do with the level of dedication among followers. When ideologies clash, the one with more fervent believers tends to roll over the others.
I'd guess it had to do with the level of dedication among followers. When ideologies clash, the one with more fervent believers tends to roll over the others.
One of the problems in these matters is that everybody's definition of god is completely different. You seem to tie it to some Gödel-incompleteness-teoremish thing. This need not be the case for most other people. And while I accept the existence of arithmetical statements which are true but not provable, I seldom encounter people who refer to them as god.
Well argued, can't find a flaw if you place it on those terms.
'"How do you know what not to believe in?" is my first question, and usually that shuts them down. '
It usually goes something like this:
T; Do you believe in god?
A: Define 'god'
T: <some description involving unverifiable supernatural beings>
A: No. I do not believe that.
No one gets shut down.
"They haven't grown to understand where the definitional fault lines are."
Nice ad hominem there. Talk about lazy.
It usually goes something like this:
T; Do you believe in god?
A: Define 'god'
T: <some description involving unverifiable supernatural beings>
A: No. I do not believe that.
No one gets shut down.
"They haven't grown to understand where the definitional fault lines are."
Nice ad hominem there. Talk about lazy.
How about we actually ask the poster (me) how that goes? I know this is a lot more fun when you get to make up both parts, but gee -- give a guy a break.
T: Do you believe in God? A: I believe through inductive reasoning that there are things we do not understand. I believe it is critically important to know this. I also believe this always to be the case. You can call this continuing lack of knowledge "a hole", part of the implications of Godel's theorem -- whatever. I find no problem with those who choose the word "God"
See how much more fun this is with two players?
T: Do you believe in God? A: I believe through inductive reasoning that there are things we do not understand. I believe it is critically important to know this. I also believe this always to be the case. You can call this continuing lack of knowledge "a hole", part of the implications of Godel's theorem -- whatever. I find no problem with those who choose the word "God"
See how much more fun this is with two players?
"How about we actually ask the poster (me) how that goes? "
Well, you were the one saying you ask that question of others, and then you gave a fairly dismissive account of how others answer. Basically, you played both parts.
I simply offered an alternative to how those sorts of conversations go when I'm the one being asked. You know, giving you an actual person so you don't have to play both parts. It's more fun that way.
If you want to use a very particular definition of "god" to frame the discussion in your favor, that's great. But we both know that when most people are talking about god and atheism and belief they are not obliquely referring to Godel anything.
Well, you were the one saying you ask that question of others, and then you gave a fairly dismissive account of how others answer. Basically, you played both parts.
I simply offered an alternative to how those sorts of conversations go when I'm the one being asked. You know, giving you an actual person so you don't have to play both parts. It's more fun that way.
If you want to use a very particular definition of "god" to frame the discussion in your favor, that's great. But we both know that when most people are talking about god and atheism and belief they are not obliquely referring to Godel anything.
So you got it, good.
I understand that you and others confuse God, religion, and social justice. I'll posit that they are all related in some fashion outside the scope of this discussion. But that common confusion is a colloquial discussion (What is commonly meant when one says something) not a semantic and epistemological one.
I understand that you and others confuse God, religion, and social justice. I'll posit that they are all related in some fashion outside the scope of this discussion. But that common confusion is a colloquial discussion (What is commonly meant when one says something) not a semantic and epistemological one.
I believe through inductive reasoning that there are things we do not understand. I believe it is critically important to know this.
It's safe to say we've all arrived at the same conclusion, though we may attach different significance to it.
You seem to be saying here that, for you, "God" is the unknown -- not the unknowable, which is a fairly common belief, but the unknown. This is a novel viewpoint for me. Does this mean that knowledge, as and when it is grasped by the human mind, moves from the realm of the exalted to the secular? Is there more "God" in the world of an infant than ours?
In other comments you seem to refer to the more conventional notion of the unknowable, so perhaps I'm misunderstanding.
It is not clear what you mean by "God" to start with. Clearly it's more than just an alias for the unknown (or unknowable?). In another comment, you refer to "the real concept of a God". What is the real concept of a God? How did you arrive at it, conclude that it is the real concept of God, and integrate it into your philosophy?
You seem to be saying here that, for you, "God" is the unknown -- not the unknowable, which is a fairly common belief, but the unknown. This is a novel viewpoint for me. Does this mean that knowledge, as and when it is grasped by the human mind, moves from the realm of the exalted to the secular? Is there more "God" in the world of an infant than ours?
In other comments you seem to refer to the more conventional notion of the unknowable, so perhaps I'm misunderstanding.
It is not clear what you mean by "God" to start with. Clearly it's more than just an alias for the unknown (or unknowable?). In another comment, you refer to "the real concept of a God". What is the real concept of a God? How did you arrive at it, conclude that it is the real concept of God, and integrate it into your philosophy?
dk -- Glad to answer the questions I am able to answer.
Yes, when I say unknown, I mean unknowable. I use them interchangeably for brevity at times. I believe the proof is on sound footing when the term "unknowable" is used. "Unknown" has a lot of issues, and the argument is left in the "who knows" category.
I started a couple of years ago to study proof and anti-proofs on the existence of God. Very interesting subject, and I enjoyed the reading and listening a lot. I had a simple question: was there a common thread that appeared in all types of God discussions that was not along the lines of a big, scary, invisible man-in-the-sky? Something that mostly ran the same through the Greeks, Romans, Hindus, etc? Is it possible to use the word God in a clear, unambiguous manner?
I'm currently convinced that there is, and I've shared it with you guys, mainly because as hackers I figured you appreciate the "hack". But I try to remain open that I've screwed the pooch in some fashion in my studies. Happy to be proven wrong as well. Have at it.
It's interesting that what I'm saying ties into some of the more interesting math and physics work on today, mostly the idea of a computational substrate to the universe and the question of whether we are living in a simulation.
You've also brought up the personal aspect of belief and how, for instance, it applies to infants. Hey -- beats me. That wasn't my initial goals. The implications could be very fascinating.
As far as my personal speculation goes past this definition, I'm inclined to both the computational universe and simulation arguments, both of which I think lead to some sort of intelligence "out there". (Or something we could at least describe as working in a planned manner to accomplish pre-determined goals). So in my personal belief system I have an intelligent God who exists outside of our ability to really get a grip on him/her/it/etc.
But that's about it. I don't think you can take the God argument any further and still have a common format for discussion -- there are no further commonalities that I can find. Some folks have the far-away God, some the man-in-my-head God -- it's all over the place. Not only can you go no further, I think it is impossible to do so without destroying the theory so far, ie, the more attributes you give to an unkowable thing, the less unknowable it is. (Hence my difficulty actually describing what I mean by intelligent)
Looked at it this way, atheists are like those cavemen denying that things could exist for which they are unable to describe or reason about -- it's just silly. One could use the words provincial or childish -- no harm is meant using them but they're not spot on either. Really religious people, on the other hand, are like those folks who dream up entire fantasies around the unknown, and they do not distinguish between the unknown and the unknowable. Just as bad, in my opinion. But ironically enough, looked at another way, both sides are tremendously good.
But both behaviors seem to have evolutionary roots. Perhaps a survival trait. One trait can work with complex interactions between known concepts. Another trait can work in an almost random manner when no information is present. As you can see, because we're talking about how the species interacts with both the unknown and unknowable, the discussion about religion and God are joined -- but it's a completely new direction for the discussion. When try to have a religion discussion and a God discussion at the same time, we get these cartoon answers for complex questions.
Yes, when I say unknown, I mean unknowable. I use them interchangeably for brevity at times. I believe the proof is on sound footing when the term "unknowable" is used. "Unknown" has a lot of issues, and the argument is left in the "who knows" category.
I started a couple of years ago to study proof and anti-proofs on the existence of God. Very interesting subject, and I enjoyed the reading and listening a lot. I had a simple question: was there a common thread that appeared in all types of God discussions that was not along the lines of a big, scary, invisible man-in-the-sky? Something that mostly ran the same through the Greeks, Romans, Hindus, etc? Is it possible to use the word God in a clear, unambiguous manner?
I'm currently convinced that there is, and I've shared it with you guys, mainly because as hackers I figured you appreciate the "hack". But I try to remain open that I've screwed the pooch in some fashion in my studies. Happy to be proven wrong as well. Have at it.
It's interesting that what I'm saying ties into some of the more interesting math and physics work on today, mostly the idea of a computational substrate to the universe and the question of whether we are living in a simulation.
You've also brought up the personal aspect of belief and how, for instance, it applies to infants. Hey -- beats me. That wasn't my initial goals. The implications could be very fascinating.
As far as my personal speculation goes past this definition, I'm inclined to both the computational universe and simulation arguments, both of which I think lead to some sort of intelligence "out there". (Or something we could at least describe as working in a planned manner to accomplish pre-determined goals). So in my personal belief system I have an intelligent God who exists outside of our ability to really get a grip on him/her/it/etc.
But that's about it. I don't think you can take the God argument any further and still have a common format for discussion -- there are no further commonalities that I can find. Some folks have the far-away God, some the man-in-my-head God -- it's all over the place. Not only can you go no further, I think it is impossible to do so without destroying the theory so far, ie, the more attributes you give to an unkowable thing, the less unknowable it is. (Hence my difficulty actually describing what I mean by intelligent)
Looked at it this way, atheists are like those cavemen denying that things could exist for which they are unable to describe or reason about -- it's just silly. One could use the words provincial or childish -- no harm is meant using them but they're not spot on either. Really religious people, on the other hand, are like those folks who dream up entire fantasies around the unknown, and they do not distinguish between the unknown and the unknowable. Just as bad, in my opinion. But ironically enough, looked at another way, both sides are tremendously good.
But both behaviors seem to have evolutionary roots. Perhaps a survival trait. One trait can work with complex interactions between known concepts. Another trait can work in an almost random manner when no information is present. As you can see, because we're talking about how the species interacts with both the unknown and unknowable, the discussion about religion and God are joined -- but it's a completely new direction for the discussion. When try to have a religion discussion and a God discussion at the same time, we get these cartoon answers for complex questions.
Just as an aside, if I am explaining something to you, and you have not grown to understand it, I am not attacking you or trying to eliminate your basis for an opinion or an argument. Once you come into possession of an understanding of my statement, our conversation can continue.
It's in fact a very poor ad hominem, a non-existent ad hominem in my opinion, and if it was read that way, it was read that way in error.
It's in fact a very poor ad hominem, a non-existent ad hominem in my opinion, and if it was read that way, it was read that way in error.
> T: <some description involving unverifiable supernatural beings>
Just to argue the point, how do you define supernatural? Where do you draw the line between natural-yet-incomprehensible-phenomena and that-which-is-only-imagination?
Just to argue the point, how do you define supernatural? Where do you draw the line between natural-yet-incomprehensible-phenomena and that-which-is-only-imagination?
I honestly don't understand why Dan is being downmodded so hard here. He gave his honest opinion on the taxonomy of the unknowable from his perspective and philosophy. How is he being a net drag on the level of conversation here?
[deleted]
[deleted]
That's a very strict definition that I mostly agree with to understand the past. But it still leaves the leading question unaddressed. The solution to rejecting something isn't replacing it with nothing. By "understand them", I think that can operate on many levels simultaneously. The key for me is either giving up traditional concepts or reinterpreting them in contemporary terms.
"No, the lazy choice is to have the visions of the infinite you mention and instead of trying to understand them"
There is some ground between being religious and being an atheist. Being an atheist implies some degree of faith. The question whether there is a God cannot be answered within our current knowledge (and it may pretty well remain so until the end of our universe). An atheist firmly believes the answer is "no". An agnostic acknowledges we are unable to answer the question. Maybe in a million years, maybe never. Interestingly, the only answer science can give to questions like these is on the lines of "we can neither prove nor disprove this hypothesis".
As I use to joke, I lack the faith required to be an atheist. ;-)
There is some ground between being religious and being an atheist. Being an atheist implies some degree of faith. The question whether there is a God cannot be answered within our current knowledge (and it may pretty well remain so until the end of our universe). An atheist firmly believes the answer is "no". An agnostic acknowledges we are unable to answer the question. Maybe in a million years, maybe never. Interestingly, the only answer science can give to questions like these is on the lines of "we can neither prove nor disprove this hypothesis".
As I use to joke, I lack the faith required to be an atheist. ;-)
Outside of math, you can never be sure that something is false. But if someone asked you whether the Red Sox won the 1950 World Series, it would seem pretty bogus to say that you were keeping an open mind. There's no distinction between atheist and agnostic on that question. The only reason there's one on the question of God's existence is because people have a much stronger desire to finesse the answer to such a historically loaded question.
Finding out the results of the 1950 World Series does not require an open mind - History can answer that one.
I think we are really playing with words here. You are absolutely sure God does not exist, but I cannot make the required leap of faith that being a true atheist implies and, thus, I can only call myself agnostic. Still, I am pretty sure He (or She, or It) doesn't exist.
As you well pointed out, I am not absolutely sure of anything that cannot be proved with a sound mathematical demonstration. That's about all the faith I have.
And I place it _very_ carefully ;-)
I think we are really playing with words here. You are absolutely sure God does not exist, but I cannot make the required leap of faith that being a true atheist implies and, thus, I can only call myself agnostic. Still, I am pretty sure He (or She, or It) doesn't exist.
As you well pointed out, I am not absolutely sure of anything that cannot be proved with a sound mathematical demonstration. That's about all the faith I have.
And I place it _very_ carefully ;-)
"To count oneself as an atheist one need not claim to have a proof that no gods exist. One need merely think that the evidence on the god question is in about the same state as the evidence on the werewolf question." -- John McCarthy
I used to think that it is just as arrogant to be an atheist as it is to be religious. Both sides have no proof. I considered myself to be agnostic as all we can confidently say is that "we don't know".
But I changed my label on reading jmc's words.
[edit: on reading other parts of this discussion, I see that jmc has already been quoted. However I'll let this post be, as it is still a reply to the parent.]
I used to think that it is just as arrogant to be an atheist as it is to be religious. Both sides have no proof. I considered myself to be agnostic as all we can confidently say is that "we don't know".
But I changed my label on reading jmc's words.
[edit: on reading other parts of this discussion, I see that jmc has already been quoted. However I'll let this post be, as it is still a reply to the parent.]
The attributes of werewolves are substantially different than the ones ascribed to the Jewish-Muslim-Christian God. Werewolves are believed (by some people, sure) to exist within our time-space continuum, to respect the same laws of physics we do and to pretty much be more or less a very strong mammal that is sensitive to the calendar as well as to moonlight. Those believers have created testable hypothesis that were proven wrong many times. I say the werewolf question is quite settled.
The JMC God exists outside our space-time continuum, since before the Universe and is said to have caused its formation and to interact with it in some way or the other, sometimes violating causality. Good luck trying to shape that into a testable hypothesis ;-) I won't bother with it until someone cooks up a decent one.
So, as only a true agnostic can say, I don't care if God exists or not. It's not a question I can answer.
The JMC God exists outside our space-time continuum, since before the Universe and is said to have caused its formation and to interact with it in some way or the other, sometimes violating causality. Good luck trying to shape that into a testable hypothesis ;-) I won't bother with it until someone cooks up a decent one.
So, as only a true agnostic can say, I don't care if God exists or not. It's not a question I can answer.
Werewolves -> same laws of physics. God -> may be not.
Great thought provoking reply.
Personally, I don't have trouble concluding that the God theories of current religions are wrong (looking at the contradictions, absurd stories, in-built benefits for preacher class etc). Could there be some other non-religious God? "I don't care" is a good approach.
JMC = 'John McCarthy' as well as 'Jewish-Muslim-Christian' (all Abrahamic religions)? Whoa! My brain explodes!!! :-)
Great thought provoking reply.
Personally, I don't have trouble concluding that the God theories of current religions are wrong (looking at the contradictions, absurd stories, in-built benefits for preacher class etc). Could there be some other non-religious God? "I don't care" is a good approach.
JMC = 'John McCarthy' as well as 'Jewish-Muslim-Christian' (all Abrahamic religions)? Whoa! My brain explodes!!! :-)
Keep in mind that certainty is just a model constructed by our mind based on a limited sampling frame, so we can make practical decisions in a timely manner. Thus "absolutely sure", "leap of faith", or "atheism" are just practical labels for dealing with events of high probability in a nondeterministic universe. These are just limitations of our languages.
Simple question: Where does Pi exist? :)
There's an extra 2Pi all over the place in physics equations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation#Short...
"Being an atheist implies some degree of faith."
As someone smarter than me once put it: "It's not that I believe in no gods, it's just that I don't believe in gods."
Christians and other believers have this most extra-ordinary theory: that there is an all-powerful creator who created everything, who sees everything, and has everything under control. They offer not one shred of proof, then muse out loud about the "faith" required not to believe in their absurd hypothesis.
I'd love to believe in gods of some kind -- it's not easy to accept the inevitability of your own annihilation -- but nobody has ever given me sufficient reason to deviate from the more sensible position of non-belief.
As someone smarter than me once put it: "It's not that I believe in no gods, it's just that I don't believe in gods."
Christians and other believers have this most extra-ordinary theory: that there is an all-powerful creator who created everything, who sees everything, and has everything under control. They offer not one shred of proof, then muse out loud about the "faith" required not to believe in their absurd hypothesis.
I'd love to believe in gods of some kind -- it's not easy to accept the inevitability of your own annihilation -- but nobody has ever given me sufficient reason to deviate from the more sensible position of non-belief.
"It's not that I believe in no gods, it's just that I don't believe in gods."
It seems this person is agnostic rather than an atheist. As I put previously, an atheist believes "the God question" (that cannot be answered at all) actually has an answer and the answer is "no". An agnostic acknowledges we cannot answer the God question. As for the werewolf question, it is easier to create testable hypothesis that could and most probably would be proven false.
And, of course, even if you can prove false every "evidence" every religion says it provides, that would not answer the God question. It would only prove religions didn't get it right.
The God question cannot be answered with science and, so, it cannot be really answered. We are not discussing science here. We are discussing semantics.
BTW, I would be quite astonished if God did, indeed, exist. And somewhat happy. It's pretty dry here in no-faith-land.
It seems this person is agnostic rather than an atheist. As I put previously, an atheist believes "the God question" (that cannot be answered at all) actually has an answer and the answer is "no". An agnostic acknowledges we cannot answer the God question. As for the werewolf question, it is easier to create testable hypothesis that could and most probably would be proven false.
And, of course, even if you can prove false every "evidence" every religion says it provides, that would not answer the God question. It would only prove religions didn't get it right.
The God question cannot be answered with science and, so, it cannot be really answered. We are not discussing science here. We are discussing semantics.
BTW, I would be quite astonished if God did, indeed, exist. And somewhat happy. It's pretty dry here in no-faith-land.
It's pretty dry here in no-faith-land.
What a very sad way to look at life.
What a very sad way to look at life.
Atheism is simply the nonacceptance of a claim (theism) that lacks any supporting evidence. Not accepting a baseless claim is the anti-thesis of "faith" (ie. faith = accepting a claim without evidence).
Being agnostic is NOT a middle ground between theism and atheism. The break down is like this: 1) A god exists. 2) A god does not exist.
Theists accept #1 and reject #2. Atheists reject #1 and can either accept or reject #2.
Gnosticism (for the purpose of this discussion) deals with what you claim to know. A gnostic claims knowledge about the truth of an assertion. An agnostic (literally "without knowledge") does not claim to have such knowledge.
The term "atheist" is very similar to the legal term "not-guilty". Declaring a person "not-guilty" does not mean they are "innocent". It simply means that there is insufficient evidence to declare them "guilty". Saying that an atheist must "prove" that no gods exist is like saying that you must prove your innocence in a court of law. Rejecting an assertion because it lacks supporting evidence does not require proving the opposite assertion.
Being agnostic is NOT a middle ground between theism and atheism. The break down is like this: 1) A god exists. 2) A god does not exist.
Theists accept #1 and reject #2. Atheists reject #1 and can either accept or reject #2.
Gnosticism (for the purpose of this discussion) deals with what you claim to know. A gnostic claims knowledge about the truth of an assertion. An agnostic (literally "without knowledge") does not claim to have such knowledge.
The term "atheist" is very similar to the legal term "not-guilty". Declaring a person "not-guilty" does not mean they are "innocent". It simply means that there is insufficient evidence to declare them "guilty". Saying that an atheist must "prove" that no gods exist is like saying that you must prove your innocence in a court of law. Rejecting an assertion because it lacks supporting evidence does not require proving the opposite assertion.
That is not what is traditionally meant by those terms.
Gnosticism is a religion in its own right and agnosticism generally always applies to questions of religious significance.
Gnosticism is a religion in its own right and agnosticism generally always applies to questions of religious significance.
You are of course 100% correct. I was using the terms in their literal, non-traditional meanings so your clarification is appreciated. However, too often I've found the baggage of words like "agnostic" obscures the discussion more than it clarifies it.
Literally, "gnostic" and "agnostic" refer to what you claim, or do not claim, to know. Given the general muddle of terms--"agnostic", "agnostic theist", "agnostic atheist", etc--I tend to find it more helpful to separate out the terms into core meanings. I believe doing so more clearly displays the positions, as you can plot the Atheism <-> Theism axis against the Agnostic <-> Gnostic axis. I would argue that this separation of claims-of-knowledge vs claims-of-god(s) is clearer than the simple Atheist <-> Agnostic <-> Theist positioning.
Literally, "gnostic" and "agnostic" refer to what you claim, or do not claim, to know. Given the general muddle of terms--"agnostic", "agnostic theist", "agnostic atheist", etc--I tend to find it more helpful to separate out the terms into core meanings. I believe doing so more clearly displays the positions, as you can plot the Atheism <-> Theism axis against the Agnostic <-> Gnostic axis. I would argue that this separation of claims-of-knowledge vs claims-of-god(s) is clearer than the simple Atheist <-> Agnostic <-> Theist positioning.
and so the logic follows, then, that all smart people who have tried to understand the 'visions of the infinite' are atheists?
[deleted]
All Sagan's books touch the nerve-endings of transcendent wonder that religion monopolized in past centuries. My own books have the same aspiration. Consequently I hear myself often described as a deeply religious man. An American student wrote to me that she had asked her professor whether he had a view about me. 'Sure,' he replied. 'He's positive science is incompatible with religion, but he waxes ecstatic about nature and the universe. To me, that is religion!' But is 'religion' the right word? I don't think so. The Nobel Prize-winning physicist (and atheist) Steven Weinberg made the point as well as anybody, in Dreams of a Final Theory:
Some people have views of God that are so broad and flexible that it is inevitable that they will find God wherever they look for him. One hears it said that 'God is the ultimate' or 'God is our better nature' or 'God is the universe.' Of course, like any other word, the word 'God' can be given any meaning we like. If you want to say that 'God is energy,' then you can find God in a lump of coal.
Weinberg is surely right that, if the word God is not to become completely useless, it should be used in the way people have generally understood it: to denote a supernatural creator that is 'appropriate for us to worship'.
--Dawkins
Some people have views of God that are so broad and flexible that it is inevitable that they will find God wherever they look for him. One hears it said that 'God is the ultimate' or 'God is our better nature' or 'God is the universe.' Of course, like any other word, the word 'God' can be given any meaning we like. If you want to say that 'God is energy,' then you can find God in a lump of coal.
Weinberg is surely right that, if the word God is not to become completely useless, it should be used in the way people have generally understood it: to denote a supernatural creator that is 'appropriate for us to worship'.
--Dawkins
This reminds me of a conversation I heard once in college that stuck with me.
A: I believe that when you die, your energy goes back out into the world, and becomes a part of everything.
P: Yeah, that's why you get cold. Entropy.
Pantheists do find God in a lump of coal. So too do coal miners and energy conglomerates. :)
Aquinas called God "Pure substance through pure act". It's very hard not to see a definition of matter and energy there and given by a "Saint".
Dawkins here is insisting on a definition for which his professional training gives no special insight. So why should he be recognized as some "expert"?
Aquinas called God "Pure substance through pure act". It's very hard not to see a definition of matter and energy there and given by a "Saint".
Dawkins here is insisting on a definition for which his professional training gives no special insight. So why should he be recognized as some "expert"?
So why should he be recognized as some "expert"?
He doesn't have to be. The argument stands on its own: you can define "God" to be whatever you want, but the definition that you advance approaches tautology.
He doesn't have to be. The argument stands on its own: you can define "God" to be whatever you want, but the definition that you advance approaches tautology.
And who stands outside time and space to define the tautology? Dawkins is substituting one definition for all definitions. Problem is, his definition is neither necessary nor sufficient. Furthermore, the traditional problem with organized religion is the same: specific, and sometimes powerful, people failing to see that outcome with their own definitions.
Sure, "God" could be whatever you want it to be. But that's exactly the point. It's a personal relationship (or lack thereof) defined by you. And no amount of science can take that away. If anything, the failures of modern physics (and soon neuroscience too) deepens my appreciation for the religious perspective.
Sure, "God" could be whatever you want it to be. But that's exactly the point. It's a personal relationship (or lack thereof) defined by you. And no amount of science can take that away. If anything, the failures of modern physics (and soon neuroscience too) deepens my appreciation for the religious perspective.
And who stands outside time and space to define the tautology?
There is no fundamental understanding regarding the concept of "outside time and space", because our knowledge of them both derives from experience. To have some understanding of 'outside', you would have to have received that information a priori. That would mean that everyone had received that information, however.
Since, we can readily determine that the difference between believers and non-believers is a matter of experience. The difference between the two has nothing to do with "outside" either time and space, because that "outside" is not experiencable (at this point in time).
You missed my point. The problem with a definition for God is that it would take God to check that proof. That's where dfranke said it "approaches tautology" and I agree. We just can't ever be sure that what we come up with is correct or circular. That's faith and humility rolled into one. And it's where I most disagree with Dawkins. His definition doesn't speak for me, and his training gives him no special insight into the problem.
"To have some understanding of 'outside', you would have to have received that information a priori. That would mean that everyone had received that information, however."
No it wouldn't. Perhaps I'm just special.
a priori knowledge is knowledge gained without experience. There is no reason it has to be universal.
No it wouldn't. Perhaps I'm just special.
a priori knowledge is knowledge gained without experience. There is no reason it has to be universal.
All a priori knowledge we have discovered so far, is universal at least to the locality that we can see.
That doesn't matter.
Perhaps not. How would you presume that a "mundane" person tell the difference between genuine a priori knowledge held by a "special" person, and the rantings of a supposed prophet?
edit:
This should not be taken that I'm implying that believers are ranting prophets. Just a query as to how you propose to tell the difference.
edit:
This should not be taken that I'm implying that believers are ranting prophets. Just a query as to how you propose to tell the difference.
I wouldn't. If is knowledge is truly a priori, and you truly didn't have it, there would be no way that you could know.
My advice would be to look at the person. If the man seems rational and honest, then maybe there is something to it. Then again, maybe not. It's really up to you.
My advice would be to look at the person. If the man seems rational and honest, then maybe there is something to it. Then again, maybe not. It's really up to you.
the failures of modern physics (and soon neuroscience too)
Since I understand you're a neuroscientist by training, what do you mean by "and soon neuroscience too"?
Since I understand you're a neuroscientist by training, what do you mean by "and soon neuroscience too"?
I'd say we are already there but the pretty pictures are still very alluring. One example: Consciousness appears to be within grasp with the massive datasets already collected. The problem comes down to explaining, or reducing, consciousness in terms of that data. We might be able to show you what happens in the brain when you see beauty or feel pain, but that explains the experience of neither. The questions remain even as the science is the best it's ever been. I think this reality is much more glaring in modern physics.
Yes, I thought that might be what you had in mind. It always struck me as a silly non sequitur to observe biochemical or neurological changes in the brain of a person experiencing X (the classic example being mourning the loss of a loved one) and conclude that X has biochemical or neurological causes or can be reduced into those terms. Of course, that's the way the pendulum has swung in psychiatry for 40 years now too.
It's not obvious to me that consciousness can explain itself.
It's not obvious to me that consciousness can explain itself.
Dawkins here is insisting on a definition for which his professional training gives no special insight. So why should he be recognized as some "expert"?
To paraphrase Dawkins' speech to the University of Kentucky,
The thing about being an atheist is that you don't think that "theology" is a subject at all. You're not an expert in fairies, but I'll bet you have no problem not believing in those.
Actually, since Dawkins is an expert in Ethology, the evolution of animal behavior, he is in fact uniquely qualified to talk about religion, as that is among the most odd, fascinating, paradoxical, and complex behaviors that evolution has yet produced. In The God Delusion, he outlines many of the factors of the human animal that make us particularly susceptible to religion.
Theologists are the ones not qualified to analyze religion.
To paraphrase Dawkins' speech to the University of Kentucky,
The thing about being an atheist is that you don't think that "theology" is a subject at all. You're not an expert in fairies, but I'll bet you have no problem not believing in those.
Actually, since Dawkins is an expert in Ethology, the evolution of animal behavior, he is in fact uniquely qualified to talk about religion, as that is among the most odd, fascinating, paradoxical, and complex behaviors that evolution has yet produced. In The God Delusion, he outlines many of the factors of the human animal that make us particularly susceptible to religion.
Theologists are the ones not qualified to analyze religion.
"In The God Delusion, he outlines many of the factors of the human animal that make us particularly susceptible to religion."
And yet none are testable hypotheses. In other words, he's no longer doing science unless he can propose some experiments with predictions. They're just so stories that give the illusion of understanding without verification. Hmmm, seems an awful lot like faith creeping in...
Now, that's not to knock evolutionary theory. It's just a massive reach, without an empirical net, to try to apply it toward explaining away religion.
And yet none are testable hypotheses. In other words, he's no longer doing science unless he can propose some experiments with predictions. They're just so stories that give the illusion of understanding without verification. Hmmm, seems an awful lot like faith creeping in...
Now, that's not to knock evolutionary theory. It's just a massive reach, without an empirical net, to try to apply it toward explaining away religion.
"As a neuroscientist, I know that finite matter gives rise to visions of the infinite."
I'm pretty sure this doesn't mean anything.
I'm pretty sure this doesn't mean anything.
"finite matter" = the ~3.5lbs of squishy grey stuff between your ears and all the material stuff that leaves an impression upon it
"visions of the infintite" = can mean many things that approach that limit = Pi = recursion of indefinite length = time "before" matter = the number of possible synaptic connections ...
What makes them interesting "visions" - to me - is our intellect can just about get our fingers those concepts and then...indeed, I know not the bounds of this inquiry
And studying semantic memory in the brain, I have no idea where a concept like "infinity" comes from. Sure it might come from the brain? It must! Right? Right!? :)
"visions of the infintite" = can mean many things that approach that limit = Pi = recursion of indefinite length = time "before" matter = the number of possible synaptic connections ...
What makes them interesting "visions" - to me - is our intellect can just about get our fingers those concepts and then...indeed, I know not the bounds of this inquiry
And studying semantic memory in the brain, I have no idea where a concept like "infinity" comes from. Sure it might come from the brain? It must! Right? Right!? :)
I don't see a coherent argument here, which further suggests that it doesn't mean anything.
Our having a concept of infinity has no metaphysical significance. All our definitions are phrased negatively, by what it's not:
Infinite: That which has no limit. From the Latin 'infinitas', meaning 'unboundedness'.
Try and see if you can define infinity by what it is rather than what it isn't.
Our having a concept of infinity has no metaphysical significance. All our definitions are phrased negatively, by what it's not:
Infinite: That which has no limit. From the Latin 'infinitas', meaning 'unboundedness'.
Try and see if you can define infinity by what it is rather than what it isn't.
"Infinity is that which can be put in one-to-one correspondence with a subset of itself."
If you're saying that infinity is not directly realizable in what we perceive, then I agree. But this has little to do with how it's defined (or even its metaphysical significance); positive and negative definitions are for all intents and purposes equivalent.
If you're saying that infinity is not directly realizable in what we perceive, then I agree. But this has little to do with how it's defined (or even its metaphysical significance); positive and negative definitions are for all intents and purposes equivalent.
What, exactly, do you think I'm trying to argue? To me the question is exactly whether having a concept of infinity has metaphysical significance. I think no good answer is humanly possible. Your definition is just as tautological as anything offered in the positive. That's exactly the problem.
That's the problem, it's hard to tell what you're saying.
Then I've failed... :)
Seriously, I'm not trying to proselytize nor argue. I just find atheism to be an untenable position. It's an attempt to say something while really saying nothing. Problem is, I know the same can be said of theism. But I think the latter is that much more compelling because it starts and ends with one question - "God" - that we can pose to ourselves. Where the answer leads is up to us to decide.
Seriously, I'm not trying to proselytize nor argue. I just find atheism to be an untenable position. It's an attempt to say something while really saying nothing. Problem is, I know the same can be said of theism. But I think the latter is that much more compelling because it starts and ends with one question - "God" - that we can pose to ourselves. Where the answer leads is up to us to decide.
That infinite things can be stored in finite space isn't weird at all. Programmers do it all the time (e.g. circular lists). The trick is that you cannot store all infinite things in finite space (circular lists can only store repeating sequences). There are only a finite number of infinite things you can think of.
For example, the number 0.33333 is infinite if you write it this way. If you use another representation (1/3) then it isn't. Similarly, you can use a computer program that generates the digits of pi as a representation of pi.
For example, the number 0.33333 is infinite if you write it this way. If you use another representation (1/3) then it isn't. Similarly, you can use a computer program that generates the digits of pi as a representation of pi.
Rejecting one definition (after a half-hearted explication) doesn't solve anything except by ignoring further inquiry.
But replace the loaded term "God" with something else, say "Nature" or "Infinite" or "Universe" or even "Matter", and I can't see how one doesn't tumble back to a more humble position.
Well, obviously I believe in "nature" and "universe" and "matter". But praying to these things is silly, because they don't have minds and can't hear you.
That's not what "God" means. What "God" means, to the majority of english speakers at least, is some form of magical super-fairy who created the universe and loves you. And no, I don't believe in magic or super-fairies, and I am not convinced that the universe's has a creator, and if it does, I'm further not convinced that said creator would necessarily be loving, or even have emotions as you and I conceive them.
The slippery definition is a common tactic. You can't just redefine the term until it's something we all agree on, and then pretend that you're still talking about the same thing that we were disagreeing with. Either God is a magical ghost, or it's nature. If it's nature, then let's stop pretending that this is about deities and theism, and admit that we're just using poetic terms to talk about physics, declare that praying accomplishes no more than any other kind of meditative activity, and stop treating "religion" as any more special than sports or soap operas.
I'd be ok with that.
But replace the loaded term "God" with something else, say "Nature" or "Infinite" or "Universe" or even "Matter", and I can't see how one doesn't tumble back to a more humble position.
Well, obviously I believe in "nature" and "universe" and "matter". But praying to these things is silly, because they don't have minds and can't hear you.
That's not what "God" means. What "God" means, to the majority of english speakers at least, is some form of magical super-fairy who created the universe and loves you. And no, I don't believe in magic or super-fairies, and I am not convinced that the universe's has a creator, and if it does, I'm further not convinced that said creator would necessarily be loving, or even have emotions as you and I conceive them.
The slippery definition is a common tactic. You can't just redefine the term until it's something we all agree on, and then pretend that you're still talking about the same thing that we were disagreeing with. Either God is a magical ghost, or it's nature. If it's nature, then let's stop pretending that this is about deities and theism, and admit that we're just using poetic terms to talk about physics, declare that praying accomplishes no more than any other kind of meditative activity, and stop treating "religion" as any more special than sports or soap operas.
I'd be ok with that.
Honestly it's not a "tactic" for me. I've come up with a workable definition that I'm very comfortable with. Luckily my wife and I mostly agree - and she's Indian. That's good enough for us - my definition doesn't have to work for you. And prayer, for me, is simply finding a stillness in my mind.
You're insisting on a set of concepts that never worked for me. So I gave them up. It's still weird for me that this thread is filled with this common response, among folks very comfortable writing their own definitions on a daily basis, but this subject area provokes resistance but not reformation.
By "Nature", where does that end for you? This planet? Or the solar system? The universe? Or the "metaverse"? There have been Christian theologians who can be read as naturalistic pantheists. See Charles Hartshorne. Good luck ascribing classical concepts to him, for instance.
You're insisting on a set of concepts that never worked for me. So I gave them up. It's still weird for me that this thread is filled with this common response, among folks very comfortable writing their own definitions on a daily basis, but this subject area provokes resistance but not reformation.
By "Nature", where does that end for you? This planet? Or the solar system? The universe? Or the "metaverse"? There have been Christian theologians who can be read as naturalistic pantheists. See Charles Hartshorne. Good luck ascribing classical concepts to him, for instance.
Nature = what is. (By extension, "supernatural" = "what isn't." By definition, it doesn't exist.)
If that is what you mean by "prayer" and "god", then you shouldn't use those terms, for the same reason that you don't call firetrucks "lampshades" and asprin "peanut butter".
I suspect that those concepts never worked for you because they don't work, period. Giving them up is called being an atheist. Why not just own that?
If that is what you mean by "prayer" and "god", then you shouldn't use those terms, for the same reason that you don't call firetrucks "lampshades" and asprin "peanut butter".
I suspect that those concepts never worked for you because they don't work, period. Giving them up is called being an atheist. Why not just own that?
That is not what nature means.
In the broadest sense, nature is what exists on a material level. If you assume a priori, as Hume did, that all things that exist do so on a material and sensible level, then sure, that is a fine definition of 'nature.' But that's an assumption that, right or wrong, not everyone makes, so it isn't correct to say that.
In the broadest sense, nature is what exists on a material level. If you assume a priori, as Hume did, that all things that exist do so on a material and sensible level, then sure, that is a fine definition of 'nature.' But that's an assumption that, right or wrong, not everyone makes, so it isn't correct to say that.
nature is what exists on a material level.
On a material level... So, what exists on a non-material level?
The existence of information implies that it has some representation in some medium. Scramble the representation, and the information is gone. Qv, the files on my hard drive that time I used a magnetized screwdriver to put it in a new case, or the speaking ability of old alcoholics.
Pretty smart people sometimes get confused by different levels of analysis and then start saying absurd things. We can talk about semiconductors or registers or instructions or lines of code or functions or programs. It's not that each one of these conversations are the same, but they do imply one another. When we talk about an abstraction like "purple" or "justice" or "motherly", we're implying all the real world examples (past, present, and future) of these abstractions, and focusing on what they have in common.
"Justice" doesn't exist apart from just things, any more than "purple" exists apart from the typical human experience of purple light. There's no sense in looking for Plato's Ideal Forms; you won't find them, no matter how many caves you turn around in.
I would argue that, when we talk about "nature", we are referring to all that exists, but that's not enough to know how to use the term, which is why you find that flip definition unsatisfactory. We're specifically focusing on the level of analysis that involves fundamental properties of things. Since things are the sum of their properties (in other words, "things are what they are"), "nature" is what is, "natural" properly means "consistent with a thing's fundamental properties", and "supernatural" is "imaginary and not real."
God isn't natural, therefor, God doesn't exist. Quid erat demonstratum.
And that's why geeks are atheists ;)
In all seriousness, I actually think that this is what people usually mean when they use the terms "nature" and "supernatural". They sometimes bundle in the assumption that supernatural things can exist (which is a contradiction) and that humans are somehow magical non-animal creatures and not a part of nature (which is silly.)
But that's an assumption that, right or wrong, not everyone makes, so it isn't correct to say that.
If the assumption is right, then the people who don't make it are incorrect, aren't they? They might mean something vague and undefined when they say nature (in fact, I'm quite sure most do), but that doesn't mean that the soup of contradictions most people carry around in their heads is even slightly valid or worth worrying about.
On a material level... So, what exists on a non-material level?
The existence of information implies that it has some representation in some medium. Scramble the representation, and the information is gone. Qv, the files on my hard drive that time I used a magnetized screwdriver to put it in a new case, or the speaking ability of old alcoholics.
Pretty smart people sometimes get confused by different levels of analysis and then start saying absurd things. We can talk about semiconductors or registers or instructions or lines of code or functions or programs. It's not that each one of these conversations are the same, but they do imply one another. When we talk about an abstraction like "purple" or "justice" or "motherly", we're implying all the real world examples (past, present, and future) of these abstractions, and focusing on what they have in common.
"Justice" doesn't exist apart from just things, any more than "purple" exists apart from the typical human experience of purple light. There's no sense in looking for Plato's Ideal Forms; you won't find them, no matter how many caves you turn around in.
I would argue that, when we talk about "nature", we are referring to all that exists, but that's not enough to know how to use the term, which is why you find that flip definition unsatisfactory. We're specifically focusing on the level of analysis that involves fundamental properties of things. Since things are the sum of their properties (in other words, "things are what they are"), "nature" is what is, "natural" properly means "consistent with a thing's fundamental properties", and "supernatural" is "imaginary and not real."
God isn't natural, therefor, God doesn't exist. Quid erat demonstratum.
And that's why geeks are atheists ;)
In all seriousness, I actually think that this is what people usually mean when they use the terms "nature" and "supernatural". They sometimes bundle in the assumption that supernatural things can exist (which is a contradiction) and that humans are somehow magical non-animal creatures and not a part of nature (which is silly.)
But that's an assumption that, right or wrong, not everyone makes, so it isn't correct to say that.
If the assumption is right, then the people who don't make it are incorrect, aren't they? They might mean something vague and undefined when they say nature (in fact, I'm quite sure most do), but that doesn't mean that the soup of contradictions most people carry around in their heads is even slightly valid or worth worrying about.
I would argue that, when we talk about "nature", we are referring to all that exists
I would argue that "nature" is a matter of perspective. If the universe is a simulation, for example, the set of things in that simulation and the set of rules that apply to them to us constitute nature. You could define nature to also include the machine that runs that simulation and the universe in which it exists, but I don't think at that point the term "nature" is very useful. To this outer world, the term "supernatural" would apply, relative to the people in the simulation.
This outer world would be capable of interfering with the simulation in ways that violate the rules that normally govern it (this was mentioned here[powerpoint]: http://www.mit.edu/%7Ehooman/ComputersAndGod.ppt), and those interferences could be called supernatural; or perhaps since they've still occurred inside the simulation, they are "natural" but "paranormal". Replace "simulation" and "outer world" with "physical world" and 'spiritual planes' if those terms float your boat. I'm just playing with semantics here, but so are you:
God isn't natural, therefor, God doesn't exist.
This doesn't refute the idea of God, it just shows that some definitions of "God" and of "nature" are incompatible and may need to be revised.
I would argue that "nature" is a matter of perspective. If the universe is a simulation, for example, the set of things in that simulation and the set of rules that apply to them to us constitute nature. You could define nature to also include the machine that runs that simulation and the universe in which it exists, but I don't think at that point the term "nature" is very useful. To this outer world, the term "supernatural" would apply, relative to the people in the simulation.
This outer world would be capable of interfering with the simulation in ways that violate the rules that normally govern it (this was mentioned here[powerpoint]: http://www.mit.edu/%7Ehooman/ComputersAndGod.ppt), and those interferences could be called supernatural; or perhaps since they've still occurred inside the simulation, they are "natural" but "paranormal". Replace "simulation" and "outer world" with "physical world" and 'spiritual planes' if those terms float your boat. I'm just playing with semantics here, but so are you:
God isn't natural, therefor, God doesn't exist.
This doesn't refute the idea of God, it just shows that some definitions of "God" and of "nature" are incompatible and may need to be revised.
You are right and wrong. The term 'nature' is used in multiple ways. Sometimes to denote organic life, sometimes the physical world, and sometimes as a synonym for 'essence.' The problem is not to conflate all of these meanings.
When people speak of supernatural things, they do not generally mean that something is defying its own essence. What they do generally mean is that is defies what we understand to be the essence of physical matter. Our understanding of it is based on our experience thereof. So, something which is supernatural, defies classification through experiential knowledge.
We can also speak can also speak of supernatural as a sort of non-material existence, by which I don't mean Plato's forms, necessarily, but entities that exist that are not governed by the laws that visible matter is governed. Such an entity has not been widely experienced (otherwise our physics would take it into account,) and is possibly non-experienciable, so one might debate the merits of discussing it as there is clearly no reason to assume it exists. However, one cannot simply define it away.
St. Anselm in middle ages attempted to define 'God' as existing, arrived at what we now call the Ontological proof of his existence. The 'proof' was so laughable that nearly all of the Scholastics rejected it out of hand and even went out of there way to refute it. Now you seem to be presenting me with the ontological disproof. It's a little ridiculous.
When people speak of supernatural things, they do not generally mean that something is defying its own essence. What they do generally mean is that is defies what we understand to be the essence of physical matter. Our understanding of it is based on our experience thereof. So, something which is supernatural, defies classification through experiential knowledge.
We can also speak can also speak of supernatural as a sort of non-material existence, by which I don't mean Plato's forms, necessarily, but entities that exist that are not governed by the laws that visible matter is governed. Such an entity has not been widely experienced (otherwise our physics would take it into account,) and is possibly non-experienciable, so one might debate the merits of discussing it as there is clearly no reason to assume it exists. However, one cannot simply define it away.
St. Anselm in middle ages attempted to define 'God' as existing, arrived at what we now call the Ontological proof of his existence. The 'proof' was so laughable that nearly all of the Scholastics rejected it out of hand and even went out of there way to refute it. Now you seem to be presenting me with the ontological disproof. It's a little ridiculous.
Hahaha, the ontological disproof. I love it.
If it can't handle a perfect sandwich, what hope does it have with a perfect deity?
You're right, I am conflating definitions somewhat. Arguments get squished when typed quickly into a little textarea.
My point is that people don't just mean that "supernatural" is "that which we haven't observed and thus don't understand." There is an implication that we can't understand supernatural things using theories and evidence, which is crazy. (Be careful using the word "visible" in this context. Plenty of matter isn't visible, but I doubt anyone would call electrons supernatural. I think you mean visible in the not-just-visual sense, yes?)
What does it mean to say that something exists, but has no effect on any part of the universe, no aspects that can ever be observed in any way, that leaves no footprint that can ever be detected? I think we call those kinds of things "imaginary".
God would be more perfect if he could create the whole universe without even bothering to exist.
God is completely perfect.
Therefor, God doesn't exist.
QED.
If it can't handle a perfect sandwich, what hope does it have with a perfect deity?
You're right, I am conflating definitions somewhat. Arguments get squished when typed quickly into a little textarea.
My point is that people don't just mean that "supernatural" is "that which we haven't observed and thus don't understand." There is an implication that we can't understand supernatural things using theories and evidence, which is crazy. (Be careful using the word "visible" in this context. Plenty of matter isn't visible, but I doubt anyone would call electrons supernatural. I think you mean visible in the not-just-visual sense, yes?)
What does it mean to say that something exists, but has no effect on any part of the universe, no aspects that can ever be observed in any way, that leaves no footprint that can ever be detected? I think we call those kinds of things "imaginary".
My wife and I came from completely different traditions and yet we could see the similarities in our understanding of both "prayer" and "god". Pointedly, I haven't tried to explain my views on either much here - this isn't a good forum for it. My main point has been an epistemological one rather than an ontological one. Why choose nihilism?
The inflexibility of thought is what doesn't work for us. But that wasn't a reason to stop learning. We just searched a bit harder for folks to learn from. Now we're satisfied by the result even as the learning is incomplete.
The inflexibility of thought is what doesn't work for us. But that wasn't a reason to stop learning. We just searched a bit harder for folks to learn from. Now we're satisfied by the result even as the learning is incomplete.
Who says atheism == nihilism?
I consider my life rich with meaning and spiritual satisfaction. I relish my place in this species, my instincts and my awareness of them. My scant century-or-so of life is a limited quantity, and that motivates me to use it to live and love and push for everything I can achieve.
I consider my life rich with meaning and spiritual satisfaction. I relish my place in this species, my instincts and my awareness of them. My scant century-or-so of life is a limited quantity, and that motivates me to use it to live and love and push for everything I can achieve.
Atheism is one version of nihilism unless some attempt is made to redefine the basic concepts. It sounds like you already have and it sounds very similar to what I embrace. I don't know where that leaves us, but it doesn't worry me either. I'm not trying to convert anyone. But I'm also very satisfied by my working model for God. You may choose a less-loaded term to describe where you derive a "life rich with meaning and spiritual satisfaction".
God is a particularly bad word for that term.
Not only is my life 100% godless, I try to be free of superstition of all kinds. (No Santa, no tooth fairy, no magic dreams, no esp, no ghosts, etc.)
Superstition, in my opinion, is mental clutter that obscures spirituality.
Not only is my life 100% godless, I try to be free of superstition of all kinds. (No Santa, no tooth fairy, no magic dreams, no esp, no ghosts, etc.)
Superstition, in my opinion, is mental clutter that obscures spirituality.
"I try to be free of superstition of all kinds."
Really? What's "spirituality" then?
Really? What's "spirituality" then?
Spirituality is a type of experience. No more superstitious a term than "happy" or "hungry" or "purple" or "curious".
"Nature = what is."
By this definition, you could just as easily be a pantheist (or panentheist). But that's up to you to decide.
By this definition, you could just as easily be a pantheist (or panentheist). But that's up to you to decide.
While I welcome the debate, I don't think this is the forum for it. All we will end up doing is insulting one another leaving opinions unchanged. It's been proven time and again that this type of stuff only results in flamewars. !HN
Understanding "God" as a "Personal God" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_god) is by no means limited to CS circles, I'd say it is the default position in much of the western world.
Beyond that, yes, you're probably right: a broader definition of god would probably lead to less people calling themselves atheist. I'm not sure how you would go about expanding the definition, it seems like any religion which says "this is what god is" will have a natural advantage over one which says "god is whatever you like", since people are better at coming together over things which they share, rather than things they agree not to share.
Beyond that, yes, you're probably right: a broader definition of god would probably lead to less people calling themselves atheist. I'm not sure how you would go about expanding the definition, it seems like any religion which says "this is what god is" will have a natural advantage over one which says "god is whatever you like", since people are better at coming together over things which they share, rather than things they agree not to share.
But if anything, I'd expect programmers to be willing and interested in writing their own definition. The problem only comes in when one assumes that's the only definition. Still, programmers seem more, not less, amenable to re-write when something isn't right.
Why bother with redefining someone else's term for your own use? It seems more straightforward to come up with your own term, if the concept doesn't match in the first place.
Why bother with redefining someone else's term for your own use?
That, I think, is a fine question. The emergence of "spirituality" is seemingly one approach to get around the term. For me, I'm okay with struggling with the term because it leads to good discussions with folks of differing persuasions.
Or lazy.
It's easier to understand creationism than physics.
It's easier to understand creationism than physics.
[deleted]
Troll-bait. Digg does not represent geeks at large, and we have no idea if the poll was spammed or not.
Second, there are many geeks (like one client I have who is finishing up his studies at Cambridge this year) who are of one faith or another.
The guy who wrote the first silicon compiler (lets you lay out chip designs without having to do it manually) - fundamentalist Christian. Many Apple geeks - Buddhist. etc.
Second, there are many geeks (like one client I have who is finishing up his studies at Cambridge this year) who are of one faith or another.
The guy who wrote the first silicon compiler (lets you lay out chip designs without having to do it manually) - fundamentalist Christian. Many Apple geeks - Buddhist. etc.
Maybe some of us geeks just need to get outside more. Go hiking like Francis Collins did.
From (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article673663.ece) Francis Collins, the director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute, claims there is a rational basis for a creator and that scientific discoveries bring man “closer to God”.
For Collins, unravelling the human genome did not create a conflict in his mind. Instead, it allowed him to “glimpse at the workings of God”.
“When you have for the first time in front of you this 3.1 billion-letter instruction book that conveys all kinds of information and all kinds of mystery about humankind, you can’t survey that going through page after page without a sense of awe. I can’t help but look at those pages and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God’s mind.”
“I see God’s hand at work through the mechanism of evolution. If God chose to create human beings in his image and decided that the mechanism of evolution was an elegant way to accomplish that goal, who are we to say that is not the way,” he says.
Collins was an atheist until the age of 27, when as a young doctor he was impressed by the strength that faith gave to some of his most critical patients.
“They had terrible diseases from which they were probably not going to escape, and yet instead of railing at God they seemed to lean on their faith as a source of great comfort and reassurance,” he said. “That was interesting, puzzling and unsettling.”
His epiphany came when he went hiking through the Cascade Mountains in Washington state. He said: “It was a beautiful afternoon and suddenly the remarkable beauty of creation around me was so overwhelming, I felt, ‘I cannot resist this another moment’.”
Collins believes that science cannot be used to refute the existence of God because it is confined to the “natural” world. In this light he believes miracles are a real possibility. “If one is willing to accept the existence of God or some supernatural force outside nature then it is not a logical problem to admit that, occasionally, a supernatural force might stage an invasion,” he says.
As for me, know that I respect your opinion. My life experiences are different than your life experiences. For me, God is very real. I find when I remember to pray sincerely in the morning, I can recognize God’s hand throughout the day. The things I see are usually small things but sometimes they are not small at all.
From (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article673663.ece) Francis Collins, the director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute, claims there is a rational basis for a creator and that scientific discoveries bring man “closer to God”.
For Collins, unravelling the human genome did not create a conflict in his mind. Instead, it allowed him to “glimpse at the workings of God”.
“When you have for the first time in front of you this 3.1 billion-letter instruction book that conveys all kinds of information and all kinds of mystery about humankind, you can’t survey that going through page after page without a sense of awe. I can’t help but look at those pages and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God’s mind.”
“I see God’s hand at work through the mechanism of evolution. If God chose to create human beings in his image and decided that the mechanism of evolution was an elegant way to accomplish that goal, who are we to say that is not the way,” he says.
Collins was an atheist until the age of 27, when as a young doctor he was impressed by the strength that faith gave to some of his most critical patients.
“They had terrible diseases from which they were probably not going to escape, and yet instead of railing at God they seemed to lean on their faith as a source of great comfort and reassurance,” he said. “That was interesting, puzzling and unsettling.”
His epiphany came when he went hiking through the Cascade Mountains in Washington state. He said: “It was a beautiful afternoon and suddenly the remarkable beauty of creation around me was so overwhelming, I felt, ‘I cannot resist this another moment’.”
Collins believes that science cannot be used to refute the existence of God because it is confined to the “natural” world. In this light he believes miracles are a real possibility. “If one is willing to accept the existence of God or some supernatural force outside nature then it is not a logical problem to admit that, occasionally, a supernatural force might stage an invasion,” he says.
As for me, know that I respect your opinion. My life experiences are different than your life experiences. For me, God is very real. I find when I remember to pray sincerely in the morning, I can recognize God’s hand throughout the day. The things I see are usually small things but sometimes they are not small at all.
Sam Harris hikes, and this is his take on Collins:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060815_sam_harris_lang...
What is your opinion on his interpretation?
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060815_sam_harris_lang...
What is your opinion on his interpretation?
I suspect, atheism itself will become an organized religion several decades from now.
I think in some circles it already has.
(Don't know why you got down-voted.)
(Don't know why you got down-voted.)
I think Unitarian Universalsm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism is some kind of organized atheism.
Ssh! Do not inflame the coffee-fueled wrath of the Unitarian Jihad!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/ar...
Seriously, though... despite the fact that some UUs are indeed atheists, most of them (including many of the atheists) would disagree with this statement.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/ar...
Seriously, though... despite the fact that some UUs are indeed atheists, most of them (including many of the atheists) would disagree with this statement.
it is acceptable to be a UU and believe in God or not believe in God. That is why some people think UU is not a religion- it doesn't have dogma.
and if you don't think they're tolerant enough, there's always http://www.themonastery.org/
"I suspect, baldness itself will become an accepted hair color several decades from now".
See how silly that sounds? Atheism is not nor will it ever be a religion.
See how silly that sounds? Atheism is not nor will it ever be a religion.
It's happened long ago: Communism. One of the central dogmates: "Religion is opium for the people" (Marx). It went all the way here in Russia: purposely desecrating churches, blowing them up, using them as warehouses, shitting on icons etc.; newspapers named "Atheist" or "Blasphemer"; killing priests en masse as "reactionary elements".
In a hypothetical universe, if kids weren't exposed to ANY thoughts about religion AT ALL and were taught about what we know about how the universe works, would the concept of God arise? Perhaps, since there are still a lot of things which are mysterious and can't be explained. But it seems that it will take a very different form than what we have been exposed to.
I think yes, the concept would still arise. Many disconnected societies had religion.
You know this feeling when, after stumbling and falling over a chair, you punish the poor piece of furniture as if it were alive? Or see a car crash about to occur and think to yourself, oh please, let's this not happen? Imagining self-consciousness around you, a natural human trait, leads to the invention of tree spirits, thunderstorm spirits, etc., all the way up to god.
And of course the concept of god (or any other Powerful Force orthogonal to human well-being) is very beneficial to those in power, to rationalize their decisions to the masses. So yes, it would be invented, and pretty soon.
You know this feeling when, after stumbling and falling over a chair, you punish the poor piece of furniture as if it were alive? Or see a car crash about to occur and think to yourself, oh please, let's this not happen? Imagining self-consciousness around you, a natural human trait, leads to the invention of tree spirits, thunderstorm spirits, etc., all the way up to god.
And of course the concept of god (or any other Powerful Force orthogonal to human well-being) is very beneficial to those in power, to rationalize their decisions to the masses. So yes, it would be invented, and pretty soon.
I agree. Religion is a bit like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confabulation, it's "rationalisations" to explain phenomenons we weren't equipped to understand in the past. Religion is a relic of an era where we just didn't know any better. In the absence of the needed body of knowledge we invented models (ex: God) of how it supposedly works and then proceeded to believe them.
Let's put down the rationalist cool-aid for just a minute. While in every realm of scientific inquiry we have never discovered a man in a red suit (santa claus) by surprise, we have always discovered a greater level of complexity and uncertainty.
The question becomes whether or not we can assign names to things we cannot reason about. Human language and psychology are great things. I believe we can and I believe it is necessary. To say there is an intelligent prime mover at some level beyond our understanding is only far-out in one word: intelligent. I would argue as a baby species we're nowhere close to having a rational definition for intelligent. It's obvious there are complex levels of understanding to the universe that we do not grok.
So in 4 thousand years, when humans look back on us and laugh, so what? Were the Romans wrong in believing Zeus threw lightning bolts? I would argue they were not: some force existed that caused electrical discharges from the sky. By learning more about Zeus, humans simply took part of the meaning of "Zeus" and replaced it with various theories. (Which continue to be worked to this day, I might add)
We will never complete this exercise. There will always be holes in what we understand. And using our creativity and intellect to tell stories about what must be out there? It's the definition of human.
So yes, Virginia, there is a God. For some he is a personal, close advisor. For some he is simply a thing to be denied until time of dire stress. But he's been there, and will remain there, for millennium. Every time a scientist takes a deep-field shot from the Hubble for a picture of the "face of God", every time a MLK rises up to change society for the better, every time a child wonders where their dead parents "went to" -- God remains.
You can cling to your provisional theories as being the source of truth or you can accept the uncertainty of it all and grow up. Atheism is the ultimate negative statement "there is no such thing as I cannot define" and therefore, at the end of the day, is the most non-rational belief of all - in my opinion, of course.
The question becomes whether or not we can assign names to things we cannot reason about. Human language and psychology are great things. I believe we can and I believe it is necessary. To say there is an intelligent prime mover at some level beyond our understanding is only far-out in one word: intelligent. I would argue as a baby species we're nowhere close to having a rational definition for intelligent. It's obvious there are complex levels of understanding to the universe that we do not grok.
So in 4 thousand years, when humans look back on us and laugh, so what? Were the Romans wrong in believing Zeus threw lightning bolts? I would argue they were not: some force existed that caused electrical discharges from the sky. By learning more about Zeus, humans simply took part of the meaning of "Zeus" and replaced it with various theories. (Which continue to be worked to this day, I might add)
We will never complete this exercise. There will always be holes in what we understand. And using our creativity and intellect to tell stories about what must be out there? It's the definition of human.
So yes, Virginia, there is a God. For some he is a personal, close advisor. For some he is simply a thing to be denied until time of dire stress. But he's been there, and will remain there, for millennium. Every time a scientist takes a deep-field shot from the Hubble for a picture of the "face of God", every time a MLK rises up to change society for the better, every time a child wonders where their dead parents "went to" -- God remains.
You can cling to your provisional theories as being the source of truth or you can accept the uncertainty of it all and grow up. Atheism is the ultimate negative statement "there is no such thing as I cannot define" and therefore, at the end of the day, is the most non-rational belief of all - in my opinion, of course.
Atheism is the ultimate negative statement "there is no such thing as I cannot define"
No, it's just concluding, as JMC puts it, "the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question."
No, it's just concluding, as JMC puts it, "the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question."
But it's not. It's lazy (in my opinion) to have such a shallow view of the matter.
I would encourage you guys to listen to some discussion and arguments around proofs-of-God. The Teaching Company has a couple of great lecture series. Take some time and learn. The worst people to teach are those who think they have nothing to learn.
We can't make a conclusion one way or another given common terms and understanding. The question is really about how we deal with things outside of our ability to reason about them, not werewolves, santa clause, or any of that other nonsense.
I wonder how many have you studied any of this since university? I thought about it, and I got tired of hearing the same old arguments, so I reached out and kept reaching until I got it. To me this seems like one of those questions people are just happy repeating something they heard a long time ago while not looking at the subject with a fresh eye every so often.
Hey -- my opinion only. But it looks lazy to me.
I would encourage you guys to listen to some discussion and arguments around proofs-of-God. The Teaching Company has a couple of great lecture series. Take some time and learn. The worst people to teach are those who think they have nothing to learn.
We can't make a conclusion one way or another given common terms and understanding. The question is really about how we deal with things outside of our ability to reason about them, not werewolves, santa clause, or any of that other nonsense.
I wonder how many have you studied any of this since university? I thought about it, and I got tired of hearing the same old arguments, so I reached out and kept reaching until I got it. To me this seems like one of those questions people are just happy repeating something they heard a long time ago while not looking at the subject with a fresh eye every so often.
Hey -- my opinion only. But it looks lazy to me.
I would encourage you guys to listen to some discussion and arguments around proofs-of-God. The Teaching Company has a couple of great lecture series. Take some time and learn. The worst people to teach are those who think they have nothing to learn.
If someone accuses you of being self-righteous or condescending, don't let him or her find this.
If someone accuses you of being self-righteous or condescending, don't let him or her find this.
This sub-thread was in terms of laziness. As part of that discussion, I have demonstrated my efforts to learn more, questioned others to see if they have done the same, and encouraged them to do so.
Quite frankly, I haven't heard much of a rebuttal so far. You are correct in that I should have drawn the point home sharper in the above text.
Quite frankly, I haven't heard much of a rebuttal so far. You are correct in that I should have drawn the point home sharper in the above text.
This is just wrong philosophy masquerading as science or skepticism. The question of lightning finally got solved by science and there're always things which are beyond the explanation of current science and technology. That doesn't mean that we'll not be able to explain it in the future.
Your belief in a "Personal god" is only equivalent to others believing in a gift of virgins and flying spaghetti monsters. - my opinion of course.
Your belief in a "Personal god" is only equivalent to others believing in a gift of virgins and flying spaghetti monsters. - my opinion of course.
Eric Raymond has similar essays for why geeks are "often" libertarians, or "often" in favor of gun rights. "Logic dictates" that they would be so. Of course, a year later you find out that he also thinks people with dark skin are genetically inferior, and that we should bomb Tehran.
For my part, and despite what the avalanche of comments on this thread says to the contrary, I'll assert that it's hard to find an argument more boring and petulant than this one. "Geeks" are people who like to take things apart and build them back up again, and vice versa. That is the only thing they have in common. Unless you'd like me to make fun of your grimy pony tail and Star Trek ears.
For my part, and despite what the avalanche of comments on this thread says to the contrary, I'll assert that it's hard to find an argument more boring and petulant than this one. "Geeks" are people who like to take things apart and build them back up again, and vice versa. That is the only thing they have in common. Unless you'd like me to make fun of your grimy pony tail and Star Trek ears.
For me it's because I understand the argument against the existence of God.
Specifically, a God, meaning some kind of conscious all-knowing, all-powerful entity that exists somehow "beyond" time, would have to be a thing of organized complexity.
And organized complexity does not just "exist beyond time."
Somehow, this kind of organized complexity has to come in to being. No, it does not "just exist."
We do know one process for bringing organized complexity into being, and that is evolution.
So far, it's the only process we know about for creating organized complexity on the scale required for consciousness and intelligence.
We don't know of any other processes that can do this.
That doesn't prove that there aren't other ways. But.
You tell me. If God knows everything, where did he/it get that knowledge?
If God "just exists", explain: how is that possible?
Your non-explanation, to me, proves nothing.
Rather than saying "I can't prove leprechauns exist, so therefore you must accept that they might exist" I am very content to say "I do not believe that leprechauns exist." Period. End of story.
Same with God. No reason to believe. Even Pascal's wager is flawed, because you lose so much by living your life according to faith, that it is not worth it, especially considering how unlikely it is that a complete perfect all-knowing all-powerful intelligence would just spring into being beyond time.
Specifically, a God, meaning some kind of conscious all-knowing, all-powerful entity that exists somehow "beyond" time, would have to be a thing of organized complexity.
And organized complexity does not just "exist beyond time."
Somehow, this kind of organized complexity has to come in to being. No, it does not "just exist."
We do know one process for bringing organized complexity into being, and that is evolution.
So far, it's the only process we know about for creating organized complexity on the scale required for consciousness and intelligence.
We don't know of any other processes that can do this.
That doesn't prove that there aren't other ways. But.
You tell me. If God knows everything, where did he/it get that knowledge?
If God "just exists", explain: how is that possible?
Your non-explanation, to me, proves nothing.
Rather than saying "I can't prove leprechauns exist, so therefore you must accept that they might exist" I am very content to say "I do not believe that leprechauns exist." Period. End of story.
Same with God. No reason to believe. Even Pascal's wager is flawed, because you lose so much by living your life according to faith, that it is not worth it, especially considering how unlikely it is that a complete perfect all-knowing all-powerful intelligence would just spring into being beyond time.
This articles is absolute b.s. Faith and reason go together; they are not diametrically opposed. Perhaps the reason why geeks tend to be atheists is because they simply don't care that much about religion- they have other subjects to consider.
Not meaning to start a theological debate here, as really, it's not the place, but how exactly do faith and reason go together?
What annoys me is so-called scientists writing books where they cloak the discussion in pseudo-science. The scientific method requires hypothesis testing. When a scientist says faith involves delusion, they're really degrading science because anyone with "faith" knows it's not an objective reality to be tested. And so they reject science. To me, that explains the backlash against science. Scientists overstepping the bounds of their expertise damage the reputation of science itself.
That all said, reason should absolutely be used to examine faith. If your reason forces you to reject a faith, who's to say you must then reject all faith? Sure, you may decide to at any point. But it need not be the end of inquiry.
One fact that will always blow my mind for which I don't anticipate a fully rational explication: Right now we're all communicating across a tiny rock in the middle of nowhere. Yet we have the rational means (linguistic, mathematic, scientific) to ponder the depth and extent of our own existence. Call me a theist, but I don't see how that's possible based on strictly finite matter. An evolutionary biologist may spin a story, but it doesn't make it so. So too might an ancient book. Use reason to explore and understand the diversity of faith. In the process I can't see how you won't deepen your own understanding of both.
EDIT: If you disagree, say why you disagree even as I don't think I've said anything controversial here. I know some science. I know faith less. This thread is interesting to me exactly because of the seeming prevalence of atheist programmers for which I have no insight into why.
That all said, reason should absolutely be used to examine faith. If your reason forces you to reject a faith, who's to say you must then reject all faith? Sure, you may decide to at any point. But it need not be the end of inquiry.
One fact that will always blow my mind for which I don't anticipate a fully rational explication: Right now we're all communicating across a tiny rock in the middle of nowhere. Yet we have the rational means (linguistic, mathematic, scientific) to ponder the depth and extent of our own existence. Call me a theist, but I don't see how that's possible based on strictly finite matter. An evolutionary biologist may spin a story, but it doesn't make it so. So too might an ancient book. Use reason to explore and understand the diversity of faith. In the process I can't see how you won't deepen your own understanding of both.
EDIT: If you disagree, say why you disagree even as I don't think I've said anything controversial here. I know some science. I know faith less. This thread is interesting to me exactly because of the seeming prevalence of atheist programmers for which I have no insight into why.
Right now we're all communicating across a tiny rock in the middle of nowhere. Yet we have the rational means (linguistic, mathematic, scientific) to ponder the depth and extent of our own existence.
Maybe the ability to "ponder the depth and extent of our own existence" isn't really such a big deal after all. As humans we tend to exalt the things that separate us from other species on this planet without much analysis as to why those traits should be exalted. What if such "pondering" is just the brain's way of filling in idle time with junk to fool us that something is there, such as when it fills in areas of low resolution in our visual field to fool us into seeing a full picture?
The concepts of "ponder", "depth", and "existence" originate within the human brain, as does the very concept of "concept".
I'm not saying your statement is wrong, really. Just pointing out that you're making a big assumption that the act of pondering existence and the like are some kind of mystical thing.
Maybe the ability to "ponder the depth and extent of our own existence" isn't really such a big deal after all. As humans we tend to exalt the things that separate us from other species on this planet without much analysis as to why those traits should be exalted. What if such "pondering" is just the brain's way of filling in idle time with junk to fool us that something is there, such as when it fills in areas of low resolution in our visual field to fool us into seeing a full picture?
The concepts of "ponder", "depth", and "existence" originate within the human brain, as does the very concept of "concept".
I'm not saying your statement is wrong, really. Just pointing out that you're making a big assumption that the act of pondering existence and the like are some kind of mystical thing.
There are, of course, two definitions of the word 'Faith'. There is faith as in the biblical context, putting stock and basing your life upon a collected series of written works.
Or there is faith, related to a broader range of hopes and beliefs. For instance, I have faith in the resilience of our sciences. I have belief that Einstein was right and that, when we reach a fundamental understanding of the most basic forces of the universe, that general relativity will still hold sway.
But, on a more relevant note, I find Theology absolutely fascinating. Collectively, the vast majority of the planet on which we reside believe in something which is untestable, unknowable and incomprehensible.
They ascribe attribute and act in mannerisms of which, if directed at other areas of focus, are called dementia, yet somehow, when used with heavily weighted terms such as 'God', become somehow acceptable.
Anyway, that's all I will say on the matter, before pg gets on my case about being vastly and shockingly off-topic for here :]
Or there is faith, related to a broader range of hopes and beliefs. For instance, I have faith in the resilience of our sciences. I have belief that Einstein was right and that, when we reach a fundamental understanding of the most basic forces of the universe, that general relativity will still hold sway.
But, on a more relevant note, I find Theology absolutely fascinating. Collectively, the vast majority of the planet on which we reside believe in something which is untestable, unknowable and incomprehensible.
They ascribe attribute and act in mannerisms of which, if directed at other areas of focus, are called dementia, yet somehow, when used with heavily weighted terms such as 'God', become somehow acceptable.
Anyway, that's all I will say on the matter, before pg gets on my case about being vastly and shockingly off-topic for here :]
I find your first definition overly limiting. And your second too broad. Religious faith, for me, sits somewhere in-between.
As for practical applications, I find that particular versions of faith apply to its focus. The scientific faith I share with you but I don't expect an infinite march forward. Just because a question can be addressed with data doesn't mean the answer lies somewhere in there (see brain imaging and consciousness).
Religious faith for me simply means a faith that I can better the life I'm living and make a positive impact on this world and its people. But I know I'll fail in many important ways. Some would call that "sin" and I was raised Jewish.
I have technological faith that Apple will soon produce an iPhone I have to have. But Google's search won't always find what you need to know. And I don't think technology can solve all of our problems.
As for practical applications, I find that particular versions of faith apply to its focus. The scientific faith I share with you but I don't expect an infinite march forward. Just because a question can be addressed with data doesn't mean the answer lies somewhere in there (see brain imaging and consciousness).
Religious faith for me simply means a faith that I can better the life I'm living and make a positive impact on this world and its people. But I know I'll fail in many important ways. Some would call that "sin" and I was raised Jewish.
I have technological faith that Apple will soon produce an iPhone I have to have. But Google's search won't always find what you need to know. And I don't think technology can solve all of our problems.
Religious faith for me simply means a faith that I can better the life I'm living and make a positive impact on this world and its people.
I think most atheists feel something like this as well (we may not choose to call it "faith"). If this is all that "religious faith" means to you, then I would argue you're not particularly religious. Of course religion can be defined in various ways, but to call a belief system "religion" that has no concept of an omniscient, omnipotent Creator who has any sort of direct influence on peoples' lives so dilutes the meaning of that word that you're left with a tautology -- religion means whatever you feel about things that can't be explained by science.
I think most atheists feel something like this as well (we may not choose to call it "faith"). If this is all that "religious faith" means to you, then I would argue you're not particularly religious. Of course religion can be defined in various ways, but to call a belief system "religion" that has no concept of an omniscient, omnipotent Creator who has any sort of direct influence on peoples' lives so dilutes the meaning of that word that you're left with a tautology -- religion means whatever you feel about things that can't be explained by science.
Meh, I'm not particularly concerned with how religious I am. I'm a theist - that I know. I don't feel the need to prove it to anyone or justify it. And that's where the problem of a tautology comes in.
Atheism just seems weird to me - a rejection without further effort. I think there's enough diversity of belief in theology, that one can learn alot without being nihilistic.
Atheism just seems weird to me - a rejection without further effort. I think there's enough diversity of belief in theology, that one can learn alot without being nihilistic.
All reasoning requires some unprovable axioms. That's Godel's incompleteness theorem. A religious person can simply take the divinity of jesus (or whatever) as an axiom and use reason from that point onward.
> All reasoning requires some unprovable axioms. That's Godel's incompleteness theorem.
No, that's just reasoning. Godel's theorem is about the limitations of what you can build upon those axioms.
I'm not sure those limitations even matter much. What use is being able to prove "this statement is unprovable"?
No, that's just reasoning. Godel's theorem is about the limitations of what you can build upon those axioms.
I'm not sure those limitations even matter much. What use is being able to prove "this statement is unprovable"?
But a non-believer can attack that axiom through historical record or the definition of divinity and point out how Jesus fell short (prophecies, etc). So if the axiom is falsifiable it is useless.
Or I could just assume that all objects fall upwards is an axiom and then try to reason my way around to explain gravity!
Steve pavlina is clearly a geek (you may think what you want of his ideas; being married to a psychic is not a good sign of good judgment if you ask me); he wrote an extensice critic of organized religion here:
http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2008/05/10-reasons-you-shou...
I agree, and I think most geeks I know fall into the category of people who question bullshit often.
I agree, and I think most geeks I know fall into the category of people who question bullshit often.
Tied into the recent Meyer-Briggs poll I'd also posit that the prototypical geek personality, INTJ, also tends towards Things Needing To Be Right. Meaning, many people simply don't find a need to break down systems of belief and settle on a solid, well constructed belief structure. Geeks like binary stuff. Religion is true or false. The Christian geeks that I do know seem to confirm this by being rather taken with systematic theology.
Intelligent people have better things to do with their time than argue about undefined words. (edit: I just saw how many comments this thread has, never mind)
here's another one for you, why don't geeks believe in casplak?
It's the russel's teapot problem. People who talk about god are using a word with no referent.
here's another one for you, why don't geeks believe in casplak?
It's the russel's teapot problem. People who talk about god are using a word with no referent.
I would think that cause there is no need to be religious. I mean what's the point of believing in something which no one knows whether existed or not while life goes on as usual. I mean computers work for both who believe in something and who don't.
I think this may be the simplest explanation for why geeks often have any particular quality, this one included:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=204240
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=204240
Hard agnostic != atheist.
Because we all know we are living in a computer simulation... http://www.simulation-argument.com/
i meant that some singularitists seem more reliogious about it that scientific.
i have no real opinion whether it will happen or not.
i have no real opinion whether it will happen or not.
"God is dead" - Friedrich Nietzsche
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_is_dead
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_is_dead
I wonder if anyone else has caught the contradiction in the article-
"This makes them the single largest religious group on Digg,..." (The author acknowledges that atheism is a 'religious group')
"Religion has no place in science." (Used as a possible reason why Geeks tend to be atheists)
Religion is the greatest science of all. All other branches of science are merely an appendage to true religion. When we understand nature, and natures God (or the rules that govern nature) we understand science.
"This makes them the single largest religious group on Digg,..." (The author acknowledges that atheism is a 'religious group')
"Religion has no place in science." (Used as a possible reason why Geeks tend to be atheists)
Religion is the greatest science of all. All other branches of science are merely an appendage to true religion. When we understand nature, and natures God (or the rules that govern nature) we understand science.
because smart scientific people are skeptics. It is tougher to resolve one's skepticism with religious beliefs than it is resolve with atheism. Interestingly, I have known several atheist who were almost "religious" in their atheism.
Isn't this roughly the same as my "spluh" comment? :)
In a religious culture, it's hard to find anyone more religious than an atheist. The reason for that, I think, is that you have to make a choice to be an atheist when it's not the default.
In a religious culture, it's hard to find anyone more religious than an atheist. The reason for that, I think, is that you have to make a choice to be an atheist when it's not the default.
if(god.exists()){
return to_your_predetermined_role_in('work','play','etc');
}else{
while (true) { rage_against_the_machine(); }
}
anyone who can understand probability in a half-decent manner wouldn't believe in god.
One note that I'll add: if we want to make "religion" palatable to hackers, there is a way in: reincarnation research. The reason I say this is that, as I mentioned in another post, hackers like to experience things directly, understand them at intimate levels, and improve them, which makes the immutable, transcendent, unprovable and irrefutable "truths" offered by religion unappealing.
500 years from now, we'll still have no scientific evidence either way regarding the existence of God, and there will be millions of people on each side of the debate. However, empirical reincarnation research (e.g. the work of Ian Stevenson) can be done, and early results are promising. It's not enough, at this very early stage, to "prove" that reincarnation occurs after death, but it could provide a lot of interesting insights into what we are as humans, using methodology that scientifically-minded hackers would approve.
500 years from now, we'll still have no scientific evidence either way regarding the existence of God, and there will be millions of people on each side of the debate. However, empirical reincarnation research (e.g. the work of Ian Stevenson) can be done, and early results are promising. It's not enough, at this very early stage, to "prove" that reincarnation occurs after death, but it could provide a lot of interesting insights into what we are as humans, using methodology that scientifically-minded hackers would approve.
I would say by and large "geeks" subscribe to Occam's Razor, meaning the simplest self-consistent explanatory theory for a given explendum tends to be correct. If the explendum, is, for example, the Universe, then Occam's Razor would point to a well-defined, self-consistent theory of quantum gravity (as yet not entirely done), then positing say, the flying spaghetti monster. If "God" is defined as some sort of disembodied "macro-intelligence" then said notion becomes a casulty of Occam's Razor. If however, "God" is co-terminous with Nature, or the Universe, or the "creativity" of nature as some would have it, which I would take to mean emergent forms or fluctuations spontaneously arising from a system in thermal equlibrium in the macro-scale, then one can carry on using the word "God", without running into Occam's Razor. Personally I prefer the word "pantheist" to "atheist", meaning the former term is "glass half full" whereas the latter term is "glass half empty".
Hackers like to experience things directly, and improve them. Religion of the traditional sort tends to assert that there are immutable revealed truths, which cannot be experienced except by a rare few who lived millenia ago, and which it is a crime (heresy) to "hack". So traditional religion is unappealing, and a lot of them come to the conclusion that nothing in religion is true.
One would hope the reason is: geeks more often manage to understand evolution properly.
I know what you mean. I have a fairly good layman's understanding of evolution. Whenever I've been engaged in a discussion on the topic, I'm amazed by the level of ignorance that's often displayed. Especially when people repeat absurd statements like "survival of the fittest" which have no bearing whatsoever on evolution.
It's because some of them are european buddhists :)
because we can do math.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents.