Authored by: JIMO on Saturday, January 13 2007 @ 10:11

The really big issue is that there are some who feel that the belief in a god who makes decisions as if he has to govern the universe is quite believable while there are others (myself included) who can't believe that anyone in their right mind believes that there is a President Of The Universe - in particular, one who made the Universe and now governs it. .

Yes, I think that's the heart of the debate, despite the myriad tangents such debates inevitably take on.

What we think the role or regime of validity of science is has nothing to do with a belief in a POTU.

If I understand what you mean, I think I am the only atheist here that proudly steps over this line. I don't buy the "science can't disprove the existence of God" stuff, or that science and God can skip down the metaphysical lane together holding hands and never stepping on one another's toes. The more natural systems science demystifies from top to bottom, start to finish, the more the roles the POTU supposedly plays in our lives and the world become hogwash, and the less likely the existence of the POTU. If these discoveries, once embraced as scientific fact, did not challenge and refute the existence of the POTU, we would not see the religious world change and contort the definition of the POTU to conform to these new, accepted ideas. They keep changing the rules to stay in the game, which aggravates me no end. Although I will not live to see it, there will come a time when science explains so much they run out of intellectual escape routes. This, I know, makes me look like a militant atheist asshole. I can deal with that.

---
There's always gotta be a reason for something.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: smoothie on Saturday, January 13 2007 @ 10:39

They keep changing the rules to stay in the game, which aggravates me no end.

I'm not sure I understand how this is different from revising scientific theories (e.g., flies don't come from rotting meat, there is no medium called aether that light waves travel through, the universe is not deterministic at the sub-atomic level, "space" is not merely 3 dimensional, etc) except for the different types of evidence you see fit to allow; you don't disparage scientists when they "change the rules to stay in the game."

This, I know, makes me look like a militant atheist asshole. I can deal with that.

I don't think it makes you look like an asshole, per se, but it does make you look religious and dogmatic.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: smoothie on Saturday, January 13 2007 @ 11:05

So, I guess I'll bite even though I don't really see a question in the post above:

The really big issue is that there are some who feel that the belief in a god who makes decisions as if he has to govern the universe is quite believable while there are others (myself included) who can't believe that anyone in their right mind believes that there is a President Of The Universe - in particular, one who made the Universe and now governs it.

I think part of the problem is with your characterizations; like Bill, you keep saying "people believe X," but do you actually know anyone who believes X? I, for example would not characterize my beliefs as being in a "President of the Universe." I think sometimes people report beliefs in a certain form because a) they're only given a limited number of options for how to characterize their beliefs (e.g. the Straight Dope article Bill linked to in the previous thread), or b) because they don't have the vocabulary to talk about it with a certain level of sophistication. Not every Christian, Muslim or Buddhist has a college education or has read widely in philosophy or critical scholarship in their tradition.

Some people, if pressed, may say they believe in the "dude in the sky" as Bill said, but I doubt that accurately captures the content of their beliefs (and I believe I'm in at least a slightly better position to know than Bill, since it's also my tradition). Just like high school physics textbooks still teach that electrons orbit protons in an atom, because we need some vocabulary with which to communicate the basic idea of a central, more massive body with positive electrical charge and an exterior area of negative charge, people describe their beliefs using familiar terminology because that's the only linguistic tool they have. But be aware the extent to which, when you argue about that, you're arguing against a strawman.

I can't believe anyone feels good about themselves believing it and at the same time is able to maintain any perceivable self-esteem and trust in their own ability to operate in the real world in any functional way.

Well, I'm able to function fairly well in the world, and I still feel fairly good about it, despite apparent attempts to convince me I shouldn't, so I guess you should believe it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: JIMO on Saturday, January 13 2007 @ 11:36

I'm not sure I understand how this is different from revising scientific theories (e.g., flies don't come from rotting meat, there is no medium called aether that light waves travel through, the universe is not deterministic at the sub-atomic level, "space" is not merely 3 dimensional, etc) except for the different types of evidence you see fit to allow; you don't disparage scientists when they "change the rules to stay in the game."

Those changes you mention did not attained the level of scientific fact before they were changed, so they do not qualify. In other words, they were indeed theories, in the sense of the word that many scientific detractors like to use it, that had not undergone rigorous and continuous testing, so change was near inevitable once they were put in the crosshairs of science. Or, as with the many dimensions of space, they may presently be untestable, so they too would not be scientific fact.

If something like natural selection and our ideas of evolution, which now have a couple centuries or so of scientific solidification, were to change, I'd agree with you that scientists change the rules to stay in the game.

The difference is theory vs. scientific fact. We cannot include scientific ideas that remain theories, in the common sense of the word, as scientists themselves admit they're flimsy until put through testing rigors.

---
There's always gotta be a reason for something.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: JIMO on Saturday, January 13 2007 @ 11:37

"did not attain". Ahem. I need a personal editor.

---
There's always gotta be a reason for something.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: smoothie on Saturday, January 13 2007 @ 02:18

Those changes you mention did not attained the level of scientific fact before they were changed, so they do not qualify. In other words, they were indeed theories, in the sense of the word that many scientific detractors like to use it, that had not undergone rigorous and continuous testing, so change was near inevitable once they were put in the crosshairs of science.

"Our previous theories were theories, but our current theories are facts!"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: JIMO on Saturday, January 13 2007 @ 08:09

Yes, but for a very good reason. They stood up to every test over many years, which is why still calling them theories, in the standard Websters sense of the word, and in the sense a lot of school board members like to use it, doesn't hold.

I want to go off topic and interject how awesome this Pad Thai I made for myself is. It could make me believe in a culinary god: ME. Thank you.

---
There's always gotta be a reason for something.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Pam on Saturday, January 13 2007 @ 10:11

Jimo, Smootie, Jimo, Smoothie. I'm drunk but I think I agree with Jimo, although I am not a fan of a huge amount of science because common sense does seem to suffice most of the time - especially when you're drunk.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Flatiron Dante on Sunday, January 14 2007 @ 01:34

OK, I'll dip my toe into this. As I think about the Big Bang and the expansion and the apparently inevitable constriction of the universe, it seems to me that we (or at least the matter of which we are constituted) were, a long time ago, one piece of matter and will, eventually, be that one piece again. As I understand the founder of my particular religion (I'm Catholic), He posited that we are all still one right now and should treat each other that way. A lot of bad things have been done in the name of the Church, but the philosophy of its founder doesn't seem to me to be in some fundamental conflict with modern science or even my own faith in modern science (and I'd be dead right now if it weren't for modern science, so I'm a big fan). The Golden Rule doesn't seem that far off from Rawls's veil of ignorance and other secular attempts to define what is justice. [Of course, my grasp of Catholic doctrine is not exactly orthodox -- it seems that whenever I speak about it Ms. FID points out at least 10 heresies in what I say, so maybe the above is some great misunderstanding of Christian teaching (though I ran the above past her and she says that this time I'm kosher).]

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: billsimmon on Sunday, January 14 2007 @ 02:03

JIMO wrote:
I think I am the only atheist here that proudly steps over this line. I don't buy the "science can't disprove the existence of God" stuff, or that science and God can skip down the metaphysical lane together holding hands and never stepping on one another's toes.

I'm with you for the most part, JIMO. While I know for a fact that science can't, strictly speaking, "disprove" the existence of God, science does give us the tools to embrace a VERY high degree of confidence that God does not exist. I likewise agree that science and religion (as defined in previous posts in this thread) are incommensurate world views.

JIMO...
They [the religious world] keep changing the rules to stay in the game, which aggravates me no end.

Smoothie...
I'm not sure I understand how this is different from revising scientific theories (e.g., flies don't come from rotting meat, there is no medium called aether that light waves travel through, the universe is not deterministic at the sub-atomic level, "space" is not merely 3 dimensional, etc) except for the different types of evidence you see fit to allow; you don't disparage scientists when they "change the rules to stay in the game."

That you admit you don't understand how those two things are different is telling and I think it's the crux of our disagreement (yours and mine -- I'm not speaking for JIMO or DanZ). Despite JIMO's response to you here (about the old models not having achieved the status of scientific fact), all but the first of your examples really are legitimate paradigm shifts in scientific models. The difference is that those shifts were brought about by irrefutable evidence -- evidence that was clear to anyone who bothered to look. Again, belief without evidence -- faith -- is the difference. Scientific progress is never made arbitrarily or by faith, no matter how much faith there may be. It requires real, repeatable evidence for the world of science to embrace a particular model of how things work. This is a profound difference between epistemologies in the world of religion and the world of science. JIMO or DanZ or I may personally engage in dogmatic thinking or rhetoric (despite ourselves) but the scientific method is set up wonderfully to counteract these individual flaws so that our personal biases cannot fuck up scientific progress or findings.

smoothie...
like Bill, you [DanZ] keep saying "people believe X," but do you actually know anyone who believes X? I, for example would not characterize my beliefs as being in a "President of the Universe."

You're being a little evasive here. You've stated unequivicolly that you believe God exists. If the God you believe in created the Universe and makes/made concious decisions about things on Earth (and/or elsewhere in spacetime), then Dan is saying that such a belief is tantamount to believing in a POTU (or a "dude in the sky" or the FSM or the Tooth Fairy). The various propositions are equally likely. If you disagree, please explain why.

Some people, if pressed, may say they believe in the "dude in the sky" as Bill said, but I doubt that accurately captures the content of their beliefs (and I believe I'm in at least a slightly better position to know than Bill, since it's also my tradition).

I was raised a fundamentalist Christian and believed it hook line and sinker until just about the time you and I became friends (age 14 or so). I don't want to engage in competetive vicimology about it, but merely want to point out that I know a thing or two about the tradition from many years of Sunday school.

Just like high school physics textbooks still teach that electrons orbit protons in an atom, because we need some vocabulary with which to communicate the basic idea of a central, more massive body with positive electrical charge and an exterior area of negative charge, people describe their beliefs using familiar terminology because that's the only linguistic tool they have.

Again, the underlying concept of an atom, even when explained poorly by a 9th grader, is still demonstrably true. Not so for dude-in-the-sky Christians or the more sophisticated variety (or Jews or Muslims or Pastafarians).

JIMO wrote...
If something like natural selection and our ideas of evolution, which now have a couple centuries or so of scientific solidification, were to change, I'd agree with you that scientists change the rules to stay in the game.

I completely disagree. Natural selection is very well-understood and chances are good that the basic model is here to stay, but scientific paradigm shifts do happen and we're learning more about biology all the time. Who knows what will happen to the field after we encounter our first extra-terrestrial life? You have to allow for change in scientific thinking or it's not really science. The whole point is that if our ideas about natural selection change, it will be because we were inexorably drawn to change our ideas through testable, irrefutable evidence.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: billsimmon on Sunday, January 14 2007 @ 02:15

As I think about the Big Bang and the expansion and the apparently inevitable constriction of the universe...

Dude, didn't you hear? Turns out the universe is accelerating in its expansion. It's an open universe after all. No ultimate collapse. Weird, huh?

I agree with you, FID, about the golden rule and the similarity of moral codes, however I have to point out that there are several central tenets of Catholicism that are at odds with modern science (virgin birth, transsubstantiation, the existence of God, etc.).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: billsimmon on Sunday, January 14 2007 @ 02:31

I just want to point out the following proof of God: this post is Candleblog's 1666th. No shit. We're all damned (except smoothie and FID).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Flatiron Dante on Sunday, January 14 2007 @ 03:40

Bill -- I was trying to make a distinction between the founder and the guys who followed him. I think transubstantiation (at least His comments at that particular Seder) can be explained by the 'we're all one' idea. And as for virgin birth, I can't recall Jesus saying much about his Mom in the Gospels. The Nicean creed was crafted centuries after the fact. [There I go again with the heresies]. Actually, that reminds me of one problem I have with the Mass -- I have been bringing Flatiron Baby to Mass lately, but the ceremony is pretty light on Jesus's teachings (about 3 or 4 minutes) as opposed to all sorts of other stuff that has prompted us to walk out of Mass from time to time. As for whether science is ultimately at odds with the existence of God, I think that one lesson from religion that is common with science is that we don't know what we don't know and that humility is a virtue. In this regard it seems like the physicists are the big talkers and the closer you get to biology the more the scientists will acknowledge that they are at least in part artists rather than engineers (see Craig Venter or Bill Harlan).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: DanZ on Sunday, January 14 2007 @ 08:17

You all write some great words and I admire the ernestness with which you tackle the big ideas. However, a number of you are straying from the central point of this thread: is it reasonable to believe in a POTU. It doesn't matter what science can or can't disprove, nor does it matter what neurolinguistic programming or the tinfoil hat crowd says about their respective fields.

smoothie: i don't have to find somebody who believes 'X' because that challenge is a rhetorical red herring. If you're a good christian, you believe in the literal word of the bible. If you're one of those pick-and-choose christians, what you will be discarding is all the stuff that seems quaint or irrelevant or at odds with your common sense and personal world view. While you are free to do that, it means that all orthodoxy is suspect and an equal candidate for adoption/excision from one's belief system. And if all self-described christians were free to do that there would be only one element that was irrefutable: POTU. If you drop that belief - this one central fundamental element that MAKES christianity the monotheistic origin of the universe, man and laws that it is, then you are really not a christian at all, are you? All that nonsense about 'all-are-one' and 'god resides within us' is just a disguise for the crazy mix of buddhism and animism that form the broad pantheistic rainbow that many people adopt in either strict or diluted form. And as for the origin of things? Well, we'll just leave that the myths and legends until somebody figures out a better story (the scientists). And while the phrase 'dude in the sky' is, admittedly, thus phrased for it's highlighting of one of the main objections to the concept itself, it is the belief (in some form) that forms the foundations of your faith. Would you be willing to state that "God, the holy spirit, the creator of the earth, of man, of beast and of our natural laws, is no more than a convenient metaphor? I certainly can. If you state it, then it's clear that your beliefs have much in common with mine and you're not a christian.

FID: The big bang theory of the origin of the universe does not posit the creation of all you see from a primordial lump of matter. Matter is a condensate that appears well into the teenage years. Also, as a minor but also profound point, it is a little more sensisble to think of the universe as a big spacetime structure with negative curvature than to envision an exploding bomb in empty space. The former is consistent with the real world while the latter is a vast oversimplification that really only confuses the story.

FID: You mentioned walking out on Mass. I know we all (atheist and non-atheist alike) agree that humans (including priests) are fallible, motivated by personal stuff and prone to be annoying, but I didn't quite get from your comments if you were walking out because the priest was straying from 'normal' liturgy of your church's denomination's rite or if you are gradually finding the meaning of the liturgy to be increasingly divergent from your personal beliefs.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: smoothie on Sunday, January 14 2007 @ 09:02

If you're a good christian, you believe in the literal word of the bible. If you're one of those pick-and-choose christians, what you will be discarding is all the stuff that seems quaint or irrelevant or at odds with your common sense and personal world view. While you are free to do that, it means that all orthodoxy is suspect and an equal candidate for adoption/excision from one's belief system.

Wow. I didn't know you had been elected Pope.

For the record, I believe in God, who created the universe and intervenes in it, and that Jesus was his ultimate revelation and that Jesus' death and resurrection provides salvation. As for whether or not I'm a "good" Christian, I reject the notion that any human being will be the judge of that.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: DanZ on Sunday, January 14 2007 @ 10:47

Fortunately for us all I recognized that as sarcasm or I might've been inclined to go on and on about who the pope is and why that should not surprise you.

Unfortunately for you, I'm just repeating the orthodoxy of your own church. The term 'good' in 'good christian' was perhaps a poor choice, since I wasn't referring to an ethical measure but one of veracity or authenticity. In this light, a "bad christian" would be one that doesn't know what the bible has to do with their faith - it's not that they're going to hell, but that they aren't really knowledeagle about being a christian.

Apparently, you believe in a POTU and in human manifestations of some aspect of the POTU that are endowed with magical powers. That, at least, makes you a 'good' christian.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: casey on Sunday, January 14 2007 @ 11:02

I believe in an archetypal Christ. There isn't space here to get into the
psychic implications of the mythos -- Jung has plenty to say about it,
though. I will put forth that The Resurrection doesn't have to be taken
literally to have a transformative effect on our pattern-and-symbol
oriented minds. Christ's Sacrifice represents the fnal steps of
individuation; the dissolution of ego being the necessary antecedent to
spirtual rebirth.

I highly doubt that any man in the history of the world has ever risen
from the dead. But Jesus had some worthy parables, some of
which bear similarities to current quantum concepts. His seeming
suggetion of a non-localized, non-time based Kingdom is one such
example. Dude, heaven is, like, everywhere!

Buddhism is even more hip to the post-relativity jive. When was the
last time any of you read the Diamond Sutra? Verily I say unto thee:
have yerselfs a look.

I hesitate even bringing any of this up. Near the top of the list of
things I can't stand are the lazy, recutionist "What the Bleep Do We
Know" films. Can somehow we keep the hippies and New Agers out of
science and metaphysics? Sadly, I already know the answer.

Still, it sometimes seems as though science is helping to "prove"
concepts long favored by mystics and psychonauts. I say Amen to
that. I remain a skeptic, however, and my ponderings in no way
constitute a belief in a POTU. Not the garden-variety, anyway.

But I like to entertain the notion that evolution has a "goal" beyond
survival. Perhaps it's to "wake" the sleeping universe, which I see as
analogous to the opening of Shiva's eye. Then again, I've always
enjoyed the poetry of apocalypse.



---
"Where a beast has fangs & claws, I have talent."

-Klaus Kinski

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: casey on Sunday, January 14 2007 @ 11:03

I meant "reductionist." Where's that personal editor?

---
"Where a beast has fangs & claws, I have talent."

-Klaus Kinski

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: smoothie on Sunday, January 14 2007 @ 11:27

Unfortunately for you, I'm just repeating the orthodoxy of your own church. The term 'good' in 'good christian' was perhaps a poor choice, since I wasn't referring to an ethical measure but one of veracity or authenticity. In this light, a "bad christian" would be one that doesn't know what the bible has to do with their faith - it's not that they're going to hell, but that they aren't really knowledeagle about being a christian.

I'm a Protestant, and I stand in a proud tradition going back at least as far as Martin Luther of interpreting the Bible for myself and participating in the priesthood of all believers. I'm not taking any applications for Pope, regardless of whether the applicants live in Rome or Burlington.

As for the sarcasm, well, sorry. That's part of the conventions of discourse here on "yer mom blog." Which leads me to amend my earlier post slightly. I am sensitive to correction in my behavior; if you feel I'm not living up to Christ's injunction to love my neighbor, please do feel free to let me know.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: DanZ on Sunday, January 14 2007 @ 12:21

Clearly you're not a christian since you don't believe in the resurrection - and you do believe (if I understand you) in some sort of overarching 'goal' of the universe - without stating what you believe that goal to be. That's fine be me. In the context of the central question of this posting, however, it seems that you do not believe in a POTU (President of the Universe). In particular, you make no mention of the belief that the POTU could make decisions, even though you believe in a force that guides events. These two are as different as night and day. I clearly believe in the patently obvious and fascinating principles of evolution which clearly guide the change in flora and fauna on the planet.

However in your writing, in spite of your general concordance with my beliefs, you stated something was was so peculier and contrary to the known working of the universe that I had to make a note of it here. You state that some of Jesus's parables have parallels in quantum concepts. I'd like to caution you that ideas that sound similar but come from starkly different foundational beliefs and derivations are probably coincidental, especially if they have absolutely nothing in common except for a parallel grammatical construction when expressed in the language of interpreters who are translating the concepts for the laity. Quantum mechanics has absolutely nothing to do with the purported teachings of Christ, unless Christ taught about wave functions, eigenstates of the time-dependant Schrodinger equation or tunneling potentials. I do not believe this is the case. The fact that the Schrodinger equation might resolve into a real and a complex wave and that you might believe the teachings of Christ to be both real and complex simultaneously is a language coincidence and is to be immediately discarded.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: DanZ on Sunday, January 14 2007 @ 12:22

Speaking of correcting behavior, how's yer mom?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: casey on Sunday, January 14 2007 @ 01:21

"The fact that the Schrodinger equation might resolve into a real and
a complex wave and that you might believe the teachings of Christ to
be both real and complex simultaneously is a language coincidence
and is to be immediately discarded."

Thats probably true.

I don't mean to suggest that the linguistic constructs — decided upon
by a group of politicized individuals seeking to codify a gospel that
may or may not have originated from a single, "enlightened"
individual — in the Bible have a direct analog to quantum theory. I
was mostly having a lark.

Coincidence does create its own syntax, however. A sufficiently open-
minded individual can find synchronicities even among seemingly
opposing systems, leading to a chain reaction of associations that
occsasionally produces real-world effects. The flash of insight comes
from where, exactly?

While not often replicatable, such excercises can result in an even
deeper appreciation of universal complexity and potential. And it can
be a fun way to spend a Sunday afternoon outside of church.

I wouldn't dream of suggesting that I have anything resembling a
scientiffic background. I just like to talk shit.

---
"Where a beast has fangs & claws, I have talent."

-Klaus Kinski

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: DanZ on Sunday, January 14 2007 @ 02:25

I agree. Oddly, I have always wished I was more well read on the subject of how language and the real world guide each other. Obviously the world imposes itself on language, but it also seems obvious that language alters our perception of the world. What I don't find eerie, coincidental or synchronistic (in Jung's sense of the word) is that the english description of, say, the meaning of the parables of Jesus uses terms that are also used in the english discussion of some aspect of quantum mechanics. Because of their historical positions on some grand timeline, I'd say that whatever lead some english-speaking person to use a particular term when translating the greek, hebrew or aramaic phrase from the bible probably lead some later english-speaking person to translate a concept from a treastise on quantum-mechanics - either from german (for example) or from the math. Jung explicitly ruled out this relationship (which is far from acausal) in his concept of synchronicity.

Furthermore often we find it difficult to distinguish certain subtle shades of meaning in some concepts and frequently rely on fewer words to do justice where many would serve better. For example, take the concept of "oneness". We all intuitively recognize such distinctions as:

• that which all things have in common
• that which completely unifies all things
• the perception that all things share a commonality
• the perception that all things are completely unified
• all of the above, but with "some" substituted for "all"

If you open your thesaurus you'll find the subtle shades entirely uninteresting when limited to single words compared to multi-word phrases.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: casey on Sunday, January 14 2007 @ 05:58

That's all true. And interesting. Recently, I was clued into the concept of order as the meassure of the success of a process, and not necessarily the opposite of disorder, which is more in line with "noise."

I bring this up because order most typically involves complexity: the greater the degree of order, the more complex the system and vice-versa. In regards to language, it does sometimes seem that placeholding synonyms are inadequate.

But as someone who make his living out of repurposing the literal for poetic and alliterative impact, I'm glad there's an alternative to the exactitude of technical description.

It's been a while since I've cracked open "Synchronicity -- An Acasual Connecting Principle," but there it is on the bookshelf directly in front of me. Maybe it'll be tonight's choice reading after I take in the first epsisode of the new season debut of "Extras."

---
"Where a beast has fangs & claws, I have talent."

-Klaus Kinski

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: JIMO on Sunday, January 14 2007 @ 06:41

Thanks for playing, everyone, but I got some bad news. We are all totally fucking WRONG. Every last one of us. Turns out God's a Klingon.

Somehow, I have a feeling that Bill knew all along, and has been holding out to keep the debate and blog page-hits going. Shame on you, Bill.

---
There's always gotta be a reason for something.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: AlexC on Sunday, January 14 2007 @ 09:02

OK, now we're getting somewhere. Smoov Operator writes:
>For the record, I believe in God, who created the universe and intervenes in it, and that Jesus was his ultimate revelation and that Jesus' death and resurrection provides salvation.

So, this influence you believe in -- that God intervenes in the world -- that must be extra, right? I mean, you have all the rules of physics and chemistry and biology and all that operating as we scientists say they do (in their admittedly imperfect but accurate-only-to-the-10000th-decimal way), and then there's this other way that God exerts His influence? Causally, I mean?

Or maybe you believe in the Watchmaker, that God set up the universe so that it would transpire according to His plan, and then left it alone?

Or maybe there's some mixture of the two, like God exists outside of time and gets to reset the initial conditions when things go awry?

But in any case, the central thing I'd like to extract from you is, is there science and then extra God power, or is God (POTU) somehow woven in to scientific laws?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: DanZ on Monday, January 15 2007 @ 05:43

Look, we all know the POTU is omnipotent - the bible tell us so. He clearly has extra powers that operate outside the laws of physics since he created the laws of physics. He can move back and forth in time and fly and send the earth spinning in reverse. My biggest problem is that since he clearly was not created in the big bang - but instead created it - that means god is sitting there for god know's how long twiddling his thumbs, and suddenly, about 15by ago he thinks "hey, I know, i'll make the universe... after all, what good is being POTU if there's no U!". This means god had to make a decision as if the time wasn't right or he hadn't thought of it until 15by ago or something. I would hardly call that omniscient. god doesn't have to suddenly realize something needs to be done, he should already know it. And what was he the president of before the universe? And if the time wasn't right, that means he's limited by physical laws which can't be the case. And before that, he was just sitting around - some big floaty conscious entity in the void, sitting there for infinite time, being really fucking bored until he realized he could do something about it. What a retard. If I was omnipotent and omniscient, I'd make some babes that were really, really horny and pack 'em in a '69 Chevelle w/ guns and drugs and a whole lot of cash.... of course i'd have to make a reason for all that... and a context ... and spatio-temporal frameworks... and MAN it sucks to be the POTU. Nobody understands me.... i'm so sad, or at least i would be if there were such things as emotions. Dang, i'll have to invent those too. Oh crap, another concept i didn't think about until just now. This omniscient thing isn't working for me.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: DanZ on Monday, January 15 2007 @ 05:45

heh heh, apparently i'm not the pope, i'm god! oh yeh, and christ + mythos = christo, so watch out!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: smoothie on Monday, January 15 2007 @ 09:02

But in any case, the central thing I'd like to extract from you is, is there science and then extra God power, or is God (POTU) somehow woven in to scientific laws?

No idea.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Therem on Monday, January 15 2007 @ 08:57

Hi Dan -- I wouldn't say that belief in God is any kind of mental instability. When most of society believes something, it takes a certain special background or mental oddity to question it, not to take it for granted.

That being said, I don't believe in God or POTU or whatever you want to call it. I think the whole idea is wacky. But here's where the "special background" comes in -- my mom was raised Catholic and is now a seriously hardline atheist and my dad was probably best classified as an agnostic, so I was raised in a skeptical household. I have no reason to believe in God, but since I wasn't browbeaten by religious teaching, I have no particular emotional investment in denying God either. Everyone has a need for a sense of meaning, and I get that the idea of God fills that need for some people. I fill that need with other abstractions like "art" or "love" or "universal law". These aren't any more scientific just because they're nonreligious.

So here's my question: what sort of background, religion-wise, do other commenters have? I now know about Bill (wow, I never would have guessed you were raised fundamentalist!), but I wonder about other people. Wanna share?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: billsimmon on Monday, January 15 2007 @ 09:11

Well the church we went to was a fundamentalist church, but the culture around the house was not what you think of when you here that word. My parents were occasional church enthusiasts but not devoted. By the time I was old enough to care, we were every-few-Sunday goers. My atheism came quite naturally as I started reading SF and science books and hanging around the nerd set. Don't mistake my atheism as being a reaction to some overly domineering church culture I was looking to rebel against. I'd certainly be a satanist were that the case.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Therem on Monday, January 15 2007 @ 10:54

Thanks for clarifying, Bill. And by the way, your old church's web site sucks. (Ha ha.)

When I was a kid I did some church activities because they were just about the only way for a young, unsportsy person to have a social life in my town. We didn't have the Girl Scouts or Boy Scouts -- we had AWANA. And church camp in the summers. I engaged in these activities for a while, but eventually I realized I couldn't deal any more, partly because the religious dogma bothered me, but for other reasons, too -- particularly an anti-intellectual prejudice.

My parents were both decidedly intellectual and had moved to my town just a few years before I was born. For the entire time I was growing up, I felt I was an outsider in the community. I think that accounts for a lot of my anti-religious feeling. Since then, I have read some books and encountered some people that give me a very different impression of religion than I had when I was younger. It's not all about dogma and intolerance. A lot of the questions I had as a kid have been earnestly addressed by religious philosophers. Their answers may not satisfy me, but they can be pretty sophisticated and thought-provoking. At least as much as Dawkins, anyway.

My position about "truth" at this point is that no one's got a lock on it; all camps (religious, scientific, psychological, literary, whatever) have their inspired thinkers, and it's our job to sort out who they are. That's why I think the teaching of critical thinking skills in schools is so important. Kids have natural bullshit detectors, but they can be wrecked pretty early on without support and maintenance.

[ Reply to This | # ]