Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Let Us Pray

it was a good post.

Oh i don't, i mean i accept the limitations of man, and the possible limitations of science but i do not think that provides justification for accepting religious ideas.

You see my friend this demonstrates your lack of understanding of evolutionary theory and the supporting evidence rather than any problem with it.

Reason in terms of providing a rational argument is entirely behind evolution. Infact evolution is _logically inevitable_ given the properties of DNA, the enormous evidence is simply the icing on the cake.

Why do i need shoes? Well, I don't, but having used them for 20 odd years it would take a while to get used to not wearing them. And my feet would get dirty which isn't exactly socially acceptable these days.

Not using reason in a specific context does not make one simple minded, it is very human to do so. It simply means that in that specific context you aren't likely to get anywhere near the truth.

Also, your usage here of "reason" seems to be very vague, what you mean by it. When i say reason i simply mean logical deduction, the method used to determine the validity of a hypothesis.

You are mistaken, faith can be present in both views, or faith can present in neither. I hold no faith, none what-so-ever, i consider the entire concept of faith intellectually worthless, i appreciate some people feel it enriches their lives, but in terms of finding the truth, faith is a complete waste of time as it can be used to justify anything at all. One can have faith that evolution did not occur, or faith that the world will end next year, faith that the Earth is flat or faith that mice are the most intelligent organisms on the Earth (that one's true btw), etc. etc.

Deduction and the available evidence is the only guide to the best bet when it comes to truth. There is no need for faith when one has (this form of) reason.

A few years ago, I injured my back. I was unable to stand for more than a few seconds - and if you looked at me, you would think that I was a cripple.

I saw countless doctors, therapists, etc. I was drugged and surgery was spoken of.

I went to all kinds of people - and finally a friend suggested something called "cranial sacral therapy."

I went to a woman who practiced this.

As I lay upon the table, she gently touched my scalp. Every few seconds, she changed her position. I was a very gentle touch.

She's explaining all this "nonsense" about energies in the body. I'm thinking, "oh god, I'm seeing one of those people who is into crystals and candles and carp."

Then, I started thinking about what a waste of time this was - and what a bunch of nonsense.

Meanwhile she was gently moving her hand under my back as she's explaining this nonsense theory to me.

I'm thinking, "waste of money, waste of time."

But at least she wasn't doing anything painful - everything was gentle, relaxing and actually quite pleasant - though a waste of time.

After an hour of being with this silly woman and her silly ideas, I stood up for the first time in a month - without pain...

I thought it was funny. Here, I disparage everything she believes in. I had no faith in her - and yet, voila, I'm a whole human being again.

Some of us are more like engineers. We like to deal in reality - things that are proveable, repeatable, etc. I understand that. But every once in a while I like it when I'm wrong - better yet when I'm wrong and someone who believes in the Easter Bunny is right.

If you haven't seen "Being there" - do...

Ken

Oh i'd love to be wrong about quite a lot of things, the question is how do we determine when we are wrong? You changed your mind based on evidence, (though i might question the strenght of that evidence), i think possibly the most important aspect when constructing our ideas is that they be falsifiable, infact, that is one of the reasons i discount many religious ideas, they lack of that key property.

Just the response I expected. You demonstrate projection quite well.

Ok first, let me shift the focus to be speaking for me, now, because this is slipping into speaking for jeffrey.

The fairy tales I refer to are the religious myths that have the same quantitative and qualitative elements of what we know to be mythology. (And when I say fairy tales, I mean that as mythology, just with a little punch of condescension ) "God" itself I separate from the mythology, although linked, there are differences.

But I'm not following how coming to a conclusion about religion being mythology is demonstrating a lack of capacity to understand. It clearly shows the understanding of its academic similarities to mythology. There is no misunderstanding about that. The only thing that is lacking is a belief or faith in the system. Not an understanding.

And to your earlier posts about this limited capacity thing, saying science cant know everything, yes that is true. But what I find most puzzling in this exchange is all the remarks of how people KNOW there is a God. What happened to man's limited capacity to 'know'? You say Jeffrey cant know the absolute about our universe because he's just a man, then you and others say they DO know the absolute about our universe and it is God. Seems a contradiction.

Actually, I didn't change my mind about the therapist's notions of "energies" and so forth. I just assumed that "something" she did helped me - and when you're in excruciating pain, you really get down to a very binary way of seeing things - helps - doesn't help. She helped. I was happy. I didn't care about her theories.

As for risk/benefit analysis. Did you ever see the film, Lilies of the Field? The underlying premise is that if you are right and there is no God - and this is all there is fine. If "they" are right and there is a God, and you've denied him, you have an eternity to spend in a damnable place. Seems prudent to do a few good works "just in case."

A relationship with God, Tao, or that cute woman you met at the recital - eventually come to a point - "am I a better person for having known this person?"

As for Christianity, it has many dark stains upon its history. And belief in a higher being has lead to horrendous evils - from human sacrifice to war to torture, etc. This is sad but true...the greatest evil often assumes the cloak of good.

- to be honest, my greatest crises of faith came at an early age. There was a young boy on my block who was shy but friendly. He was hurt in an accident. After that, his personality changed radically. What was once a gentle child, became an angry and violent person. I wondered - how does God judge the behavior of someone who has less control than I have? If you will, we're all dealt different cards - different strengths and weaknesses - different personalities.

How can we be judged the same?

The answer is we are not God. We are not the judge.

K

Ah ok, understood.

That is Pascal's wager, i'm afraid it fails because it assumes only two possibilities when infact there are many.

I judge the God's of every religion (and indeed theoretical God's that are not part of any religion) as equally unlikely so there is no way of maximising my chances if there is after-life.

Say i worship/believe in the Christian God, but it turns out that actually it's the Muslim God [infact even limited to those two brackets there are numerous different ideas of God] that exists, i burn anyway. Perhaps instead there is an "anti" Christian God that burns the belivers and rewards the non, there are an infinite number of hypothetical possibilities.

If it makes you a better person then i am happy for you.

For me however to have a relationship with someone it's reasonably important to believe they exist . I could create a relationship with an imaginary God whilst knowing he didn't really exist, a kind of pretend, many children have relationships with imaginary friends whilst in a strange sense knowing they are not real, but i do not wish it, i want truth, i want to know reality, and every step i take down that path shows me more and more that religion and all the ideas that flow from it are purely the workings of man. I don't expect you to believe that is true, i just thought i'd take the opportunity to explain an aspect of my views on the subject.

Yes, and it also is impractical in that it presupposes that belief in a god is a choice. It is not. I can not choose to believe in god anymore than I can choose to believe in Santa Claus. I suppose one can systematically undergo a self-brainwashing to the point a belief becomes genuine, but thats not what is being offered by Pascal. He is suggesting that one should consider stepping thru the motions of belief just to cover one's a$$ in the afterlife. And jsut stepping thru the motions makes no sense from either side of the coin.

No one should be brainwashed - but perhaps open to possibilities...

K

My life has been a series of goofy, usually embarassing moments strung together to keep me humble...very humble...extraordinarily humble.

I doubt that the universe could have strung these gaffes and awkward moments together via a randomn method.

God has a sense of humor. I am but a pawn...

K

Oh I agree. And that is my biggest problem with the religious advocates. It is them that I see not open to possibilites. There is such an infinite realm that obviously exceeds man's capacity to comprehend, yet religions are so stuck on painting these myths onto the unknown that are so obviously of earthly origin, totally undermining the gloriousness of what actually is out there.

The link posted on Kryon's lecture does a great job with this point. No one in the glass of water can see the ocean, so they assume god and the universe is defined within the context of the glass. Myths are about limiting possibilites, not about being open to them.

Anything that man can screw up, he will.

Doctrines are the provence of organized religions.

Christ would not be entirely happy with what has been done in his name any more than Mohammed, Abraham or Buddha.

In fact, some would argue that none of these people wished to found a religion as much as they demonstrated a way to live one's life.

Ken

How does one scientifically prove the existence of God? If one accepts (for the sake of this discussion) that God is indeed omniscient and omnipresent, how can this be demonstrated? Given the apparently hard and fast limit to the rate at which information can be transmitted (light speed), for God to be omniscient would require simultaneous presence in all locations at the same time. How does one then demonstrate the presence of something that is everywhere simultaneously? Given the difficulties in imagining such a presence using standard physical concepts, what would one look for? As a Christian, I have been asked for my proof of God scientifically. I state that I cannot do so, nor would I attempt to do so. It is something I sense. Evolution? There is little doubt that it operates at the micro scale, and although there is more doubt about it at the macro scale, I have never considered the theory of evolution to be in conflict with the possibility of the existence of God, for who am I to place limitations on how God operates?

There is no such thing as scientific proof, it's basically an oxymoron. Nothing in science is ever proved except in the sense of proof beyond reasonable doubt (which is just equal to lots of evidence/derived theory).

Strong evidence for God is hypothetically quite straight forward, some physical structure that bore a message no human could possibly know, a mathmatical proof well beyond our current maths, grand unified theory, a future prediction for a large chaotic system etc.

Or perhaps prayer could actually work in a easily observeably manner, to build a plane you use physics, if you could use prayer instead that would be pretty strong evidence for something God-like.

With hypothesis, prediction, experiment. But you seem to be limiting your tri-omni God to within the sphere of physics, many would disagree with that.

Physical concepts are not as limited by imagination as you might think, that is somewhat irrelevent. But first one would demonstrate that there is something God like, some cosmic style intelligence with great power, then you would further examine it's properties. If suddenly anyone who prayed and believed could make an object float, that would be pretty strong.

There really really isn't. But that's kind of another topic.

I should clarify. Organized religion does provide many good things - from a way to join other like minded individuals in sharing fellowship and gratitude for one's blessings to aid in crises to providing a spiritual family, etc.

Just, wherever man is involved, a mess will follow.

Prayer, meditation, humility, gratitude, empathy, compassion - are tools of a spiritual life.

Companions on the journey can help.

Ken

Moonbat:

Very interesting response-thank you!

As for “There is no such thing as scientific proof, it's basically an oxymoron”, I would suggest that mathematical proofs might possibly enter into the realm of science, other wise I agree.

“But you seem to be limiting your tri-omni God to within the sphere of physics, many would disagree with that.”

I had hopefully indicated in my last sentence that I in fact do not apply such limits. However, to provide a proof to humans would, IMHO, require evidence within the realm of observable physics.

“Physical concepts are not as limited by imagination as you might think, that is somewhat irrelevant.”

I am aware that the imagination should have essentially limitless reach (11 dimensional string theory, anyone?). My concern is given such possibilities, which might be taken as proof of God?

“…a future prediction for a large chaotic system etc.”

It is doubtful that a full prediction of a truly chaotic system would ever be possible, given the inherent unpredictability of such a system.

“There really really isn't. But that's kind of another topic.”

Actually, there is doubt, even among those with training in the biological sciences, but as I stated, I don’t see the validity or lack of same to the theory to be an impediment (mind you, I am not a fundamentalist).

Again, thanks for the thoughtful comments.

That's true, but a mathematical proof is only a proof with regard to the maths, not with regards to what the maths says about the world we live in.

I'm not sure that's true, God could break laws of physics and doing so could constitute strong evidence: like prayer powered planes that defied Bernoulli.

That's kind of my point, we couldn't do it, but God could, which is why it would be strong evidence.

I think you are mistaken my friend, i live and breathe science, and whenever i speak to biologists they either sit back and laugh hysterically or become irritated when we speak of the public debate regarding common descent.

There are questions regarding the specific form evolution takes, the relevence of neutral mutations, how much of an impact mechanisms for large change like punctuated equilibrium are etc. but the fundamental ideas are rock solid. They are not beyond doubt in the sense that they could be falsified, but they are comparable to say the theory heliocentricity or the germ based theory of disease, that is they are "proved" beyond reasonable doubt.

There are of course individuals who doubt evolution, like Behe, but there are individuals who doubt anything and everything, but when taken as a whole an overwhelming majority of scientists view common descent as fact.

Any time .

Moonbat:

Again, thank you for your response.

“That's true, but a mathematical proof is only a proof with regard to the maths, not with regards to what the maths says about the world we live in.”

But can one claim to understand science unless it can be expressed in the language of mathematics?

“I'm not sure that's true, God could break laws of physics and doing so could constitute strong evidence: like prayer powered planes that defied Bernoulli.”

Perhaps God could do so, but why? To prove something to us?

“That's kind of my point, we couldn't do it, but God could, which is why it would be strong evidence.’

See above.

“I think you are mistaken my friend, i live and breathe science, and whenever i speak to biologists they either sit back and laugh hysterically or become irritated when we speak the public debate regarding common descent.”

I too am a scientist, with a Ph.D. from Berkeley in Zoology—clearly an institution strongly supportive of evolutionary theory. I have not stated that I hold substantial reservations about the theory. My concern is this, however: Peer pressure applies not merely to the “ignorant masses”, but to those who have been inculcated with a particular mindset. It would take enormous personal strength, perhaps to the point of career/graduate degree suicide, to speak out against the dogma (again, the dogma may well be true). The majority opinion may not be correct, but clearly only time will tell. Perhaps those few who do not laugh or get irritated may have a point or two worthy of consideration.

By the way, what are you studying over there in Merry Ol’ England?