Religion (can open, worms everywhere)

[jutl]

In answer to Gaz and Neil, I suppose what I'm trying to say is that two hundred years of doing some quite neat science, and five hundred years of mapping the surface of the globe do not give modern man the right to talk about what does and does not exist in the universe. To put it another way - we have observed close to none of the universe, and of the stuff we have observed, we have successfuly created ways of thinking which allow our brains to predict what our senses will perceive under many, but not all, circumstances.

I'll argue the points on this with pleasure, but to save space, I'll run with the assumption that no-one's interested for now. The summary is:

(a) we know next to nothing
(b) what we do know is in fact a temporary and incomplete theory awaiting more data
(c) even if it were to be permanent and complete, it would still deal only with the perceptions and rationalisations of human beings

I can quite see, with your certainties (Neil and Gaz) how you can regard religion as a wanker's game awash with uncertain, unproveable dogma. Thing is, I don't have your certainties. I'm not sure any human knowledge is final, complete and correct. The problem is not that religious people believe too much, it's that everyone believes too much.

[Neil]

Good points well made, jutl.  I see what you're saying, it's whacky by our frame of reference, but our frame of reference is more limited than we actually realise.

[european son]

(a) we know next to nothing
(b) what we do know is in fact a temporary and incomplete theory awaiting more data
(c) even if it were to be permanent and complete, it would still deal only with the perceptions and rationalisations of human beings

i have to quote that and agree with all of it. i think that (a) and (b) are pretty much irrelevant though. (c) is the killer, and the reason why the core of much empirical science (taken as realistic) has to be seen as dogmatic and faith-based.

what irks me isn't people (from either the religious or scientific angle) believing too much, i respect the rights of people to believe pretty much whatever they like concerning the structure of the world and what-not. as so much is unknown, who am i to try to force others to my world-view.

what i do find irksome is when fundamentalists (be they religious, rationalist, humanist, whatever) look down upon others' beliefs believing that their system of thought is built on any stronger foundation than those they seek to denigrate.

[Bill Oddie]

I'm not sure any human knowledge is final, complete and correct.

Cogito ergo sum?

[gazzyk1ns]

(quick reply, doing stuff soon, might reply further tomorrow)

But Jutl this illustrates exactly what I'm saying. Surely the (valid) argument "we know nothing, the 'truth' could be anything" can be applied to anything, anywhere anywhen, and only serves to theorise that we're not omnipotent and onmipresent? So where's the point in using it? As long as we all keep that theoretical knowledge at the back of our minds at all times "for reference", we can't go around changing our minds about anything, or drawing any possible conclusions about anything, in my view.

We have to go by what we've learned and take educated guesses for that.

I'm not trying to say "our current scientific understanding would indicate there is no god", I'm saying

There clearly is not a god, why the hell would there be? It's clear why and how the Bible exists.

[european son]

I'm not sure any human knowledge is final, complete and correct.

Cogito ergo sum?

i'd second that, but i think that the attempts to get anywhere constructive from these sorts of axioms (like the Cogito or "whatever is, is") have all failed.

ok, so i'm assured of my own existence, but where can i go from there? Descartes' (weak) arguments for God's existence are his only guarantee of the external world and all else. Berkeley the same. they all failed, as did scientific attempts, from Bacon onwards.

Smackhead, i'm not bandying about philosophers names to be "vanglorius".... i'm just not going to pretend that i've thought up a bunch of stuff that other people wrote, ok?

[Pinball]

Science and rationalism are flawed - sure. But religion is flawed by several orders of magnitude more. Thus, a good scientist will include caveats as to the limitations of their data. A religious nut will not. QED.

[sore bottom mum]

Have you ever tried walking round for a day with an egg in your pants?

I usually get to about mid-day and it breaks.

[european son]

Thus, a good scientist will include caveats as to the limitations of their data. A religious nut will not.

a smart theist will accept the limitations of their beliefs. many know-it-all laymen of science do not. its unfair to judge either on the most foolish of disciples, best to judge them both in their most charitable light.

the argument about the virtues of actual scientists or theists is a very different one from that of science and theism.

[jutl]

(quick reply, doing stuff soon, might reply further tomorrow)

But Jutl this illustrates exactly what I'm saying. Surely the (valid) argument "we know nothing, the 'truth' could be anything" can be applied to anything, anywhere anywhen, and only serves to theorise that we're not omnipotent and onmipresent? So where's the point in using it? As long as we all keep that theoretical knowledge at the back of our minds at all times "for reference", we can't go around changing our minds about anything, or drawing any possible conclusions about anything, in my view.

...except, surely that we are ill-equipped to make 'common sense' decisions about what is and is not possible.

We have to go by what we've learned and take educated guesses for that.

I'm not trying to say "our current scientific understanding would indicate there is no god", I'm saying

There clearly is not a god, why the hell would there be? It's clear why and how the Bible exists.

Your 'why the hell would there be?' there is essentially a statement of Occam's Razor... ie don't assume something exists if there is no reason to do so. Then you point out that religion would have cropped up for social reasons even without a God. What you are doing there is rationalising on the basis of 'current information'. I hope you don't mind if I state this implicit information:

Science has provided simpler explanations for all the phenomena which were formerly thought to have been instigated by God.

...and yes, to the extent that we have observed our tiny surroundings, we have also formed simpler explanations for things which earlier man thought were the works of a higher being. Does that mean there are no higher beings? Does that mean that our current explanations are correct? I'd say the answer to both is no.

Cogito ergo sum?

I'm not trying to batter any form of implicit knowledge here, but what exactly is an 'I', anyway? I think sorting that one out ought really to precede any other definite statements about the external world.

Of course, you can always wave your hands and say - 'this is all sterile nonsense...' and I wouldn't disagree. Still, it needs to be recognised. When you are pooh-poohing someone else's beliefs, remember that all you have is your own.

[Neil]

Of course, you can always wave your hands and say - 'this is all sterile nonsense...' and I wouldn't disagree. Still, it needs to be recognised. When you are pooh-poohing someone else's beliefs, remember that all you have is your own.

Again, well said, I'm enjoying this.  Have to rush this post as I'm waiting for a lift... jutl I'm guessing you would also disagree with the statement "space is so big...there's GOT to be intelligent life out there, it's just so vast, how can there not be?"  Cause it would seem to fit in with this line of reasoning.  You would discount that statement yeah?  It doesn't make sense to me because the amount of space there is *shouldn't* be important, should it?  It shouldn't come into the equation.

[european son]

I'm not trying to batter any form of implicit knowledge here, but what exactly is an 'I', anyway?

a good point. some have argued that a better formulation would be "There Is Thought". it's only Descartes insistence that it's the essence of "i" to be a "thinking thing" which allows him to say this, but that sort of essentialism has long gone out the window.

also, at first it seems the Cogito has a predicate-conclusion structure with a missing premise.

P1 - I Think
P2 - Thinking Things Exist
______________________
C - I Exist

but even Descartes himself didn't see the Cogito as an argument as such, more a direct consequence of his clear and distinct perception.

indeed when reformulated in the Meditations the way he puts it is different; "I think; I exist".


the point is either way you have it, its question begging of a sort. by including "I" in your first premise, you've already assumed your existence, so expressing that you think and exist adds nothing to the situation.

[Rats]

disagree with the statement "space is so big...there's GOT to be intelligent life out there, it's just so vast, how can there not be?"

When you think of how vast the universe must be and that our solar system is so tiny compared to it all then you have to think, we can't be the only life. I don't think the universe is centered around us but you're right, the statement "there has GOT to be INTELLIGENT life" can't be agreed with because we just don't know but if you're thinking with your scientifically probable head screwed on then I reckon there's bozos light years away having exactly the same conversation on Quacked and Bummed, the Crass Morose forum.

I think, therefore I am ... thinking, thus I win.

[bill hicks]

I'm with Neil totally on this one. I've always been an atheist as far as I can remember and no matter how much is said on the matter I cannot for the life of me see how anyone could ever convince themselves that there can be any truth in it at all.

Doug Stanhope says it well in his stand up routine when he asks if anyone in the audience knew nothing about religion at all and found a copy of the Bible in a second hand bookshop would they buy any of it and rush out and tell their friends about the invisible omniscient bearded guy in the sky who made everything in the universe and lives in the clouds? Of course they fucking wouldn't.

Oh and the Mel Gibson film is also hampered by the fact that Gibbo is a religious nutjob of the highest order who makes the Snake Handlers in Tennessee look like rational human beings.

Let's face it Scientology has just as much basis in reality as the monotheistic religions. (And is Christianity monotheistic anyway?) Wasn't it Pope Leo X who said: "It has served us well, this myth of Christ"?

That was a ramble. Apologies.

[Rats]

Is you're name really bill hicks? That's unfortunate.

[Pinball]

Is you're name really bill hicks? That's unfortunate.

Why? Bill Hicks was a superb comic, and his views on religion were also superb IMO ;-)

[Rats]

I'm just pulling his leg and punching his face in. Surely Bill Hicks was an unfunny cunt though? Preaching to cunts about preachings they should disregard and not being funny along the way and shouting a lot and and and.

[gazzyk1ns]

Jutl...

Hehehee I've replied several times in here, but after last week I promised myself I'd never again reply whilst drunk. I shall paste them in the morning.

[Munday's Chylde]

Nothing makes any bloody sense does it? Not really, it's all impossible this isn't it? Science explains it so far but eventually it enters the realms of 'what are the chances of that eh?' - once upon a time there was nothing, then there was bits of dust and shit and now theres that computer your reading these words on.

Do any of you believe in life after love (after love, after love, after love)?

[Pinball]

Just because we don't know what dark matter is, doesn't mean it's jelly. Religion fills the knowledge gap with something far more preposterous than any (well most!) scientific theory.

[Munday's Chylde]

I've changed my mind actualy - I dont believe in God anymore.

[mook]

I've changed my mind actualy -.

You too. I've gone the other way though. Can anyone recommend a good God, I don't want anything too vengeful, or too much in the way of facial hair. Oh and definately no more than one pair of arms thank you very much.

[Munday's Chylde]

I've changed my mind actualy -.

You too. I've gone the other way though. Can anyone recommend a good God, I don't want anything too vengeful, or too much in the way of facial hair. Oh and definately no more than one pair of arms thank you very much.

Well why don't you just have mine then? He's nice, he doesn't require much worship and he's fairly loose with the 'thou shalt nots'. I'll miss him but I'm looking forward to my new life of athiesm.

[jutl]

Science and rationalism are flawed - sure. But religion is flawed by several orders of magnitude more. Thus, a good scientist will include caveats as to the limitations of their data. A religious nut will not. QED.

This isn't a question of who is more flawed - for a start you need a scale to make that judgement, and what scale are you using? If you're saying non-scientific ideas are less scientific than scientific ideas then - yes - that's true, although it's true by definition, rather than by demonstration. If that's not what you mean by flawed, what do you mean?

Just because we don't know what dark matter is, doesn't mean it's jelly. Religion fills the knowledge gap with something far more preposterous than any (well most!) scientific theory.

No - what you're doing there is saying that religion attempts to theorise about things that science does not (ie things for which science does not have enough data to even formulate an explanation). That's not true - religion and science deal with the same materials - the experiences of human beings. They are differing methods of approaching those experiences. Science has many virtues, one of the main ones being that it acknowledges that it will always be incomplete and inaccurate. Religious assertions fail many scientific tests for scientific rigour, but they were never trying to pass them. If you believe that scientific rational analysis is the only way to describe and connect with underlying reality, then I can see why you would see religion as being a poor relation. Still, you have chosen to believe that science can engage with objective reality, and that is an act of faith...

[Incredible Monkey Doctor]

That's all well and good, jutl, but since religion is littered with sily rules like "don't eat shellfish", it's a bit difficult to take it's main premise seriously. If it can't even get the diet sensible, i'm not buying into the philosophy.

[Bill Oddie]

That's all well and good, jutl, but since religion is littered with sily rules like "don't eat shellfish", it's a bit difficult to take it's main premise seriously. If it can't even get the diet sensible, i'm not buying into the philosophy.

The thing is, a lot of rules like "don't eat certain meats that tend to go bad very quickly" are perfectly sensible before we had refridgeration. If you remember that Islam / Judaism etc originated in hot countries then guidelines like that make a lot of sense.

If you take the view that religions are a "memeplex", ideas that exist because they are good at spreading themselves, then can explain rules like that a lot better. A flegling religion isn't going to last very long if its members are all dropping dead from food poisoning.

It also goes a long way to explain e.g. Catholic views on contraception and the general religions attitude towards homosexuality, neither of these things help the next generation of X religion members from being born and thus are damaging to the spread of the religion itself.

[gazzyk1ns]

Right.

I see the point that my views are kind of based on Occam's razor, although... well, I'd say "not quite". As I understand it, Occam's razor is "All things being equal, the simplest explanation must be true.". That's not what I'm saying, I think that's belittling my argument and missing the point.

I also never like saying/hearing terms like "evidence" and "science" in these debates. Again, I think that's "taking things too far" - you don't need to mention those to prove religion is man-made fiction. It's obvious. And the only reason comments like that might invite comments like "ignorant" or "blind" is because so many people are religious, power in numbers. I should not have to be afraid of saying "The belief that there is a mystical God, who impregnated a virgin, who subsequently gave birth to this God's son who performs miracles...[etc]... is absolute fiction.

I am saying that I believe I know pretty much why and how the Bible exists, and pretty much how most, if not all, people become religious.

The Bible is fiction, a collection of old fables, moral lessons, and bullying tactics. Originally people became religious (understandaby) because they didn't know any better, and also because they needed something in their life. These days the reasons are more complex, a lot of people need something that will always be there for them either because of their own mental deficiencies, or more often, just because that's the way they are. They need an imaginery friend but that sounds silly, whereas religion is respected. On the other hand, some people were brought up in religious households and so any notion that religion is all complete fiction is ridiculous to them. There are also many other reasons, clearly... traumatic events (again though, as I said, psychological problems, needing an imaginery friend to get them through...) and similar things.

A lot of people (lilke Mundays kind of did up there) say things like just feel that god exists, I have no idea why.". That's basically admitting that it's all in your head. Why don't you just admit that you need a mental comfort, it helps you live better? It sounds like I'm mocking but I'm honestly not, we all have something like that. I find it bizarre that some people have to subscribe to a religion in order to "admit" that.

[Incredible Monkey Doctor]

The thing is, a lot of rules like "don't eat certain meats that tend to go bad very quickly" are perfectly sensible before we had refridgeration. If you remember that Islam / Judaism etc originated in hot countries then guidelines like that make a lot of sense.

No, Bill, the thing is that if you respond sensibly to a facetious comment about seafood and religion, you've forgotten you're on VerbWhores and need to pop out for a pint. ;)

[Incredible Monkey Doctor]

Actually, let's go one step further and declare Neil God.

There are clear paralells with Neil and the Old Testament God.

Firstly, as God created Earth, so did Neil create Cookd and Bombd. Then he didst create the forums, and in his likeness did create avatars. His work is beset by little devils (Trolls) and of course Satan in the form of Corrupt Databases.

Also he is all powerful, able to edit and delete creation as he sees fit, and has the power to banish souls from His kingdom. Those who worship him through the means of downloading comedy earn his love, and those that mock him are subject to righteous anger.

Like any good religion there are rules to maintain order (such as the NSFW law) and some rules which make less sense but we learn to follow. There is also a priesthood (the Clique) and senior clerics (the Mods).

Honestly, this stuff is a piece of cake. How anyone can take it seriously I have no idea.

All hail Neil, in the meantime.

[jutl]

Right.

I see the point that my views are kind of based on Occam's razor, although... well, I'd say "not quite". As I understand it, Occam's razor is "All things being equal, the simplest explanation must be true.". That's not what I'm saying, I think that's belittling my argument and missing the point.

I'm not trying to be difficult here, but that's not exactly it - it's not 'must be true' it's 'is most likely to be true'. And even then, it's not actually predicting that the simplest explanation has a higher likelihood of being true - that's a judgement that can only be made when all relevant observations have been made, and we never know if that's happened or not. All it's saying is: "do things this way, or risk overcomplicating."

I also never like saying/hearing terms like "evidence" and "science" in these debates. Again, I think that's "taking things too far" - you don't need to mention those to prove religion is man-made fiction.

I'm puzzled - you don't want to get into issues of 'evidence'. but you're trying to 'prove' something...  

It's obvious. And the only reason comments like that might invite comments like "ignorant" or "blind" is because so many people are religious, power in numbers. I should not have to be afraid of saying "The belief that there is a mystical God, who impregnated a virgin, who subsequently gave birth to this God's son who performs miracles...[etc]... is absolute fiction.

Are you actually in a position to prove that, though? Isn't it actually a strong gut-instinct based upon a grounding in scientific method, along with 'common sense'.

I am saying that I believe I know pretty much why and how the Bible exists, and pretty much how most, if not all, people become religious.

The Bible is fiction, a collection of old fables, moral lessons, and bullying tactics. Originally people became religious (understandaby) because they didn't know any better, and also because they needed something in their life. These days the reasons are more complex, a lot of people need something that will always be there for them either because of their own mental deficiencies, or more often, just because that's the way they are. They need an imaginery friend but that sounds silly, whereas religion is respected. On the other hand, some people were brought up in religious households and so any notion that religion is all complete fiction is ridiculous to them. There are also many other reasons, clearly... traumatic events (again though, as I said, psychological problems, needing an imaginery friend to get them through...) and similar things.

Well, yes, that's very convincing. Is it true though, in any meaningful way? Don't you just stick to that idea because it seems like a simple explanation - ie it conforms to Occam's methodology? What I'm trying to ask is:

Does that explanation have any greater claim to being true than the explanation that God instituted the church?

I can see how, scientifically, it involves less massive assumptions, and so I can see why, to someone who has faith that scientific method is a means of determining reality, it seems like a better explanation. I agree myself that it's a better explanation, according to my own views on the world. Thing is, that doesn't prove a thing. Even within the scientific model, all that means is that that explanation fits our current meagre and perhaps inaccurate data. If we are truly committed to scientific technique, the most we can say is that that explanation looks to be the best one today.

I hope this clears up why it annoys me when people start saying they can prove that God doesn't exist, or that religion is lies.  

A lot of people (lilke Mundays kind of did up there) say things like just feel that god exists, I have no idea why.". That's basically admitting that it's all in your head.

If you and me had lived in Roman times, and I had gone for a walk on a stormy day, I might come back and tell you that the battling of the gods in the heavens made my skin prickle. Now I would have had no clue what it was I was experiencing - that clearly doens't prove it was in my head.

Why don't you just admit that you need a mental comfort, it helps you live better? It sounds like I'm mocking but I'm honestly not, we all have something like that. I find it bizarre that some people have to subscribe to a religion in order to "admit" that.

So unless people believe what you believe (that religion is a crutch and that God is an assumption too far) then they are... what? Idiots? liars? heretics maybe?