The Religion thread

[Mulu]

One can after all be quite easily disproved -

Oh really? Prove it. I propose that Santa Claus only makes himself and his elven lackeys visible to those who believe....

It's frequently impossible to absolutely prove a negative. However, since there is no reason whatsoever to believe in the positive (of either Santa or God), then it is simply irrational to leave even the possibility open.

[NickD]

That's it, Mulu! I'm only giving you a lump of coal for Christmas this year!

[Veilan]

Oh really? Prove it. I propose that Santa Claus only makes himself and his elven lackeys visible to those who believe....

It's frequently impossible to absolutely prove a negative. However, since there is no reason whatsoever to believe in the positive (of either Santa or God), then it is simply irrational to leave even the possibility open.

This is bull - a house with elves and a sleigh and presents, that simply don't arrive, are easily disproved, unless of course you flee into that argument that you can't really prove anything... apart from your own existance... and only to yourself. That, however, is only a convenient and very lazy argumentation tactic, that I dare say isn't even your actual belief.

Saying there may be some purpose in the existance of the human race or the universe and so on - the widest idea of God - is something where you can't really say "it's entirely irrational to keep that option open", because frankly, it's a field where we have to agree on "we don't know.". We don't know whether there is a purpose, but don't know there isn't one either. If you say you have no reason at all to believe there may be a force of creation, a purpose or some other aspect from that field, then we can argue about that - but I think you're ignorant, narrow-minded and lazy by ruling the possibility out. Frankly, I prefer to keep an open mind. The story of the creation actually is very similiar in most peoples we have on the globe - even isolated ones that have no idea about christianity, buddhism, you name it. Now, that could be psychology, sociology, anthropology... or it could be the kind of understanding explaining why no Tsunami victims were among the native tribes.

I don't know, and I don't claim to. I can't prove it, nor can I prove the opposite. I don't say it's rational to believe... I just say it's ignorant to entirely rule it out and close up your mind to thought experiments and idle philosophical discussions. You try to assert some more "rational" stance by comparing this rather complicated and nuanced topic and wide interpretation of a possible "God" (which really is a big amorphous and hard to define idea, everyone has tons of different thoughts on it after all) to some definetely man-made and rather obviously non-factual children's tale. It's condescendingly arrogant at worst, and bored sarcasm at best. Religion, god, our search for purpose and understanding clearly are somewhat bigger topics that thread through all our cultures, civilizations and ages of our race... and yes, even in science.

But I guess that's what I get for believing one topic here could stay semi-serious .

[Grand Fromage]

I mean, anything is possible.

Well, technically it is. Learn your QM. I figure the probability of god about as high as that of me spontaneously teleporting through the wall, but it doesn't mean it's impossible. Just so highly improbable that it's not worth worrying about. There's no real difference between modern religions and the ancient mythologies, just that people still believe in the modern ones. I've always thought the quote "I contend we are both atheists; I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." was a simple and elegant way of putting it.

[Veilan]

I figure the probability of god about as high as that of me spontaneously teleporting through the wall, but it doesn't mean it's impossible. Just so highly improbable that it's not worth worrying about.

I wonder how many people are out there, having sleepless nights worrying about randomly teleporting through the wall.

There's 6 billion of us... c'mon... there must be some.

[Mulu]

Saying there may be some purpose in the existance of the human race or the universe and so on - the widest idea of God - is something where you can't really say "it's entirely irrational to keep that option open", because frankly, it's a field where we have to agree on "we don't know." We don't know whether there is a purpose, but don't know there isn't one either.

Nonsense. I do know. I know because in order for there to be a purpose, there must be something granting that purpose, and no such thing has ever been detected, or even rationally postulated. Just what exactly is this godforce you are referring to? Is it singular? Did it exist before the big bang, and if so how does it interact with current space/time from outside it? It sounds more like wishfulfillment than anything else.

It's the same as the Intelligent Design argument. To have an intelligent design, there must be an intelligent designer. But we *aren't* intelligently designed; it's well established that we are a product of random evolutionary forces, as disturbing as that thought is to the superstitious and those who want to believe in some higher purpose or special place in the cosmos. Seriously, the first step in rational thought is to get over yourself and this nonsense that humanity is special. We're an interesting species, and we're sure top dog on this rock, but there are almost certainly trillions of other rocks out there capable of supporting life, including sentient life, and there's no evidence that there is anything purposeful or special about any of it.

The meaning of life is an easy one. Your life, every human's life, has exactly as much meaning as we humans give it, nothing more. Perhaps less.

As for *how* I know there isn't some imaginary friend of humanity out there, I know because we've thought up so darn many of them, and none of them make any logical sense. They also tend to be mutually exclusive, since they all claim control over the same or similar subject matter, even the nebulous Intelligent Designer/Giver of Purpose. Simply put, there can't be two of them. Or if there can be, then there could be a trillion of them. Heck, they could be us, or some sychronistic collective unconscious. It could be an intrinsic nature of energy. The imaginary possibilities are endless. However, belief in such things, or even the possibility of them, is silly, it's superstitious, and yes, it is totally irrational, as there is no basis whatsoever for such a belief other than human desire. And you'd have to be an idiot to think otherwise.

Technically, you can hold out a possibility of anything being real: unicorns, UFO's (at least they are remotely possible), the tooth fairy, etc. But it's still irrational without some logical reason for its existence. As for why so many cultures have similar myths, remember humans actually talk to each other, and have for millenia. Archaeological digs have found trade objects in one site that originated from a distant, different ancient culture. Ancient civilizations shared objects, ideas and myths.

[Mulu]

I mean, anything is possible.

Well, technically it is. Learn your QM.

And technically anything that is possible will happen given a sufficient number of trials (infinite). But that creates a paradox, since it nullifies the possibility of uniqueness. The "anything is possible" part of QM sounds Jungian to me.

[Veilan]

Oh, this can be turned on its head quite easily. Humans are quite often able to interpret purposes into something, or assign purposes to things. Where they are not able to, it wouldn't be too far fetched to say that things have a purpose - as equally (un)convincing as saying there they don't - there must be something knowing, or assigning, a purpose to it that supercedes the human mind, and that way may well (yet) be incapable of comprehending. Coincidentally, this is a lot like science works - you go as far as you can explain, and just because you can't explain further yet you don't rule it out. It's simply acknowledging our own incapabilities in understanding, instead of assuming we know it can't be through some philosophical self-comforting games.

Interestingly enough, it's not the getting over that it doesn't matter what is important, it is getting over the uncertainty. Apparently you can't bear being uncertain just like those fleeing blindly into religion can't.

Seriously, the first step in rational thought is to get over yourself and this nonsense that humanity is special.

I haven't seen a claim to that yet. "Special" and "a purpose" are quite different things, in fact if everything has a purpose as I didn't rule out, nothing is special - further making it weird where you saw the need to comment on this? Your misunderstanding here is assuming that purpose / reason / explanation is synonymous to somehow special or choosen. It isn't.

Not to nitpick your last paragraphs too, but they are "all mutually exclusive" in fact says they are all one and the same in that property, and saying the resemblance in stories is because of stories were exchanged... about mutually exclusive things?, well, that seems a bit thin. You don't even need such exchange to say, well, we are similiar after all: We are all humans. Makes sense to come up with similiar stories even independent of one another... or does it? Again a point we can't be certain about and that we haven't explained yet. But by and large all this together could be plausibly concidered circumstantial evidence - at least to the fact that there is something behind all these apparently weird synchronicities. If that "god" or purpose turns out to be a massive hysteria that humans construct for themselves to drug their brains - then that's still a purpose and meaning. If that's the nature of god, so be it. So far, I don't really know in a fashion that I feel sure enough about.

I think postulating it all originates to wishful thinking is on to something, but that again only underlines similiarities we all share. And as I hinted at above, I believe that wishful thinking is a wish for certainty - you wish to be certain no "god" in the widest sense exists and are trying to convince yourself of that, just like other people wish to be certain a god does exist. Science and religion both are quests for certainty by the way, both in their own way, one apparently more modern than the other. Note that religion != god, before you whack words together into false synonymous use again .

So I'm going to have to stay with stating that your professed certainty in atheism is about as open-minded as a religious zealot being certain of the infallibility of some dude with a fancy hat. Both doesn't really make sense to me... I manage to satisfy my own basic need for certainty by accepting uncertainty. I'm curious to find out more, and it's a real pity we only have one lifespan to watch how our quest for understanding chugs along.

Maybe you live a happier life for yourself certain of your convictions that people keeping their curiosity open are "idiots", but I assume that's the purpose you give to it .

[NickD]

This is bull - a house with elves and a sleigh and presents, that simply don't arrive, are easily disproved

It's because you're all naughty boys. And naughty boys don't get any presents.

[Veilan]

It's because you're all naughty boys. And naughty boys don't get any presents.

Except you, Dr. Zoidberg.

[Mulu]

Oh, this can be turned on its head quite easily. Humans are quite often able to interpret purposes into something, or assign purposes to things.

But it's subjective, not intrinsic. "Purpose" isn't a measurable quantity, it's just a subjective belief. It doesn't actually exist.

Where they are not able to, it wouldn't be too far fetched to say that things have a purpose

Sure it's far fetched. Why does anything have to have a purpose? And isn't "purpose" just another way of saying "designed with intent by a creator?" In other words, what you are really arguing for here is Intelligent Design. Congratulations, you are a Creationist.

Coincidentally, this is a lot like science works - you go as far as you can explain, and just because you can't explain further yet you don't rule it out.

But in science you admit that you are just speculating, and even then you only speculate about things that have some logical or rational origin. The Creator Force that exists outside our Universe yet interacts with it has no logical or rational origin, it is simply a human desire for comfort.

Interestingly enough, it's not the getting over that it doesn't matter what is important, it is getting over the uncertainty. Apparently you can't bear being uncertain just like those fleeing blindly into religion can't.

It takes far more courage to admit that there is no cosmic being out there, and all that it implies, than to hold on to hope of God, because what you are really hanging onto isn't just the possibility of a creator god that makes this universe have meaning and purpose, it's the possibility of an afterlife. You are afraid of permadeath, you munchkin!

"Special" and "a purpose" are quite different things, in fact if everything has a purpose as I didn't rule out, nothing is special

Or maybe everything is special, but I've already pointed out that purpose is nothing more than an idea. There is no purpose, only existence. Purpose is an illusion created by your imagination. Your belief in this illusion is irrational. Somehow I doubt you will ever understand this, as most people don't. Realizing the impossibility of god is the ultimate IQ test. As few as 0.42% of us make it.

Not to nitpick your last paragraphs too, but they are "all mutually exclusive" in fact says they are all one and the same in that property, and saying the resemblance in stories is because of stories were exchanged... about mutually exclusive things?, well, that seems a bit thin.

Nonsense, two people can tell similar stories that they learned from others but still make them mutually exclusive. Remember, you are talking about stories regarding imaginary beings. When you make up a story, or plagiarize a story, about imaginary beings, you can say anything you want.

You don't even need such exchange to say, well, we are similiar after all: We are all humans. Makes sense to come up with similiar stories even independent of one another... or does it?

It makes sense, and Joseph Campbell made a career out of claiming it, as have many cognitive psychologists and anthropologists, but the reality is this explanation isn't necessary. Ancient peoples exchanged ideas. This is a known fact. Of course those ideas would include their mythologies. Occam's razor kiddo. Use it, love it.

But by and large all this together could be plausibly concidered circumstantial evidence - at least to the fact that there is something behind all these apparently weird synchronicities.

Again, Occam's razor.

If that "god" or purpose turns out to be a massive hysteria that humans construct for themselves to drug their brains - then that's still a purpose and meaning.

No, it's an insane delusion, and most people suffer from it. That it is a common delusion makes it no less delusional, or insane. People are horribly flawed. Horribly. You don't have to be a lecturer in a forensic psychology department that specializes in serial killers, genocide and mass rape to know this, but it helps. The flaws of humanity are my lecture material. If there is a creator force that gave us purpose, that purpose then necessarily includes all of our most evil behaviors, which makes that creator force one sick bastard. But I stray from the topic....

BTW, as an aside, GF's religion of QM states that anything is possible, so quantum physicists actually believe in the possibility of Santa Claus. "Anything" is a awfully wide net....

I think postulating it all originates to wishful thinking is on to something, but that again only underlines similiarities we all share.

Well, not *all* of us, just 99.58%, i.e. the unwashed masses.

And as I hinted at above, I believe that wishful thinking is a wish for certainty

No, it's a wish for some escape from permadeath. Really. That's all it is. And what I'm certain of is that there is no escape. *That* takes guts, and more than a little intelligence.

Science and religion both are quests for certainty by the way

No, science is a quest for understanding the physical universe even if that understanding is uncertain, religion is a means of control through dogma or "certainty," spirituality is a desire to escape death and meaninglessness by indulging in wish fulfilling beliefs, just to clarify.

So I'm going to have to stay with stating that your professed certainty in atheism is about as open-minded as a religious zealot being certain of the infallibility of some dude with a fancy hat.

That's because you can't give up your hope for purpose and an afterlife. Your belief in the possibility of god is ultimately motivated by fear and selfish desire, just like US foreign policy. It makes you a flawed thinker, but you're certainly not alone. Most human brains are simply not capable of freeing themselves of magical thought and wish fulfillment. I think true rationality may very well be the rarest trait of all. And the fact that it is such a rare trait explains why we fail so often as a society. Indeed, as a species.

[NESchampion]

It's because you're all naughty boys. And naughty boys don't get any presents.

Except you, Dr. Zoidberg.

I miss Futurama.

Back on topic though: All religion is delusion.

[Grand Fromage]

BTW, as an aside, GF's religion of QM states that anything is possible, so quantum physicists actually believe in the possibility of Santa Claus. "Anything" is a awfully wide net....

Religion? Laffo. I guess my joke was correct, you don't know anything about quantum mechanics.

[NickD]

But in science you admit that you are just speculating

Try telling that to people who go around calling people idiots for speculating that it may be possible to go faster than the speed of light one day, or for saying they're not entirely convinced by quantum physics.

[Grand Fromage]

Try telling that to people who go around calling people idiots for speculating that it may be possible to go faster than the speed of light one day, or for saying they're not entirely convinced by quantum physics.

That would be nice if Mulu were correct. Science is not just speculation. All science starts that way, but your ultimate goal is a theory--and a theory is as far from speculation as it gets. It's all about evidence and a cohesive explanation of the world, one that is proven accurate by its predictive power and the aforementioned mountain of evidence.