The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by kostya That one also lived to see the realization of quite a few prophecies of his time. So he had good reasons to believe those revealed to him, it seems.

So you're not willing to take his place. Typical.

Originally Posted by kostya Hah, you're not the first one to prefer such a thing.

Irrelevant. Doomsday prophets are trying to use fear in order to force people into their faith. The proper thing would be to classify this as terrorism and put them into prison once prophecy fails.

Originally Posted by kostya 1) Every ancient tradition mentions global flood in some more or less perverted version. There usually appears a man saved alive through such flood, who then became father to humankind we see today. Have you never heard of such traditions?

My country doesn't have a "flood" tale. Russians don't have it (aside from bible). Greek mythology doesn't have it. African tales don't have it. Haven't even a mention of something like that in japanese culture. In fact nobody except bible mentions it. Can't say I researched every single myth, but judging from ALL mythical stores I ever come across, only bible mentions flood. Nobody else. Of course, MAYBE somebody worked really hard and hidden flood tales from general public, but that's unlikely to happen.

As far as I know, many cultures have dragons, but not a "flood" story.

Originally Posted by kostya 2) The Bible says about a new commandment given to Noah after exiting the Ark: a command to eat meat from then on. This indicates that climate became more hostile, than it used to be before the flood.

Your bible and commandements are irrelevant, since you already have omnipotence problem to deal with:
"There is absolutely no reason for a omnipotent/omniscient being to test anybody, since he/she/it knows results of test in advance." Deal with that problem, prove existence of god, prove divine origin of bible, and only after that any biblical citation can be taken seriously.

--EDIT--

bluegospel/kostya/ShaanAli:
Before providing any more citations from holy books, you HAVE to deal with "omnipotent loving god paradox". It won't go away.
"If a loving all-knowing all-powerful(omnipotent/omniscient) god exists, then WHY would it need to put humanity through the test if he knew results of the test (and ALL things human will do) even before he created universe?". The problem is fundamental, and failure to deal with it will indicate (to me) that you your religion most likely is a lie plus you haven't given it much thought at all. Also I'll surely use that argument again on other people until somebody gives me a satisfactory answer.

The paradox does not prove that no god exists, though.

Originally Posted by reed9 Natural selection is the programmer. Or whatever selecting process occurs, sexual selection, etc.

…which of course should nullify any delusions of "conscious will", thereby rendering your life/actions completely mechanistic and without value…

I never said I liked determinism, just that I think it makes the most sense. It's one of those "hard truths" that you just kinda have to "deal with" IMO. It's bitter, yes, but I don't see how you can possibly justify "free will" (or any kind of "will", now that I think of it) without resorting to crude concepts like dualism or the homunculus argument (infinite regress, anyone?).

EDIT: Yep, I think this just about sums it up:

Originally Posted by reed9 It's not about what makes you happy, it's about what's true.

Thanks. I'll be sure to try and enjoy my miserable existence, then (physical laws permitting).

To fsck with all personal feelings; if they don't line up with the truth, there's something wrong with you, and you need to be corrected/reeducated.

Originally Posted by MrCode @SigTerm I had seriously considered reviving the thread before with the whole "heaven/hell problem" (i.e. that eternal bliss would eventually become boring, and eternal suffering would eventually become…well, not suffering), and I was even gonna link to that exact SMBC!

Allow me to enlighten you all as to the difference between Heaven and Hell:

In Heaven:

The bureaucrats are German.
The police are British.
The lovers are Italian.
And the chefs are French.

In Hell:

The bureaucrats are Italian.
The police are French.
The lovers are German.
And the chefs are British.

Originally Posted by MrCode …which of course should nullify any delusions of "conscious will", thereby rendering your life/actions completely mechanistic and without value… I never said I liked determinism, just that I think it makes the most sense. It's one of those "hard truths" that you just kinda have to "deal with" IMO. It's bitter, yes, but I don't see how you can possibly justify "free will" (or any kind of "will", now that I think of it) without resorting to crude concepts like dualism or the homunculus argument (infinite regress, anyone?).

I've still not been able to grasp why a purely material world must mean that life doesn't have value? So what if we evolved to feel love for our family and friends, why does that diminish the feeling and our actions in response to it?

Thanks. I'll be sure to try and enjoy my miserable existence, then (physical laws permitting). To fsck with all personal feelings; if they don't line up with the truth, there's something wrong with you, and you need to be corrected/reeducated.

What I'm saying is that personal feelings are not a reliable guide to what is true, not that your feelings don't matter. You can believe whatever you like, but if you're going to make truth claims, you have to be able to back them up with more than feelings. If an adult expressed an unwavering belief in Santa Claus, wouldn't you feel a little embarrassed for them? If they tried to get special tax breaks for their belief and enshrine it in society with special privileges and a taboo against criticism, wouldn't you say, hold on, that doesn't seem right? If they tried to claim that no one who didn't accept Santa Claus as literally and absolutely real could be moral or a true citizen of the country, wouldn't you start to get a bit angry? And if they claimed that science must be wrong because it says reindeer can't fly, wouldn't you mock them a little?

Again, I don't get how trying to understand the universe we are in automatically equates with living a miserable meaningless life. Personally, I live a pretty happy meaningful life. Neither the thought of ceasing to exist after death, nor the thought that there is no immaterial, unified "me" making decisions detracts from that.

Originally Posted by MrCode …which of course should nullify any delusions of "conscious will", thereby rendering your life/actions completely mechanistic and without value…

No. Natural selection is not predetermined in any way. IT is absolutely random. Also natural selection has nothing to do with fate or determinition. You can't predict what will survive or how nature will adapt. Also your life is under your control.

Originally Posted by MrCode I never said I liked determinism, just that I think it makes the most sense. It's one of those "hard truths" that you just kinda have to "deal with" IMO.

IMO it is one of "hard truth" that exist only in your head and aren't "truths" at all.

Originally Posted by MrCode It's bitter, yes, but I don't see how you can possibly justify "free will"

Huh? "Justify"? This doesn't make sense. It exists. Can you "justify" a mountain? A mountain has appeared at this particular spot because some string of events has led to its existence. However, the string of events that has led to existence of a mountain has been completely random and there were no reason behind it. You can't "justify" outcome of random process - it simply happens, but there is no real reason behind it.

Originally Posted by MrCode To fsck with all personal feelings; if they don't line up with the truth, there's something wrong with you,

Few people mentioned confirmation bias, and you seem to have severe form of it. You BELIEVE in determinism, and you see a proof of determinism everywhere, even when no proof exist. You need to change the way you think, IMO. Your current viewpoint is unhealthy.

Originally Posted by reed9 If an adult expressed an unwavering belief in Santa Claus, wouldn't you feel a little embarrassed for them?

Actually, no I wouldn't. As long as their belief poses no threat to me, I don't care.

Originally Posted by reed9 And again, I don't get how trying to understand the universe we are in automatically equates with living a miserable meaningless life. Personally, I live a pretty happy meaningful life. Neither the thought of ceasing to exist after death, nor the thought that there is no immaterial, unified "me" making decisions detracts from that.

A universe without creator means that you weren't created with greater goal in mind and there is no "meaning of life". For some people that can be depressing, since they might want to feel special. The problem with their thinking is that even if you WERE born with purpose, that wouldn't mean that your purpose will be a "great/important one". If you were born with a purpose, the reason of your existence could be insignificant or trivial, which might be even more depressing then "life without meaning". I remember an anecdote: A man has died, went to heaven, and asked god "WHY was I born? What for?". God answered: "Do you remember eating together with your friends on date XXXX and passing salt to one of them? That what you were born for".

Originally Posted by reed9 I've still not been able to grasp why a purely material world must mean that life doesn't have value?

That delicious sandwich you made/had for lunch? That masterful work of art you created for the world to see? That scientific discovery you made that would supposedly "better mankind"? All determined since the beginning of the universe; no "control"/"will" was involved at all. It was all just a result of physical circumstance/state of affairs. No "agency" required. "Agency" itself may as well be illusory. There's no good reason to think we'll discover some kind of magical "soul"-like element of our "minds" that constitutes our "consciousness", so why not declare the perception of "agency" illusory/pointless/irrelevant now? I see no reason to believe we should consider ourselves any different than we would consider an animal or computer; it's all the same anyway. Why should I care what happens to the blob of hydrocarbons that I call a "human"? What difference does it make what state it is in in the grand scheme of things? Not that I'm about to go and murder someone to prove my point (despite how adamant I might be about determinism, I do still have at least some semblance of morality; I'm not a psychopath ), but logically, doesn't it just seem a little odd to you that we should be striving to keep ourselves within one particular spectrum of physical states for no particular reason? What is the meaning of life after all?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Originally Posted by reed9 there is no immaterial, unified "me" making decisions

Then stop referring to yourself in the first person. Clearly the "I" doesn't actually exist; it's an illusion/abstraction of disparate neural activity.

Originally Posted by MrCode That delicious sandwich you made/had for lunch? That masterful work of art you created for the world to see? That scientific discovery you made that would supposedly "better mankind"? All determined since the beginning of the universe; no "control"/"will" was involved at all. It was all just a result of physical circumstance/state of affairs. No "agency" required. "Agency" itself may as well be illusory. There's no good reason to think we'll discover some kind of magical "soul"-like element of our "minds" that constitutes our "consciousness", so why not declare the perception of "agency" illusory/pointless/irrelevant now?

I still don't see why that lessens my enjoyment of art and beauty or the thrill of creating and learning. I still have those feelings. Why does it matter if there isn't a cosmic purpose to them?

As to the last sentence, illusory is not equal to irrelevant. These things are clearly relevant to us, to anything that can feel and has some form of consciousness.

I see no reason to believe we should consider ourselves any different than we would consider an animal or computer; it's all the same anyway.

I don't think we should consider ourselves particularly different from other animals. Computers, however, do not have a developed enough neural network to feel or be aware. That is the key difference. The ability to empathize is the foundation of morality, to know that other creatures can suffer and wanting to act in a such a way that reduces suffering. You want why we should care what happens to a blob of hydrocarbons. Whether it matters on a universal scale is irrelevant. You can turn it around and ask why shouldn't I care what happens to other feeling creatures? We have these feelings, regardless of their source, and even as a purely practical matter, enshrining the idea of a universal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can make things better for everyone. Moral philosophy can advance just fine in the absence of an absolute morality handed down from on high, we can have objective standards by which to judge without have absolute standards.

Then stop referring to yourself in the first person. Clearly the "I" doesn't actually exist; it's an illusion/abstraction of disparate neural activity.

There's no other adequate pronoun and even if there were, it would be conversationally awkward and usually inappropriate and distracting to the content of the conversation.

---------- Post added 10-05-11 at 09:49 AM ----------

Originally Posted by SigTerm No. Natural selection is not predetermined in any way. IT is absolutely random.

Natural selection is a non-random process that acts on random mutations. But MrCode's position is that the "random" mutations aren't truly random, that there is an underlying understandable (in principle if not practice) mechanism. The determinists position is that of LaPlace's Demon, that if you could have a being with perfect knowledge of a particular state of the universe, everything else could be calculated, and hence is all determined.

My main argument against this is that quantum theory seems to have true randomness built in. There is the question of whether that can translate to a perceivable effect at the macro level. There are some other arguments against it as well. Whatever the truth, it's clearly not certain that things are absolutely determined from the beginning of the universe.

Huh? "Justify"? This doesn't make sense. It exists. Can you "justify" a mountain? A mountain has appeared at this particular spot because some string of events has led to its existence. However, the string of events that has led to existence of a mountain has been completely random and there were no reason behind it. You can't "justify" outcome of random process - it simply happens, but there is no real reason behind it.

You'd have to define what is meant by free will. The general conception of it is, as I put it, a unified, immaterial "me" making decisions separate from material, causal events is probably not true. To me, this is somewhat trivial, like saying I can't choose not to fall down or react when someone punches me in the face. But I'm a compatibilist.

Originally Posted by reed9 I still don't see why that lessens my enjoyment of art and beauty or the thrill of creating and learning. I still have those feelings. Why does it matter if there isn't a cosmic purpose to them?

I don't think it's a matter of there being a "cosmic purpose" to it (I don't consider myself religious)…it's a matter of there being any purpose to it. Reducing everything to physics is hardly any fun (well, for most people ), so why do we keep doing it? Why should we have to consider creativity as nothing more than a by-product of neural activity/genetic predisposition/etc.? Why should we have to consider morality/empathy (emotions in general, actually) to be nothing more than a by-product of evolution? It's this obsession with reductionism, reductionism, reductionism (EDIT: perhaps a better term would be eliminativism?) that gets me so annoyed.

This might be crossing on personal issues of my own somewhat, but I hope you can at least understand my point here.

Originally Posted by reed9 I don't think we should consider ourselves particularly different from other animals. Computers, however, do not have a developed enough neural network to feel or be aware.

Not yet they don't. Hypothetical case in point. Are you ready for the "robot revolution" (or even the neuroscientific one)? Be ready, because the human race may eventually be sent to /dev/null. I'm not guaranteeing this, of course, but it's a genuine concern.

Originally Posted by MrCode I don't think it's a matter of there being a "cosmic purpose" to it (I don't consider myself religious)…it's a matter of there being any purpose to it. Reducing everything to physics is hardly any fun (well, for most people ), so why do we keep doing it? Why should we have to consider creativity as nothing more than a by-product of neural activity/genetic predisposition/etc.? Why should we have to consider morality/empathy (emotions in general, actually) to be nothing more than a by-product of evolution? It's this obsession with reductionism, reductionism, reductionism (EDIT: perhaps a better term would be eliminativism?) that gets me so annoyed. This might be crossing on personal issues of my own somewhat, but I hope you can at least understand my point here.

Well, what do you mean by the "more" in nothing more?

Looking at everything at the level of subatomic particles is clearly not useful in every circumstance. Things have different levels of organization, hell, different physics operate at different levels, right? Relativity works at the scale of the very large, but is incompatible with quantum theory, which operates at the level of the very small. Newtonian physics is good enough for the middle world we live in, but breaks down at other scales.

Reductionism is appropriate when you're trying to understand some things, and not appropriate for others. We'll never understand history through particle physics. Why should we place more value on the results of particle physics than other sciences?

My emotions are meaningful to me and to those around me, regardless of their origins and regardless of whether they have meaning at some grand scale. I am a collection of particles and a human being with feelings and thoughts, not exclusively. Understanding that my emotions also have potential genetic causes or environmental causes or whatever, is helpful, but not the end all be all. It's helpful to know that willpower is a finite resource, for example, so you can avoid making important decisions when hungry or late in the day. It's helpful to know that just because I might feel revulsion at seeing two men kiss, that feeling doesn't necessary mean homosexuality is wrong or that I must act immorally to deny people their rights.

Not yet they don't. Hypothetical case in point. Are you ready for the "robot revolution" (or even the neuroscientific one)? Be ready, because the human race may eventually be sent to /dev/null. I'm not guaranteeing this, of course, but it's a genuine concern.

I am looking forward to the creation of true artificial intelligence.

Originally Posted by bluegospel It's a test for our sake, not God's.

So still not seeing the sadism, then?

Originally Posted by bluegospel Salvation through Christ was accesible immediately. Every soul who sought relief by looking forward to the one of whom Abraham spoke, and before him Noah, and before him Enoch and before him Seth and before him Abel. They all testified to a coming Christ.

Why do you insist on saying so many things that are obviously not true?

Show me one instance of Abraham talking of Christ. Just one.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Adam willfully disobeyed God for pride's sake. At that moment he preferred this secret knowledge rather than reciprocating the good God gave him.

If Adam's pride were the problem, then why did God make him so full of pride?

Originally Posted by bluegospel I know that human life is replete with suffering. And I know the strength God gives me to rejoice even through hardship. And I know the many avenues people take to try to escape or forget their suffering whenever they can. And I know absolutely that Christ came so that we could have abundant life. And I know because I experience it, and have brothers and sisters in Christ who experience it.

One of those avenues people take to try to escape is called God. Enjoy your fantasy.

Originally Posted by MrCode That delicious sandwich you made/had for lunch? That masterful work of art you created for the world to see? That scientific discovery you made that would supposedly "better mankind"? All determined since the beginning of the universe; no "control"/"will" was involved at all. It was all just a result of physical circumstance/state of affairs. No "agency" required. "Agency" itself may as well be illusory. There's no good reason to think we'll discover some kind of magical "soul"-like element of our "minds" that constitutes our "consciousness", so why not declare the perception of "agency" illusory/pointless/irrelevant now? I see no reason to believe we should consider ourselves any different than we would consider an animal or computer; it's all the same anyway. Why should I care what happens to the blob of hydrocarbons that I call a "human"? What difference does it make what state it is in in the grand scheme of things? Not that I'm about to go and murder someone to prove my point (despite how adamant I might be about determinism, I do still have at least some semblance of morality; I'm not a psychopath ), but logically, doesn't it just seem a little odd to you that we should be striving to keep ourselves within one particular spectrum of physical states for no particular reason? What is the meaning of life after all? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

The universe may not have agency, but I do. While it may be true that the chaotic natural processes came together in a certain way to make it possible for a sandwich to exist, the fact remains that this sandwich is in front of me because I decided to make it. It could have been steamed fish and rice pilaf instead, but I was feeling lazy. And of all the millions of possible sandwich arrangements possible, this sandwich came to be in this precise configuration because it's the one I chose.

Originally Posted by reed9 Well, what do you mean by the "more" in nothing more?

Pretty much the idea that abstraction is meaningless/unhelpful. The problem I have (I guess :-\) is that there seems to me to be this prevailing attitude of eliminativism/dichotomy (i.e. it's either one or the other; pick one but not both) when it comes to worldviews. Either we're all children of God/spirits of the earth/what have you (on the side of religion/spirituality) or we're all just particles, period (on the side of atheism/materialism). Just look at how people try to come up with "unifying" theories of physics…IMO it's a sign of the desire to find a "one size fits all" equation for explaining everything, from the lowest levels of quantum physics to human levels of creativity/social interaction/morality/etc. to the highest levels of cosmic interactions. Forgive me if that's a severe misunderstanding, but that's how I see it.

Like I said, this probably has much to do with personal issues of my own, and thus may have little to do with the actual argument at hand (yes, I'm man enough to admit that). I have nothing against your acceptance of "seeing both sides of the coin", I just have a hard time doing the same. I've apparently been raised to believe that it's one or the other or something. It's not something that I would want to get into in this thread, though, or even PM for that matter; it's rather personal and has to do with how I went from skeptic to spiritualist back to skeptic again (the hard way).

Originally Posted by reed9 I am looking forward to the creation of true artificial intelligence.

Okay, whatever…I still find the idea of truly sentient, self-improving AI rather disturbing (and potentially being the long-term extinction of the human species), but to each their own I guess.

Originally Posted by MrCode All determined since the beginning of the universe; no "control"/"will" was involved at all.

You'll have to prove that, otherwise such argument will be dismissed as delusion.

Originally Posted by MrCode "soul"-like element of our "minds" that constitutes our "consciousness",

AFAIK soul is not required for consciousness/self-awareness.

Originally Posted by MrCode What difference does it make what state it is in in the grand scheme of things?

This part has nothing to do with determinism.

Originally Posted by MrCode What is the meaning of life after all?

This question has nothing to do with determinism.

Originally Posted by reed9 Natural selection is a non-random process that acts on random mutations.

Exactly how it is "non-random"? Creatures that can't adapt die. But AFAIK it will be quite hard to predict what will adapt and how. Since you can't predict with 100% certainty, it is quite random.

Originally Posted by reed9 The general conception of it is, as I put it, a unified, immaterial "me" making decisions separate from material, causal events is probably not true.

Is information material? If "YOU" are defined by information stored as electric/chemical state of neural system and its topology, then you're decision-making part of you is information.

Originally Posted by MrCode The problem I have (I guess :-\) is that there seems to me to be this prevailing attitude of eliminativism/dichotomy (i.e. it's either one or the other; pick one but not both) when it comes to worldviews.

"False dichotomy"?

Originally Posted by MrCode Either we're all children of God/spirits of the earth/what have you (on the side of religion/spirituality) or we're all just particles, period (on the side of atheism/materialism).

"we are particles" does not mean determinism. PLus there's more than one possible model.

Originally Posted by MrCode "one size fits all" equation for explaining everything, from the lowest levels of quantum physics to human levels of creativity/social interaction/morality/etc. to the highest levels of cosmic interactions.

Having such equation won't automatically mean determinism. If a result of equation is set of probabilities, universe will remain unpredictable.

Originally Posted by MrCode I have nothing against your acceptance of "seeing both sides of the coin", I just have a hard time doing the same.

As I always said, "binary thinking" is severely limiting. Why do you think there are only two sides of the coin?

Originally Posted by SigTerm Exactly how it is "non-random"? Creatures that can't adapt die. But AFAIK it will be quite hard to predict what will adapt and how. Since you can't predict with 100% certainty, it is quite random.

Our inability to predict something is not the same as randomness. Natural selection preferentially selects for mutations that statistically increase survival, which is a non-random effect. More here.

Darwinism is widely misunderstood as a theory of pure chance. Mustn't it have done something to provoke this canard? Well, yes, there is something behind the misunderstood rumour, a feeble basis to the distortion. one stage in the Darwinian process is indeed a chance process -- mutation. Mutation is the process by which fresh genetic variation is offered up for selection and it is usually described as random. But Darwinians make the fuss they do about the 'randomness' of mutation only in order to contrast it to the non-randomness of selection. It is not necessary that mutation should be random for natural selection to work. Selection can still do its work whether mutation is directed or not. Emphasizing that mutation can be random is our way of calling attention to the crucial fact that, by contrast, selection is sublimely and quintessentially non-random. It is ironic that this emphasis on the contrast between mutation and the non-randomness of selection has led people to think that the whole theory is a theory of chance. -Dawkins

Is information material? If "YOU" are defined by information stored as electric/chemical state of neural system and its topology, then you're decision-making part of you is information.

Well, yes, sort of. Information is always tied to a physical state or representation, so it is not outside of the material world.

Originally Posted by reed9 Our inability to predict something is not the same as randomness.

Perhaps "random" was not the right word, but the point was that the process is not predictable. At least half of definitions of "Random" match "unpredictable". Check the dictionary.

Random: Having no definite aim or purpose; not sent or guided in a particular direction; made, done, occurring, etc., without method or conscious choice; haphazard.

Originally Posted by reed9 Natural selection preferentially selects for mutations that statistically increase survival, which is a non-random effect.

Incorrect. I'd say this is a "backwards" definition that implies existence of some kind of direction of evolution, which is not the case. You forget about situation when species cannot adapt and go extinct. IMO the proper definition is that natural selection kills off everything that cannot adapt and does not guarantee statistic increase of survival, since entire species can die as a result of natural selection. It does not guarantee advancement or survival. Your definition implies some kind of selecting hand. The proper definition should imply a slaughterhouse with insane owner.

Originally Posted by reed9 But Darwinians make the fuss they do about the 'randomness' of mutation only in order to contrast it to the non-randomness of selection.

I have impression that author of this sentence does not understand "random" and have a severe case of tunnel vision. In my understanding, natural selection is a duel between random mutations and random changes in environment. The reason why it normally works, is because environment NORMALLY changes significantly slower than living organisms, but there are exceptions which include various cataclysmic events (meteorites, volcano eruptions, forest fires, tornadoes, floods, tsunamis, nuclear bombardment, oil leaks, etc).