No such thing as God.

Ruthless Logic, you say: '(nature) cannot indulge in processes that do not serve any discernible purpose.' You're right in a sense, but this is too simplistic a generalisation to draw from the function or die algorithm of evolution. It is only where a trait, be it biological, behavioural or (in the case of human beings) conceptual, acts as an obstacle to functionality - and the individual and/or species dies, that we might say nature does not indulge.... That said, there's considerable lattitude available, and both animals and human animals play at various activities not directly serving survival interests.
My argument is, that acting in the course of religious, political and economic ideology, approaching upon the energy crisis, climate change, over-population and environmental degradation - causing, and unable to address these threats by action in these terms, these ideologies now constitute an obstacle to functionality. We must evolve by adopting better ideas - or become extinct.

As one who has a strong personal belief, but am by no means a representative of, or inclusive in, a greater body of believers, I completely concur with your statements, iconoclast. But therein lies the problem, how do individuals, such as you and I, who are outside the popular opinion, sway the popular opinion? Is this sort of change implementable, or is it confined to the well wishes of such forums as this one?

I mean, when you take a look at local politics and see that, even though the vast majority of experts in the field concur that global climate is getting hotter, American leaders still refuse to recognize it publicly as global warming and instead insist on calling it global climate trends, or something of the like. They won't even listen to science when it doesn't confront their religious values. How would they possibly respond favorably when it does?

Solace, I was just replying to your previous contribution, and saying don't worry, i can take it. I've not spared myself in arriving at these conclusions. But compromise between religious groups, between nations in political and economic competition isn't happeneing, because it can't. Science is the common ground upon which all can meet. That's why making the epistemological argument is so vitally necessary - for while these people can lay claim to political legitmacy they're free to employ science as a tool and ignore science as a rule for the conduct of human affairs.
I will allow that, acting in the course of ideology thier actions were not intentionally criminal - but if they cling to the reigns of power, struggle to maintain inequity, engage in warfare and so on, they intentionally commit crimes against humanity and will be punished accordingly.

I don't have one. You have made the claim that there is no such thing as God. We carried the discussion for a while, then at some point you decided my responses were "bull****". So, to take on the discussion again, we decided to take the discussion one point at a time. You then asked me a question, which I answered.

At this point, I suppose, we have two options. You could set up your claims and then justify them, or I can make another attempt at explaining my concerns with your claims.

what do you mean ? iconaclast
by saying there is no such thing as God
do you mean there is no God or did i get you wrong and you meant that God is such greatest and nothing compares to God?
???????

lol, cloverleaf, I hadn't even considered that iconoclast's thread starting statement could be misunderstood, but I see what you mean. Yet I would have to say that the crux of iconoclast's argument (at least as far as I understand it, and I hope iconoclast can forgive me if I've gotten it all wrong) has not been so much that there is no God, as in ideally, but that there is no tangible proof that God exists, thus there is no thing that we can point to and say, there it is, that's God. Thus the assumption that we must base our way of life, from social economics to political definitions, on a belief in God, in something that we cannot prove, has caused, and is causing, a multitude of harm to the world at large, and ourselves included. (Did I come anywhere close to summing up your argument, iconoclast?)

I must admit that it's more than I would allow, that their actions were not intentionally criminal, but I am perhaps less the skeptic and more the cynic. My only question is, since they're the ones holding the power, who's gonna punish them?

What I can gather from you Iconaclast is, that there is an essence, call It God, only that It, has no religion. Religion and its cults, especially Christianity and Islam define many and most aspects of life like it is stucco on the dry wall of imagery that is God. God asks that we share but he endows me with the ability to employ you to work for me. Religion is doubt, faith and the ability to fool others.
The interaction of soul and mind is not a branch of evolution and will not be explained with the proofs of Darwin or the science of genetics. I heard many people denegrate the museum of Creationism on line in another site yet to its credit it allows room for the imagination to develop more truths and hence a closer understanding of the universe.

I said you were an idealist before, but now you're seeming more the dreamer. I simply don't give the race the credit that you do.

I'd really like to see this pushed out a bit more... Science is (and must be) silent on philosophy, morality, and religion. Scientific finding may have implications for all of the above, but science itself can define none of them nor give them meaning or authority. But people need philosophy and morality (and possibly religion). I believe that you are outlining what you hope would be best for humanity, but I don't think it's a possibilty due to the limitations of what science is. People need order and meaning that science can't touch, so that order and meaning will always come from something not "objective". Even the basice idea of mutual benefit is a philosophy not universally shared, and is not "based" on science, but your own understanding of morality.

Well, now that I joined this thread (which I was somewhat avoiding), I figure I'll at least add a thought to the orginal debate, though all of this has been heard before in some form or another.

To assume a naturalist worldview is very different from having a logical argument. The human belief in a Creator God goes much further back than our objective history of human belief. Therefore there are no facts on the matter of whether or not the idea was invented to relieve our curriosity (naturalism) or whether such a God had been revealed to us (theism), or some other scenerio. It seems that many accept the notion that because we have the concept of God, we must have invented it because, after all, that is the only way we can have a concept. That's fine, but it's not an argument, it is an expostition of a naturalist world view. (Putting that idea into argument form: There is no God because we invented God, and we must have invented God because there is no God.) Remember, no matter how objective people try to be, we don't have any access to facts about the developement of religious belief of pre-historic humanity- it's pre-historic. Anything we "fill-in" is necessarily going to be based on assumtions and worldveiws- objectivity is sacrificed.

You can believe or disbelieve whatever you want, and I 100% understand the belief that there is no God based on what can appear to be a lack of evidence for such a being. I'm not attacking athiests, I deal with too many doubts of my own doubts for that... Personally, though, I do believe that a Creator God has revealed itself to humanity, both at our beginings and throught history, though certainly not in ways that remove all doubt. I won't use that as a basis for any out-of-the-blue strong statements of truth, and if you want to talk about why I believe that, I'd be happy to, though I don't have any quick proofs or anything.

If you look at my post, you will see that I agreed with you to some extent, but found it necessary to expand on what you said to avoid oversimplification.

As for being "correct" I'm not sure what you mean. Primitive man, as you call him, developed religious notions to help him understand reality. These notions have changed over time to meet the needs of people in ever changing social conditions. It's not so much a matter of religious notions being 'correct' but a matter of being useful.

Of course, I have significant doubts about anyone's ability to prove that God does not exist, which was the initial claim of the thread.

I overall agree with NeitherExtreme here, though I'll for the umpteenth time voice my displeasure at his "naturalist worldview" concoction.

I posted this before but I think Iconoclast missed it in a page-turn. I agree pretty much that our decisions need to be informed by the best evidence. But where we disagree is that I'm much more cynical about our ability to understand things. We can make extremely destructive or shortsighted decisions that are scientifically founded, and an epistemologically superior process of garnering knowledge does not always provide complete or even accurate knowledge. Remember that even small elements of bias, if unrecognized, can lead to apparently reliable results that are fundamentally in error. Furthermore, the more complex we try to make a decision, the more variables, and the more long-sighted, the more we have to rely on modeling and projections rather than empirical knowledge. This is dangerous, especially when making policy decisions that involve hundreds of millions of people over the span of decades.

I'm no proponent of religion, but I have to agree with Didymos on this one. Certainly there are some seemingly odd religious notions that actually make a great deal of sense. Another thread claimed that people are insane for not eating pork simply because a religion forbade it, but the fact of the matter is that pork isn't exactly the healthiest thing you can stick in your body. Don't get me wrong, I eat it, but my point is that a long time ago someone took one look at a pig and realized that it is a filthy animal, so they decided to include in their religion the idea not to eat that pig.

The observation was made emperically, but the translation of that information to the masses was made by religion. Religion was, in that instance at least, used as a positive medium. I think that's the problem with iconclast's theory, that people as a whole don't generally listen to science. We like to think we do, but we really don't. However, when a powerfully influential medium such as religion comes along to support science, it gives science a powerful new voice that it didn't have without.

Perhaps iconclast and his new world order cronies should try using religion to their advantage and the advancement of science, rather than reacting simply out of fear and suspicion of it. (I hope someone is rolling their eyes at me.)

Thanks for your post Aedes.

I don't mean to use the word naturalism as a negative or insulting term. I didn't invent the idea or the word. It is a generalization, just like "theism", "postmodernism", etc, and it simply describes a general worldview that describes (natural) science and (to some degree) much of the west. I only bring it up because basic worldviews and beliefs like these are 100% relevant when attempting to have a intellegent and helpful conversation about these kinds of subjects. If worldviews aren't discussed, understood, and validated there will only be misunderstandings and fruitless arguments.

Dear All, Im posting a reprise of my arguments in order to avoid being misunderstood or misinterpreted. Sorry for the length of this post, I realize it's a little unfair but hope you will indulge me.

Niether Extreme, This refutes your assertions that science must be silent on morality, philosophy and religion - by reducing both to theories of reality, used to explain perceptions of reality, and generate understanding as a basis foir action. The fuller version would also address your next point about naturalism versus theism, but i've ommited arguments concerning the evolutionary nature of man and consistant nature of reality for the sake of brevity. But if you read it through i'm sure you'll see where they fit.


Aedes, Good points there, and i agree:

quote 'an epistemologically superior process of garnering knowledge does not always provide complete or even accurate knowledge. Remember that even small elements of bias, if unrecognized, can lead to apparently reliable results that are fundamentally in error. Furthermore, the more complex we try to make a decision, the more variables, and the more long-sighted, the more we have to rely on modeling and projections rather than empirical knowledge. This is dangerous, especially when making policy decisions that involve hundreds of millions of people over the span of decades.

However, a scientific mistake is subject to correction, where ideology, though clearly fundamentally in error is persisted with no matter what.


Didymos Thomas and Solace, For the following reasons i suggest that religious notions are, principally groundless, but also no longer uselful. Might i assure you that i am crony-less, an independent voice, quite devoid of allegiances. Rest assured, eyes rolled!

Ideology and Science - theories of reality.

The arguments I'm making are complex, both in the sense that there are many elements brought together in a single explanation, and in the sense that there are myriad connotations of the central thesis. This treatment is a reprise of the central ideas - skipping over many elements of the argument and connotations of the conclusions, but which focuses on the main points at issue; namely, the nature and uses of knowledge.
The central thesis is concerned with the relationship between reality, perception and understanding, and the central questions are the epistemological staples: 'what can we know?' - 'how can we know it?' and 'what is true?' In short, the answer I've arrived at refutes the possibility of truth in it's absolute sense, but allows that human knowledge may be variously valid - which is to say some formulations of knowledge are more valid than others. This is the result of how perception is understood.

In 'A Theory of Social Action' Parsons makes the observation: 'It is fundamental that there is no empirical knowledge that is not in some sense and to some degree conceptually formed. All talk of "pure sense data," "raw experience" or the "unformed stream of consciousness" is not descriptive of actual experience but rather a matter of methodological abstraction, legitimate and important for certain purposes but nevertheless abstraction. In other words, in Professor Henderson's phrase, all empirical observation is "in terms of a conceptual scheme." (Talcott Parsons. p. 28)
This relationship can be schematized:



* The vertical axis describes a whole and coherent reality - that in theory may be thought of as an infinite number of possible perceptions.
* The horizontal axis describes an ideal experiencing self as the sum of all possible conceptual schemes.
* Conceptual schemes reconcile perceptions in non-contradictory relations in order to generate the curve of understanding.
* The curve of understanding is stretched between two ideal states: 'total perception of reality,' and 'all possible conceptual schemes.'
* Understanding is therefore described as the reconciliation of perceptions in non-contradictory relations by conceptual schemes.

Clearly, some conceptual schemes are able to reconcile more perceptions in non-contradictory relations than others - and are therefore more valid of reality. For example, we can contrast Ptolemaic and Copernican conceptions of planetary motion. Both these theories account for the fact that there is a sun, and there are planets, and there is movement, but employ different conceptual schemes to reconcile these perceptions in different ways to generate different understandings. Interestingly, in accord with a Ptolemaic conception, the Bible states that the Earth is at the center of the universe - famously disproved by Galielo in 1632. Galileo found that certain observations could not be explained in terms of the Ptolemaic conceptual scheme, that were explained by the Copernican idea of heliocentric motion. For this he was imprisoned by the Church, tortured and forced to recant his conclusions - not because the reality of planetary motion was particularly significant to seventeenth century Europeans, but because it inferred that the Bible was written by earlier generations of men of limited understanding - and was not the absolute the word of God and the absolute truth at all.
It's also interesting to note that only 18 years after Galileo's publication, Europe threw off the authority of the Church and instituted a system of nation states - ending a century of religious conflict by signing the Treaty of Westphalia in 1650. However, because nations took authority unto themselves on the basis of a religious law, 'The Divine Rights of Kings' (751 A.D) and continued to draw upon religious justifications of political power, they inherited a backward approach to knowledge from the Church.
But to return to the main point - as we see above, one explanation is more valid that another because it reconciles more perceptions of reality in terms of the conceptual scheme. However, while Galileo had made clear that the planets orbited the sun - regularities in these orbits remained to be systematically understood. Newton's theory of planetary motion generated accurate predictions of the motions of most of the planets for most of the time, however the planet Mercury at perihelion did not conform to the theoretical understanding that explained these many other perceptions.
In short, he had an externality to his theory - an observation that could not be reconciled in these terms, marking the limits of its validity. To assert that Newton's theory was false would be overstating the case, not least because it contained much founded knowledge, i.e. that there are planets, that there is movement, that this movement is heliocentric and regular - but because it produced adequate predictions for most planets most of the time, accounting for a great many perceptions of reality. But equally, we cannot claim that his theory is true. It makes much more sense to say that it has limited validity - defined by the number of perceptions that can be reconciled by the conceptual scheme.
Einstein improved considerably upon Newton's accuracy of prediction - reconciling the apparent eccentricity of Mercury's orbit to his conceptual scheme - the theory of relativity, however, according to Einstein's conceptual scheme - when approximating the mass of a galaxy we find that it does not contain enough mass, by some considerable degree, to maintain structural cohesion. Hence, 9/10ths of the universe is missing.
Vera Rubin, who discovered the phenomenon, stated: 'Science progresses best when observations force us to alter our preconceptions.' But this is not what happened. Rather, in order to explain this phenomenon astrophysicists have proposed the existence of a substance called 'dark matter' - deeply suspect, not because dark matter cannot be seen or in any other way detected, but because it maintains the theory of relativity intact. Despite the continuing refinement of such theories throughout history, physicists are treating the theory of relativity as if it were true in the absolute sense. It is very highly valid - of that there is no doubt, but it seems likely that dark matter is a pseudo-reality conjured into existence by reconciling perceptions in terms of a conceptual scheme with limited validity.
These physical theories are a useful example by virtue of their simplicity and direct relation to reality; however, the same principles apply to social, political and economic conceptual schemes employed as a rationale for human action. Whether implicitly or explicitly, such theories infer a conception of reality that can only be variously valid - but is treated as if it were true in the absolute sense. For example, if we accept that man is an evolutionary animal, then it's reasonable to suppose that the concept of God occurred to man as an explanation of his existence. Once he came to realize the relationship between the artifact and the artificer - the made thing and the maker of the thing, man re-applied this conceptual scheme to reconcile perceptions of himself in the world, and asked 'who made the world?' and 'who made me?'
He applied the conceptual schemes available to him to infer the existence of a Great Artificer in the sky, a Creator God - the archetype of all subsequent God concepts. It's impossible to overstate the significance of this idea - for it changed man's understanding of reality, his conception of himself, and thus his behaviors and purposes. Where before it was impossible for hunter-gatherer tribes with hierarchies based on the threat and use of violence to join together, by employing the concept of God as an objective authority for law hunter-gatherer tribes could form multi-tribal and social groups without one tribe submitting directly to the will of the other. Instead, in the interests of providing better food, security and breeding opportunities than were provided by a hunter-gatherer way of life, they agreed to submit to the objective authority of God's will.
The immediate consequence of this agreement was theology - the practice of inferring social laws (more or less favorable to some than others) from assertions about the nature of God. Secondary consequences include the requirement of faith, which is to say adherence to the particular God concept and social laws inferred from it - in turn leading to the exclusion of people who do not share these ideas. The Talmud, the Bible and the Koran - each one coming into existence as a refutation of the former, can therefore be understood as conceptual schemes reconciling perceptions of reality in different ways, the product of centuries of employing a social agreement to submit to God's will to serve political and economic ends. Therefore, in terms of our theory, the pseudo-reality conjured into existence by understanding in these terms is the division of humankind into groups defined by one idea of the nature of God as opposed to another.
Now enter science - the only problem being, when can science be said to have entered? After the reception Galileo's ideas received, philosophers were very circumspect about findings contrary to the doctrine of the Church. It's perhaps less evident in the work of Rene Descartes, but fairly obvious that Jean Jacques Rousseau - in 'Discourse on Inequality' (1754) for example, is writing around an idea in which he doesn't believe.
As mentioned above, nation states threw off the authority of the Church in 1650 - but these were feudal kings claiming territories formed by a century of religious conflict - and who continued to claim religious justifications for political power.
The Holy Roman Empire ceased to be, but the Church of Rome continued to wield great political influence - and the Papal Court of the Inquisition, established in 1233 A.D., continued its pan-European reign of terror throughout the so called Enlightenment period, the last 'witch' - Anna Goddi, being burnt to death on the 22nd of December 1792. It's worth noting that a child attending that execution could have lived to see the publication of Charles Darwin's 'On the Origin of Species - by means of natural selection' in 1859 - and it is here we come full circle.
The Theory of Evolution proposed by Darwin answers the original question posed by primitive man, 35,000 years before. The concept of God occurred to explain the apparent artifact of man's existence by supposing the existence of an artificer. The quality of an artifact has, lacking in a natural object, is the quality of design. The theory of Evolution explains the appearance of design in nature - showing how plants and animals have become so well suited to their various ways of life without reference to an unseen artificer, or even a grand design. Rather there is a simple mechanism at work - natural selection, whereby the fittest survive to breed and pass on their characteristics to subsequent generations.
The majority received this argument with great hostility, and a minority with great enthusiasm, but few greeted it with sober understanding. Supporters of the theory did far more damage than detractors by misinterpreting the ideas. For instance, British philosopher Herbert Spencer, famed for coining the phrase 'survival of the fittest' used this axiom to justify gross social inequalities created by power structures justified with reference to God. But it's only in a natural context that the axiom 'survival of the fittest' pertains, because the human relationship to reality, to cite Parsons, is always 'in terms of a conceptual scheme' - in human society the individual is ennobled or hobbled by their accidental relation to the conceptual justifications of the power structure, rather than being free to compete for resources and breeding opportunities on the basis of animal prowess.
In theory then, the conceptual scheme employed to justify power must be as valid as possible for the social contract made by primitive man to be honored - but this has never really been the case. Before Darwin, the idea of a Creator may have been the best explanation man had for his existence, but because the concept of God is merely inferred, and cannot be proven to have this or that characteristic, the power structures have always been free to make assertions about the nature of God as a means of taking advantage of an agreement the individual finds themselves born into. Of course, we still haven't answered the question of where, or when does science enter, but it's fair to say that this practice has continued while scientific knowledge has emerged from the shadows of religious ideation - to present us, at last, with a highly valid conception of reality.
Rather than this being recognized however, instead, science continues to be used as a tool in pursuit of ideologically conceived ends, while ignored as a rule for the conduct of human affairs.
The pseudo-real divisions between human groups, defined by their conceptions of God, do not allow us to accept scientific knowledge, but require science be employed to create technologies of mass-murder, rather than, for instance, employing science, and applying the technology to provide humankind with a sustainable energy basis. These two imperatives together constitute the principle threat to our existence - the technological ability to kill every living thing on the planet as we approach upon the limits of fossil fuels. In scientific terms humankind is a single species occupying a single planetary environment - and fossil fuels are finite and damaging to the environment. This valid understanding provides no motive to create technologies of mass-murder - and both the incentive and the means to provide humankind with sustainable energy.
There are other extinction threats with the same root cause, and the same remedy; namely climate change, over-population and environmental degradation, but explaining these threats as externalities of ideological understanding as a basis for action requires a much fuller explanation of human conceptual development - particularly, the religious roots of capitalism, omitted from this treatment for the sake of brevity, and so as not to overcomplicate the argument. Consequently we cannot show how technologies applied or withheld in accord with the profit motive inherent to capitalist ideology, rather than in accord with the scientifically conceived merits of the technology, contributes to, and does not allow us to address climate change and environmental degradation - nor discuss how the capitalist incentive toward ever-larger markets makes addressing over-population a very low priority for national governments, particularly given the impossibility of international cooperation on the issue. The important thing to note is that these are externalities - equivalent to observations that cannot be reconciled in terms of the conceptual scheme.
Thus, to paraphrase Rubin, society progresses best when observations force us to alter our preconceptions. At the very least we need to internalize these externalities - afford to tackle the energy crisis and climate change no matter the cost, and forge agreements in contradiction of ideologically conceived national interests to limit human population and protect the environment - but in doing so we face the same problem faced by hunter-gatherer tribes - the difficulty of reconciling tribes with their own hierarchies.
Primitive man overcame this difficulty by employing a common conception of God as an objective authority for law - and we can employ the same tactic by agreeing to honor a scientific conception of reality. The following six articles form the basis of a proposed Constitution for Global Government.

1) an honest and unqualified acceptance of a scientific understanding of reality.
2) a commitment to the continued survival of the human species.
3) a global hierarchy organized on the basis of intellectual meritocracy.
4) a commitment to human equality:
a) material equality within the bounds of environmental sustainability.
b) equality of opportunity.
5) none shall bear arms but in the service of the global government.
6) a right to self replacement in two halves of two children subject to female consent.

Because science is valid, it's objective - which is to say the same for you as for me, the same for one nation as another. Just as the concept of God acted as an evolutionary stepladder - enabling man to overcome his hunter-gatherer nature, science, if applied similarly will again boost human evolution. And just in time, for we have reached the limits of the validity of the concept of God, and the legitimacy of the social, political and economic ideologies built upon it. Applied socially, politically and economically science will enable the formation of a global society and direct human action in the course of betterment and survival, benefiting man such that it will again be evident that we are on the path to Heaven - even as we embrace redefinition by science.

First, just a little nitpick, but as far as I know, the Bible says nothing about the earth being in the center of the universe, nor is there any foundation Christian thoelogy that states or requires that. It just happened to be a pet phillosphy of those in power, who happened at that time to be using the pretense of Christianity to maintain their control. But... that doesn't really have any bearing on the present converstion.

Second, I already have a general understanding of the evolution of science. That is a part of recent history and our record of it seems fairly objective. But... your description of the evolution of religion is exactly what I was talking about in my previous post. It's pre-historic worldview based story telling, and, accurate or not, it's not objective.

Third, as far as I can see, although very informative and well laid out, your post does nothing to address the issues of science lacking the authority and meaning required by humanity. Science is a study of what is, not why it is or what should be. People (including you and me) will operate based on some subjective philosophy or relgious belief. And that's just the way it has to be, because motivation and belief is not in science's job description.

Fourth, your list of 6 proposals, while interesting and well-motivated, is entirely based on your philosophy or morality. It's not objective nor universally held, and science can't tell us what's right or wrong about it. Honestly, science tells us that the more powerful preys on and lives off of the weaker. That's what is. That's as far as science can go. So unless you want to take that as a sign that that's what should be (and I can see you don't), then you are using science to accomplish what you see a moral goals. That's fine, but let's call it what it is.


The big difference is that the idea of God inherently validated the ideas of authority, meaning, and morality as well as a provided a mode for direct instruction. Science has none of these. I think the big missing premise in your theory would fit between the two sentences quoted above... How exactly does a scientific conception of reality lead to the six articles, which are mostly value statements. I won't bother to show individually how each one is not based on science, but the general idea would be to simply as "why?" after each proposal, and science won't have an answer. Certainly you could attempt to use science to accomplish all of these, but that's a different matter altogether... Hitler attempted to use science to accomplish his goals as well, but that didn't mean he was morally justified. Personally, I would expect that if "science" gained the kind of power you are proposing, it would become just as corrupt, or even moreso, as an religious entity throughout history. Humans have issues with power.

Sorry, I don't mean to come across too harsh, because I really think you're trying to find the right way to move forward, but I just don't think science alone is going to get you there.

Ya know, there is a form of government that was built on the objective of equality for all, rejection of religious authority, as well capitalist idealogy, and even, in at least one case, limiting the number of children people could bear... it's called communism. And I really don't see very much of a difference between that and what you're proposing, iconoclast.

You make the statement that capitalism is rooted in religion, after going through all that stuff about all governments being rooted in religion... that would be like me establishing that the color that falls between yellow and blue on the light spectrum is green, and therefore grass is green. That didn't take a whole lot of deductive reasoning on my part. Sure capitalism is rooted in religion, but according to your model so is every other form of government that doesn't outright reject religious authority. That pretty much leaves us with communism.