The Crack that Lets the Light In

Not blind guesses by all of us. We have a planet that blooms like an imperfect garden until overrun by apes and soon to be killed with the apes' chemicals and bulldozers. We have evolution over millions of years producing these same apes with emerging thought in the abstract. They have just the immediate world they know, with no science, just an artistic mind and mysteries about anything beyond gaining shelter and food. An unseen coconut drops on one's head. Who threw that coconut when there is nobody else in the neighborhood? Why do storms lash us and pelt us? Why did cousin Ooog drop dead shortly after arguing with the medicine man? The malevolence gains an identity through legends and fables about these things. Somewhere in the mix the identity becomes a god. There's your wild guess. There will always be those who don't fall for it.

0 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

I don't care about people's beliefs in the abstract. People believe and disbelieve all kinds of things, some factual and some fanciful. No, what interested me about Gannon's argument is the questions he poses about the interaction between the material and the immaterial, the corporeal and the spiritual.

Okay. I was interested in the aspect that some people seem to be suggesting that people who BELIEVE there are no gods (or who BELIEVE it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one god)...are NONBELIEVERS...which I consider to be an absurdity.

Both are believers...and it is their beliefs (their blind guesses) that cause them to conclude that a) there is at least one god or it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are no gods; b) that there are no gods or it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one god.

Quote:

Quote:
They are not "freethinkers" (as opposed to ??? "enslaved thinkers")...nor are they "nonbelievers."

These terms are commonly used in discussions about religious belief.

Well they shouldn't be, because they are obviously incorrect.

Quote:

"Freethought", in this context, rejects religious dogma and authority, that's all.

I respectfully suggest that a person declaring him/herself to be a "freethinker" is suggesting that his/her blind guesses about the Reality of existence is better, more intellectual, than the blind guesses made by people who blindly guess the other way.

Quote:

The word originated when alternative theories of order and creation were just beginning to emerge and the word has stuck around since then.

"Alternate theories of order and creation" are documented to have begun thousands of years ago...and it is at least possible that they began tens of thousands of years ago. It is an expression used to suggest "my thinking is more intellectual than your thinking." Nothing more.

Quote:

"Nonbelief", in this context, means the rejection of arguments based on religious faith as unsubstantiated by empirical evidence.

Hightor, nonbelief means WITHOUT BELIEF. If it is used "in this context" to mean something else...IT IS BEING MISUSED.

Quote:

Obviously, irreligious nonbelievers may believe in all kinds of other things but the word is not to be interpreted as universal skepticism. I don't believe in the GOP's goals for our country or in Lash's case for Putin but that doesn't make me a generic "nonbeliever". I might believe in tomorrow's weather forecast but if the predicted sunny day fails to occur, that's empirical evidence that the prediction was wrong, and my belief was mistaken.

As I said...when used here (ESPECIALLY HERE) it is being misused.

Quote:

Quote:
Both groups are just making blind guesses about the Ultimate Reality.

Again, I don't think that's the gist of Gannon's argument.

Could be. But it is the subtlety of his argument (which I have clearly indicated) that I wish to comment on.

Quote:

He poses a question to those who argue that there is a human soul which exists independently of the body and can be affected by interaction with "God". But what is the mechanism that enables the material self to receive signals from beyond the material world and translate these signals into thought and action? It's just a question.

Okay, it is just a question. But it is a question like the question, "Are there any sentient beings that live on any planet circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol...and if so, what are their physical natures?"

Why ask it. The answer is (or should be) obvious. I DO NOT KNOW.

Quote:

And, as yet, I haven't seen a rational explanation from religious believers that provides an answer.

Nor should you expect to receive such a rational explanation any more than you should expect to receive a rational explanation to the question I posed up above.

Quote:

Gannon isn't making a "blind guess" here. He simply challenges the religious believer to provide a counter-argument which takes the findings of quantum physics into account.

What Gannon is doing or not doing is not the question with which I am dealing.

1 Reply

In my recently published book is an incident in which the protagonist's live-in girlfriend makes a plan to burn a candle for his deceased brother, whose body is back in the states with the feds. She is puzzled that he doesn't intend to do anything, saying he will hold his brother in his heart but do nothing ceremonial. As it moves along she tries to pry into his religious beliefs. He doesn't tell her and the book doesn't disclose. He explains to her later that when two persons discuss religion, no matter how friendly and respectful the discussion, even the slightest variations between the two produce visceral feelings, similar to being attacked; the one feeling attacked never fully recovers, never views the dissenter in the same light again. That's how it is with Frank and why I no longer read his posts. He feels personally attacked when you disagree with him.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

(...) some people seem to be suggesting that people who BELIEVE there are no gods (or who BELIEVE it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one god)...are NONBELIEVERS...which I consider to be an absurdity.

As I explained, these terms only have meaning in this particular context. If someone asks, "Do you believe the bible is the work of God?" and I say, "No", then I am a non-believer. The term is contextual. Same with "freethought" – I've only heard it applied when the topic under discussion is religious doctrine.

Quote:

Alternate theories of order and creation" are documented to have begun thousands of years ago...

That's true but "freethought" as a term originated in the European Enlightenment with the systematic application of the scientific method and inductive reasoning. I should have specified that I was referring to that era, but I don't recall ever seeing the term applied to ancient religious philosophies.

Quote:

I respectfully suggest that a person declaring him/herself to be a "freethinker" is suggesting that his/her blind guesses about the Reality of existence is better, more intellectual, than the blind guesses made by people who blindly guess the other way.

I disagree. For one thing, the scholastic tradition produced intellectual thinkers of the highest caliber. But their speculation was constrained by the doctrines of their faith. The "freethinker" can make hypotheses which are independent of religion. Here's a definition from Wikipedia:

Wikipedia wrote:

A freethinker holds that beliefs should not be formed on the basis of authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma, and should instead be reached by other methods such as logic, reason, and empirical observation. (...) The term first came into use in the 17th century in order to refer to people who inquired into the basis of traditional beliefs which were often accepted unquestioningly.

Quote:

If it is used "in this context" to mean something else...IT IS BEING MISUSED.

No it isn't. As I explained, if someone asks, "Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy?" and you reply, "No", then you are a nonbeliever. I would never just describe myself as a generic "non-believer" — there must be reference to a specific belief.

Quote:

Nor should you expect to receive such a rational explanation any more than you should expect to receive a rational explanation to the question I posed up above.

(I don't know what question you are referring to.) I received this message from an A2K member this morning:

Someone wrote:

Once you start talking about the soul, you're already pre-supposing magic. The soul is usually considered within Christianity to work outside of the laws of physics. Therefore, it doesn't have to obey any of our rules at all. If it's magical, it doesn't have to interact with neurons, or energy, or any other natural phenomena, at least not in any way we understand. If it's magic, it can potentially do anything. Therefore, considering it impossible because it doesn't interact correctly with physical principles is erroneous.

I don't think Christians would describe their faith in terms of "magical thinking" but implying that some sort of invisible supreme being controls our destinies in ways which are beyond our understanding creates a dead end – one response might be "It can't be proven nor disproven so the choice is yours: believe it or not."

Quote:

What Gannon is doing or not doing is not the question with which I am dealing.

Okay. But I think he's doing something useful. In discussions with religious believers, nonbelievers are often asked for specific reasons for their doubt. Often the fanciful mythology of religious texts is cited, but the backtracking from religious claims that followed from scientific discoveries – the earth circles the sun, etc. – is also a reason for doubt. Gannon is highlighting discoveries that have only been made in the past few decades, but by making his case, based on recent research into the very smallest interactions between matter and energy, he invites religious believers to show where there is an interplay between the natural world and the realm of the miraculous at the most intimate level. If the religious believer can provide an explanation which incorporates QFT, I'm all ears. If their response presupposes magic, I will be less inclined to listen.

2 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Quote:
(...) some people seem to be suggesting that people who BELIEVE there are no gods (or who BELIEVE it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one god)...are NONBELIEVERS...which I consider to be an absurdity.

As I explained, these terms only have meaning in this particular context. If someone asks, "Do you believe the bible is the work of God?" and I say, "No", then I am a non-believer. The term is contextual. Same with "freethought" – I've only heard it applied when the topic under discussion is religious doctrine.

Quote:
Alternate theories of order and creation" are documented to have begun thousands of years ago...

That's true but "freethought" as a term originated in the European Enlightenment with the systematic application of the scientific method and inductive reasoning. I should have specified that I was referring to that era, but I don't recall ever seeing the term applied to ancient religious philosophies.

Quote:

I respectfully suggest that a person declaring him/herself to be a "freethinker" is suggesting that his/her blind guesses about the Reality of existence is better, more intellectual, than the blind guesses made by people who blindly guess the other way.

I disagree. For one thing, the scholastic tradition produced intellectual thinkers of the highest caliber. But their speculation was constrained by the doctrines of their faith. The "freethinker" can make hypotheses which are independent of religion. Here's a definition from Wikipedia:

Wikipedia wrote:
A freethinker holds that beliefs should not be formed on the basis of authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma, and should instead be reached by other methods such as logic, reason, and empirical observation. (...) The term first came into use in the 17th century in order to refer to people who inquired into the basis of traditional beliefs which were often accepted unquestioningly.

Quote:
If it is used "in this context" to mean something else...IT IS BEING MISUSED.

No it isn't. As I explained, if someone asks, "Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy?" and you reply, "No", then you are a nonbeliever. I would never just describe myself as a generic "non-believer" — there must be reference to a specific belief.

Quote:
Nor should you expect to receive such a rational explanation any more than you should expect to receive a rational explanation to the question I posed up above.

(I don't know what question you are referring to.) I received this message from an A2K member this morning:

Someone wrote:
Once you start talking about the soul, you're already pre-supposing magic. The soul is usually considered within Christianity to work outside of the laws of physics. Therefore, it doesn't have to obey any of our rules at all. If it's magical, it doesn't have to interact with neurons, or energy, or any other natural phenomena, at least not in any way we understand. If it's magic, it can potentially do anything. Therefore, considering it impossible because it doesn't interact correctly with physical principles is erroneous.

I don't think Christians would describe their faith in terms of "magical thinking" but implying that some sort of invisible supreme being controls our destinies in ways which are beyond our understanding creates a dead end – one response might be "It can't be proven nor disproven so the choice is yours: believe it or not."

Quote:
What Gannon is doing or not doing is not the question with which I am dealing.

Okay. But I think he's doing something useful. In discussions with religious believers, nonbelievers are often asked for specific reasons for their doubt. Often the fanciful mythology of religious texts is cited, but the backtracking from religious claims that followed from scientific discoveries – the earth circles the sun, etc. – is also a reason for doubt. Gannon is highlighting discoveries that have only been made in the past few decades, but by making his case, based on recent research into the very smallest interactions between matter and energy, he invites religious believers to show where there is an interplay between the natural world and the realm of the miraculous at the most intimate level. If the religious believer can provide an explanation which incorporates QFT, I'm all ears. If their response presupposes magic, I will be less inclined to listen.

We seem to be in substantial disagreement on many items here, Hightor.

I doubt we can resolve them. Allow me to handle just a few items here.

The use of the term "nonbelievers" is, in my estimation, totally inappropriate in discussions of whether there is at least one god or or no gods. Both positions are the result of belief...and to suggest that one is and one is not is gratuitous and inappropriate. You would easily see my reasoning if a theist were to suggest to you that he/she is a nonbeliever, because he/she does not believe that there are no gods.

But that is one of the items I doubt we will be able to resolve.

In my opinion, the term "freethinker" is a self-serving joke. We either all are freethinkers or we all are not freethinkers. A religious individual is confident in his/her blind guesses that at least one god exists (or is more likely to exist that the alternative); people who blindly guess that no gods exist (or that it is more likely than that none exist) are confident in their blind guesses; and someone like me who does not know and cannot think of a way to make a meaningful guess on the matter is also confident in my position. We are all "freethinking" in that...and for one to claim exclusivity is an absurdity.

I doubt there is a way to meaningfully resolve that. I suspect you will deem it appropriate to apply "freethinker" to people who blindly guess there are no gods...but inappropriate for someone like me or anyone in the College of Cardinals.

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Quote:
(...) some people seed to ancient religious philosophies.

I just read the comment Edgar made. I hope you are not of the opinion that I am feeling attacked by you questioning my position. I actually asked you to continue to question it for purposes of further discussion. I am fine with people disagreeing with me and my position...and just enjoy defending what I see to be a logical position on the issue.

Please do not stop. I do not feel attacked at all.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

...but inappropriate for someone like me...

I don't know why you'd make that assumption. You've always struck me as an exemplary freethinker. You certainly don't accept traditional beliefs unquestioningly. You don't even accept the use of longstanding terms which have accompanied these sorts of discussions since the 17th Century unquestioningly!

Quote:

...or anyone in the College of Cardinals.

Oh, I don't know. There might be someone like Jean Meslier – it would be rash to assume one knows the contents of another's mind based on the position they hold.

But you're right – our differences on a few points probably can't be resolved.

1 Reply

@hightor,

I have found that the minds of those atheists who believe that there is no such thing as a God or gods and attack the Bible even though they have never studied those scriptures, are all mixed up and set as hard as concrete, that one would need a sledgehammer to crack them open and let the light of truth shine through.

4 Replies

@The Anointed,

You have a right to believe. Why not accord me the same right to think my way?

0 Replies

@The Anointed,

I don't "attack the bible". It's just a book, a compilation of historical accounts and mythological writings which are open to interpretation. I attack the pernicious influence that people who claim to believe the bible – and believe that their understanding is exclusive – have had on human culture.

0 Replies

@The Anointed,

The Anointed wrote:

I have found that the minds of those atheists who believe that there is no such thing as a God or gods and attack the Bible even though they have never studied those scriptures, are all mixed up and set as hard as concrete, that one would need a sledgehammer to crack them open and let the light of truth shine through.

I'm stepping out of my role of hardcore atheist for this post. What you wrote here is the stuff of monsters. Believers, deists, and atheists have an innate right to believe as they ultimately cannot help but to believe. When any of these three subsets of humans become intolerant of the others they are monsters. "Oh, but I am a peaceable monster," you might say. But you are not peaceable if by your actions you allow discriminatory laws and cultural divisions set to disrupt the lives of the others. You may be peaceable while tolerating pogroms and other aggressions against states that practice different beliefs. Makes you a terrible monster.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

For deists I meant to write agnostics but it's too late to edit.

0 Replies

@The Anointed,

The Anointed wrote:

I have found that the minds of those atheists who believe that there is no such thing as a God or gods and attack the Bible even though they have never studied those scriptures, are all mixed up and set as hard as concrete, that one would need a sledgehammer to crack them open and let the light of truth shine through.

Many people, me being one, have found that people who are positive there is a God...and that they know the nature of that God via the writings in the Bible...to be set in those blind guesses as hard as concrete...and that one would need a sledgehammer to crack them open and let the light of truth shine through.

The truth, of course, is that I, personally, do not know if any gods exist or not...and I do not see enough unambiguous, persuasive evidence to make a meaningful guess in either direction. I also am not disposed to make the blind guesses so many of you folk do.

No need for a sledgehammer with me. I see the truth clearly.

One thing I do guess is that that same truth holds for most of my fellow humans...even those with blind guesses set in stone in both/either direction.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, I disagree with your "blind guess" terminology and I think it is a rhetorical device, a slight on those who think differently about the topic of belief and a way of diminishing the value of opposing positions.

For devout christians, their faith, confirmed in their experience of prayer and in their daily lives, it is not a blind guess at all. It is directed by the infallible words of the bible.

Nor is it a "blind guess" for the rational materialist who is knowledgeable of the discoveries of modern science – it is a position informed by the empirical evidence of physics as well as the historical record as the claims of religious authorities have steadily been shown to be wrong over the last few hundred years. At worst, the non-existence of god is an educated guess, a hypothesis which may very well be proven wrong but has yet to be effectively countered with verifiable evidence.

The assertion that either position is no more than a blind guess is itself no more than a blind guess.

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Frank, I disagree with your "blind guess" terminology and I think it is a rhetorical device, a slight on those who think differently about the topic of belief and a way of diminishing the value of opposing positions.

You are free to disagree with anything I say. I appreciate you informing me of that.

Quote:

For devout christians, their faith, confirmed in their experience of prayer and in their daily lives, it is not a blind guess at all. It is directed by the infallible words of the bible.

Yes, they are making a blind guess that the Bible infallibly informs them of the god they almost certainly have already blindly guessed exists.

The modifier "blindly" is as necessary as many of the modifiers used by the people who might be offended by it. I do not use it to be offensive. I use it to be exacting.

Quote:

Nor is it a "blind guess" for the rational materialist who is knowledgeable of the discoveries of modern science – it is a position informed by the empirical evidence of physics as well as the historical record as the claims of religious authorities have steadily been shown to be wrong over the last few hundred years. At worst, the non-existence of god is an educated guess, a hypothesis which may very well be proven wrong but has yet to be effectively countered with verifiable evidence.

I disagree with any suggestion you are making that "there are no gods" is an educated guess. It is, as I see it, a totally blind guess.

I doubt we will be able to resolve our differences in this area. But if it is a blind guess or an educated guess...IT IS A GUESS...and should be presented that way.

There are people who assert "There are no gods...period."

That does not appropriately express a guess.

Quote:

The assertion that either position is no more than a blind guess is itself no more than a blind guess.

If that is what you think, Hightor, fine with me.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

2 Replies

When virtually every post is sought to be subverted by the words "blind guess" you would think people would quit biting every time it gets thrown out there.

0 Replies

@hightor,

0 Replies

@hightor,

Sounds as though Edgar is taking intelligent disagreement as an attack.

Too bad that.

0 Replies

Don't misinterpret what I wrote on my last post. I said early on that I welcome everybody to comment here. I just wish for a bit of respite from what I've read word for word at least twenty years ago and seen repeated often.

1 Reply

The Crack that Lets the Light In

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know