Blatham,
I will concede your point about smugness. However, in the cosmological and relativistic quantum mechanical debates it is the relentless pursuit of ever more complex alternatives, which increasingly center on infinite regressions of cause and effect or an infinity of universes, all with no reference whatever to the obvious possibility of a creator or designer, which is the manifestation of a really fixed idea. As I said all of these ideas are more or less equivalent. I am much closer to Thomas Aquinas and Telllhard de Chardin than either Augustine or Kierkegaard.
Separation is one thing: invasion is another. I do believe strongly in the sanctity of individual choice. No one should be prohibited by government from any activity that harms no one else, and no one should be compelled to follow or support actions that do such harm, absent a compelling public good, or be subject to public judgements concerning his thoughts, intent, or the overall worth of his life. Religion, of course, has no place at all in the compulsion business.
I'll await your ex mother in law's visit with interest. I appreciate your instructions for some mercy, based on my momentary virtue with respect to Setanta (a good guy who should come back when he cools down). If I can I'll send her back to you as a crazed evangelical Republican, bent on renewed efforts to reform your character, by any means available. I will however excite her sympathy for you with tales of the dwarf.
Quote:in the cosmological and relativistic quantum mechanical debates it is the relentless pursuit of ever more complex alternatives, which increasingly center on infinite regressions of cause and effect or an infinity of universes, all with no reference whatever to the obvious possibility of a creator or designer, which is the manifestation of a really fixed idea.
Pfooie! "relentless pursuit"...double pfooie! The god theory is no occam's razor, it is merely easy, like a green cheese moon. Perceiving complexity is a consequence of looking at something which is complex. You wanna go back to earth, wind and fire as the constituent parts of the universe too? Come on george, you are working with a residual hypothesis from some four thousand years ago. Your 'obvious possibility' is 'obvious' only because you've been taught it from childhood, and it is a possibility no more likely than dwarves and Santas.
blatham wrote: ...The god theory is no occam's razor, it is merely easy, like a green cheese moon. Perceiving complexity is a consequence of looking at something which is complex. You wanna go back to earth, wind and fire as the constituent parts of the universe too? Come on george, you are working with a residual hypothesis from some four thousand years ago. Your 'obvious possibility' is 'obvious' only because you've been taught it from childhood, and it is a possibility no more likely than dwarves and Santas.
Some nice turns of phrase, "...no Occam's razor, merely easy...", however, the subsequent ideas are incomplete and inconsistent. I have no problem with attempts to find self-consistent mathematical descriptions of the world we can observe. In cosmology that has led from superstring theory to M theory, and,in fact a diminishing level of complexity in the description itself. In other aspects of physics, conundrums are reesolved by the postulated infinities of other universes or micro universes, without any acknowledgment or discussion of what this might mean or imply. We are now past the inflection point where the postulates used to escape the encounter with the creator or designer are far more fantastic that which they seek to avoid and, on closer analysis, are logically equivalent to it, if a bit more magical. You assert that my views on this are a deterministic and predictable result of my indoctrination as a child. An interesting view which flies in the face of scientific understanding of human thought - a process which, while possibly deterministic, is certainly not predictable.
What were the childhood precursors of your current understanding of the world?
Nicely phrased, George, but way way off base. You continue to base your reasoning on the existence of a "creator or designer."
One of the great things about being born in the 20th century in a particular community, social structure, and parentage was to grow up -- to be brought up, educated -- to question everything. That indeed was (is?) believed to be a duty of the citizen of this democratic republic. In my case, one didn't question or rebel against the notion of a creator, one didn't even come across such a notion until one met others who believed in this old story. I learned early that there's a choice, a line of inquiry. For a long time I respected those who caught in that other culture, their feet seemingly stuck in an ancient mire while their language and personality is that of the modern world.
You don't have to have detailed mathematical descriptions of the world to put the ball firrmly in the court of the believer. You say there's a Santa, I say prove it. You say there's a creator, I say prove it. You imply meaning as science uncovers greater wonders, I say wait and see. And I stand up for wonder and skepticism, arm in arm. I don't actually have a problem with any individual glomming onto a hesitant belief that something is responsible for all this. What seems to me to be a major stretch is to create a whole theology out of it, hankies with god's face, saviors, stained-glass saints, da debbil and the fire, the hasty criss-crossing of the forehead and chest then kissing the thumb, and the above all the overarching and positively unforgiveable insolence of turning all this into moral imperatives for others! My my!
Having lived long enough to have absorbed Christian myths, I have to look at those who live by them and try to imagine your hypothetical deity's reaction to it, and I think he would weep with horror and frustration at the ignorance and hubris? I think he might even want to throw down one of those flaming arrows with a little message on it: C'mon now, fellas. Love me and love my creation a little more and your prideful, judgmental selves a lot less.
Excuse me for this simple question, but george, how is an infinite god any more or less likely than infinite space or infinite whatever? At lest the ever increasingly complex theories involving infinity are based on science as far as it has gotten us so far. And at least they are complex. We'll never know everything, or at least I hope we don't, but really I don't see the logic in your argument. You've got me stumped.
And as for determinitive childhood experiences, they are determinative of something. What they will determine, that is whatever form the compromise (behavioral as well as affective) for resolving conflict takes, it is determined by early childhood and the fears and anxieties that are part of human existence since we're all born in a very dependent condition. It's the specific behavior that's not predictable, but the underlying function of the behavior is indeed predictable. Just thought I'd throw that in.
But I must say, george, I agree with you in your point that any early religious training does not necessarily predispose a child or the grown adult to adopt it. But I think probably most do. That is except for the highly restrictive and rigid fundys. I think they may have a higher incidence of rebels and/or criminals, (and hopefully eventually, some of these rebels, with a lot of psychoanalysis, make it to a point of curiousity about life and therefore an increased freedom) relative to their avid converts. My knowledge of this is purely anecdotal. But I think if one wanted to research the subject, it would be interesting to find if my personal experience is accurate.
Somewhere from out of the back of my muddled mind, Lola, comes the actress Ann Heche's interview with (probably) Terry Gross on NPR in which she details her "escape" from active fundamentalism. What the fundies have noticed is that quite a few of their progeny are drawn away by the larger American culture -- which is why, no doubt, they are desperate to change the culture through the schools and whatever else comes to hand.
Was that the same interview where Heche revealed she had invented her own language to communicate with God?
Tartarin,
That's right. The prominent fundamentalist leader in my family has always bemoaned the fact, with some unbelieveable amount of perplexity, that when the children go off to college, especially graduate school, they all leave the faith. So his answer is they shouldn't go to those institutions. They should stay within the fold in religious schools, religious colleges. And this is where Blatham's (and Hofstadter's) ideas about anti-intellectualism is at it's height. It tells you something, doesn't it? But my poor self righteous relative could never quite get it. Amazing to me.
Oh, and I am also reminded of Marlyn Manson's interview with Terry Gross........it was fasinating, funny and so reminiscient of my own escape into freedom of thought.
I don't remember, Snood. Those interviews are generally available in audio online now -- try Fresh Air at WHYY.org.
My point was that she's a space cadet
This is fun. I like everybody here, particularly now that that Irish grump ogre has apparently been rolled in some rauckus pub brawl.
And Tartarin's right of course, the burden of proof lies with you as the claim maker. Just check again with my dwarf if still not clear on this point. But most importantly, she is right about faith members sticking their god damned noses into other people's lives.
And Lola is right too. Your cosmological arguments do not convince folks outside of the faith, but the contrary is true - folks within the faith often fall away with the benefit of a good education.
My upbringing was Mennonite. Now I'm involved in a devil worshipping sex cult for automobile salespersons.
snooder old fella
Are we going to get your ire up on this one?
How about Marilyn Manson, he's pretty together, pretty cool.
Can't stand Heche, but she's a good example of an escapee! Well, from the fundies, but not (listen to that interview) an overpowering ego.
Sheesh, Blatham. I used to love Mennonites. What are you trying to do to them?
!!
sheesh
Aquinas figured that regularity and order (acorns grow to oaks) demonstrated design, thus a designer. The same argument, of course, applies to god, who now needs a super-designer to design him. THAT is the infinite regression problem.
Same for consciousness and life...if too improbable to evolve exist on its own, then so is god.
George says there wasn't enough time for either life to have evolved to this degree of complexity on earth, nor for the universe to have reached its present dimensions. He says this as if there is some broad agreement on the matter. That ain't so.
Quick comment after skimming your response, George, and that is that critters evolve/modify traits very quickly -- sometimes within a generation or two.
I'm less eager than you to find final answers to big questions, having learned over the years that yesterday's firm answer turns out, today, to have been hooey. Why do you feel the need to have The Answers?
Blatham,
Except for your second point, which is a contradiction in terms, we agree.
George
Aquinas' "proof of the existence of God" -- are no closer to being proofs of the exitence of God than they are proof of the existence of Santa Claus. I doubt many indepent minded modern philosophers give the arguments much credence.
I dealt with the so-called proofs offered by Aquinas in several posts over in Abuzz -- and initiated a few on the subject.
Here are two links that you might look over.
http://nytimes.abuzz.com/interaction/s.214576/discussion
http://nytimes.abuzz.com/interaction/s.216454/discussion
If you would like to discuss or debate the second "proof" -- the cause proof -- I will be delighted to do so. But it does not take a Kant to show the proofs to be sorely lacking in both proof and logic.
