Why I'm Not a Christian (Refresher Course)
Zuiko Azumazi
by Bertrand Russell
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introductory note: Russell delivered this lecture on March 6, 1927 to the
National Secular Society, South London Branch, at Battersea Town Hall.
Published in pamphlet form in that same year, the essay subsequently
achieved new fame with Paul Edwards' edition of Russell's book, Why I Am Not
a Christian and Other Essays ... (1957).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
As your Chairman has told you, the subject about which I am going to speak
to you tonight is "Why I Am Not a Christian." Perhaps it would be as well,
first of all, to try to make out what one means by the word Christian. It is
used these days in a very loose sense by a great many people. Some people
mean no more by it than a person who attempts to live a good life. In that
sense I suppose there would be Christians in all sects and creeds; but I do
not think that that is the proper sense of the word, if only because it
would imply that all the people who are not Christians -- all the Buddhists,
Confucians, Mohammedans, and so on -- are not trying to live a good life. I
do not mean by a Christian any person who tries to live decently according
to his lights. I think that you must have a certain amount of definite
belief before you have a right to call yourself a Christian. The word does
not have quite such a full-blooded meaning now as it had in the times of St.
Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. In those days, if a man said that he was a
Christian it was known what he meant. You accepted a whole collection of
creeds which were set out with great precision, and every single syllable of
those creeds you believed with the whole strength of your convictions.
What Is a Christian?
Nowadays it is not quite that. We have to be a little more vague in our
meaning of Christianity. I think, however, that there are two different
items which are quite essential to anybody calling himself a Christian. The
first is one of a dogmatic nature -- namely, that you must believe in God
and immortality. If you do not believe in those two things, I do not think
that you can properly call yourself a Christian. Then, further than that, as
the name implies, you must have some kind of belief about Christ. The
Mohammedans, for instance, also believe in God and in immortality, and yet
they would not call themselves Christians. I think you must have at the very
lowest the belief that Christ was, if not divine, at least the best and
wisest of men. If you are not going to believe that much about Christ, I do
not think you have any right to call yourself a Christian. Of course, there
is another sense, which you find in Whitaker's Almanack and in geography
books, where the population of the world is said to be divided into
Christians, Mohammedans, Buddhists, fetish worshipers, and so on; and in
that sense we are all Christians. The geography books count us all in, but
that is a purely geographical sense, which I suppose we can ignore.Therefore
I take it that when I tell you why I am not a Christian I have to tell you
two different things: first, why I do not believe in God and in immortality;
and, secondly, why I do not think that Christ was the best and wisest of
men, although I grant him a very high degree of moral goodness.
But for the successful efforts of unbelievers in the past, I could not take
so elastic a definition of Christianity as that. As I said before, in olden
days it had a much more full-blooded sense. For instance, it included he
belief in hell. Belief in eternal hell-fire was an essential item of
Christian belief until pretty recent times. In this country, as you know, it
ceased to be an essential item because of a decision of the Privy Council,
and from that decision the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of
York dissented; but in this country our religion is settled by Act of
Parliament, and therefore the Privy Council was able to override their
Graces and hell was no longer necessary to a Christian. Consequently I shall
not insist that a Christian must believe in hell.
The Existence of God
To come to this question of the existence of God: it is a large and serious
question, and if I were to attempt to deal with it in any adequate manner I
should have to keep you here until Kingdom Come, so that you will have to
excuse me if I deal with it in a somewhat summary fashion. You know, of
course, that the Catholic Church has laid it down as a dogma that the
existence of God can be proved by the unaided reason. That is a somewhat
curious dogma, but it is one of their dogmas. They had to introduce it
because at one time the freethinkers adopted the habit of saying that there
were such and such arguments which mere reason might urge against the
existence of God, but of course they knew as a matter of faith that God did
exist. The arguments and the reasons were set out at great length, and the
Catholic Church felt that they must stop it. Therefore they laid it down
that the existence of God can be proved by the unaided reason and they had
to set up what they considered were arguments to prove it. There are, of
course, a number of them, but I shall take only a few.
The First-cause Argument
Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the First
Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has a cause,
and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further you must come
to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the name of God.) That
argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight nowadays, because, in
the first place, cause is not quite what it used to be. The philosophers and
the men of science have got going on cause, and it has not anything like the
vitality it used to have; but, apart from that, you can see that the
argument that there must be a First Cause is one that cannot have any
validity. I may say that when I was a young man and was debating these
questions very seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument
of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John
Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: "My father
taught me that the question 'Who made me?' cannot be answered, since it
immediately suggests the further question `Who made god?'" That very simple
sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the
First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If
there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as
God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of
the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant
and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the
tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The argument is
really no better than that. There is no reason why the world could not have
come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason
why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that
the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning
is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need
not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause.
The Natural-law Argument
Then there is a very common argument from natural law. That was a favorite
argument all through the eighteenth century, especially under the influence
of Sir Isaac Newton and his cosmogony. People observed the planets going
around the sun according to the law of gravitation, and they thought that
God had given a behest to these planets to move in that particular fashion,
and that was why they did so. That was, of course, a convenient and simple
explanation that saved them the trouble of looking any further for
explanations of the law of gravitation. Nowadays we explain the law of
gravitation in a somewhat complicated fashion that Einstein has introduced.
I do not propose to give you a lecture on the law of gravitation, as
interpreted by Einstein, because that again would take some time; at any
rate, you no longer have the sort of natural law that you had in the
Newtonian system, where, for some reason that nobody could understand,
nature behaved in a uniform fashion. We now find that a great many things we
thought were natural laws are really human conventions. You know that even
in the remotest depths of stellar space there are still three feet to a
yard. That is, no doubt, a very remarkable fact, but you would hardly call
it a law of nature. And a great many things that have been regarded as laws
of nature are of that kind. On the other hand, where you can get down to any
knowledge of what atoms actually do, you will find they are much less
subject to law than people thought, and that the laws at which you arrive
are statistical averages of just the sort that would emerge from chance.
There is, as we all know, a law that if you throw dice you will get double
sixes only about once in thirty-six times, and we do not regard that as
evidence that the fall of the dice is regulated by design; on the contrary,
if the double sixes came every time we should think that there was design.
The laws of nature are of that sort as regards a great many of them. They
are statistical averages such as would emerge from the laws of chance; and
that makes this whole business of natural law much less impressive than it
formerly was. Quite apart from that, which represents the momentary state of
science that may change tomorrow, the whole idea that natural laws imply a
lawgiver is due to a confusion between natural and human laws. Human laws
are behests commanding you to behave a certain way, in which you may choose
to behave, or you may choose not to behave; but natural laws are a
description of how things do in fact behave, and being a mere description of
what they in fact do, you cannot argue that there must be somebody who told
them to do that, because even supposing that there were, you are then faced
with the question "Why did God issue just those natural laws and no others?"
If you say that he did it simply from his own good pleasure, and without any
reason, you then find that there is something which is not subject to law,
and so your train of natural law is interrupted. If you say, as more
orthodox theologians do, that in all the laws which God issues he had a
reason for giving those laws rather than others -- the reason, of course,
being to create the best universe, although you would never think it to look
at it -- if there were a reason for the laws which God gave, then God
himself was subject to law, and therefore you do not get any advantage by
introducing God as an intermediary. You really have a law outside and
anterior to the divine edicts, and God does not serve your purpose, because
he is not the ultimate lawgiver. In short, this whole argument about natural
law no longer has anything like the strength that it used to have. I am
traveling on in time in my review of the arguments. The arguments that are
used for the existence of God change their character as time goes on. They
were at first hard intellectual arguments embodying certain quite definite
fallacies. As we come to modern times they become less respectable
intellectually and more and more affected by a kind of moralizing vagueness.
The Argument from Design
The next step in the process brings us to the argument from design. You all
know the argument from design: everything in the world is made just so that
we can manage to live in the world, and if the world was ever so little
different, we could not manage to live in it. That is the argument from
design. It sometimes takes a rather curious form; for instance, it is argued
that rabbits have white tails in order to be easy to shoot. I do not know
how rabbits would view that application. It is an easy argument to parody.
You all know Voltaire's remark, that obviously the nose was designed to be
such as to fit spectacles. That sort of parody has turned out to be not
nearly so wide of the mark as it might have seemed in the eighteenth
century, because since the time of Darwin we understand much better why
living creatures are adapted to their environment. It is not that their
environment was made to be suitable to them but that they grew to be
suitable to it, and that is the basis of adaptation. There is no evidence of
design about it.
When you come to look into this argument from design, it is a most
astonishing thing that people can believe that this world, with all the
things that are in it, with all its defects, should be the best that
omnipotence and omniscience have been able to produce in millions of years.
I really cannot believe it. Do you think that, if you were granted
omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your
world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan or the
Fascists? Moreover, if you accept the ordinary laws of science, you have to
suppose that human life and life in general on this planet will die out in
due course: it is a stage in the decay of the solar system; at a certain
stage of decay you get the sort of conditions of temperature and so forth
which are suitable to protoplasm, and there is life for a short time in the
life of the whole solar system. You see in the moon the sort of thing to
which the earth is tending -- something dead, cold, and lifeless.
I am told that that sort of view is depressing, and people will sometimes
tell you that if they believed that, they would not be able to go on living.
Do not believe it; it is all nonsense. Nobody really worries about much
about what is going to happen millions of years hence. Even if they think
they are worrying much about that, they are really deceiving themselves.
They are worried about something much more mundane, or it may merely be a
bad digestion; but nobody is really seriously rendered unhappy by the
thought of something that is going to happen to this world millions and
millions of years hence. Therefore, although it is of course a gloomy view
to suppose that life will die out -- at least I suppose we may say so,
although sometimes when I contemplate the things that people do with their
lives I think it is almost a consolation -- it is not such as to render life
miserable. It merely makes you turn your attention to other things.
The Moral Arguments for Deity
Now we reach one stage further in what I shall call the intellectual descent
that the Theists have made in their argumentations, and we come to what are
called the moral arguments for the existence of God. You all know, of
course, that there used to be in the old days three intellectual arguments
for the existence of God, all of which were disposed of by Immanuel Kant in
the Critique of Pure Reason; but no sooner had he disposed of those
arguments than he invented a new one, a moral argument, and that quite
convinced him. He was like many people: in intellectual matters he was
skeptical, but in moral matters he believed implicitly in the maxims that he
had imbibed at his mother's knee. That illustrates what the psychoanalysts
so much emphasize -- the immensely stronger hold upon us that our very early
associations have than those of later times.
Kant, as I say, invented a new moral argument for the existence of God, and
that in varying forms was extremely popular during the nineteenth century.
It has all sorts of forms. One form is to say there would be no right or
wrong unless God existed. I am not for the moment concerned with whether
there is a difference between right and wrong, or whether there is not: that
is another question. The point I am concerned with is that, if you are quite
sure there is a difference between right and wrong, then you are in this
situation: Is that difference due to God's fiat or is it not? If it is due
to God's fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and
wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good.
If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then
say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God's
fiat, because God's fiats are good and not bad independently of the mere
fact that he made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to
say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being,
but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God. You could, of
course, if you liked, say that there was a superior deity who gave orders to
the God that made this world, or could take up the line that some of the
gnostics took up -- a line which I often thought was a very plausible one --
that as a matter of fact this world that we know was made by the devil at a
moment when God was not looking. There is a good deal to be said for that,
and I am not concerned to refute it.
The Argument for the Remedying of Injustice
Then there is another very curious form of moral argument, which is this:
they say that the existence of God is required in order to bring justice
into the world. In the part of this universe that we know there is great
injustice, and often the good suffer, and often the wicked prosper, and one
hardly knows which of those is the more annoying; but if you are going to
have justice in the universe as a whole you have to suppose a future life to
redress the balance of life here on earth. So they say that there must be a
God, and there must be Heaven and Hell in order that in the long run there
may be justice. That is a very curious argument. If you looked at the matter
from a scientific point of view, you would say, "After all, I only know this
world. I do not know about the rest of the universe, but so far as one can
argue at all on probabilities one would say that probably this world is a
fair sample, and if there is injustice here the odds are that there is
injustice elsewhere also." Supposing you got a crate of oranges that you
opened, and you found all the top layer of oranges bad, you would not argue,
"The underneath ones must be good, so as to redress the balance." You would
say, "Probably the whole lot is a bad consignment"; and that is really what
a scientific person would argue about the universe. He would say, "Here we
find in this world a great deal of injustice, and so far as that goes that
is a reason for supposing that justice does not rule in the world; and
therefore so far as it goes it affords a moral argument against deity and
not in favor of one." Of course I know that the sort of intellectual
arguments that I have been talking to you about are not what really moves
people. What really moves people to believe in God is not any intellectual
argument at all. Most people believe in God because they have been taught
from early infancy to do it, and that is the main reason.
Then I think that the next most powerful reason is the wish for safety, a
sort of feeling that there is a big brother who will look after you. That
plays a very profound part in influencing people's desire for a belief in
God.
The Character of Christ
I now want to say a few words upon a topic which I often think is not quite
sufficiently dealt with by Rationalists, and that is the question whether
Christ was the best and the wisest of men. It is generally taken for granted
that we should all agree that that was so. I do not myself. I think that
there are a good many points upon which I agree with Christ a great deal
more than the professing Christians do. I do not know that I could go with
Him all the way, but I could go with Him much further than most professing
Christians can. You will remember that He said, "Resist not evil: but
whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
That is not a new precept or a new principle. It was used by Lao-tse and
Buddha some 500 or 600 years before Christ, but it is not a principle which
as a matter of fact Christians accept. I have no doubt that the present
prime minister [Stanley Baldwin], for instance, is a most sincere Christian,
but I should not advise any of you to go and smite him on one cheek. I think
you might find that he thought this text was intended in a figurative sense.
Then there is another point which I consider excellent. You will remember
that Christ said, "Judge not lest ye be judged." That principle I do not
think you would find was popular in the law courts of Christian countries. I
have known in my time quite a number of judges who were very earnest
Christians, and none of them felt that they were acting contrary to
Christian principles in what they did. Then Christ says, "Give to him that
asketh of thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away."
That is a very good principle. Your Chairman has reminded you that we are
not here to talk politics, but I cannot help observing that the last general
election was fought on the question of how desirable it was to turn away
from him that would borrow of thee, so that one must assume that the
Liberals and Conservatives of this country are composed of people who do not
agree with the teaching of Christ, because they certainly did very
emphatically turn away on that occasion.
Then there is one other maxim of Christ which I think has a great deal in
it, but I do not find that it is very popular among some of our Christian
friends. He says, "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that which thou
hast, and give to the poor." That is a very excellent maxim, but, as I say,
it is not much practised. All these, I think, are good maxims, although they
are a little difficult to live up to. I do not profess to live up to them
myself; but then, after all, it is not quite the same thing as for a
Christian.
Defects in Christ's Teaching
Having granted the excellence of these maxims, I come to certain points in
which I do not believe that one can grant either the superlative wisdom or
the superlative goodness of Christ as depicted in the Gospels; and here I
may say that one is not concerned with the historical question. Historically
it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do
not know anything about him, so that I am not concerned with the historical
question, which is a very difficult one. I am concerned with Christ as He
appears in the Gospels, taking the Gospel narrative as it stands, and there
one does find some things that do not seem to be very wise. For one thing,
he certainly thought that His second coming would occur in clouds of glory
before the death of all the people who were living at that time. There are a
great many texts that prove that. He says, for instance, "Ye shall not have
gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man be come." Then he says,
"There are some standing here which shall not taste death till the Son of
Man comes into His kingdom"; and there are a lot of places where it is quite
clear that He believed that His second coming would happen during the
lifetime of many then living. That was the belief of His earlier followers,
and it was the basis of a good deal of His moral teaching. When He said,
"Take no thought for the morrow," and things of that sort, it was very
largely because He thought that the second coming was going to be very soon,
and that all ordinary mundane affairs did not count. I have, as a matter of
fact, known some Christians who did believe that the second coming was
imminent. I knew a parson who frightened his congregation terribly by
telling them that the second coming was very imminent indeed, but they were
much consoled when they found that he was planting trees in his garden. The
early Christians did really believe it, and they did abstain from such
things as planting trees in their gardens, because they did accept from
Christ the belief that the second coming was imminent. In that respect,
clearly He was not so wise as some other people have been, and He was
certainly not superlatively wise.
The Moral Problem
Then you come to moral questions. There is one very serious defect to my
mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do
not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe
in everlasting punishment. Christ certainly as depicted in the Gospels did
believe in everlasting punishment, and one does find repeatedly a vindictive
fury against those people who would not listen to His preaching -- an
attitude which is not uncommon with preachers, but which does somewhat
detract from superlative excellence. You do not, for instance find that
attitude in Socrates. You find him quite bland and urbane toward the people
who would not listen to him; and it is, to my mind, far more worthy of a
sage to take that line than to take the line of indignation. You probably
all remember the sorts of things that Socrates was saying when he was dying,
and the sort of things that he generally did say to people who did not agree
with him.
You will find that in the Gospels Christ said, "Ye serpents, ye generation
of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of Hell." That was said to people
who did not like His preaching. It is not really to my mind quite the best
tone, and there are a great many of these things about Hell. There is, of
course, the familiar text about the sin against the Holy Ghost: "Whosoever
speaketh against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him neither in this
World nor in the world to come." That text has caused an unspeakable amount
of misery in the world, for all sorts of people have imagined that they have
committed the sin against the Holy Ghost, and thought that it would not be
forgiven them either in this world or in the world to come. I really do not
think that a person with a proper degree of kindliness in his nature would
have put fears and terrors of that sort into the world.
Then Christ says, "The Son of Man shall send forth his His angels, and they
shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them which do
iniquity, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire; there shall be wailing
and gnashing of teeth"; and He goes on about the wailing and gnashing of
teeth. It comes in one verse after another, and it is quite manifest to the
reader that there is a certain pleasure in contemplating wailing and
gnashing of teeth, or else it would not occur so often. Then you all, of
course, remember about the sheep and the goats; how at the second coming He
is going to divide the sheep from the goats, and He is going to say to the
goats, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire." He continues,
"And these shall go away into everlasting fire." Then He says again, "If thy
hand offend thee, cut it off; it is better for thee to enter into life
maimed, than having two hands to go into Hell, into the fire that never
shall be quenched; where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched."
He repeats that again and again also. I must say that I think all this
doctrine, that hell-fire is a punishment for sin, is a doctrine of cruelty.
It is a doctrine that put cruelty into the world and gave the world
generations of cruel torture; and the Christ of the Gospels, if you could
take Him asHis chroniclers represent Him, would certainly have to be
considered partly responsible for that.
There are other things of less importance. There is the instance of the
Gadarene swine, where it certainly was not very kind to the pigs to put the
devils into them and make them rush down the hill into the sea. You must
remember that He was omnipotent, and He could have made the devils simply go
away; but He chose to send them into the pigs. Then there is the curious
story of the fig tree, which always rather puzzled me. You remember what
happened about the fig tree. "He was hungry; and seeing a fig tree afar off
having leaves, He came if haply He might find anything thereon; and when He
came to it He found nothing but leaves, for the time of figs was not yet.
And Jesus answered and said unto it: 'No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for
ever' . . . and Peter . . . saith unto Him: 'Master, behold the fig tree
which thou cursedst is withered away.'" This is a very curious story,
because it was not the right time of year for figs, and you really could not
blame the tree. I cannot myself feel that either in the matter of wisdom or
in the matter of virtue Christ stands quite as high as some other people
known to history. I think I should put Buddha and Socrates above Him in
those respects.
The Emotional Factor
As I said before, I do not think that the real reason why people accept
religion has anything to do with argumentation. They accept religion on
emotional grounds. One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack
religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not
noticed it. You know, of course, the parody of that argument in Samuel
Butler's book, Erewhon Revisited. You will remember that in Erewhon there is
a certain Higgs who arrives in a remote country, and after spending some
time there he escapes from that country in a balloon. Twenty years later he
comes back to that country and finds a new religion in which he is worshiped
under the name of the "Sun Child," and it is said that he ascended into
heaven. He finds that the Feast of the Ascension is about to be celebrated,
and he hears Professors Hanky and Panky say to each other that they never
set eyes on the man Higgs, and they hope they never will; but they are the
high priests of the religion of the Sun Child. He is very indignant, and he
comes up to them, and he says, "I am going to expose all this humbug and
tell the people of Erewhon that it was only I, the man Higgs, and I went up
in a balloon." He was told, "You must not do that, because all the morals of
this country are bound round this myth, and if they once know that you did
not ascend into Heaven they will all become wicked"; and so he is persuaded
of that and he goes quietly away.
That is the idea -- that we should all be wicked if we did not hold to the
Christian religion. It seems to me that the people who have held to it have
been for the most part extremely wicked. You find this curious fact, that
the more intense has been the religion of any period and the more profound
has been the dogmatic belief, the greater has been the cruelty and the worse
has been the state of affairs. In the so-called ages of faith, when men
really did believe the Christian religion in all its completeness, there was
the Inquisition, with all its tortures; there were millions of unfortunate
women burned as witches; and there was every kind of cruelty practiced upon
all sorts of people in the name of religion.
You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in
humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the
diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races,
or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in
the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the
world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in
its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in
the world.
How the Churches Have Retarded Progress
You may think that I am going too far when I say that that is still so. I do
not think that I am. Take one fact. You will bear with me if I mention it.
It is not a pleasant fact, but the churches compel one to mention facts that
are not pleasant. Supposing that in this world that we live in today an
inexperienced girl is married to a syphilitic man; in that case the Catholic
Church says, "This is an indissoluble sacrament. You must endure celibacy or
stay together. And if you stay together, you must not use birth control to
prevent the birth of syphilitic children." Nobody whose natural sympathies
have not been warped by dogma, or whose moral nature was not absolutely dead
to all sense of suffering, could maintain that it is right and proper that
that state of things should continue.
That is only an example. There are a great many ways in which, at the
present moment, the church, by its insistence upon what it chooses to call
morality, inflicts upon all sorts of people undeserved and unnecessary
suffering. And of course, as we know, it is in its major part an opponent
still of progress and improvement in all the ways that diminish suffering in
the world, because it has chosen to label as morality a certain narrow set
of rules of conduct which have nothing to do with human happiness; and when
you say that this or that ought to be done because it would make for human
happiness, they think that has nothing to do with the matter at all. "What
has human happiness to do with morals? The object of morals is not to make
people happy."
Fear, the Foundation of Religion
Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the
terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you
have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and
disputes. Fear is the basis of the whole thing -- fear of the mysterious,
fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore
it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is
because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now
begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of
science, which has forced its way step by step against the Christian
religion, against the churches, and against the opposition of all the old
precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind
has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own
hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no
longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts
here below to make this world a better place to live in, instead of the sort
of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.
What We Must Do
We want to stand upon our own feet and look fair and square at the world --
its good facts, its bad facts, its beauties, and its ugliness; see the world
as it is and be not afraid of it. Conquer the world by intelligence and not
merely by being slavishly subdued by the terror that comes from it. The
whole conception of God is a conception derived from the ancient Oriental
despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men. When you hear
people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable
sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of
self-respecting human beings. We ought to stand up and look the world
frankly in the face. We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if
it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what
these others have made of it in all these ages. A good world needs
knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering
after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered
long ago by ignorant men. It needs a fearless outlook and a free
intelligence. It needs hope for the future, not looking back all the time
toward a past that is dead, which we trust will be far surpassed by the
future that our intelligence can create.
Electronic colophon: This electronic edition of "Why I Am Not a Christian"
was first made available by Bruce MacLeod on his "Watchful Eye Russell
Page." It was newly corrected (from Edwards, NY 1957) in July 1996 by John
R. Lenz for the Bertrand Russell Society.
For more essays by Bertrand Russell
or
Back to Libmansworld
DH
be used in the same fashion against the Cult of Muhammed?
From a Chuckling Canadian!!
Devon Hill
"Zuiko Azumazi" <azu...@hotmaileREMOVE-ME.com> wrote in message
news:3c047b42$0$10227$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Thadeus Margrove
"DH" <dsb...@home.com> wrote in message
news:F__M7.537$Rp6.2...@news2.rdc1.ab.home.com...
> What an idiot this Muslim is! Does he not know that Russell's arguements can
> be used in the same fashion against the Cult of Muhammed?
Is he/she a Muslim? There's a contingent of atheists running around in this
newsgroup too.
>
> From a Chuckling Canadian!!
>
> Devon Hill
> "Zuiko Azumazi" <azu...@hotmaileREMOVE-ME.com> wrote in message
> news:3c047b42$0$10227$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> ...
>
freakoutchild
>
> "DH" <dsb...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:F__M7.537$Rp6.2...@news2.rdc1.ab.home.com...
>> What an idiot this Muslim is! Does he not know that Russell's arguements
>> can be used in the same fashion against the Cult of Muhammed?
>
> Is he/she a Muslim? There's a contingent of atheists running around in
> this newsgroup too.
>
That's right! Just because the name sounds vaguely Middle Eastern, doesn't
mean that he/she is a Muslim/Sikh/Bahai/Jew/Christian/Hare Krishna/Moonies
...
Having said that, it has been my experience most "apologists" for religious
sects are more keen on point scoring rather than a genuine pursuit of
truth, and this holds true whether it is from a Muslim or a Christian ...
Two of the worst offenders I can think of are Ahmed Deedat and Josh
McDowell.
freakoutchild
-----
# Send your comments on MS/DOJ settlement before 1/15/02 to:
# Renata Hesse, trial attorney Or by fax to:
# Antitrust Division (202) 616-9937
# Department of Justice
# 601 D Street, Suite 1200 Or by email to:
# Washington, D.C. 20530 micros...@usdoj.gov
Bilbo 82801
doubt or peer pressure with which you are dealing?
"Zuiko Azumazi" <azu...@hotmaileREMOVE-ME.com> wrote in message
news:3c047b42$0$10227$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Homo Erectus
24650457778&ISBN=0879759844&bfdate=11-28-2001+11:24:06
Excellent Book!
Zuiko Azumazi
challenge the religious arguments, presented in the article, in an
intelligent manner. I'm still waiting! I'm not defending one side or the
other just seeking the wisdom of the intelligent participants in this
newsgroup. Or is that an oxymoron?
"Bilbo 82801" <bilbo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u0a0epo...@corp.supernews.com...
iman
Zuiko Azumazi wrote:
> Why I Am Not A Christian
> by Bertrand Russell
> The Argument from Design
> It is not that their environment was made to be suitable to them but
> that they grew to be suitable to it, and that is the basis of
> adaptation. There is no evidence of design about it.
A matter of perspective. Russell does not really know with certainty
that there is no Designer underlying the changes which, as he purports,
occur in the process of "adaptation." As such, his statement is just as
dogmatic as those he criticizes.
> Do you think that, if you were granted
> omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your
> world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan or the
> Fascists?
This presupposes that design requires the apparent perfection of all
things -- an assertion which Russell did not care to prove.
> Therefore, although it is of course a gloomy view
> to suppose that life will die out -- at least I suppose we may say so,
> although sometimes when I contemplate the things that people do with their
> lives I think it is almost a consolation -- it is not such as to render life
> miserable. It merely makes you turn your attention to other things.
Until the door of the grave, that is.
> The Emotional Factor
> As I said before, I do not think that the real reason why people accept
> religion has anything to do with argumentation. They accept religion on
> emotional grounds.
That atheists and agnostics do not also take their respective position
on "emotional grounds" is pure hogwash. Regardless of how
"intellectually-grounded" their arguments may appear to themselves, it
is their heart and NOT their head that ultimately accepts or rejects
conviction in the meaning of being. This is a reality that cuts across
all boundaries of humankind.
was-salaam,
im...@merr.com
rastex
Tumbleweed
news:bomb0u89mhg7n4nil...@4ax.com...
> Very nice reply!
If you think thats a nice reply, you just be one of those Muslims that fails
at school.
I see there were about 100 paragraphs and he replied to 3, one of which was
a statement of fact (nothing happens after the grave) and so agrees with
Russell. Re the argument from design, one can either say that organisms
adapted to fit their environment(something that doesnt always happen
perfectly, as you might expect), or the designer either couldnt design
animals properly or chose not to, since as we see in nature, indeed in our
own bodies, there are many mistakes and problems. You choose- Natural
Selection or crap/cruel (could be both) designer.
--
Tumbleweed
Remove 'spam' from email replies (but no email reply necessary to
newsgroups)
freakoutchild
> I was hoping that both sides of "monotheistic fence" would at least try
> and challenge the religious arguments, presented in the article, in an
> intelligent manner. I'm still waiting! I'm not defending one side or the
> other just seeking the wisdom of the intelligent participants in this
> newsgroup. Or is that an oxymoron?
There are some participants in this newsgroup who are so caught up in the
whole Islam / Christianity and East / West matrix that the idea of
engaging someone outside of that matrix appear unusual.
How about let an ex-Christian agnostic to address his arguments.
First of all, I won't challenge Bertrand's disbelief in God or immortality.
If you take rationalism and science as the foundation of objective truth
seriously, then I don't there's any real basis for a belief in
"immortality", or in the existence of "soul" that is a separate entity from
our physical body. Incidentally it has been suggested to me by a learned
pastor (who claims to be an ex Jewish atheist!) that this notion of "soul"
is not essential to the Christian worldview. Anyway, that's besides the
point. My main geist is that so far, modern science is actually quite
promising in explaining what one might consider to be "evidence" for a
belief in life beyond death. For instance, Dr Susan Blackmore has done a
lot of work in accounting for the phenomenon of "near death experience" to
the physical conditions that our bodies tend to experience in the last few
moments before death.
This won't bring comfort or relief to a lot of people. For me, I find it
immensely disturbing to think that after my death I will simply dissipate
into nothingness. It renders invalid the belief that life or the universe
itself is inherently meaningful.
In fact it was this shocking realization that "shocked" me out of
Christianity all together, because I came to the suspicion I had based my
life on the ill proven premise of "eternal life". It might be disturbing,
but if the "truth" is that there is no St Peters or a harem of virgins or
eternal damnation waiting for me, then the honest thing to do is to face up
to it.
I don't think Russell has expanded his argument against "First Cause"
Argument far enough, but this was a speech which needed to keep things
relatively brief. I will say that the "First Cause Argument" is not as
unsound Russell might think. While it seems non-sensical to ask "What
caused God?", it is also non-sensical for most astronomers to ask "What
happened before the Big Bang?", because the BB theory itself shows that
time did not exist before the BB. Just because something "appears" non
sensical on surface, doesn't mean it is false. This should be obvious to
most quantum physicists.
Of cause, quantum mechanics presents its own problems for theists, because
it renders the notion of cause meaningless when we enter the sub atomic
realm. This is the argument of Paul Davies, who argues that during the BB,
when the universe is almost infintismally tiny, things don't happen based
on a logical sequence of cause and effect, but on a scale of probablity.
I find the notion of an all loving - all merciful - all powerful - all
knowing God far more problematic then then very notion of God itself. Even
if you take into account human stupidity and shortcomings, the earth itself
presents enough natural calamities and pain and suffering. Natural "evil"
is a serious problem facing proponents for the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God.
Regarding his problems with Jesus Christ, I have to say that I think he
misunderstood Jesus alot of times. I have not been trying to rate Jesus in
any pecking order after I left the Chrstian faith, but I still find him to
be a challenging and thought provoking fellow. I don't know if Jesus has
any relevance to our modern world dominated by economic rationalism, but
then maybe that says more about the world than about Jesus. Honestly, I
don't know how my Prime Minister and Treasurer can continue to call
themselves professing Christians and do the things they do at the same time
with my country. Anyway, Russell's problems with Jesus tells you more
about Russell than Jesus himself.
I've said enough for now, and I hope to hear some responses from my fellow
theists.
iman
Tumbleweed wrote:
> "rastex" <ras...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:bomb0u89mhg7n4nil...@4ax.com...
> > Very nice reply!
> If you think thats a nice reply, you just be one of those Muslims that fails
> at school.
> I see there were about 100 paragraphs and he replied to 3, one of which was
> a statement of fact (nothing happens after the grave) and so agrees with
> Russell.
#1 -- Not replying to the entirety of the discourse does not make my
statements less valid.
#2 -- It isn't wise to presume too much about the meaning of words until
one learns to understand with both precision and tact.
> Re the argument from design, one can either say that organisms
> adapted to fit their environment(something that doesnt always happen
> perfectly, as you might expect), or the designer either couldnt design
> animals properly or chose not to, since as we see in nature, indeed in our
> own bodies, there are many mistakes and problems.
One can also say that The Designer designs with wisdom, such that things
or events which appear "imperfect" or "problematic" are, in reality, not
imperfect or problematic when perceived within the proper context.
As such, there are not merely two choices as you'd like us to believe.
I'd like to think you have a more open mind than that.
> Tumbleweed
was-salaam,
im...@merr.com
jackkincaid
>
> > It is not that their environment was made to be suitable to them [religious believers] but that they grew to be suitable to it,
>
> A matter of perspective. Russell does not really know with certainty that there is no Designer underlying the changes which,
> as he purports, occur in the process of "adaptation." As such, his statement is just as dogmatic as those he criticizes.
We have no evidence that a Designer has ever existed so it isn't
rational to believe in one.
We have plenty of evidence that a Designer has never existed so it is
rational not to believe in one.
The difference in perspective is between a rational person and an
irrational person.
>
> > Do you think that, if you were granted omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your
> > world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan or the Fascists?
>
> This presupposes that design requires the apparent perfection of all things -- an assertion which Russell did not care to prove.
He doesn't need to. It is a supposition of the believers - 'God made
man in His image' etc.
>
> > It [life] merely makes you turn your attention to other things.
>
> Until the door of the grave, that is.
Obviously.
Russell was a gloomy bugger though.
>
> > As I said before, I do not think that the real reason why people accept religion has anything to do with argumentation.
> > They accept religion on emotional grounds.
This is undoubtably true. God was created in man's image to fulfil
man's emotional need.
This is what makes us despair of those who commit violence in the name
of God.
>
> That atheists and agnostics do not also take their respective position on "emotional grounds" is pure hogwash.
Hogwash.
> Regardless of how "intellectually-grounded" their arguments may appear to themselves, it is their heart and NOT their head
> that ultimately accepts or rejects conviction in the meaning of being.
Hogwash.
>This is a reality that cuts across all boundaries of humankind.
The only 'argument' that 'works' on atheists is along these lines:
what happens when your mother/father/wife/husband/son/daughter etc.
dies? Aren't you going to need the comfort of belief etc.
In other words, an appeal to emotion, which is difficult to resist
bewcause we have all been culturally conditioned to think that denial
of an emotional appeal of any sort is inhuman.
Many atheists may feel a strong emotional need to believe in a God of
some sort but tthey will still know that there is no rational basis in
belief in the supernatural.
The more interesting question is why, despite the total lack of
evidence of its existence, and the wealth of evidence of the damage
religion causes to human society, people still continue to believe in
God. To some extent we can accept belief in the teachings of religion
- if you follow Christ/Muhammed/Buddha you will be a good person - but
we can do that without all the supernatural baggage.
I think it continues for three reasons:
1) Belief provides comfort.
2) Belief allows extremists to claim absolute power over believers,
and sometimes non-believers, in the name of the belief.
3) Belief allows membership to an international 'club' of fellow
believers who will provide the believer with a sense of identity, an
identity moreover which they can claim is 'superior' to membership of
secular 'clubs' like the nation state, working class, African 'race'
etc. etc.
The first two apply to all religions; the second, and above all the
third, particularly apply to Islam.
Which is why Islamic society is in crisis.
Tumbleweed
"iman" <im...@merr.com> wrote in message news:3C062FDD...@merr.com...
> Salaam!
>
> Tumbleweed wrote:
>
> > "rastex" <ras...@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:bomb0u89mhg7n4nil...@4ax.com...
> > > Very nice reply!
>
> > If you think thats a nice reply, you just be one of those Muslims that
fails
> > at school.
> > I see there were about 100 paragraphs and he replied to 3, one of which
was
> > a statement of fact (nothing happens after the grave) and so agrees with
> > Russell.
>
> #1 -- Not replying to the entirety of the discourse does not make my
> statements less valid.
No, but only replying to 3% doesnt warrant (IMHO) the epithet 'nice reply'.
'Short and incomplete' reply would be more accurate.
> #2 -- It isn't wise to presume too much about the meaning of words until
> one learns to understand with both precision and tact.
Meaning?
>
> > Re the argument from design, one can either say that organisms
> > adapted to fit their environment(something that doesnt always happen
> > perfectly, as you might expect), or the designer either couldnt design
> > animals properly or chose not to, since as we see in nature, indeed in
our
> > own bodies, there are many mistakes and problems.
>
> One can also say that The Designer designs with wisdom, such that things
> or events which appear "imperfect" or "problematic" are, in reality, not
> imperfect or problematic when perceived within the proper context.
In order to enable my better understanding of the wisdom of the supposed
designer, perhaps you'd care to enlighten me as to the "proper context" for
one or all of; Spina Bifida, Downs Syndrome, Leukemia, Muscular Dystrophy,
Epilepsy, Hole-in-the-heart, Cancer, Smallpox, Flu....
>
> As such, there are not merely two choices as you'd like us to believe.
> I'd like to think you have a more open mind than that.
Back to the two choices....? I'd go with cruelty, on the evidence so far.
vmi...@yahoo.com
iman <im...@merr.com> wrote:
>
> That atheists and agnostics do not also take their respective position
> on "emotional grounds" is pure hogwash. Regardless of how
> "intellectually-grounded" their arguments may appear to themselves, it
> is their heart and NOT their head that ultimately accepts or rejects
> conviction in the meaning of being. This is a reality that cuts across
> all boundaries of humankind.
This is absolutely true.
Atheism is not lack of belief in God, but
a belief in there being no God. From a purely mathematical/rational
standpoint, this last hypothesis is even more unprovable than the notion
that there is a God, because it lacks even the element of plausibility,
over and above its lack of logic and rationality.
So, if it is not grounded in rationality, then ...
WasSalam
Viqar Ahmed
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service
Tumbleweed
news:20011129113312.062$N...@newsreader.com...
> Salams:
>
> iman <im...@merr.com> wrote:
> >
> > That atheists and agnostics do not also take their respective position
> > on "emotional grounds" is pure hogwash. Regardless of how
> > "intellectually-grounded" their arguments may appear to themselves, it
> > is their heart and NOT their head that ultimately accepts or rejects
> > conviction in the meaning of being. This is a reality that cuts across
> > all boundaries of humankind.
>
> This is absolutely true.
>
> Atheism is not lack of belief in God, but
> a belief in there being no God. From a purely mathematical/rational
> standpoint, this last hypothesis is even more unprovable
So is proving that Father Christmas or the invisible Pink Unicorn at the
bottom of my garden also dont exist. Are you suggesting that's emotional as
well?
> than the notion
> that there is a God, because it lacks even the element of plausibility,
> over and above its lack of logic and rationality.
>
Hmm. You tell me whats plausible about an incomepetent Super Being that cant
even work out a way to get his message across without people misinterpreting
it, without poutting 'dont kill' and 'kill' in the same book, a Super Being
that can't design animals without major design flaws, and a Super Being
about whose existence the majority of the human race can't agree. (They cant
even agree on whether there is one, let alone whch one it is)
Now, if you want to postulate an incompetent, uncaring, cruel and capricious
Super Being, I'd have to agree that nothing about the Universe as we
understand it is in contradiction with that.
Tw
vmi...@yahoo.com
> So is proving that Father Christmas or the invisible Pink Unicorn at the
> bottom of my garden also dont exist. Are you suggesting that's emotional
> as well?
If it comes to that, the non-existence of the pink unicorn at the bottom
of your garden is verifiable by digging your garden down to the water
table.
> Hmm. You tell me whats plausible about an incomepetent Super Being that
> cant even work out a way to get his message across without people
> misinterpreting it, without poutting 'dont kill' and 'kill' in the same
> book, a Super Being that can't design animals without major design flaws,
> and a Super Being about whose existence the majority of the human race
> can't agree. (They cant even agree on whether there is one, let alone
> whch one it is)
Your argument seems to come down to "there is no God because we have
choice". If there was a God, the only acceptable creation on his part,
for people like yourself, would be one without choice. For, with
choice, good is possible with bad, right with wrong, sickness with
health, ugliness with beauty, serenity with violence. Without choice, none
of this would happen. The world would be a uniformly boring place.
If you offer this as logic, rather than your limited and defective
understanding, then your claim is valid. You have proof.
>
> Now, if you want to postulate an incompetent, uncaring, cruel and
> capricious Super Being, I'd have to agree that nothing about the Universe
> as we understand it is in contradiction with that.
>
Wrong. With such a Super Being, the only experience would be one of
uniform, absolute, and total misery. And the Universe as we understand it
is in contradiction with that.
Face it. The Super Being Created a broad spectrum of entities in this
universe, with varying degrees of choice. It is the element of choice you
can't stand.
Viqar Ahmed
> Tw
Tumbleweed
news:20011129132450.720$8...@newsreader.com...
> "Tumbleweed" <from...@spamtumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > So is proving that Father Christmas or the invisible Pink Unicorn at the
> > bottom of my garden also dont exist. Are you suggesting that's emotional
> > as well?
>
> If it comes to that, the non-existence of the pink unicorn at the bottom
> of your garden is verifiable by digging your garden down to the water
> table.
No, she may just have gone out for the day. Anyway, she's invisible and can
float in the air (and live underwater) so that wouldnt do it.
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Bit/6458/pinkunicorns.html for more
details.
>
> > Hmm. You tell me whats plausible about an incomepetent Super Being that
> > cant even work out a way to get his message across without people
> > misinterpreting it, without poutting 'dont kill' and 'kill' in the same
> > book, a Super Being that can't design animals without major design
flaws,
> > and a Super Being about whose existence the majority of the human race
> > can't agree. (They cant even agree on whether there is one, let alone
> > whch one it is)
>
> Your argument seems to come down to "there is no God because we have
> choice". If there was a God, the only acceptable creation on his part,
> for people like yourself, would be one without choice. For, with
> choice, good is possible with bad, right with wrong, sickness with
> health, ugliness with beauty, serenity with violence. Without choice, none
> of this would happen. The world would be a uniformly boring place.
Whereas, its much more exciting now, wondering who'll get Ebola Virus in the
African killer disease sweepstakes!
Actually my argument boils down to; if there's a god, what does it do, where
is it, what does it want, why cant it be bothered to let us know *clearly*,
and is there more evidence for it than for the Invisible Pink Unicorn?
>
> If you offer this as logic, rather than your limited and defective
> understanding, then your claim is valid. You have proof.
Well, lets say my understanding is indeed "limited and defective". So, we
can assume, is the understanding of most other humans, because they also
chose the wrong God, or none. Now, what is our Supreme Being doing creating
beings who have such "limited and defective" understanding? Its not their
fault. They didnt do it deliberately. Its a function of their environment,
their genes, their parents. But the Supreme Being knew they would turn out
like this (thats what the 'Supreme' means, its not a chicken recipe). Indeed
it must have known at the outset that the vast majority of its subjects
wouldn't follow it, not because they didn't want to but because of the way
it made them. And IIRC its going to condemm them to eternal flames for not
following it, even theough it made them such that they couldnt. I think
we're back to cruel and capricious or incompetent, dont you?
> >
> > Now, if you want to postulate an incompetent, uncaring, cruel and
> > capricious Super Being, I'd have to agree that nothing about the
Universe
> > as we understand it is in contradiction with that.
> >
>
> Wrong. With such a Super Being, the only experience would be one of
> uniform, absolute, and total misery. And the Universe as we understand it
> is in contradiction with that.
OK, its only relatively incompetent, uncaring, cruel and capricious. It
means no harm really, but its soooo difficult to let people know you exist,
and its *really* sorry 'bout the Spina Bifida, bit of a cock up on the
vitamin front there, sorry, though it does mean some people get to choose
what sort of wheelchair they can go in, so I see what you mean about choice.
I understand there is a cult that believes the world was created by the
Devil when God wasnt looking. I'd find that one harder to argue against.
>
> Face it. The Super Being Created a broad spectrum of entities in this
> universe, with varying degrees of choice. It is the element of choice you
> can't stand.
Your evidence for either of those statements is? Indeed, how can I even
choose *which* God (all of which are wrong except one), without *some*
evidence? I certainly cant go on the mad ravings of people like Omar and OBL
can I?( or Ian Paisley for that matter). Hopefully you wouldnt either. I
tell you what, the Biblical one looks like a real screwup. Genocide, child
murder on a large scale, various versions of the same holy book with
contradictory statements, can't decide whether to kill or cure. I'll better
look elsewhere, that cant be a *real* god, can it?
vmi...@yahoo.com
there is *no* God. Remember?
You should realize the difference between unprovability and
impossibility.
My claim was that the atheistic claim is even less provable
than the theistic claim.
You are trying to prove that the athesitic claim is proved by
contradication, because the theistic claim is unprovable. That
is fallacious logic.
The crux of the matter, as br. Iman said, is that belief is a
matter of heart (i.e, faith) aided by rationality, reflection, and
a discerning heart. It is not something mathematically proven.
Viqar Ahmed
--
LLooGGooSS
<azu...@hotmaileREMOVE-ME.com> wrote:
>Why I Am Not A Christian
>by Bertrand Russell
I read this book and many other of B. Russell.
I don't care if he was not christian. I'm not christian too, even if I
had baptised. We are agnostic: we know to not know. Anyway, Russell, I
and many other persons who do not are again christians, share many
basical principles of this religion, first of all: Love all human
beings.
Even if he was not christian, he fully believed on the principles and
values of the western society. Even better, he contributed to make
them more clear and to found some of them!
Read his books of histoy of philosophy, mainly his "History of the
western thought". You will discover how much this book is rich of deep
concepts and how much ridiculous is the Quran instead.
Logos
iman
> In order to enable my better understanding of the wisdom of the supposed
> designer, perhaps you'd care to enlighten me as to the "proper context" for
> one or all of; Spina Bifida, Downs Syndrome, Leukemia, Muscular Dystrophy,
> Epilepsy, Hole-in-the-heart, Cancer, Smallpox, Flu....
The question falls into the general category of "Why does God, being
Ever-Good, allow bad things to happen?"
Being an atheist who clings to a particular rationale in order to remain
comfortable in denial, you would have to adopt -- at best -- a
hypothetical perspective in order to answer the question soundly. That
you may be willing to do so, I am uncertain, given your clearly
pessimistic attitude towards anything that seems to remotely hint of
religion. So what you have to answer for me is :
"Are you willing to adopt this hypothetical perspective for the purpose
of -- at the very least -- attempting to answer the abovementioned
question?"
was-salaam,
im...@merr.com
iman
jackkincaid wrote:
> We have no evidence that a Designer has ever existed so it isn't
> rational to believe in one.
> We have plenty of evidence that a Designer has never existed so it is
> rational not to believe in one.
Incorrect. Both statements are conditioned upon a restrictive
definition of "evidentiary." They are hardly absolute truth.
> The difference in perspective is between a rational person and an
> irrational person.
"Rational" simply means "having or exercising the ability to reason."
To perceive a thing which manifests order, purpose and design is not
irrational. To infer that a process of design was required for that
thing to come into being is also not irrational. To infer that
consciousness and knowledge underlie that process is also not
irrational.
Now, one may not agree with the rationale of one who keeps faith.
Disagreement, however, hardly makes the denier more rational. It merely
means his rationale varies according to the perspective he chooses.
> > > Do you think that, if you were granted omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your
> > > world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan or the Fascists?
> >
> > This presupposes that design requires the apparent perfection of all things -- an assertion which Russell did not care to prove.
>
> He doesn't need to.
If he doesn't wish to, that's his decision.
It's entirely another matter to deny God on the premise that "the glass
is half-empty."
> Russell was a gloomy bugger though.
Precisely.
> > That atheists and agnostics do not also take their respective position on "emotional grounds" is pure hogwash.
> Hogwash.
The most an atheist or agnostic can conclude is that he cannot know of a
certainty whether or not God is. Were he reasonable, he would not
assert the absolute non-existence of God, as to assert the absolute
non-existence of *anything* requires omniscience.
Since this uncertainty is the inevitable result of their rationale, the
conviction or lack thereof which they "embrace" beyond it is a matter
left to personal feeling (e.g. emotion).
was-salaam,
im...@merr.com
Zuiko Azumazi
Mathematica (1910). I was still hoping that some bright spark on the
newsgroup would respond to Bertrand Russell's proposition on religion, God
etc. I thought that his comments went beyond scripture to the very heart of
religious belief. Are you saying that religious belief is only expressed in
the Qu'ran and not other scriptures?
I'm still waiting!
"LLooGGooSS" <an...@heaven.com> wrote in message
news:n5ad0uc09j4l7fq1m...@4ax.com...
Tumbleweed
news:20011129151334.982$h...@newsreader.com...
> Come on. Be consistent. It is *you* who has to prove to us that
> there is *no* God. Remember?
>
> You should realize the difference between unprovability and
> impossibility.
>
> My claim was that the atheistic claim is even less provable
> than the theistic claim.
You are correct, the atheistic claim is less provable than the theistic one.
That doesnt make the theistic one more likely. I can't *prove* that there
isn't an invisible intagible Pink Unicorn who secretly rules the universe.
That says nothing about the chance of such IPU existing, and I have no
obligation to prove it does not exist* , those who propose the existence of
something are called upon to prove it.
>
> You are trying to prove that the athesitic claim is proved by
> contradication, because the theistic claim is unprovable. That
> is fallacious logic.
>
> The crux of the matter, as br. Iman said, is that belief is a
> matter of heart (i.e, faith) aided by rationality, reflection, and
> a discerning heart. It is not something mathematically proven.
>
You mean, you agree what Russell said, its an emotional thing? You *want* to
believe?
Sure, I agree also.
--
Tumbleweed
* I may of course feel the need to defend my belief when crazed lunatics who
do believe in such beings attempt to control, coerce or kill me because of
their beliefs.
Tumbleweed
> Tumbleweed wrote:
>
> > In order to enable my better understanding of the wisdom of the supposed
> > designer, perhaps you'd care to enlighten me as to the "proper context"
for
> > one or all of; Spina Bifida, Downs Syndrome, Leukemia, Muscular
Dystrophy,
> > Epilepsy, Hole-in-the-heart, Cancer, Smallpox, Flu....
>
> The question falls into the general category of "Why does God, being
> Ever-Good, allow bad things to happen?"
No, it falls into the general category of 'why does a God who is supposedly
perfect and omniscient create mechanisms with a multitude of basic design
flaws and assembly problems'? If God was Ford Motors, he's be issuing
recalls all the time and be bankrupt!
IIRC 30% of all fertilised embryos (which many Christians believe are
effectively tiny little people with all that implies for their rights) are
aborted before implantation. Thats a lower yield than some silicon chip
factories.
Bad things could still happen in a world of perfect mechanisms. Rocks could
fall on you, people could kill you, animals could eat you. But your kid
wouldnt be born one day and die slowly over the next few years just because
God forgot* to insert a mechanism to manufacture the correct amount of
vitamin to prevent Spina Bifida.
>
> Being an atheist who clings to a particular rationale in order to remain
> comfortable in denial, you would have to adopt -- at best -- a
> hypothetical perspective in order to answer the question soundly. That
> you may be willing to do so, I am uncertain, given your clearly
> pessimistic attitude towards anything that seems to remotely hint of
> religion. So what you have to answer for me is :
>
> "Are you willing to adopt this hypothetical perspective for the purpose
> of -- at the very least -- attempting to answer the abovementioned
> question?"
>
What hypothetical perspective would that be?
BTW, I dont 'cling' to a rationale, I have one, what makes yoy think I
'cling'? Religious people are the ones that need to 'cling' to rationales
since they need to ignore or argue away much of the stuff in their holy
books. Good examples of this are the ludicrous attempts to show prophecies
being fulfilled and scientific facts being revealed, in the Koran (BTW,
Christians do it too :-) that we have seen here recently. But this is not
restricted to Islam, its a 'religious' thing.
--
Tumbleweed
* Like I said earlier, maybe he didn't forget. Maybe its deliberate. A lot
of the problems go away if you hypothesise that maybe the supposed God
*isnt* 'Good' and 'doesn't give a shit', to use technical phrase.
Tumbleweed
> Salaam!
>
> jackkincaid wrote:
>
> > We have no evidence that a Designer has ever existed so it isn't
> > rational to believe in one.
> > We have plenty of evidence that a Designer has never existed so it is
> > rational not to believe in one.
>
> Incorrect. Both statements are conditioned upon a restrictive
> definition of "evidentiary." They are hardly absolute truth.
>
> > The difference in perspective is between a rational person and an
> > irrational person.
>
> "Rational" simply means "having or exercising the ability to reason."
>
> To perceive a thing which manifests order, purpose and design is not
> irrational. To infer that a process of design was required for that
> thing to come into being is also not irrational. To infer that
> consciousness and knowledge underlie that process is also not
> irrational.
>
from perfect (so the designer aint so good), (2) evolution (no need to posit
an intelligent designer), (3) purpose is in the eye of the beholder.[ Whats
the purpose of the Ebola virus, except to survive?]
Then you say, hey, this beats the 'God did it' theory hands down, plus it
removes the need for the 'Well who created God then?' question,as well as
the 'Hmm, even if it did prove it was done by a 'God', just which one did
you have in mind?' question.
--
Tumbleweed
freakoutchild
Zuiko Azumazi <azu...@hotmaileREMOVE-ME.com> wrote in message
> Personally, I prefer his The Principles of Mathematics (1903) and
Principia
> Mathematica (1910). I was still hoping that some bright spark on the
> newsgroup would respond to Bertrand Russell's proposition on religion, God
> etc. I thought that his comments went beyond scripture to the very heart
of
> religious belief. Are you saying that religious belief is only expressed
in
> the Qu'ran and not other scriptures?
> I'm still waiting!
Zuiko, I have attempted a response in an earlier post. Maybe you missed it.
Anyway, I think his attack on the notions of God and immortality does attack
the very foundation of Judeo/Christian/Islamic belief systems. If you are a
Buddhist however, then this article is not all that relevant, because of the
absence of God in Buddhism, and its inconclusive views on afterlife.
As a reluctant ex-Christian, I would love to hear a genuine theistic
response from newsgroup participants as well.
iman
> What hypothetical perspective would that be?
One that both acknowledges and seeks to know more clearly The Conscious
Designer of creation and seeks to maintain an ultimately positive
perspective of all matters.
Indeed, many manifestations disease and tribulation exist. Yet these
manifestations are exceptional and often not seen for what they are
worth.
Most of the time, in most places, throughout most of our life, our
bodies function to sustain life and comfort. Consider the number of
atoms that must be harmoniously united to comprise but one cell; then
consider the number of cells in but one piece of tissue and how each
piece of tissuee and serves a vital role about a uniquely functioning
organ -- each kind of which must function in precision with the others,
that the body may maintain a living, breathing, feeling, conscious and
conscientious status from moment to moment.
Consider that we speak of but one body when countless numbers of living,
breathing, feeling and conscious bodies have come and gone amidst a
flood of what the materialist atheist considers to be essentially deaf,
dumb, blind, lifeless and unconscious particles.
The human body is but one example. Each individual facet of our known
universe, when considered in union with its whole, takes up a position
that is more indicative of a unity necessary for the continuation of
life as we know it than not.
Predicating denial of God upon one's own pessimistic outlook is as being
blinded by an eyelash to a wondrous panoramic view : lack of perception
is self-originated.
> BTW, I dont 'cling' to a rationale, I have one, what makes yoy think I
> 'cling'?
We all do in some way, shape or form -- just as you are currently doing
by holding fast to the rationale of denial.
> Religious people are the ones that need to 'cling' to rationales
> since they need to ignore or argue away much of the stuff in their holy
> books.
One can be just as "religiously" devoted to denying God as another is to
obeying Him. When we get down to brass tacks, both of us have
convictions.
was-salaam,
im...@merr.com
LLooGGooSS
<azu...@hotmaileREMOVE-ME.com> wrote:
>Personally, I prefer his The Principles of Mathematics (1903) and Principia
>Mathematica (1910). I was still hoping that some bright spark on the
>newsgroup would respond to Bertrand Russell's proposition on religion, God
>etc. I thought that his comments went beyond scripture to the very heart of
>religious belief. Are you saying that religious belief is only expressed in
>the Qu'ran and not other scriptures?
>I'm still waiting!
No, I'm not saying that religious belief is only expressed in the
Quran. On the contrary, I'm asking myself how it is possible muslims
believe in things so devoided of spirituality such as a god who ask to
kill unbelievers, a book which teach hatred and violence, a prophet
pedophile, etc.
Simply, I don't understand it!
Logos
Tumbleweed
> Tumbleweed wrote:
>
> > What hypothetical perspective would that be?
>
> One that both acknowledges and seeks to know more clearly The Conscious
> Designer of creation and seeks to maintain an ultimately positive
> perspective of all matters.
>
rationalises from that point? OK, the designer created many different
thousands of different viruses and bacteria, all of which attack the human
body, some of which specifically attack *only* the human body. Right, I'll
go and think about that and what that says about your 'designer'.
> Indeed, many manifestations disease and tribulation exist. Yet these
> manifestations are exceptional and often not seen for what they are
> worth.
>
> Most of the time, in most places, throughout most of our life, our
> bodies function to sustain life and comfort. Consider the number of
> atoms that must be harmoniously united to comprise but one cell; then
> consider the number of cells in but one piece of tissue and how each
> piece of tissuee and serves a vital role about a uniquely functioning
> organ -- each kind of which must function in precision with the others,
> that the body may maintain a living, breathing, feeling, conscious and
> conscientious status from moment to moment.
This is called evolution. YOu may have heard of it. I choose to believe,
using various sources of evidence, that it took 4.3 or so billion years for
this complexity to arise. You believe that something *much* more complex and
in fact, *perfect* ("a God"), spontaneously appeared for no reason at all
and then created all this life, and did it so by planting evidence that
makes it appear it evolved gradually over 4.3 or so billion years without
the intervention of this God. And then you say your supposition is logical!
>
> Consider that we speak of but one body when countless numbers of living,
> breathing, feeling and conscious bodies have come and gone amidst a
> flood of what the materialist atheist considers to be essentially deaf,
> dumb, blind, lifeless and unconscious particles.
>
> The human body is but one example. Each individual facet of our known
> universe, when considered in union with its whole, takes up a position
> that is more indicative of a unity necessary for the continuation of
> life as we know it than not.
Come come, thats the anthropic principle etc. Thats hardly proof. I might as
well state that this universe was clearly designed in order to bring into
existence Mount Everest, since the chances of something exactly the same
shape as Mt Everest spontaneously arising are so low as to be minimal.
You choose to ascribe significance, in a 'cosmic' sense, to life. Why? What
*evidence* is there that the universe treats life as *significant*? It
routinely snuffs it out with earthquakes, floods, winds, ice and so on. In
another 0.5 to 1 billion years, our sun will heat up enough that life on
this planet is extinguished utterly. Not exactly proof that the universe is
caring about life. Not that its hostile. Someone once said, "the scariest
thing about the universe is not that its hostile to life, its that its
indifferent". I think the facts bear this out.
>
> Predicating denial of God upon one's own pessimistic outlook is as being
> blinded by an eyelash to a wondrous panoramic view : lack of perception
> is self-originated.
Which particular God? I see no basis on which to choose a God, even if you
think that life 'proves' there must be one (see above).
>
> > BTW, I dont 'cling' to a rationale, I have one, what makes yoy think I
> > 'cling'?
>
> We all do in some way, shape or form -- just as you are currently doing
> by holding fast to the rationale of denial.
You may as well say I am clinging to my rationale that my pet Cat isnt a
God.
Show me some evidence that it isnt and I'll change my mind.
>
> > Religious people are the ones that need to 'cling' to rationales
> > since they need to ignore or argue away much of the stuff in their holy
> > books.
>
> One can be just as "religiously" devoted to denying God as another is to
> obeying Him. When we get down to brass tacks, both of us have
> convictions.
>
> was-salaam,
> im...@merr.com
How do you know which of the many thousands of imagined Gods you should
follow? As I say, folowing your hypotheses, I have discounted the Abrahamic
God, as that one is so vicious (at one point he committed genocide upon
nearly the entire human race by downnig them all, men, women, children) that
it cant be the God that you believe so carefully created all the
interactions of the body. ALthough if you take into account the diseases and
illnesses, maybe it is. Which leads to another question, why worship such a
cruel God? Fear?
--
Tumbleweed
jackkincaid
> Salaam!
>
> jackkincaid wrote:
>
> > We have no evidence that a Designer has ever existed so it isn't rational to believe in one.
> > We have plenty of evidence that a Designer has never existed so it is rational not to believe in one.
>
> Incorrect. Both statements are conditioned upon a restrictive definition of "evidentiary."
There is ony one 'restrctive definition' of the state of mankind's
evidence for its origins and that is that it is incomplete.
That is, we know about evolution. We know that complicated animals
evolve from other, simpler life forms. We know we evolved from
*something*. We know other primates evolved from that something too.
We have the evidence.
The missing part is the 'something' from which we evolved. We don't
yet have the evidence becaiuse the fossils haven't been found.
We know how the world was formed; we know how the sun was formed; we
know how the universe was formed. We know because we have the
evidence.
What we don't know is what existed before the universe was formed,
what happens after it disperses or collapses, and why its so heavy. We
don't know because we don't yet have the evidence.
Evidence is evidence. It is factual data, that can be tested in
scientific conditions. There is no special way of thinking about
evidence that makes it 'true' or 'false'. It isn't the purpose of
science to discover 'truth' because truth is a subjective quality.
Allowing for semantic disagreements about the meaning of the word
'objectivity', science intends to find objective facts from real
evidence, not subjective truths from individual emotional responses to
the things around us.
> They are hardly absolute truth.
Truth is the preserve of religion and philosophy and art.
> > The difference in perspective is between a rational person and an irrational person.
>
> "Rational" simply means "having or exercising the ability to reason."
Yes.
>
> To perceive a thing which manifests order, purpose and design is not irrational.
It depends what you mean by 'percieve'. A rational person doesn't look
at the world and necessarily think it 'manifests order'. S/he looks at
the *evidence* for the order of the world, and if it is there, accepts
it (and therefore 'percieves' it).
You are putting the cart before the horse. You have no evidence that
the universe is ordered - in fact there is evidence that the universe
is fundamentally chaotic - but you *want* it to be ordered (for your
own reasons which we can all speculate about) and so you 'percieve' it
to be ordered.
You shouldn't accept anything is factual until you've seen the
evidence. You can believe any truth you want, since truth doesn't
depend on the facts. People dying of a broken heart is truthful, but
it isn't factual.
And even if there is evidence that the world is ordered that would not
necessarily mean that it is ordered by design. There a perfectly good
scientific reasons why order is preferred in this universe to chaos
(current speculation says there may be universes in which order - our
physical laws - do not apply, and the dark matter in our universe
which makes it heavier than it 'should' be may be leaking from them).
So: order exists when evidence for it exists, not because you think
you 'percieve' it.
God exists when evidence for it exists, not becvause of your need to
create one.
And finally, the *reason* you want to invent order where none
(necessarily) exists is because of your training - as a Muslim. The
one thing that distinguishes the Koran from other religious doctrines
is Muhammed's need to impose order on the universe. it's this that
gave the early Muslims their reputation for scientific thinking, and
it is this which often gives Islam it's hidebound, rule-obsessed
character. If you've grown up in an Islamic environmenty it's natural
that that need to impose order on things would rub off on you (it even
manifests itself in the rules - why else would Muslims not be allowed
to drink alcohol ; why else should they resist succumbing to their
'lower functions' [sic], if not to impose order on themselves. Order.
Order. Order - don't you guys want a bit of CHAOS in your lives
sometimes?).
> To infer that a process of design was required for that thing to come into being is also not irrational. To infer that
> consciousness and knowledge underlie that process is also not irrational.
Yes it is. You have no evidence for any of this. You are believing
something because someone told you it's true and your upbringing has
tended to make you think in such a way that you naturally agree with
him. Therefore you are irrational.
I mean no offence by this - I'm all in favour of irrational people
living arounds me, and the more the merrier. But that's because I
prefer chaos. :-)
>
> Now, one may not agree with the rationale of one who keeps faith.
> Disagreement, however, hardly makes the denier more rational. It merely
> means his rationale varies according to the perspective he chooses.
I don't 'choose' a 'perspective'. I look at the facts. You are making
the same error religious believers of all kinds make all the time,
that science and religion are equivalents. This is the sort of babyish
relativism that allows Christian morons in Kansas to teach creationism
as an 'equivalent' theory to evolution.
They are not equivalents. Science is science. It's something that can
be verified, tested and proven.
Religiion is whatever makes you feel good; whatever seems like the
truth to you in whatever state of mind you happen to be in.
You cannot prove a single thing that you believe in. I can prove
everything I know to be a fact. THAT's the difference.
>
> > > This presupposes that design requires the apparent perfection of all things -- an assertion which Russell did not care to prove.
> >
> > He doesn't need to.
>
> If he doesn't wish to, that's his decision.
He doesn't need to because since there is no evidence for design there
is no point in speculating about what a designer's purpose would be.
There is literally no point in religion.
>
> > Russell was a gloomy bugger though.
>
> Precisely.
No, incidentally.
>
>
> The most an atheist or agnostic can conclude is that he cannot know of a certainty whether or not God is.
Atheism and agnosticism are different things.
An atheist is someone who rejects the existence of God, from the Greek
a- (against), the(o)- (God).
An agnsostic is someone who rejects knowledge, meaning religious
knowledge, meaning religion, from the Greek a- (against), gno-
(knowledge).
An agnostic may believe in God without following a religion. Strictly
speaking an atheist rejects the existence of God too, but this is
usually taken to mean the old-fashioned concept of God as an
omnipotent being involved in our fates and the world (your 'designer'
in other words). It's possible to conceive of God as something else,
something that signifies everything we don't know in science. That
which existed before then Big Bang.
I suppose in that sense I'm an atheist, FWIW, but I'd rather not use
the word 'God' at all. Obviosuly I'm an agnostic - anyone who still
believes in religion in this day & age is a wafer short of a
communion.
So, to get back to your statement, an agnostic non-atheist might say
'that he cannot know of a certainty whether or not God is'. An atheist
says 'there is no evidence for the existence of God, therefore we
should not believe in one'.
This isn't the 'most' either would say, it's the least. It's the basis
of atheist non-belief.
> Were he reasonable,
Define 'reasonable'. Reasonable about the hurt feelings of religious
devotees? Given what their ilk have been doing in Afghanistan, I don't
give a shit.
> he would not assert the absolute non-existence of God, as to assert the absolute
> non-existence of *anything* requires omniscience.
Exactly. Which is why we don't make such assertions (we leave that to
the God-botherers).
There is no evidence for the existence of God. therefore we should act
as if there is no God. No genuinely 'reasonable' person can say
anything more.
>
> Since this uncertainty is the inevitable result of their rationale, the conviction or lack thereof which they "embrace" beyond it is a matter
> left to personal feeling (e.g. emotion).
I don't know what you're talking about, to be honest. No genuine
atheist makes assertions about non-existence. We see the proof; we
make the statement based on the proof. There is no emotion involved.
Only you earthlings feel emot- (ooops! What a giveaway...) :-)
iman
Tumbleweed asked :
> > > What hypothetical perspective would that be?
And I answered :
> > One that both acknowledges and seeks to know more clearly The Conscious
> > Designer of creation and seeks to maintain an ultimately positive
> > perspective of all matters.
To which he blithely responded :
> You mean, one that decides that there must be a designer and then
> rationalises from that point?
No. I'll repeat it for you again as you seem to have a short attention
span :
"One that both acknowledges and seeks to know more clearly The Conscious
Designer of creation and seeks to maintain an ultimately positive
perspective of all matters."
There. Got it now? Or do you still feel compelled to project your own
meaning upon this hypothesis?
<deleted manifest failure to embrace hypothesis>
> > Indeed, many manifestations disease and tribulation exist. Yet these
> > manifestations are exceptional and often not seen for what they are
> > worth.
> >
> > Most of the time, in most places, throughout most of our life, our
> > bodies function to sustain life and comfort. Consider the number of
> > atoms that must be harmoniously united to comprise but one cell; then
> > consider the number of cells in but one piece of tissue and how each
> > piece of tissue serves a vital role about a uniquely functioning
> > organ -- each kind of which must function in precision with the others,
> > that the body may maintain a living, breathing, feeling, conscious and
> > conscientious status from moment to moment.
> This is called evolution. YOu may have heard of it. I choose to believe,
> using various sources of evidence, that it took 4.3 or so billion years for
> this complexity to arise.
It is certainly within your capacity to believe that all that exists
about us is the mere product of random happenstance amongst essentially
deaf, dumb, blind, lifeless and unconscious particles. I cannot coerce
you to believe otherwise.
> You believe that something *much* more complex and
> in fact, *perfect* ("a God"), spontaneously appeared for no reason at all
> and then created all this life, and did it so by planting evidence that
> makes it appear it evolved gradually over 4.3 or so billion years without
> the intervention of this God.
No, I do not believe this. This is what YOU believe that I believe.
> > Consider that we speak of but one body when countless numbers of living,
> > breathing, feeling and conscious bodies have come and gone amidst a
> > flood of what the materialist atheist considers to be essentially deaf,
> > dumb, blind, lifeless and unconscious particles.
> > The human body is but one example. Each individual facet of our known
> > universe, when considered in union with its whole, takes up a position
> > that is more indicative of a unity necessary for the continuation of
> > life as we know it than not.
> Come come, thats the anthropic principle etc. I might as
> well state that this universe was clearly designed in order to bring into
> existence Mount Everest, since the chances of something exactly the same
> shape as Mt Everest spontaneously arising are so low as to be minimal.
> You choose to ascribe significance, in a 'cosmic' sense, to life. Why? What
> *evidence* is there that the universe treats life as *significant*? It
> routinely snuffs it out with earthquakes, floods, winds, ice and so on. In
> another 0.5 to 1 billion years, our sun will heat up enough that life on
> this planet is extinguished utterly. Not exactly proof that the universe is
> caring about life. Not that its hostile. Someone once said, "the scariest
> thing about the universe is not that its hostile to life, its that its
> indifferent". I think the facts bear this out.
What you consistently fail to acknowledge is that all of what you write
is from a chosen perspective. It is a rationale constructed on the
basis of chosen sentiment or lack thereof. It is NOT proof of the
non-existence of God. You do this in an effort to suggest that your
view is somehow "above and beyond" the basis of emotion while it is
clear to a rational person that, ultimately, NO view can be as such.
As has been said, the most an atheist can conclude is that he does not
know of a certainty whether God is or is not, for the atheist cannot be
omniscient. Thus, where conviction concerning the meaning of being is
concerned, he depends on a *decision* beyond the bounds of pure
intellect (e.g. personal feeling, emotion).
One would think a rational person wouldn't mind embracing this reality,
as, at the very least, he could not be called "heartless" in doing so.
> > Predicating denial of God upon one's own pessimistic outlook is as being
> > blinded by an eyelash to a wondrous panoramic view : lack of perception
> > is self-originated.
> Which particular God? I see no basis on which to choose a God, even if you
> think that life 'proves' there must be one (see above).
Perhaps it is because you haven't been willing to go beyond the first
step of accepting the hypothetical conviction which I provided for you.
Thus far, you certainly haven't shown the integrity to do so.
> You may as well say I am clinging to my rationale that my pet Cat isnt a
> God.
Possibly ... that is, if you continue to stubbornly project your own
meaning upon my words.
> As I say, folowing your hypotheses, I have discounted the Abrahamic
> God,
Ah, but you *haven't* followed the hypothesis! It is :
"One that both acknowledges and seeks to know more clearly The Conscious
Designer of creation and seeks to maintain an _ultimately positive
perspective of all matters_."
You neither acknowledge nor seek to know The Conscious Desinger of
creation more clearly; nor do you seek to maintain an ultimately
positive perspective of all matters.
Need evidence of that? Here you go :
> ... that one is so vicious (at one point he committed genocide upon
> nearly the entire human race by downnig them all, men, women, children) that
> it cant be the God that you believe so carefully created all the
> interactions of the body. ALthough if you take into account the diseases and
> illnesses, maybe it is. Which leads to another question, why worship such a
> cruel God? Fear?
> Tumbleweed
was-salaam,
im...@merr.com
iman
jackkincaid wrote:
<very much>
The topical assertions can be summarized as follows :
1) There is no evidence of God.
2) Individuals who keep faith in God are irrational.
3) Deniers of God predicate their denial on pure reason.
Evidence can be defined as follows :
1. a thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion.
2. something indicative, an outward sign.
At the very most, a denier, in his own defense, can say : "A thing is
not indicative of use, beauty, order and design according to *me*." The
denier *cannot*, however, extrapolate his personal inability or
unwillingness to perceive such indicativeness upon the entirety of
rational beings.
If one perceives something as indicative of God, the denier can deny
that perception. His denial, however, does not make the perception
irrational, save to himself and others of like mind.
> There is no special way of thinking about
> evidence that makes it 'true' or 'false'.
It is naive to imagine that there are not things which are perceived as
evidentiary for some that are NOT perceived as evidentiary for others.
> You are putting the cart before the horse. You have no evidence that
> the universe is ordered - in fact there is evidence that the universe
> is fundamentally chaotic - but you *want* it to be ordered (for your
> own reasons which we can all speculate about) and so you 'percieve' it
> to be ordered.
Kindly re-read the definition of "evidence." Your assertion that I have
no evidence that the universe is ordered is unprovable. Provided that I
perceive a thing as indicative of that order, that becomes evidentiary,
even if only according to my own perception.
> I don't 'choose' a 'perspective'. I look at the facts.
#1 -- Everyone has a perspective, whether they are conscious of it or
not.
#2 -- Your examination of things cannot possibly be devoid of
perspective. Perspective is inextricable from what you choose to accept
or deny as "fact." Examination of factors such as an individual's
political sentiment and/or cultural milieu greatly assist in
understanding this reality.
<lengthy explanation of difference between atheism and agnosticism
removed>
As for denying God on the basis of pure reason ...
#1 -- No human being is omniscient.
#2 -- Given #1, it is unreasonable for a human being to assert the
absolute non-existence of a thing.
#3 -- Given #2, it is unreasonable for a human being to assert the
absolute non-existence of God. (Indeed, you have said that no genuine
atheist would do so.)
This argument demonstrates that one denies God not because there is an
unequivocal lack of evidence of Him, but because the denier has, in his
own estimation, "not found evidence."
was-salaam,
im...@merr.com
Tumbleweed
> Salaam!
>
> Tumbleweed asked :
>
> > > > What hypothetical perspective would that be?
>
> And I answered :
>
> > > One that both acknowledges and seeks to know more clearly The
Conscious
> > > Designer of creation and seeks to maintain an ultimately positive
> > > perspective of all matters.
>
> To which he blithely responded :
>
> > You mean, one that decides that there must be a designer and then
> > rationalises from that point?
>
> No. I'll repeat it for you again as you seem to have a short attention
> span :
>
> "One that both acknowledges and seeks to know more clearly The Conscious
> Designer of creation and seeks to maintain an ultimately positive
> perspective of all matters."
>
> There. Got it now? Or do you still feel compelled to project your own
> meaning upon this hypothesis?
>
"Lets pretend theres a designer and everything is created is lovely" is what
you are saying.
> <deleted manifest failure to embrace hypothesis>
>
> > > Indeed, many manifestations disease and tribulation exist. Yet these
> > > manifestations are exceptional and often not seen for what they are
> > > worth.
> > >
> > > Most of the time, in most places, throughout most of our life, our
> > > bodies function to sustain life and comfort. Consider the number of
> > > atoms that must be harmoniously united to comprise but one cell; then
> > > consider the number of cells in but one piece of tissue and how each
> > > piece of tissue serves a vital role about a uniquely functioning
> > > organ -- each kind of which must function in precision with the
others,
> > > that the body may maintain a living, breathing, feeling, conscious and
> > > conscientious status from moment to moment.
>
> > This is called evolution. YOu may have heard of it. I choose to believe,
> > using various sources of evidence, that it took 4.3 or so billion years
for
> > this complexity to arise.
>
> It is certainly within your capacity to believe that all that exists
> about us is the mere product of random happenstance amongst essentially
> deaf, dumb, blind, lifeless and unconscious particles. I cannot coerce
> you to believe otherwise.
To coin a phrase, as you say below, "I do not believe this. This is what
YOU believe that I believe".
I believe that deaf, dumb, blind, lifeless and unconscious particles gave
rise to life and eventually consciousness though a non-random process of
natural selection.
Only people who have no clue what evolution is criticise it by using the
word 'random'. Purposeless would have been a better choice for Darwin, he
would have had a lot less trouble that way than using the 'random' word. I
see you are one of many arguing against your misunderstanding of evolution.
>
> > You believe that something *much* more complex and
> > in fact, *perfect* ("a God"), spontaneously appeared for no reason at
all
> > and then created all this life, and did it so by planting evidence that
> > makes it appear it evolved gradually over 4.3 or so billion years
without
> > the intervention of this God.
>
> No, I do not believe this. This is what YOU believe that I believe.
>
<snip>
Well, one day you'll enlighten us no doubt, in the meantime, given the
evidence of your views which you presented, which I'll paraphrase as "look
how complicated everything is so something must have built it", leads me to
that opinion.
>
> What you consistently fail to acknowledge is that all of what you write
> is from a chosen perspective. It is a rationale constructed on the
> basis of chosen sentiment or lack thereof. It is NOT proof of the
> non-existence of God. You do this in an effort to suggest that your
> view is somehow "above and beyond" the basis of emotion while it is
> clear to a rational person that, ultimately, NO view can be as such.
I have agreed it isnt proof of the non-existence of God. I dont need not
feel inclined to prove that. WHhat I do feel inclined to point out is that I
see no reason to *postulate* a God, since there are other, simpler answers
with evidence.
I note you didnt answer any of my salient points, for example;
"What *evidence* is there that the universe treats life as *significant*? "
>
> As has been said, the most an atheist can conclude is that he does not
> know of a certainty whether God is or is not, for the atheist cannot be
> omniscient. Thus, where conviction concerning the meaning of being is
> concerned, he depends on a *decision* beyond the bounds of pure
> intellect (e.g. personal feeling, emotion).
There are all sorts of things we dont believe in, for the simple reason of
having no reason to believe in them, or no evidence for them. This doesnt
imply the decision not to believe is made on emotion, its made on logic.
>
> One would think a rational person wouldn't mind embracing this reality,
> as, at the very least, he could not be called "heartless" in doing so.
>
> > > Predicating denial of God upon one's own pessimistic outlook is as
being
> > > blinded by an eyelash to a wondrous panoramic view : lack of
perception
> > > is self-originated.
>
> > Which particular God? I see no basis on which to choose a God, even if
you
> > think that life 'proves' there must be one (see above).
>
> Perhaps it is because you haven't been willing to go beyond the first
> step of accepting the hypothetical conviction which I provided for you.
> Thus far, you certainly haven't shown the integrity to do so.
Integrity is of course an emotion-filled world. I could as easily ask you to
imagine that teh world was created by mechanical processes for which there
is explanation and evidence, but you would choose to ignore these, or
postualte an invisible creature for which there is no evidence behind these.
Why?
I am willing to postulate a world created by a God and imagine its this one.
The conclusions I would draw as to the nature of that God would lead me to
beleive that it has no interest in human affairs.
>
> > You may as well say I am clinging to my rationale that my pet Cat isnt a
> > God.
>
> Possibly ... that is, if you continue to stubbornly project your own
> meaning upon my words.
>
> > As I say, folowing your hypotheses, I have discounted the Abrahamic
> > God,
>
> Ah, but you *haven't* followed the hypothesis! It is :
>
> "One that both acknowledges and seeks to know more clearly The Conscious
> Designer of creation and seeks to maintain an _ultimately positive
> perspective of all matters_."
Do you mean, if I imagine hard enough that there is such a being I'll fool
myself into believing there is one? Sorry to dissapoint you, but I did once
believe there was a God, so I've travelled that route.
>
> You neither acknowledge nor seek to know The Conscious Desinger of
> creation more clearly; nor do you seek to maintain an ultimately
> positive perspective of all matters.
>
> Need evidence of that? Here you go :
>
> > ... that one is so vicious (at one point he committed genocide upon
> > nearly the entire human race by downnig them all, men, women, children)
that
> > it cant be the God that you believe so carefully created all the
> > interactions of the body. ALthough if you take into account the diseases
and
> > illnesses, maybe it is. Which leads to another question, why worship
such a
> > cruel God? Fear?
Do you deny that followers of the Biblical God claim these things happened?
I am just going on what I've been told by religious people. YOu claim
different?
Tumbleweed
"iman" <im...@merr.com> wrote in message news:3C07B757...@merr.com...
<snip>
>
> This argument demonstrates that one denies God not because there is an
> unequivocal lack of evidence of Him, but because the denier has, in his
> own estimation, "not found evidence."
>
Lets go on from that.
If there was a God and he really was interested in you getting to follow him
he'd provide a level of evidence as to his existence which you'd accept, so
that you can choose whether to accept him or not. This is because you can't
accept him if you either dont believe in him, or you have not even had the
opportunity to hear of him. For example, in my culture, the opportunity for
knowing Ganesh the Elephant God' is very limited,and if you were born and
raised and died in a small village in Pakistan in 120-100BC you wouldnt get
to hear of either Jesus or Mohammed.
Therefore, we can deduce that either;
a) there is no God, or
b) there is a God but he's not interested in you, or
c) there is a God but he's not interested in you yet
Given that many people believe in many different Gods, and only a small
fraction could be right, that really leaves us only with (a) and (b) since
many people observably die without believing in any God, or believing in
many Gods (and most of them must be wrong)
So, I must conclude that either there is no God, or there is a small elite
formed from amongst the many believers who are right, and everyone else gets
whatever punishment the 'real' God deems to hand out. Since I see no way of
determining which of the many postulated Gods is correct, there is
essentially zero chance I'd get the right one anyway. And since if there is
a God he hasn't told me, he also can't care.
So whats an atheist to do except act as if there isnt one? In fact, even if
there is one, the vast majority of religious people are also screwed, since
the 'real' God hasnt told them they are fervently worshipping the wrong one.
That must also apply to you, after all, lots of people believe in a
different God to you. The odds dont look good, and however self-assured you
are, there are or have been several billion other self-assured people who
went to their deaths, or will go to their deaths, *really* believing in a
very different God from yours. You can't all be right.
iman
Tumbleweed wrote:
> I believe that deaf, dumb, blind, lifeless and unconscious particles gave
> rise to life and eventually consciousness though a non-random process of
> natural selection.
For molecules to act "at random," by definition, they must do so
"without a governing design, method or purpose; unsystematically."
Thus, a non-random process suggests one *with* a governing design,
method or purpose; and/or one that occurs systematically. The question
then becomes
"What is responsible for this process inclusive of design, method or
purpose?"
> Purposeless would have been a better choice for Darwin, he
> would have had a lot less trouble that way than using the 'random' word.
Rational individuals have a great deal of trouble with the delusion that
all about us is the product of something "purposeless." The irony of
this asinine assertion is that if you *sincerely* felt this way about
everything, you would not wish to go on. After all, what point would
there be?
Oh, but you're still here!
Go figure.
was-salaam,
im...@merr.com
iman
> "iman" <im...@merr.com> wrote in message news:3C07B757...@merr.com...
> <snip>
> >
> > This argument demonstrates that one denies God not because there is an
> > unequivocal lack of evidence of Him, but because the denier has, in his
> > own estimation, "not found evidence."
> Lets go on from that.
>
> If there was a God and he really was interested in you getting to follow him
> he'd provide a level of evidence as to his existence which you'd accept, so
> that you can choose whether to accept him or not.
You err at "which you'd accept." The phrase presupposes that the
evidence provided would necessarily compel all to conviction. This is
obviously not the case.
was-salaam,
im...@merr.com
Zuiko Azumazi
"To every man is given the key to the gates of heaven. The same key opens
the gates of hell." (Buddhist, source unknown).
"On the mountain of truth you can never climb in vain: either you will reach
a point higher up today, or you will be training your powers so that you
will be able to climb higher tomorrow." Nietzsche.
"freakoutchild" <pok...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:WgJN7.391494$bY5.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Zuiko Azumazi wrote:
>
> > Thanks for your support. Its amazing that no one seems confident to take
> > the *challenge*, so much for their perfunctory religiosity!
> >
> Perhaps, the beauty of being an agnostic is that I have got nothing at
> stake to defend, aside from an open ended pursuit of truth...
>
> That is not to deny the sincerity of the likes of Anjum and Hasan and
> others who appears to care what the truth might be, though it appears
their
> approaching angles are somewhat different...
>
>
>
Zuiko Azumazi
> <azu...@hotmaileREMOVE-ME.com
> <snip>
freakoutchild
> Come on. Be consistent. It is *you* who has to prove to us that
> there is *no* God. Remember?
>
> You should realize the difference between unprovability and
> impossibility.
>
> My claim was that the atheistic claim is even less provable
> than the theistic claim.
>
My goodness. I think the burden of proof is actually with the theists.
OK, let's leave that aside for a minute. even if an atheist cannot prove to
you that there is no God, it does not take away your responsiblity to prove
that there is a Supreme Being...
I'm really perplexed by your claim that your claim that the atheistic claim
is less provable than the theistic claim. While I think there is no
absolute proof that a Supreme Being does not exist, the evidence that point
to His/Her absence is quite considerable. This come mainly in the form of
modern science being increasingly able to explain the world without the
need for a God, or the need for a "spiritual realm" that exists outside the
physical realm. Of course "there are still things that science cannot
explain...", a line that has been repeated since Charles Darwin, but if you
have kept up to date with the latest discoveries and scientific research (I
recommend New Scientist or Scientific American or
http://www.abc.net.au/science/ ), and ponder on their philosophical
implications, I think you have to at least agree science is increasingly
ambitiious (and capable) of providing an overarching explanation for the
world, without the need for a "spiritual realm" or a "Supreme Being".
Some recent discoveries/research I would like you to ponder upon:
* animal / human cloning
* genetic links in male homosexuality
* mapping of the human DNA
* Paul Davies' proposition that during the Big Bang, when the universe was
"infinitismally small", "matter" would have behaved in a manner consistent
with quantum mechanics, where things happen not in terms of "cause and
effect", but in terms of "probability". This could provide the greatest
challenge to the "First Cause Argument"
* Susan Blackmore's research into near death experience
* The philosophical implications of medical psychology's research into
personality disorder
I would love to hear your response, and some proper arguments in favour of
a God, and I hope that just as I am perfectly prepared to change my mind on
this matter (heck I'd love to change my mind), that you would at least be
prepared to do the same.
freakoutchild
reluctant agnostic
Sandar
> I don't know either. Every religious book can be studied spiritually,
> historically, typically, topically, prophetically, dispensational,
> analytically, biographically, critically, devotionally, or in other
> ways. Most serious clerics study them interpretively (metaphorically)
> whereas most ill-informed lay people study them "literally". There often
> lies the problem!
Exactly.
>
> Many, so called "teachers", excel in ingenious "skeletons." But an
> erroneous analysis, however adroitly drawn up, obscures the real and
> vital message in the context of today's world.
That's the main problem.
>
> Some scholars call the "Old Testament" the "Books of War". The Qu'ran is
> also full of very aggressive language. It is very difficult to imagine
> what tribal life was like in those far off days, which is the "context"
> that these scriptures must be viewed.
Well said.
Viqar Ahmed
> My goodness. I think the burden of proof is actually with the theists.
>
.
.
> OK, let's leave that aside for a minute. even if an atheist cannot prove to
> you that there is no God, it does not take away your responsiblity to prove
> that there is a Supreme Being...
>
I was'nt trying to mathematically prove the Existence of a Supreme
Being.
For me, it is a matter of belief which alone rationalizes my
understanding
of things, and my experience.
> I'm really perplexed by your claim that your claim that the atheistic claim
> is less provable than the theistic claim. While I think there is no
> absolute proof that a Supreme Being does not exist, the evidence that point
> to His/Her absence is quite considerable.
I really doubt it. At least I have not seen any that would be remotely
plausible. I consider atheistic claim to be less provable because it
lacks observable phenomena which would be plausible only under the
atheistic
hypothesis. Just like our observation of our universe, and the
happenings
therein, make us wonder, and intuitively recognize, that there is a
Creator, what do we observe that so glaringly compels us to consider
that
there is'nt, and cannot be, one?
Ah, you might say, but if there was a God there would'nt be all this
suffering, illness, injustice, pain, poverty, etc. etc. But this is
where
our argument started earlier on in the thread. The atheists cannot
accept
that the creation that can excercise the elements of will and choice
has to
face the possibilities of opposites. What choice would be there if
there was
only beauty, riches, perfect fitness, no diseases, and luxuries all
around?
> This come mainly in the form of
> modern science being increasingly able to explain the world without the
> need for a God, or the need for a "spiritual realm" that exists outside the
> physical realm.
I am afraid I have to strongly disagree with you. The issue of the
existence
and nature of God belong in realms which are simply not science's
forte. So
how could science offer any conclusion in this regard? I do not
believe, and
I don't think the muslims, in general, believe, that the apprehension
of
the truth of reality is possible in our limited material three
dimensional
context. Science deals with phenomena it *can* apprehend. By its own
standards, it would be absolutely unscientific, to sponsor the
atheistic
hypothesis. I say this is a person reasonably well grounded in
science.
> Of course "there are still things that science cannot
> explain...", a line that has been repeated since Charles Darwin, but if you
> have kept up to date with the latest discoveries and scientific research (I
> recommend New Scientist or Scientific American or
> http://www.abc.net.au/science/ ), and ponder on their philosophical
> implications, I think you have to at least agree science is increasingly
> ambitiious (and capable) of providing an overarching explanation for the
> world, without the need for a "spiritual realm" or a "Supreme Being".
>
Perhaps you could summarize these findings for the benefit of the
readers.
I have yet to encounter satifactory explanations for the missing
links, the
gaps where the evolution along a certain path ended, and of other
species
began along higher paths. The *only* plausible explanation I can see
is
Divine Intervention to bridge the discontinuities.
Personally, I am more inclined towards this possibility because it
offers
a means to reconcile the contention between the creationist and the
evolutionary views of how human beings came about. Much has been made
of
the "scientific" findings which show that "mankind" is at least a
couple
of million years old, and it may have evolved (possibly even in
parallel)
in diverse regions of the globe. This is supposed to "destroy" the
religious (creationist) argument which states that initially God
Created
Adam and Eve. Now, I am not taking issue with the digs of the
paleontologists.
But what makes us so certain that the skull we dug out was that of a
"human"?
I suppose we will have to get more philosophical over what qualifies
as
a "human" being. For me the *only* acceptable answer is a homo sapien
endowed not just with the requisite biological traits, but also
intellectual
ability and conscience, capable of apprehending the higher
values of right and wrong, of justice and mercy, of hope and prayer.
The
Darwinian hypothesis deals only with the biological dimension, which
alone
does not a human being make. Not until we had the first homo sapien
capable
of conciously recognizing his Creator and evolving spiritually, did we
have
Adam. When God(SWT), in His Infinite Wisdom, Saw that the most evolved
homo sapien (in all other naturally evolvable ways) was ready for
greater
challenges, He Intervened to Endow him with the needed elements of
intellect,
conscience, and spirituality. It may *very well* have happened only a
few
thousand years ago.
Perhaps this is what the Quran alludes to when it says that God(SWT)
Told the
angels that He(SWT) was Fashioning Adam from Clay, and,"*When* I have
Breathed
into him of *My Spirit*, *then* you must all fall prostrate before
him".
The atheistic hypothesis, on the other hand, *absolutely* has to
depend
upon the occurence of all the *right* outcomes occuring, not at just
one or two, but zillions of places along the way, for our universe to
have
turned out the way it did.
There is *no* quantum mechanical process which admits of such loaded
events which preclude all but the needed outcomes. I am not suggesting
that loaded outcomes do not occur. But where they occur, there is a
manipulator. They do not occur in natural radom processes.It is
insulting
to even suggest this as science.
I shall deal with the rest of your points in another post.
Viqar Ahmed
"And (remember) when thy Lord said unto the angels: Lo! I am creating
a mortal out of potter's clay of black mud altered,
So, when I have *made* him and *have breathed into him of My Spirit*,
do ye
fall down, prostrating yourselves unto him.
So the angels fell prostrate, all of them together
Save Iblis. He refused to be among the prostrate.
(Holy Quran al-Hijr 15:28-15:30]
"Everything should be made as simple as possible. But no simpler"
(Albert Einstein)
Tumbleweed
news:1c3554d7.01120...@posting.google.com...
Do you also wonder who the creator of the creator was, and if not, why not?
>
what do we observe that so glaringly compels us to consider
> that
> there is'nt, and cannot be, one?
>
> Ah, you might say, but if there was a God there would'nt be all this
> suffering, illness, injustice, pain, poverty, etc. etc. But this is
> where
> our argument started earlier on in the thread. The atheists cannot
> accept
> that the creation that can excercise the elements of will and choice
> has to
> face the possibilities of opposites. What choice would be there if
> there was
> only beauty, riches, perfect fitness, no diseases, and luxuries all
> around?
>
> > This come mainly in the form of
> > modern science being increasingly able to explain the world without the
> > need for a God, or the need for a "spiritual realm" that exists outside
the
> > physical realm.
I could still have choice without the Ebola virus or SMallpox, thank you
very much. Or childhood leukemia, or babies born with Spina Bifida or
hole-in-the heart. OR are you arguing that the world would be aw orse place
if these were eliminated?
vmi...@yahoo.com
> "Viqar Ahmed" <vmi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > plausible. I consider atheistic claim to be less provable because it
> > lacks observable phenomena which would be plausible only under the
> > atheistic
> > hypothesis. Just like our observation of our universe, and the
> > happenings
> > therein, make us wonder, and intuitively recognize, that there is a
> > Creator,
>
> Do you also wonder who the creator of the creator was, and if not, why
> not?
No. And there is a perfectly scientific reason for it. By the time
we admit the Existence of God(SWT), we are dealing with realms of
which we have, and can have, no knowledge. It is futile to wonder
about what one cannot comprehend.
And why should this be anymore complicated than what an eminent
scientist (Sir Alfred Hoyle), and atheist, said:
"It is futile to argue about why reality is what it is. Because,
that is how it is".
Surely, a very inspiring explanatation
>
> I could still have choice without the Ebola virus or SMallpox, thank you
> very much. Or childhood leukemia, or babies born with Spina Bifida or
> hole-in-the heart. OR are you arguing that the world would be aw orse
> place if these were eliminated?
It is not for me, or for science for that matter to decide what is
better and what is worse. I believe in negotiating as best as possible
in an increasingly unbelieving world, with the Guidance of Allah(SWT).
Have Ebola, Smallpox, Aids, and Meningococal (flesh eating) disease
become more like a bed of roses for you, now that you do not believe in
God?
Viqar Ahmed
Tumbleweed
news:20011203165642.344$A...@newsreader.com...
> "Tumbleweed" <from...@spamtumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > "Viqar Ahmed" <vmi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > I really doubt it. At least I have not seen any that would be remotely
> > > plausible. I consider atheistic claim to be less provable because it
> > > lacks observable phenomena which would be plausible only under the
> > > atheistic
> > > hypothesis. Just like our observation of our universe, and the
> > > happenings
> > > therein, make us wonder, and intuitively recognize, that there is a
> > > Creator,
> >
> > Do you also wonder who the creator of the creator was, and if not, why
> > not?
>
> No. And there is a perfectly scientific reason for it. By the time
> we admit the Existence of God(SWT), we are dealing with realms of
> which we have, and can have, no knowledge. It is futile to wonder
> about what one cannot comprehend.
I think the phrase for that is 'cop out'. So if we show that the first event
happened for which we do not know yet(and may never know) the cause, you
(for reasons that are unfathomable to me) decide to call it 'God' and say
'we dont need to look beyond that'. Why call it God? Why not call it 'the
first event of which we know...yet'. Roll that reasoning back 500 years and
we'd still be in medieval levels of ignorance. Or is that what Islam sets
out to do?
And how do you know we cant comprehend it? 100 years ago we thought the
universe looked very different to the way we see it now. And maybe in
another 100 years things will change again, and what today we cant
comprehend we will be able to. If your philosophy consists of trying not to
comprehend, I see why there is so much ignorance and poverty in the Muslim
world, since one breeds the other.
>
> And why should this be anymore complicated than what an eminent
> scientist (Sir Alfred Hoyle), and atheist, said:
>
> "It is futile to argue about why reality is what it is. Because,
> that is how it is".
>
> Surely, a very inspiring explanatation
Why is it inspiring to stop looking when you dont understand? He didnt
himself apply that reasoning when he was working out how stars worked. He
also spent the latter part of his life arguing against his own
misunderstanding of evolution, maybe that confused him.
>
> >
> > I could still have choice without the Ebola virus or SMallpox, thank you
> > very much. Or childhood leukemia, or babies born with Spina Bifida or
> > hole-in-the heart. OR are you arguing that the world would be aw orse
> > place if these were eliminated?
>
> It is not for me, or for science for that matter to decide what is
> better and what is worse. I believe in negotiating as best as possible
> in an increasingly unbelieving world, with the Guidance of Allah(SWT).
Of course it is for us to determine what is better or worse. What a hopeless
philosophy if you can't decide if Smallpox is good or bad!
> Have Ebola, Smallpox, Aids, and Meningococal (flesh eating) disease
> become more like a bed of roses for you, now that you do not believe in
> God?
Now I dont believe in God and therefore have no superstitious reasons for
retaining them., they are things to be removed from this planet. No wonder
Muslim nations are in such a parlous state if they can't decide things like
this.
And humanity will also decide. I think we'll collectively decide that those
and similar things should be eliminated, indeed we already started.
Philosophies which can't even make up their mind if Spina Bifida is a good
thing or not would seem destined to fade away.
vmi...@yahoo.com
> And humanity will also decide. I think we'll collectively decide that
> those and similar things should be eliminated, indeed we already started.
> Philosophies which can't even make up their mind if Spina Bifida is a
> good thing or not would seem destined to fade away.
Good luck.
jackkincaid
> Salaam!
>
> jackkincaid wrote:
>
> <very much>
'fraid so. :-)
>
> The topical assertions can be summarized as follows :
>
> 1) There is no evidence of God.
> 2) Individuals who keep faith in God are irrational.
> 3) Deniers of God predicate their denial on pure reason.
>
> Evidence can be defined as follows :
>
> 1. a thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion.
> 2. something indicative, an outward sign.
>
> At the very most, a denier, in his own defense, can say : "A thing is
> not indicative of use, beauty, order and design according to *me*." The
> denier *cannot*, however, extrapolate his personal inability or
> unwillingness to perceive such indicativeness upon the entirety of
> rational beings.
Heh. Yes, very nice. You're turning the tables, or trying to, but
unfortunately it doesn't work. This isn't about *my* inability to do
anything. This is about the facts. Only the facts, ma'am.
I am *not* saying that the universe is not beautiful (it is - and I
believe that we can better appreciate of the beauty of the universe by
rejecting the idea of a god-creator), nor am I saying there is no
order (there clearly is, although that doesn't mean that there is an
underlying principle of order in the universe).
I am able to appreciate beauty, but I also know that that appreciation
is subjective. It doesn't lead me to believe in a creator because the
existence of a creator supposes an objective meaning and design to the
universe, something we can all understand and recognise. There is no
scientific evidence fort this, so we (should) all reject it.
The only objective understanding of the universe possible is that it
happened by chance, because all the evidence we have points to that
conclusion.
If you choose to believe in something else, that's fine. But please
understand two things: your belief is subjective - it belongs to you,
and you only. First, no matter how hard political Islamists or
political Christianists, and the rest, try to unify subjective belief
into a single 'objective' faith, they will fail as they have always
failed. Belief doesn't work like that and those who congregate around
a single belief do so, IMO, for other reasons. Second, because it is
your belief you have no right to foist it on others - including, IMO,
your own children.
>
> If one perceives something as indicative of God, the denier can deny
> that perception. His denial, however, does not make the perception
> irrational, save to himself and others of like mind.
Belief in creationism is irrational because it depends on faith, which
is itself irrational.
Belief in evolution is rational because it depends on scientific
evidence, which is factual (and therefore rational).
>
> > There is no special way of thinking about
> > evidence that makes it 'true' or 'false'.
>
> It is naive to imagine that there are not things which are perceived as
> evidentiary for some that are NOT perceived as evidentiary for others.
No it isn't. The situation you describe doesn't exist.
A fact is a fact is a fact.
>
> > You are putting the cart before the horse. You have no evidence that
> > the universe is ordered - in fact there is evidence that the universe
> > is fundamentally chaotic - but you *want* it to be ordered (for your
> > own reasons which we can all speculate about) and so you 'percieve' it
> > to be ordered.
>
> Kindly re-read the definition of "evidence." Your assertion that I have
> no evidence that the universe is ordered is unprovable.
It is eminently provable by asking you to prove it. So prove it.
> Provided that I
> perceive a thing as indicative of that order, that becomes evidentiary,
> even if only according to my own perception.
No. That's a misconeceptiuon of reality. By that argument what Charles
Manson percieved - that the world was a giant conspiracy only
discernable by close study of the lyrics to the Beatles' white album -
has equal value to what you perceive. Osama bin Laden percieves the
world as a Christian/Zionist conspiracy against his own family, which
led to him having a 'slave' for a mother - is that a correct
perception? Ariel Sharon percieves the world as a giant pogrom of Jews
against which Israel must be in a constant state of siege - is that a
correct perception?
Giving equal moral weight to subjective reality allows any old belief
- of mass murderers, child rapists, thieves, corrupt old men, Chelsea
FC fans - to be treated as seriously as any other. A little girl
called Victoria Climbie was horrifically abused and murdered in
Britainb a while ago because her social worker believed in witchcraft
and thought that any criticism of her belief was 'racist'. Heinrich
Himmler sincerely believed that Jews (and Arabs) were sub-human - and
gassed to death 4.5 million-plus of them. In a world of subjective
belief we have no defence against any of this.
This applies to politics too. This is why we need to establish a
universal political system (and the only one we have is democracy,
which is the rule of the people of a community, each having an equal
say); why theocracy (as practiced by the Taliban) is untennable.
What you percieve is subjective reality. By
>
> > I don't 'choose' a 'perspective'. I look at the facts.
>
> #1 -- Everyone has a perspective, whether they are conscious of it or not.
True. But a person's 'perspective' is irrelevent to this. There are
universal laws - such as the laws of physices - which no person's
'perception' can overrule.
> #2 -- Your examination of things cannot possibly be devoid of
> perspective. Perspective is inextricable from what you choose to accept
> or deny as "fact." Examination of factors such as an individual's
> political sentiment and/or cultural milieu greatly assist in
> understanding this reality.
No they don't. They are all irrelevent. The laws of physics exist on
Venus as much as earth, and there is no 'political sentiment and/or
cultural milieu' on Venus (really there isn't). Facts are facts are
facts. Evolution is a fact. It has been observed. It has been
recorded. It hjappens. It has happened. It is a fact. And there is no
scientific evidence for the existence of God whatsoever.
Your para above is tantamount to saying that people of your belief (or
people of any belief, I'm not sure which) can in effect opt out of the
physical laws of the universe and all the historical evidence on earth
- can, in effect, opt out of science itself, if they choose. Maybe
you, like Abdul Aziz, think that science itself is a 'western
invention' (which would be highly ironic since at the time of the
crusades Moslem society was in many ways more scientifically advanced
than Christian society). It's all nonsense, I'm afraid. Science is
science. Science is fact. Everything else is belief, conjecture and
subjective perception. It may be comforting for the individual to
believe in but it has no basis in reality, and is therefore
irrational.
>
>
> As for denying God on the basis of pure reason ...
>
> #1 -- No human being is omniscient.
True. There is no scientific claim that an omniscient human being
exists.
> #2 -- Given #1, it is unreasonable for a human being to assert the
> absolute non-existence of a thing.
But that *isn't* what I'm asserting. Read what I have said. I'm not
saying God does *not* exist, I'm saying that *there is no evidence*
that God exists. And if there is no evidence for something it is
*irrational* to believe in it.
I think you're misunderstanding the position of the agnostic and
atheist (which is why I explained it in the bit you cut). It is
*unscientific* to deny the existence of God because there is no
definitive evidence for God's non-existence (although there is plenty
of evidence that the God described in the Bibles & Koran - a designer;
a being consciously concerned with human beings - is *very probably*
not true).
But there is no evidence for God's existence, and that is the point.
If trhere is no evidence for something (and especially when there is
plenty of evidence for non-something) then we *should* refuse to
believe in it. Because to believe in something for which there is no
evidence is irrational - and I don't care what your upbringing is,
that is a universal principle. Any other position is unscientific.
> #3 -- Given #2, it is unreasonable for a human being to assert the
> absolute non-existence of God. (Indeed, you have said that no genuine
> atheist would do so.)
Exactly. See above.
But that doesn't let you off the hook. You have asserted that
something is factual. Yet you cannot offer a shred of evidence for it.
All you can tell us is that you 'feel' it is true, so therefore it
must be factual. This - no offence - is horse shit.
>
> This argument demonstrates that one denies God not because there is an
> unequivocal lack of evidence of Him, but because the denier has, in his
> own estimation, "not found evidence."
No. There IS an unequivocal lack of evidence of God. The evidential
lack is unequivocal. Evidence, lack thereof, does not equivocate.
Equivocation over the evidential lack there is none. Get the picture?
God - forgeddaboutit. It ain't happenin'. You cannae prove it, laddy,
so stap yer mitherin'.
There is no evidence for God's existence so we must act as if God
doesa not exist. QED.
jackkincaid
> Salams:
>
> Atheism is not lack of belief in God, but a belief in there being no God.
Strictly speaking atheism is belief that there is no deity, not no
God. A deity is an object of worship and therefore - I can't prove
this, but this has always been my understanding - an omnipotent being
that *involves itself in the lives of its worshippers*. In other
words, the old fashioned idea of God, as a being with consciousness.
It is possible to think of God as being something unknowable behind
all of existence, without believing it has consciousness or is in any
way involved in the doings of a few million hairless primates on the
third rock from the star Sol in a pissant little solar system in the
spiral arm of a pissant little galaxy in the 8,497,223,945th quadrant
of an infinite universe.
As I understand it 'pure' (non Sufi) Islam is predicated, to a greater
extent than any other religion, on the notion that the deity is
intimately involved with all of our lives - controls them, even.
(Christianity allows us free choice; our immediate fate is in our
hands, our ultimate fate in God's. In Islam - I think - all our fate
belongs to God.)
Atheism is a rejection of *this* conception of God - of, that is, the
deity, and is utterly opposed to any form of worship or religion. But
it is not necessarily opposed to the modern conception of God, as that
which means, say, 'higher mystery' - or that which we don't
understand.
In that sense atheism is the only rational position.
> From a purely mathematical/rational standpoint, this last hypothesis is even more unprovable than the notion
> that there is a God, because it lacks even the element of plausibility, over and above its lack of logic and rationality.
That's funny. Even if you don't accept the definition of wtheism I
just gave, atheism is still more plausible to belief (altthough you're
right to say it is unprovable and therefore, strictly speaking,
unscientific).
There is NO evidence for the existence of God whatsoever. Therefore
there is no plausibility in the existence of God whatsoever. Atheism
is infinitely more plausible than belief.
You obviously don't see that - yopu obviously think the existence of
God is somehow 'plausible'. What interests me is - why? What is it
that you see when you look at the things around you that make you
forget about science and jump to (in scientific terms) the wrong
conclusion?
This is the most interesting question, IMO - what makes people believe
in the irrational?
Viqar Ahmed
> vmi...@yahoo.com wrote in message news:<20011129113312.062$N...@newsreader.com>...
> > Salams:
> >
>
> > Atheism is not lack of belief in God, but a belief in there being no God.
>
> Strictly speaking atheism is belief that there is no deity, not no
> God. A deity is an object of worship and therefore - I can't prove
> this, but this has always been my understanding - an omnipotent being
> that *involves itself in the lives of its worshippers*. In other
> words, the old fashioned idea of God, as a being with consciousness.
>
<sigh> This is not my understanding of atheism. From what you say above,
it seems that deity is an object of worship only, not necessarily also
the creator of the universe. Following your thought a little further, it
would seems that a Creator, who is not otherwise whorshipped, is
admissible under atheism (as he would no longer be a deity). This is not
the impression I get at all when I read Russell and Hoyle. Hoyle, in
particular, has invented all sort of convoluted explanations (i.e, the
continuous creation theory for which science cannot find any evidence) to
get around the first cause headache.
> It is possible to think of God as being something unknowable behind
> all of existence, without believing it has consciousness or is in any
> way involved in the doings of a few million hairless primates on the
> third rock from the star Sol in a pissant little solar system in the
> spiral arm of a pissant little galaxy in the 8,497,223,945th quadrant
> of an infinite universe.
>
To my mind, there is little point in creating if the creator cannot, at
least influence events, where necessary, in the life of its creation.
It would be like the genei you could no longer put in the bottle once
it is out. This invalidate the concept of omnipotence.
> As I understand it 'pure' (non Sufi) Islam is predicated, to a greater
> extent than any other religion, on the notion that the deity is
> intimately involved with all of our lives - controls them, even.
> (Christianity allows us free choice; our immediate fate is in our
> hands, our ultimate fate in God's. In Islam - I think - all our fate
> belongs to God.)
>
You are either misunderstand, or have been misinformed. While there may
be some hard headed muslims who are fatalists to the nth degree, I have
not found any basis for such a rigid view in the teachings of Islam. The
nature of free will and predestination is not a concept the human mind
can grasp with certainty, yet this this is one area where humankind has
probably speculated the most, even insisted on this or that view of it.
Islam certainly does not negate free will; it does however limit it. There
is no such thing as "free" will. This was perhaps best exemplified by Ali(RA)
who, when asked by a man to justify the limitations, asked him to raise
his right leg. When he had done that, Ali(RA) asked him to lift his left
leg also. When he could not do so, Ali(RA) told him that is the extent of
your free will. There are reports of the prophet(SAW) angrily discouraging
believers from futile speculations in areas such as these, but this does
not mean in anyway, shape, or form that muslims have a rigid fatalistic
belief.
> Atheism is a rejection of *this* conception of God - of, that is, the
> deity, and is utterly opposed to any form of worship or religion. But
> it is not necessarily opposed to the modern conception of God, as that
> which means, say, 'higher mystery' - or that which we don't
> understand.
>
Higher mystery? To what purpose? Why would one need to believe in such
when it may be unnecessary? That is highly unscientific.
> In that sense atheism is the only rational position.
>
Huh? And what observable data can you provide to support such "rational"
conclusion?
> > From a purely mathematical/rational standpoint, this last hypothesis is even more unprovable than the notion
> > that there is a God, because it lacks even the element of plausibility, over and above its lack of logic and rationality.
>
> That's funny. Even if you don't accept the definition of wtheism I
> just gave, atheism is still more plausible to belief (altthough you're
> right to say it is unprovable and therefore, strictly speaking,
> unscientific).
>
You don't say!
> There is NO evidence for the existence of God whatsoever. Therefore
> there is no plausibility in the existence of God whatsoever. Atheism
> is infinitely more plausible than belief.
>
God, you are beginning to sound more and more irrational. Do you honestly
believe that if you said "atheism is infinitely more plausible than belief"
a dozen times, I would be forced to believe it?
> You obviously don't see that - yopu obviously think the existence of
> God is somehow 'plausible'. What interests me is - why? What is it
> that you see when you look at the things around you that make you
> forget about science and jump to (in scientific terms) the wrong
> conclusion?
I do not think that the Existence of God is "somehow" plausible. I see
the Hand of God in the precision and elegance with which this universe
functionslike a clockwork, in the rising of the sun every day, in the
provisioning of all the needs to sustain not just human, but all forms
of life, in the death of one organism sustaining the nourishment needs
of countless others, in the missing links in the fossil record, down to
the amazing micro-mysteries of the functioning of the human body itself.
Whenever there was an intricate problem, if there was one factor/explanation
that alone fitted all aspects of the problem where others did not, then,
inevitably, *that* turned out to be *the* expalanation. I learnt this very
simple, yet not so obvious, lesson in the toiling days and nights of research
during my student days. My Faith in God(SWT) is grounded in repeated empirical
confirmation of this very simple conjecture.
> This is the most interesting question, IMO - what makes people believe
> in the irrational?
Beats me!
Viqar Ahmed
Viqar Ahmed
>
> * animal / human cloning
OK. So we can "clone". Can we create life from scratch? Even the simplest
one celled organism? Can we "evolve" it in the way it would need to to
attain the complexity of life forms we know?
> * genetic links in male homosexuality
I doubt that this is conclusive. Sexual anatomy as well as behavior
has been shown to be affected by biochemicals. Some of these are
found in the products we routinely use. How de we know that the food
additives we consume may not, over generations,,effect sexual behavior?
There may not be just cultural factors which explain the wide discrepancy
in the occurence of homosexuality in the western, and the less advanced
muslim societies. The lack of exposure to offending biochemicals due to
a more primitive lifestyle may also have something to do with it.
> * mapping of the human DNA
This falls in the category of normal advancement of knowledge with our
increasingly potent analytical/computational tools.
> * Paul Davies' proposition that during the Big Bang, when the universe was
> "infinitismally small", "matter" would have behaved in a manner consistent
> with quantum mechanics, where things happen not in terms of "cause and
> effect", but in terms of "probability". This could provide the greatest
> challenge to the "First Cause Argument"
Ah...and this quantum mechanical behavior permitted only the specific
required outcome to occur. And not at just one juncture but in zillions of
other event outcomes. That is hardly plausible. Not from natural random
processes anyway. I already pointed this out in my previous post.
> * Susan Blackmore's research into near death experience
> * The philosophical implications of medical psychology's research into
> personality disorder
>
I am not read up on these at this time but I will. Could you possibly
summarize the relevant findings here please. Any links to info available
on the web would also be very helpful.
I have read up on Moody's studies of NDE, and some others around the
same time period. But not susan Blackmore.
> I would love to hear your response, and some proper arguments in favour of
> a God, and I hope that just as I am perfectly prepared to change my mind on
> this matter (heck I'd love to change my mind), that you would at least be
> prepared to do the same.
>
For me, a proper argument is to examine the available data and try to make
sense of it under various postulates. That is the established scientific
method. I had cited the example of the missing link in the fossil record
in my previous response to your post. I see no simpler or better expalanation
than Divine Intervention to bridge the gaps that exist in the record.
> freakoutchild
> reluctant agnostic
My prayers are with you. Don't give up.
Viqar Ahmed
iman
> Belief in creationism is irrational because it depends on faith, which
> is itself irrational.
Incorrect. Faith is not irrational.
Faith is having implicit trust in someone or something. Human beings
manifest faith on a constant basis. They go to work trusting they will
be financially remunerated for their services. They pick up the
telephone receiver trusting it will provide them a means of
communication. They visit and spend time with people whom they trust
out of a necessity felt for human and social contact.
The very statement that "faith is irrational" is itself irrational.
> Belief in evolution is rational because it depends on scientific
> evidence, which is factual (and therefore rational).
No human being has ever witnessed macroevolutionary changes. None have
ever seen first-hand the process of one species becoming another (e.g.
ape to man). As such, it is NOT a witnessable fact (no, the peppered
moth example is not evidentiary of large-scale macroevolutionary
change). It is an *inference* drawn from what some scientists purport
to be evidentiary fact. Mind you, not all scientists draw this
inference. You can call them irrational all you want. It doesn't make
you look any more rational than them.
This aside, indeed, belief in evolution is rational. It is a rationale
that facilitates life in the realm of moral relativism, wherein
objective right and wrong and good and bad cannot be proven because
ultimately, there is nothing or noone who can authoritatively set
forward objective moral criteria in an existence wherein no ultimate
moral authority can be proven or recognized.
Thank God for those who do not subscribe to moral relativism. Were all
to do so, it'd surely be hell on earth.
> > It is naive to imagine that there are not things which are perceived as
> > evidentiary for some that are NOT perceived as evidentiary for others.
> No it isn't. The situation you describe doesn't exist.
Bullshit.
It DOES exist. Millions upon millions of individuals perceive the
argument from design as evidentiary. Then there are those such as you
who do not.
> > Kindly re-read the definition of "evidence." Your assertion that I have
> > no evidence that the universe is ordered is unprovable.
>
> It is eminently provable by asking you to prove it. So prove it.
I know aforehand that even if I were to provide you -- an obstinate
denier -- with an argument premised upon a statement akin to "No letter
can be without a scribe," you'd seek a way to invalidate it by your
chosen perspective of denial.
You are not prepared to accept the argument from design as evidentiary.
That much is quite clear.
> > Provided that I
> > perceive a thing as indicative of that order, that becomes evidentiary,
> > even if only according to my own perception.
>
> No. That's a misconeceptiuon of reality. By that argument what Charles
> Manson percieved - that the world was a giant conspiracy only
> discernable by close study of the lyrics to the Beatles' white album -
> has equal value to what you perceive.
Incorrect and utterly misleading.
What you fail to admit is the difference concerning the quality of
inference. Saying that "No letter can be without a scribe" and
inferring that witnessable design indicates a Maker is NOT the same as
what you describe.
<snip>
> No. There IS an unequivocal lack of evidence of God.
Again, to know this absolutely, you have to be able to know
*everything.* You do not know everything. Therefore, you cannot know
this absolutely.
was-salaam,
im...@merr.com
iman
> (Christianity allows us free choice; our immediate fate is in our
> hands, our ultimate fate in God's. In Islam - I think - all our fate
> belongs to God.)
A gross generalization and misinformation.
Islam is not strictly "fatalistic" as implied here. Muslims recognize
that one has a limited power of choice.
was-salaam,
im...@merr.com
jackkincaid
> jackkincaid wrote:
>
> > Belief in creationism is irrational because it depends on faith, which
> > is itself irrational.
>
> Incorrect. Faith is not irrational.
I think you're misreading me. Faith in the supernatural is irrational,
and faith in the supernaural is what religious belief depends upon.
>
[snip examples of faith in science]
>
> The very statement that "faith is irrational" is itself irrational.
But that wasn't what I meant in my statement, although I understand
how it can be read that way.
>
> > Belief in evolution is rational because it depends on scientific
> > evidence, which is factual (and therefore rational).
>
> No human being has ever witnessed [...] first-hand the process of one species becoming another (e.g. ape to man).
Human beings certainly have witnessed one species changing its nature
as it adapts to a new environment. Not only has it been seen it's been
filmed (and I've seeen the film). To what extent this can be described
as inter-species change depends on yhour definition of 'species'. We
certainly have evidence that the process of evolution of early animals
which we have come to understand from their fossil remains can be
replicated with live animals now. The problem, of course, is that the
entire process of evolution which you're referring to (one species
into another) is so long - millions of years - it couldn't possibly be
witnessed by anyone in the 250 years since the principle has been
understood.
Nevertheless we have witnessed the beginnings of the process of
evolution, and therefore we are justified in accepting the theory,
because the theory fits all the evidence (while there is no evidence
for creationism at all).
> As such, it is NOT a witnessable fact.
Evolution is a witnessable fact; species-to-species evolution is a
theory, yes.
It's interesting that creationists, who used to believe in 'pure'
creationism (ie they rejected *all* forms of evolution( have now
changed their argument. Now species adaptation is OK (because it has
been recorded) but a new hurdle has been set up: species-to-species
evolution.
In fact, there is fossil evidence of reptile-to-bird evolution; there
is all-but complete evidence of fish-to-amphibian evolution; and there
is a massive amount of evidence for amphibian-to-reptile,
mammal-to-amphibian, and so on and so forth.
When the evidence is found, of copurse, the hurdle the scientists will
have to jump to the appease the creationists will be raised again.
This is the way of the world. The last hurdle will be primate-to-man,
because proof of that evolutionary jump implies the soul is a human
construct (and we are very close to finding the proof).
I've sometimes wondered whether religious organisations haven't
secretly destroyed fossil records - but maybe that's too paranoid.
> It is an *inference* drawn from what some scientists purport to be evidentiary fact.
Of course. All scientific theories are just that - theories.
Scientists examine the availbale evidence, establish the facts and
work out a theory that fits them. This is the scientific process, on
which we all depend, and it is rational. It is what we *mean* by
rational.
The religious believer doesn't bother with the evidence and isn't
interested in the facts. The believer just picks a theory that 'feels'
right. Does it 'feel right' that the world is ordered, that it
functions according to a pattern? Well then, no need to find out if
there is any truth in the theory, or any evidence pro or con - it
feels right so it must BE right. If there's a grand design there must
be a grand designer. Simple.
This is irrational.
> Mind you, not all scientists draw this inference.
All scientists come to their conclusions in the same way. The
conclusions may be different (although I've never heard of a
scientific rebuttal of evolution and I'd like to see one) but the
process is always the same.
The point is, it is rational to take a scientific p.o.v., to use a
scientific process, when deciding these things. It is irrational
simply to 'believe'.
And incidentally there is nothing morally wrong with being irrational.
The world would be a poorer place without all the crazies. :-)
> You can call them irrational all you want. It doesn't make you look any more rational than them.
I'm suprised anyone needs to say this still but what the hell, I don't
give a toss what anyone thinks of me. I just tell 'em the way I see
'em - and so, I hope, does everyone else. Honesty is the only
important quality on the usenet; being boring is the only sin.
>
> This aside, indeed, belief in evolution is rational. It is a rationale that facilitates life in the realm of moral relativism, wherein
> objective right and wrong and good and bad cannot be proven because ultimately, there is nothing or noone who can authoritatively set
> forward objective moral criteria in an existence wherein no ultimate moral authority can be proven or recognized.
Thus speaks the man who cannot conceive of a man-made morality; cannot
imagine a moral life seperate from religious authority.
The simple statement 'Do as to others as you would have done to you'
may have a religious precedence but needn't have any connotations of
belief - you don't need to be religious to be a good person.
So, yes, morality does and will exist without religious belief. In
fact, religious belief in practice often encourages moral relativism -
it's very easy for the Christian to espouse universal Christian
morality because in the back of their mind is the idea that secretly,
unconsciously, we're *all* Christians *really*. Trouble is, the Muslim
believes we're all Muslims really and the Buddhist thinks we're all
Buddhists really (a Jewish friend of mine even thinks everyone in the
world is Jewish except him. Go figure...) When your universal
religious morality breaks down into warring ethnic tribes in
Afghanistan, N Ireland and Palestine etc. etc. etc. you're going to
find you need that ol' humanist secular morality after all. But don't
come running to me... :-)
>
> Thank God for those who do not subscribe to moral relativism. Were all
> to do so, it'd surely be hell on earth.
I've got news for you pal, for some of us, it is (and *** save us from
comfortable, God-fearing Americans...:-))
>
> > > It is naive to imagine that there are not things which are perceived as
> > > evidentiary for some that are NOT perceived as evidentiary for others.
>
> > No it isn't. The situation you describe doesn't exist.
>
> Bullshit.
Fact.
>
> It DOES exist. Millions upon millions of individuals perceive the argument from design as evidentiary.
No they don't. Nobody in the world - not one - believes any such
thing. Why? Because they have no evidence.
> Then there are those such as you bwho do not.
There are those of us who don't rely on blind faith but prefer to rely
on science.
I live in a country (UK) in which 5% of the population goes to church
and belief in God is declining to nothing and fast. In fact, all over
Europe, as well as Japan, China etc. religious belief is dwindling
away - it's taking longer than we thought, but it's going.
Don't forget, America is the only democratic country in which belief
in a deity is widespread, just as it's the only democratic country in
which state killing or gun ownership is widespread. I hope you realise
that, when it comes to religious belief in the modern world, the USA
is the exception to the rule, not the rule itself.
The Islamists are probably right in one sense - they probably will
inherit the world's faithful, because Islam will be the last religion
anyone believes in. Trouble is, there won't be enough of them to fill
a mosque.
>
> > > Kindly re-read the definition of "evidence." Your assertion that I have
> > > no evidence that the universe is ordered is unprovable.
> >
> > It is eminently provable by asking you to prove it. So prove it.
>
> I know aforehand that even if I were to provide you -- an obstinate denier
A rational being (or what round my way we call a 'normal person').
> with an argument premised upon a statement akin to "No letter can be without a scribe," you'd seek a way to invalidate it by your
> chosen perspective of denial.
Nah. I'd just say you haven't done nuthin'. Once again: prove it.
>
> You are not prepared to accept the argument from design as evidentiary.
Obviously not. There is no evidence. Give me the evidence, state the
facts, work out your theory - be a rational being - and I might accept
it. Without the evidence it can't be evidentiary.
>
> > > Provided that I
> > > perceive a thing as indicative of that order, that becomes evidentiary,
> > > even if only according to my own perception.
> >
> > No. That's a misconeceptiuon of reality. By that argument what Charles
> > Manson percieved - that the world was a giant conspiracy only
> > discernable by close study of the lyrics to the Beatles' white album -
> > has equal value to what you perceive.
>
> Incorrect and utterly misleading.
Actually he did think that, and that is an example of moral
relativism. That is an example of why religious belief is both
irrational and highly dangerous, because without evidence no two
beliefs can be alike, which means we have schism, which means we have
moral relativism.
>
> What you fail to admit is the difference concerning the quality of inference.
Not true. There are two qualities of understanding (not inference):
first there is that narrow understanding of reality which is based on
the evidence in front of us. Second there is everything else - the
entire spectrum of thousands upon thousands of competing beliefs and
theories, all claiming they are the 'true' revelation, the 'true'
design, the 'true' reading of John, Paul, George and Ringo's lyrics
etc. etc. etc.
Now don't get me wrong: I'm glad the second lot exists - i'm glad
people like you exist (not so sure about Osama bin Laden or Abdul Aziz
or Charles Manson, mind) - but that doesn't mean I'm going to share
whatever weird worldview you happen to have today.
Either stick to the facts (rational) or don't (irrational). There are
far too many competing non-factual weird notions about trhe world for
me to bother choosing one of them as my personal creed.
> Saying that "No letter can be without a scribe" and
> inferring that witnessable design indicates a Maker is NOT the same as what you describe.
Whatever.
>
> > No. There IS an unequivocal lack of evidence of God.
>
> Again, to know this absolutely, you have to be able to know *everything.*
No. I have evidence for evolution. I do not have evidence for
creation. Therefore I accept evolution until more evidence comes up.
All alternate theories have equal weight - ie no weight at all. the
theory that the world was created by the Greek Titan Oceanus during
sex is equivalent to the theory that it was created in six days by the
Jewish God Yaweh. There is no evidence; I won't accept them.
But if you change your defintion of God then the kind of evidence you
need for it changes too. If you insist on an OT God - the angry
creator or merciful designer, or whatever - I'm afraid I require
fingerprints, DNA samples and at least two alibies. But if you're
going to tell me that God is (say) that which existed before the big
bang - that which is always unknowable - I'll let you off with a
caution.
If your definition of God is so huge, and therefore so vague, as that,
you don't need evidence because no evidence can exist. God becomes
that for which no evidence can *ever* exist (which is to say -
nothing).
And you might as well make 'nothing' your God because as the evidence
for the OT God's non-existence is discovered the dwindling band of
believers will alter their definition of God - as they have been doing
for as long as man has existed - until 'nothing' is all that is left.
I assumed you were a Christian earlier on (you come across like a
born-again Christian) but really, it doesn't matter...
> You do not know everything.
You know what? You won't believe me, but funnily enough I DO know
everything! :-)
But don't tell anyone ...
> Therefore, you cannot know this absolutely.
Like I said, I can't know absolutely that God doesn't exist, but I
*do* know that the god in which you believe (the god who interferes in
men's lives' who parts the Red Sea, feeds the five thousand, whispers
stories in the ear of an illiterate Meccan or northern Indian) does
not exist (because you have no evidence of it), so the kind of God
that is left us is so removed from our conception - and infinitely far
removed fro the conception of Muhammed, Moses, Jesus, Siddhartha and
the rest - that belief in it is pointless.
jackkincaid
> > > Atheism is not lack of belief in God, but a belief in there being no God.
> >
> > Strictly speaking atheism is belief that there is no deity [snip]
>
> <sigh> This is not my understanding of atheism. From what you say above,
> it seems that deity is an object of worship only, not necessarily also
> the creator of the universe.
I think more than that. I think a deity is something which we can
conceive of, something we have aq connection to - because it crteated
us, designed the universe etc. Something that exists, is conscious.
Something whose character (merciful etc.) is created by man - a deity
ios basically a man-made god.
But like I said, this is my own understanding of two senses of the
meaning of the word 'atheism', I'm not saying it is a theological
theory or whatever.
>Following your thought a little further, it
> would seems that a Creator, who is not otherwise whorshipped, is
> admissible under atheism (as he would no longer be a deity).
No, if I said that that's not what I meant. A creator is a deity
because it becomes involved in our lives (who are its *real* creators
- ie we create deities out of our need to believe we have been created
ourselves, they do not create us) by creating us. Does that make
sense?
As soon as you have something - a god, a deity - which is conceivable
in any way (such as the act of creation) by humankind you have
something less than God - but only if you need to invent a different
conception of God, which includes science. A deity is always disproved
by science.
> This is not
> the impression I get at all when I read Russell and Hoyle. Hoyle, in
> particular, has invented all sort of convoluted explanations (i.e, the
> continuous creation theory for which science cannot find any evidence) to
> get around the first cause headache.
Sure. There is another big problem with continuous creation (CC):
evolution theory is usually taken to be one side of a process (the
other side being devolution) of 'movement', of change, from one state
of being into another.
If you accept that the universe is being continuously created (Big
Bang > expansion > cooling > retraction > collapse > Big Bang etc.)
there is at least the implication that an evolutionary process is
going on (when matter collapses at the end it must 'go' somewhere - so
perhaps there are other universes where CC is also goping on, but 'out
of phase' with ours.
But if this constant change is happening it *might* mean evolution is
going on - some universes become something somehow 'better' than other
universes. Some universes, perhaps, collapse - or 'devolve'. Maybe the
production of life in a universe is itself an evolutionary step in the
life of that universe - maybe some universes go through all these
changes but never produce life at all.
And maybe when life is produced its 'purpose', for want of a better
word, is to understand the process of CC before the universe collapses
(which might imply that human beings are 'destined', fwoabw, for
billions more years).
You can see, even to express this idea you have to use all sorts of
words usually associated with religious belief - we just don't have
any other way of expressing enormous scientific theories. But the
point is, if everything is evolving to something - what is it?
And is this another way of describing 'God'?
>
> > It is possible to think of God as being something unknowable behind
> > all of existence, without believing it has consciousness or is in any
> > way involved in the doings of a few million hairless primates on the
> > third rock from the star Sol in a pissant little solar system in the
> > spiral arm of a pissant little galaxy in the 8,497,223,945th quadrant
> > of an infinite universe.
> >
>
> To my mind, there is little point in creating if the creator cannot, at
> least influence events, where necessary, in the life of its creation.
> It would be like the genei you could no longer put in the bottle once
> it is out.
...and this encapsulates the reason religion exists. What you are
really saying is: 'I can't imagine that all this - eveything I see -
could have been built for me (us) for no purpose'. Which is, no
offence, arrogant (why the hell should you matter to a deity? Why
should you even be noticed?) and simplistic - the infinitely more
astonishing thing would be that there *is* a purpose in life.
In fact, what you're really really saying is: 'Surely we're not
alone?' And we are.
> This invalidate the concept of omnipotence.
Omnipotence implies consciousness, so yes. In the definition I gave
above consciousness only applies to a deity, and there is no deity. If
we're going to define the meaning of God there cannot be
consciousness, and so there can't be omnipotence.
You really are alone. Nobody will ever help you, or us, for evermore.
>
> > As I understand it 'pure' (non Sufi) Islam is predicated, to a greater
> > extent than any other religion, on the notion that the deity is
> > intimately involved with all of our lives - controls them, even.
> > (Christianity allows us free choice; our immediate fate is in our
> > hands, our ultimate fate in God's. In Islam - I think - all our fate
> > belongs to God.)
> >
>
> You are either misunderstand, or have been misinformed.
I'm sure I have.
> While there may
> be some hard headed muslims who are fatalists to the nth degree, I have
> not found any basis for such a rigid view in the teachings of Islam.
Sure, but I didn't really mean that as a dogma of fatalism, more a
cultural difference (probably more or less marked from culture to
culture) in the acceptance of an 'active' deity, one which imposes its
will and is seen to impose its will.
Don't forget, there's a difference in the belief of Christians in this
regard. Catholics tend to believe in God acting on earth (ie
miracles), Protestants generally do not. Unless they are American. :-)
> The nature of free will and predestination is not a concept the human mind
> can grasp with certainty, yet this this is one area where humankind has
> probably speculated the most, even insisted on this or that view of it.
> Islam certainly does not negate free will; it does however limit it. There
> is no such thing as "free" will.
Well then, Christianity and Islam, in that regard, *are* different. In
Christianity, there is free will.
I think the idea is that God knows what choice you will make but
nevertheless the power to make that choice is entirely yours. Free
will is indeed the greatest gift God gave man. I think.
And it does make quite a cultural difference, I believe. At the heart
of many of the arguments we have on this NG about democracy and
theocracy is the simple notion of individual freedom v social
responsibility. Neither is 'better' than the other but each is
accentuated in western and eastern society respectively, probably (I
guess) in large part because of these different religious heritages.
That's why, I believe, both communities - and all others - need each
other. But then I'm an old hippy at heart.
[snip example of God's will]
>
> > But it is not necessarily opposed to the modern conception of God, as that
> > which means, say, 'higher mystery' - or that which we don't understand.
> Higher mystery?
er ... yeah. Lousy phrase. I really mean everything we don't yet
understand - what was before the Big Bang, what happens to
consciousness after death, that sort of thing - the stuff religions
always invent answers for.
> To what purpose?
Purpose? What makes you think there's ever a 'purpose'? I've no idea.
> Why would one need to believe in such when it may be unnecessary?
Unnecessary? Who cares for what's neccessary? What does 'necessary'
mean in this context?
> That is highly unscientific.
I'm not sure what you mean. I'm simply putting forward the (very old)
idea that we can use the term 'God' to describe, or explain,
everything that there is we don't understand - such as the things I
just listed. It isn't scientific or non-scientific - it's just a
change of word. Instread of 'mystery' let's say 'god'. My original
point was that any other meaning for God is - unscientific, if you
like, because they're all unverifiable.
>
> > In that sense atheism is the only rational position.
>
> Huh? And what observable data can you provide to support such "rational" conclusion?
I don't have to. You're the one inventing the irrational explanations
for things, not me (maybe not you personally but the religious
believers are) . What observable data can YOU provide to support such
YOUR conclusion that this 'god' exists? You can't, so the theory that
god exists is hopeless and we're better off rejecting it. That doesn't
mean we should believe in something else - just that we should accept
the facts when we see them.
>
[snip]
>
> > There is NO evidence for the existence of God whatsoever. Therefore
> > there is no plausibility in the existence of God whatsoever. Atheism
> > is infinitely more plausible than belief.
>
> God, you are beginning to sound more and more irrational. Do you honestly
> believe that if you said "atheism is infinitely more plausible than belief"
> a dozen times, I would be forced to believe it?
No offence but I don't care what you believe.
Let me make it plain: I don't believe anything - atheism is the
*absence* of belief, not an *alternative* form of belief - and
therefore I cannot make anyone else 'believe' in anything. there's
nothing *to* believe. You either accept my position or you don't.
That's a rational position.
You are the one who believes something - a religion - but if I were to
ask you for evidence to justify your belief tyou would be unable to
comply. therefore there is no rational justification for you holding
your belief. You are being irrational.
But don't get freaked out about it - there's nothing wrong with being
irrational (although you will shortly go bald).
>
[snip]
>
> I do not think that the Existence of God is "somehow" plausible. I see
> the Hand of God in the precision and elegance with which this universe
> functionslike a clockwork, in the rising of the sun every day, in the
> provisioning of all the needs to sustain not just human, but all forms
> of life,
[snip the rest - you were insinuating psudo-scientific superstitious
explanations for things]
That's all very poetic, but WHY do you see the Hand of God when I
don't?
I'm not suggesting you're on drugs oe anything, and I certainly don't
envy you, but doesn't it interest you that you percieve a 'hidden
hand' behind the universe while many others like me think the idea is
laughable - and not only laughable, deeply disturbing. The beauty of
the universe would be destroyed if the notion that there is some kind
of purpose to it all was imposed upon us.
>
> Whenever there was an intricate problem, if there was one factor/explanation
> that alone fitted all aspects of the problem where others did not, then,
> inevitably, *that* turned out to be *the* expalanation. I learnt this very
> simple, yet not so obvious, lesson in the toiling days and nights of research
> during my student days. My Faith in God(SWT) is grounded in repeated empirical
> confirmation of this very simple conjecture.
Interesting. But why did you want to find an 'answer' in the first
place?
Can't you see that you had already made up your mind to believe in God
and were simply finding questions to ask that would give you the
answers you wanted to hear? Or am I being patronising? :-)
iman <im...@merr.com> wrote in message news:<3C0D4681...@merr.com>...
> jackkincaid wrote:
>
> > (Christianity allows us free choice; our immediate fate is in our
> > hands, our ultimate fate in God's. In Islam - I think - all our fate
> > belongs to God.)
>
> A gross generalization and misinformation.
Really? Not according to the last fellah.
But I meant no insult and apologise if any was taken.
>
> Islam is not strictly "fatalistic" as implied here. Muslims recognize
> that one has a limited power of choice.
Well ... quite. Christians, as far as I know, do not (within
scientific limits, of course). :-)
vmi...@yahoo.com
> >
> > To my mind, there is little point in creating if the creator cannot, at
> > least influence events, where necessary, in the life of its creation.
> > It would be like the genei you could no longer put in the bottle once
> > it is out.
>
> ...and this encapsulates the reason religion exists. What you are
> really saying is: 'I can't imagine that all this - eveything I see -
> could have been built for me (us) for no purpose'. Which is, no
> offence, arrogant (why the hell should you matter to a deity? Why
> should you even be noticed?) and simplistic - the infinitely more
> astonishing thing would be that there *is* a purpose in life.
>
Your inference is unfair. I do not "imagine" it. I offered a logical
argument. Which is that, if there is a Creator, then his omnipotence
demands the ability to intervene and influence.
> In fact, what you're really really saying is: 'Surely we're not
> alone?' And we are.
The above statement/position is either provable, or it is a belief.
Which is it?
> You really are alone. Nobody will ever help you, or us, for evermore.
Ditto.
> > Islam certainly does not negate free will; it does
> > however limit it. There is no such thing as "free" will.
>
> Well then, Christianity and Islam, in that regard, *are* different. In
> Christianity, there is free will.
>
I see. So, Christians can levitate as a matter of course?
> I think the idea is that God knows what choice you will make but
> nevertheless the power to make that choice is entirely yours. Free
> will is indeed the greatest gift God gave man. I think.
>
Er ... Which God?
>
> > Higher mystery?
>
> er ... yeah. Lousy phrase. I really mean everything we don't yet
> understand - what was before the Big Bang, what happens to
> consciousness after death, that sort of thing - the stuff religions
> always invent answers for.
>
> > To what purpose?
>
> Purpose? What makes you think there's ever a 'purpose'? I've no idea.
>
> > Why would one need to believe in such when it may be unnecessary?
>
> Unnecessary? Who cares for what's neccessary? What does 'necessary'
> mean in this context?
>
> > That is highly unscientific.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean.
What I mean is that in the scientific method, you do not postulate
anything unless you have to, or it is obvious. So if a higher mystery
does not serve a purpose, why would science admit it?
> I'm simply putting forward the (very old)
> idea that we can use the term 'God' to describe, or explain,
> everything that there is we don't understand - such as the things I
> just listed. It isn't scientific or non-scientific - it's just a
> change of word. Instread of 'mystery' let's say 'god'. My original
> point was that any other meaning for God is - unscientific, if you
> like, because they're all unverifiable.
I think it is a disservice to believers to attribute their belief
in God as an excuse for ignorance. Such belief is, in my view at least,
a positive, conscious, act of recognition and acceptance; not some sort
of /dev/null bucket to which every unresolved issue is consigned.
> > > In that sense atheism is the only rational position.
> >
> > Huh? And what observable data can you provide to support such
> > "rational" conclusion?
>
> I don't have to.
I am afraid you have to. If you stake a position, you have to offer
at least some plausible reasons for it. To simply say, that because
there is no scientific proof of God, there is no God, is not even
logically correct. I have already pointed this out in another post.
> You're the one inventing the irrational explanations
> for things, not me (maybe not you personally but the religious
> believers are) . What observable data can YOU provide to support such
> YOUR conclusion that this 'god' exists?
AFAIK, offering plausible reasons for why one would believe in some
concept is not considered irrational by any sane person. I have offered
my reasons, and also, in another post, pointed out that the Divine
Intervention postulate is not only the simplest explanation for the
gaps in the fossil record, but also resolves the apparent contradiction
between the evolutionary and creationary hypotheses for the emergence of
human beings. It may also be alluede to in the Qur'an.
You can't, so the theory that
> god exists is hopeless and we're better off rejecting it.
I do not find it hopeless at all. And how would we be "better off"
rejecting it?
> > > There is NO evidence for the existence of God whatsoever. Therefore
> > > there is no plausibility in the existence of God whatsoever. Atheism
> > > is infinitely more plausible than belief.
> >
> > God, you are beginning to sound more and more irrational. Do you
> > honestly believe that if you said "atheism is infinitely more plausible
> > than belief" a dozen times, I would be forced to believe it?
>
> No offence but I don't care what you believe.
>
That is fine, but it still does not make it anymore acceptable. I
mean, what reasons have you offered other than simply insisting
that atheism is more plausible than belief? That is what I find
irrational.
> Let me make it plain: I don't believe anything - atheism is the
> *absence* of belief, not an *alternative* form of belief - and
> therefore I cannot make anyone else 'believe' in anything.
<sigh> Please take a deep breath. Do you believe that the only
rational thing is to not beleive in anything?
there's
> nothing *to* believe.
We disagree here. If you think really hard about it,*everyone*
has a belief.
You either accept my position or you don't.
> That's a rational position.
And it is equally rational to not accept your position. And (no
offence, but) I don't.
>
> You are the one who believes something - a religion - but if I were to
> ask you for evidence to justify your belief tyou would be unable to
> comply. therefore there is no rational justification for you holding
> your belief. You are being irrational.
>
I have stated my reasons. It may not be mathematical proof, but it
is certainly not irrational.
> But don't get freaked out about it - there's nothing wrong with being
> irrational (although you will shortly go bald).
I am sorry to say this, but people usually resort to these type of
statements when they run out of logical arguments with which to defend.
> [snip]
> That's all very poetic, but WHY do you see the Hand of God when I
> don't?
>
Well if it gives anyone any comfort, I am not the only one.
> I'm not suggesting you're on drugs oe anything, and I certainly don't
> envy you, but doesn't it interest you that you percieve a 'hidden
> hand' behind the universe while many others like me think the idea is
> laughable - and not only laughable, deeply disturbing.
You know, I heard the story of a British PM who visited a mental
institution (fact finding trip I expect. Please don't get alarmed).
Reportedly he got ito a very enjoyable chat with an intern. Shaking
his head as he prepared to depart, he could'nt help asking this man
as to why he was there since he seemed so obviously sane and intelligent.
"You know", the man said,"I used to call the world mad, and the people
called me mad".
"So?", asked the baffled PM."
Nothing", said the man,"the majority was against me".
Do you really think people should go by polls in order to decide what
beliefs they should hold?
> > Whenever there was an intricate problem, if there was one
> > factor/explanation that alone fitted all aspects of the problem where
> > others did not, then, inevitably, *that* turned out to be *the*
> > expalanation. I learnt this very simple, yet not so obvious, lesson in
> > the toiling days and nights of research during my student days. My
> > Faith in God(SWT) is grounded in repeated empirical confirmation of
> > this very simple conjecture.
>
> Interesting. But why did you want to find an 'answer' in the first
> place?
>
When you are doing computer simulations in order to validate theoretical
models, you do run into some nutty problems now and then.
> Can't you see that you had already made up your mind to believe in God
> and were simply finding questions to ask that would give you the
> answers you wanted to hear? Or am I being patronising? :-)
No. I have read a lot of you posts, and I do not think you are patronising.
But I did come close to what you call disbelief at one point, way back
when. So, did I already have my mind made up? I doubt it very much.
jackkincaid
> > >
[snip]
> Your inference is unfair.
I know, I know. But hey, life's like that. :-)
> I do not "imagine" it [God, I think]. I offered a logical argument. Which is that, if
Your logical argument is, from the first word, only logical in the
sense that it logically follows an illogical assumption.
> there is a Creator, then his omnipotence demands the ability to intervene and influence.
I don't think that logically follows at all, actually. You could have
either without the other. It all depends on what the human imagination
is capable of.
The *real* reason you think that there is a god which intervenes is
the same as the reason you think that there is a god who created the
universe - your religion demands it. You are a memeber of your faith
first; a believer in god second. If you had been born in Kansas you
would be a Christian (probably); if you had been born in Bangkok, a
Buddhist, and so on... None of these faiths are universal, or they
would all be the same. If your experience is in any way typical (and
if you're going to be honest with us) you have the kind of beliefes
you have because you are a Muslim (assuming you are - or whatever
religion you follow), and you knew you were a Muslim before you knew
what a Muslim believes.
The question is - why?
>
> > In fact, what you're really really saying is: 'Surely we're not
> > alone?' And we are.
>
> The above statement/position is either provable, or it is a belief.
> Which is it?
It's my opinion. Based on the current scientific theories, based on
facts, based on evidence.
>
> > You really are alone. Nobody will ever help you, or us, for evermore.
>
> Ditto.
I know. I think [sob] I'm going to ... cry [sob]
>
> > > Islam certainly does not negate free will; it does
> > > however limit it. There is no such thing as "free" will.
> >
> > Well then, Christianity and Islam, in that regard, *are* different. In
> > Christianity, there is free will.
>
> I see. So, Christians can levitate as a matter of course?
Absolutely.
No. Hang on, that's the Natural Law Party isn't it?
Free will means within the bounds of the possible, obviously.
And please don't infer I'm a Christian, or a Christian partisan.
>
> > I think the idea is that God knows what choice you will make but
> > nevertheless the power to make that choice is entirely yours. Free
> > will is indeed the greatest gift God gave man. I think.
> >
>
> Er ... Which God?
This is Christian dogma I'm spouting. I think. (Like I said, I'm not a
Christian - but I am more familiar with it than with other faiths).
>
> >
[snip]
>
> What I mean is that in the scientific method, you do not postulate
> anything unless you have to, or it is obvious. So if a higher mystery
> does not serve a purpose, why would science admit it?
Science doesn't serve a 'purpose' in the sense I think you mean.
The pursuit of knowledge is an end in itself, I suppose. Science
simply describes the body of knowledge and the method by which we
pursue it. I'm not sure what you mean by 'purpose'.
>
[snip]
> I think it is a disservice to believers to attribute their belief
> in God as an excuse for ignorance.
That's a matter of opinion, obviously.
> Such belief is, in my view at least,
> a positive, conscious, act of recognition and acceptance; not some sort
> of /dev/null bucket to which every unresolved issue is consigned.
This 'positive, conscious, act of recognition and acceptance' is
unattainable and somewhat disturbing to people like me, so my
intemntion was to come up with a definition of God which is 'useful'
(or, if you like, 'serves a purpose') for all of us. A definition of
God which only suits one section of society is no good to anyone,
right? I mean, that's what we've been fighting about these last 10,000
years, right?
Question: what is a /dev/null bucket?
>
> > > > In that sense atheism is the only rational position.
> > >
> > > Huh? And what observable data can you provide to support such "rational" conclusion?
> >
> > I don't have to.
>
> I am afraid you have to. If you stake a position, you have to offer
> at least some plausible reasons for it. To simply say, that because
> there is no scientific proof of God, there is no God, is not even
> logically correct. I have already pointed this out in another post.
Quote (from memory):
Sherlock Holmes: Was it not remarkable, Watson, the bark of the dog?
Dr Watson: But Holmes, the dog didn't bark.
Holmes: Precisely, my dear Watson.
(or something like that).
I think this leads up to a famous aphorism of Conan Doyle's about
evidence - if everything else has been discounted as in error, then
what is left must be factual.
I don't have to prove God *doesn't* exist, YOU have to prove it *does*
- because it is *your* theory.
My theory, that science is correct, has a wealth of evidence -
incomplete, but enormous. Your theory has no evidence to back it up,
and moreover (because of the huge number of different religions)
contradicts itself.
That being the case, my theory is the rational one.
>
> > You're the one inventing the irrational explanations
> > for things, not me (maybe not you personally but the religious
> > believers are) . What observable data can YOU provide to support such
> > YOUR conclusion that this 'god' exists?
>
> AFAIK, offering plausible reasons for why one would believe in some
> concept is not considered irrational by any sane person. I have offered
> my reasons, and also, in another post, pointed out that the Divine
> Intervention postulate is not only the simplest explanation for the
> gaps in the fossil record, but also resolves the apparent contradiction
> between the evolutionary and creationary hypotheses for the emergence of
> human beings. It may also be alluede to in the Qur'an.
Before the fossil record was compiled creationists believed every
animal species was created individually. Now they accept evolution,
but not some cross-species kinds of evolution. When the fossil records
of the various missing links have been found they will have to revise
their theory yet again.
Your theory may well be simpler - in fact, it's so simple it's
virtually cheating. It amounts to: I don't know why this happened so
I'll blame him over there (ie God).
My theory is complex, but then the universe is complex. My theory fits
the facts; your theory isn't interested in the facts presumably
because they were all 'created' too.
In the end it's an impossible argument. Your position is tantamount to
the denial of reality, and I have no means of bringing you back down
to earth.
>
> You can't, so the theory that god exists is hopeless and we're better off rejecting it.
>
> I do not find it hopeless at all. And how would we be "better off" rejecting it?
We'd have no more religions.
Imagine that.
>
>
> I
> mean, what reasons have you offered other than simply insisting
> that atheism is more plausible than belief? That is what I find
> irrational.
What reasons for what? Accepting that science is correct and belief in
the supernatural is irrational? The question answers itself. If
science isn't correct you might as well be sitting in front of a
banana talking to yourself instead of a computer monitor. the entire
universe follows scientific principles. You can't pick and choose the
ones you think more 'real'.
Your belief is entirely within your own head. If you're asking me am I
capable of reaching into your head and making you see things
rationally, the answer is - yes. But you *really* wouldn't like it. It
gives you a nosebleed. :-)
>
> > Let me make it plain: I don't believe anything - atheism is the
> > *absence* of belief, not an *alternative* form of belief - and
> > therefore I cannot make anyone else 'believe' in anything.
>
> <sigh> Please take a deep breath. Do you believe that the only
> rational thing is to not beleive in anything?
Without evidence? Yes.
>
> there's
> > nothing *to* believe.
>
> We disagree here. If you think really hard about it,*everyone* has a belief.
Not without evidence.
In fact, we need a definition of 'belief' here, but I'm running out of
time.
>
> You either accept my position or you don't.
> > That's a rational position.
>
> And it is equally rational to not accept your position. And (no
> offence, but) I don't.
It isn't rational to reject the facts in favour of faith, no.
>
> >
> > You are the one who believes something - a religion - but if I were to
> > ask you for evidence to justify your belief tyou would be unable to
> > comply. therefore there is no rational justification for you holding
> > your belief. You are being irrational.
> >
>
> I have stated my reasons. It may not be mathematical proof, but it
> is certainly not irrational.
I'm afraid it is.
>
> > But don't get freaked out about it - there's nothing wrong with being
> > irrational (although you will shortly go bald).
>
> I am sorry to say this, but people usually resort to these type of
> statements when they run out of logical arguments with which to defend.
It's a joke, baldy.
>
> > [snip]
> > That's all very poetic, but WHY do you see the Hand of God when I
> > don't?
> >
>
> Well if it gives anyone any comfort, I am not the only one.
Yeah, but why? Don't you find that interesting?
>
> > I'm not suggesting you're on drugs oe anything, and I certainly don't
> > envy you, but doesn't it interest you that you percieve a 'hidden
> > hand' behind the universe while many others like me think the idea is
> > laughable - and not only laughable, deeply disturbing.
>
> You know, I heard the story of a British PM who visited a mental
> institution (fact finding trip I expect. Please don't get alarmed).
> Reportedly he got ito a very enjoyable chat with an intern. Shaking
> his head as he prepared to depart, he could'nt help asking this man
> as to why he was there since he seemed so obviously sane and intelligent.
> "You know", the man said,"I used to call the world mad, and the people
> called me mad".
>
> "So?", asked the baffled PM."
>
> Nothing", said the man,"the majority was against me".
>
> Do you really think people should go by polls in order to decide what
> beliefs they should hold?
Of course not. Only to choose PMs.
In fact, that is exactly what I think you have done yourself. You
believe what you believe because of social pressure on you to believe.
>
> > > Whenever there was an intricate problem, if there was one
> > > factor/explanation that alone fitted all aspects of the problem where
> > > others did not, then, inevitably, *that* turned out to be *the*
> > > expalanation. I learnt this very simple, yet not so obvious, lesson in
> > > the toiling days and nights of research during my student days. My
> > > Faith in God(SWT) is grounded in repeated empirical confirmation of
> > > this very simple conjecture.
> >
> > Interesting. But why did you want to find an 'answer' in the first
> > place?
> >
>
> When you are doing computer simulations in order to validate theoretical
> models, you do run into some nutty problems now and then.
Now who's giving who glib answers?
If you don't know *why* you became religious how do you know you *are*
religious?
>
> > Can't you see that you had already made up your mind to believe in God
> > and were simply finding questions to ask that would give you the
> > answers you wanted to hear? Or am I being patronising? :-)
>
> No. I have read a lot of you posts, and I do not think you are patronising.
Actually I am being patronising but I wanted you to realise I knew I
was.
> But I did come close to what you call disbelief at one point, way back
> when. So, did I already have my mind made up? I doubt it very much.
That doesn't answer my question. If you have always believed in God
it's odds-on your family brought you up that way. Which begs the
question, what would have happened if you had rejected Islam? Your dad
would have gone nuts, right? Rejecting your heritage? Not under MY
roof you little bastard! Am I right? Mum in tears?
So it's not like you really had a choice, is it? Now I don't call that
voluntary. I don't call religious belief of any kind learned at the
parents knee voluntary. It's not that I blame your parents or anything
(that would be kinda ridiculous) but you can surely see a more honest
environment in which to come to religious faith would be one that is
completely neutral on it.
Viqar Ahmed
> Your logical argument is, from the first word, only logical in the
> sense that it logically follows an illogical assumption.
>
and what illogical assumtion is that?
> > there is a Creator, then his omnipotence demands the ability to intervene and influence.
>
> I don't think that logically follows at all, actually. You could have
> either without the other. It all depends on what the human imagination
> is capable of.
Ah. I stand corrected. My I have a kilo of omnipotence without
involving God, please?
>
> The *real* reason you think that there is a god which intervenes is
> the same as the reason you think that there is a god who created the
> universe - your religion demands it. You are a memeber of your faith
> first; a believer in god second. If you had been born in Kansas you
> would be a Christian (probably); if you had been born in Bangkok, a
> Buddhist, and so on... None of these faiths are universal, or they
> would all be the same. If your experience is in any way typical (and
> if you're going to be honest with us) you have the kind of beliefes
> you have because you are a Muslim (assuming you are - or whatever
> religion you follow), and you knew you were a Muslim before you knew
> what a Muslim believes.
>
> The question is - why?
Wonderful. First you get into my head and imagine what my *real*
reason are. Then you ask *me* why? Why not get into my head one
more time, and answer it for me also?
> >
> > > In fact, what you're really really saying is: 'Surely we're not
> > > alone?' And we are.
> >
> > The above statement/position is either provable, or it is a belief.
> > Which is it?
>
> It's my opinion. Based on the current scientific theories, based on
> facts, based on evidence.
Opinions are open to change. Your conclusion (i.e, we are alone) is
couched in most definintve terms. It does not come across as an
opinion at all.
> There is no such thing as "free" will.
> > >
> > > Well then, Christianity and Islam, in that regard, *are* different. In
> > > Christianity, there is free will.
> >
> > I see. So, Christians can levitate as a matter of course?
>
> Absolutely.
>
> No. Hang on, that's the Natural Law Party isn't it?
>
> Free will means within the bounds of the possible, obviously.
>
Well, then you are talking Islam, not Christianity.
>
> > Such belief is, in my view at least,
> > a positive, conscious, act of recognition and acceptance; not some sort
> > of /dev/null bucket to which every unresolved issue is consigned.
>
> This 'positive, conscious, act of recognition and acceptance' is
> unattainable and somewhat disturbing to people like me, so my
> intemntion was to come up with a definition of God which is 'useful'
> (or, if you like, 'serves a purpose') for all of us. A definition of
> God which only suits one section of society is no good to anyone,
> right? I mean, that's what we've been fighting about these last 10,000
> years, right?
>
How do you know it is unattainable? And what is your point in saying
that it is disturbing to some people like yourself. Is that supposed
to be a yardstick? Atheistic view is disturbing to billions to believers,
not all muslims of course. Does that count for anything?
Strife and war is caused solely by the desire for power and material
benefits on the part of some. It has nothing to do with the belief in
God.
> Question: what is a /dev/null bucket?
Never mind.
>
> I don't have to prove God *doesn't* exist, YOU have to prove it *does*
> - because it is *your* theory.
>
Jack, you stepped into the middle of my discussion with someone else.
I am not interested in proving the existence of God to you or anyone
else. It is my belief, based on my experiences and my rationalization
thereof. This I have already cited in earlier posts.
You have not even cited observable phenomena that would reinforce
belief in non-existence of God.
> My theory, that science is correct, has a wealth of evidence -
> incomplete, but enormous.
Yet, you cannot cite any speicifics from this wealth of evidence.
> Your theory has no evidence to back it up,
> and moreover (because of the huge number of different religions)
> contradicts itself.
>
Again, respectfully, I have stated my reasons in many posts.
> That being the case, my theory is the rational one.
So far, I have only your own pronouncements in this regard. That
is short of rational reasoning.
> Before the fossil record was compiled creationists believed every
> animal species was created individually. Now they accept evolution,
> but not some cross-species kinds of evolution. When the fossil records
> of the various missing links have been found they will have to revise
> their theory yet again.
>
Well, I am not a spokesperson for all Creationists, but I have not
found Quran to summarily reject evolution out of hand. But in the
evolution that it refers tro, one finds the Hand of God(SWT).
This is also the evolution which is backed up by the fossile record
that we have available. Natural biological evolution can progress to
a certain point, then it cannot continue. Divine Intervention, then,
transports it to a new reference point, and imparts it additional
potentialities and capabilities for it to proceed along a new chain,
through natural means. To a new culmination from where it must, again,
be nudged. And so on...
> Your theory may well be simpler - in fact, it's so simple it's
> virtually cheating. It amounts to: I don't know why this happened so
> I'll blame him over there (ie God).
>
Not at all. It is consistent with the available data. Remeber what
Einstein said. Every theory must be made as simple as possible, but
no simpler.
> My theory is complex, but then the universe is complex. My theory fits
> the facts; your theory isn't interested in the facts presumably
> because they were all 'created' too.
>
No it does not. Which facts does it fit?
> In the end it's an impossible argument. Your position is tantamount to
> the denial of reality, and I have no means of bringing you back down
> to earth.
That is a lame argument. As Poirot would have said, use your little
grey cells.
> > I
> > mean, what reasons have you offered other than simply insisting
> > that atheism is more plausible than belief? That is what I find
> > irrational.
>
> What reasons for what? Accepting that science is correct and belief in
> the supernatural is irrational? The question answers itself. If
> science isn't correct you might as well be sitting in front of a
> banana talking to yourself instead of a computer monitor. the entire
> universe follows scientific principles. You can't pick and choose the
> ones you think more 'real'.
>
Jack, with due apologies, I don't think you really understand what
science is about. Science attempts to deal with observed data. It
does not concern itself, either negatively or affirmatively, with
the metaphysical. Belief in God is not irrational from a scientific
standpoint.
> Your belief is entirely within your own head. If you're asking me am I
> capable of reaching into your head and making you see things
> rationally, the answer is - yes. But you *really* wouldn't like it. It
> gives you a nosebleed. :-)
LOL. You have often barged into my head, uninvited. You, sneaker, you...
> > > Let me make it plain: I don't believe anything - atheism is the
> > > *absence* of belief, not an *alternative* form of belief - and
> > > therefore I cannot make anyone else 'believe' in anything.
> >
> > <sigh> Please take a deep breath. Do you believe that the only
> > rational thing is to not beleive in anything?
>
> Without evidence? Yes.
There, you see. You do have a belief. And that belief is that nothing
should be believed without evidence.
Applying this rule to this belief of yours, there must be some evidence
for it. Or, one cannot believe that it is not rational to believe in
anything without evidence.
I leave it as an excercise to the reaser to work out the evidence for
this belief of yours.
>
> It isn't rational to reject the facts in favour of faith, no.
No, it is'nt. But fiath does not require this of anyone.
>
> In fact, that is exactly what I think you have done yourself. You
> believe what you believe because of social pressure on you to believe.
sneaking again into my head, eh?
>
> Now who's giving who glib answers?
>
You are <grining>
Listen Jack, when a case is argued in a court of law, it is'nt
necessarily mathematically proven. Both sides make their case,
present testimonies, make arguments, and the jury/judge gets to
make a judement in the end.
It may not be perfect. But, nobody says it is irrational.
Well, I have presented my case.
I have cited the evidence interrupted
(discontinuous) fossile record as a witness/testimony. These are observed
fact, not some supernatural mumbo jumbo.
I have further argued that the Divine Postulate also neatly reconciles
the apparent contradiction between the evolutionist and the creationist
view of the emergence of man.
You have presented your case.
You have disdainfully waved your hand and told the jury that
there is a wealth of evidence, incomplete though, for your case.
You have not cited any specific evidence.
You have attempted to refute my argument by asserting that the
evidence on which I have built my case, will be refuted by science
in future. This is unprovable speculation.
Well, a jury may yet find my argument unbelieveable.
But how could they say it is irrational?
Viqar Ahmed
John Doe
> found Quran to summarily reject evolution out of hand. But in the
> evolution that it refers tro, one finds the Hand of God(SWT).
>
> This is also the evolution which is backed up by the fossile record
> that we have available. Natural biological evolution can progress to
> a certain point, then it cannot continue. Divine Intervention, then,
> transports it to a new reference point, and imparts it additional
> potentialities and capabilities for it to proceed along a new chain,
> through natural means. To a new culmination from where it must, again,
> be nudged. And so on...
Could you give examples of this?
jackkincaid
> > Your logical argument is, from the first word, only logical in the
> > sense that it logically follows an illogical assumption.
>
> and what illogical assumtion is that?
God is.
>
> > > there is a Creator, then his omnipotence demands the ability to intervene and influence.
> >
> > I don't think that logically follows at all, actually. You could have
> > either without the other. It all depends on what the human imagination
> > is capable of.
>
> Ah. I stand corrected. My I have a kilo of omnipotence without
> involving God, please?
Certainly.
What I mean is, you could, logically speaking, have an omnipotent
creator who refuses to have any further involvement in his creation -
ie does not intervene and influence.
In fact, there is or used to be a religion which believed just that -
Zoraosterism perhaps? I'm not sure.
>
> >
> > The *real* reason you think that there is a god which intervenes is
> > the same as the reason you think that there is a god who created the
> > universe - your religion demands it. You are a memeber of your faith
> > first; a believer in god second. If you had been born in Kansas you
> > would be a Christian (probably); if you had been born in Bangkok, a
> > Buddhist, and so on... None of these faiths are universal, or they
> > would all be the same. If your experience is in any way typical (and
> > if you're going to be honest with us) you have the kind of beliefes
> > you have because you are a Muslim (assuming you are - or whatever
> > religion you follow), and you knew you were a Muslim before you knew
> > what a Muslim believes.
> >
> > The question is - why?
>
> Wonderful.
Thanks.
> First you get into my head and imagine what my *real*
> reason are. Then you ask *me* why? Why not get into my head one
> more time, and answer it for me also?
Ah, it's an old trick. From now on I'm only going to mind-read for
money.
OK. Try this: I put it to you, sir, that:
> > The *real* reason you think that there is a god which intervenes is
> > the same as the reason you think that there is a god who created the
> > universe - your religion demands it. You are a memeber of your faith
> > first; a believer in god second. If you had been born in Kansas you
> > would be a Christian (probably); if you had been born in Bangkok, a
> > Buddhist, and so on... None of these faiths are universal, or they
> > would all be the same. If your experience is in any way typical (and
> > if you're going to be honest with us) you have the kind of beliefes
> > you have because you are a Muslim (assuming you are - or whatever
> > religion you follow), and you knew you were a Muslim before you knew
> > what a Muslim believes.
> >
> > The question is - why?
> > > > In fact, what you're really really saying is: 'Surely we're not
> > > > alone?' And we are.
> > >
> > > The above statement/position is either provable, or it is a belief.
> > > Which is it?
> >
> > It's my opinion. Based on the current scientific theories, based on
> > facts, based on evidence.
>
> Opinions are open to change. Your conclusion (i.e, we are alone) is
> couched in most definintve terms. It does not come across as an
> opinion at all.
It is. Everything I say on this NG is an 'opinion'. If it wasn't - if
it was indisputable fact or unquestionable truth - I would be
omnipotent. I would be God.
But I don't believe in God.
So I would cease to exis-
>
> > There is no such thing as "free" will.
> > > >
> > > > Well then, Christianity and Islam, in that regard, *are* different. In
> > > > Christianity, there is free will.
> > >
> > > I see. So, Christians can levitate as a matter of course?
> >
> > Absolutely.
> >
> > No. Hang on, that's the Natural Law Party isn't it?
> >
> > Free will means within the bounds of the possible, obviously.
> >
>
> Well, then you are talking Islam, not Christianity.
No, I'm talking about Christianity. I might be talking about Islam
*too* - you'd have to explain to me in what way Islam admits complete
free will.
>
> >
> > > Such belief is, in my view at least,
> > > a positive, conscious, act of recognition and acceptance; not some sort
> > > of /dev/null bucket to which every unresolved issue is consigned.
> >
> > This 'positive, conscious, act of recognition and acceptance' is
> > unattainable and somewhat disturbing to people like me, so my
> > intemntion was to come up with a definition of God which is 'useful'
> > (or, if you like, 'serves a purpose') for all of us. A definition of
> > God which only suits one section of society is no good to anyone,
> > right? I mean, that's what we've been fighting about these last 10,000
> > years, right?
> >
>
> How do you know it is unattainable?
I said it is unattainable to *people like me* (ie atheists). Why?
Because I don't believe in the thing I'm supposed to make a 'positive
and conscious act of recognition and acceptance' towards.
> And what is your point in saying
> that it is disturbing to some people like yourself.
er ... my point in saying it is disturbing is that it it disturbs me
(and people like me).
> Is that supposed to be a yardstick?
It's supposed to be a statement.
> Atheistic view is disturbing to billions to believers,
> not all muslims of course. Does that count for anything?
Yes. It counts for part of your side of a debate.
>
> Strife and war is caused solely by the desire for power and material
> benefits on the part of some. It has nothing to do with the belief in
> God.
I disagree absolutely. Nearly every war, conflict or atrocity in
history takes place because of ideology, and nearly all ideology is
based on religion.
Crusades? Religion.
Massacre of Indians? Religion.
Slavery? Basically, religion.
100 years war? Basically, monarchical rights, which are rooted in
religion, plus nationalism.
Jewish pogroms? Religion.
The Inquisition? Religion.
Imperialism? Partly based on a sense of religious superiority.
Nazism? Anti-semitism, based on religious difference.
Indian partition? Religion.
Palestine? Religion.
Rwanda? Partly religion.
N Ireland? Religion.
Kashmir? Religion.
Chechenya? Religion.
Afghanistan? Communalism and religion.
I could go on and on and on and on ...
If we didn't have religion we wouldn't have wars. The day we get rid
of religion is the day we finally achieve peace.
>
> > Question: what is a /dev/null bucket?
>
> Never mind.
No really. I want to know.
>
> >
> > I don't have to prove God *doesn't* exist, YOU have to prove it *does*
> > - because it is *your* theory.
> >
>
> Jack, you stepped into the middle of my discussion with someone else.
I do apologise.
> I am not interested in proving the existence of God to you or anyone
> else.
Why not? Do you always blindly believe things people tell you without
evidence? Only if you do I've got a sure-fire bet on a horse race I
want to tell you about...
> It is my belief, based on my experiences and my rationalization
> thereof. This I have already cited in earlier posts.
I know it's your belief. You asked me to prove God does not exist. The
usual way round is to prove that a contention or theory *does* exist.
Existence of God is your theory. But you offer no proof for it.
>
> You have not even cited observable phenomena that would reinforce
> belief in non-existence of God.
Non-existance of God is *not* my contention, or theory - that too is
my belief. As far as that goes I'm in the same position as you.
However, I can offer a wealth of evidence that the God described in
the Bible (and therefore accepted by Christians and Muslims) - the one
who created the world in six days - does not exist, because I can
offer evidence that the world was *not* created in six days.
In fact, I can offer evidence that every God, in every religion, does
not exist.
Which means I cannot offer evidence that *a* God does not exist but I
*can* offer evidence that *any* God described by *any* religion known
to man does not exist.
My beef is with religion, not God.
>
> > My theory, that science is correct, has a wealth of evidence -
> > incomplete, but enormous.
>
> Yet, you cannot cite any speicifics from this wealth of evidence.
Actually I have, in other threads.
The Biblical God invented the world in six days. Geological data such
as radioactive decay, sediment layers etc. indicate this is
impossible.
The family tree in Genesis makes the world 4005 years old. Carbon
dating proves this is nonsense.
We have seen the creation of stars so we know how our own Sun came
into being. We know the universe is expanding; that and other evidence
leads us to the theory of Big Bang.
And so on. None of this proves that A God doesn't exist, as I said,
but it offers enough evidence for a series of facts from which we can
derive a scientific theory about how we, the earth and the universe
came into being, which discount any God posited by any religion that I
have ever heard of (I admit there may be one I don't know about which
takes all this into account).
>
> > Your theory has no evidence to back it up,
> > and moreover (because of the huge number of different religions)
> > contradicts itself.
>
> Again, respectfully, I have stated my reasons in many posts.
I'm afraid I didn't see them.
My point is there is no better reason for believing the Christian
creation myth than the Hindu creation myth - although the Hindu one is
far more entertaining.
>
> > That being the case, my theory is the rational one.
>
> So far, I have only your own pronouncements in this regard. That
> is short of rational reasoning.
>
> > Before the fossil record was compiled creationists believed every
> > animal species was created individually. Now they accept evolution,
> > but not some cross-species kinds of evolution. When the fossil records
> > of the various missing links have been found they will have to revise
> > their theory yet again.
> >
>
> Well, I am not a spokesperson for all Creationists, but I have not
> found Quran to summarily reject evolution out of hand. But in the
> evolution that it refers tro, one finds the Hand of God(SWT).
Hmmm. Care to quote the verse?
In my experience the Koran's 'statements' on these things are so vague
you could read anything you like into them.
>
> This is also the evolution which is backed up by the fossile record
> that we have available. Natural biological evolution can progress to
> a certain point, then it cannot continue.
So far. New fossils are being found all the time. A new early human
skull was found in Kenya only a month or so ago, which serves to prove
an earlier stage of human evolution than hitherto known. There's a
good chance all the 'missing links' will be found, I think.
> Divine Intervention, then,
> transports it to a new reference point, and imparts it additional
> potentialities and capabilities for it to proceed along a new chain,
> through natural means. To a new culmination from where it must, again,
> be nudged. And so on...
This is your theory. For which you have no evidence. Basically you're
filling in the gaps of science with guesswork based on religious
teaching.
That's fine by me, just so long as you don't try to make out it is
science.
Before Darwin nobody knew what the fossils were, or what they meant.
So the 'gaps' left by science were very large and creationists all
believed in 'maximum creation' - basically, the Biblical myth. Now the
gaps are being filled and creation has shrunk down to three
'mysteries':
1) Who made the Big Bang?
2) Who created the first life on earth?
3) who created the first man?
When these mysteries are discovered (or 2 and 3 anyway) creationism
will have shrunk down to 'minimum creationism' - who was behind the
Big Bang. By then the Biblical myth should have become irrelevent
anyway.
>
> > Your theory may well be simpler - in fact, it's so simple it's
> > virtually cheating. It amounts to: I don't know why this happened so
> > I'll blame him over there (ie God).
> >
>
> Not at all. It is consistent with the available data.
It isn't consistent with *any* data at all!
> Remeber what
> Einstein said. Every theory must be made as simple as possible, but
> no simpler.
He meant science, not mythology.
>
> > My theory is complex, but then the universe is complex. My theory fits
> > the facts; your theory isn't interested in the facts presumably
> > because they were all 'created' too.
> >
>
> No it does not. Which facts does it fit?
Expansion of the universe, cooling of the universe, background
radiation, dark matter, the speed of light, stellar formation,
planetary formation, carbohydrate formation, geological dating, carbon
dating, evolutionary records, evolution itself as recorded, genetic
research, liguistic research, and so on and so forth - including the
sociology of religions.
>
> > In the end it's an impossible argument. Your position is tantamount to
> > the denial of reality, and I have no means of bringing you back down
> > to earth.
>
> That is a lame argument. As Poirot would have said, use your little
> grey cells.
You mean I have to work out how to bring you back down to earth? Is
there a magic word or something? I love a puzzle but I don't know if I
have the time for this one.
>
> > > I
> > > mean, what reasons have you offered other than simply insisting
> > > that atheism is more plausible than belief? That is what I find
> > > irrational.
> >
> > What reasons for what? Accepting that science is correct and belief in
> > the supernatural is irrational? The question answers itself. If
> > science isn't correct you might as well be sitting in front of a
> > banana talking to yourself instead of a computer monitor. the entire
> > universe follows scientific principles. You can't pick and choose the
> > ones you think more 'real'.
> >
>
> Jack, with due apologies, I don't think you really understand what
> science is about. Science attempts to deal with observed data. It
> does not concern itself, either negatively or affirmatively, with
> the metaphysical. Belief in God is not irrational from a scientific
> standpoint.
I didn't say it was. But belief in the Biblical God is unscientific -
because that God created the world in six days. If you want to invent
a new God which fits current scientific theory - some kind of
mysterious 'force', like in star wars perhaps - then fine, but it's up
to you to describe it to me.
>
> > Your belief is entirely within your own head. If you're asking me am I
> > capable of reaching into your head and making you see things
> > rationally, the answer is - yes. But you *really* wouldn't like it. It
> > gives you a nosebleed. :-)
>
> LOL. You have often barged into my head, uninvited. You, sneaker, you...
I admit it.
>
> > > > Let me make it plain: I don't believe anything - atheism is the
> > > > *absence* of belief, not an *alternative* form of belief - and
> > > > therefore I cannot make anyone else 'believe' in anything.
> > >
> > > <sigh> Please take a deep breath. Do you believe that the only
> > > rational thing is to not beleive in anything?
> >
> > Without evidence? Yes.
>
> There, you see. You do have a belief. And that belief is that nothing
> should be believed without evidence.
This has become a semantic argument, as they always do, depending on
definition of 'belief' and reality.
In the context of this argument 'belief' implies something more than
the acceptance of reality, it implies a transcendent 'purpose' to
reality, and it is *that* which I contend requires evidence.
>
> Applying this rule to this belief of yours, there must be some evidence
> for it. Or, one cannot believe that it is not rational to believe in
> anything without evidence.
There is evidence for it. If belief is to mean more than simple
acceptance - if it requires a positive act of will to, if you like,
'see behind' reality - the evidence is reality itself. Refusal to
accept reality must be irrational. It is tantamount to madness.
If you want to call acceptance of reality 'belief' in reality (ie in
the evidence for reality), then, yes, it is a belief we all share. But
where does that get us? We are arguing about a belief we do *not* all
share. And if your grounds for accepting reality is the evidence of it
(that we all share - unless you want to argue about that) then you are
also accepting (logically) that the same sort of evidence is required
for *all* belief.
So, back to you. You believe in the Biblical, 6-say wonder, parting
the Red Sea, Christ born of virgin risen in 3 days, whispers in the
ear of an illiterate Arab, God - where is your evidence?
>
> I leave it as an excercise to the reaser to work out the evidence for
> this belief of yours.
Quite. When you find a 'reaser' who has no evidence for reality let me
know.
>
> >
> > It isn't rational to reject the facts in favour of faith, no.
>
> No, it is'nt. But fiath does not require this of anyone.
Faith *per se* doesn't; faith in the Biblical God does.
>
> >
> > In fact, that is exactly what I think you have done yourself. You
> > believe what you believe because of social pressure on you to believe.
>
> sneaking again into my head, eh?
Am I wrong?
All of us are subject to social pressures - you might want to argue
that my insistence on scientific evidence for the objects of belief is
due to social pressures on me.
That doesn't *necessarily* make us wrong; it doesn't make us right,
either.
> >
> > Now who's giving who glib answers?
> >
> You are <grining>
I am? I thought I was being as straight as a die.
>
> Listen Jack, when a case is argued in a court of law, it is'nt
> necessarily mathematically proven. Both sides make their case,
> present testimonies, make arguments, and the jury/judge gets to
> make a judement in the end.
Of course. I'm not about to accuse you of being guilty of
irrationality by association.
However, in any normal court, both sides present evidence for their
case. You are making this too easy.
>
> It may not be perfect. But, nobody says it is irrational.
Me! I do!
>
> Well, I have presented my case.
Without evidence? This HAS to be Allie McBeal! :-)
>
> I have cited the evidence interrupted
> (discontinuous) fossile record as a witness/testimony. These are observed
> fact, not some supernatural mumbo jumbo.
This isn't evidence, this is absence of evidence. This is a 'hole' in
the theory I have constructed, it has no bearing on your case because
your client insists that he invented the world in six days, including
presumably all the fossils (and all the methods of dating them, which
is where the judge's patience starts to wear out).
Or does he? Is your client saying something else?
>
> I have further argued that the Divine Postulate also neatly reconciles
> the apparent contradiction between the evolutionist and the creationist
> view of the emergence of man.
If you did I must have missed it. Can I assume that it takes the form
of divine intervention into scientifically accepted evolution, to
'inject' a soul into a common-or-garden primate to make it a human
being? Is that your case?
In which case, where are the puncture marks on this human being
through which the soul was injected? Where, in fact, is this 'soul' at
all? Where is *any* evidence? I see none.
And what happens when science changes? My case, after all, is a
scientific theory, which relies on facts, which rely on evidence,
which changes all the time. I don't even reject 100% the theory of
divine intervention; I only insist it is so improbable as to be
reasobnably discounted.
I repeat, what happens when we find the evidence for the primate/human
missing link, to which we're getting closer all the time? If and when
we do we will have an entire evolutionary theory, with no holes, in
which no 'divine intervention' is needed. Will *your* case change, as
creationist cases have always changed as science makes them more and
more untenable?
>
> You have presented your case.
>
> You have disdainfully waved your hand and told the jury that
> there is a wealth of evidence, incomplete though, for your case.
Hey, I'm on £1000 an hour for this case. My client expects a bit of
theatricality.
>
> You have not cited any specific evidence.
Neither did you in this thread; you simply said it had been presented
'on another thread'. I have yet to see it.
>
> You have attempted to refute my argument by asserting that the
> evidence on which I have built my case, will be refuted by science
> in future. This is unprovable speculation.
It is, but the balance of evidence so far indicates it strongly.
You have no independent evidence for your case, only the gaps in mine
which you fill with guesswork based on an old wive's tale. No court on
earth would accept it.
>
> Well, a jury may yet find my argument unbelieveable.
Unfortunately far too many juries would find your story all too
believable.
That's why I insist on the trial taking place in Paris (no
self-respecting French intellectual would admit to the existence of
God). :-)
>
> But how could they say it is irrational?
Oh they'd say it's irrational alright. That's the spoils: you get the
belief, I get the rationality.
freakoutchild
> Well, I am not a spokesperson for all Creationists, but I have not
> found Quran to summarily reject evolution out of hand.
The Quran MIGHT NOT reject the theory of evolution completely, but it does
seem to contradict it. For instance, by putting forward "Adam" as a
prophet, it is putting forward the notion that humanity were the
descandents of Adam, that Adam was a historical figure - which as we know
from the theory of evolution and anthropological evidence is pretty unlikely
Nowadays there are Christians and Jews who reinterpret the biblical
creation story as a dreamtime myth - I have yet to hear a Muslim who would
reinterpret the Quranic reference to Adam as "allegorical".
freakoutchild
> Well, I am not a spokesperson for all Creationists, but I have not
> found Quran to summarily reject evolution out of hand.
The Quran MIGHT NOT reject the theory of evolution completely, but it does
freakoutchild
> Well, I am not a spokesperson for all Creationists, but I have not
> found Quran to summarily reject evolution out of hand.
The Quran MIGHT NOT reject the theory of evolution completely, but it does
vmi...@yahoo.com
I had posted responses to your earlier post in this thread. Must have
been almost two weeks ago.
Did you have a chance to read them?
If you have not, and cannort find them, let me know. I'll try to
find and repost them.
Jack needs to read them too. They deal with some of the objections
he has raised in this thread.
Viqar Ahmed
P.S:- Quranic verses seem to indicate an evolutionarly process. I
don't think one should blindly believe that the *only*
evolution is the one that Darwin has postulated.
freakoutchild <pok...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> The Quran MIGHT NOT reject the theory of evolution completely, but it
> does seem to contradict it. For instance, by putting forward "Adam" as a
> prophet, it is putting forward the notion that humanity were the
> descandents of Adam, that Adam was a historical figure - which as we know
> from the theory of evolution and anthropological evidence is pretty
> unlikely
>
> Nowadays there are Christians and Jews who reinterpret the biblical
> creation story as a dreamtime myth - I have yet to hear a Muslim who
> would reinterpret the Quranic reference to Adam as "allegorical".
--
Tumbleweed
>
> P.S:- Quranic verses seem to indicate an evolutionarly process. I
> don't think one should blindly believe that the *only*
> evolution is the one that Darwin has postulated.
And that would be fine, I'd be happy to look at the evidence for that, being
quite open minded. You do have *some* evidence dont you?
jackkincaid
> Hi:
>
> I had posted responses to your earlier post in this thread. Must have
> been almost two weeks ago.
>
> Did you have a chance to read them?
>
> If you have not, and cannort find them, let me know. I'll try to
> find and repost them.
>
> Jack needs to read them too. They deal with some of the objections
> he has raised in this thread.
>
freakoutchild
> Hi:
>
> I had posted responses to your earlier post in this thread. Must have
> been almost two weeks ago.
>
> Did you have a chance to read them?
>
> If you have not, and cannort find them, let me know. I'll try to
> find and repost them.
>
I am planning to start a new thread, partly in response to some of your
points. I hope it's something to look forward to... :-)
> Jack needs to read them too. They deal with some of the objections
> he has raised in this thread.
>
> Viqar Ahmed
>
> P.S:- Quranic verses seem to indicate an evolutionarly process. I
> don't think one should blindly believe that the *only*
> evolution is the one that Darwin has postulated.
What "theory of evolution" do you postulate instead of the Darwinian model?
Mind you, I am aware that there is more than one model of biological
evolution. This to me is part of the beauty of modern science (and part of
my problems with theistic faiths) is that modern science is ultimately no
respecter of canonical authority. Previously popular theory can be
challenged or overthrown with new evidence that contradicts previously
accepted beliefs. Most religions unfortunately are canonical and
authoritarian in nature, the honorable exception seems to be Buddhism.
Anyway, this would become part of my later post regarding religion and the
philosophy of modern science
freakoutchild