# Questions on Christianity (Again...) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 30, 2010, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952 "2010-08-30T02:13:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/321 "2010-09-02T23:44:42Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > I’d rather keep Wiki on the sidelines thanks. But I’ll happily read anything from a reputable physicist that speaks of virtual particles originating out of nothing. > > Your asking this is bizarre - the idea that quantum processes can be uncaused follows directly from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. There’s a good write-up of the history on the Wikipedia page about [the Bohr-Einstein Debates](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%E2%80%93Einstein_debates). It was settled long ago. Heisenberg is referring to the mathematical relationships between the measurable quantities of a particle. It has been described as ‘unintelligible’ to most people, so I really question the use of Wiki as an authoritive reference. To claim this was ‘settled long ago’ is just wishful thinking. ---
**Author:** ![Clark\_K](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c77e96/32.png) [@Clark\_K](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clark_K)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/322 "2010-09-03T00:09:32Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > So, in your opinion, the abuse of a consenting 3 year old would be ok? You said above that taking a 9-year-old as a sexual plaything wasn’t abuse, so I’m not sure why you’re quibbling with **CurtC** regarding 3-year-olds. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/323 "2010-09-03T00:20:20Z")
> [@Clark\_K](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > So, in your opinion, the abuse of a consenting 3 year old would be ok? > > You said above that taking a 9-year-old as a sexual plaything wasn’t abuse, so I’m not sure why you’re quibbling with **CurtC** regarding 3-year-olds. He wasn’t referring to ‘sexual playthings’. There are cultures where marriage/sexual activity at a young age is permissable. I find the notion of this in the case of a 9 year old abhorrent, but that is a distraction from my point, which was about ‘child’ abuse. I’ll wait for an answer on the 3 year old. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/324 "2010-09-03T00:27:07Z")
Two questions for those of you who suggest quantum events are uncaused. 1\> From where do virtual particles derive the energy required for their existence? 2\> What is the state of the quantum vacuum? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/325 "2010-09-03T00:45:30Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > > Those aren’t “universal taboos”; those are the results of thousands of years of progress (a great deal of which was fought tooth and nail by religion). They are presently so widespread because societies that forbid such behavior are more successful and more pleasant places to live, not because they are somehow intrinsic to the universe. Plenty of societies haven’t considered those things wrong at all. > > Thousands of years of progress, from a low population base, within societies who did not recognise the prohibition toward such behaviour? Come on, you don’t really believe that. Of course I do, that’s why I posted it. The idea that, say, murder is something that should be forbidden isn’t something intrinsic to humans; we had to figure out that was a good idea, and then figure out that it should apply to everyone and how to enforce it. A process that took thousands of years. In really primitive societies murder is often the top cause of death for just that reason. > [@aigonz](#): > > But that doesn’t address the issue. > > 1\> Evolutionary theory wold tend to encourage activity such as murder at a tribalistic level because it eliminates competition for food, mates etc. Yet even in remote trabalistic societies man has found such prohibitions. > 2\> Such behavioural prohibitions ARE universal. Murder is considered ‘wrong’ in virtually all societies. As is child abuse. Not really. Murder is only considered wrong in prominent societies because those are the ones that grow the most and become the most powerful; and even then some kinds of murder are acceptable to many or most people. Aggressive wars, for example. Or killing sufficiently unpopular people; the law typically forbids that, but that doesn’t mean that large numbers of people wouldn’t murder if the law got out of the way. As for child abuse, the abuse of children is more common than not depending on how you define it. And even here in modern civilized America plenty of people say that the proper way to treat children is to beat them. > [@aigonz](#): > > > [@CurtC](#): > > > > Define “enjoyed.” If the action was not harmful to the child, or at least potentially harmful, then it’s acceptable. > > So, in your opinion, the abuse of a consenting 3 year old would be ok? Defining “consent” with a child is tricky. And “abuse” isn’t the objective thing you want to claim either; it’s defined by human psychology and biology, not some absolute rule. ---
**Author:** ![Askance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askance/32/8281_2.png) [@Askance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askance)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/326 "2010-09-03T01:48:31Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > Two questions for those of you who suggest quantum events are uncaused. > > 1\> From where do virtual particles derive the energy required for their existence? > 2\> What is the state of the quantum vacuum? 1\> They briefly borrow it from the universe, then return it when they vanish 2\> tumultuous? New Jersey ? What meaning of “state” you are getting at here? State of matter? A vacuum is not a state of matter as by definition it has no matter. You might want to read about [quantum foam](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam): [QUOTE=wikipedia] … a qualitative description of subatomic spacetime turbulence at extremely small distances of the order of the Planck length. At such small scales of time and space **the uncertainty principle allows particles and energy to briefly come into existence, and then annihilate, without violating conservation laws**. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/327 "2010-09-03T02:23:20Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > Stephen Hawking. > > I suggest you read the contents of his lecture titled "Does God play Dice’. I would suggest you [read it yourself](http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/lectures/64) ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/328 "2010-09-03T02:26:55Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > I didn’t say all prohibitions have this characteristic, I said that prohibitions _often_ do (especially in more primitive cultures). > > > > See. There’s a perfect example. Humans are evolved to survive in discrete populations, not as a universal human mass. To simplify, we are tribalistic. What’s “moral” is what’s good for our own tribe. Murder within our own in-groups is destabalizing and counter to our survival. Murdering those hairy-ass heathens on the other side of the waterholes is _good_ for our tribe. > > > > People tend to still be like this, we just have giant tribes now. We still have no problem killing other tribes for oil. War doesn’t count. war has never counted. > > But that doesn’t address the issue. > > 1\> Evolutionary theory wold tend to encourage activity such as murder at a tribalistic level because it eliminates competition for food, mates etc. This is totally incorrect. Homo sapiens is evolved as a social species and is biologically engineered to survive in populations, not as indivduals. Destabalizing the ingroup is dangerous to the individuals within it. Evolution therefore has selected for emapthic response and impulses to protect the ingroup. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/329 "2010-09-03T02:32:13Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Clark\_K](#): > > > > These people certainly seem both sane and perfectly comfortable with abusing children. Therefore, they don’t seem to accept this “objective moral law” you claim is known to everyone. > > > > [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/28/INF21F2Q9H.DTL](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/28/INF21F2Q9H.DTL) > > > > “For centuries, Afghan men have taken boys, roughly 9 to 15 years old, as lovers. Some research suggests that half the Pashtun tribal members in Kandahar and other southern towns are bacha baz, the term for an older man with a boy lover. Literally it means ‘boy player.’ The men like to boast about it.” > > This is not chid abuse. There a plenty of examples of similar behaviours, including cultures who (willingly) marry very young. Butt-fucking 9-year-old boys isn’t child abuse? That’s not the only culture in which pederastic behaviours are considered normal, by the way. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/330 "2010-09-03T02:35:24Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@CurtC](#): > > > > Your asking this is bizarre - the idea that quantum processes can be uncaused follows directly from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. There’s a good write-up of the history on the Wikipedia page about [the Bohr-Einstein Debates](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%E2%80%93Einstein_debates). It was settled long ago. > > > > This is nonsense, and the entire virtual particle issue is being misrepresented here. Heisenberg is referring to the mathematical relationships between the measurable quantities of a particle. It has been described as ‘unintelligible’ to most people, so I really question the use of Wiki as an authoritive reference. > > Define “enjoyed.” If the action was not harmful to the child, or at least potentially harmful, then it’s acceptable. > > So, in your opinion, the abuse of a consenting 3 year old would be ok? A 3-year-old is incapable of consent. You might as well pose a hypothetical about a talking duck. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/331 "2010-09-03T02:37:35Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Clark\_K](#): > > > > You said above that taking a 9-year-old as a sexual plaything wasn’t abuse, so I’m not sure why you’re quibbling with **CurtC** regarding 3-year-olds. > > He wasn’t referring to ‘sexual playthings’. Yes he was. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/332 "2010-09-03T03:41:43Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Thousands of years of progress, from a low population base, within societies who did not recognise the prohibition toward such behaviour? Come on, you don’t really believe that. > > Of course I do, that’s why I posted it. The idea that, say, murder is something that should be forbidden isn’t something intrinsic to humans; we had to figure out that was a good idea, and then figure out that it should apply to everyone and how to enforce it. A process that took thousands of years. In really primitive societies murder is often the top cause of death for just that reason. How do you know it took thousands of years? You can only speculate this, and it’s unlikely. If during this time murder was considered ‘ok’, then based on evolutionary theory it would be prevalent (competing resources etc), and therefore the population would be suppressed. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/333 "2010-09-03T03:44:07Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > So, in your opinion, the abuse of a consenting 3 year old would be ok? > > Defining “consent” with a child is tricky. And “abuse” isn’t the objective thing you want to claim either; it’s defined by human psychology and biology, not some absolute rule. Your playing with words to avoid the obvious and logical implications of your view. A 3 year old cannot give informed consent to being abused. And if you need any further description to clarify abuse let’s deal with rape. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/334 "2010-09-03T03:47:02Z")
> [@Askance](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Two questions for those of you who suggest quantum events are uncaused. > > > > 1\> From where do virtual particles derive the energy required for their existence? > > 2\> What is the state of the quantum vacuum? > > 1\> They briefly borrow it from the universe, then return it when they vanish > 2\> tumultuous? New Jersey ? What meaning of “state” you are getting at here? State of matter? A vacuum is not a state of matter as by definition it has no matter. > > You might want to read about [quantum foam](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam): > > [QUOTE=wikipedia] > … a qualitative description of subatomic spacetime turbulence at extremely small distances of the order of the Planck length. At such small scales of time and space **the uncertainty principle allows particles and energy to briefly come into existence, and then annihilate, without violating conservation laws**. [/QUOTE] Must we deal only with Wiki? Sigh. Still, here goes. 1. Virtual particles arise from fluctuations in the quantum vacuum. These fluctuations prove that the vaccum is not ‘nothing’. 2. Your quote from Wiki doesn’t speak to the issue of cause. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/335 "2010-09-03T03:53:51Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > But that doesn’t address the issue. > > > > 1\> Evolutionary theory wold tend to encourage activity such as murder at a tribalistic level because it eliminates competition for food, mates etc. > > This is totally incorrect. Homo sapiens is evolved as a social species and is biologically engineered to survive in populations, not as indivduals. Destabalizing the ingroup is dangerous to the individuals within it. Evolution therefore has selected for emapthic response and impulses to protect the ingroup. You didn’t read what I posted. On a number of levels our knowledge of anthropology and history contradicts simple evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory suggests that murder would be not only acceptable but desirable AT A TRIBAL LEVEL. This is simply because of competition for resources. If man is ordered based on tribal lines, population growth would suffer from this ethos. We know, however, that this is not the case. I also briefly mentioned. Eugenics is a natural evolutionary response, yet sane people are overwhelmingly are repulsed by it. There are far too many human charateristics and repsonses (global and tribal) that contradict evolution as the sole means of progress. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/336 "2010-09-03T03:54:45Z")
Virtual particles are still uncaused, and guess what, there is no reason why a random fluxuation in the quantum field can’t cause a big bang. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/337 "2010-09-03T03:55:05Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > This is not chid abuse. There a plenty of examples of similar behaviours, including cultures who (willingly) marry very young. > > Butt-fucking 9-year-old boys isn’t child abuse? > > That’s not the only culture in which pederastic behaviours are considered normal, by the way. Perhaps the best repsonse iis to ask you how you recognise it as such. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/338 "2010-09-03T03:59:11Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Virtual particles are still uncaused, and guess what, There is no evidence they are uncaused. They arise from within a quantum field, so how do you know they are uncaused? > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > there is no reason why a random fluxuation in the quantum field can’t cause a big bang. That is irrelevant. If a quantum field existed prior to the Big Bang, then the Big Bang was not the first physical event that needs to be explained. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/339 "2010-09-03T04:07:22Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > This is totally incorrect. Homo sapiens is evolved as a social species and is biologically engineered to survive in populations, not as indivduals. Destabalizing the ingroup is dangerous to the individuals within it. Evolution therefore has selected for emapthic response and impulses to protect the ingroup. > > You didn’t read what I posted. Yes I did. What you posted was erroneous. > [@](#): > > On a number of levels our knowledge of anthropology and history contradicts simple evolutionary theory. This is, once again, completely erroneous. > [@](#): > > Evolutionary theory suggests that murder would be not only acceptable but desirable AT A TRIBAL LEVEL. You already said this, and I already told you NO IT DOESN’T. Evolution would require just the opposite. That populations need to maintain stability and cooperative unity. Tribes compete with tribes, but without tribal identity and cooperation, the species would have died. Homo sapiens is not a species that can sustain itself outside of cooperative populations. Humans are not the only animal this can be said about, by the way. Evolution is filled with species who live in packs, herds, etc. including other primates. > [@](#): > > I also briefly mentioned. Eugenics is a natural evolutionary response No it isn’t. > [@](#): > > There are far too many human charateristics and repsonses (global and tribal) that contradict evolution as the sole means of progress. What do you mean by “progress?” and what part of this “progress” do you think contradicts evolution? What you’ve said so far shows a deep ignorance of evolution, so you should probably take that into consideration before you hurt your credibility any more than you already have. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/340 "2010-09-03T04:10:10Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > Butt-fucking 9-year-old boys isn’t child abuse? > > > > That’s not the only culture in which pederastic behaviours are considered normal, by the way. > > Perhaps the best repsonse iis to ask you how you recognise it as such. Recognize what as what? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=18)