# religion = invention **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 14, 2004, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-invention/264353 "2004-09-14T02:51:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-invention/264353/41 "2004-09-20T11:14:18Z")
> [@Lissa](#): > > It does all seem the same to me, I’ll admit. It seems no more ridiculous to believe that all of creation came from a cosmic egg than to believe there’s an invisible man in the sky. You know, if I characterized science the way you characterize religion, you wouldn’t recognize it. One reason that it is becoming a tiresome chore to point out all your logical fallacies is that you demonstrate no intention of correcting them. You do your own views a disservice by constructing strawmen (like “invisible man in the sky”), arguing in circles, hastily generalizing, equivocating, and offering red herrings. You admit having very limited knowledge of the topic at hand, while simultaneously touting the importance of intelligence and refusing to apply what knowledge you’ve gained here. You continue to characterize religion generally as an irrational belief in sky pixies. Incidentally, your “cosmic egg” image is eerily close to the theories of modern materialism. > [@](#): > > It matters very little to me how complex a religion is-- it all boils down to a belief in the supernatural. Believing in a god is no different, in my opinion, than beieving in ghosts or ESP or leprechauns. It may have a more noble purpose, but in the end, it’s believing in something that isn’t there. I thought we already covered this. Erudite atheists do not discount everything supernatural simply because it is supernatural. Did you research [Suber](http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/re/onto-arg.htm), to whom I referred you? You have one and only one tenable way to hold your view logically, and that is that you must affirm that modal status is not always necessary. There isn’t anything complex about it, and I never said it was complex. I said it was deep, meaning that it covers the necessary bases and introduces the necessary entities to account for an actuality that obtains from necessity. Voyager might drop by to protest that [proof of necessary existence](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/actualism/proofNE.html) says nothing about any Christian God, but I’m not saying that it does. I’m saying that you have lumped it all together in one simplistic category of ghosts and leprechauns. It would be like recognizing nothing but physics as science, while discarding biology, medicine, and chemistry. (Are you clicking any of the links I’m providing you? If not, please let me know so that I don’t waste the time tracking them down.) > [@](#): > > No, because I can hold a piece of film in front of them and see their results. I may not be able to see x-rays with my eyes, but I can use a scientific test to show their existance. God has eluded all tests. Oy. Round and round to this again. God has eluded all _scientific_ tests, which is to be expected since, if He did not, **He would not be God**. How can the physical detect the metaphysical? Do you not understand that science is an epistemology useful for one and only one purpose — to falsify an emprical observation? Do you not understand that science cannot prove that 1 + 1 = 2? Deductive logic [is required for that](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms). And yet you have not complained that arithmetic has eluded all tests. > [@](#): > > There are a myriad of methods of detecting that which cannot be seen by the eye. God has eluded all of them. He doesn’t have to. We’ve covered that as well. Just because a person does not know how to work the equipment or devise the test necessary to detect X-Rays does not mean that science fails to detect them. You not only have formulated your list arbitrarily, but you have projected it onto everyone else, including me. And I am telling you that your list is wrong. I know how to hold up the film. God has not eluded me (though it seemed like He did for a very long time). There are a lot of people whom God has not eluded. And you aren’t dead yet, so you do not know whether He will continue to elude you tomorrow. I explained to you exactly how to test for God’s presence and influence. If you care actually to, you know, read it, then feel free. > [@](#): > > Not necessarily be seen but simply to be shown to exist. If He prefers invisibility, so be it, but there ought to be some way of being able to detect His presence. He seems to defy all the laws of physics and thermodynamics. So does the number pi. So does existence itself. There is no proof from physics or thermodynamics that you exist. You cannot apply an empirical epistemology to everything. And in fact, you do not. If you did, your life would be an aimless mess. Balancing your checkbook alone would consume most of it. You simply refuse to allow for religion the same criteria you apply to yourself. For someone so fixated on intelligence, you are remarkably loosey-goosey about epistemology. > [@](#): > > Quite so. And we all know with what the road to hell is paved. Howver, I do believe intelligent people put more thought into moral questions. People have always criticized liberals for failing to come up with a single point of view towards social issues. I tend to think that this is actually a good thing-- though progress is slowed, it’s best to debate and argue an issue to examine all possible aspects before action is taken. Yes, they fiddle while Rome burns. Moral action does not require fleeting thought, but steady character. The dimwitted but good-hearted man you chose for your roommate does not have to think through whether to steal your purse. > [@](#): > > I did not mean to imply that criminals are of lower intelligence. My husband works in the correctional system, and I know that the reasons that people resort to crime can be endlessly varied. My point was that intelligent people tend to be less succeptible to impulse crime. Be that as it may, I’m sure you would agree that neither Stalin nor Mao were of below average intelligence, yet either one of them alone murdered more people than all the idiots in history put together. > [@](#): > > Greed is what is stopping them. I can’t explain it, because the concept of knowingly allowing people to starve when it is within your power to feed them, but refraining because you want to make another million is incredibly foreign to me. But not to me. It is simple immorality. ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2004, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-invention/264353/42 "2004-09-21T01:26:26Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > You know, if I characterized science the way you characterize religion, you wouldn’t recognize it. But I don’t understand how you could compare religion with science in this regard. Yes, science has its theoretical/philosophical aspects, but there are standards which can be applied to science that can’t be applied religion. Religion can never be more than speculation, whereas scientific precepts can be proved. > [@](#): > > One reason that it is becoming a tiresome chore to point out all your logical fallacies is that you demonstrate no intention of correcting them. > You do your own views a disservice by constructing strawmen (like “invisible man in the sky”), arguing in circles, hastily generalizing, equivocating, and offering red herrings. Perhaps it wouldn’t as frustrating if we discussed my points rather than my methods. > [@](#): > > You admit having very limited knowledge of the topic at hand, Which topic is this? Religious philosophy-- right. But I’m quite familiar with Christianity. > [@](#): > > [. . .] while simultaneously touting the importance of intelligence and refusing to apply what knowledge you’ve gained here. Intelligence is important. But I never claimed to be all that intelligent, anyway. > [@](#): > > You continue to characterize religion generally as an irrational belief in sky pixies. Yes, I do. > [@](#): > > Actually, your “cosmic egg” image is eerily close to the theories of modern materialism. It’s not my image, it’s that of Pan Gu. > [@](#): > > I thought we already covered this. Erudite atheists do not discount everything supernatural simply because it is supernatural. I never claimed to be all that eruidite, either. I do discount all that is supernatural. In this respect, I must bow to science. For reasonable purposes, if it ain’t detectable, it ain’t there. > [@](#): > > Did you research [Suber](http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/re/onto-arg.htm), to whom I referred you? Yes, I did. And I didn’t understand it, honestly. It’s a little obscure for me. I’m not a philosopher, having always prefered research. Call it small-minded of me, but I have always put my concentration into the observable-- philosophy about obcure concepts and speculation as to the nature of the unreal has always made my mind drift. > [@](#): > > I’m saying that you have lumped it all together in one simplistic category of ghosts and leprechauns. It would be like recognizing nothing but physics as science, while discarding biology, medicine, and chemistry. But chemistry, physics and biology all follow similar laws. Their methodology is scientific. They all share the goal of discovery and knowledge. They all work with the _real._ All religions have the same aspect: believing in the supernatural. Who, what, when or why doesn’t really change that. > [@](#): > > (Are you clicking any of the links I’m providing you? If not, please let me know so that I don’t waste the time tracking them down.) Yes, I am, but I won’t pretend that I understood them. To tell you the truth, I can’t even tell you if the equations are correct or not. I thank you for sharing them, though.From reading them over, I understand your points about different logical methods. Mine certainly don’t go that deep-- I probably should just call it “reasonable-ness” and be done with it. 😃 > [@](#): > > Oy. Round and round to this again. God has eluded all _scientific_ tests, which is to be expected since, if He did not, **He would not be God**. How can the physical detect the metaphysical? I guess it’s that I dismiss the metaphysical as being _real._ Systematic philosophy doesn’t seem to have as much weight as physical research. > [@](#): > > Do you not understand that science is an epistemology useful for one and only one purpose — to falsify an emprical observation? Falsify? What do you mean? If you mean that scientists work just as hard at tearing down theories in favor of new ones as they do in formulating them, yes, you’re right. But why is this a problem? Or, do you refer to some sort of scientific conspiracy to hide the existance of God? If so, that’s just silly. If scientists knew there was a God, they’d try to capture Him so they could discect Him. 😃 > [@](#): > > Do you not understand that science cannot prove that 1 + 1 = 2? Deductive logic [is required for that](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms). And yet you have not complained that arithmetic has eluded all tests. Philosophy aside, reasonable people agree that 1+1=2 because it can be demonstrated in real life. > [@](#): > > We’ve covered that as well. Just because a person does not know how to work the equipment or devise the test necessary to detect X-Rays does not mean that science fails to detect them. But the test for x-rays exists, even if we don’t know how to run the machine. They have been shown to exist. They’re used every day. Philosophy may say different, but ask any doctor if x-rays really exist, and he’ll think you’re nuts. Is the invention of a God-Detector is right around the corner? Even if I don’t use the detector myself, knowing that it has been used to detect God would be enough. Having respected scientists say that, yes, the test did show the presence of a supernatural deity would be enough. > [@](#): > > You not only have formulated your list arbitrarily, but you have projected it onto everyone else, including me. And I am telling you that your list is wrong. I know how to hold up the film. God has not eluded me (though it seemed like He did for a very long time). There are a lot of people whom God has not eluded. Your knowledge of God’s presence relies on your emotions, though. I’m assuming that God doesn’t sit in your living room and chat with you. You are aware of His presence because you _feel_ it, which, begging your pardon, seems much like my “ghost” experience. I once attended church with a friend. It was an Apostolic church, which, if you’re unfamiliar with the sect, involves glossolalia in their services. My friend was entirely convinced that she was speaking in “God’s Language” and that she felt a force taking over her body, speaking through her. I call it self-induced group hysteria. (Probably what made the mob shout, “Crucify him!”) She was sincere in her feelings. But does the extent to which she is convinced of her “gift of the spirit” actually give it any merit? Likewise, insane people may feel that they’re Napoleon or Catherine the Great. No matter how sincerely they believe it, I will not give it any credence. > [@](#): > > And you aren’t dead yet, so you do not know whether He will continue to elude you tomorrow. Barring brain damage, I doubt it. I’ve been down that road. I’ve been known to change my mind about things, but not my _entire way of thinking_. Look, the first thing I do when I read an article about an outraging event is to go check other articles to see if the information is confirmable, and if I’m getting the entire story. Then, I research the social issue aassociated with the event. I get the statitstics and look at them, or, if possible, related studies. Then I read both sides’ positions on what is to be done to solve this problem. _Then_ and only then, do I make up my mind. I’ve done this with religion. I came away unconvinced. If I’m that picky with social issues, what makes you think I’d apply any less rigorous standard to something as all-consuming as religion? > [@](#): > > I explained to you exactly how to test for God’s presence and influence. If you care actually to, you know, read it, then feel free. I cannot rely on my emotions to give accurate answers. > [@](#): > > So does the number pi. So does existence itself. There is no proof from physics or thermodynamics that you exist. Reasonablility. > [@](#): > > You cannot apply an empirical epistemology to everything. And in fact, you do not. If you did, your life would be an aimless mess. Balancing your checkbook alone would consume most of it. I don’t necessarily philosophise about it, but I do try to put reserach and effort into my decisions. Hell, I don’t buy a toaster without reading _Consumer Reports._ But I don’t balance the checkbook: math makes my head hurt. 😃 > [@](#): > > You simply refuse to allow for religion the same criteria you apply to yourself. For someone so fixated on intelligence, you are remarkably loosey-goosey about epistemology. I am. I’m also frustratingly inconsistant. > [@](#): > > But not to me. It is simple immorality. It’s extremely difficult for me to ever see human actions as simple. I guess it’s my nature to as _why?_ The simple answer is greed. The deeper, more psychologically complex reasons would take a thousand pages to analyze. See? I love sociology because it deals with the real. Philosophy goes over my head. ---
**Author:** ![umop\_ap\_sdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/dbc845/32.png) [@umop\_ap\_sdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/umop_ap_sdn)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2004, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-invention/264353/43 "2004-09-21T03:27:40Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Goodness creates and builds up; evil destroys and decays. What destroys harmful bacteria in a living host (e.g. a human)? Do two “evils” make a “good”, or is the antibiotic that staves off an infection just more “evil”? There is no good or evil. Things just are. > [@Liberal](#): > > God has eluded all _scientific_ tests, which is to be expected since, if He did not, **He would not be God**. How can the physical detect the metaphysical? The rationale for believing in a god in the first place is to explain the origin of the universe. If the metaphysical/spiritual/whatever can create the physical, then it can also influence the physical. If such a thing as a god exists, then it is possible to design a god detector which will indicate his/her/its presence. If a particular entity cannot be detected - ever - then it physically does not exist. It’s just another IPU. Ockham’s Razor does a very good job of getting rid of gods, because given what we know about quantum uncertainty it is reasonable to believe that the universe just came into existence without needing any god(s) around to cause it. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2004, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-invention/264353/44 "2004-09-21T12:37:20Z")
> [@Lissa](#): > > But I don’t understand how you could compare religion with science in this regard. Yes, science has its theoretical/philosophical aspects, but there are standards which can be applied to science that can’t be applied religion. Religion can never be more than speculation, whereas scientific precepts can be proved. 😃 Proved by _science_. There is no difference between saying that science is right because science says so, and saying that the Bible is right because the Bible says so. Both are circulus in demonstrando — circular arguments. This is one of the things I’ve been trying to explain to you. Applying a scientific epistemology to religion is as invalid as applying a religious epistemology to science. It is like using a pipe wrench to cut down a tree. Wrong tool for the job. > [@](#): > > Perhaps it wouldn’t as frustrating if we discussed my points rather than my methods. We have discussed your points. You made a list. I addressed every point in it. I explained why the invalid points were invalid. Now, an invalid method does not _necessarily_ mean an invalid point. After all, someone might reduce 16/64 to 1/4 by cancelling out the 6s, but they get the right result through sheer luck (via an ad logicam fallacy). > [@](#): > > Which topic is this? Religious philosophy-- right. But I’m quite familiar with Christianity. From what you’ve told me, and from what has come out in our discussions, I think it might be more accurate to say that you are familiar with the experience you had with Christianity. > [@](#): > > Intelligence is important. But I never claimed to be all that intelligent, anyway. I don’t think intelligence isn’t a matter of what you know; that is, intelligence is not the opposite of ignorance. It’s not a matter of what you know, but a matter of how you _apply_ what you know. Different knowledge is required for different circumstances. An ivory tower professor plunked down in the African bush might not have the wits to survive, while the natives of that region will do amazingly smart things, like feed salt to a monkey and follow it to water. > [@](#): > > Yes, I do [continue to characterize religion generally as an irrational belief in sky pixies]. Then you apparently value having a very limited knowledge. And that’s fine, except that for the sake of honesty, you should at the very least disclaim your comments on religion with something like this: “I am not differentiating between belief in a god of fire and belief in a Supreme Being”. > [@](#): > > It’s not my image, it’s that of Pan Gu. Actually, P’an Ku was the first living thing. The image itself was created by Huai-nan Tzu. > [@](#): > > I do discount all that is supernatural. In this respect, I must bow to science. For reasonable purposes, if it ain’t detectable, it ain’t there. Really? Prove scientifically that this sentence exists, that 1 + 1 = 2, that Rembrandt was a great artist, that gold is more beautiful than gravel, that you love your SO, or that you are winning this debate. You will not even accept overwhelming evidence that you have equivocated about religion; how then do you claim that you believe in what is merely observable? > [@](#): > > Yes, I did. And I didn’t understand it, honestly. It’s a little obscure for me. I’m not a philosopher, having always prefered research. > > Call it small-minded of me, but I have always put my concentration into the observable-- philosophy about obcure concepts and speculation as to the nature of the unreal has always made my mind drift. You understand, of course, that science is a branch of philosophy — just like math or logic or religion. Since you like generalizations, you might consider that it would benefit any student of science to be familiar with his roots. The philosophy of science is a rich and fascinating topic of study, with scholars as varied as Karl Popper and David Stove. You have your modern scientific method _because of_ philosophers. Although you take the validity of emprical research on faith, there actually are _reasons_ that it is valid when validly applied. Modern scientific experiments are based on a philosophical principle called “falsification”. I’m afraid that you’ve mutilated philosophy as badly as you have religion. Philosophy is not just about things that aren’t real; in fact, quite the contrary. > [@](#): > > But chemistry, physics and biology all follow similar laws. Their methodology is scientific. They all share the goal of discovery and knowledge. They all work with the _real._ Nonsense. Their “laws” are nothing alike. The laws of chemistry are based on whole-number proportions; the laws of physics are based upon calculus; the laws of biology are based upon, well, it’s [anybody’s guess](http://www.bea.st/text/biolaw/biolaw.html). > [@](#): > > All religions have the same aspect: believing in the supernatural. Who, what, when or why doesn’t really change that. A cow is a bovine, but a bovine is not necessarily a cow. All belief in the supernatural is not all religion. Some religions don’t believe in ghosts, ESP, or leprechauns. > [@](#): > > Yes, I am, but I won’t pretend that I understood them. To tell you the truth, I can’t even tell you if the equations are correct or not. I thank you for sharing them, though.From reading them over, I understand your points about different logical methods. Mine certainly don’t go that deep-- I probably should just call it “reasonable-ness” and be done with it. 😃 You’re too hard on yourself. You are a very intelligent person, and these things aren’t over your head. You are simply stubborn. But you are good-hearted, and that is much more important than knowing anything at all. > [@](#): > > I guess it’s that I dismiss the metaphysical as being _real._ Systematic philosophy doesn’t seem to have as much weight as physical research. Actually, you do believe that metaphysical things are real, perhaps without realizing it. Numbers are metaphysical, but you use them anyway. In fact, the universe itself is nothing more than a [probability distribution](http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0011/0011122.pdf). If you want to call it “real”, that’s up to you. > [@](#): > > Falsify? What do you mean? If you mean that scientists work just as hard at tearing down theories in favor of new ones as they do in formulating them, yes, you’re right. But why is this a problem? Falsification is the very heart of the modern scientific method. Popper diferentiated science from pseudoscience in this way: a scientific hypothesis must _make a prediction_ that can be tested to see whether it is false. Einstein’s general theory, for example, may be tested by predicting that light will bend around massive bodies, and then constructing an experiment to look at stars. > [@](#): > > Or, do you refer to some sort of scientific conspiracy to hide the existance of God? If so, that’s just silly. If scientists knew there was a God, they’d try to capture Him so they could discect Him. 😃 You are mistaken to believe that science and religion are mutually exclusive. There are many scientists who believe in God. But they understand that neither is an appropriate tool for examining the other. > [@](#): > > Philosophy aside, reasonable people agree that 1+1=2 because it can be demonstrated in real life. No, actually _reasonable_ people agree because Peano proved it by deductive logic. (I already gave you the link to Peano’s proof.) Science is an inappropriate tool for proving that 1 + 1 = 2. > [@](#): > > But the test for x-rays exists, even if we don’t know how to run the machine. They have been shown to exist. They’re used every day. Philosophy may say different, but ask any doctor if x-rays really exist, and he’ll think you’re nuts. What? You think philosophy says that x-rays don’t exist? That is not the case. At any rate, the test for God exists as well. But it is not a scientific test. Wouldn’t you hand out an English test to test for grammar? A math test to test for algebra? Why would you hand out a science test to test for history? Or civics? Or art class? > [@](#): > > Is the invention of a God-Detector is right around the corner? Even if I don’t use the detector myself, knowing that it has been used to detect God would be enough. Having respected scientists say that, yes, the test did show the presence of a supernatural deity would be enough. Let’s test whether you mean what you say. Please review the credentials of [VS Ramachandran, MD, PhD](http://psy.ucsd.edu/chip/ramabio.html). He is one of the world’s preeminent neuroscientists. In his book, _Phantoms of the Brain_, in a chapter called, “God and the Limbic System”, he wrote on page 185: _Which one of these categories does mystical experience fall into? Why is the revealed truth of such transcendent experience in any way “inferior” to the more mundane truth that we scientists dabble in? Indeed, if you are ever tempted to jump to this conclusion, just bear in mind that one could use exactly the same evidence — the involvement of the temporal lobes in religion — to argue for, rather than against, the existence of God. By way of analogy, consider the fact that most animals don’t have the receptors or neural machinery for color vision. Only a privileged few do, yet would you want to conclude from this that color wasn’t real? Obviously not, but if not, then why doesn’t the same argument apply to God? Perhpas only the “chosen” ones have the required neural connections._ Are you now convinced that it is at least possible that God exists? > [@](#): > > Your knowledge of God’s presence relies on your emotions, though. I’m assuming that God doesn’t sit in your living room and chat with you. You are aware of His presence because you _feel_ it, which, begging your pardon, seems much like my “ghost” experience. I don’t mind your thinking I’m a liar, but I do wish you wouldn’t simply ignore what I say. This is the third time (that I can recall) that I’ve told you I’m not talking about emotion, but morality. Why do you waste your time with me if you consider my words to be worthless? > [@](#): > > I once attended church with a friend. It was an Apostolic church, which, if you’re unfamiliar with the sect, involves glossolalia in their services. My friend was entirely convinced that she was speaking in “God’s Language” and that she felt a force taking over her body, speaking through her. I call it self-induced group hysteria. (Probably what made the mob shout, “Crucify him!”) She was sincere in her feelings. But does the extent to which she is convinced of her “gift of the spirit” actually give it any merit? As a person who claims such an admiration of science and reason, you certainly rely an awful lot on anecdotal experience. You are like the guy who walks into Congress briefly, long enough to see a head or two, and runs out exclaiming, “It’s a combover convention!” > [@](#): > > Likewise, insane people may feel that they’re Napoleon or Catherine the Great. No matter how sincerely they believe it, I will not give it any credence. I know what you mean. Some people think they are scientists. 😉 > [@](#): > > Barring brain damage, I doubt it. I’ve been down that road. I’ve been known to change my mind about things, but not my _entire way of thinking_. Meh. I said the same thing for a long time. Then, suddenly, my entire way of thinking changed. > [@](#): > > Look, the first thing I do when I read an article about an outraging event is to go check other articles to see if the information is confirmable, and if I’m getting the entire story. Then, I research the social issue aassociated with the event. I get the statitstics and look at them, or, if possible, related studies. Then I read both sides’ positions on what is to be done to solve this problem. _Then_ and only then, do I make up my mind. That is commendable, although I’d say that you are missing the perspective of those who participated in the outraging event. > [@](#): > > I’ve done this with religion. I came away unconvinced. If I’m that picky with social issues, what makes you think I’d apply any less rigorous standard to something as all-consuming as religion? The evidence. Right here. You have in fact failed to apply the same standards to science and to religion. You have elevated science to an uber-epistemology and assigned to it almost mystical powers and scope that it does not and was not designed to have. You do not have even the most elementary grasp of the underpinning philosophy of science, or of religion. You have admitted that, to you, all religion is the same. You cannot discern eros from agape. There is no qualitative difference in your view between the moral imperative of Jesus (“Be perfect.”) and a creation myth. It is your own petard by which you hang. > [@](#): > > I cannot rely on my emotions to give accurate answers. Neither can I. So what? > [@](#): > > Reasonablility. But you are being thoroughly unreasonable. > [@](#): > > I don’t necessarily philosophise about it, but I do try to put reserach and effort into my decisions. Hell, I don’t buy a toaster without reading _Consumer Reports._ But I don’t balance the checkbook: math makes my head hurt. 😃 Now you are admitting to an emotional aversion to math, when you have said that you cannot rely on emotions to give accurate answers. It is as though you were declaring… > [@](#): > > I am. I’m also frustratingly inconsistant. …that. 😃 > [@](#): > > It’s extremely difficult for me to ever see human actions as simple. I guess it’s my nature to as _why?_ The simple answer is greed. The deeper, more psychologically complex reasons would take a thousand pages to analyze. I wouldn’t say that _every_ human action is simple. In fact, Ludwig von Mises invested nearly a thousand pages in his magnum opus [Human Action](http://www.mises.org/humanaction.asp), to analyze precisely that. It is merely _moral_ actions that are simple. They aren’t even actions at all — they are _reactions_ of the heart. > [@](#): > > See? I love sociology because it deals with the real. Philosophy goes over my head. For what it might be worth to you, sociology is just another branch of philosophy. ---
**Author:** ![six\_personalities](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3da27b/32.png) [@six\_personalities](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/six_personalities)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2004, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-invention/264353/45 "2004-09-21T13:52:00Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > And God is not about genies who grant wishes or men behind curtains who make fire. God is about morality — an objective appreciation of the aesthetic called “goodness”. Love is the facilitation of that goodness, and sin is its obstruction. Love and sin are opposites. Whether a man dresses in religious garb or quotes scriptures or abstains from sex has nothing to do with whether he is good or bad. If a man feeds starving children just to glorify himself, then he is committing sin. So far I’m with you all the way 😃 Those who do something godly just for personal self-gratification have already gotten their rewards.And you can know the Bible off by heart and not act in a godly manner… > [@](#): > > And if a man sucks on a penis to express love, then he is doing a Godly act. :mad: No way.God himself has forbidden this,and breaking one of God’s commands can hardly be refered to as a godly act > [@](#): > > Nor is God about the intellect, but rather about the heart ([cf definitions 3a, 5a, 5b, and 9](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=heart)). Yep 😃 > [@](#): > > An atheist who loves is close to God What sense are you using ‘close to God’ in here?If you mean he is near to finding God,then that’s certainly true.God has revealed himself to all men.An atheist who loves will eventually be brought through his love of others,and the prompting of the Holy Spirit to a place where he can accept and believe.If you mean he is close spiritually,then I can’t see how.If I refuse to acknowledge my father and cut him out of my life entirely,then no matter how much I care for other people,I cannot say that I am close to him.The same applies with God > [@](#): > > while a theist who does not is far away from Him. True.1 Cor 13 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![umop\_ap\_sdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/dbc845/32.png) [@umop\_ap\_sdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/umop_ap_sdn)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2004, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-invention/264353/46 "2004-09-21T18:31:39Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > There is no difference between saying that science is right because science says so, and saying that the Bible is right because the Bible says so. Both are circulus in demonstrando ? circular arguments. Except that in statements that science and the Bible disagree on, science has consistently been shown to be correct. E.g. the Earth is not only round but over 4 billion years old, man is descended from apes, as well as historical inaccuracy. Why should reasonable people trust the Bible on things that have yet to be proven after it has been proven wrong on so many others? > [@](#): > > Really? Prove scientifically that this sentence exists, that 1 + 1 = 2, Your sentence can be printed out and empirically observed by anyone (this is a repeatable, reproducible experiment). 1 + 1 demonstrably = 2 because when one object and one similar object are placed side by side, the result is two similar objects. > [@](#): > > that Rembrandt was a great artist, Define great. If you mean popular, then certainly it is possible to take a sample of art enthusiasts, ask them their opinion of Rembrandt, and count up the number of positive replies. > [@](#): > > that gold is more beautiful than gravel, Beauty is subjective, but since it is judged by neural circuitry in people’s brains, again, we can take a statistical sampling. > [@](#): > > that you love your SO, Such specivity is beyond the reach of human neurology, but given a century at most it should be possible just by observing neural firing (this is ignoring a very touchy ethical issue). > [@](#): > > or that you are winning this debate. The object of a debate is to try to convince your opponent, or failing that, any undecided spectators. Care to start an IMHO thread to ask if more lurkers sympathize with you and **six\_personalities** than **Lissa** and me? 😉 > [@](#): > > Nonsense. Their “laws” are nothing alike. The laws of chemistry are based on whole-number proportions; the laws of physics are based upon calculus; the laws of biology are based upon, well, it’s [anybody’s guess](http://www.bea.st/text/biolaw/biolaw.html). But all science is interrelated! Chemistry relates to physics in that molecules are made of atoms; atoms are made of subatomic particles, and any theory or understanding of one must not contradict existing knowledge in the other. Similarly, biology and chemistry overlap via such entities as enzymes, DNA, 7-helix peptides, and so on. > [@](#): > > Actually, you do believe that metaphysical things are real, perhaps without realizing it. Numbers are metaphysical, but you use them anyway. In fact, the universe itself is nothing more than a [probability distribution](http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0011/0011122.pdf). If you want to call it “real”, that’s up to you. If only probability distributions exist, then only probability distributions are real. Besides, numbers are a property which can demonstrably be applied to any grouping of any objects, and therefore exist as abstractions. They do not need to have their own physical existences. You can have a lot filled with twenty nine Chevy pickups, but you cannot have a lot filled with god pickups. > [@](#): > > Falsification is the very heart of the modern scientific method. Popper diferentiated science from pseudoscience in this way: a scientific hypothesis must _make a prediction_ that can be tested to see whether it is false. Exactly. When religion does this, it is rarely correct. Therefore, it is as credible as pseudoscience. > [@Ramachandran](#): > > _By way of analogy, consider the fact that most animals don’t have the receptors or neural machinery for color vision. Only a privileged few do, yet would you want to conclude from this that color wasn’t real?_ I know that these are not originally your words, **Liberal** , but I should point out that _most_ animals have at least the receptors required for color vision, and AFAIK none has been found to lack the neural circuitry or behavioral response to color despite having the receptors. I have spent much time reading scientific journals on this matter, and have accumulated considerable data about the diversity of visual capabilities out there. [/hijack] > [@Liberal](#): > > > [@Lissa](#): > > > > Barring brain damage, I doubt it. I’ve been down that road. I’ve been known to change my mind about things, but not my entire way of thinking. > > Meh. I said the same thing for a long time. Then, suddenly, my entire way of thinking changed. FWIW, so did I. Not about whether a god exists but rather whether the “supernatural” exists. People change their minds in both directions. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2004, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-invention/264353/47 "2004-09-21T20:55:06Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > You understand, of course, that science is a branch of philosophy — just like math or logic or religion. Since you like generalizations, you might consider that it would benefit any student of science to be familiar with his roots. The philosophy of science is a rich and fascinating topic of study, with scholars as varied as Karl Popper and David Stove. You have your modern scientific method because of philosophers. Although you take the validity of emprical research on faith, there actually are reasons that it is valid when validly applied. Modern scientific experiments are based on a philosophical principle called “falsification”. I’m afraid that you’ve mutilated philosophy as badly as you have religion. Philosophy is not just about things that aren’t real; in fact, quite the contrary. I think this statement is at the root of the problem. But first, to **Lissa** , Lib is right in implying that you are treating science as a religion. You should not reject the supernatural because “science” says so, but only because the physical effects predicted by the supernatural have not been effectively demonstrated. In certain cases you can reject the supernatural (such as astrology, which predicts it can say things about people which have been repeatedly falsified) or just not accept them, like a belief in invisible spirits who never interact with the physical world. Now, **Lib**. Since Websters on line defines philosophy as [quote] all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts \*\* you are correct - in a very broad sense. Of course science is descended from philosophy as astronomy is from astrology. However, as practiced today, there is a large gap indeed, and calling science a branch of philsophy is misleading at best. When I was an undergrad, taking both, I had no trouble distinguishing them. 🙂 Philosophy of science is philosophy in the common sense, but it is not science (nor does it claim to be.) As I’ve said many times before, experiments are only trivially based on falsification. There is the whole area of Theory of Experiments, which is a branch of statistics, there is repeatability, and a lot more. Knowing that an experiment can lead to the falsification of a hypothesis is necessary but not sufficient for it to be a good experiment. > [@](#): > > Oy. Round and round to this again. God has eluded all scientific tests, which is to be expected since, if He did not, He would not be God. How can the physical detect the metaphysical? Do you not understand that science is an epistemology useful for one and only one purpose — to falsify an emprical observation? Do you not understand that science cannot prove that 1 + 1 = 2? Deductive logic is required for that. And yet you have not complained that arithmetic has eluded all tests. I’m not sure what “proving” that 1+1 = 2 means, since 2 is defined as succ(1), which is equivalent to it. However the real reason I quoted this is that no one should expect science to detect god directly. (Any god.) Science also does not detect neutrinos or various subatomic particles directly. What one would expect is that science would be able to detect the impact of a god’s interaction with the material. The reason creationism is falsified is not because anyone was watching god to prove he didn’t create the world in 6 days 6,008 years ago (daylight savings) but because various clear predictions from the Bible have been shown to be false. However if your god created the universe whenever science thinks it was created this week, and has had no interaction with the world since, then science has nothing at all to say about this god. Does your god give the same message to all? Who does he visit? If he visits lots of people, we can ask what message they got, and compare them, discarding those who said they got none, who you will say close their minds. However you can’t say that god only visits those who get the same message as you, and all the others were delusional or visited by a false god by definition. We will be very skeptical if you say that your god gives people only the message they could have come up with on their own. That’s not much of a god, if you ask me. Now, maybe your god only visits you. Then we’d have to ask why. How can we detect your god? I agree that you can’t ask him to pose for a picture. However a god knows things, falsifiable things, that you don’t. If your god can tell you about some true statements that you couldn’t know, or facts about things not yet discovered, it would be as powerful as a track in a cloud chamber. So, you don’t have to measure the metaphysical to get an answer. That’s the place, in looking at the measurable effects of a deity, where science and religion do overlap, and where religion gets routed each time. As an aside, in the early 19th century a major thread of American religion, at least, expected science to provide proof of the Bible, and of the existence of god. (In the way I just mentioned.) If you think of it, this was not an unreasonable assumption. Part of the harsh reaction to Darwin was that science did just the opposite, especially by attacking religions assumptions about the origin or man just where it seemed strongest. Bottom line, many types of god-belief have involved falsifiable conclusions, and they have been falsified. In reaction people have either refused to accept the falsification, the fundamentalists, or have constructed god hypotheses which are unfalsifiable. But these imply that there is no observable, non-personal impact of god upon the world. So many religions claim impact in historical gaps, and slowly retreat as more is learned. And since you are sure to bring up your Ramachandran quote, I must admit I don’t get the point. Is he saying that a physical explanation for mystical experience does not rule out a spiritual one? That is fairly obvious, it just eliminates the requirement for a spiritual explanation. Is he saying that our inability to detect something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. That is also obvious, but it does not mean there is a good reason to think it **does** exist. That we cannot detect the existence of life on planets circling other stars just means we cannot rule it out, not that it is there. As we all know, that something has not yet been falsified does not mean that it is true. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2004, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-invention/264353/48 "2004-09-21T21:37:56Z")
> [@Six\_personalities](#): > > No way.God himself has forbidden this,and breaking one of God’s commands can hardly be refered to as a godly act What God forbids, my friend, is the obstruction of goodness. Do not worship Paul. Do not worship the Bible. You will find yourself like the Pharisees, straining gnats and swallowing camels. Or else like the Pharisee thanking God that he wasn’t like the tax collector and therefore unworthy of God’s favor. The Scribes and Pharisees appointed by Roman Emperor Constantine to assemble the so-called “holy” books do not determine what is good and what is evil. They have their reward of political power, and they do not bind you. Truth sets you free; it does not make you a slave to law. God’s Word is not found in a book. God’s Word is alive, and was alive before the creation. Let the Holy Spirit teach you. Jesus gives us one commandment that supercedes all others: “Love one another”. He gives us a moral imperative that meets even Kant’s own onerous criteria: “Be perfect”. Do not measure by the law, lest you find yourself entagled in its hopeless knot. > [@](#): > > What sense are you using ‘close to God’ in here?If you mean he is near to finding God,then that’s certainly true.God has revealed himself to all men.An atheist who loves will eventually be brought through his love of others,and the prompting of the Holy Spirit to a place where he can accept and believe.If you mean he is close spiritually,then I can’t see how.If I refuse to acknowledge my father and cut him out of my life entirely,then no matter how much I care for other people,I cannot say that I am close to him.The same applies with God Here’s what God told me: _I am the Love Everlasting. Whatever men say about me with their minds is vapor. I cannot be known by the mind, but only by the heart. Stop dividing the world between atheists and theists, and start dividing it rightly, as I do. There are those who love and those who don’t. Those who love, they are my disciples._ Atheism and theism are mind things. Love is a heart thing. In which does God dwell? ---
**Author:** ![SlickRoenick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e68b1a/32.png) [@SlickRoenick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlickRoenick)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-invention/264353/49 "2004-09-22T01:42:02Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Atheism and theism are mind things. Love is a heart thing. In which does God dwell? I don’t entirely follow so forgive me if i jump to conclusions. But if god is the heart thing, does that mean only those of god can love? If i am atheist and i find love (without god) then does that make me a mind or a heart thing? ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-invention/264353/50 "2004-09-22T04:04:11Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > From what you’ve told me, and from what has come out in our discussions, I think it might be more accurate to say that you are familiar with the experience you had with Christianity. I’ve known a _lot_ of Christians, of all different sorts of sects and belief systems, ranging from the mild, God-Is-Love Christians to the rabid cast-out-the-infidel kind. Family members are Christians, as are co-workers and friends. Even my husband is religious. During my time in Christian school, I read many books on the Christian faith, went to various churches and even watched _The 700 Club_ once or twice. 😃 > [@](#): > > Then you apparently value having a very limited knowledge. And that’s fine, except that for the sake of honesty, you should at the very least disclaim your comments on religion with something like this: “I am not differentiating between belief in a god of fire and belief in a Supreme Being”. I’m afraid I don’t understand. I thought I had already made it clear that I don’t differentiate the belief in “pagan” gods from that of the Christian God. > [@](#): > > Really? Prove scientifically that this sentence exists, that 1 + 1 = 2, that Rembrandt was a great artist, that gold is more beautiful than gravel, that you love your SO, or that you are winning this debate. It’s not my intention to “win” this debate. It’s quite obvious that I could not, since you are far more well versed in philosophy and rhetoric. Nor am I trying to be difficult-- I’m being as honest as I can in trying to explain my way of thinking, and apparently I’m doing a piss-poor job of it. > [@](#): > > You understand, of course, that science is a branch of philosophy — just like math or logic or religion. Since you like generalizations, you might consider that it would benefit any student of science to be familiar with his roots. The philosophy of science is a rich and fascinating topic of study, with scholars as varied as Karl Popper and David Stove. You have your modern scientific method _because of_ philosophers. Yes, I know this-- and chemistry has some of its roots in alchemy. I think I also see a comparison you’re trying to make. Science came from primitive, superstitious roots, but has developed into something more meaningful. > [@](#): > > Although you take the validity of emprical research on faith, there actually are _reasons_ that it is valid when validly applied. Modern scientific experiments are based on a philosophical principle called “falsification”. I’m afraid that you’ve mutilated philosophy as badly as you have religion. I told you: I’m not a philosopher. I can’t argue like one. I don’t think like one. Aside from Neitzche, I have read very little of it. So, when I use words like “logic” I am not intending them in their purest, academic sense, but more in a colloquial sense. > [@](#): > > Nonsense. Their “laws” are nothing alike. The laws of chemistry are based on whole-number proportions; the laws of physics are based upon calculus; the laws of biology are based upon, well, it’s [anybody’s guess](http://www.bea.st/text/biolaw/biolaw.html). I guess I explained myself poorly–again. What I meant to convey was that these three areas of study have similar methodology in determining fact from fiction. They study the subject, run experiments, write papers about the outcome, and then wait for other scientists to shoot them down with better, clearer hypothesis. > [@](#): > > A cow is a bovine, but a bovine is not necessarily a cow. All belief in the supernatural is not all religion. Some religions don’t believe in ghosts, ESP, or leprechauns. I’m not trying to be difficult-- honest. But I sincerely cannot see a difference between believing in God and believing in leprechauns. > [@](#): > > You’re too hard on yourself. You are a very intelligent person, and these things aren’t over your head. No, really, they are. As I said, I’ve read very little philosophy, so I’m on completely unfamiliar ground. I’m a voracious reader of non-fiction, but I’ve never been able to force myself through the works of the philosophers. Perhaps it’s an analytical neuron patch that I’m missing, but it’s never made much sense to me. > [@](#): > > You are simply stubborn. If I am, it’s not out of pig-headedness, but because I balk at what I don’t understand. I’m not in this debate becase I enjoy needling you (you’ve kicked my ass quite soundly and I should slink off to nurse my wounds) but because I’m having trouble understanding certain aspects. > [@](#): > > But you are good-hearted, and that is much more important than knowing anything at all. Awww. How nice of you to say. > [@](#): > > Actually, you do believe that metaphysical things are real, perhaps without realizing it. Numbers are metaphysical, but you use them anyway. In fact, the universe itself is nothing more than a [probability distribution](http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0011/0011122.pdf). If you want to call it “real”, that’s up to you. For all intents and purposes, yes, it’s real. Philosophy may say otherwise, but I can see that I have ten fingers. That’s enough for me. > [@](#): > > No, actually _reasonable_ people agree because Peano proved it by deductive logic. (I already gave you the link to Peano’s proof.) Science is an inappropriate tool for proving that 1 + 1 = 2. Quite honestly, I’d never head of Peano before this debate. I believed that one and one make two because I’ve seen it. Had Peano never existed, one and one would still make two. > [@](#): > > Are you now convinced that it is at least possible that God exists? In the limited realm of philosopy, yes. In the “real world,” no. > [@](#): > > I don’t mind your thinking I’m a liar, but I do wish you wouldn’t simply ignore what I say. This is the third time (that I can recall) that I’ve told you I’m not talking about emotion, but morality. Why do you waste your time with me if you consider my words to be worthless? Please explain what you mean more clearly, because I’ve obviously misunderstood what you meant to say. > [@](#): > > That is commendable, although I’d say that you are missing the perspective of those who participated in the outraging event. Their perspective matters least, actually. The emotions of the participators are worthless, information-wise. From my husband’s work in the criminal justice system, I have seen how the perpetuators of horrible acts can feel themselves to be the victims. I’ve seen how stories can be twisted and worded so as to leave a different impression than the actual truth. > [@](#): > > You do not have even the most elementary grasp of the underpinning philosophy of science, or of religion. No, I don’t. > [@](#): > > You have admitted that, to you, all religion is the same. Yes, I have. > [@](#): > > You cannot discern eros from agape. No, this one I do know. > [@](#): > > There is no qualitative difference in your view between the moral imperative of Jesus (“Be perfect.”) and a creation myth. It is your own petard by which you hang. Quite possibly so. You’re much more skilled than I at debating, so fo you, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. > [@](#): > > For what it might be worth to you, sociology is just another branch of philosophy. Yes, but I can actually see functionalism or symmbolic interactionism at work. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 9:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-invention/264353/51 "2004-09-22T09:31:57Z")
> [@SlickRoenick](#): > > I don’t entirely follow so forgive me if i jump to conclusions. But if god is the heart thing, does that mean only those of god can love? If i am atheist and i find love (without god) then does that make me a mind or a heart thing? Heart. God is love. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 9:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-invention/264353/52 "2004-09-22T09:54:32Z")
> [@Lissa](#): > > I’m afraid I don’t understand. I thought I had already made it clear that I don’t differentiate the belief in “pagan” gods from that of the Christian God. You made it clear after the fact. As I said, I think it should be a disclaimer. In other words, when you present your list, let people know at that time what your unstated premises are. > [@](#): > > I think I also see a comparison you’re trying to make. Science came from primitive, superstitious roots, but has developed into something more meaningful. No, I’m not talking about evolution; I’m talking about classifications. Bison and cattle are both bovines. Science and religion are both philosophical disciplines. > [@](#): > > I told you: I’m not a philosopher. I can’t argue like one. I don’t think like one. Aside from Neitzche, I have read very little of it. So, when I use words like “logic” I am not intending them in their purest, academic sense, but more in a colloquial sense. Then I think you should add another disclaimer to your list. I think you should say that what you are presenting is purely speculative, and is not necessarily even logical. > [@](#): > > I’m not trying to be difficult-- honest. But I sincerely cannot see a difference between believing in God and believing in leprechauns. My daughter cannot tell the difference between the beat in a waltz and the beat in a foxtrot. But I would not encourage her to announce to the world that 3/4 time and 4/4 time are the same. > [@](#): > > I’m not in this debate becase I enjoy needling you (you’ve kicked my ass quite soundly and I should slink off to nurse my wounds) but because I’m having trouble understanding certain aspects. All you need to understand is that, while you yourself may not see any difference between God and a leprechaun, there are those who see differently. I’m not asking for your conversion, but merely your respect. I allow that, within your subjective reference frame, your worldview is valid. I ask that you allow the same of me. I ask that you keep the open mind that you seem to value so highly. You say that scientists are never finished investigating, and yet you declare that your investigation of religion is finished. You will never find God with your mind, because His concern is your heart. But at least an open mind will allow you to say that perhaps your views of God are not universal. I’m leaving this debate because I don’t want you to feel beaten down. That wasn’t my intention, and I regret that that happened. You’re right: this isn’t about winning or losing. It is about edification. I am more than I was because of this discussion with you. I hope your experience was the same. ---
**Author:** ![six\_personalities](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3da27b/32.png) [@six\_personalities](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/six_personalities)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 10:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-invention/264353/53 "2004-09-22T10:09:49Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > . Truth sets you free; it does not make you a slave to law. That doesn’t mean I’m free to go about ignoring the law,fornicating,murdering and doing all sorts of other unpleasant stuff.The statement that we are not slaves to the Law by Paul(a Pharisee himself) was in reference to all the laws that the Pharisees imposed,so that the obeying of these minutiae laws was becoming more important the worship of God. > [@](#): > > God’s Word is not found in a book 2 Timothy 3:16 ‘All Scripture is God-breathed’ > [@](#): > > Jesus gives us one commandment that supercedes all others: “Love one another”. Two actually…‘Love your neighbor as yourself’ and ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart,soul,mind and strength’.If you love him,you’ll want to keep his commands. Here’s what God told me: _I am the Love Everlasting. Whatever men say about me with their minds is vapor. I cannot be known by the mind, but only by the heart. Stop dividing the world between atheists and theists, and start dividing it rightly, as I do. There are those who love and those who don’t. Those who love, they are my disciples._ Where did God tell you this?In the Bible?In a dream?In a little voice in your head?If it’s the Bible,can we have a cite please 🙂 If it’s a voice in your head,I’m inclined to ignore it. ---
**Author:** ![NewHeart\_Male](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/bc8723/32.png) [@NewHeart\_Male](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NewHeart_Male)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-invention/264353/54 "2004-09-22T18:31:19Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I’m leaving this debate because I don’t want you to feel beaten down. Please don’t. Come back and answer **Voyager** ’s post (post #47). I find this debate riveting. ---
**Author:** ![umop\_ap\_sdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/dbc845/32.png) [@umop\_ap\_sdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/umop_ap_sdn)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-invention/264353/55 "2004-09-22T21:08:16Z")
Yeah c’mon **Lib** , you haven’t even answered my last 2 posts! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-invention/264353/56 "2004-09-22T21:33:26Z")
> [@NewHeart(Male)](#): > > Please don’t. Come back and answer **Voyager** ’s post (post #47). I find this debate riveting. Okely dokely. > [@Voyager](#): > > Now, Lib. Since Websters on line defines philosophy as … you are correct - in a very broad sense. Of course science is descended from philosophy as astronomy is from astrology. However, as practiced today, there is a large gap indeed, and calling science a branch of philsophy is misleading at best. When I was an undergrad, taking both, I had no trouble distinguishing them. Philosophy of science is philosophy in the common sense, but it is not science (nor does it claim to be.) Well, linguistics isn’t grammar, but that’s rather beside the point. I haven’t equated science and philosophy, but rather have indicated that science is a branch of philosophy. > [@](#): > > As I’ve said many times before, experiments are only trivially based on falsification. There is the whole area of Theory of Experiments, which is a branch of statistics, there is repeatability, and a lot more. Knowing that an experiment can lead to the falsification of a hypothesis is necessary but not sufficient for it to be a good experiment. And of course, we must say that the scientific method is not science, but merely one of the tools of science. The hypothetico-deductive method of scientific inquiry is still the mainstay of scientific investigation. Meta-analysis and simulation experiments are the stuff of sociology and macro-economics — that sort of thing. An asymptotic theory of experiments can be useful in the analysis of certain statistical models (e.g., quantum states), but it can also be dreafully abused by kooks like [this guy](http://nov55.com/mmor.pdf), who declares (using statistical TOE) that the only empirical evidence against the ether is bogus. It was Erwin Schroedinger who introduced the notion of a theory of experiments in his 1915 paper, _On The Theory of Experiments on the Rise and Fall of Particles in Brownian Motion_. Schroedinger also understood thoroughly his debt to philosophy, having stated that a practical philosophical framework for his theories was the fruit of his experiments. Science borrows routinely from its sibling disciplines — logic (both deductive and inductive), mathematics, and yes, religion. A revelation epistemology is often credited by scientists for helping to conceive the ideas that lead to their hypotheses. I do believe that it is a gigantic mistake to trivialize the role of falsification in the scientific method. An hypothesis that fails to make a prediction is almost worthless, except in cases where it leads to a proper hypothesis. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure what “proving” that 1+1 = 2 means, since 2 is defined as succ(1), which is equivalent to it. I think I linked to this before. Giuseppe Peano proved that 1 + 1 = 2 in his _Formulario Mathematico_. It is the first inference that may be drawn from his five axioms. > [@](#): > > However the real reason I quoted this is that no one should expect science to detect god directly. (Any god.) Science also does not detect neutrinos or various subatomic particles directly. What one would expect is that science would be able to detect the impact of a god’s interaction with the material. The reason creationism is falsified is not because anyone was watching god to prove he didn’t create the world in 6 days 6,008 years ago (daylight savings) but because various clear predictions from the Bible have been shown to be false. However if your god created the universe whenever science thinks it was created this week, and has had no interaction with the world since, then science has nothing at all to say about this god. But (again) not everything in the world is material — like the number 2, for instance. Hence, my constant plea that we not equivocate with respect to God. Even whether he created the world is irrelevant; it serves His purpose all the same. It isn’t that science fails to detect God simply because He is so clever that He can elude its detection. Science fails to detect God because He is _super_natural. He is like any other a priori analytic entity in that regard. > [@](#): > > Does your god give the same message to all? Who does he visit? If he visits lots of people, we can ask what message they got, and compare them, discarding those who said they got none, who you will say close their minds. However you can’t say that god only visits those who get the same message as you, and all the others were delusional or visited by a false god by definition. We will be very skeptical if you say that your god gives people only the message they could have come up with on their own. That’s not much of a god, if you ask me. Although that is a bit amphibolous, I will allow it for the sake of argument. > [@](#): > > Now, maybe your god only visits you. Then we’d have to ask why. Because I am. This is something I’ve explained before (many times), but perhaps in this context, you will make better sense of it. I’m condensing this for the sake of space, but the concept is quite simple anyway. As free moral agents, we represent subjective reference frames. The universe serves His purpose in this regard as a mis-en-scene for us to act out our moral play. The atoms themselves are amoral (without morality), and it is we, by our moral decisions, who give rise to morality in an amoral universe. (Morality is another nonphysical entity.) By fortunate happenstance, owing to the nature of the physical universe, no two macro-entities can experience the exact same thing in the exact same place from the exact same perspective at the exact same time. Therefore, all our experiences are unique — and hence, subjective. Because we are made in His image (i.e., we, too, are free moral agents) we are in a very real sense He, except that God’s frame of reference differs from ours in one important sense: it is objective. That is to say, He is all we. He “visits” me in the manner that I need visiting, and He visits others in the manner that they need. He does not visit everyone at the same time, or in the same way, or in the same place. It would be a mistake to visit a man who is not prepared for the visit, and some people are not prepared until their role in the moral play is finished. They do not see God until the curtain call. And yet, for many, all their lives they have seen God. Whenever your heart has yearned for mercy or love or kindness, you have seen Him. Whenever you admire the aesthetic of goodness, it is He Who is the object of your admiration. There might be any number of reasons why you do not recognize Him. Perhaps the likes of Jerry Falwell is blocking your view, because he is describing a god who is a gargoyle, lurking by the gates of hell to ensnare victims and pull them in. I, too, would avert my eyes. That is, as you say, not much of a god. But for all those who have yearned to find love, they will know Him when they see Him, and they will say, “Oh! You are the One I have searched for, and you are nothing like they have described!” That is what is meant by His moving in mysterious ways — not that He plays cat and mouse with scientists, but that He is often not what we expect Him to be. > [@](#): > > How can we detect your god? I agree that you can’t ask him to pose for a picture. However a god knows things, falsifiable things, that you don’t. If your god can tell you about some true statements that you couldn’t know, or facts about things not yet discovered, it would be as powerful as a track in a cloud chamber. So, you don’t have to measure the metaphysical to get an answer. That’s the place, in looking at the measurable effects of a deity, where science and religion do overlap, and where religion gets routed each time. Well, here’s the Sunday school lesson version. Jesus teaches that the test for God is to examine the fruits of the spirit: “A tree is known by its fruit.” If you see moral edification, that is the work of God. When a bleak and closed heart opens to pour out goodness, God has visited. Even the presence of His enemies, who seek to obstruct goodness, are testament to His existence. The formal logic version, which I shared with Lissa, is this: God is a logical tautology — necessary modal existence and perfect moral essence. As you know, _everything_ proves a tautology. “A is A” is proved by every statement in every thread on this board. And as God has said, the whole of creation testifies that He is. > [@](#): > > As an aside, in the early 19th century a major thread of American religion, at least, expected science to provide proof of the Bible, and of the existence of god. (In the way I just mentioned.) If you think of it, this was not an unreasonable assumption. Part of the harsh reaction to Darwin was that science did just the opposite, especially by attacking religions assumptions about the origin or man just where it seemed strongest. As I said, it isn’t a science book; it’s a love letter. The body-politic that had usurped and desecrated His church ought to have celebrated men like Galileo when they began to uncover knowledge about the universe. Those thugs had made God into exactly the kind of gargoyle that Lissa warns against. They made Him into an irrelevant and impotent god of fire whose very existence is threatened by erudition. They never believed in God. They used His name for their own purposes — political power and ambition. They still do today. > [@](#): > > Bottom line, many types of god-belief have involved falsifiable conclusions, and they have been falsified. In reaction people have either refused to accept the falsification, the fundamentalists, or have constructed god hypotheses which are unfalsifiable. But these imply that there is no observable, non-personal impact of god upon the world. So many religions claim impact in historical gaps, and slowly retreat as more is learned. It is a mistake to believe that the notion of God as intimately personal is modern. It is the God that Jesus teaches, dwelling in the hearts of men. Kahlil Gibran writes of Jesus standing with Judas on a cliff at night, overlooking the city of Jerusalem bathed in the dazzling lights of torches. It resembles a sea of sparkling gems against the blackness of the evening landscape. Judas beholds it and gushes, “Master! Just _look_ at what you will inherit when you come into your kingdom.” Jesus answers him, “Oh, Judas. Did you truly believe that I have come down through the ages to rule an anthill for a day?” > [@](#): > > And since you are sure to bring up your Ramachandran quote, I must admit I don’t get the point. Is he saying that a physical explanation for mystical experience does not rule out a spiritual one? That is fairly obvious, it just eliminates the requirement for a spiritual explanation. Is he saying that our inability to detect something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. That is also obvious, but it does not mean there is a good reason to think it does exist. That we cannot detect the existence of life on planets circling other stars just means we cannot rule it out, not that it is there. As we all know, that something has not yet been falsified does not mean that it is true. Ramachandran’s experiments are completed. He already set out to falsify his hypothesis, which was that limbic system activity corresponds to religious experience. All he was saying is that with respect to the data, you can draw the conclusion either way: God uses the temporal lobe to reach man, or man uses the temporal lobe to reach God. Owing to its tautological nature, science cannot test for the answer. He was merely warning against unfounded hubris, as any good scientist would. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-invention/264353/57 "2004-09-22T21:36:38Z")
> [@cityboy916](#): > > Yeah c’mon **Lib** , you haven’t even answered my last 2 posts! 🙂 Forgive me, but I am one against many, and have only twelve arms. 😉 Perhaps some other time, you and I can discuss these matters at length. I greatly appreciate your patience, and will remember the kindness of your understanding. ---
**Author:** ![umop\_ap\_sdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/dbc845/32.png) [@umop\_ap\_sdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/umop_ap_sdn)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-invention/264353/58 "2004-09-23T01:42:25Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Forgive me, but I am one against many, and have only twelve arms. 😉 Perhaps some other time, you and I can discuss these matters at length. I greatly appreciate your patience, and will remember the kindness of your understanding. Very well. 🙂 However I did want to address one point here, and I understand if you don’t answer it but for future reference or if anyone else would like to give it a try. When you said: > [@](#): > > If you see moral edification, that is the work of God. When a bleak and closed heart opens to pour out goodness, God has visited. Even the presence of His enemies, who seek to obstruct goodness, are testament to His existence. The formal logic version, which I shared with Lissa, is this: God is a logical tautology ? necessary modal existence and perfect moral essence. As you know, everything proves a tautology. And as God has said, the whole of creation testifies that He is. All of these things you attribute to a god - beauty, kindness, and so forth - are human responses to stimuli. They are ideas that are uniquely meaningful to sentient beings, and many if not most are uniquely human concepts. In [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=269644) it seemed to be an agreed upon consensus that these things (specifically as they relate to morality) are strictly sentient being concepts and cannot be universal laws. Therefore a god defined in this way cannot be a universal omniscient being, merely a philosophical construct invented by and applied to humans. Reducing it to a tautology (I’m using the definition “true by virtue of its logical form alone”, as Merriam-Webster lists more than one definition) redefines it so that it does not exist as a being, and makes the question of its existence a purely semantic one. Again, I won’t pressure you to answer this time, but I wanted to fix this reply in tangible form because I know I’ll forget otherwise. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-invention/264353/59 "2004-09-23T06:30:59Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Well, linguistics isn’t grammar, but that’s rather beside the point. I haven’t equated science and philosophy, but rather have indicated that science is a branch of philosophy. Technically true, but the way science is done and philosophy is done these days is wildly different. They are studying different things, so that is natural. But it is not too helpful in thinking too much about philosophy when doing science. > [@](#): > > Meta-analysis and simulation experiments are the stuff of sociology and macro-economics — that sort of thing. Simulation is also very useful for doing things for which no closed forms solutions exist, such as meteorology and some areas of cosmology. In this it is an experimental tool, studying the effects of certain assumptions. It must not be seen as giving an answer, just because it came out of a computer. I’ve written a bunch of simulators as part of computer design, so I’m rather fond of them. > [@](#): > > An asymptotic theory of experiments can be useful in the analysis of certain statistical models (e.g., quantum states), but it can also be dreafully abused by kooks like [this guy](http://nov55.com/mmor.pdf), who declares (using statistical TOE) that the only empirical evidence against the ether is bogus. As you are well aware, any statistical technique can be misused. I’m not sure you got ToE quite right, though. It is mostly used for understanding and controlling the variables that might affect an experiment, and is one of the things that affects the quality of an experiment beyond falsifiability. Physics and chemistry have less need for this, but biology and psychology have much more. Engineering uses it too. If you are trying to explain an effect in a large population with lots of variables, it is a must to get results that mean anything. > [@](#): > > Science borrows routinely from its sibling disciplines — logic (both deductive and inductive), mathematics, and yes, religion. A revelation epistemology is often credited by scientists for helping to conceive the ideas that lead to their hypotheses. And so have dreams. Nothing in the scientific method says anything about where hypotheses come from. I would suspect that even ones originating as you say come from evidence, seen through a religious point of view. Cryptic crosswords work for me, since they help me see something upside down. > [@](#): > > I do believe that it is a gigantic mistake to trivialize the role of falsification in the scientific method. An hypothesis that fails to make a prediction is almost worthless, except in cases where it leads to a proper hypothesis. You misread me. I’m not trivializing falsification, I’m saying its role in the design of an experiment is trivial (but necessary - well, almost.) An experiment can have results that give evidence for any one of 50 hypotheses, but which can also falsify all of them. This is not as good as an experiment which can distinguish between these. I’m in the middle of an experiment for a hypothesis which cannot be falsied, for that would require proving an existential negative. Well not strictly - it can come out to be economically ineffective, which would make further work unproductive. Happily, we’ve already gotten positive results, but I can’t say more since it might be patent time soon. > [@](#): > > But (again) not everything in the world is material — like the number 2, for instance. Hence, my constant plea that we not equivocate with respect to God. Even whether he created the world is irrelevant; it serves His purpose all the same. It isn’t that science fails to detect God simply because He is so clever that He can elude its detection. Science fails to detect God because He is _super_natural. He is like any other a priori analytic entity in that regard. Please read my argument again - you’re not getting it. I admitted that we cannot detect God directly, but can indirectly through his impact on the physical world. I also agreed that you can define a god which cannot be so detected. > [@](#): > > The atoms themselves are amoral (without morality), and it is we, by our moral decisions, who give rise to morality in an amoral universe. (Morality is another nonphysical entity.) I agree that we define, even create, morality in a basically amoral universe. Without moral actors there would be none. There was no morality one minute after the Big Bang. There was none on Earth before humans. I suspect many theists would disagree, because of there is an eternal god who is the arbiter of morality, morality is eternal also. > [@](#): > > He “visits” me in the manner that I need visiting, and He visits others in the manner that they need. He does not visit everyone at the same time, or in the same way, or in the same place. It would be a mistake to visit a man who is not prepared for the visit, and some people are not prepared until their role in the moral play is finished. They do not see God until the curtain call. And yet, for many, all their lives they have seen God. Your answer contradicts your first line. Your god visits everyone, not just you, though they may see him in different ways. So, how do you know there are not an infinity of gods visiting all, perhaps subject to the Supreme Being you claim you can prove? You seem to expect there is no commonality except love, but that can be explained without the need for a god. > [@](#): > > Whenever your heart has yearned for mercy or love or kindness, you have seen Him. Whenever you admire the aesthetic of goodness, it is He Who is the object of your admiration. You’re preaching. 🙂 Perhaps my heart yearns for mercy and all that stuff because I am a social animal, evolved to want these things, the same way my dog wants to be with us. Your statement is pure assertion. > [@](#): > > There might be any number of reasons why you do not recognize Him. Perhaps the likes of Jerry Falwell is blocking your view, because he is describing a god who is a gargoyle, lurking by the gates of hell to ensnare victims and pull them in. I, too, would avert my eyes. That is, as you say, not much of a god. But for all those who have yearned to find love, they will know Him when they see Him, and they will say, “Oh! You are the One I have searched for, and you are nothing like they have described!” That is what is meant by His moving in mysterious ways — not that He plays cat and mouse with scientists, but that He is often not what we expect Him to be. Well, not true for me. I was raised Jewish, and if my Rabbi ever mentioned hell, I don’t remember it. I know some atheists had bad experience with religion, but not me. From 12 - 14 I went to temple by my own free will. My rejection of religion is purely intellectual, not emotional. Four years ago I went to the Reform temple, the only one we have in my goyisher town, and did not like it for being too secular. I fasted on Yom Kippur long after I gave up believing. I’m convinced some people are wired to need a reason, and some people are not. But that does not excuse a lack of evidence. > [@](#): > > As I said, it isn’t a science book; it’s a love letter. The body-politic that had usurped and desecrated His church ought to have celebrated men like Galileo when they began to uncover knowledge about the universe. Ah, but parts of it, Genesis in particular, is a science book - in that it explains how things came to be. And it was thought of as such until not very long ago. That most say it isn’t now is only because it is a quite inaccurate science book. Why, from first principles, does Genesis have to be a metaphor? If you live 1,000 years ago, would you think it was? Even that old heathen Thomas Paine, in **The Age of Reason** justified his deism because he did not understand how the solar system could come to be without a deity. Don’t get me wrong, I think your love-based theology is admirable. I just can’t see any reason why one would choose it over any of a 100 other nice theologies, or how it came from anywhere except inside your head, and the selective use of Bible verses. I can say you will only get those who are wired like you, you can say that I’m blocking my heart to god, and that is as far as we can go. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 9:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-invention/264353/60 "2004-09-23T09:17:16Z")
> [@Cityboy916](#): > > Very well. However I did want to address one point here, and I understand if you don’t answer it but for future reference or if anyone else would like to give it a try. By nothing more than your civility, you’ve earned the courtesy of a response whenever I have the time and means to give it. > [@](#): > > All of these things you attribute to a god - beauty, kindness, and so forth - are human responses to stimuli. They are ideas that are uniquely meaningful to sentient beings, and many if not most are uniquely human concepts. In this thread it seemed to be an agreed upon consensus that these things (specifically as they relate to morality) are strictly sentient being concepts and cannot be universal laws. Which is a difficulty for the materialist. Sentience, by his reckoning, must be a part of the universe. But its gestalt is not synthetic. Still, man conceives metaphysical things. Much like the unanswerable question of the temporal lobe, you cannot determine by testing whether sentient man has given rise to God, or sentient God has given rise to man. These are matters for logic, not science. And logic holds inexorably that necessity obtains. > [@](#): > > Therefore a god defined in this way cannot be a universal omniscient being, merely a philosophical construct invented by and applied to humans. Reducing it to a tautology (I’m using the definition “true by virtue of its logical form alone”, as Merriam-Webster lists more than one definition) redefines it so that it does not exist as a being, and makes the question of its existence a purely semantic one. Speaking of definitions, if He is a being, then He exists. Being: “That which exists in any form, whether it be material or spiritual, actual or ideal; living existence, as distinguished from a thing without life; as, a human being; spiritual beings.” — _Merriam-Webster Unabridged_, 1998. Tautology describes not His existence, but His essence, and unless you are an existentialist, essence precedes existence. When asked His name, His reply was, “I am that I am.” Man as a free moral agent is the result of a sentient God creating sentient gods. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-invention/264353.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-invention/264353.md?page=4)