O.k.
[Exaggeration-Free]Why is religion allowed to be questioned on this board like every other topic of conversation? Where is the “free pass” that it gets on a lot of other message boards?[/Exaggeration-Free]
That is the case for many scientists also. Fred Hoyle never abandoned belief in the steady state theory even after plenty of evidence against it was in. New generations of scientists abandoned religion as part of science because it didn’t work. But religion and science mix even today so long as the science part isn’t directly attacking the core beliefs of the religious part. One of my fellow managers at Bell Labs was a nun, and I can assure you that Vatican astronomer Guy Consolmagno, who was on Colbert, is an actual scientist. Fundamentalists are so rabidly anti-science because anything discovered seems to contradict the Bible in some way or another. Pitiful, as I said.
There are actually two answers here, based on what I might have meant by excellent. In the first, I was just reporting on my internal reaction to the article, in the way that I might report on my reaction to food. No cite required, any more than if I said I was felling happy. I might contradict myself in both cases.
The second is in the criticism sense. I am a book review editor for a computer magazine, and publish two reviews a year, and do lots of paper reviewing. I could write a long essay explaining exactly why that article was excellent. But no time and no glory, not even the little bit I get from my reviews. In that sense a call for a cite is appropriate. The worst paper reviews are those in which some famous professor says “good paper.” (From the context of an editor or program chair, not author. As an author I like those just fine.)
For the statement that you disagree, the post is your cite. The rest is the same as above, actually. I’m sure you have better things to do than to write long critiques also.
I did not evaluate it on that basis. Effectiveness is measurable - if I really cared I could get some focus groups of people with different backgrounds together and give them surveys before and after.
It is not a no true Scotsman fallacy unless good evidence was defined as that not supporting the God hypothesis. Each bit of evidence, however, can be ruled as not good without considering whether or not it supports the God hypothesis. It goes the other way also. The fact that God did not smite my obnoxious neighbor after I prayed for him to do so maybe evidence of God’s nonexistence, but it certainly isn’t good evidence.
You pretty much answered your own question here. Religion get such special treatment in our society that atheists like you and me can’t say anything about it, even politely. Even reasonably polite atheist books are considered a scandal if they get any notice at all. This kind of place is the only one where this discuss can go forward. Most threads are in response to theist OPs. Newbie atheist posters who begin with a “religion is stupid” post get criticized from both sides, and quite rightly. The reason we have so many is, I think, the ineffectiveness of the religious response and the wish for advocates of majority religions (and not just pantheists) to defend their position.
Kind of like evolution. When a Creationist appears and is challenged, he fades away like morning dew. Are posts describing what evolution really says and pointing out the Creationists misstating of the theory vicious attacks? Are posts pointing out where religions is illogical vicious attacks?
Thanks Voyager for your well-reasoned response.
Well, I didn’t say anything about “vicious attacks”, but, regardless, I see nothing wrong with pointing out *specifically * where religion is illogical. I just object to the implication that belief in God is inherently illogical. Some of the smartest scientists and philosophers in the world have believed that God exists, and, to me, it makes no sense to say that all those guys were being illogical. (I’m definitely not saying that they were right.) What they were missing is the new evidence that has become available over the last few centuries that has made God no longer necessary to explain the way the world works.
But, if someone today believes in God, given what science has discovered and formulated about the world, is that person being illogical? I suggest that the answer depends on what argument is presented to support the belief in God, and on how clearly “God” is defined. An argument can be logical (in the sense that the conclusion follows from the premises), but still wrong. Better to point out an error in a premise than to imply that the person is being illogical.
I haven’t seen a lot of criticism by atheists of other atheists who make strong and poorly-reasoned arguments against religion.
Religion continues to get a free pass in many societies. I don’t like that, and I’m doing something about it. One thing that I think helps is to engage moderate theists in discussion and address the more recent answers that science has provided, and point out that religion’s answers are inadequate. As you know, there’s still a lot of ignorance about science, even among highly-educated people. The other is to provide an adequate substitute for the emotional and social component of god-belief. People will not just throw away a belief without something to take its place.
Anyway, thanks again, and I encourage you to continue to point out when atheists make vague, silly claims to support their position.
If a smart person believes something that would otherwise be considered illogical, the fact that she/he is smart means that the belief is no longer illogical?
I don’t think so.
If you want the statement to be taken seriously you should justify WHY you think that. WHAT errors of fact or logic does it contain? WHY is it not an excellent article?
It’s a clear and simple explanation of a position I agree with. It is, as far as I know, factually correct and holds together logically. If I’m mistaken in these beliefs, please feel free to point out HOW I am mistaken.
Like Voyager, I could also write up a critique that explains WHY her prose is stylistically superior. But I feel disinclined to do so. Explaining what specific compositional choices separate good prose from bad is a huge subject that is far outside the scope of this discussion.
Hey Galileo, I don’t suppose you’d like to comment on my post #90 where I shined a light on your lame attempt at diverting attention from the utter worthlessness of your position?
Tap. Tap. Is this thing on?
The claim that religions is inherently illogical is, or should be, the starting point of a debate. A simple statement might be - no god is the null hypothesis, no religion now provides strong arguments about why a God hypothesis should be adopted; previous reasonably strong arguments have all been refuted; thus, the God hypothesis is inherently illogical. A theist can have two responses to this. He can either give evidence and an argument showing that a particular God hypothesis is logical, and we go from there. We’ve seen first cause arguments, arguments from personal revelations, and a few more. We then need to give specific counterarguments to them.
The second response is to say “stop insulting me by saying I am irrational.”
We see this a lot also. The IPU got invented to demonstrate the folly of special pleading, but the average response to it seems to be that of offense at the very concept. Which kind of proves the point.
We haven’t had one of these for a while, but when we do atheists often lecture the OP on the deficiencies in the post. Then, as is often the case, the usual people have the usual discussion.
Moderate theists by and large accept science perfectly well. You’ve seen overly broad claims that religion is against science, say evolution, be countered by the fact that Catholic schools teach evolution quite well, and the church has figured out a position that accepts the facts. The lack of historical evidence of an actual intervention by God in the world works a lot better. The evolution of God-belief with social maturity might work also.
I don’t know what we can or should do about the emotional and social components. I’m quite happy to get each theist to admit that he might be wrong and that social policy should not be built on unjustified God-belief. I’d be quite happy if everyone went to the equivalent of UU churches and Reform shuls, places which don’t attempt to inflict their belief on anybody else. I think they are silly, but I’m not a joiner.
There are competing interpretations of Quantum Mechanics
arising from the central problem of observation and measurement.
Specifically all physical entities possess a “wave function”.
According to one family of interpretations the wave function
must “collapse” at some point during observation if any process
of measurement is to be completed.
The most radical member of this family of QM interpretations
is associated with Eugene Wigner. Wigner asserted that:
(from link, emphasis added):
So, if Wigner is correct then consciousness is an essential component
of that part of nature where QM rules.
BUT QM is thought to have universal application, even if its practical effects
are small enough to ignore at above the microscopic level.
AND if Big Bang theory is correct, the singularity at the moment expansion
began was microscopic.
THEREFORE if Wigner is correct consciousness is present at every event
which has ever occurred, going back to the Big Bang itself.
The question naturally arises, what could have been “conscious” in the realm
of the Quasars before their light hit us, and what could have been “conscious”
at the moment of the Big Bang?
Such considerations do not prove anything about God, but I submit they leave
the door wide open for Him.
And Bishop Berkeley must be confronted anew:
Esse est percipi: to be is to be perceived.
No. Existence does not require wave function collapse. The universe could easily have existed as an uncollapsed wave function for an indefinite amount of time before the first observer appeared.
(If Wigner is even correct. Which he may not be. The idea of “collapsed” and “uncollapsed” wave functions may merely be a temporary artifact of our incomplete understanding of quantum mechanics.)
And, upon further reflection, it occurs to me that the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is itself an argument against an omniscient God.
If God is present as a conscious observer of every event in creation, how can an interference pattern EVER form in the double-slit experiment?
How many times have you tried that? What was the result? What is it that you expect to achieve with your argument? And, in terms that you can relate to, what is your null hypothesis with regards to the most effective approach with theists, and what are you doing to test the hypothesis?
You haven’t recently seen “atheists who make strong and poorly-reasoned arguments against religion”? Take another look at this thread.
Say hi to your brothers in arms. I think that they are more interested in the battle than they are in peace.
Bye. 
That’s called “losing”. That doesn’t show that religion and science are compatible; it shows that science largely won and the Church was forced to make a major retreat from what their own “holy” book says to a fallback position. When science and religion meet, either the religion forces science into spouting lies, turning it into pseudoscience; or as in your example religion is forced to retreat into the position of claiming that “God” doesn’t actually do anything detectable and that their holy books don’t actually mean anything. It’s the consequence of religion - all religion - being so completely and consistently wrong about everything.
I’m interested in delegitimizing religious thinking as respected part of public discourse.
Remember how embarrassed the Reagans were when it was made public that an astrologer had been consulted in the White House? I’d like to see a future where prayer and other manifestations of mainstream religion are treated the same way – as a strange ritual limited to the superstitious and gullible, but not something that serious adults use as part of their decision-making toolkit.
I don’t expect this to happen in my lifetime. But in will *never *happen unless we start chipping away at the thick, thick walls that religion has created to shelter it from criticism. Often that simply means asking religion to clearly state its claims and justify them.
So, no, I’m not interested in peace. I’m interested in victory … for my great-grandchildren.
-
Who created the assertions?
An interesting if ethically dubious experiment would be to raise a community of children in a state of prehistoric ignorance, but carefully withhold any references to religion or the supernatural and see what they come up with. I’m fairly sure that creation myths, the existence of higher powers, and a supernatural framework to ultimately correct the injustices of life, would be postulated in short order.
Richard Dawkins describes in Unweaving the Rainbow how pigeons being fed at random in a Skinner’s box develop superstitions - they can come to believe that e.g. circling anticlockwise in the correct corner will result in food. This is a result of false-pattern spotting followed by confirmation bias. People are equally capable of spotting patterns that aren’t there. (climbing that mountain caused a storm so it must be sacred, etc. Breaches of the sacred mountain taboo are correlated with any and all coincident misfortunes from then on.) -
Why were those assertions created?
The universe exists; there is something rather than nothing. Either there is some purpose underlying the universe, or else there isn’t. If there isn’t, it means everything is ultimately pointless. All our struggles for survival, for self-development, for understanding: pointless. All our acts of kindness or cruelty, everything we create, everything we leave behind, mean absolutely nothing in the long term. It’s a difficult concept to swallow for primates that have evolved to be purpose-driven and social. Robert Anton Wilson suggested that humans are basically pre-programmed with the notion that an alpha male should be running things and project that concept onto the universe. We are also apparently pre-programmed to have a sense of justice, a part of our social nature. The essential randomness and injustice of life, especially in primitive conditions, cries out for some kind of explanation. -
Why did people accept those assertions?
There’s something very compelling about the idea that the universe is all about us, that we are important, and that all the bad stuff will be sorted out in the end. Basically it makes sense to us on a visceral level. And once they become established, religious ideas will be taught from an early age when our critical facaulties are weak. We are also heavily influenced by the beliefs around us, ref. Asch conformance experiments. -
What specifically is the “new information”? And how is it different from evidence?
It varies from religion to religion, but generally consists of (a) a creation myth involving potent supernatural entities, (b) a relationship between mankind and the supernatural entities whereby Man’s actions are relevant to the universe, i.e. the universe is basically a backdrop for the drama of Man (c) some form of corrective mechanism to fix the injustices of life, whether it be karma, reincarnation, reward/punishment after death etc. It differs from evidence in that is generally 3rd-person revelatory information or the result of false pattern-spotting. -
What behaviors were altered?
It depends upon the tenets of the religion. Most include taboos, rituals and duties, means of intercession with the potent supernatural entities (prayer, sacrifices etc.) and doing whatever lands you on the favoured side of supernatural justice. -
How did the information alter behavior?
Fear, promise of reward, and Asch-type conformance, mainly.
[QUOTE=The Hamster King]
(If Wigner is even correct. Which he may not be. The idea of “collapsed” and “uncollapsed” wave functions may merely be a temporary artifact of our incomplete understanding of quantum mechanics.)
[/QUOTE]
I made it abundantly clear that Wigner’s interpretation of QM is
only one of many. I am aware that experiment to date decisively
favors none.
My comments presume only for the sake of argument that Wigner’s
version is the correct one.
[QUOTE=The Hamster King]
No. Existence does not require wave function collapse. The universe could easily have existed as an uncollapsed wave function for an indefinite amount of time before the first observer appeared.
[/QUOTE]
I should have quoted the entire paragraph linked in my earlier reply.
I assumed Wigner’s theory entailed wave function collapse simultaneous
with the start of the Big Bang, with observation necessarily there to
provide the act of measurement.
However, even if there was not yet then a wave function collapse Wigner
still seems to me to suggest consciousness is present wherever anything
is present: “content of the consciousness is an ultimate reality.”
(from link, emphasis added):
Elsewhere Wigner says:
link #2
(from link, emphasis added):
That is a pretty strong statement for the physical significance of consciousness.
I realize gravity and the other three fundamental forces were combined into
one at the moment of the Big Bang. But they separated within a microsecond.
I am not sure God need be omniscient. He might be sort of
a grander version of Dr. Victor Frankenstein, whose cosmic
experimental creation has gone badly awry.
Also, if String theory is correct, and there are another 6-7
dimensions to work with, then maybe God can use them
to patch together that interference pattern.
Finally, an omnipotent God may of course create any kind
of exception to physical law where His own Being is concerned.
What Wigner is suggesting is that consciousness is required for any *thing *(not anything) to be present. Without consciousness all there is is an eternity of superimposed wavefunctions. It is the act of observing that structures the universe into planets and trees and dogs and people and ants, etc. Without observation all that exists is a fluctuating potentiality.
But that’s not an argument for the existence of God. The universe could have “existed” for billions of years as a fluctuating potentiality with no observer at all.
In fact, as I pointed out, it’s actually a very good argument for the non-existence of God. Or rather, for the non-existence of an omnipotent God. In the double slit experiment we can observed the interference patterns created by the uncollapsed wavefunctions of particles as they interfere with themselves. If an omniscient God existed, his observation of the experiment would collapse the wavefunction and we would never see any interference patterns.
It’s a useful atheist argument that I’ve never heard before. Thanks for adding to the arsenal!
Such a god, if he exists, is certainly not worthy of worship.
Jumbling a bunch of “science-y” sounding words together into a sentence is not an argument. You might as well say “Maybe he uncollapses the wavefunction with a flux capacitor!”
When we get to the point where “anything” is to be distinguished
from “any thing” I begin to wonder if the discussion continues to
hold any promise of constructive exchange.
In any case, requiring consciousness for “any thing” is no agrument
against it being also required for “anything”, although if you are correct
in assigning this distinction to Wigner I may have to look to another for
a theory to base my agrument on. So far you haven’t impressed me
enough to drop Wigner.
Well, something is performing prodigious creative feats by the act of
observation, right? I suppose even a one-celled organism might do for
our purposes. We still need to find out who was looking when the first
one-celled organism popped out of the primordial ooze, though.
Although my remarks were sufficiently qualified I guess I have to
repeat them:
“Such considerations do not prove anything (emphasis added) about God,
but I submit they leave the door wide open for Him.”
Not necessarily:
*“An omnipotent God may of course create any kind of exception to physical law
where His own Being is concerned.” *
You arsenal is the same size it was before, and good luck coming up
with a scientific argument of any utility.