Theists and atheists (P.S.)

[kowalskil]

Theists and Atheists (P.S.)

I still do not know what can be done to eliminate endless futile conflicts between theists and atheists. But comments collected at several websites prompted me to compose a short on-line paper at:

OOPS, I am not allowed to post a clickable link. The string below can be used to create the link manually. Just remove all the asterisks, after pasting.


h*t*t*p:*//pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/theo_sci.h*t*ml

It can probably be used to initiate an interesting discussion here. Please share this link with those who might be interested.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
Professor Emeritus
Montclair State University, USA

[Octavian]

Most people of science and reason don't care for or are hostile to religion due to it being a rock in the road of progression. It's like people who believe the earth is flat, their belief really effects nothing but scientists still prove them wrong.

[ComradeMan]

Most people of science and reason don't care for or are hostile to religion due to it being a rock in the road of progression. It's like people who believe the earth is flat, their belief really effects nothing but scientists still prove them wrong.


Except most religious people/spiritual people don't believe the earth is flat and probably never did. The whole flat earth idea was, I believe, invented by an English scientist in the 19th century.

Add to that there are many scientists who are also religious/spiritual.

[Revolution starts with U]

The difference between a priori maths and a priori theology, or other theoretical uses of a priori is this:
Maths can be verified empirically, as long as we accept the defined terms (1, 2, +, -, etc). If we accept that a thing made up of billions of atoms can be called "one" we can put "one" with another "one" and we get another thing, which we agree to call "two."
Theology, and other uses of a priori (an cap) on the other hand has a different use of a priori. This method cannot be verified empirically, even if we accept the terms. "God is the spritual" cannot be verified, both God and spiritual are empty terms. Even if we accept God as the spritual and the spritual as God (circular reasoning much?) this still does not say anything that can be verfied. By definition both of those things are outside the material realm.

Maths work because it recognizes a priori is a way to discuss thngs, not a method of truth seeking. When other uses of a priori start to realize that, then we can begin moving forward.

But like one commentor said: "I am opposed to coexistence. One does not halt a boxing match for fear of a winner." :D

EDIT: Comrademan, why don't we all agree to stop saying what "most" religous people do? We're inevitably going to disagree on what most is.

[Viet Minh]

Again? :crying: The arguments are futile because Religions can never prove their God is real, that is the central idea of faith, and the scientists can never disprove God's existence. Its simply a question of belief, and Agnosticism.. ;)

[ChrisK]

Arguments about God are simply non-sense. It makes no sense to say that "God exists" and it makes no sense to say that "God does not exist"

[Dimmu]

Arguments about God are simply non-sense. It makes no sense to say that "God exists" and it makes no sense to say that "God does not exist"

Thats a bad argument.. It was the theists that claimed that god exists, so its up to them to prove it.

As for your argument that it makes no sense that "God does not exist" i present you the "Russell's teapot"

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot#cite_note-0)

[ChrisK]

Thats a bad argument.. It was the theists that claimed that god exists, so its up to them to prove it.

As for your argument that it makes no sense that "God does not exist" i present you the "Russell's teapot"

You misunderstand what I mean by non-sense. I am saying two things here.


The word God is meaningless.
Indicative propositions about God are neither true or false. They say nothing and they show nothing.

[Revolution starts with U]

EDIT: @ Dimm
Tho I agree... I don't think you get what he meant.
God is an empty term. In this sense it makes just as much sense to say "god exists" as much as it does to say "god doesn't exist," i.e. none.
It would be like saying IRnkididnrlolololololssssssshaflapa does/does not exist.

[Dimmu]

You misunderstand what I mean by non-sense. I am saying two things here.


The word God is meaningless.
Indicative propositions about God are neither true or false. They say nothing and they show nothing.


¨¨

Oh sorry, did not get your post right.

But my point still stands to people who claim that agnosticism is the way to go. :)

[Viet Minh]

EDIT: @ Dimm
Tho I agree... I don't think you get what he meant.
God is an empty term. In this sense it makes just as much sense to say "god exists" as much as it does to say "god doesn't exist," i.e. none.
It would be like saying IRnkididnrlolololololssssssshaflapa does/does not exist.

He's my cousin! :D But yeah thats the beauty of 'God', he cannot be disproved. There are logical arguments against the existence of God, for example the paradox of omnipotence, but believers would simply say 'he' transcends logic and reasoning. As physics becomes ever more ethereal I don't discount the possibility of some other or inter-dimensional being beyond our present understanding having some influence on our world (scientists have already created new universes (http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/physicists-create-universes-smaller-than-a-marble/1148) and even life (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/biology_evolution/article7132299.ece) of sorts)

Whats most important is not the cause, but the effect. And there is a definiate argument to be made for the negative effect of Religion outweighing the positive.

[Viet Minh]

Thats the argument of Ignosticism which is fair enough, but my understanding of Agnosticism is it includes any established idea of 'God' and any which may at any point be conceived. Convenient I know! :D

[Revolution starts with U]

He's my cousin! :D But yeah thats the beauty of 'God', he cannot be disproved.
YOu can call it beauty. I call it willfull stupidity.

There are logical arguments against the existence of God, for example the paradox of omnipotence, but believers would simply say 'he' transcends logic and reasoning.
Same here


As physics becomes ever more ethereal I don't discount the possibility of some other or inter-dimensional being beyond our present understanding having some influence on our world (scientists have already created new universes (http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/physicists-create-universes-smaller-than-a-marble/1148) and even life (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/biology_evolution/article7132299.ece) of sorts)

Then it's a man, not God.


Thats the argument of Ignosticism which is fair enough, but my understanding of Agnosticism is it includes any established idea of 'God' and any which may at any point be conceived. Convenient I know! :D
Willful stupidity :D

[Viet Minh]

YOu can call it beauty. I call it willfull stupidity.


Same here

Well yeah there is that :D


Then it's a man, not God.

Or Cthulhu! :ohmy:


Willful stupidity :D

Righteous hedge-betting! :laugh:

[Revolution starts with U]

When I said man, I meant a conscious physical entity subject to the laws of physics. In this sense I am including aliens as men.
As far as hedge betting, here has been my stance on that:
If God will keep me from heaven because I don't believe no matter how good of a person I am then he is a vain asshole, and I want nothing to do with him anyway.
If you have to hedge your bets, fuck God. Do good, be good. If that doesn't get you into heaven then it's not something I want to associate with anyway.

[ChrisK]

¨¨

Oh sorry, did not get your post right.

But my point still stands to people who claim that agnosticism is the way to go. :)

For those who do not fully understand, here is a link to the argument for why the indicative propositions would be non-sense:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/all-philosophical-theories-t148537/index.html

Written by the unfairly banned Rosa Lichtenstein.

[Agent Ducky]

Apatheism for the win! *raises fist* Oh no, that's me caring too much about apatheism. I'm doing it wrong. Why do we all have to force our beliefs on everyone else? Believers gonna believe, nonbelievers gonna nonbelieve. We don't need a constant war going on...

I think we just need to get people to realize the other side isn't gonna budge so... yeah.

[Revolution starts with U]

The other side has budged a lot over the last few centuries.

[Viet Minh]

When I said man, I meant a conscious physical entity subject to the laws of physics. In this sense I am including aliens as men.
As far as hedge betting, here has been my stance on that:
If God will keep me from heaven because I don't believe no matter how good of a person I am then he is a vain asshole, and I want nothing to do with him anyway.
If you have to hedge your bets, fuck God. Do good, be good. If that doesn't get you into heaven then it's not something I want to associate with anyway.

Are you me? :) I said pretty much the same thing recently (not on here, irl) I've never killed anyone, never hurt or bullied anyone, and tried my best to be good and treat people with respect, so if God wants to send me to hell for not worshipping him then fuck him, I'd rather be in Hell wth all the interesting people!


For those who do not fully understand, here is a link to the argument for why the indicative propositions would be non-sense:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/all-philosophical-theories-t148537/index.html

Written by the unfairly banned Rosa Lichtenstein.

Thanks, that looks interesting, but kinda tl;dr. I'll maybe get a chance to read it later.. Why was Rosa banned out of curiosity?

[Agent Ducky]

The other side has budged a lot over the last few centuries.
Well, they have, to a point. But my point is, internet flamewars aren't gonna help.

[Revolution starts with U]

I said pretty much the same thing recently (not on here, irl) I've never killed anyone, never hurt or bullied anyone, and tried my best to be good and treat people with respect, so if God wants to send me to hell for not worshipping him then fuck him, I'd rather be in Hell wth all the interesting people!


I couldn't tell what from where, but I feel I developed this out of my Carlinism. So... maybe if you're a Carlin fan, that will add some verification to my hypothesis :lol:

[Viet Minh]

I couldn't tell what from where, but I feel I developed this out of my Carlinism. So... maybe if you're a Carlin fan, that will add some verification to my hypothesis :lol:

Never heard of him! Thats not to say I haven't ripped him off though! :laugh:

[Revolution starts with U]

George Carlin. He's a comedian.

[Agent Ducky]

Yeah. George Carlin is pretty cool. Too bad he died pretty recently =[

And I agree with that quote. What kind of "benevolent" God sends perfectly good-meaning people to burn eternally for not being the right kind of good-meaning person?

[Revolution starts with U]

I used to watch Carlin when I was like 9. My brother brought home a few VHS of his comedy shows. This coincedentally happened around the time I was becoming interested in politics and economics. I got a trapper-keeper (w/e the fuck you call them things :lol:) with some cartoon punk band pictured on it and "FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION" written on it. Later the next year I learned about Sacco and Vendzetti and started signing my name (Adam) with a circled A :D

[ChrisK]

Why was Rosa banned out of curiosity?

They claimed she was a troll without any proof. Basically, she broke no rules and was banned anyway.

[Revolution starts with U]

Peopel couldn't ever substantiate their position, so they cried foul. It's really a travesty, imho.

[Viet Minh]

That attitude sucks. :(

[Magón]

I think we just need to get people to realize the other side isn't gonna budge so... yeah.

Easier said than done. Just look at that kid who was shot by a neighbor or something, last year. The kid who shot him was a christian, and the kid shot was atheist, and that's why he was killed. There's plenty of other examples in the past as well, of one side taking their "holy word", against the other. So it's not a matter of people realizing the other side isn't going to budge, it's one side needs to take some tips from their "holy words", and just let those who don't believe, live on.

And if they want, shoot each other over one another's "truer holy word", and make it easier on us Atheists. :)

[Agent Ducky]

Lol, good concept. "Hey, go fight amongst yourselves!"

I know, easier said than done... People can't seem to accept that not everyone believes in the same thing.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

All these calls for "peace" (as if there was a shooting war going on) between theists and atheists ignores two important things:

1) Believers have historically been unwilling to keep up their end of the bargain when it comes to non-violent conflict resolution.

2) Science and theology have completely different standards of verification. Theology appears to completely lack any methods of objective verification whatsoever, while scientists refer to evidence all the time. This is a fundamentally unbridgeable gap.

Further, these kind of calls for reconciliation apparently place science and religion on the same footing, when there really is no good reason for doing this. Science has nothing apologise for, while religion's crimes go back millennia.

[ZeroNowhere]

As for your argument that it makes no sense that "God does not exist" i present you the "Russell's teapot"ChristoferKoch is not arguing from a verificationist or scientistic viewpoint, so this presentation accomplishes nothing. A God has no position in the universe, nor is God separate from the universe (for that would entail having a position, and hence being a finite being within the universe). A teapot is an objective being, while a God has no object outside of themselves.


There are logical arguments against the existence of God, for example the paradox of omnipotence, but believers would simply say 'he' transcends logic and reasoning.If this is the same 'paradox of omnipotence' that I am thinking of, the general response is precisely that God does not 'transcend logic' as such.

[ChrisK]

Science has nothing apologise for, while religion's crimes go back millennia.

Really?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_kC5MT2r5U8s/TFvIgbeZ6aI/AAAAAAAAP7w/sRmmGdNfOpk/s1600/45hiroshima+a-bomb.jpg

http://www.m-schmid.com/nuke/Hiroshima-dead.jpg

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45285000/jpg/_45285385_h-bomb.jpg


And that doesn't include the doctors infecting people in South America with syphilis without their consent to test drugs and other poor medical studies like it. The list goes on.

Now I'm not saying that science is worse than religion in terms of a track record for death, but science is certainly not innocent.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Really?

Dropping nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the doing of politicians and soldiers, not scientists.


And that doesn't include the doctors infecting people in South America with syphilis without their consent to test drugs and other poor medical studies like it. The list goes on.

Does it now? Do they still infect people today, or is that the sort of thing that can get a doctor struck off these days?

Note that as far as I'm aware, not a single cleric has been defrocked for the abuse of those under their care.


Now I'm not saying that science is worse than religion in terms of a track record for death, but science is certainly not innocent.

It's fucking saintly compared to religion which has a known history of sucking up the ruling classes.

[ChrisK]

Dropping nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the doing of politicians and soldiers, not scientists.

Last I checked scientists created those bombs. I have serious doubts as to the ability of politicians and soldiers to develop atom bombs, let alone hydrogen bombs.


Does it now? Do they still infect people today, or is that the sort of thing that can get a doctor struck off these days?

Ask me again in twenty years. Then I will let you know what we know.


It's fucking saintly compared to religion which has a known history of sucking up the ruling classes.

Funny, so do quite a few scientists.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Last I checked scientists created those bombs. I have serious doubts as to the ability of politicians and soldiers to develop atom bombs, let alone hydrogen bombs.

It was the politicians and soldiers who created the situation in the first place. The scientists involved acted according to their own consciences; science doesn't tell you what's right and what's wrong.


Ask me again in twenty years. Then I will let you know what we know.

So, an appeal to ignorance. Utterly useless.


Funny, so do quite a few scientists.

As if a relative handful of collusive scientists is remotely comparable to millennia of institutionalised privilege, and the abuse thereof.

[ChrisK]

It was the politicians and soldiers who created the situation in the first place. The scientists involved acted according to their own consciences; science doesn't tell you what's right and what's wrong.

It doesn't have to be able to tell right from wrong to have blood on its hands.


So, an appeal to ignorance. Utterly useless.

Not at all. These things usually come to light about twenty to fifty years after. So ask me in twenty years.


As if a relative handful of collusive scientists is remotely comparable to millennia of institutionalised privilege, and the abuse thereof.

Funny, most scientists through history work for the state, just as religion does. Further, quite a few religions have tried to fight against the state as well. You just don't want to remember them.

[Octavian]

1.Except most religious people/spiritual people don't believe the earth is flat and probably never did. The whole flat earth idea was, I believe, invented by an English scientist in the 19th century.

2.Add to that there are many scientists who are also religious/spiritual.
1. That has nothing to do with what I was saying?
2. The study of field with least spiritual/religious people is biology. I wonder why that is?

[Viet Minh]

All these calls for "peace" (as if there was a shooting war going on) between theists and atheists ignores two important things:

1) Believers have historically been unwilling to keep up their end of the bargain when it comes to non-violent conflict resolution.

2) Science and theology have completely different standards of verification. Theology appears to completely lack any methods of objective verification whatsoever, while scientists refer to evidence all the time. This is a fundamentally unbridgeable gap.

I am the only one ever calling for peace, and its not that I give a fuck about the ongoing atheist/theist debate, on other sites I actively troll both sides to my great amusement, I'm just pointing out here that these arguments have gone on for a long time and will not necessarily be solved here.


Further, these kind of calls for reconciliation apparently place science and religion on the same footing, when there really is no good reason for doing this. Science has nothing apologise for, while religion's crimes go back millennia.

I'm about as anti-theist as they come, but that is a wild exageration. The idea of animals as spiritual creatures is largely from various religious beliefs, wheras scientists think of them as inferior (without necessarily having the understanding to justify that) and so are eligible for animal testing. I'm not necesarily disimissing all animal testing either, I just think its innacurate to make that blanket statement about science.

[ComradeMan]

What is the concrete, objective, empirical and materialist formula for a code of ethics then...?

:cool:

[Revolution starts with U]

Inter-subjective analysis. :thumbup:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I am the only one ever calling for peace, and its not that I give a fuck about the ongoing atheist/theist debate, on other sites I actively troll both sides to my great amusement, I'm just pointing out here that these arguments have gone on for a long time and will not necessarily be solved here.

It's not just about the people taking part in the debates; in public forums there is an audience, some of whom may be swayed one way or the other. Perhaps not today or even tomorrow - few people change their worldview overnight.

But if by arguing in public I can plant the tiniest seed of doubt in a believer's mind, or even slightly nudge a fellow non-believer closer to my position, then I consider that alone a victory.


I'm about as anti-theist as they come, but that is a wild exageration. The idea of animals as spiritual creatures is largely from various religious beliefs, wheras scientists think of them as inferior (without necessarily having the understanding to justify that) and so are eligible for animal testing. I'm not necesarily disimissing all animal testing either, I just think its innacurate to make that blanket statement about science.

The concept of animals as "spiritual creatures" is an unfounded assumption. Scientists use animals in testing because it's more ethical (and more practical) than using humans.


What is the concrete, objective, empirical and materialist formula for a code of ethics then...?

:cool:

Think of the worst of all possible worlds for everyone. Now, any action that causes the world to move closer to that state would be immoral, agreed? Therefore, actions that serve to move the world in the opposite direction to that are moral.

You don't need a concise and exhaustive list of conditions to meet in order to scientifically pursue morality, any more than you need a concise and exhaustive list of conditions to scientifically pursue healthiness.

[kowalskil]

The difference between a priori maths and a priori theology, or other theoretical uses of a priori is this:
Maths can be verified empirically, as long as we accept the defined terms (1, 2, +, -, etc). If we accept that a thing made up of billions of atoms can be called "one" we can put "one" with another "one" and we get another thing, which we agree to call "two."
Theology, and other uses of a priori (an cap) on the other hand has a different use of a priori. This method cannot be verified empirically, even if we accept the terms. "God is the spritual" cannot be verified, both God and spiritual are empty terms. Even if we accept God as the spritual and the spritual as God (circular reasoning much?) this still does not say anything that can be verfied. By definition both of those things are outside the material realm.

Maths work because it recognizes a priori is a way to discuss thngs, not a method of truth seeking. When other uses of a priori start to realize that, then we can begin moving forward.

But like one commentor said: "I am opposed to coexistence. One does not halt a boxing match for fear of a winner." :D

EDIT: Comrademan, why don't we all agree to stop saying what "most" religous people do? We're inevitably going to disagree on what most is.

Thank you for emphasizing differences between mathematical and theological axioms (initial assumptions). They are indeed important. My goal was to show similarities, not differences. In both cases claims are based on logic, not on experimental facts, as in science. A proven mathematical claim is believed to be eternal, unless a logical error was found in the derivation. That is why I think that mathematics is closer to theology than to science, conceptually. Being a scientists I am fully aware how close mathematics and science are, in practice.

Ludwik Kowalski

[kowalskil]

Again? :crying: The arguments are futile because Religions can never prove their God is real, that is the central idea of faith, and the scientists can never disprove God's existence. Its simply a question of belief, and Agnosticism.. ;)

By "real" you probably mean "material," in this case. But theologists, as far as I know, do not claim that God is a material entity (with certain mass, weight, size, etc.

Ludwik Kowalski

[kowalskil]

Arguments about God are simply non-sense, from the scientific point of view. It makes no sense to say that "God exists" and it makes no sense to say that "God does not exist"

I hope you do not mind the above insertion (in red). Two different worlds (material and spiritual) and two different methodologies of validation.

Ludwik

[kowalskil]

All these calls for "peace" (as if there was a shooting war going on) between theists and atheists ignores two important things:

1) Believers have historically been unwilling to keep up their end of the bargain when it comes to non-violent conflict resolution.

2) Science and theology have completely different standards of verification. Theology appears to completely lack any methods of objective verification whatsoever, while scientists refer to evidence all the time. This is a fundamentally unbridgeable gap.

Further, these kind of calls for reconciliation apparently place science and religion on the same footing, when there really is no good reason for doing this. Science has nothing apologise for, while religion's crimes go back millennia.

Religion = theism + many other things. That is why discussing theism is easier than discussing religion.

Ludwik