Same Sex Marriage Legal in all US States

[SoulMonster]

If you are dealing with a higher intellectual entity who has set all the planetary motions in orbit, etc., does not the concept of the 'supernatural' become rather nebulous? Ghosts might also have a rational underpinning for all we know (again, it is flawed science to dismiss that hypothesis); we only pertain them to the 'supernatural' because we do not understand them and a significant proportion query their existence. Something is 'supernatural' only within the parameters of present human knowledge. Great beasts existed as quasi-religious mythological animals in many disparate cultures such as China and Ancient Greece, yet in the 19th century with the arrival of paleontology and 'dinosaur hunters' we began to discover and scientifically log the remains of great beasts every bit as terrifying and sublime as dragons.

No, something isn't supernatural because we do not understand them or because they lie beyond our present human knowledge - many things have been beyond our comprehension but turned out to be fulle naturalistic. Something is supernatural when it doesn't adhere to the laws of nature.

The interesting thing here is of course that "laws of nature" is just a name we put on laws that describe nature and which are always open to revision. So when we discover a new aspect of nature that doesn't fit with the existing laws, we adjust those laws to fit That's is why Newtonian physics, which was good for Earthly phenomena and all we needed in the 18th century, were replaced with Einstein's physics (relativity) which is more refined and much better suited to phenomena on a larger cosmological scale which we then started to study. What I am saying is that the laws we have might just be our currently best approximations to what we have so far discovered, and may have to be revised and improved in the future as we encounter and study new phenomenon that doesn't behave like things we have studied so far. The laws of nature simply aren't etched in stone. It would be sort of naive to think we got it all figured out already. And arrogant. That being said, being open for revisions of the laws of nature isn't the same as saying that supernatural entities like gods, who tend to be intelligent and who have deliberately created the universe, are probable. It is a giant leap to go from not being able to dissect teh mechanisms behind the begiining of cosmos, to claim it must have been created by some intelligent designer. It is just not completely impossible. That's again why you will never hear me say there is zero chance of gods existing, but rather that it is so unlikely that we can for all practical terms disregard it. The laws are a map, really, which should fit the terrain, and when the map turn out to be imperfect, we naturally redraw them. I think this might be what Lenny has alluded to in a couple of his posts but I might have been a bit too obtuse to get it.

Edited July 2, 2015 by SoulMonster

[Lithium]

SoulMonster is my hooray for tolerance!.

[DieselDaisy]

If you are dealing with a higher intellectual entity who has set all the planetary motions in orbit, etc., does not the concept of the 'supernatural' become rather nebulous? Ghosts might also have a rational underpinning for all we know (again, it is flawed science to dismiss that hypothesis); we only pertain them to the 'supernatural' because we do not understand them and a significant proportion query their existence. Something is 'supernatural' only within the parameters of present human knowledge. Great beasts existed as quasi-religious mythological animals in many disparate cultures such as China and Ancient Greece, yet in the 19th century with the arrival of paleontology and 'dinosaur hunters' we began to discover and scientifically log the remains of great beasts every bit as terrifying and sublime as dragons.

No, something isn't supernatural because we do not understand them or because they lie beyond our present human knowledge - many things have been beyond our comprehension but turned out to be fulle naturalistic. Something is supernatural when it doesn't adhere to the laws of nature.

The interesting thing here is of course that "laws of nature" is just a name we put on laws that describe nature and which are always open to revision. So when we discover a new aspect of nature that doesn't fit with the existing laws, we adjust those laws to fit That's is why Newtonian physics, which was good for Earthly phenomena and all we needed in the 18th century, were replaced with Einstein's physics (relativity) which is more refined and much better suited to phenomena on a larger cosmological scale which we then started to study. What I am saying is that the laws we have might just be our currently best approximations to what we have so far discovered, and may have to be revised and improved in the future as we encounter and study new phenomenon that doesn't behave like things we have studied so far. The laws of nature simply aren't etched in stone. It would be sort of naive to think we got it all figured out already. And arrogant. That being said, being open for revisions of the laws of nature isn't the same as saying that supernatural entities like gods, who tend to be intelligent and who have deliberately created the universe, are probable. It is a giant leap to go from not being able to dissect teh mechanisms behind the begiining of cosmos, to claim it must have been created by some intelligent designer. It is just not completely impossible. That's again why you will never hear me say there is zero chance of gods existing, but rather that it is so unlikely that we can for all practical terms disregard it. The laws are a map, really, which should fit the terrain, and when the map turn out to be imperfect, we naturally redraw them. I think this might be what Lenny has alluded to in a couple of his posts but I might have been a bit too obtuse to get it.

You said it: the 'laws of nature' are only as good as present human knowledge. We are even aware of some gaps in our own knowledge, e.g. the existence (or none existence) of extra-terrestrial life, the Goldilocks principle. Under those circumstances, we are actually aware of the question yet do not possess the answer. Logically then we have to accept that there are situations in which we do not possess the actual questions themselves. You are mentioning a great mental leap from a purely scientific, big bang, creation to an intelligent creation. Is this leap really any bigger than the theory of natural selection or the discovery of T Rex - or even (a historical example) the discovery of a whole new continent, America in 1492?

[arnold layne]

Words words words words.

[SoulMonster]

If you are dealing with a higher intellectual entity who has set all the planetary motions in orbit, etc., does not the concept of the 'supernatural' become rather nebulous? Ghosts might also have a rational underpinning for all we know (again, it is flawed science to dismiss that hypothesis); we only pertain them to the 'supernatural' because we do not understand them and a significant proportion query their existence. Something is 'supernatural' only within the parameters of present human knowledge. Great beasts existed as quasi-religious mythological animals in many disparate cultures such as China and Ancient Greece, yet in the 19th century with the arrival of paleontology and 'dinosaur hunters' we began to discover and scientifically log the remains of great beasts every bit as terrifying and sublime as dragons.

No, something isn't supernatural because we do not understand them or because they lie beyond our present human knowledge - many things have been beyond our comprehension but turned out to be fulle naturalistic. Something is supernatural when it doesn't adhere to the laws of nature.

The interesting thing here is of course that "laws of nature" is just a name we put on laws that describe nature and which are always open to revision. So when we discover a new aspect of nature that doesn't fit with the existing laws, we adjust those laws to fit That's is why Newtonian physics, which was good for Earthly phenomena and all we needed in the 18th century, were replaced with Einstein's physics (relativity) which is more refined and much better suited to phenomena on a larger cosmological scale which we then started to study. What I am saying is that the laws we have might just be our currently best approximations to what we have so far discovered, and may have to be revised and improved in the future as we encounter and study new phenomenon that doesn't behave like things we have studied so far. The laws of nature simply aren't etched in stone. It would be sort of naive to think we got it all figured out already. And arrogant. That being said, being open for revisions of the laws of nature isn't the same as saying that supernatural entities like gods, who tend to be intelligent and who have deliberately created the universe, are probable. It is a giant leap to go from not being able to dissect teh mechanisms behind the begiining of cosmos, to claim it must have been created by some intelligent designer. It is just not completely impossible. That's again why you will never hear me say there is zero chance of gods existing, but rather that it is so unlikely that we can for all practical terms disregard it. The laws are a map, really, which should fit the terrain, and when the map turn out to be imperfect, we naturally redraw them. I think this might be what Lenny has alluded to in a couple of his posts but I might have been a bit too obtuse to get it.

You said it: the 'laws of nature' are only as good as present human knowledge. We are even aware of some gaps in our own knowledge, e.g. the existence (or none existence) of extra-terrestrial life, the Goldilocks principle. Under those circumstances, we are actually aware of the question yet do not possess the answer. Logically then we have to accept that there are situations in which we do not possess the actual questions themselves. You are mentioning a great mental leap from a purely scientific, big bang, creation to an intelligent creation. Is this leap really any bigger than the theory of natural selection or the discovery of T Rex - or even (a historical example) the discovery of a whole new continent, America in 1492?

Yes, it is a huuuge difference between finding a new continent (something people had done many times previously during our exploration of the world), or another fossilized life form (again, something we have done many times before), or coming up with an improved theory of biological evolution (again, nothing exraordinary in that), to going from to a scientific model with lots of supporting evidence like the big bang, to something that is completely supernatural and has no supportive evidence at all, like an intelligent creator. So yeah, there is not only a quantitativelly large difference, it is a qualitative difference, too. Was the jump from the classical mechanics of Newton to the modern quantum mechanics as much as a shift in paradigm as going from a naturalistic model for the begiining of the universe to a supernatural explanation? I don't think so at all. Even if quantum mechanics revised parts of the rules of nature, it still was just a selection of laws describing matter and movement (I am on thin ice now, I am not a physicist ). Going from something that is still purely mechanical laws, just a new set of formulas better served to describe nature, really, to something that is a thinking, intelligent entity that have the ability to break the laws of nature at will, is something else entirely. That jump is huge. But is it impossible? Nope. Is it probable? Absolutely not. It is so lacking in supportive evidence that it can be likened to all the things we would otherwise have no problems immediately discarding as totally ludicrious.

I think humans tend to conjure explanations when none offer themselves. Because we are a curious species who love answers. Even to the extent of adopting sub-optimal explanations when just saying, "we don't know", would be better. I mean, I don't know if there are any life forms on the first planet orbiting Alpha Centauri, but I see no reason to go around believing there are, and more importantly choose to adopt the highly improbable belief that these life forms look like blue, little elves that move around by dancing. Sure it is an answer to the question of what kind of life forms exist on that planet, if any, which can't be ruled out (yet), but why adopt such an implausible answer? Why go from not being in a position where we can trust the scientists on a fully developed model for what happened in the beginning, to embracing something that assumes the supernatural and hence is so very unlikely? I guess the explanation is that if you already believe in a god, then it is not a large stretch to also believe that god created everything. But to us who haven't already lowered the threshold of what we are willing to believe in, that jump is too vast to attempt.

[Mansin Humanity]

Seems like everyone online is bending over backwards to congratulate themselves for being such amazing forward-thinking individuals that believe in true love. It kinda reminds me of that ice bucket nonsense last summer which was much more about attention than an actual good cause.

I can honestly say it makes zero difference to me whatsoever if gay marriage is legal or not. But if I actually say that I really don't give a shit either way, I guess I'd be branded a homophobe. Not caring doesn't equal being a homophobe.

My cousin's husband believes anyone who didn't change their Facebook profile to a rainbow last weekend is a bigoted racist homophobe. He's in his 40s and believes that.

[Graeme]

Diesel, I don't know that it's laziness that compels most atheists/antitheists to primarily focus on Judaism-Christianity-Islam. Eastern religions tend to be more philosophical and less theistic, often times bordering between religion and philosophy. I'm no scholar, and no doubt you know more than I do about Buddhism, Hindiusm, etc., but it seems to me that there's a lot less to criticize in them.

EDIT: Although at the root of it, I suppose that's essentially what you're saying. That atheists are more so, anti-Western religion?

Well, how many of the people who contribute to this board come from places where "Eastern" religions are regularly practised? It would make sense that if atheists are going to criticise religion then it would be the aspects of religion that impact upon their daily lives. I'm fairly sure the victims of fundamentalist Buddhist attacks in Southeast Asia (it does happen) would criticise Buddhist doctrine if they were atheist. Likewise with Atheist Indians who believe that the caste system is unjust. It's just we don't tend to have many people from that part of the world posting on here.

Also, there tends to be a general trend between socioeconomic development and religious adherence/fundamentalism, many "Eastern" countries aren't that highly developed so a strong secularist voice possibly hasn't come to the surface in some of them.

I do not agree. Isn't atheism holistic? Since atheists claim to be using 'reason' and 'fact' to criticise religion, yet all their arguments pertain to Christian or Islam, it is a fair point to mention the fact that there are at least 2 billion religious adherents for whom those same arguments just do not apply. Heck, even within Christianity itself, most of their arguments being anti-Catholic, they simply do not apply to around 47% of Christians! Also, is your argument, of criticising a religion that impacts ''upon their daily lives'' not rendered increasingly irrelevant through multiculturalism.

Atheism is holistic, just because an atheist isn't bringing their disbelief in Brahma into an argument about the Catholic Church's stance on stem cell research, doesn't mean that they afford Hinduism any more credence than Catholicism, it's just not pertinent to the argument at hand. You're acting as though the arguments you've personally observed are the only arguments that take place, and then make these sweeping generalisations. I would wager the number of practising Hindus on this forum is significantly less than the number of practising Christians, so is it any wonder that Christian theology is the most debated religious doctrine here?

[AxlisOld]

I always laugh hardest at that scene when he rolls his R.

Who?! Who doesn't want to wear the r-r-r-r-r-r-ibbon?!

[DieselDaisy]

If you are dealing with a higher intellectual entity who has set all the planetary motions in orbit, etc., does not the concept of the 'supernatural' become rather nebulous? Ghosts might also have a rational underpinning for all we know (again, it is flawed science to dismiss that hypothesis); we only pertain them to the 'supernatural' because we do not understand them and a significant proportion query their existence. Something is 'supernatural' only within the parameters of present human knowledge. Great beasts existed as quasi-religious mythological animals in many disparate cultures such as China and Ancient Greece, yet in the 19th century with the arrival of paleontology and 'dinosaur hunters' we began to discover and scientifically log the remains of great beasts every bit as terrifying and sublime as dragons.

No, something isn't supernatural because we do not understand them or because they lie beyond our present human knowledge - many things have been beyond our comprehension but turned out to be fulle naturalistic. Something is supernatural when it doesn't adhere to the laws of nature.

The interesting thing here is of course that "laws of nature" is just a name we put on laws that describe nature and which are always open to revision. So when we discover a new aspect of nature that doesn't fit with the existing laws, we adjust those laws to fit That's is why Newtonian physics, which was good for Earthly phenomena and all we needed in the 18th century, were replaced with Einstein's physics (relativity) which is more refined and much better suited to phenomena on a larger cosmological scale which we then started to study. What I am saying is that the laws we have might just be our currently best approximations to what we have so far discovered, and may have to be revised and improved in the future as we encounter and study new phenomenon that doesn't behave like things we have studied so far. The laws of nature simply aren't etched in stone. It would be sort of naive to think we got it all figured out already. And arrogant. That being said, being open for revisions of the laws of nature isn't the same as saying that supernatural entities like gods, who tend to be intelligent and who have deliberately created the universe, are probable. It is a giant leap to go from not being able to dissect teh mechanisms behind the begiining of cosmos, to claim it must have been created by some intelligent designer. It is just not completely impossible. That's again why you will never hear me say there is zero chance of gods existing, but rather that it is so unlikely that we can for all practical terms disregard it. The laws are a map, really, which should fit the terrain, and when the map turn out to be imperfect, we naturally redraw them. I think this might be what Lenny has alluded to in a couple of his posts but I might have been a bit too obtuse to get it.

You said it: the 'laws of nature' are only as good as present human knowledge. We are even aware of some gaps in our own knowledge, e.g. the existence (or none existence) of extra-terrestrial life, the Goldilocks principle. Under those circumstances, we are actually aware of the question yet do not possess the answer. Logically then we have to accept that there are situations in which we do not possess the actual questions themselves. You are mentioning a great mental leap from a purely scientific, big bang, creation to an intelligent creation. Is this leap really any bigger than the theory of natural selection or the discovery of T Rex - or even (a historical example) the discovery of a whole new continent, America in 1492?

Yes, it is a huuuge difference between finding a new continent (something people had done many times previously during our exploration of the world), or another fossilized life form (again, something we have done many times before), or coming up with an improved theory of biological evolution (again, nothing exraordinary in that), to going from to a scientific model with lots of supporting evidence like the big bang, to something that is completely supernatural and has no supportive evidence at all, like an intelligent creator. So yeah, there is not only a quantitativelly large difference, it is a qualitative difference, too. Was the jump from the classical mechanics of Newton to the modern quantum mechanics as much as a shift in paradigm as going from a naturalistic model for the begiining of the universe to a supernatural explanation? I don't think so at all. Even if quantum mechanics revised parts of the rules of nature, it still was just a selection of laws describing matter and movement (I am on thin ice now, I am not a physicist ). Going from something that is still purely mechanical laws, just a new set of formulas better served to describe nature, really, to something that is a thinking, intelligent entity that have the ability to break the laws of nature at will, is something else entirely. That jump is huge. But is it impossible? Nope. Is it probable? Absolutely not. It is so lacking in supportive evidence that it can be likened to all the things we would otherwise have no problems immediately discarding as totally ludicrious.

I think humans tend to conjure explanations when none offer themselves. Because we are a curious species who love answers. Even to the extent of adopting sub-optimal explanations when just saying, "we don't know", would be better. I mean, I don't know if there are any life forms on the first planet orbiting Alpha Centauri, but I see no reason to go around believing there are, and more importantly choose to adopt the highly improbable belief that these life forms look like blue, little elves that move around by dancing. Sure it is an answer to the question of what kind of life forms exist on that planet, if any, which can't be ruled out (yet), but why adopt such an implausible answer? Why go from not being in a position where we can trust the scientists on a fully developed model for what happened in the beginning, to embracing something that assumes the supernatural and hence is so very unlikely? I guess the explanation is that if you already believe in a god, then it is not a large stretch to also believe that god created everything. But to us who haven't already lowered the threshold of what we are willing to believe in, that jump is too vast to attempt.

I do not see this ''a huuuge difference'' that you state. Firstly you are incorrect about the Age of Discovery. While true, you had the later search for a southern continent which resulted in Australasia, the discovery of the American land mass was truly unprecedented. It was so unprecedented that Columbus continued to disbelieve he had stepped onto a new land mass until his dying day. You have to remember that with it brought new changes in flora, fauna, diet (potatoes, tomatoes, maize etc). It changed our ethics, philosophies and perspective on history (the birth of the 'noble savage'). The discovery of glorious empires, to rival Greece or Rome, shifted the western European's concept of himself and his place in the world.

And your dismissal of fossilized discoveries is absurd. True, people had been uncovering dinosaur fossils for centuries in places like China but they always positioned them as relics of mythological beasts. Fossil discoveries in England were theorised to be the remains of a 'gigantic man'. It took new scientific methodology, people like Owen, Marsh and Cope in the 19th century, to postulate that humans were merely the most recent incumbent of an earth which was once dominated by enormous beasts. And I am surprised at how quickly you have dismissed Darwin's theory. It was a theory which shocked scientific circles. In fact it was so controversial that Darwin filed it away in a drawer for decades!

[DieselDaisy]

Diesel, I don't know that it's laziness that compels most atheists/antitheists to primarily focus on Judaism-Christianity-Islam. Eastern religions tend to be more philosophical and less theistic, often times bordering between religion and philosophy. I'm no scholar, and no doubt you know more than I do about Buddhism, Hindiusm, etc., but it seems to me that there's a lot less to criticize in them.

EDIT: Although at the root of it, I suppose that's essentially what you're saying. That atheists are more so, anti-Western religion?

Well, how many of the people who contribute to this board come from places where "Eastern" religions are regularly practised? It would make sense that if atheists are going to criticise religion then it would be the aspects of religion that impact upon their daily lives. I'm fairly sure the victims of fundamentalist Buddhist attacks in Southeast Asia (it does happen) would criticise Buddhist doctrine if they were atheist. Likewise with Atheist Indians who believe that the caste system is unjust. It's just we don't tend to have many people from that part of the world posting on here.

Also, there tends to be a general trend between socioeconomic development and religious adherence/fundamentalism, many "Eastern" countries aren't that highly developed so a strong secularist voice possibly hasn't come to the surface in some of them.

I do not agree. Isn't atheism holistic? Since atheists claim to be using 'reason' and 'fact' to criticise religion, yet all their arguments pertain to Christian or Islam, it is a fair point to mention the fact that there are at least 2 billion religious adherents for whom those same arguments just do not apply. Heck, even within Christianity itself, most of their arguments being anti-Catholic, they simply do not apply to around 47% of Christians! Also, is your argument, of criticising a religion that impacts ''upon their daily lives'' not rendered increasingly irrelevant through multiculturalism.

Atheism is holistic, just because an atheist isn't bringing their disbelief in Brahma into an argument about the Catholic Church's stance on stem cell research, doesn't mean that they afford Hinduism any more credence than Catholicism, it's just not pertinent to the argument at hand. You're acting as though the arguments you've personally observed are the only arguments that take place, and then make these sweeping generalisations. I would wager the number of practising Hindus on this forum is significantly less than the number of practising Christians, so is it any wonder that Christian theology is the most debated religious doctrine here?

But the arguments usually become generalised enough to produce such blanket statements as, ''all religion is phoney and should be banned in schools'' or ''banned outright''. The typical mygnr atheist usually begins at Catholicism, takes in one-or-two Islamic terrorists along the way, and concludes with ''all religion sucks ass''. To say it is a shortcut, avoiding many necessary and essential byways, is something of an under statement. It must be perplexing for a Buddhist to be beaten over the head with the sins of the Catholic church!

Also, I would not say there are many practicing Christians either. In fact there is no one practicing much of anything beneath all the shouting atheists. They cannot get a word in sideways. A lot of these arguments creep up in unexpected places also; I would have never expected a thread on ''Same Sex Marriage Legal in all US States'' to turn into this, but then Soul Monster was on sabbatical.

[OmarBradley]

Saying, "I don't know" is perfectly fine. But still, it either has to be that gods exist or they don't. So someone here is bound to be right, atheists and theists can't both be both wrong or both be right.

Don't tell Schrodinger that.

that's a good question, and one that I increasingly struggle with as I get older, but I'm hanging in there.

I suppose there is a train of thought that says it was simply the one I was born into. happenstance.

And I really hate to leave it at that, because if I leave it at this indoctrination so to speak then what separates me from a jihadist for example.

It's what he knows, from birth he was told his way is the right way.

So i don't preach my way, I just happen to find comfort in it.

That there is a God, and he laid out pretty basic humane rules, Love thy neighbor, don't covet his wife, don't kill, don't steal,.

But along with this "code" if you will comes some faith based sacrifice., believe unconditionally, try not to sin, repent and ask for forgiveness when I do.

But the real kicker is the penalty for not believing, eternal damnation and the rath of hell.

From a human standpoint with all the man made temptations, etc. I wish he wouldn't have thrown that part in, but it keeps me in line I suppose.

But the reward is really cool, I like that part.

I'll find out I guess.

in as far as a religious conversation goes, what soul monster is saying makes so much more sense than what someone, myself in this instance making a case for my beliefs has to say.

The book definition of faith, I believe is 'belief not based on proof. '

my faith is based not only on the comfort of it but also on the fear of it.

Part of my belief is that the consequences are high for not believing.

I remember when I was like 10 years old and someone in one of my classes asked the Nun, the teacher at the time why there was so many verses in the bible telling us to fear the lord.

She very seriously said, You better fear him if for no other reason than what if.

As rude as that sounded at the time it has always stuck with me.

believe just because what if his word is true, the consequences are pretty severe, so what have I got to lose.

the only downside is listening to people ridicule you from time to time. I certainly have bigger shoulders than that.

IMO the above two posts are such evidence for why belief in religion is nonsensical. "I believe to avoid eternal damnation in hell......." that's not belief, that's coercion.

The fact alone that there are hundreds of religious sects within Christianity, Islam, and Judaism (to an extent) that all claim they have the supreme answer should go a long way in dissuading one from succumbing to belief. If there was one religion I may be more influenced to consider it, but since there are hundreds - often based on cultural, geographical, and historical variables, it seems rather folly to me to even get involved with the whole ordeal. It's a case of humans believing what they want to believe, not what they know.

Shades you say you're hedging a bet, that picking religion is better than not picking religion so that you're ass is covered after you're dead...... well you picked 1 out of 1,000 religions, the odds aren't very good.

"Many a man has been driven to his knees because he had no where else to go".

And I find comfort that when something borders too heavy for my coping ability I can turn to God.

And if you have been there you may know that depth, and if you havn't you will.

Well that's not really true. Man is driven to his knees because the alternative is too tough, too counter to tradition for him to bear.

[DieselDaisy]

If you simply switch to the deistic argument it neatly circumnavigates the 'argument from inconsistent revelation' however you can even (partially) accommodate revealed religion to it, provided you are not an uncritical blind adherent to your own religion (e.g. an advocate of Islamic Sharia law): let's assume that a creation event happens; let's assume four different tribes observe the same creation event and splinter into different corners of the globe, carrying with them an account of that creation event; their own interpretation of that event then changes chronologically according to their different cultural, geographic and demographic environments and you now arrive at four seemingly (on the surface) different creation stories. Indeed, this did happen. Students of comparative mythology have seen striking analogies between religions of quite disparate cultures. Many cultures developed a 'Noah's Arc' style story (e.g. The Epic of Gilgamesh) for example while a comparison between Ancient Greece's 'Orpheus and Eurydice' and Japan's 'Izanagi and Izanami' produces startling similarities.

Now, roll that argument forward and take into account that each one of those religions, belonging to those four tribes, needs to iron out a canonical creed as well as develop an institutional apparatus (e.g. priests, popes, councils, rabbi). Presumably they will reach for their own cultural and linguistic norms to create those institutes. On the surface those four religions now look very different animals.

Edited July 2, 2015 by DieselDaisy

[OmarBradley]

If you simply switch to the deistic argument it neatly circumnavigates the 'argument from inconsistent revelation' however you can even (partially) accommodate revealed religion to it, provided you are not an uncritical blind adherent to your own religion (e.g. an advocate of Islamic Sharia law): let's assume that a creation event happens; let's assume four different tribes observe the same creation event and splinter into different corners of the globe, carrying with them an account of that creation event; their own interpretation of that event then changes chronologically according to their different cultural, geographic and demographic environments and you now arrive at four seemingly (on the surface) different creation stories. Indeed, this did happen. Students of comparative mythology have seen striking analogies between religions of quite disparate cultures. Many cultures developed a 'Noah's Arc' style story (e.g. The Epic of Gilgamesh) for example while a comparison between Ancient Greece's 'Orpheus and Eurydice' and Japan's 'Izanagi and Izanami' produces startling similarities.

Now, roll that argument forward and take into account that each one of those religions, belonging to those four tribes, needs to iron out a canonical creed as well as develop an institutional apparatus (e.g. priests, popes, councils, rabbi). Presumably they will reach for their own cultural and linguistic norms to create those institutes. On the surface those four religions now look very different animals.

That's a good point, pure deism does sort of destroy the argument of mine you are referring to. But is deism isn't really a religion. It's almost like atheism (or the opposite of atheism), just instead of lack of belief, you have belief in a deity (or higher power, more accurately), but no strings attached as to worship, form of deity, command of deity, etc...

And as far as witnessing the same creation event and then having the interpretation being influenced by cultural, geographical, and historical variables - that would make more sense to me if the doctrines and tenets of the religion didn't directly change due to said influences.

Edited July 2, 2015 by OmarBradley

[DieselDaisy]

If you simply switch to the deistic argument it neatly circumnavigates the 'argument from inconsistent revelation' however you can even (partially) accommodate revealed religion to it, provided you are not an uncritical blind adherent to your own religion (e.g. an advocate of Islamic Sharia law): let's assume that a creation event happens; let's assume four different tribes observe the same creation event and splinter into different corners of the globe, carrying with them an account of that creation event; their own interpretation of that event then changes chronologically according to their different cultural, geographic and demographic environments and you now arrive at four seemingly (on the surface) different creation stories. Indeed, this did happen. Students of comparative mythology have seen striking analogies between religions of quite disparate cultures. Many cultures developed a 'Noah's Arc' style story (e.g. The Epic of Gilgamesh) for example while a comparison between Ancient Greece's 'Orpheus and Eurydice' and Japan's 'Izanagi and Izanami' produces startling similarities.

Now, roll that argument forward and take into account that each one of those religions, belonging to those four tribes, needs to iron out a canonical creed as well as develop an institutional apparatus (e.g. priests, popes, councils, rabbi). Presumably they will reach for their own cultural and linguistic norms to create those institutes. On the surface those four religions now look very different animals.

That's a good point, pure deism does sort of destroy the argument of mine you are referring to. But is deism isn't really a religion. It's almost like atheism (or the opposite of atheism), just instead of lack of belief, you have belief in a deity (or higher power, more accurately), but no strings attached as to worship, form of deity, command of deity, etc...

And as far as witnessing the same creation event and then having the interpretation being influenced by cultural, geographical, and historical variables - that would make more sense to me if the doctrines and tenets of the religion didn't directly change due to said influences.

But why would they not change? A religion could have migrated to a neighbouring village and the two village religions would have looked rather different adding a number of given years. And secondly, why would it want to change? Religion's usually do not claim that they were created on day one like a fixed and unchangeable monolith. For proselyting to occur it was natural they took on the norms of the exporting culture; often this was deliberately promoted. Judaism adopted itself to koine Greek culture. Western Christendom assumed a Late-Roman/Latin veneer. Buddhism syncretized with Shintoism to produce distinctly Japanese forms of Buddhism such as the Mantra, Pure Land and Zen sects. It is not as if this is denied and that the human-historical aspect is denied or attributed to some 'divine intervention' (although, it sometimes is the case). The establishment of a Latin (Nicene) creed was obviously the result of a bunch of humans in historical times arguing in a council. Tridentine Catholicism was obviously a direct historic reaction to Protestantism which in turn was itself a direct historical event began by a real life persona called Martin Luther. Nobody but the most ardent zealots deny any of this.

It is obvious that (revealed) religion is a very human activity and consequentially contains all of the foibles of humanity.

[SoulMonster]

If you are dealing with a higher intellectual entity who has set all the planetary motions in orbit, etc., does not the concept of the 'supernatural' become rather nebulous? Ghosts might also have a rational underpinning for all we know (again, it is flawed science to dismiss that hypothesis); we only pertain them to the 'supernatural' because we do not understand them and a significant proportion query their existence. Something is 'supernatural' only within the parameters of present human knowledge. Great beasts existed as quasi-religious mythological animals in many disparate cultures such as China and Ancient Greece, yet in the 19th century with the arrival of paleontology and 'dinosaur hunters' we began to discover and scientifically log the remains of great beasts every bit as terrifying and sublime as dragons.

No, something isn't supernatural because we do not understand them or because they lie beyond our present human knowledge - many things have been beyond our comprehension but turned out to be fulle naturalistic. Something is supernatural when it doesn't adhere to the laws of nature.

The interesting thing here is of course that "laws of nature" is just a name we put on laws that describe nature and which are always open to revision. So when we discover a new aspect of nature that doesn't fit with the existing laws, we adjust those laws to fit That's is why Newtonian physics, which was good for Earthly phenomena and all we needed in the 18th century, were replaced with Einstein's physics (relativity) which is more refined and much better suited to phenomena on a larger cosmological scale which we then started to study. What I am saying is that the laws we have might just be our currently best approximations to what we have so far discovered, and may have to be revised and improved in the future as we encounter and study new phenomenon that doesn't behave like things we have studied so far. The laws of nature simply aren't etched in stone. It would be sort of naive to think we got it all figured out already. And arrogant. That being said, being open for revisions of the laws of nature isn't the same as saying that supernatural entities like gods, who tend to be intelligent and who have deliberately created the universe, are probable. It is a giant leap to go from not being able to dissect teh mechanisms behind the begiining of cosmos, to claim it must have been created by some intelligent designer. It is just not completely impossible. That's again why you will never hear me say there is zero chance of gods existing, but rather that it is so unlikely that we can for all practical terms disregard it. The laws are a map, really, which should fit the terrain, and when the map turn out to be imperfect, we naturally redraw them. I think this might be what Lenny has alluded to in a couple of his posts but I might have been a bit too obtuse to get it.

You said it: the 'laws of nature' are only as good as present human knowledge. We are even aware of some gaps in our own knowledge, e.g. the existence (or none existence) of extra-terrestrial life, the Goldilocks principle. Under those circumstances, we are actually aware of the question yet do not possess the answer. Logically then we have to accept that there are situations in which we do not possess the actual questions themselves. You are mentioning a great mental leap from a purely scientific, big bang, creation to an intelligent creation. Is this leap really any bigger than the theory of natural selection or the discovery of T Rex - or even (a historical example) the discovery of a whole new continent, America in 1492?

Yes, it is a huuuge difference between finding a new continent (something people had done many times previously during our exploration of the world), or another fossilized life form (again, something we have done many times before), or coming up with an improved theory of biological evolution (again, nothing exraordinary in that), to going from to a scientific model with lots of supporting evidence like the big bang, to something that is completely supernatural and has no supportive evidence at all, like an intelligent creator. So yeah, there is not only a quantitativelly large difference, it is a qualitative difference, too. Was the jump from the classical mechanics of Newton to the modern quantum mechanics as much as a shift in paradigm as going from a naturalistic model for the begiining of the universe to a supernatural explanation? I don't think so at all. Even if quantum mechanics revised parts of the rules of nature, it still was just a selection of laws describing matter and movement (I am on thin ice now, I am not a physicist ). Going from something that is still purely mechanical laws, just a new set of formulas better served to describe nature, really, to something that is a thinking, intelligent entity that have the ability to break the laws of nature at will, is something else entirely. That jump is huge. But is it impossible? Nope. Is it probable? Absolutely not. It is so lacking in supportive evidence that it can be likened to all the things we would otherwise have no problems immediately discarding as totally ludicrious.

I think humans tend to conjure explanations when none offer themselves. Because we are a curious species who love answers. Even to the extent of adopting sub-optimal explanations when just saying, "we don't know", would be better. I mean, I don't know if there are any life forms on the first planet orbiting Alpha Centauri, but I see no reason to go around believing there are, and more importantly choose to adopt the highly improbable belief that these life forms look like blue, little elves that move around by dancing. Sure it is an answer to the question of what kind of life forms exist on that planet, if any, which can't be ruled out (yet), but why adopt such an implausible answer? Why go from not being in a position where we can trust the scientists on a fully developed model for what happened in the beginning, to embracing something that assumes the supernatural and hence is so very unlikely? I guess the explanation is that if you already believe in a god, then it is not a large stretch to also believe that god created everything. But to us who haven't already lowered the threshold of what we are willing to believe in, that jump is too vast to attempt.

I do not see this ''a huuuge difference'' that you state. Firstly you are incorrect about the Age of Discovery. While true, you had the later search for a southern continent which resulted in Australasia, the discovery of the American land mass was truly unprecedented. It was so unprecedented that Columbus continued to disbelieve he had stepped onto a new land mass until his dying day. You have to remember that with it brought new changes in flora, fauna, diet (potatoes, tomatoes, maize etc). It changed our ethics, philosophies and perspective on history (the birth of the 'noble savage'). The discovery of glorious empires, to rival Greece or Rome, shifted the western European's concept of himself and his place in the world.

And your dismissal of fossilized discoveries is absurd. True, people had been uncovering dinosaur fossils for centuries in places like China but they always positioned them as relics of mythological beasts. Fossil discoveries in England were theorised to be the remains of a 'gigantic man'. It took new scientific methodology, people like Owen, Marsh and Cope in the 19th century, to postulate that humans were merely the most recent incumbent of an earth which was once dominated by enormous beasts. And I am surprised at how quickly you have dismissed Darwin's theory. It was a theory which shocked scientific circles. In fact it was so controversial that Darwin filed it away in a drawer for decades!

Well, I think it is a huge difference. Dicsovering new land masses, regardless of how large they where, were to be expected in a period where the whole world wasn't mapped. Sure, t relied on a gross miscalculation of Erath's radius, but there wasn't anything supernatural in suddenly discovering America, regardless of how surprising it was. Finding yet anoither dinosaur was also not supernatural in nature. I mean, humans had been founding bones from prehistory for thousands of years. Darwin's theories built on other theories that already existed, and though his brilliant insights added new parts to the theories of evolution, it also didn't require breaking of any natural laws. If anything, it filled in a gap in our knowledge that people had earlier filled with god ("how did they diversity of life come about?"). It wasn't a change of the natural laws, Darwin's theories of natural selection created new laws where none used to be.

So all these are examples of humans dicovering things, but which followed patterns of earlier explorations and scientific studies. It built on what was already there. None of them represented any abrupt paradigm shifts. None of them required the tweaking of existing laws of nature. It was improving an insecure estimation of the Earth's surface, adding yet another extant species to our knowledge, and finally having a scientific theory of evolution that explained things we didn't know before.

A better example of sudden shifts in our knowledge and understsnding of the world around us, in my opinion, is still the shift from classical mechanics to quantum mechanics. With quantum mechanics, physics allowed things that were considered science fiction previously. And it required the development of a whole new set of physical laws that to a large extent made the existing laws obsolete, at least for many phenomena. But again, this wasn't a shift from something naturalistisc to the supernatural.

Replacing our existing models on what happened in the beginning of the universe, regardless of how thin and immature they might be, for a supernatural entity that has a conscience, would be something else entirely.

[Dazey]

If you are dealing with a higher intellectual entity who has set all the planetary motions in orbit, etc., does not the concept of the 'supernatural' become rather nebulous? Ghosts might also have a rational underpinning for all we know (again, it is flawed science to dismiss that hypothesis); we only pertain them to the 'supernatural' because we do not understand them and a significant proportion query their existence. Something is 'supernatural' only within the parameters of present human knowledge. Great beasts existed as quasi-religious mythological animals in many disparate cultures such as China and Ancient Greece, yet in the 19th century with the arrival of paleontology and 'dinosaur hunters' we began to discover and scientifically log the remains of great beasts every bit as terrifying and sublime as dragons.

No, something isn't supernatural because we do not understand them or because they lie beyond our present human knowledge - many things have been beyond our comprehension but turned out to be fulle naturalistic. Something is supernatural when it doesn't adhere to the laws of nature.

The interesting thing here is of course that "laws of nature" is just a name we put on laws that describe nature and which are always open to revision. So when we discover a new aspect of nature that doesn't fit with the existing laws, we adjust those laws to fit That's is why Newtonian physics, which was good for Earthly phenomena and all we needed in the 18th century, were replaced with Einstein's physics (relativity) which is more refined and much better suited to phenomena on a larger cosmological scale which we then started to study. What I am saying is that the laws we have might just be our currently best approximations to what we have so far discovered, and may have to be revised and improved in the future as we encounter and study new phenomenon that doesn't behave like things we have studied so far. The laws of nature simply aren't etched in stone. It would be sort of naive to think we got it all figured out already. And arrogant. That being said, being open for revisions of the laws of nature isn't the same as saying that supernatural entities like gods, who tend to be intelligent and who have deliberately created the universe, are probable. It is a giant leap to go from not being able to dissect teh mechanisms behind the begiining of cosmos, to claim it must have been created by some intelligent designer. It is just not completely impossible. That's again why you will never hear me say there is zero chance of gods existing, but rather that it is so unlikely that we can for all practical terms disregard it. The laws are a map, really, which should fit the terrain, and when the map turn out to be imperfect, we naturally redraw them. I think this might be what Lenny has alluded to in a couple of his posts but I might have been a bit too obtuse to get it.

You said it: the 'laws of nature' are only as good as present human knowledge. We are even aware of some gaps in our own knowledge, e.g. the existence (or none existence) of extra-terrestrial life, the Goldilocks principle. Under those circumstances, we are actually aware of the question yet do not possess the answer. Logically then we have to accept that there are situations in which we do not possess the actual questions themselves. You are mentioning a great mental leap from a purely scientific, big bang, creation to an intelligent creation. Is this leap really any bigger than the theory of natural selection or the discovery of T Rex - or even (a historical example) the discovery of a whole new continent, America in 1492?

Yes, it is a huuuge difference between finding a new continent (something people had done many times previously during our exploration of the world), or another fossilized life form (again, something we have done many times before), or coming up with an improved theory of biological evolution (again, nothing exraordinary in that), to going from to a scientific model with lots of supporting evidence like the big bang, to something that is completely supernatural and has no supportive evidence at all, like an intelligent creator. So yeah, there is not only a quantitativelly large difference, it is a qualitative difference, too. Was the jump from the classical mechanics of Newton to the modern quantum mechanics as much as a shift in paradigm as going from a naturalistic model for the begiining of the universe to a supernatural explanation? I don't think so at all. Even if quantum mechanics revised parts of the rules of nature, it still was just a selection of laws describing matter and movement (I am on thin ice now, I am not a physicist ). Going from something that is still purely mechanical laws, just a new set of formulas better served to describe nature, really, to something that is a thinking, intelligent entity that have the ability to break the laws of nature at will, is something else entirely. That jump is huge. But is it impossible? Nope. Is it probable? Absolutely not. It is so lacking in supportive evidence that it can be likened to all the things we would otherwise have no problems immediately discarding as totally ludicrious.

I think humans tend to conjure explanations when none offer themselves. Because we are a curious species who love answers. Even to the extent of adopting sub-optimal explanations when just saying, "we don't know", would be better. I mean, I don't know if there are any life forms on the first planet orbiting Alpha Centauri, but I see no reason to go around believing there are, and more importantly choose to adopt the highly improbable belief that these life forms look like blue, little elves that move around by dancing. Sure it is an answer to the question of what kind of life forms exist on that planet, if any, which can't be ruled out (yet), but why adopt such an implausible answer? Why go from not being in a position where we can trust the scientists on a fully developed model for what happened in the beginning, to embracing something that assumes the supernatural and hence is so very unlikely? I guess the explanation is that if you already believe in a god, then it is not a large stretch to also believe that god created everything. But to us who haven't already lowered the threshold of what we are willing to believe in, that jump is too vast to attempt.

I do not see this ''a huuuge difference'' that you state. Firstly you are incorrect about the Age of Discovery. While true, you had the later search for a southern continent which resulted in Australasia, the discovery of the American land mass was truly unprecedented. It was so unprecedented that Columbus continued to disbelieve he had stepped onto a new land mass until his dying day. You have to remember that with it brought new changes in flora, fauna, diet (potatoes, tomatoes, maize etc). It changed our ethics, philosophies and perspective on history (the birth of the 'noble savage'). The discovery of glorious empires, to rival Greece or Rome, shifted the western European's concept of himself and his place in the world.

And your dismissal of fossilized discoveries is absurd. True, people had been uncovering dinosaur fossils for centuries in places like China but they always positioned them as relics of mythological beasts. Fossil discoveries in England were theorised to be the remains of a 'gigantic man'. It took new scientific methodology, people like Owen, Marsh and Cope in the 19th century, to postulate that humans were merely the most recent incumbent of an earth which was once dominated by enormous beasts. And I am surprised at how quickly you have dismissed Darwin's theory. It was a theory which shocked scientific circles. In fact it was so controversial that Darwin filed it away in a drawer for decades!

Well, I think it is a huge difference. Dicsovering new land masses, regardless of how large they where, were to be expected in a period where the whole world wasn't mapped. Sure, t relied on a gross miscalculation of Erath's radius, but there wasn't anything supernatural in suddenly discovering America, regardless of how surprising it was. Finding yet anoither dinosaur was also not supernatural in nature. I mean, humans had been founding bones from prehistory for thousands of years. Darwin's theories built on other theories that already existed, and though his brilliant insights added new parts to the theories of evolution, it also didn't require breaking of any natural laws. If anything, it filled in a gap in our knowledge that people had earlier filled with god ("how did they diversity of life come about?"). It wasn't a change of the natural laws, Darwin's theories of natural selection created new laws where none used to be.

So all these are examples of humans dicovering things, but which followed patterns of earlier explorations and scientific studies. It built on what was already there. None of them represented any abrupt paradigm shifts. None of them required the tweaking of existing laws of nature. It was improving an insecure estimation of the Earth's surface, adding yet another extant species to our knowledge, and finally having a scientific theory of evolution that explained things we didn't know before.

A better example of sudden shifts in our knowledge and understsnding of the world around us, in my opinion, is still the shift from classical mechanics to quantum mechanics. With quantum mechanics, physics allowed things that were considered science fiction previously. And it required the development of a whole new set of physical laws that to a large extent made the existing laws obsolete, at least for many phenomena. But again, this wasn't a shift from something naturalistisc to the supernatural.

Replacing our existing models on what happened in the beginning of the universe, regardless of how thin and immature they might be, for a supernatural entity that has a conscience, would be something else entirely.

And even if a new model was developed to encompass the existence of a god it would still probably struggle to shed much light on his apparent obsession with our bedroom activities.

[Dazey]

[Len Cnut]

http://youtu.be/PLUwNUg4rTA

I already posted that, minge breath

[AtariLegend]

While I'm not religious or homophobic, I think they have a point before it gets sappy at the end. I guess for some people freedom of speech only applies if you're saying the popular thing.

Edited July 3, 2015 by AtariLegend

[magisme]

[downzy]

While I'm not religious or homophobic, I think they have a point before it gets sappy at the end. I guess for some people freedom of speech only applies if you're saying the popular thing.

"You cannot have a society of hatred or a society of bigotry."

So please be tolerant of my intolerance...

[Iron MikeyJ]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6PPk2NOQXs

While I'm not religious or homophobic, I think they have a point before it gets sappy at the end. I guess for some people freedom of speech only applies if you're saying the popular thing.

"You cannot have a society of hatred or a society of bigotry."

So please be tolerant of my intolerance...

See this post right here is exactly what I am talking about in the other thread. Many people, perhaps yourself included, want equal rights and everything for everybody. Which is a good thing imo. But as soon as someone disagrees with you, they are "ignorant" or "be tolerant of my intolerance". Which is exactly my point. Yes you should be tolerant of their intolenrance, because they have every right to feel the way they do, just as much as you have the right to feel how you do. You can't sit and cherry pick what is acceptable or unacceptable anymore. The door has been opened, so to be fair to ALL, you have to let racists, biggots, sexists, and all others in as well as the transgenders, feminsts, homosexuals, and others. It has to be all or nothing. But you seem to be ok with letting them in, you just want to judge them and attack them from your position. Which to my point, makes you just as discrimintory as the racists you fought to oppose.

[downzy]

While I'm not religious or homophobic, I think they have a point before it gets sappy at the end. I guess for some people freedom of speech only applies if you're saying the popular thing.

"You cannot have a society of hatred or a society of bigotry."

So please be tolerant of my intolerance...

See this post right here is exactly what I am talking about in the other thread. Many people, perhaps yourself included, want equal rights and everything for everybody. Which is a good thing imo. But as soon as someone disagrees with you, they are "ignorant" or "be tolerant of my intolerance". Which is exactly my point. Yes you should be tolerant of their intolenrance, because they have every right to feel the way they do, just as much as you have the right to feel how you do. You can't sit and cherry pick what is acceptable or unacceptable anymore. The door has been opened, so to be fair to ALL, you have to let racists, biggots, sexists, and all others in as well as the transgenders, feminsts, homosexuals, and others. It has to be all or nothing. But you seem to be ok with letting them in, you just want to judge them and attack them from your position. Which to my point, makes you just as discrimintory as the racists you fought to oppose.

Seriously, what the fuck are you talking about?

This moral relativism you seem to embracing here is disturbing. Yes, we as a society can decide what is acceptable and unacceptable. That's what societies do. And the trajectory of most developed societies has been to embrace and favour tenants of inclusiveness.

But I think you're missing the point altogether. Nobody is arguing that bigots can't be bigots, that religious individuals can't continue to see marriage as something limited to a man and woman. That's not what I'm taking issue with. If you want to cry into a camera and uphold your belief that we should block gay individuals from getting married, have it. What you don't get to do, however, is to shape domestic policies and laws that adhere to your personal beliefs if, by their enforcement, they curtail the rights of others. Have a "traditional" view of marriage. Great. Want that "traditional" view of marriage to be the law of the land? Well then no, the Supreme Court decision made it clear that your personal beliefs do not allow you the right to curtail the rights of others when it comes to the concept of marriage.

Be as racist or as homophobic as you want, just don't cry into a camera as though your rights are being taken away. Nobody is either calling for or taking away the rights of racists to be racists. So again, let's stop with the straw man arguments.

[Lithium]

While I'm not religious or homophobic, I think they have a point before it gets sappy at the end. I guess for some people freedom of speech only applies if you're saying the popular thing.

That video is repulsive.

[SoulMonster]

Yep.