Subject: Re: atheism
From: jason varsoke (jjv@caesun.msd.ray.com)
Date: Tue Jan 18 2000 - 15:15:55 EST
> When I finished reading your last post (not the one I'm quoting), I told
> myself, "Jesus, what writing, what thinking! No wonder I forgot he was 17."
> I was going to send a post to that effect, and wish I had now.
yep, gotta agree with you Jim. Robbie, you should change your name to
Roberto and claim to have a Masters in Hydroponics. No one would know the
difference. You write very well.
> This is a value judgment. I don't see how we can argue on rational grounds
> here. I'm defining complexity in terms of Occam's razor. You don't need any
> further hypothesis to support your first one, so it's simple. But with the
> Big Bang theory, the thesis is going to continually be modified, then
> remodified, then remodified, until it is abandoned (like the Ptolemaic system
> was). We see the multiplying of hypotheses taking place before our eyes.
> This isn't proof of anything, of course, but just the point about complexity.
When a scientific theory becomes cumbersome and the equation
(representing the hypotheisis) becomes long, ardious and clunky, the
scientists get nervous and start looking for a more elegant solution.
Scientists are all about elegance. Einstein developed relativity because
the old equations with all their exceptions were "ugly." Einstein said,
"God may work in subtle ways, but he wasn't malicious."
And I disagree with the rest of you. I believe Einstein did believe in
God, though I make no distinction between personal and impersonal god. He
was definately a Theist, a practicing Zionist. He's one of the wonderful
contradictions of our century. Sagan was just a lightweight.
> No, I never argued that Creation was the only alternative to the Big Bang.
> That would be silly. I was simply arguing that on the grounds of simplicity
> it is preferable to the Big Bang theory, and by extension, that your
> rejection of theism on the grounds of simplicity was inconsistent.
This argument doesn't really fly. Big Bang + Unknown = atheist answer.
Big Bang + God = theist answer. Even with Occam's Razor God wins out.
Occam didn't like non-solutions. All he said was avoid UNDUE
multiplicity. Unknown makes God due. Personally, I suggest you both bag
the Occam's Razor device. As I mentioned before, it doesn't lead to
truth. It's only a device.
> What would you accept as "a reason." This is where we began. You have no
> "reason" to trust your physical senses. You can't prove this rationally.
> You just have to accept it and go from there.
>
> What you accept -- scientism -- you accept by faith as much as theists accept
> theism. This was my point from the beginning. So you can't reject theism on
> the grounds that it is irrational, especially in comparison to your position.
> You are irrational in the same manner.
Okay, this is a load of malarky. You can see Sundeep's HTML pages, or
you can listen to me.
are you back yet?
ok, now that you're done skimming those pages and gumbling that you
can't take shots at the authors I'll continue. When you say you can't
trust our senses you are straying into the world of metaphysics or
epstimology, which I'm not so sure is far not to declare to our lad
Robbie. Physics only deals with what we can sense. It describes what is
going on around us as can be perceived. There is no leap of faith, no
belief involved here. If you're going to doubt your senses then read
Decarte and see how far he got. Oh, and I wouldn't trust your eyes about
that reading part, since you are doubting your senses. The discussion
about metaphysics is endless and I suggest you stay away from that too.
Science makes statements about the physical world. If that world exists
or doesn't exist has no relavence. Science just makes statements about
it.
And as the articles said, the difference between science and religion
is that scientists can always prove to someone else what is true. If they
can't it's not science and it's not true as far as science is concerned.
Don't go bullying Roberto into thinking science is at all analogous to
two people standing back to back. If they were and they couldn't figure
out to hold up a mirror then it isn't science. If they were always
looking at something different the only thing they could say about it is
that they are both referencing the same thing, though they may not know to
agree on what exactly is being percieved (two people seeing the color red,
how do you know that another person sees the same color you do, other than
you both call it red).
It comes down to this. Science is about the physical world. If you
want a scientist to prove something and he can't he's a quack. Religion
is about the spiritual world. If you ask a theist to prove somethign
about the physical world he waves his hands and if we like him we call him
a theologian, if we don't we lock him up or drug him up.
> See, you're still ignoring, or deeming irrelevant, vast amounts of data --
> what most people have actually believed through all of human history.
People believed the earth was flat, sun revolved around the earth, WWF
is real, and that Y2K is turning of the millenium. Besides, you also have
to realize that it was punishible by death not to claim you beleived for
most of human history.
> Again, what are you willing to accept as a "reason to believe something is
> real"? Are you going on pure empiricism? I think you accept a great deal
> that you have no proof of. And you accept it on faith, on the word of
> scientists. Before we started this discussion you probably didn't have too
> many doubts about the Big Bang theory, and right now you probably have few
> doubts about evolution. You could not witness, and do not witness, any of
> this. You simply take someone's word for it. You assume that they are being
> good scientists, but you do not know.
As mentioned above. If you decided not to trust the scientists you can
go out there an verify it for yourself. I hope those of you who plan to
attend St. John's have this attitude, because you're going to be doing a
lot of it. It's wonderful for developing the critical mind. But that
sure is the nice thing about science, isn't it? If I doubt that someone
can suspend two forks and a tooth pick on the very tip of another tooth
pick and let it hang at a right angle, I can do it and try it out. (btw
saw this on a kids' show on SciFi channel. Amazing.)
The other nice thing about science is that it welcomes you to prove it
wrong. You need no degree to prove something to the world. As long as it
holds up to scrutiny, it is taken as fact. Religion opperates on
completely different priciples. There is no comparison between the two.
> But, Again, I don't expect you to believe without proof. I never wanted you
> too. I've said repeatedly the only reason to believe in God is because of a
> direct personal experience.
Jim, maybe you would do well to describe your experience and why you
thought it was God and not a zepher, or drugs or whatever (I'm not being
patronizing here, I really think it's a good idea). Did you look for a
scientific reason behind the experience or did you instantly decide it was
God, or did the experience somehow confer the knowledge that it was God?
I'm not looking to punch holes in something via scientfic scrutiny.
Instead, I'm trying to make a comparison to my experience. I wonder if I
have something similar to your experience that I may have reacted
differently.
> If all you say now is that I don't have reason to believe now, but it is
> possible I may in the future, that is honest and responsible. If you are
> closed to the possibility, however, and refuse to accept any proof before
> thinking about it, that is bigoted, dishonest, and unfortunate.
Here I agree with you. Sort of. Being open is a good idea. Elvis
could still be alive. I guess I won't pass judgement on that. But it is
ok to have a working answer: he'd dead Jim, dead. Bigotry only comes into
it when someone actually can prove that you are wrong and you ignore them.
It doesn't come into play when no one has proof. Bigotry is ignoring the
evidence to support your own belief.
> I doubt that the homeless man himself "really" thought someone was sitting
> next to him. He was just playing an old tape, so to speak.
If we measure by his perspective, I'm sure they guy really was seeing
someone. That is his reality. His reality is altered by the bad
chemicals in his head. But it's still exactly what he sees. Just like
you see god, he sees his dead wife. It's the same. The only way we can
say differently is that we can prove to everyone else (but him) that there
is no dead wife. If no one else sees your supermarket, then sorry Jim,
we're going to lock you up. (see Plato's Cave).
-jay
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Feb 28 2000 - 08:38:04 EST