Hello Dear Readers! In the middle of a topic on Scientology [appearing over here], there erupted an interesting debate spanning some really really really long posts (
). The discussion, mostly between nopaniers and Indi (but also some other people including myself), addresses some issues of science, religion, and more.
The 2 featured debaters became concerned that they were off-topic. So, as a hopefully welcome surprise to everyone, I decided to create this new topic, and to use my Moderator ability to move the posts of that side discussion over here. I even moved the posts discussing the relevance, or lack there of, to Scientology.
Some of the posts I’ve moved here (especially the earlier ones) were relevant to Scientology but they also helped to instigate some non-Scientology topics appearing here (particular ones on donations, tithing, and churches being run as a business).
The effort I’ve made to form this new topic is a service that I’m providing, mostly so that the debaters will feel comfortable in continuing their talks. And other Frihosters are, of course, welcome to join in.
I had to make some stay-versus-move judgment calls as best I could. So if, after looking at the content, anyone believes I have moved some posts that I should not have, or have not moved some that I should have, please PM me, so that I can try to get everything as proper as possible. Note that this topic-splitting operation occurred on 20 April 2006, despite the ostensible date of this post.
My “Happy writing!” entry below, posted 20 April 06, separates (1) the posts that were moved to here, from (2) the posts that were written here directly. Any religion which requires you to pay your way is automatically suspect. Very few people can afford 300,000 or however much it is. By implication wouldn't this mean that the rich are somehow more more deserving than everyone else?
| AftershockVibe wrote: |
| Any religion which requires you to pay your way is automatically suspect. Very few people can afford 300,000 or however much it is. By implication wouldn't this mean that the rich are somehow more more deserving than everyone else? |
lol
Anybody remember reading about the whole protestant movement starting because the Catholic Church was selling "indulgences"
'From the Middle Ages one could pay money, get change, and receive a piece of paper with which one got remission of sin. The price is stipulated and there is no indulgence without "alms."'
| HoboPelican wrote: |
Anybody remember reading about the whole protestant movement starting because the Catholic Church was selling "indulgences"
'From the Middle Ages one could pay money, get change, and receive a piece of paper with which one got remission of sin. The price is stipulated and there is no indulgence without "alms."'
|
Ah yes, indulgences. Those were the good old days.
The church then and now claims that it didn't "sell" indulgences, it gave them away freely at the discretion of whoever was giving them out. The "donation" was "optional". *cough* ahem, anyway.
It's the same with Scientology today. Contrary to popular belief, you don't have to pay a cent in Scientology. However, a helpful "donation" in the amount specified will speed your journey to Scientological enlightenment. *cough* ahem, anyway.
Remember, Scientology is a religion - for tax purposes at least - they can't turn a profit. But donations given as a "thank you" for auditing sessions are a-ok!
Regarding the "science" of Scientology, yes, it is completely possible. (And by the way, the original poster mucked up the Scientology beliefs a little, but he got the gist of it right.) It's actually more logical and more plausible than most other religions. But is it "believable"? *shrug* Anything is believable if you want to believe it.
But how does it stand up to current scientific knowlege? Not very well. There is no evidence of any advanced alien race using the Earth as a base in the past. There is no evidence of hydrogen bombs having been used at the mountain L. Ron Hubbard named at any time in the past, and no sign of any alien remains. The numbers Hubbard gave for a lot of the stuff he said are quite nonsensical (I think one calculation gave the number of space planes required for transporting the frozen aliens as a number well into the billions), and so were some of the dates. The actual science behind "dianetics" has been shown to be wrong and quite psychologically dangerous.I think it's a con. After all Hubbard is meant to have said
| Quote: |
| The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion. |
There's no way I could follow a religion whose founder said that... and the second a religion starts asking for money, I have real problems. | nopaniers wrote: |
| There's no way I could follow a religion whose founder said that... and the second a religion starts asking for money, I have real problems. |
That's good, but why would you want to follow any religion!?
In fact, why would you want to follow!?
Why not, instead, be your own person, and figure things out using your own mind? | The Philosopher Princess wrote: |
| That's good, but why would you want to follow any religion!? In fact, why would you want to follow!? |
I do not follow "religion" I follow God. In my humble opinion, God deserves to be followed.
| Quote: |
| Why not, instead, be your own person, and figure things out using your own mind? |
I do. That is why I am Christian.Okay, you don’t follow religion, but you do follow God. So, ultimately, you are a follower?
~~~~~~~~~~
You said..... | nopaniers wrote: |
| That is why I am Christian. |
.....and also..... | nopaniers wrote: |
| and the second a religion starts asking for money, I have real problems. |
.....but Christians and organizations of Christian religions ask for money a lot! I don’t see how everything you’ve stated can be true. All christian religions ask for money in the form of 10% of your wage a tithe. Catholic, Anglican, Protestant, Church of Christ etc it is biblical (written in the bible) some also ask of your time Mormons
| The Philosopher Princess wrote: |
| Okay, you don’t follow religion, but you do follow God. So, ultimately, you are a follower? |
Absolutely. Because God deserves to be followed.
If you can show me that I am wrong then I am more than willing to change my opinion, because I think this is one of the most important questions in life. But having said that, the limits of our knowledge are very small, and I am under no illusions (being a physicist) that we have incomplete information.
| Quote: |
| .....but Christians and organizations of Christian religions ask for money |
When choosing a church I went to one one which had a sermon on why we should give them more money. Needless to say, I didn't go back.
Christianity teaches that you should tithe 10%, and Jesus did tell one rich man that he should give all his money to the poor. But that money does not necessarily have to go to the church (although I'd say that most Christians would see their church as a worthy cause, myself included). Most Christians I know support several different charities. My flatmates for example, sponsor children overseas. | nopaniers wrote: |
Christianity teaches that you should tithe 10%, and Jesus did tell one rich man that he should give all his money to the poor. But that money does not necessarily have to go to the church (although I'd say that most Christians would see their church as a worthy cause, myself included). Most Christians I know support several different charities. My flatmates for example, sponsor children overseas. |
Nopaniers (or anyone), just wondering if you happen to know if there is a scriptual basis for the 10% tithe. It's ingrained in my upbringing, but I can't find a biblical reference (I doubt if the '%' sign is used in the Bible).
I can find tithing mentioned the the OT, but nothing specific to amount.
Any scholars out therewho can help me? | HoboPelican wrote: |
Nopaniers (or anyone), just wondering if you happen to know if there is a scriptual basis for the 10% tithe. It's ingrained in my upbringing, but I can't find a biblical reference (I doubt if the '%' sign is used in the Bible). I can find tithing mentioned the the OT, but nothing specific to amount.
Any scholars out therewho can help me? |
You can research the passages yourself with the keywords “tithe” (“tithes”) and “tenth”. You will find more references with just tithe. And, just tenth will get you many hits of other (wrong) contexts. (The paying of one-tenth off the top, once established, is considered by some to be understood with regards to anything concerning paying tithes.) www.biblegateway.com has good online search capabilities; I’m sure there are others.
Check out the text around Genesis 14:20; Leviticus 27:30-32; Numbers 18:24; Deuteronomy 12:6,11,17; 14:22,23,28; 26:12; Nehemiah 10:38; Malachi 3:8,10; and there are many more.Yeah i think this topic is sort of rhetorical because who wants to pay for a religion.
How many ppl acctually give 10% back to God?
I do.
I believe that money is still evil but if thats how we have to live so be it.
This topic is delving into issues not particularly Scientological. And yet, we seem to have fairly well addressed altikris’s instigating post, so maybe that’s okay. It would have been different if we had anyone defending Scientology. But if altikris wants us to get off these side topics, please let us know, and I’ll do my part. Otherwise.....
~~~~~~~~~~
| nopaniers wrote: |
| If you can show me that I am wrong |
I am not so much pointing out where you are wrong, as I am pointing out where you are, or where you seem to be, inconsistent (meaning, inconsistent with yourself). People who sincerely want to be right will want to work out any inconsistencies for themselves.
~~~~~~~~~~
On the one hand, you say you “do not follow ‘religion’”. On the other hand, you say you “follow God”. I contend that following God is following religion [%1]. So you seem to be inconsistent there.
~~~~~~~~~~
Also, on the one hand, you say “the second a religion starts asking for money, [you] have real problems” [%2]. On the other hand, Christians ask for money in the first second because they’re based on the Bible, which Christians believe demands tithes. And, Christians ask for money all the time in other ways. So, again, there’s an area where you seem to be inconsistent.
~~~~~~~~~~
[%1] This is true unless you have a fully scientific basis, which is rare. If you have that, I’d be immensely interested in learning of it.
[%2] This was with regards to Scientology. If you’re inconsistent, it might be appropriate to note this passage: | Matthew 7:3 wrote: |
| And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? |
~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks for the engaging discussion! Thanks PP.
I'm by not a scholar (certainly not a biblical one). Tithe literally means a tenth (or ten percent)... and I agree with you HoboP, as far as I know in the New Testament, tithing is not mentioned. There are lots of mentions of giving generously and without a show (eg. Matthew 5:40-42, 6:1-4 and 1 John 3:17).
| The Philosopher Princess wrote: |
www.biblegateway.com has good online search capabilities; I’m sure there are others.
|
PP, Thanks for the great reference site. Very nice.Sorry to get off topic and the long post
| Quote: |
| People who sincerely want to be right will want to work out any inconsistencies for themselves. |
Yes. I am a stickler for trying to find out what is true. I am not so arrogant to think that I can prove everything, and I like to test my beliefs.
| Quote: |
| This is true unless you have a fully scientific basis, which is rare. |
No, I cannot prove Christianity to you through science, although a scientific basis is a good one to discuss things in (ie. repeatedly measurable results from a controlled experiment) because it gives concrete results.
| Quote: |
| I contend that following God is following religion. |
Well, that is an subtle difference. I don't regard God and religion as the same thing. I don't worship cardinals, priests, tradition or symbols like the cross. On the other hand I try to follow Jesus (often unsucessfully). Religion can teach you about God, but is by no means God. In a more human context: You can follow a person, but that doesn't mean you follow biology.
| Quote: |
| On the other hand, Christians ask for money in the first second because they’re based on the Bible, which Christians believe demands tithes. |
Yes, Christianity does teach that you should tithe, and giving money to those in need and that is a good thing to do. Other religions teach similar things. One of the pillars of Islam is giving to the poor and they reflect on that during Ramadan, or with Jewish people tithing. These are good teachings which I respect.
But, I do not see giving to scientology in the same way, at all. An auditing session costs as much as $1,000 an hour in "donation". It can cost almost $400,000 to rise all the way to OT Level 6. They have several hundred million dollars in bank accounts, and continues to take money from poor people.
Perhaps it is my bias, but I really do have problems when a religious figure (of any type) tells me that I should give them money. On the other hand if a religion teaches the opposite: to give to those who need (and does so themselves), then I respect them. | The Philosopher Princess wrote: |
| ... It would have been different if we had anyone defending Scientology.... |
*ahem* Well, I can't exactly go about defending Scientology, but I can certainly say some things about the criticisms offered so far.
First off, everyone seems to be down on the Church of Scientology because they take donations for their "auditing" (counselling) sessions. There are several problems with doing that.
First, Scientology is a word that does double duty as the name of the religion and the name of the leading church in that religion. To give a parallel in Christianity, you can be both Christian and Catholic, or you can be Christian and Pentacostal, etc. etc. In Scientology, you can be a Scientologist and a member of the Church of Scientology, or you can be a Scientologist and a member of some other church in the "Free Zone". The Church of Scientology does ask for donations for auditing sessions. Many Free Zone churches do not. So when you criticize Scientology for asking for donations for auditing sessions, you are criticising the Church of Scientology, not Scientology the religion.
Second, you're using a double standard. Many Christian churches over the centuries have demanded "donations" for one purpose or another (case in point: indugences), but according to the current crop of Christians, that means those churches were corrupt but the religion was still pure and true. Why doesn't the same standard apply to Scientology? Why is the entire religion suspect because of the deeds of the largest church? How come the church can't be corrupt but the religion pure and true?
And finally, you're criticising the Church of Scientology based on Christian ethics. There's a problem with that. It's the same as if you were Rastafarian and you said, "Well, we all know that you're not supposed to eat pork, but Christianity says it's ok to eat pork. Therefore Christianity is wrong." You can see how that just doesn't work. It's a Christian ethic that the church shouldn't be a business (remember, it was Jesus who threw all that "be a lamb" and "turn the other cheek" crap out the window and rampaged through a church that was holding a bake sale or something in one of the Gospels). If you let go of that Christian belief, why is it wrong for a church to take money? Even Christianity says that wealth is a burden (it's easier for a camel to walk through the eye of a needle, etc. etc.), so if the church is taking that burden away, what's wrong with it? It's not like you're required to pay for auditing in Scientology, but if you choose to pay then you're relieving yourself of your burden, and you're helping the church be able to help others. Everyone wins. What's the problem?
I said it before and I'll say it again. Paying for auditing in Scientology is optional. If it were mandatory, then yeah, sure, there'd be a problem (and we wouldn't be calling it a religion, we'd be calling it a business - and they'd be in a shitload of tax trouble).
Now, someone else asked what exactly it is that Scientologists really believe (you don't seriously think that South Park or internet rumours got it right, do you?). I can explain that in great detail if anyone really cares to know, but I've already typed a lot. Is anyone interested?
| nopaniers wrote: |
| Well, that is an subtle difference. I don't regard God and religion as the same thing. I don't worship cardinals, priests, tradition or symbols like the cross. On the other hand I try to follow Jesus (often unsucessfully). Religion can teach you about God, but is by no means God. In a more human context: You can follow a person, but that doesn't mean you follow biology. |
No, but you can follow a belief. God is a belief (unless you can prove otherwise). The source of this belief is a religion (unless you picked it up somewhere else). Ergo, you're following a religion.
If you were following cardinals, priests et al, you would be following a church, not a religion.
On the other hand, if you were worshipping these cardinals and priests, and/or some symbol like the cross, Mary or a "graven image", you would be following a religion. There is no difference between worshipping God and worshipping anything else... except that you believe God is real and worth worshipping. Take a step back and look at it objectively, and you'll see what I mean. There is no difference between worshipping God and worshipping Baal, Zeus, or the balance of the universe that "☯" represents.
Sorry, dude, but you really are following a religion.Interesting, Indie. I wasn't aware that there were other churches of scientology (lack of capitals intentional).
Not sure if completely agree with your 2nd point concerning church's as a business, though. Yeah, there was some christian thought on that, but I'm not sure if that makes any critism of paying for "salvation" a christian argument. I think I could argue against it on a strictly cheapskate basis. I think there are a number of valid reasons against a church making money. And as we both have pointed out, paying for salvation was really a "christian" tradition in the past:)
Did I loose your point in there? Not really all that awake yet....
| HoboPelican wrote: |
Interesting, Indie. I wasn't aware that there were other churches of scientology (lack of capitals intentional).
Not sure if completely agree with your 2nd point concerning church's as a business, though. Yeah, there was some christian thought on that, but I'm not sure if that makes any critism of paying for "salvation" a christian argument. I think I could argue against it on a strictly cheapskate basis. I think there are a number of valid reasons against a church making money. And as we both have pointed out, paying for salvation was really a "christian" tradition in the past:)
Did I loose your point in there? Not really all that awake yet.... |
Heh, nope, you got it. Personally, I'm not particularly hot on the idea of a church operating as a business either, but I can't think of a real, rational reason why they shouldn't. I mean, there are thousands of "Christian" charities. Yes, technically, they're not connected to the church directly, but they do spout its religious dogma to the places they do their religious work (I have seen this first hand - people sent to other countries by Christian charities do their charity work, but they also use the opportunity to proselytize and hand out bibles and Chick tracts and whatnot - that's actually where I learned about Christianity, from a family of missionaries out of Maryland). And there are a number of churches that do raise money for the purpose of funding missions, and send their missionaries all over the world.
I don't really see what Scientology is doing as any different. They take "donations" for optional auditing sessions from their clients then use the cash to spread Scientology. How is that different from your local church soliciting donations via a bake sale or whatever (or even just asking for cash by handing a little bowl around during the service) then sending out missionaries or doing other work to spread goodwill in the name of the church?
At least the Scientological auditing sessions offer something allegedly tangible in return for the donations they ask for. Auditing is supposed to be (by the logic of Scientology) very good for the person. What does your average Christian church offer in exchange for the donations they want? Marginally good baked goods at a bake sale, or nothing at all in most cases, such as the ubiquitous offering plate. Frankly, I think Scientology holds the moral high ground there, odd though it may seem.
I mean:
Christian churches
Solicit donations: Yes
Offer something useful in exchange for the donations: No
Use donations to spread the religion: Yes
Church of Scientology
Solicit donations: Yes
Offer something useful in exchange for the donations: Yes (assuming auditing is useful)
Use donations to spread the religion: Yes
See? Scientology wins. (Barely.)
And yeah, there are a few alternate Scientology churches, referred to as the "Free Zone" in Scientological lingo (Scientologists just loooooove their lingo) by people who support the idea, and "squirrels" by those that don't. The Church of Scientology is engaged in an active smear campaign against these Free Zone churches. See for yourself.
(Be aware though, if you try to read through that site, that the Scientology lingo can be a bit opaque. For example:
| Quote: |
| Max Hauri pretends to be a tech authority but he is just pitiful squirrel. My friend told me that Hauri has a history of taking pcs for session without studying the pc folders. This is a very high out-tech and contrary to any LRH policy and tech. One time Max Hauri took a PTS type III in session because he didn’t look in the pc folder so he didn’t know that the pc was nuts. |
In plain English, "tech" refers to the techniques and practice of Dianetics, "squirrel" means someone who is somehow altering or subverting the "standard tech" developed by L. Ron Hubbard (LRH, in the piece above), a "pc" is a "preclear" - someone who has yet to be cleared of their Body Thetans by the proper application of Dianetics, and a PTS type III is a "potential trouble source" that is insane and/or suicidal.) | Quote: |
| No, but you can follow a belief. God is a belief (unless you can prove otherwise). The source of this belief is a religion (unless you picked it up somewhere else). Ergo, you're following a religion. |
Obviously, I don't agree, since I don't accept the assumption that God doesn't exist, and is only the product of religion.
As an atheist that is exactly the sort of unjustified assumption which constantly worried me. If you assume X, and show it implies X, where have you got yourself?
It's an interesting intellectual exercise to only believe things you can absolutely prove, but it's not very helpful. You cannot even prove to me that you exist, or my drink, or my dinner, or the pub across the road exist. Of course, you are allowed to take the opinion that nothing except what you can prove is true, but then you will starve to death.
| Quote: |
| On the other hand, if you were worshipping these cardinals and priests, and/or some symbol like the cross, Mary or a "graven image", you would be following a religion. |
I agree.
| Quote: |
| There is no difference between worshipping God and worshipping anything else... |
It matters which girl you sleep with. It matters who or what you worship.
| Quote: |
| Take a step back and look at it objectively, and you'll see what I mean. |
I can see why you might say what you do, but I don't agree that the assumption that there is no God is "objective". That's a particular point of view based on unproven assumptions.
| Quote: |
| There is no difference between worshipping God and worshipping Baal, Zeus, or the balance of the universe that "☯" represents. |
Even if you do not know which of mutually exclusive members of a set of options are true, saying that every option is the same is not right. One of the options is true, the others false. The best you can say (if you do not know anything about them at all) is that based on your lack of knowledge all options are equally likely... Your best way of approaching such a problem is to become as well informed as you can, to maximize the likelihood of choosing correctly. | nopaniers wrote: |
| Quote: | | No, but you can follow a belief. God is a belief (unless you can prove otherwise). The source of this belief is a religion (unless you picked it up somewhere else). Ergo, you're following a religion. |
Obviously, I don't agree, since I don't accept the assumption that God doesn't exist, and is only the product of religion. |
Then by what means have you come to believe that God exists, if not some religion or another? There is certainly no scientific or logical evidence that suggests God exists. The only place you could have gotten the idea from is from religion.
That doesn't mean God doesn't exist. I never claimed that - that was your assumption, not mine - all I said was that the only source you could have for believing he exists is religion, because there is no non-religious source that describes God. I believe in planes. Planes exist. Just because something is a belief doesn't mean it's not true. But the evidence I have for believing in planes is from non-religious sources. What sources besides a religion could lead to a belief in a god (or the God)?
| nopaniers wrote: |
| As an atheist that is exactly the sort of unjustified assumption which constantly worried me. If you assume X, and show it implies X, where have you got yourself? |
My only assumptions were clearly stated (they're in brackets). I assumed that you have no objective evidence that God exists, and that you learned of his existence from a religion.
Regarding the first assumption, that your belief in God is just a subjective belief without objective proof: If you have objective proof of God's existence, the world is waiting to hear of it. It would completely change mankind and the universe as we know it.
Regarding the second assumption, that you learned about God from a religious source: If you learned about God from calculus, the Navier-Stokes equation of fluid mechanics or anthropological evidence - or any non-religious source - I'd love to hear how.
| nopaniers wrote: |
| It's an interesting intellectual exercise to only believe things you can absolutely prove, but it's not very helpful. You cannot even prove to me that you exist, or my drink, or my dinner, or the pub across the road exist. Of course, you are allowed to take the opinion that nothing except what you can prove is true, but then you will starve to death. |
It is absurd to believe only what can be absolutely proven. I hope you're not implying that's how I work.
But it is intellectually dishonest to lie to yourself about how you came to believe something. I know why I believe in electrons. I know exactly what parts of that belief are leaps of faith, and what parts are the by-products of logic and objective observations. I know where I came to learn of the concept of electrons, and I know why the concept was taught to me. In short, I don't believe electrons have been absolutely proven, but they've been proven damn well enough from so many different sources (physics, chemistry, electricity) that I believe my belief in them is justified.
Where did you come to learn that there was an almighty being called God that created you? How many different sources described God to you? What objective evidence do you have to support the idea of God's existence? I'm willing to bet the answers are, in order: the religion of Christianity, the bible (and associated supporting texts, like biblical analyses and Christian writings), and none. But feel free to offer other answers.
| nopaniers wrote: |
| Quote: | | There is no difference between worshipping God and worshipping anything else... |
It matters which girl you sleep with. It matters who or what you worship. |
That's assuming that there are some more worthy of worshipping than others. What evidence, besides your own personal, subjective beliefs do you have that this is the case?
To paraphrase you: This is exactly the sort of unjustified assumption that constantly worries me. If you assume X and show it implies X, where have you got yourself? I assume you believe that Scientology is false. You assume Christianity is true, and thus Scientology is false, correct? That's not logic, dude, that's religious intolerance.
| nopaniers wrote: |
| Quote: | | Take a step back and look at it objectively, and you'll see what I mean. |
I can see why you might say what you do, but I don't agree that the assumption that there is no God is "objective". That's a particular point of view based on unproven assumptions. |
Incorrect. That's the way that logic works. I assume there is no god until I have some evidence to suggest otherwise. The burden of proof is on the positive.
If you assume God exists (a positive claim), the onus is on you to provide evidence to support that assumption. By assuming the negative, that God does not exist, until something proves he does, my assumption is valid (and I normally wouldn't think I'd have to specify this, but your mention of absolute proofs is so strangely out in left field I probably should: when I say proven, I don't mean absolutely proven, I mean reasonably, objectively proven).
Why is that the correct way to use logic? See for yourself. Replace "God" with "a pink and yellow polka-dot termite" in the above paragraph. If you claim such a termite exists, the onus is on you to prove it, because I can never prove one does not exist. I could search forever and not find such a termite, but maybe I just missed a spot where they hide. Of course, the moment you find one, you prove your assumption and disprove mine.
If you want to discuss Scientology - or anything - objectively, you have to be prepared to accept the assumption that God does not exist (unless you can reasonably prove otherwise, of course, but given that that's been attempted for millenia without success by the greatest minds of all time, I'd say it's not likely to happen on the Frihost forums in the foreseeable future). Otherwise, you're not being objective. As I said above, if you're here to discuss Scientology, and your position is that Scientology is a lie because your faith is "truth" with no evidence to back that claim up, that's not rational discussion, that's religious intolerance.
Now does God really exist? *shrug* That's a topic for another thread. But certainly it can't be objectively proven, so it can't be used as an objective argument here or anywhere else.
| nopaniers wrote: |
| Quote: | | There is no difference between worshipping God and worshipping Baal, Zeus, or the balance of the universe that "☯" represents. |
Even if you do not know which of mutually exclusive members of a set of options are true, saying that every option is the same is not right. One of the options is true, the others false. The best you can say (if you do not know anything about them at all) is that based on your lack of knowledge all options are equally likely... Your best way of approaching such a problem is to become as well informed as you can, to maximize the likelihood of choosing correctly. |
Er... hang on here. It's wrong to say that there it makes no difference chosing between such a set of options, but it's ok to say that they are all equally likely? That sounds like semantic horseplay to me. It also sounds like you're assuming that one of the options are right and the others are wrong with no real justification for the assumption. What if they're all wrong?
I mean, can you provide objective evidence that Christian beliefs are more likely correct than Scientology's (do you even know what Scientology's beliefs are, other than what you'd get from something like South Park)? Because it's been around longer? Then why not Hinduism? Or Judaism?My apologies for the long post.
| Quote: |
| There is certainly no scientific or logical evidence that suggests God exists. |
There are historical accounts pointing to the existence of God, in particular eyewitness accounts of Jesus' resurrection. You might say that you are not convinced, which would be a fair enough position to take, but to say that there is no evidence is wrong. I would say there there is both evidence for and evidence against, and more than that, I believe that the evidence for is greater than the evidence against.
| Quote: |
| But the evidence I have for believing in planes is from non-religious sources. What sources besides a religion could lead to a belief in a god (or the God)? |
That is an interesting question, because I was convinced that there was a God before I was a Christian... in particular one of the questions which bugged me was "Why does anything exist at all?"
Another was the inability of science (and mathematics) to answer anything but the simplest questions. For example, we do not know how to unify gravity with quantum field theory, we do not know if P=NP, or indeed if the Navier-Stokes equation (thankyou for bringing them up) always has a (smooth) solution. When I was young, I assumed that science answered everything. As I learnt more (I love learning...) I realized that in fact, it didn't, and that the boundaries of scientific knowledge were very limited.
| Quote: |
| But it is intellectually dishonest to lie to yourself about how you came to believe something. |
If nothing else, I am being intellectually honest. I would be intellectually dishonest to take your assumptions, since I do not believe them.
| Quote: |
| I know where I came to learn of the concept of electrons, and I know why the concept was taught to me. |
I would say that JJ Thompson's experiment provided pretty good evidence that electrons exist. Although, I realize the limit of my knowledge, since in a double slit experiment, an electron can behave like a wave, passing through both slits at once, and interfering with itself. Describing the collapse of that wavefunction into a particle when it is observed is something which I do not fully understand... despite the fact that I can do the equations.
| Quote: |
| Where did you come to learn that there was an almighty being called God that created you? How many different sources described God to you? What objective evidence do you have to support the idea of God's existence? |
Briefly: I believed that God exists before I was a Christian. Bible, historical record, first hand knowledge (although I'm sure that you will discount that because it contradicts your assumptions), and science, physics and mathematics in particular, speaks volumes about its creator, and other people, the cycle of redemption, the human condition... but this is all beside the point. If you want to have an all in discussion of evidence for and against, we can. Perhaps we should start another thread to do that though?
| Quote: |
| That's assuming that there are some more worthy of worshipping than others. |
Absolutely. Regardless of Christianity or not, they are not of equal value. As I said, truth sets them a part in the first place. Obviously believing what is true is more valuable than believing what is not.
| Quote: |
| To paraphrase you: This is exactly the sort of unjustified assumption that constantly worries me. If you assume X and show it implies X, where have you got yourself? |
Exactly. I am well aware that some of my beliefs are not absolutely provable, and taken on faith. People who assume that there is no God also take a great deal on faith, although it is hard to get them to admit it.
| Quote: |
| I assume you believe that Scientology is false. You assume Christianity is true, and thus Scientology is false, correct? That's not logic, dude, that's religious intolerance. |
That's logic. If I believe A, and A implies not B, then not B: otherwise I would be logically inconsistent.
It's not religious intolerance. I don't say that other people can't believe B if they want, or that I do something bad to such people, merely that I don't believe what they do. It would be religious intolerance if I forced them to believe what I did, or assumed that my position was objective .
| Quote: |
| Incorrect. That's the way that logic works. I assume there is no god until I have some evidence to suggest otherwise. The burden of proof is on the positive. |
If you make a statement based on unjustified assumptions that statement is not proven. Nobody is "burdened" to prove anything... it's not a competition, it is about ariving at the truth.
Actually you'll find what you're assuming is Occam's razor with is a heuristic, not a law... and if you use Occam's razor blindly (as you seem to advocate) you'd be disagreeing with most of the current string theory/quantum loop gravity community (whose task is pointless according to Occam), and Dirac to name just a few. Occam's razor needs to be applied with care, as Einstein said: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
| Quote: |
| Why is that the correct way to use logic? See for yourself. Replace "God" with "a pink and yellow polka-dot termite" in the above paragraph. |
I regard all statements with unproven assumptions with suspicion. I then weigh up the evidence, for and against. I do not assume that one thing is true (there is no God) simply because it is the negative of a statement. That is no basis for believing anything.
Take your yellow polka-dot termite for example. I do not have enough information to know if there are or there aren't. A quick search on the web revealed pictures of pink termites. That none are yellow dotted... hmmmm... the jury is out. That does not mean that I assume they don't exist (as you seem to advocate)... it means that I do not know.
Now is atheism really true? *shrug* That's a topic for another thread. But certainly it can't be objectively proven, so it can't be used as an objective argument here or anywhere else.
| Quote: |
| Er... hang on here. It's wrong to say that there it makes no difference chosing between such a set of options, but it's ok to say that they are all equally likely? |
Yes. In the absence of any information about any of the options, they are all equally likely, since they are all identical.
| Quote: |
| That sounds like semantic horseplay to me. |
I was hoping that starting to put it in a more mathematical context would help... and get us agreeing rather than arguing.
| Quote: |
| It also sounds like you're assuming that one of the options are right and the others are wrong with no real justification for the assumption. What if they're all wrong? |
Yes, I assumed that one is right and the others are wrong. That's what mutally exclusive means. It may be a simplification, but regardless, I view many religions as having incompatible beliefs. I do not think that scientology and Christianity are compatable, for example.
What if they are all wrong? Then, option A=atheism is true, and so it is not possible that all are wrong... or if you want to be more pedantic then you can assume there's a Z = not(A or B or ....) which we haven't thought of yet. In any case, the best strategy is to maximize your information about each of the choices and make the best choice you can.
| Quote: |
| I mean, can you provide objective evidence that Christian beliefs are more likely correct than Scientology's (do you even know what Scientology's beliefs are, other than what you'd get from something like South Park)? |
I dont even know if it's on here in the UK. If you asked me you'd find I'm not exactly uninformed about the myriad of beliefs out there. Yes, I do know what scientology believes, although I do not agree with their beliefs... and absolutely I can.
| Quote: |
| Because it's been around longer? Then why not Hinduism? Or Judaism? |
Being around a long time is important, yes. When I was considering different religion's claims about life, that was one thing I did consider.
Certainly I think that what was true yesterday, will still be true tomorrow...
Why not Judaism? Well that is something I seriously considered. There are many reasons, but the most basic one is that I believe Jesus' claims.
For me it really all began with reading Ecclesiates, where I realized that the Bible actually did have something relevant to say... Which was quite a revelation for me. | nopaniers wrote: |
| There are historical accounts pointing to the existence of God, in particular eyewitness accounts of Jesus' resurrection. You might say that you are not convinced, which would be a fair enough position to take, but to say that there is no evidence is wrong. I would say there there is both evidence for and evidence against, and more than that, I believe that the evidence for is greater than the evidence against. |
I don't know what historical accounts pointing to the existence of God you mean, but I can speak to the topic of eyewitness accounts of Jesus. There are none. Just about the only accounts of Jesus' life on Earth are the four Gospels. Not even the letters of Paul describe the Earthly life of Jesus, and certainly nothing outside of the Bible until the end of the 2nd century, start of the 3rd. Even the Gospels are now believed to be non-independently written (Mark was written first, then Matthew, Luke and John borrowed from Mark).
In addition, there are no non-Christian writings that mention anything about the environmental effects that accompanied the crucifixion (including the earthquake and eclipse), or the star that guided the wise men to Bethlehem. There is no mention in any writing - Jewish, Roman or otherwise - of a man with thousands upon thousands of followers who wandered around Isreal in the first half of the first century doing miracles or making a triumphant, king-like entry into Jerusalem.
| nopaniers wrote: |
| Quote: | | But the evidence I have for believing in planes is from non-religious sources. What sources besides a religion could lead to a belief in a god (or the God)? |
That is an interesting question, because I was convinced that there was a God before I was a Christian... in particular one of the questions which bugged me was "Why does anything exist at all?"
Another was the inability of science (and mathematics) to answer anything but the simplest questions. For example, we do not know how to unify gravity with quantum field theory, we do not know if P=NP, or indeed if the Navier-Stokes equation (thankyou for bringing them up) always has a (smooth) solution. When I was young, I assumed that science answered everything. As I learnt more (I love learning...) I realized that in fact, it didn't, and that the boundaries of scientific knowledge were very limited. |
That doesn't answer the question of why you came to believe that the answer was a god, that only explains why you started to look for an answer outside of known science. Why didn't you come to believe that the universe was created by super-intelligent aliens as an experiment? Or that we're all in the Matrix? The question is why did you come to believe that the answer was an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving entity beyond our capability to directly perceive? There's no logical reason that the creator has to be all-powerful, all-knowing and/or all-loving, or that there is only one, or that there is no way he could be directly observed - so why did you come to that conclusion, if not by some religion or another?
| nopaniers wrote: |
| Briefly: I believed that God exists before I was a Christian. Bible, historical record, first hand knowledge (although I'm sure that you will discount that because it contradicts your assumptions), and science, physics and mathematics in particular, speaks volumes about its creator, and other people, the cycle of redemption, the human condition... but this is all beside the point. If you want to have an all in discussion of evidence for and against, we can. Perhaps we should start another thread to do that though? |
Yes, first-hand subjective experience isn't valid to anyone (not even yourself, because your perceptions can be altered and/or skewed many different ways). The bible is not an objective source of information by any stretch of the imagination. And historical record? Well, the jury's still out on that one because I don't know what historical record suggests a god.
Science, physics and math cannot speak about a god because it violates parsimony - a fundamental building block of the fields without which they are useless.
So the question remains - how did you come by the idea of a god, if not by a religion? If you want to discuss the evidence for and against somewhere else, no problem, but evidence is not required here. All that is required is to explain how you formulated the idea that there is a single, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving entity that exists outside of time and space that created everything and is pulling the strings, if not via religion, directly or indirectly (not the evidence you have for believing it, not the "why do you believe it", but how you came to that conclusion to begin with, the "how did you discover that idea"). God is not an inevitable result of logical deduction, or we'd all believe the same things about the same god, instead of there being such a multitude of beliefs. For example, by what logic did you come to believe this entity loves its creation, if not by the claims of some religion or another (because some believe it doesn't care about us at all, which seems more logical in light of the existence of suffering)?
| nopaniers wrote: |
| Absolutely. Regardless of Christianity or not, they are not of equal value. As I said, truth sets them a part in the first place. Obviously believing what is true is more valuable than believing what is not. |
| nopaniers wrote: |
| Exactly. I am well aware that some of my beliefs are not absolutely provable, and taken on faith. People who assume that there is no God also take a great deal on faith, although it is hard to get them to admit it. |
Ok, we're going in circles here. You say that one religion is true while others are false, but you say there is no objective way to prove that any religion is better than any other (and, in fact, even believing in your own religion requires a leap of faith). Correct?
And if there is no way to determine which is true, then there is no way to determine which one is worth worshipping. Correct?
And if you can't objectively determine which one is worth worshipping, your choice is random. You have an equal chance of being right no matter what you choose. Correct?
So, why is the leap of faith you have to make when selecting your religion any more or less valid than the leap of faith you have to make when selecting Scientology? If there is no reason besides faith to believe that any one option is valid above all others, why can't Scientology be as valid a choice as your religion?
| nopaniers wrote: |
If you make a statement based on unjustified assumptions that statement is not proven. Nobody is "burdened" to prove anything... it's not a competition, it is about ariving at the truth.
Actually you'll find what you're assuming is Occam's razor with is a heuristic, not a law... and if you use Occam's razor blindly (as you seem to advocate) you'd be disagreeing with most of the current string theory/quantum loop gravity community (whose task is pointless according to Occam), and Dirac to name just a few. Occam's razor needs to be applied with care, as Einstein said: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." |
Er, yes, Einstein's quote is exactly Ockham's Razor. And there most certainly is a burden of proof on positive claims, simply because of the impossibility of proving negative claims.
Take the termite example. The claims "a pink and yellow polka-dot termite exists" and "a pink and yellow polka-dot termite does not exist" are not equivalent. The first can potentially be proven, the second can never be proven. If I tried to prove that a pink and yellow polka-dot termite does not exist, and I somehow managed to scan every square millimeter of the universe and show it wasn't there, you could then turn around and say it moved around me while I was scanning, or my scanner wasn't adequate, or it disguises itself when I get close, or... See what I mean? I can never prove that a pink and yellow polka-dot termite doesn't exist. No one can. But I can prove that one does exist, the moment I find one. You see? The two statements are not equivalent. One is an assumption, the other is a negative assumption - the lack of an assumption.
The same with God. No one can ever prove he doesn't exist. Ever. It's impossible. But, if he does exist, it is possible to prove that assumption. Therefore "God exists" is an assumption and "God does not exist" is the lack of an assumption. The person who claims God does not exist has nothing to prove, because they are not making an assumption. The person who claims God does exist has something to do - they have to back up their assumption. The burden of proof is on the positive claim.
| nopaniers wrote: |
Take your yellow polka-dot termite for example. I do not have enough information to know if there are or there aren't. A quick search on the web revealed pictures of pink termites. That none are yellow dotted... hmmmm... the jury is out. That does not mean that I assume they don't exist (as you seem to advocate)... it means that I do not know.
Now is atheism really true? *shrug* That's a topic for another thread. But certainly it can't be objectively proven, so it can't be used as an objective argument here or anywhere else. |
If you don't assume something, you can't move forward. You can't do anything. You have to assume the universe exists, and you have to assume the next time you breathe in it probably won't be poison gas, and you have to assume that the universe won't end in the next 30 seconds... and so on... or else you can't function or exist. If the existence of such a termite matters (which it doesn't but obviously the existence of a god does), you have to assume something, either that it exists or not, or you can't function. Even Agnosticism assumes that God doesn't exist, although they're open to the possibility (if they assumed he existed, surely they'd be following his instructions in the bible).
If the existence of those termites matters, and you can find no evidence for their existence, then you have to stay with the negative assumption, that they don't exist. Of course, as soon as you have evidence that they do, then you accept the positive assumption. Same with God. In a logical argument, if there is no objective evidence for his existence, you fall back on the negative assumption, that he doesn't exist.
There are many different flavours of atheism, but generally, they don't need to be proven because they are negative assumptions. Is the atheist position true? Who knows? But it doesn't need to be proven. The opposite does.
| nopaniers wrote: |
| Quote: | | Er... hang on here. It's wrong to say that there it makes no difference chosing between such a set of options, but it's ok to say that they are all equally likely? |
Yes. In the absence of any information about any of the options, they are all equally likely, since they are all identical. |
So, given that there is no objective evidence that any one religion is more correct (unless you have some to present), why is Scientology a less acceptible choice than any other religion?
| nopaniers wrote: |
Yes, I assumed that one is right and the others are wrong. That's what mutally exclusive means. It may be a simplification, but regardless, I view many religions as having incompatible beliefs. I do not think that scientology and Christianity are compatable, for example.
What if they are all wrong? Then, option A=atheism is true, and so it is not possible that all are wrong... or if you want to be more pedantic then you can assume there's a Z = not(A or B or ....) which we haven't thought of yet. In any case, the best strategy is to maximize your information about each of the choices and make the best choice you can. |
Atheism is not a religion, it is the lack of a religion. Here is the dictionary.com definition of religion:
| Quote: |
re·li·gion:
1. a.) Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b.) A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. |
Immediately you can rule out 1, 2 and 3. But what about 4? Well, that depends on the flavour of atheism that you follow, but generally most atheists, myself included, aren't particularly zealous or devoted about the case for or against a god. You got evidence that proves a god exists that stands up to objective examination? I'm willing to hear it. But no such evidence exists. When some does, then I'd be happy to entertain the idea of a god existing - it would sure absolve me of a lot of responsibility.
| nopaniers wrote: |
| Quote: | | I mean, can you provide objective evidence that Christian beliefs are more likely correct than Scientology's (do you even know what Scientology's beliefs are, other than what you'd get from something like South Park)? |
I dont even know if it's on here in the UK. If you asked me you'd find I'm not exactly uninformed about the myriad of beliefs out there. Yes, I do know what scientology believes, although I do not agree with their beliefs... and absolutely I can. |
Oh, it exists there, but it's having a lot more trouble there than in the US. But if you can objectively prove that Scientology's claims are wrong (or at the very least that some other religion's beliefs are more likely correct), then please do! That would kind of be the point of this thread.
| nopaniers wrote: |
| Quote: | | Because it's been around longer? Then why not Hinduism? Or Judaism? |
Being around a long time is important, yes. When I was considering different religion's claims about life, that was one thing I did consider.
Certainly I think that what was true yesterday, will still be true tomorrow...
Why not Judaism? Well that is something I seriously considered. There are many reasons, but the most basic one is that I believe Jesus' claims.
For me it really all began with reading Ecclesiates, where I realized that the Bible actually did have something relevant to say... Which was quite a revelation for me. |
So what's the cutoff for age? Christianity is only 2000 years old. Judaism is like twice that, and Hinduism even more. Not to mention Zoroastrianism or Buddhism. Obviously 50 years old isn't good enough, so what is the cutoff?
And another thing... you believe the claims of Jesus, were converted to Christianity through the writings of Judaism... but you're not following a religion? | Indi wrote: |
| I don't know what historical accounts pointing to the existence of God you mean, but I can speak to the topic of eyewitness accounts of Jesus. There are none. Just about the only accounts of Jesus' life on Earth are the four Gospels. Not even the letters of Paul describe the Earthly life of Jesus, and certainly nothing outside of the Bible until the end of the 2nd century, start of the 3rd. Even the Gospels are now believed to be non-independently written (Mark was written first, then Matthew, Luke and John borrowed from Mark). |
Obviously John was an apostle of Jesus, and other writings are from Jesus' contemporaries. Considering that the accounts of Jesus (including Paul's letters) make it absolutely clear that they all follow the same belief, that of the disciples, I don't think they are independant, in the sense that they all put forward the same, consistent belief. If there was a gospel Q or not is a matter for speculation, but the evidence is there for you to see, if you accept it or not.
Paul writes of his meeting with Jesus in Acts 9. He died in 67/68 AD, and like all the accounts from the New Testament, his writings were written shortly after Jesus death and resurrection.
Why do you discount these sources? You said before that you didn't think there was any. I'd say that's intellectually dishonest... denying the existence of evidence which contradicts your point of view.
| Quote: |
| There is no mention in any writing - Jewish, Roman or otherwise - of a man with thousands upon thousands of followers who wandered around Isreal in the first half of the first century doing miracles or making a triumphant, king-like entry into Jerusalem. |
Okay, I will give you quotes from Jewish, Roman and otherwise. To quote from the Jewish historian, Josephus:
| Quote: |
| Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. |
Or again
| Quote: |
"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done." |
The Roman Tacitus:
| Quote: |
| Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. |
Specificially on the eclipse of the sun, the Roman historian Thallus (here quoted by writing the history of the Eastern Mediteranian:
| Quote: |
| "On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun." |
Now this may or may not have been the same eclipse mentioned in the bible. Did you really look?
Pliny the younger writes,
| Quote: |
| They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food—but food of an ordinary and innocent kind. |
In the Talmud Jesus death is recorded as:
| Quote: |
| On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!" |
Obviously this is a religious document, but considering the opposition of the Jews to Jesus, I'd consider this good evidence.
| Quote: |
| That doesn't answer the question of why you came to believe that the answer was a god, that only explains why you started to look for an answer outside of known science. |
It explains why I abandoned my blind faith in the non-existence of God. As I say, I weighed up the evidence for and against.
| Quote: |
| There's no logical reason that the creator has to be all-powerful, all-knowing, |
I disagree. I certainly believe that the creator of time and space is likely to have these characteristics.
| Quote: |
| so why did you come to that conclusion, if not by some religion or another? |
Well, having examined what each of the major religions had to say, and also things which wouldn't call themselves religion but in reality are, like philosopy and atheism. I weighed up the evidence and I made a choice.
As I say, I believe religion to be able to teach us about God, but religion is not God.
| Quote: |
| Science, physics and math cannot speak about a god because it violates parsimony - a fundamental building block of the fields without which they are useless. |
Absolutely they can, and they do. The universe is not a meaningless swirl of nothingness. It's a very mathematical place. I think that very fact speaks volumes about reality.
| Quote: |
| Ok, we're going in circles here. You say that one religion is true while others are false, but you say there is no objective way to prove that any religion is better than any other (and, in fact, even believing in your own religion requires a leap of faith). Correct? |
Yes. I don't know what you mean by "better". If you mean more likely to be true, then I disagree.
| Quote: |
| And if there is no way to determine which is true, then there is no way to determine which one is worth worshipping. Correct? |
No.
| Quote: |
| And if you can't objectively determine which one is worth worshipping, your choice is random. You have an equal chance of being right no matter what you choose. Correct? |
Absolutely not.
| Quote: |
| So, why is the leap of faith you have to make when selecting your religion any more or less valid than the leap of faith you have to make when selecting Scientology? If there is no reason besides faith to believe that any one option is valid above all others, why can't Scientology be as valid a choice as your religion? |
As I have said (repeatedly): the best method is to weigh up the evidence and to make the best choice based on the available evidence.
| Quote: |
| Er, yes, Einstein's quote is exactly Ockham's Razor. And there most certainly is a burden of proof on positive claims, simply because of the impossibility of proving negative claims. |
Einstein cautioned against doing exactly what you want ... "but no simpler". To ignore everything except you own beliefs. When he published his work on Brownian motion, he was doing the opposite to what you want. He did not assume that atoms did not exist because there was no proof. I'm sure that like me, he would say that he did not know if they did or not, examine the evidence and form his opinion that way. Interestingly, he too believed in God.
Dirac (the guy who the relativistic wave equation is named after) too was against Occam's razor. He instead went for mathematical simplicity. For example, he wrote:
| Quote: |
| "The research worker, in his effort to express the fundamental laws of Nature in mathematical form should strive mainly for mathematical beauty. It often happens that the requirements of simplicity and beauty are the same, but where they clash the latter must take precedence" |
Imagine if we applied Occam's razor in the way you want. We would never look for the Higg's Boson. Since there is no proof it exists... and you would therefore assume that it didn't (using your over-worked Occam's razor and not on evidence), and you could argue using exactly the same arguments that you're using here.
Occam's razor can be useful at times. But to base your beliefs on a heuristic for simplifying models and not evidence... Well let's just say, I perfer to base my beliefs on evidence.
| Quote: |
| See what I mean? I can never prove that a pink and yellow polka-dot termite doesn't exist. No one can. |
Of course we can prove things don't exist... and we do! We proved, for example that the ether doesn't exist. We know that there's no faster than light information travel. We know that there are no perfect quantum cloning and that a measurement cannot be made without disturbing the system. These are all negative results.
As you say a single positive result would force us to change them, but as we said at the beginning we're not interested in semantics of absolute proof, only proof beyond reasonable doubt. That's the same with any belief. As I say, you are free to challenge my beliefs. I would like to know if I'm wrong.
| Quote: |
| The two statements are not equivalent. One is an assumption, the other is a negative assumption - the lack of an assumption. |
Let's see: In the past 100 years you would have asserted that atom's don't exist. Neutrons don't exist. Protons's don't exist. Neutrino's don't exist... all things you would have dogmatically asserted based on lack of absolute proof. All of these you would have said was the "objective" opinion based on your use of Occam's razor... and not only that you would have refused to listen when told that the best thing to do is to examine the evidence for and against.
| Quote: |
| The person who claims God does not exist has nothing to prove, because they are not making an assumption. |
I disagree absolutely. The person assuming that atoms do not exist is making an assumption, just as the person believing that God does not exist is making an assumption. The person saying "Based on the available evidence, I do not know" is not making an assumption. To assume apriori that God does not exist is clearly an assumption.
| Quote: |
| In a logical argument, if there is no objective evidence for his existence... |
I certainly do not agree that there is no evidence for God's existence.
| Quote: |
| So, given that there is no objective evidence that any one religion is more correct (unless you have some to present), why is Scientology a less acceptible choice than any other religion? |
There is large amounts of evidence, too much, not too little. You could spend your lifetime studying and still not cover it all.
For a start, regarding scientology we could begin with the fact that both Tangiers and the Himalayas have no history of volcanic activity.
I don't understand why you are posting the definition of religion? Is it possibly because you are more worried about words? Personally I don't mind what you call beliefs, as long as you understand my meaning. Atheism is a belief, and one which is based on unfounded assumption.
| Quote: |
| So what's the cutoff for age? |
There is no cutoff age, but if a belief teaches one thing one day, and another the next, then I have a great deal of trouble believing it. It's a consistency requirement.
| Quote: |
| Hinduism even more. |
Most people would say the first records of Hinduism are from around 1500BC. In fact, what we think of as Hinduism is quite different from that religion, with its origins in a revolt in around 600BC... and obviously Buddhism started with Siddhartha Gautama who lived around 500BC.
| Quote: |
| And another thing... you believe the claims of Jesus, were converted to Christianity through the writings of Judaism... but you're not following a religion? |
No. I am following God. Religion can teach about God, but it is not God. | Indi wrote: |
| The Philosopher Princess wrote: | | ... It would have been different if we had anyone defending Scientology.... |
*ahem* Well, I can't exactly go about defending Scientology, but I can certainly say some things about the criticisms offered so far. |
Indi, I like your defense of Scientology. 
(And I’m glad you rose to my inadvertent challenge.)
| Indi wrote: |
| First off, everyone seems to be down on the Church of Scientology because they take donations for their "auditing" (counselling) sessions. |
I would like to say that I do not fit into “everyone”. In fact, I was making the point to nopaniers, that putting down Scientology for funds-requesting, while putting up with funds-requesting from one’s own religion was inconsistent.
| Indi wrote: |
| And finally, you're criticising the Church of Scientology based on Christian ethics. |
Were you talking to me when you said that, or were you speaking in general? I criticized Scientology for lack of science and lack of reality-based information (e.g., the hocus pocus auditing tool). And I criticized a particular Christian for lack of consistency based on their own ethics. But I’ve never criticized Scientology with regards to Christian ethics.
~~~~~~~~~~
| Indi wrote: |
| Personally, I'm not particularly hot on the idea of a church operating as a business either, but I can't think of a real, rational reason why they shouldn't. |
It does not bother me whether churches want to operate as a business or not; that approach will work better for some than others.
But what does bother me is churches getting special privileges at the expense of businesses. When Government exacts property taxes from business organizations, but they don’t do the same for religious organizations, then it is exactly the same as Government promoting religion.
~~~~~~~~~~
Indi and nopaniers: your voluminous exchange is quite interesting. If y’all ever get things reduced down to 1 or 2 very particular logical disagreements, would you please write them up as a separate post, so the rest of us can weigh in?
There’s too much for me to be able to pare everything down to the crux of the matter. | nopaniers wrote: |
| Obviously John was an apostle of Jesus, and other writings are from Jesus' contemporaries. Considering that the accounts of Jesus (including Paul's letters) make it absolutely clear that they all follow the same belief, that of the disciples, I don't think they are independant, in the sense that they all put forward the same, consistent belief. If there was a gospel Q or not is a matter for speculation, but the evidence is there for you to see, if you accept it or not. |
Current biblical scholarship puts the writing of the Gospel of John at 90-120 CE. The real John, if he existed, would have been long dead and buried. The writer of John is now believed to have used Matthew, Mark and Luke as sources, possibly along with some other unknown document, potentially the Gospel of Thomas.
(sources:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_john
http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/jnintro.html)
Paul's letters do not mention anything about him meeting Jesus. He never once quotes anything Jesus said or acknowleged that Jesus ever lived on Earth. Quite the opposite actually - he claims everything he knows he got from divine revelations (visions) sent directly from God.
(sources:
http://home.ca.inter.net/oblio/partone.htm)
| nopaniers wrote: |
| Paul writes of his meeting with Jesus in Acts 9. He died in 67/68 AD, and like all the accounts from the New Testament, his writings were written shortly after Jesus death and resurrection. |
The general concensus is that Acts is a complete work of fiction: "There are huge discrepancies between Acts and what Paul tells us in his letters. Scholarship has been forced to admit that much of Acts is sheer fabrication, from the speeches to the great sea voyage, the latter modeled on similar features in Hellenistic romances. With its discrediting as history, the true beginnings of Christianity fall into a murky shadow." (http://home.ca.inter.net/oblio/partthre.htm)
(sources:
http://home.ca.inter.net/oblio/partthre.htm
http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/djdacts.html)
| nopaniers wrote: |
| Why do you discount these sources? You said before that you didn't think there was any. I'd say that's intellectually dishonest... denying the existence of evidence which contradicts your point of view. |
I stand by my claim. Lots of bad evidence is not equivalent to good evidence.
| nopaniers wrote: |
| Okay, I will give you quotes from Jewish, Roman and otherwise. To quote from the Jewish historian, Josephus: |
Both passages, 18 and 20 in Antiquities of the Jews, are widely believed to be later Christian rewritings/insertions.
(sources:
http://home.ca.inter.net/oblio/supp10.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimonium_Flavianum)
| nopaniers wrote: |
| The Roman Tacitus: |
...whose sources were probably the gospels and not historical records, and thus have no historical value (if the gospels were fictional stories, then Tacitus' information is based on nothing). Of course, that's assuming that the whole thing wasn't another later Christian interpolation (remember, they had millenia to fudge documents to their pleasing).
(sources:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html#tacitus)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus)
| nopaniers wrote: |
Specificially on the eclipse of the sun, the Roman historian Thallus (here quoted by writing the history of the Eastern Mediteranian:
| Quote: | | "On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun." |
Now this may or may not have been the same eclipse mentioned in the bible. Did you really look? |
Oh, I did. There are no surviving writings of Thallus. The earliest mention of this eclipse reference is made by a 9th century Christian writer, quoting a 3rd century Christian writer, who mentions in passing that Thallus made a reference to it. No other writer who describes Thallus' writings before the 9th century mentions the reference to the eclipse.
Furthermore, you're kind of shooting yourself in the foot here. The originating claim that Thallus mentioned an eclipse was a Christian writer saying that Thallus was wrong, that there was no eclipse. Or to put it another way, Thallus allegedly said that the "darkness" that supposedly occured when Christ was theoretically crucified could have been an eclipse that happened in 29CE - then the Christian writers all argued that that could not be correct, for several reasons.
So:
1.) There is no evidence that Thallus said anything of the sort, before a reference by a 9th century Christian writer. (And that is something you'd think early Christian writers would jump on as validating evidence.)
2.) Even the Christian writers who discuss the alleged reference say an eclipse could not have been the darkness that supposedly happened at the crucifixion. (From your own quote: "This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.")
(source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thallus_%28historian%29
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/thallus.html)
| nopaniers wrote: |
| Pliny the younger writes, |
... more stuff sourced from the gospels, with no original evidence of his own.
(source:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html#pliny)
You see the pattern? It all traces back to the Gospel of Mark. Every single reference to Jesus's time on Earth stems originally from Mark. If Mark is a fabrication, every writing that used it as a source is useless, and there is none that don't.
| nopaniers wrote: |
In the Talmud Jesus death is recorded as:
| Quote: | | On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!" |
Obviously this is a religious document, but considering the opposition of the Jews to Jesus, I'd consider this good evidence. |
Good evidence? First he's going to be stoned, then he's hanged. How can you even be sure it's the same guy? And if it is, how can you rationally call it good evidence?
Besides, it was written ~200CE. How valid is it as historical evidence of Jesus? More likely than not it was just using 150 year old Christian documents as a source. (Again, back to Mark.)
| nopaniers wrote: |
| It explains why I abandoned my blind faith in the non-existence of God. As I say, I weighed up the evidence for and against. |
How come it requires faith to not believe in something you cannot see, and that has never been objectively proven, but it's completely logical to believe in something you can't see or experience directly?
| nopaniers wrote: |
| Quote: | | There's no logical reason that the creator has to be all-powerful, all-knowing, |
I disagree. I certainly believe that the creator of time and space is likely to have these characteristics. |
Explain your logic. I say God is not all-loving. I think he created us so that he can make us suffer because he was bored. Prove me wrong with this common sense logic of yours that I'm missing out on.
| nopaniers wrote: |
| Well, having examined what each of the major religions had to say, and also things which wouldn't call themselves religion but in reality are, like philosopy and atheism. I weighed up the evidence and I made a choice. |
You realize how bizarre you're sounding? Atheism is a religion, philosphy is a religion, but God is not?
| nopaniers wrote: |
| Quote: | | Science, physics and math cannot speak about a god because it violates parsimony - a fundamental building block of the fields without which they are useless. |
Absolutely they can, and they do. The universe is not a meaningless swirl of nothingness. It's a very mathematical place. I think that very fact speaks volumes about reality. |
Complete hogwash. Science and math cannot include the concept of a god, by their very nature. God is not parsimonious. God is the antithesis of parsimony. Science requires parsimonious theories, or it's a pointless exercise.
| nopaniers wrote: |
| Quote: | | Ok, we're going in circles here. You say that one religion is true while others are false, but you say there is no objective way to prove that any religion is better than any other (and, in fact, even believing in your own religion requires a leap of faith). Correct? |
Yes. I don't know what you mean by "better". If you mean more likely to be true, then I disagree. |
That's what I meant. So provide objective proof that some religion is more likely to be true.
| nopaniers wrote: |
| Quote: | | And if there is no way to determine which is true, then there is no way to determine which one is worth worshipping. Correct? |
No. |
Explain.
| nopaniers wrote: |
| Quote: | | And if you can't objectively determine which one is worth worshipping, your choice is random. You have an equal chance of being right no matter what you choose. Correct? |
Absolutely not. |
Explain.
| nopaniers wrote: |
| As I have said (repeatedly): the best method is to weigh up the evidence and to make the best choice based on the available evidence. |
I've just finished tearing down all of the evidence you presented that implies that Jesus even existed, let alone that he was the son of God. If you have some ace in the hole evidence you were holding back as your trump card, now would be the time to show it.
| nopaniers wrote: |
| Quote: | | Er, yes, Einstein's quote is exactly Ockham's Razor. And there most certainly is a burden of proof on positive claims, simply because of the impossibility of proving negative claims. |
Einstein cautioned against doing exactly what you want ... "but no simpler". To ignore everything except you own beliefs. When he published his work on Bro |