Faith and Faithlessness Part III

[TheLoneliestMonk]

I was enjoying the way the last thread was going, even if it left less room for my assinine comments So, please continue here.

[TerraPrime]

Well, if the subatomic particles don't exist (and what is an electron made of?) and the rock is made entirely of subatomic particles...

That's a very shaky "if" to build an argument, don't you think? In fact, one would argue that there's no evidence to suggest that sub-atomic particles do not exist, and that this speculation is unscientific.

But I'm not trying to argue that nothing exists -- I would settle for "the concept of 'existence' is not sufficiently defined for debate" -- but it's not really what I'm arguing and I don't want to get sidetracked onto it.

That's a cop-out for religious people. But you're welcome to it.

The idea being that God keeping the Jews around is a quantifiable (at least probabilistically) empirical effect.

You presume that all the events detailed in the Talmud are real, literally. That's circular argument at its best.

How do we know that God exists?

We know it because God saved the Jews.

How do we know that God saved the Jews?

We know it because it is written in the Bible.

How do we know the Bible is correct?

We know the Bible is correct because God is infallible.

How do we even know that God exists?

We know it because God saved the Jews.

Sure it does; you have to believe in the quantities, for one thing. Besides, that in no way implies that if something isn't quantifiable, belief does come into it more so.

Critiquing the accuracy of our sensory is a different critique than the existence of X in question. I can question whether the photograph of a table is accurate or not, but that's not the same as questioning whether a table exists.

Frankly, I don't think you really addressed the central concern that I'm bringing up, which is that religion is a subjective, interpretative experience, and that religion is religion precisely because there can never be proof or evidence, in the objective sense, for God. If God objectively exists and it is provable, then religion no long requires faith.

[Elrostar]

I had to go back and read parts of the last thread in order to understand what's going on here, because my interest was instantly piqued by the idea being postulated that sub-atomic particles may not exist...

Say what?

Now I may just be biased because I spent several years of my life studying the mess that happens after you smash electrons and positrons together, but is anyone actually questioning the existence of these particles? Seriously?

The Standard Model of particle physics is one of the most successful phenomenological/theoretical frameworks ever constructed. The precision with which one can calculate outcomes of experiments is simply staggering. It's mathematically rigorous, which is crucial, and testable. In fact, it's been tested so much that it's practically ridiculous.

Electrons are completely, utterly, and absolutely real. How else do you think a CRT display works? (Hint, electrons are the 'cathode ray' part of that). All you need to do to convince yourself of the existence of things like this is to construct yourself a cloud chamber and watch the incoming cosmic rays (which are muons). It's pretty awesome.

[the silent speaker]

I don't mean that the scientists who speak of subatomic particles are wrong or misled or any such thing, and I thought that was obvious enough from context.

You presume that all the events detailed in the Talmud are real, literally. That's circular argument at its best.

Um, I can take my own pulse. The Jews exist. They ought to have assimilated over the course of the last 2500 years. Ergo, something is causing the Jews to continue to exist in spite of the statistical trending.

Frankly, I don't think you really addressed the central concern that I'm bringing up, which is that religion is a subjective, interpretative experience, and that religion is religion precisely because there can never be proof or evidence, in the objective sense, for God.

But I think I am. I address it by saying, granted. There can never be scientifically-oriented proof for God. So what? Why is that bad, or lessening, even?

[TerraPrime]

Um, I can take my own pulse. The Jews exist. They ought to have assimilated over the course of the last 2500 years. Ergo, something is causing the Jews to continue to exist in spite of the statistical trending.

1. Jews exist.

2. ?

3. God exists.

But I think I am. I address it by saying, granted. There can never be scientifically-oriented proof for God. So what? Why is that bad, or lessening, even?

It is lessening because many Christians are making a claim of the objective existence of God (i.e. God exists whether humans accept it or not) when there's no evidence for it.

[the silent speaker]

1. Jews exist.

2. ?

3. God exists.

1. Jews exist.

2a. They shouldn't.

2b. It is more probable than previously that Something is keeping them around.

2c. It is alleged that God promised that He would keep them around.

2d. It is more probable than previously that God as alleged in 2c is the entity inferred in 2b.

3. As a corollary of 2d, God exists.

It is lessening because many Christians are making a claim of the objective existence of God (i.e. God exists whether humans accept it or not) when there's no evidence for it.

If something exists, it exists irrespective of the state of the evidence for and against.

Also, I think you are overrelying on one particular type of evidence. Direct evidence of God will not ever be easy to come by, but indirect evidence is as easy as the Bible -- however one weights the trustworthiness of that evidence, it is evidence.

[ants]

Why shouldn't the Jews exist?

(Yes, I know this is probably discussed on the other thread, but its close to midnight here, and I'm lazy)

[IheartTesla]

Um, I can take my own pulse. The Jews exist. They ought to have assimilated over the course of the last 2500 years. Ergo, something is causing the Jews to continue to exist in spite of the statistical trending.

I'm pretty sure you can make the same argument for the gheys as well.

[TrueMetis]

Why shouldn't the Jews exist?

(Yes, I know this is probably discussed on the other thread, but its close to midnight here, and I'm lazy)

Ya I'm confused about that to.

[TerraPrime]

2a. They shouldn't.

Whyever not?

2b. It is more probable than previously that Something is keeping them around.

2c. It is alleged that God promised that He would keep them around.

2d. It is more probable than previously that God as alleged in 2c is the entity inferred in 2b.

2d does not follow b and c. Something is keeping Jews around != that something is God.

Also, 2c relies on the Talmud, i.e., a source that is valid only if one accepts the existence of God in the first place, ergo, this is a circular argument, aka begging the question.

3. As a corollary of 2d, God exists.

So... existence of Jews is a miracle, therefore, God exists?

Really?

If something exists, it exists irrespective of the state of the evidence for and against.

Again, no.

Some things exist only in the subjective sense. There are no evidence to demonstrate the existence to someone not sharing your constructed version of reality.

For instance, many Chinese people believe that their ancestors watch over their well-beings once they pass away. Therefore, they burn paper effigies to their ancestors to beseech them for their protection.

I can reconstitute your argument as such:

1. I got a Bachelor's degree in the U.S.

2. Based on my family's financial situation at the time, I could not have afforded it.

3. My ancestors' spirits promised me providence if I pay homage to them.

4. I paid homage to my ancestral spirits.

5. We obtained sufficient fund through unexpected source so I can finish my education.

6. Therefore, ancestral spirits are real.

So, now, do you accept that ancestral spirits exist?

Also, I think you are overrelying on one particular type of evidence. Direct evidence of God will not ever be easy to come by, but indirect evidence is as easy as the Bible -- however one weights the trustworthiness of that evidence, it is evidence.

That's nonsensical. If we do not trust the validity of the evidence, then it is not evidence. They're merely unsubstantiated claims. Relying on the Bible as evidence of God's existence is entirely anti-spiritual, imo. Religious belief can only be meaningful if there are no evidence for it. Why would people need faith, if the evidence is clear and objectively demonstrated?

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Um, I can take my own pulse. The Jews exist. They ought to have assimilated over the course of the last 2500 years. Ergo, something is causing the Jews to continue to exist in spite of the statistical trending.

Religious law + cultural preservation/tradition + historio-cultural climate + steady birth rates. The continued existence of the Jewish people for 2500 years no more proves God's existence than the continued existence of the Zoroastrians proves Ahura Mazda's existence.

[Prince Who Was Promised]

Silent Speaker, just wondering, but what religion are you? If you're Jewish, then I might understand why you reasoned out that whole Jews surviving bit, but if Christian, I can't really see where you got that from. The Jewish temple is destroyed. Whatever intimate connection they had with God as "chosen people" or whatever is cut off. And that temple won't be coming back by anything short of war.

The Jews continue to exist because they made babies. Over. And Over. And over. Kinda like my people, or the Europeans, or the Chinese, or, frankly, mankind. Even animals.

------

Everyone else, I'll get to your bits on the previous thread in a while. And Silent-Stalker (because your post stuck in my brain), when, and how, did we become self-aware? What gives off the concioussness (hopefully I spelled that right) that separates us from other living things? And, if I remember correctly, you spoke of us loosing our instincts. I read somewhere that our thoughts and actions are just reactions and insticts (although I'm not sure how that works), if that's true, what part of us is it that defies our instincts?

[TrueMetis]

Everyone else, I'll get to your bits on the previous thread in a while. And Silent-Stalker (because your post stuck in my brain), when, and how, did we become self-aware?

To be perfectly honest I have no Idea and neither does most of the scientific community, what part of the brain makes us self-aware and give us consciousness is completly unknown, although there is a hypothesis that it involves our larger brain and the different structure of the brain, but at this point we can't say for sure.

What gives off the concioussness (hopefully I spelled that right) that separates us from other living things?

It is probably the Prefrontal cortex of our brain which tends to be fairly similar to species that have passed the "mirror test" although ours is larger and more complex.

Heres and part from a wiki article on it.

Humans are one of only nine species to pass the mirror test—which tests whether an animal recognizes its reflection as an image of itself—along with all the great apes (gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, bonobos), Bottlenose dolphins, Asian elephants, European Magpies and Orcas. Most human children will pass the mirror test at 18 months old. However, the usefulness of this test as a true test of consciousness has been disputed, and this may be a matter of degree rather than a sharp divide. Monkeys have been trained to apply abstract rules in tasks.

So other animals can recognize themselves and display some concioussness but none at our level.

And, if I remember correctly, you spoke of us loosing our instincts. I read somewhere that our thoughts and actions are just reactions and insticts (although I'm not sure how that works), if that's true, what part of us is it that defies our instincts?

Very little of what we do now is instinct like I said earlier all a baby can do is suck and grasp by instinct, there are a few other things like the flight or fight instinct but given sufficient will power you are able to ignore those instincts. We can choose whether or not to follow our instincts in most cases and that ability probably comes from the same area are consciousness comes from.

Although I can't answer very well why we can choose to ignore the few instincts we have left I can explain why we have so few when compared to other animals. The human brain is much larger and more complex than other animals, in comparison to are body weight. In order for our brain to get this big and not kill the mother and child in birth the child must be born in a very early stage in its development. So when the child is born he has not developed completely so he must be taken care of. As he develops he starts being able to do little things crawl, walk, talk, although before it talks it learns to communicate in a simple way, but with his undeveloped brain he doesn't atomatically know how to do these thing and must learn for itself how to crawl, walk, talk, and to cry* to get his parents to come. A human brain isn't fully developed until the child is in his twenties so having complete instinct wouldn't happen untill a child is fairly far along his deveopment probably around 10, becuase a baby doesn't know how to avoid potential dangers and requires his parents to stop him (ever see a child reach into a fire? every other animal knows to avoid fire instinctively) So if a child is not going to have the instinct to do something untill it has be able to learn how to do it (or avoid it) what's the point of instinct? And this doesn't get into the problem of things that wouldn't be able to be learned through instinct any way such as using a computer.

* Crying in itself is instinct, so is a parents, and all humans, response to it, but it is thought that the child can learn that crying will get his parents to come.

ETA even if we manage to figure out what causes consciousness it may be impossible to determine exactly when it happened because evolution is such a gradual process, We can't even acurately determine exactly when a species goes from one species to another. To give an analogy take the human life time, can you determine when the person went from a baby to a child? or a child to an teenager? or a teenager to an adult? All this different forms of the human life cycle exsist but determining when one ends and the next begins is a difficult task to say the least.

[JGP]

TP: this is not a defence of the logic you're arguing against, by the way, just the means by which you're attempting to do it.

Religious belief can only be meaningful if there are no evidence for it. Why would people need faith, if the evidence is clear and objectively demonstrated?

These two don't scan unless you're shaving rhetoric, my friend. I could be tired [check, I am tired] but in a sense you're circumscribing an argument of almost the same proportion.

You might say:

i. empirical evidence has proven this

ii. and that

iii. and these and those

iv. thus a posteriori has value

And I'd agree. But, you're going further by baldly stating that a track record trumps that same proven system's inability to disprove something else.

###

Meaning isn't something that can be held exclusively by one camp or another. It's not some flag that changes hands 10 times in a game before someone smuggles it back to homebase for the win.

i. I believe god exists

ii. I can't prove it

iii. Yet, this means something to me

Curious.

What it seems like, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that you're arguing that the only meaning that can be found in religion is faith. This in itself isn't a scientific counter argument against. You got me all confused. I can't be reading this right.

[sologdin]

nononono. the basic argument is this:

a) the god promised me a big present if i'm good.

b) i'm good.

c) i won't get my present if god doesn't exist.

ergo, god exists.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

nononono. the basic argument is this:

a) the god promised me a big present if i'm good.

b) i'm good.

c) i won't get my present if god doesn't exist.

ergo, god exists.

This kind of flies in the face of Judaism though, since in Jewish tradition, they have already received their big present through Torah.

[JGP]

I think I got that, soggy. I just backspaced a pointless response pointing out the pointlessness of that line of attack. I mean, say I emote how utterly bereft of value their stance is. Doesn't that merely back them into a place where they have no choice but to show how valuable it is? I dunno. My density must extend beyond mere sleep deprivation. I see no win when such polemical lines are drawn. When was the last time you changed someone's religion?

[The_BlauerDragon]

Wow... This is a hard thread to follow... There's a lot of presumption and circular logic on all sides!

And, um... The Jews shouldn't exist??? WTF is THAT all about??? Do the Jews know this?

I really don't know if I have a place in this argument. It seems far too polarized between two very rigid lines of thought. I like to keep my mind open whenever possible, and all I've seen in this thread are minds that are sealed air-tight and screwed tightly into place.

For me, science doesn't really factor into my belief and my belief doesn't have too much of a dampening affect upon my science. It's a personal experience. I have felt, and witnessed things within my religious experiences which science simply cannot quantify (and which I have no means of providing scientifically measurable proof of). Does that mean that I think that there is any one religion out there that is 100% accurate? No. I'd say that 20% accurate might be a stretch. does it mean that I think any religion out there is 100% inaccurate? No. I'll admit that there are religions that I believe to be foul perversions of themselves (or other religions), but that doesn't give me cause to openly mock them.

I do have a question, or two. What evidence is there to say that God does not exist? Without using the "No one can prove that God does exist" argument, can you seriously answer that one? Maybe someday we'll figure out how to assert a final answer, but I don't believe that we have yet. Also, if there exists anything (anything at all) which cannot be created or destroyed, but simply changes forms, and there must be an origin to everything in order for it to exist, what is it's origin?

[the silent speaker]

PWWP, I am indeed very proudly Jewish.

MFC, you forgot to account for frequent massacres.

(And yes, "They shouldn't" was shorthand for "they would be expected to have assimilated, been killed off, or otherwise marginalized into almost-complete irrelevance on the world stage, given the time elapsed, central geographical position, etc.")

If we do not trust the validity of the evidence, then it is not evidence.

Evidence is that which, if believed, makes the proposition it stands for more likely.

The continued existence of the Jewish people for 2500 years no more proves God's existence ...

I said "more probable than previously." I said this for a reason. I specifically did not say that anything was proven.

(quote)If something exists, it exists irrespective of the state of the evidence for and against.

Again, no.

Some things exist only in the subjective sense.

And this affects what I said how?

Cyrano:

I'm pretty sure you can make the same argument for the gheys as well.

Indeed, and this is what leads scientists to speculate on selective advantages having a gheigh* in the family might confer. Because when you have something that should have been selected out, and it is not, you look for reasons that might have selected it in.

*My spelling is more pretentious than yours. Therefore, I win.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

MFC, you forgot to account for frequent massacres.

You exaggerate.

(And yes, "They shouldn't" was shorthand for "they would be expected to have assimilated, been killed off, or otherwise marginalized into almost-complete irrelevance on the world stage, given the time elapsed, central geographical position, etc.")

Again it is much like the Zoroastrians, ergo it is more probable that Ahura Mazda exists?