Religion III: Skeptical Evangelism, Psychedelic Shamanism, and other Religions of Us Hairless Apes

[Seli]

In my reality everything has a beginning and everything is made up of something, even though at the same time I know that is not possible. Do you have another reality? One that doesn't include such a conundrum?

In my reality the existence of the universe we can observe and describe is not impossible, since it is here. The models we can use to describe what happens in our universe break down catastrophically near the beginning of its observable history. So claiming it came from nothing, or something, or whatever, is meaningless in that context. We simply don't know.

And while it is interesting to speculate, and there are models that push the question about whatever 'beginning' and 'nothing' mean up to a larger universe (or multiverse), there is in my worldview absolutely no reason to put something that explains absolutely nothing into that gap of knowledge. Especially if that stopgap doesn't explain anything at all, since it faces the same issues that it is put in to answer in the first place.

[rawmilkmike]

I managed it just fine this morning without any such belief. So... not particularly necessary.

It really seems you are equating necessity with something that gives you comfort. I don't need beliefs either to simply get through the day or to be comfortable in myself and my life. I'm doing just fine without it.

(I've had harder, more unhappy periods in my life too. And those I did simply get through without needing to rely on religious beliefs to do so.)

Andrew, I have a much broader definition of god and religion. But before I go any farther I have to say, I am just as angry with the church as everyone here appears to be. I don't pretend to know their agenda. And I have little patience with bible thumpers.

What I'm trying to point out here is that the scientific community is not immune to it's own brand of religious belief.

I first noticed this belief system when my kid brother asked me what electricity was. As I regurgitated all that I had learned in science class I realized that it did not really answer the question. Up until that point I truly believed I knew what electricity was. This is what I call a religions belief. We have a working knowledge of electricity that allows us to predict outcomes but we have no idea what it actually is. We draw magnetic lines of force around an electrical conductor and believe that we have just drawn an actual picture of a magnetic field.

These beliefs are great for everyday life but they fall short in a discussion of god and creation. They can also contaminate otherwise good science when interjected for no reason.

[Stubby]

Andrew, I have a much broader definition of god and religion. But before I go any farther I have to say, I am just as angry with the church as everyone here appears to be. I don't pretend to know their agenda. And I have little patience with bible thumpers.

What I'm trying to point out here is that the scientific community is not immune to it's own brand of religious belief.

I first noticed this belief system when my kid brother asked me what electricity was. As I regurgitated all that I had learned in science class I realized that it did not really answer the question. Up until that point I truly believed I knew what electricity was. This is what I call a religions belief. We have a working knowledge of electricity that allows us to predict outcomes but we have no idea what it actually is. We draw magnetic lines of force around an electrical conductor and believe that we have just drawn an actual picture of a magnetic field.

These beliefs are great for everyday life but they fall short in a discussion of god and creation. They can also contaminate otherwise good science when interjected for no reason.

This is where your definition fails.

What outcomes can you predict using religious belief?

[TrueMetis]

Andrew, I have a much broader definition of god and religion. But before I go any farther I have to say, I am just as angry with the church as everyone here appears to be. I don't pretend to know their agenda. And I have little patience with bible thumpers.

What I'm trying to point out here is that the scientific community is not immune to it's own brand of religious belief.

I first noticed this belief system when my kid brother asked me what electricity was. As I regurgitated all that I had learned in science class I realized that it did not really answer the question. Up until that point I truly believed I knew what electricity was. This is what I call a religions belief. We have a working knowledge of electricity that allows us to predict outcomes but we have no idea what it actually is. We draw magnetic lines of force around an electrical conductor and believe that we have just drawn an actual picture of a magnetic field.

These beliefs are great for everyday life but they fall short in a discussion of god and creation. They can also contaminate otherwise good science when interjected for no reason.

Do you actually not know what electricity is or are you once again claiming because we don't know everything we don't know anything.

[rawmilkmike]

In my reality the existence of the universe we can observe and describe is not impossible, since it is here. The models we can use to describe what happens in our universe break down catastrophically near the beginning of its observable history. So claiming it came from nothing, or something, or whatever, is meaningless in that context. We simply don't know.

And while it is interesting to speculate, and there are models that push the question about whatever 'beginning' and 'nothing' mean up to a larger universe (or multiverse), there is in my worldview absolutely no reason to put something that explains absolutely nothing into that gap of knowledge. Especially if that stopgap doesn't explain anything at all, since it faces the same issues that it is put in to answer in the first place.

This argument is 99% semantics. I say, “conundrum” you say: “The models we can use to describe what happens in our universe break down catastrophically near the beginning of its observable history. So claiming it came from nothing, or something, or whatever, is meaningless in that context. We simply don't know.”

[Suttree]

It's a site that is notorious for posting pseudoscience.

Does someone need to explain the definition of an opinion piece?

Further I hope the irony isn't lost here in that "some guy" on the internet is "spouting drivel" about the opinion of someone with a degree from Berkeley while dodging addressing the actual points being made.

[Gears of the Beast]

Does someone need to explain the definition of an opinion piece?

Further I hope the irony isn't lost here in that "some guy" on the internet is "spouting drivel" about the opinion of a someone with a degree from Berkeley while dodging addressing the actual points being made.

I'm not a physicist, I'm not even going to pretend I'm even close to being qualified enough to discuss nuanced points of contention within the field. I don't even really understand Krauss' definition of nothing, I'm sure the author doesn't either. Calling someone with a PhD in physics a pseudoscienist is tenuous even from some guy on the internet who doesn't have any kind of degree in physics because he happens to have a point(s) of contention with the PhD, within the aforementioned PhD's field.

[rawmilkmike]

This is where your definition fails.

What outcomes can you predict using religious belief?

What I'm trying to point out here is that the scientific community is not immune to it's own brand of religious belief. When we believe that we know what electricity is even though on an intellectual level we know that we really don't, I call that a religious belief.

This is the definition I am using:

re·li·gious -

1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality.

In this case I am not referring to the church or the bible. It's more like :

epistemology -

The study of knowledge and justified belief.

[all swedes are racist]

So because you don't understand electricity, no one else does, or can?

Also, your "definition" simply defines a small (and frankly abridged) slice of the concept. Even in this case of this narrow and specific usage, you still kind of misapply the term.

[rawmilkmike]

Do you actually not know what electricity is or are you once again claiming because we don't know everything we don't know anything.

First of all when someone says “we don't know anything.” they are not saying it's “because we don't know everything”. But no, that isn't what I'm talking about.

Yes, I know electricity is electron flow but what is an electron and why does it cause a magnetic field around a conductor and why when that field collapses does it cause current flow in a particular direction in an adjacent conductor?

Someone here said we are born atheists, of course I would say agnostics but either way, when you try to explain how a transformer works to a very young child that's when you realize you don't know sh#t.

With all of the cr#p in the old testament and all of the shenanigans the various churches have been up to, why are we so concerned about an old man standing on a cloud? And what does that have to do with the age of the earth?

[Stubby]

What I'm trying to point out here is that the scientific community is not immune to it's own brand of religious belief. When we believe that we know what electricity is even though on an intellectual level we know that we really don't, I call that a religious belief.

This is the definition I am using:

re·li·gious -

1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality.

In this case I am not referring to the church or the bible. It's more like :

epistemology -

The study of knowledge and justified belief.

The "scientific community" (whatever the fuck that means but would include electrical engineers, electricians, physicists etc) knows how electricity works. They reproduce it every day all over the world and make stuff work. Like the computers we are typing on, for example. The process does not require any belief. It relies on knowledge and facts and stuff. Stuff like how one needs to generate power and transfer that power and have a device that runs on that power. The "scientific community" then uses that knowledge (not belief) to the best effect. This is really far from "belief". Further, we (humans in general) know so much about electricity that we can make it from a variety of means, none of which require belief. We even know how it interacts with living things (badly). On that last bit, do you agree with me when I say that is a bad idea to stick a steel fork into a wall socket?

With all of the cr#p in the old testament and all of the shenanigans the various churches have been up to, why are we so concerned about an old man standing on a cloud? And what does that have to do with the age of the earth?

Regardless of what form a deity is given by humans, that deity has fuck all to do with electricity.

[TrueMetis]

First of all when someone says “we don't know anything.” they are not saying it's “because we don't know everything”. But no, that isn't what I'm talking about.

Yes, I know electricity is electron flow but what is an electron and why does it cause a magnetic field around a conductor and why when that field collapses does it cause current flow in a particular direction in an adjacent conductor?

Someone here said we are born atheists, of course I would say agnostics but either way, when you try to explain how a transformer works to a very young child that's when you realize you don't know sh#t.

With all of the cr#p in the old testament and all of the shenanigans the various churches have been up to, why are we so concerned about an old man standing on a cloud? And what does that have to do with the age of the earth?

So the later then, funny how you seem to dismiss you are saying because we don't know everything we know nothing but then go on to do exactly that. Ignoring for a moment that I'm pretty sure we know the answer to those three questions (we certainly know what an electron is) because even if I answered those question you would simply add a layer to the question and continue to act like we don't know what electricity is. Yet you've already answer the question of what electricity is in your post. This is like saying we don't know what water is because we don't understand the exact mechanism that causes atoms to move when energy is added to them.

[rawmilkmike]

So because you don't understand electricity, no one else does, or can?

Also, your "definition" simply defines a small (and frankly abridged) slice of the concept. Even in this case of this narrow and specific usage, you still kind of misapply the term.

Even if it was only me it would still be a religious belief. OK then, what's an election. Wait a minute. I didn't say that I don't “understand electricity”. I said we don't know what it is. I know the formulas. I've seen the diagrams. But what is an electron and what is a magnetic field?

[rawmilkmike]

The "scientific community" (whatever the fuck that means but would include electrical engineers, electricians, physicists etc) knows how electricity works. They reproduce it every day all over the world and make stuff work. Like the computers we are typing on, for example. The process does not require any belief. It relies on knowledge and facts and stuff. Stuff like how one needs to generate power and transfer that power and have a device that runs on that power. The "scientific community" then uses that knowledge (not belief) to the best effect. This is really far from "belief". Further, we (humans in general) know so much about electricity that we can make it from a variety of means, none of which require belief. We even know how it interacts with living things (badly). On that last bit, do you agree with me when I say that is a bad idea to stick a steel fork into a wall socket?

Regardless of what form a deity is given by humans, that deity has fuck all to do with electricity.

I didn't say no one “knows how electricity works.” I said no one “knows what electricity is.” Two completely different things. And I didn't say it had anything to do with god. And I don't tell my children any bible stories. And I voted for Obama.

[Wise Fool]

That's probably because there is not sufficient evidence of god.

Oh there isn't? So, when you're arguing about God's existence, you already "know" there isn't evidence that can demonstrate it. Making such arguments pointless, except for the usual sorts of self-patting-on-back ego stroking that I've maintained they're really about.

You keep doing this false equivocation thing. As I've explained many times, there is no burden on one rejecting god to give evidence. If one was asserting that gods don't exist, that's a separate claim that would require evidence. However, when someone claims a god does exist and does not do anything to demonstrate the truth of their claim, it does not require evidence to reject this claim. It's like someone asserting that unicorns exist and saying "well you haven't supplied evidence to the contrary". No, that's a shifting of the burden of proof. As Hitchens said: "that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

I never said there is a burden of proof for atheists.

aaaaaand you've shown you missed the point. And still don't actually understand how the courts work. Cool.

Hooray! Meaningless back-patting!

The judgement is often wrong? Do you have evidence of this? I mean sure, we're fallible humans and we often don't have access to all the evidence so the courts don't make the right decision 100% of the time. I'm not saying the methodology used in courts makes it free from being wrong sometimes, so what's your actual point? Are you saying the actual methodology is flawed because it's not right 100% of the time? Are you gonna offer better system? Perhaps some intuition based psychic investigations? We don't know everything, all we can do is follow the evidence we have and try to make sound decisions, which is how the court is set up. If the prosecution cannot provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate the accused's guilt then we have rule that the accused is not guilty. It doesn't mean that the accused is innocent, it doesn't even mean definitely did not commit the crime. It just means that's the best call we can make with the information we have at that time.

My point is that your citation of law as an example of a system (like physics, biology, etc) immune to persuasion or bias was a bad example, compared to the sciences. My point was not that I can come up with a better system of law. The point is it's all about persuasion, which is much more subjective and irrational than you'd care to admit. Courts, or for that matter people on a daily basis, are fallible and make errors and have beliefs NOT simply because they "don't have access to all the evidence."

For if people were really all just about having enough evidence, and then the right decisions or conclusions somehow flowed from that, then you wouldn't have all those pesky "proofs of God" to debunk, and they wouldn't be trying to prove God to you, because you'd all believe the same things anyway. Certainly after a presentation of sufficient evidence, right?

But it doesn't work out like that. People disagree about practically anything. And when it comes to debates about God, or debates about abortion, or debates about someone's favored political party versus someone else's, people don't tend to change their minds no matter how good the arguments. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe this argument, unlike every other religious argument I've seen on this forum or any other, will change minds. Atheists will see the Light of God. Theists will drop their God Delusion. Aquinas, from his grave, will drop his own 'proofs.' That's the sort of evidence I would need here.

[Castel]

Oh there isn't? So, when you're arguing about God's existence, you already "know" there isn't evidence that can demonstrate it. Making such arguments pointless, except for the usual sorts of self-patting-on-back ego stroking that I've maintained they're really about.

I wonder what the arguments from the internet cynic are about then if knowledge is impossible? Or is it "self-patting-on-back ego stroking" all the way down :P?

[rawmilkmike]

So the later then, funny how you seem to dismiss you are saying because we don't know everything we know nothing but then go on to do exactly that. Ignoring for a moment that I'm pretty sure we know the answer to those three questions (we certainly know what an electron is) because even if I answered those question you would simply add a layer to the question and continue to act like we don't know what electricity is. Yet you've already answer the question of what electricity is in your post. This is like saying we don't know what water is because we don't understand the exact mechanism that causes atoms to move when energy is added to them.

electron - A stable subatomic particle in the lepton family having a rest mass of 9.1066 × 10 &spminus;28 grams and a unit negative electric charge of approximately 1.602 × 10 &spminus;19 coulombs.

What's a “negative electric charge”

We don't know what water is because we don't understand the mechanism that causes atoms to move when energy is added to them. We know how it feels and how it acts.

Like I said before, there is nothing wrong with this and we don't need to dwell on it unless we want to continue talking about god, creation and belief. Or if you want to interject evolution into every conversation.

[Wise Fool]

I wonder what the arguments from the internet cynic are about then if knowledge is impossible? Or is it "self-patting-on-back ego stroking" all the way down :P?

Well, of course it's self-patting-on-the-back ego stroking for me! I'm no exception. I stroke my ego constantly. It's obscene, and yet I'm shameless about it.

But I don't hold that knowledge is impossible. I mean, maybe it is, maybe we're brains in a jar or whatever, but I'm not making that argument.

[Stubby]

My point is that your citation of law as an example of a system (like physics, biology, etc) immune to persuasion or bias was a bad example, compared to the sciences. My point was not that I can come up with a better system of law. The point is it's all about persuasion, which is much more subjective and irrational than you'd care to admit. Courts, or for that matter people on a daily basis, are fallible and make errors and have beliefs NOT simply because they "don't have access to all the evidence."

I'll think you'll find evidence that it was me who raised law in that context. And law is all about evidence. You can have the most creative legal breakdancing in your submissions and fail because you did not prove the basic premise. I can even direct you to a recent WA Court of Appeal decision where this was exactly what happened: Fraser v Burswood [2014]. The plaintiff had a solid case theory that she had fallen asleep while driving home from work because her employer forced her to work in hours contrary to normal circadian cycles. All well and good. But the plaintiff failed to produce evidence that she actually fell asleep. No evidence of that key fact and her case failed.

Speaking as a litigation lawyer (and I am) you will get nowhere fast if you have no evidence to back up your claim. Breach of contract? Produce the contract and a some evidence about the breach. Personal injury? Produce medical reports and evidence of disability. Inheritance dispute? Prove that the will was valid. Medical Negligence? Call 5 doctors of similar standing to tell the judge about standard procedure. You simply do not succeed in litigation without producing any evidence at all. There is even a submission we can make if the person with the onus (in the majority of cases that will be the perso bringing the positive claim) does not produce evidence. It's called a "no case to answer" submission. If a court accepts that submission the case is thrown out.

Seriously, to state that law is about persuasion and not about evidence is to misunderstand law. Without evidence, your case will be meaningless.

As to the final point in that post, I realised I was an atheist after reading debates on this very forum. I'd never really thought about it before that. I have seen people of both positions change their minds after hearing discussions. On one particular atheist forum there are frequently new members joining reporting about how they read discussions on line and reached the same conclusions. Sure, there are people who go the other way as well and start believing. Most online discussions of this topic are of more benefit to thsoe that are reading them and not taking an active part.

[Seli]

This argument is 99% semantics. I say, conundrum you say: The models we can use to describe what happens in our universe break down catastrophically near the beginning of its observable history. So claiming it came from nothing, or something, or whatever, is meaningless in that context. We simply don't know.

No, there is a fundamental difference. This is the difference between the scientific approach, ie accepting we don't know things; and trying to apply logic to a system where it doesn't fit.

A conundrum is an artefact of logic, an open and currently unanswerable question is a core aspect of science.