One can be deluded without being insane. A dream can be mistaken for reality. His conclusion may be drawn from evidence, but not from critically evaluating the evidence and examining other possible explanations. I suppose that makes it a rational process, but not a very thorough one.

Can anybody recommend me a good textbook on Science?
http://www.inquisition.ca/en/philo/essai/croire_science.htm

Thank you!
Stefan Jetchick

Anyway as for the discussion of religion as a natural state I think that is total rubbish. The natural state of the human mind is to understand and explain the world around us. In the past we were all ignorant enough of the realities that we needed things like Gods in order to make sense of the world, and then the universe. Well now our crutch of those primitive explanations hanging on in the guise of tradition, and religion, have been surpassed by our scientific knowledge. Science has been with us as long as religion. The first human to harness fire was a scientist. But they didn’t have enough knowledge to understand what fire was and that void was filled by the supernatural. The first person to look at the sky and observe the stars was a scientist. And the lack of knowledge led them to fill itin with the supernatural and create astrology to explain what they saw. But we don’t treat astrology as legitimate science, because our understanding of the sky and universe has progressed and displaced the supernatural with real knowledge. Well we are at a point now where our process of understanding the universe has progressed beyond the archaic traditions of the worlds religions. I see no reason why I should feel any different about the religious beliefs of Christianity Judaism, or Islam than I do about the space alien nonsense of Scientology? For me all of those beliefs are equally unfathomable, and insane sounding. There is no rational reason to take any of it seriously, and I’d be lying to the world if i acted like they were all valid points of view. But I wouldn’t care about other people choosing to live their lives under a religion if it weren’t for all the harm it does the world, and the fact that I myself am constantly attacked and questioned in a way that no religious person would ever accept simply because I do not believe in any religion, and look towards science to explain the universe in a rational way.

I said I was a newly affirmed atheist because I just recently watched the BBC series “Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief” by Jonathan Miller, and the Channel Four series “The Root of All Evil?” by Richard Dawkins. Miller’s series was less on the offensive against religion, and so it has much more credibility in general, but Dawkin’s series is very valid, and has much to offer about the reasoning behind the atheist, and the more agressive antitheists. Both series made me think more about my actual thoughts on religion, and reevaluate what I truly felt about everything. I would have called myself agnostic before because I have always thought that no one if there is or isn’t a God, and the entire concept of God was unprovable, and unimportant. And I thought of atheists as being absolutely certain there was no god. But that isn’t correct. Atheism is not about believing there isn’t a God. Atheism is about having no belief, and not even considering God at all. And that is exactly where I stand. In fact the term atheism is an unfortunately necessary, but ultimately to the atheist meaningless. It implies that having baseless religious belief in the supernatural is just as reasonable a state of mind as atheism, when in fact religious belief requires the exclusion of reason. No matter what one says you can not think reasonably about the supernatural or it falls apart, and that is why religion is so dependent on “faith”. So in reality there shouldn’t even be a term like “atheist”. As Miller said, we don’t have a special word for people who don’t believe in the ghosts, or the tooth fairy, so why a special word for those who don’t believe in the religious supernatural? And as much as that may sound like an insult to religion it really is not intended as such, just as a reasonable look at the difference between the believer and the unbeliever. To someone who has no religious beliefs God is no more real than the Tooth Fairy, so they are absolutely comparable.

And I find the idea of morality being impossible outside of religion to be not only insulting, but backwards. If you truly believe that there is no afterlife you can appreciate the impact that evil deeds can have. You have to consider what you are doing when you take a life. You have no crutch to fall back on to feel good about slaughtering thousands in the name of God. Those people are not alive somewhere else. They are gone forever. And no one has the right to take a life, ESPECIALLY in the name of any god. Morality becomes magnified and completely necessary when religion is taken out of the picture, and it is a true morality, not one caused by the fear of a gods retribution in the afterlife. It’s caused by the reasonable thought of the true implications of what you do. Morality is just as valuable to the nonreligious, as the religious, but it is much more genuine and based in reality amongst the nonreligious.

“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” -Steven Weinberg

It seems clear that the “scientific method” depends on certain axioms which are themselves not scientific. Among these would be a “principle of identity” – that a thing is one thing and not another. Another would be a principal of non-contradiction – that something cannot be simultaneously true and untrue. Now, one could be dismissive of any objection to the allowability of such “obvious” axioms. But show me evidence for the truth of these philosophical propositions. (You’re not, of course, allowed to use the “scientific method” which is the object of the study).

Are these propositions “inherent” knowledge, as someone mentioned earlier in reference to learning the names of things and recognising them as distinct objects or classes of objects? (This, by the way, is the “essentialist” theory of learning expounded by Saint Augustine in the fifth century). If so, then we “know” these propositions by some method other than science, which in itself is a disproof of epistemic scientism (which claims that only science can yield “true” knowledge).

Furthermore, if we accept a materialist view of life as the product of Darwinian evolution, then it seems unlikely that Nature equipped us with faculties fit for the attainment of “truth”, as opposed to ones fitted for survival. To the objection that knowing the truth about the natural world is commensurate with being able to survive in it, one could point out that this is true only of the very limited sphere of our direct physical experience. We haven’t historically been preyed upon by black holes, for instance, nor had to battle with quantum particles.

In the materialist view, religion must also play a part in survival, or at least be related to a faculty that does, for instance willingness to learn from elders or obedience to authority or somesuch. On this view, religion would seem to be rather important to survival of the species. At the very least, we can’t tell if the suppression of religion would have hugely negative consequences. On the other hand, various esoteric investigations of science are of no proven value to human survival.

Dawkins and his ilk seem to believe that we are here in spite of religion rather than because of it. And yet nature appears to differ, since the propensity for religion seems much more “built-in” than the propensity to discover (say) bottom quarks. Who cares, even if it were true that religion regularly slaughters millions? The Nature that Dawkins believes certainly doesn’t “care”, but we may find that an “us and them” definition based on unthinking religion is actually good for the cohesiveness of a select group, and therefore for survival of the species. In an evolutionist world view, why shouldn’t this be the ultimate “good”. That would make Dawkins arguments against religion dangerous, destructive, and “bad”.

Thanks. Repeating might be near. Happy new year!

A person of science recognizes how the brain works and the need to use the scientific process to verify many conclusions we might draw naturally.

Certainly, but a person familiar with the philosophy of science does that on areas of knowledge that are subject to the scrutiny of the scientific method.

So does god answer no prayers?

What I said there’s plenty of evidence against the idea Science can invalidate religion. I cited Karl Popper, but doesn’t even your friend Michael Shermer argue just that on his book?

Does your belief say god will only give you spiritual guidance but never heal someone or “deliver them from evil”, or help them “resist temptation” and so on?

My argument is from a Philosophy of Science point of view, not a religious one.

I’m not trying to test my concept of god, I’m looking for evidence of your concept of god.

Well, your rationale doesn’t work with my concept of God, as demonstrated.

It’s a simple premise. If gods do anything, anything at all, that thing exists whether it be healing or moral guidance or protection from temptation. Prayer is claimed to have an effect. The effects of prayer should be detectable if any effect exists.

Testing prayers is too much parapsychology for my taste. Even if any effect were to be detected, it would not mean any supernatural event took place.

My rationale is at least rational.

A rationale that requires perfect knowledge of a supernatural agent before testing to see if this agent exists using a method that can’t detect supernatural agents isn’t rational.

You are stating an irrational belief.

Belief in God is not irrational, as it can be based in logic and observation. It doesn’t depend on faith. Even if it did, faith and reason are not mutually exclusive.

Why would a real god tell people to wash each other’s feet and supposedly tell the priests to send people with certain lesions away yet not mention the single most important action that prevents disease, hand washing?

Would you believe in God if a lost canon was found telling people about the sanitary benefits of hand washing?

There is no reason. Because gods only exist in myths. We figured that out with Zeus, we’re too rational to consider Pele’, but here is another myth and people remain unaware. I recognize a tree and a dog. I recognize a myth. You recognize the tree and the dog..

Christians figuring out that worshipping false gods was a bad idea had nothing to do with mythology. The existence of a false something doesn’t prove that a real one can’t exist. The irony is that, from an academic point of view, the word “myth” doesn’t imply that something is false. The scientific study of the myths of a culture doesn’t have the objective of speaking of their veracity and objective truth. I understand you are using the popular, pejorative connotation here, but it’s part of your belief system, and one that I found no evidence of persuasive argument for.

In fact, if man is really hardwired to look for the Divine, than materialists are simply exchanging the concept of the God with a quasi-religious view of the universe and the laws of nature (Sagan said it was the closest thing he had to religion), as opposed to irreligious, who truly ignore the question.

Other ancient people had creation myths that people came from animals.

So, their gods are real?

So why wouldn’t a real god pass down a similar story that correctly reflected evolution? The story of the creation of the Earth, Sun and Moon didn’t even include the fact the Moon’s light reflected the Sun’s light.

You know, the Genesis is not a scientific book. It explains, using literary devices, the idea that the universe always existed in its present form, and that it had a starting point, and that man was made from pre-existing matter. Why do you care so much about the Genesis?

Why would they not comprehend a creation story that included the fact the Moon’s light was reflected from the Sun that had set below the horizon?

What’s with you and the reflected light on the moon? It was not important then. I don’t find complains that God didn’t tell Moses random scientific information a very persuasive argument. A poem about the moon becomes doesn’t false when it doesn’t arbitrarily include astronomy trivia.

And as long as I’m on medical trivia your Bible didn’t tell you about, God supposedly punished Eve for the original sin by condemning all women to suffer the pain of childbirth.

Depending on the translation, the pain got multiplied.

If Jesus’ death was supposed to resolve that, why did we not get anesthesia for childbirth 2,000 years ago? And if one need ask for forgiveness and all the rest of that ritual in order to be forgiven, why did I have access to anesthesia when my son was born and poor Christians in third world countries not have access to it?

Well, you nailed it. We silly Christians never thought of that. Let’s close down the… no, wait, we did think of that. All those punishments are still in place, even if the original sin is removed by baptism. But now there’s the possibility of salvation. Didn’t Jesus tell us that his Kingdom was not here?

As a note, I live in a Third World country and poor women here, regardless of creed, have access to free universal healthcare.

:The original sin is the most critical concept in the whole Christian Bible. Jesus supposedly endured torture and was crucified all because of original sin. (*another story that makes no sense BTW)

Well, I think the original sin can be simply removed by baptism. The sacrifice of the tortured innocent as the reality of history has to do with the sins of mankind, which are many.

Delance said:
I believe you are telling the truth, you fail to see the difference. But there is one. What I said is quite simple, it’s possible to acquire knowledge without scientific evidence. If this was false, the Scientific Method would be the only possible way to acquire knowledge. However, this affirmation is impossible to determine by the scientific method, what makes it self-refuting. Therefore, the initial statement is correct by elimination.

You are confusing something important here. Scientific methodology is what one uses to systematically observe, verify and test reality. You can acquire lots of beliefs unscientifically. Our brains are hardwired to see patterns among other things. It’s natural to draw conclusions of cause and effect from evidence which is really only of coincidences because of the way the brain is hardwired.

A person of science recognizes how the brain works and the need to use the scientific process to verify many conclusions we might draw naturally.

On the other hand, some of how the brain is hardwired has an inherent scientific process contained within it. For example, one learns early on many nouns such as dog and tree. You can then see a new dog, one you’ve never encountered, and you know it is a dog. Same with a tree or a cat. You can even recognize certain attributes about animals such as which members of the cat family are domestic or wild. The reason is your brain has systematically collected and analyzed data, drawn conclusions (this time correct conclusions) and the result is inherent knowledge. New knowledge but inherent in that you didn’t read a research paper to figure out what a cat or a tree was.

So some things I do know and it wasn’t by externally using the scientific process. Other things I might observe, I would draw the wrong conclusions about and by using the scientific process, I can overcome my inborn errors and draw the valid conclusion. Thus I know when I hit a baseball with a bat, the bat caused the ball to go in the direction I hit it. But if I wore my hat backward at 5 ballgames where my team won and when I didn’t wear the hat backward one time my team lost, the scientific process can prove the hat position was merely a coincidence.

Applying that concept to your ‘believed’ inherently acquired knowledge, I return to my stated position. If any gods exert any influence over anything physical on the planet (for all intents and purposes the Universe) whatever was influenced should be detectable. How can these actions not be detectable? Only with a god that covers its tracks (not something noted in any religion I’m aware of), or, only with a god that doesn’t interact with the Universe.

If you want to perceive naturalistic methodological assumptions as evidence, by all means, go for it. I don’t see any evidence that the scientific model can prove or disprove the “interaction” of God with the world, and I see a lot of evidence against it. ….
So does god answer no prayers? Does your belief say god will only give you spiritual guidance but never heal someone or “deliver them from evil”, or help them “resist temptation” and so on?

If that’s the case, you have a god that doesn’t interact with the Universe. If on the other hand, prayers are to have some effect, then people who pray or are prayed for will differ in some way from people who do not pray or are not prayed for. No matter what the difference, it would be detectable. Otherwise, why pray?

Exactly, your entire rationale depends on a perfect knowledge of the mind of God.

My rationale is at least rational. It’s concluded from observation and logic. You are stating an irrational belief. Why would a real god tell people to wash each other’s feet and supposedly tell the priests to send people with certain lesions away yet not mention the single most important action that prevents disease, hand washing?

There is no reason. Because gods only exist in myths. We figured that out with Zeus, we’re too rational to consider Pele’, but here is another myth and people remain unaware. I recognize a tree and a dog. I recognize a myth. You recognize the tree and the dog.

…If any study was to detect some measurable effect, it would prove that, contrary to what theology and science commonly holds, prayer actually has some sort of direct effect, not that any supernatural even took place.

The effect of prayer has failed to be detected in every attempt to do so. Prayer is a ritual. But since gods are only mythical, there is no effect. Show me an effect and we can explore alternative explanations. Show me no effect and you have a god that doesn’t interact with the Universe.

The problem is that you can’t test your own concept of God as a fictional creation and use it disproves a completely different concept of God. That would be a straw man. If you assume that the mind of God can be known, you are not using the Christian concept of God. If you use the Christian concept of God, you can’t know the reasons and can’t test the effects. Your testing model doesn’t reflect the concept it’s trying to refute.

I’m not trying to test my concept of god, I’m looking for evidence of your concept of god.

It’s a simple premise. If gods do anything, anything at all, that thing exists whether it be healing or moral guidance or protection from temptation. Prayer is claimed to have an effect. The effects of prayer should be detectable if any effect exists.

I don’t know where the text of the Genesis came from. There are multiple theories. I’ve read an author who thinks it might be a compilation of earlier tradition in mythopoeic language.

Myths and poems? Sounds most plausible. What does that leave you then? Gods are myths. The Bible is no less mythical than the thousands of other myths humans have created over time.

What does personal grooming tips have to do the creation of the universe?

It isn’t personal grooming tips. It’s the complete lack of evidence that anything in the Bible is inspired by gods. Nothing in the Bible indicates even remotely that it is more than a book of mythological beliefs. Not one thing.

but you should keep in mind that the ancients, like we, are limited by knowledge and culture. That’s why you can find geographical errors and anthropomorphisms. Consider that even if they knew some of those things, they might not be able to understand or express it correctly.

This argument doesn’t support your claim. Other ancient people had creation myths that people came from animals. So why wouldn’t a real god pass down a similar story that correctly reflected evolution? The story of the creation of the Earth, Sun and Moon didn’t even include the fact the Moon’s light reflected the Sun’s light.

You are making the false claim people at the time the Bible was either written or begun as an oral tradition couldn’t comprehend a more accurate explanation of creation than that given in Genesis. Yet we have evidence other humans on the planet had no problem with parallel concepts. Surely these people could comprehend reflected light? They could see the Sun set. Why would they not comprehend a creation story that included the fact the Moon’s light was reflected from the Sun that had set below the horizon?

Biblical stories turn out to be myths. Other mythical stories of gods are dismissed. I recognize a myth when I read it. You recognize every myth but the one you believe. It is still a myth.

And I do think that the focus of those writings were the theological framework of the Creation. You see, we can actually figure out the theory of evolution or how to wash our hands on our own. We can use science to figure out all those things, so it’s not required that they are granted to use by supernatural Revelation. Religion and science are not competing for the same thing.

So close and yet so far.

For the record, humans didn’t connect disease to dirty hands until the last century when midwives started washing their hands and less moms and babies died from post natal infections. Doctors dismissed the importance of hand washing at first but when they delivered babies and moms and babies died in greater numbers, they finally took notice.

And as long as I’m on medical trivia your Bible didn’t tell you about, God supposedly punished Eve for the original sin by condemning all women to suffer the pain of childbirth. If Jesus’ death was supposed to resolve that, why did we not get anesthesia for childbirth 2,000 years ago? And if one need ask for forgiveness and all the rest of that ritual in order to be forgiven, why did I have access to anesthesia when my son was born and poor Christians in third world countries not have access to it?

The original sin is the most critical concept in the whole Christian Bible. Jesus supposedly endured torture and was crucified all because of original sin. (*another story that makes no sense BTW). And here we have the claim men are to toil for survival and women are to endure the pain of childbirth for this sin. You have Jesus making the sin forgiven. And anesthesia for childbirth arbitrarily comes 2,000 years later? And being Christian or even accepting Jesus is irrelevant to one’s access to anesthesia in childbirth?

You think this can be brushed off as just not knowing the mind of god?

I don’t know why everyone acts like it’s something incredibly groundbreaking about this subject. St. Augustine strongly argued against the literalist interpretation of Genesis that cause trouble today. That’s a valid point even on theological grounds.

You want to argue the argument your church (or the Christian community) prepared you to debate here. That is the argument of, “why are the facts wrong in Genesis?” The answer you are to give is, “the story is symbolic”.

I am not asking for a rationale as to why Genesis has the stories so wrong. I am asking for a rationale as to why, if the Bible was “inspired” by a god, there is nothing in the Bible which indicates even remotely that the Bible was inspired by a god? It is clear the Bible was written by men. (Apparently if Mary ever did write a book, the Cannon excluded it.)

I like that quote too [about dismissing other gods] because the actual reason is that God told people to in the First Commandment, therefore the proverbial atheist became that way because God told him to. Interesting concept. It reminds of quote from Chesterton, “If there were no God, there would be no Atheists.”

Well that last statement is as made up bunk as the claim, “there are no atheists in foxholes”. There is no god and there are lots of atheists. But were we to make the claim it would simply read, if there was no belief in god, everyone would be atheist.

And here we are again. You claim the Bible describes a god physically telling people some commandment. But when asked why the Bible contains nothing indicating a god influenced its content, you revert to a scenario where gods do not either talk to people or do not inspire them.

I’m enjoying this dialogue, I hope it’s reciprocal. It’s always nice to have a civilized exchange of ideas with people, and it’s usually more fun when they disagree with me.

You call it “reasonably know” and I labeled it a feeling, Delance. I fail to see the dif.

I believe you are telling the truth, you fail to see the difference. But there is one. What I said is quite simple, it’s possible to acquire knowledge without scientific evidence. If this was false, the Scientific Method would be the only possible way to acquire knowledge. However, this affirmation is impossible to determine by the scientific method, what makes it self-refuting. Therefore, the initial statement is correct by elimination.

The paradox is that a belief that any belief that can’t be scientifically proven is false is, on itself, a belief that can’t be scientifically proven. I don’t find a contradictory argument against a non-contradictory one to be very persuasive.

But either way, there’s nothing measurable. In my evidence based world that means nothing is there. If there were something there it would be measurable. I call that a god that doesn’t interact with the Universe. You can call it what you want. It may be real to you, but then I’m sure Zeus was real to some people at some time in the past, just as Buddha is real to some people now.

If you want to perceive naturalistic methodological assumptions as evidence, by all means, go for it. I don’t see any evidence that the scientific model can prove or disprove the “interaction” of God with the world, and I see a lot of evidence against it. Polytheism was real to the Romans as Atheism is real to you, that someone is able to perceive their belief as real is a given, but doesn’t prove much.

It doesn’t matter if gods respond on their own timetable to prayer, any response should result in something different between say 1,000 people prayed for and 1,000 not prayed for.

If you believe the response to prayer is extremely rare, fine. Set up an experiment to detect something rare. If we can detect neutrinos and the fact a certain toxin will result in 1 excess cancer case per million people exposed to > 10/parts per billion per year, I think we can handle finding evidence of gods responding to prayers however rare, irregular, or whatever the response happens to be.

No, we can’t. Neutrinos and Toxins are natural agents, or are caused by natural agents. Prayers are not agents and don’t directly cause anything on the natural world. If any study was to detect some measurable effect, it would prove that, contrary to what theology and science commonly holds, prayer actually has some sort of direct effect, not that any supernatural even took place.

Your rationale only sounds plausible if it isn’t questioned. But upon questioning you are left with the standard, “we don’t know what god thinks but he has his reasons”.

Exactly, your entire rationale depends on a perfect knowledge of the mind of God.

It might seem to you that we not knowing the mind of God or the reasons of God is some religious cop-out to avoid scrutiny, but that’s not the case. The problem is that you can’t test your own concept of God as a fictional creation and use it disproves a completely different concept of God. That would be a straw man. If you assume that the mind of God can be known, you are not using the Christian concept of God. If you use the Christian concept of God, you can’t know the reasons and can’t test the effects. Your testing model doesn’t reflect the concept it’s trying to refute.

So pray tell where did the stories of Adam, Eve, Noah, Genesis (no one was there to see it), the Ten Commandments, Lot, and so on all come from? Either people made the stories up, or they came from communicating with a god.

Regardless of what you might think, it’s possible to reach the conclusion that the existence of God is true using our natural faculties of human reason and the available evidence present in the natural world. Many philosophers and scientists reached this conclusion throughout the centuries, in many contexts that have nothing to do with Christianity.

The Genesis has nothing to do with the possibility of a rational belief in God, since it’s not a necessary part of it. But I’ll answer your questions.

I don’t know where the text of the Genesis came from. There are multiple theories. I’ve read an author who thinks it might be a compilation of earlier tradition in mythopoeic language.

Why would a god be able to describe how the world was created but not be able to advise his people to wash their hands to prevent disease?

For the same reason that when you say you don’t believe in fairies, an elephant don’t fly. Because it makes no sense. What does personal grooming tips have to do the creation of the universe?

I know what you are trying to say, but you should keep in mind that the ancients, like we, are limited by knowledge and culture. That’s why you can find geographical errors and anthropomorphisms. Consider that even if they knew some of those things, they might not be able to understand or express it correctly.

And I do think that the focus of those writings were the theological framework of the Creation. You see, we can actually figure out the theory of evolution or how to wash our hands on our own. We can use science to figure out all those things, so it’s not required that they are granted to use by supernatural Revelation. Religion and science are not competing for the same thing.

Why wouldn’t a god be able to describe evolution in simple terms? Lots of other early cultures had no issue with animal origins for people.

Well, my current culture has no problem with the animal origins of people. The idea of biological evolution pre-dates Christianity, and so does almost any relevant philosophical discussion about it. Nothing discussed on the current times add anything new or interesting. I don’t know why everyone acts like it’s something incredibly groundbreaking about this subject. St. Augustine strongly argued against the literalist interpretation of Genesis that cause trouble today. That’s a valid point even on theological grounds.

South Park decided god would choose Mormons. Everyone else went to hell. But I took that concept from hearing Michael Shermer use it. I also like the atheist quote, “When you figure out why you dismiss all other gods, you’ll know why I dismiss yours.”

I like that quote too, because the actual reason is that God told people to in the First Commandment, therefore the proverbial atheist became that way because God told him to. Interesting concept. It reminds of quote from Chesterton, “If there were no God, there would be no Atheists.”

It doesn’t matter if gods respond on their own timetable to prayer, any response should result in something different between say 1,000 people prayed for and 1,000 not prayed for. If you believe the response to prayer is extremely rare, fine. Set up an experiment to detect something rare. If we can detect neutrinos and the fact a certain toxin will result in 1 excess cancer case per million people exposed to > 10/parts per billion per year, I think we can handle finding evidence of gods responding to prayers however rare, irregular, or whatever the response happens to be.

There’s evidence for gravity.

Delance said:
Silly I, thinking that “god knowledge” would be something about theology. Didn’t it ever occur to you that Bible couldn’t possibly have scientific knowledge unavailable to the people who wrote it, because, well, it was unavailable to the people who wrote it? Just asking.

I love that statement, Del., but I bet you can’t see the irony in it.

So pray tell where did the stories of Adam, Eve, Noah, Genesis (no one was there to see it), the Ten Commandments, Lot, and so on all come from? Either people made the stories up, or they came from communicating with a god. Why would a god be able to describe how the world was created but not be able to advise his people to wash their hands to prevent disease? Why wouldn’t a god be able to describe evolution in simple terms? Lots of other early cultures had no issue with animal origins for people.

Your rationale only sounds plausible if it isn’t questioned. But upon questioning you are left with the standard, “we don’t know what god thinks but he has his reasons”.

If your gods quit interacting with the Universe before now, that would be a god that doesn’t interact with the Universe. I’m not aware of any current religion which holds the tenet that god has abandoned any further interaction with people until they die. You brought up a scenario that can no longer be investigated sufficiently. Fine. But I’m bringing up scenarios which can be investigated.

If you don’t think gods are around anymore, I cannot test for them. Otherwise, they should be detectable.

South Park decided god would choose Mormons. Everyone else went to hell. But I took that concept from hearing Michael Shermer use it. I also like the atheist quote, “When you figure out why you dismiss all other gods, you’ll know why I dismiss yours.”

http://www.pvponline.com/archive.php3?archive=20020411

No, it’s not. It’s the old Karl Popper’s “The Scientific Model was not made to study the existence of God” argument. So far lacking is any significant work in Philosophy of Science arguing otherwise.

Is that the only thing the god of your beliefs does? Give people inner feelings? I’ll leave that one with you and put it in the minimalist category of not interacting enough to be detectable.

When in the world did I ever say anything about “inner feelings?”? I never said anything about feelings in my post. In fact, I said a completely different thing: “a person can reasonably know that God has had an effect on their lives”. I can reasonably know that reading lots of things that I can’t provide documented evidence for. For example, I can reasonable know that you probably made that up the “inner feelings” because you was unconsciously projecting some deeply held anti-religious preconceptions, but I can’t readily present scientific evidence to prove this claim.

If praying does anything it should be detectable.

The only this demonstrates is a lack of understanding of what prayer is on the most basic level. Even on an abstract level, God doesn’t respond automatically, we can’t calculate how many prayer/hours are required for a specific request. People are supposed to ask God Fiat voluntas tua, i.e., “Thy will be done”. You can even argue that prayer doesn’t “do” anything, God does, and therefore “payer” is not the agent, making any such study meaningless.

If gods manipulate peoples’ lives, there should be differences detectable between believers’ and non-believers’ lives.

First, there’s Free Will. Second, being a believer or a non-believer really doesn’t affect the existence or non-existence of God, therefore your concept doesn’t make any sense. The reality is the same regardless of the opinion of the subject, disbelieving gravity doesn’t make people fly.

You can look at a number of other things such as how inconsistent the Bible is, how it contains no god knowledge such as hints of the germ theory, awareness there was a whole planet populated at the time the Bible was written, and so on.

Silly I, thinking that “god knowledge” would be something about theology. Didn’t it ever occur to you that Bible couldn’t possibly have scientific knowledge unavailable to the people who wrote it, because, well, it was unavailable to the people who wrote it? Just asking.

Why would anything observed be a ‘miracle’?

Well, it was you who came up with brilliant idea about “measuring gods”. I simply stated this was impossible because anything observed by the scientific method is presumed to have natural causes. This a priori assumption is one many things that limit the scope of investigation of the scientific method. Besides, it’s self-evident that an absolute assumption of natural causes is not the same as an absolute proof of natural causes.

If you want to go that direction, why not just say what would I do when I die then find out there was a god? Shermer’s answer was pretty good. “What will you do when you die if you find out you’ve been worshiping the wrong one?”

Homer Simpson said it better on “Homer the Heretic”: “And what if we picked the wrong religion? Every week, we’re just making God madder and madder!”

Right, the old, “I know it in my heart” argument. Is that the only thing the god of your beliefs does? Give people inner feelings? I’ll leave that one with you and put it in the minimalist category of not interacting enough to be detectable.

If praying does anything it should be detectable. If gods manipulate peoples’ lives, there should be differences detectable between believers’ and non-believers’ lives. You can look at a number of other things such as how inconsistent the Bible is, how it contains no god knowledge such as hints of the germ theory, awareness there was a whole planet populated at the time the Bible was written, and so on.

I prefer to believe in things for which there is supporting evidence.

Love can be studied via the scientific process in a number of ways. That doesn’t negate its meaning and benefit (or hazards) in any way.

[Regarding the stories in the Bible such as walking on water or rising from the dead, people are fooled all the time.] …

Yeah, what about all those people on the death roll that rise from the dead after the lethal injection? Death penalty is a free card out of Jail, I tell you.Sorry. There are enough untruths in the Bible. I see nothing special about one more claim in it.

But, again, you missed the point. My question was what would you do if you could actually observe one such miracle in a lab. You failed to address it. Why would anything observed be a ‘miracle’? If you want to go that direction, why not just say what would I do when I die then find out there was a god? Shermer’s answer was pretty good. “What will you do when you die if you find out you’ve been worshiping the wrong one?”

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608b.htm

If an idea was presupposed, there would be no need to demonstrate it. Disagree with it all you want, but it’s not illogical. I think you may be very confused as to what a logical argument should be. St. Tomas Aquinas actually put forth a good set of objections, and dealt with them using classical logic. In fact, his work is a frame of reference in logic applied to religion. I don’t think I read a single argument here not cointained in Summa Theologiae, Part 1, Question 2 (linked). Again, you can disagree with it, but to claim that it’s not logical is an unsubsansieted fallacy.

You really aren’t thinking this through. Either these gods do things, in which case there should be some evidence or they don’t do anything, in which case they don’t interact with the Universe.

Did you no that, in biblical times, the Romans would call Christians atheists, because they denied the existence of their gods? Well, no one is debating about gods, or at least I’m not, and it’s quite different from the concept of the Christian God,. A debate about a pantheon of lesser deities would be an entirely different because they are not all-powerful. But that’s a side note. Keep on saying gods if it makes you feel better.

Anyhow, I think you missed the point entirely. Of course a person can reasonably known that God has had an effect on their lives, but to actually be able to present this as documented scientific evidence is an entirely different deal. You can try to demonstrate there was another possible cause, or even assume there had to be one, but can’t repeat or observe it. You shouldn’t presume that any knowledge, in other to be valid, has to be presented as a scientific treatise. Next thing, when someone says they love us we’ll ask for a functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging brain scanning to monitor activity in the visual cortex and try to find the right brain patterns to corroborate the claim. And don’t tell me that’s a good idea.

Regarding the stories in the Bible such as walking on water or rising from the dead, people are fooled all the time. Those stories don’t provide evidence of anything other than people were fooled then as they are now. Should we seriously consider “coyote stole fire from heaven” because we can’t go back in time and verify it didn’t happen?

Yeah, what about all those people on the death roll that rise from the dead after the lethal injection? Death penalty is a free card out of Jail, I tell you.

But, again, you missed the point. My question was what would you do if you could actually observe one such miracle in a lab. You failed to address it.

“Continuing to question the cause of an event and search for more evidence is the more logical and scientific approach.”

This is a red herring. No one suggests that all power available can only be focused on one objective. Using this fallacy harms your argument and does nothing to answer his point. It’s distractionary at best.

Six – That is incorrect. What caused that cup to fall off the table? “None” – not a whole heap of evidence behind that, and you woud be laughed off the stage at your lab’s pantomime for trying it.

You completely missed the point. If you can prescribe the handwaving of a god to some unknown force then you could easily announce that virtually any thing or human created deity did it. “None” is more simply saying no supernatural being did it. Saying “We don’t know but lets find out” is a far more logical approach than just dismissing it as god A, B, C, D, or just a god in general. Doing that you’ve stopped the search. Continuing to question the cause of an event without any evidence is the more logical and scientific approach. God Did it is intellectual laziness.

JustAl:
One, I never claimed nor inferred unknown equates with unknowable. As you say you cannot empirically prove something is unknowable – that doesn’t scratch the reason for not investigating something – it strengthens it if you are short on resources!

Two, It is lucky some of your forebears did not have the same opinion on this as you, or all their energy would have been spent looking into why, say, lightning strikes rather than breeding, and then I would have missed the opportunity for this conversation.

Three, Interesting – where did that philosophy bit come from? Science is merely applied philosophy, however, so mind where you point your slating gun

Four, I stand by my claim. The corruption of the people running the religions is what causes the problems, just as the corruption of national leaders causes the self same problems. Nothing, per se, to do with the religions, they are just another level of “tribe” which gives people an “excuse”.

Five – have you not read the post to which you were replying?

Six – That is incorrect. What caused that cup to fall off the table? “None” – not a whole heap of evidence behind that, and you woud be laughed off the stage at your lab’s pantomime for trying it.

You really aren’t thinking this through. Either these gods do things, in which case there should be some evidence or they don’t do anything, in which case they don’t interact with the Universe.

Regarding the stories in the Bible such as walking on water or rising from the dead, people are fooled all the time. Those stories don’t provide evidence of anything other than people were fooled then as they are now. Should we seriously consider “coyote stole fire from heaven” because we can’t go back in time and verify it didn’t happen?

The effects of a God upon the universe can be (potentially) detected and measured by virtue of the change of state that is caused (depending upon the subtlety of the change). If said God operates through “natural law”, i.e. within the constraints that we’ve identified, then those operations can be detected and measured.

But how could we detect the change is state, if it occurred within the constrains of “natural law”? The changing of water into wine comes to mind. There’s nothing special in the making of wine, but the sudden change of substance from water to wine could not been accomplished by any forces at work that we know of. But even if we could actually detect the water mysteriously rearranging into wine on a subatomic level using all the right high-tech equipment, I don’t think that would serve a definitive proof of the existence of God, it could simply mean that we don’t know why that event took place, but we couldn’t necessarily rule out that some unknown natural force was at work, from a scientific point of view. In fact, the methodological naturalistic assumptions of the scientific method would kick in and force the presumptions that there at least could be a natural explanation for whatever event, however improbable.

Another example, then. If someone had a 0.1% chance of healing and gets better, maybe that was an act of God, maybe it was “luck”, maybe it was the fact that someone in 1000 cases had to get better anyway, but we couldn’t really detect something there, let alone measure it.

If he does not operate within constraints, then we can (potentially) detect and measure a violation of said laws (such as the Conservation laws that provide the foundation of modern physics).

So, what could a scientifically-minded individual do if he was to witness a real miracle? Even if an extraordinary event that defied our understanding of the universe was to happen under a controlled environment, what then? I don’t think a paper named “Holy Cow, a Miracle actually happened on my Lab” would pass peer review. The guy could write a book named “Dude, where is my logical positivism?” and go on Letterman, but other than that, it wouldn’t change our understanding of things.

Either way, then, we can detect and measure effects on the universe. Finding the ultimate source may prove difficult (or even impossible), but the effects should be obvious. (Hey, there’s a guy walking on water! And we scrutinized the whole process, and it really was a guy really walking on real water, no smoke and mirrors or illusionist tricks or digital camera work!)

That reminds be of some guy who theorized that the Sea of Galilee could’ve been frozen that day. But let’s you was there. Someone has just walked on the water. It was not frozen, there were no smokes, mirrors or illusion. What would you do with that fact?

The Congregation for the Causes of Saints in the Vatican has been studying (and dismissing) claims of miracles since 1588, but no record, no matter how well documented, could serve as evidence on a scientific level, I suppose. But, even if it could, I’m not sure what would happen. I remember Ed Harris as the “miracle killer” priest on “The Third Miracle”. Someone can witness a miracle and simply say “so what?”

Okay, let’s start with this one: Unknown does not equate to unknowable. And in fact, like proving a negative, it isn’t possible to pronounce something empirically unknowable. Scratch one excuse for copping out.

Number two: You cannot determine what resources are needed to determine the qualities of a phenomenon until you have successfully done so. So claiming that the answer is beyond available resources is another cop-out. Case in point: dark matter. Popular theory has it that it is mass without the visible properties we expect, all we’re getting is gravity. However, a much less popular theory, yet as far as I know still valid, has it that our math for gravity is a tad off. Establishing the former took some pretty heavy-duty astronomical equipment – establishing the latter took a calculator.

Number three: Philosophy has an inherent flaw, in that answers that do not have evidential backing are indistinguishable from fantasy. Any answer, from “allah” to “harry potter” to “that thing under the stairs” all have equal validity. Who cares? Why do you feel you accomplish anything with that?

Number four: You claim that allowing the idea of supernatural beings as an answer to unknown phenomena does no harm. History laughs long and loud at this one – belief in supernatural beings has been a major factor in millions, if not billions, of deaths from warfare and persecution, a prime factor against human rights and equality, a huge delay in medical and industrial advancement, and most especially, a really simple tool for leaders to bend the devout to their will.

Number four-a: Allowing the idea of an answer that cannot in any way be substantiated discourages the search for a valid answer. We can stop right now and pronounce all further quests for knowledge as “beyond us” and credit it all to ra. If we’d done this a few hundred years ago, where would we be now? How many advances made in the past two centuries came from people who copped out and said, “It’s god’s will!”?

Number five: What makes you presuppose any kind of supernatural being in the first place? Why do you call this logical? Are you aware that logic dictates conclusions come after observations (and/or tests)? Have you considered that presupposing supernatural entities stems from cultural conditioning rather than a logical process?

Number six: Your own argument that allows for an unknown phenomenon to be pronounced as whatever anthropomorphic entity you care to put forward, also allows for the simple answer of “None.” What’s worse, this is the only answer that is supported by the lack of evidence. You now have myriad unsupported answers, against one that does have support. How does your logic deal with that one?

Actually, I’m pretty sure I know the answer to that one, and it is: [long, drawn out obfuscating attempt to turn wild speculation into something resembling scientific principle]. You’re not onto something new here.

I do not believe the evidence supports the conclusion, so those who draw the conclusion do so for some other reason. I do not think those other reasons are logical, reasoning processes.

Well, yeah. But someone might, on the other hand, believe that the evidence supports the conclusion as to make it reasonable, and uses a rational process to state that some Angels exist. For example

Aquinas beleived that the Angels in scripture existed, be he wouldn’t go check out http://www.angelsastrology.com

Well, for the sake of an humorous example, allow me to present this:
http://www.squidi.net/comic/zomb/view.php?ep=1&id=10
Assuming that Spot is not insane of victm of a Hoax, he has a completely rational belief that Angels exist, beacuse he actually met them.

No, you’re just corporal. [wince]

Delance said:
>> [Irishman] I might be persuaded to “consider the philosophical possibility that Angels exist” based upon existing (weak) evidence, but I certainly am not prepared to believe in them based upon that same evidence.

> That’s a very fair answer. But are you prepared to consider the possibility that someone rational might have a belief in angels based on existing evidence, however weak? The question here is not what we personally believe in, but how much are we willing to accept that others might have rational beliefs different from our own.

I’m getting lost. I think it possible someone generally rational (i.e. thinking clearly, not insane) may have a belief in angels. I am not convinced that someone with said belief is basing that belief upon the evidence (or solely on the evidence), but is relying upon some other reasons – emotional need, clinging to authoritative teachings, cognative dissonance, “because it would be wonderful if it were true”, etc. I do not believe the evidence supports the conclusion, so those who draw the conclusion do so for some other reason. I do not think those other reasons are logical, reasoning processes.

But my comment was in response to your restatement of the question (whichever question) that equated “believe” to “consider the philosophical possibility”. I do not believe that those two concepts are equivalent, which is my point.

[skeptigirl]> Perhaps Delance will accuse me of scientism if I say science can test for gods that interact with the Universe and determine there is no evidence for them.

[Delance]> It’s not an accusation; it’s the description of a particular line of thought. And such tests could never be considered scientific. No one can build a God-O-Meter ™.

I think you misunderstand. The effects of a God upon the universe can be (potentially) detected and measured by virtue of the change of state that is caused (depending upon the subtlety of the change). If said God operates through “natural law”, i.e. within the constraints that we’ve identified, then those operations can be detected and measured. If he does not operate within constraints, then we can (potentially) detect and measure a violation of said laws (such as the Conservation laws that provide the foundation of modern physics). If we were to detect a violation of one of those laws, that would either mean we have a serious problem with our entire concept of how the universe works, or that we’ve detected the actions of some agent that is external (or possibly intrinsic to) the universe itself. Either way, then, we can detect and measure effects on the universe. Finding the ultimate source may prove difficult (or even impossible), but the effects should be obvious. (Hey, there’s a guy walking on water! And we scrutinized the whole process, and it really was a guy really walking on real water, no smoke and mirrors or illusionist tricks or digital camera work!)

Why should we remain ignorant of the heavens? (since this is an astronomy blog, lol) You know, thinking that stars are just holes in the floor of Heaven is a cool idea, but what they really are is much cooler (IMHO), and probably much more important to understand all that is up there, and not just ascribe it to God’s mysterious ways. We may very well likely set up mines on other planets to feed our needs. And of course a heads up when Tom Cruise’s daddy comes knocking because we are picking on him. We may need that too…

“Seaducer – if you do not have the wherewithall to seek the cause, expenditure of energy in an attempt is less than logical, therefore my point stands.”

I am sorry but no, your point does not stand. Review my example of germ theory, 1 of literaly 1000′s of examples of things that at one time we did not have the wherewithall to understand. Thankfully people decided to explore those mysteries anyway, and today we are very much out of the dark ages, albeit with many mysteries still ahead of us.

P@ also said:

“Your assertion that it would, de facto, be illogical to ascribe any unknowns to an unknowable being is evidence of the dogma associated with the pursuit of science.”

Nej, but your statement does illustrate your predilection toward dogmatic beliefs. My point was simply that it is ALWAYS better to search for an answer rather than chalk it up to a mystical figure that we can never know anything about. Other than comforting a mourner I can think of no instance where we are better off NOT searching for fact, as opposed to ascribing “truth”.

YMMV

Of course, we are also fairly well hard wired to copy others actions, which is probably a clever evolutionary mechanism which helps us survive in societies. It would seem likely that we also use this same copy-cat mental feature to help us model what other people are doing. If this is the case, it explains our tendency to anthropomorphise, as we are brought up amongst humans (in all but the rarest cases) and so will naturally tend to model any agents that way. Consequently, we are likely to model any events with unknown causes as though they were caused by something more or less human. This is the lowest energy method of dealing with the situation, which means it has a positive evolutionary advantage until such time as we are able to fully explore all the possible reasons for the things we witness.
It may be that we are nearing that time – but we still have the baggage of a couple of years worth of evolution, and unless something happens which makes the anthropomorphising a positive disadvantage, it is unlikely to go away, as it seldom costs us anything to keep it.

“You would presumably argue that it would be logical to not model (ie ignore) anything which you cannot see the direct cause of, given a lack of resources for determining said cause?”

It would be illogical to ascribe any unknowns to an unknowable “being”. Far more logical to seek the cause than to chock it up to goddidit statements. It was not too long ago that disease was thought to be a lack of faith (some still believe this). Praying doesn’t ussually work, but medicine more often than not does. If it weren’t for people who thought that there might be a different explanation, we may still be without germ theory.