h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I don't have time to read the backlog right now...

~~~

Hi mikey2

First, my question actually was intended to gently prompt you to re-examine your own question >>is it unreasonable to suppose that there is an unseen spiritual dimension<< , and was phrased so as to remove, or at least reduce, ambiguity regarding the meaning of the words, 'reason' on the one hand, and 'superstition' on the other.

Apparently my attempt failed

Also, from the manner in which your question was phrased, I understood it to be more directed at Gif than any other researcher on this thread.

I'll offer my response, but first let me rephrase the question I asked:

What is the connection, or relationship, if any, between evidence-based reason and faith-based belief?

I ask this, because your ability to even frame such a question as, >>From a scientist's viewpoint, explain exactly how belief in a Creator is totally ridiculous and unsupportable<< seems to suggest, nay, require, at very least the possibility of affinity between what would otherwise appear antagonistic world-views.

Because -- strictly speaking -- 'faith-based belief' and 'evidence-based reason' seem to me to be fundamentally and forever mutually opposed.

There remains the possibility that perhaps I have misunderstood your question

~~~~

Nonetheless, from my current interpretation of it, here is my response:

(Note: I am not a scientist)

A belief in a Creator is not, in and of itself, necessarily ridiculous. For example, it may be possible for such a belief to offer some degree of comfort to those who feel the need.
Indeed, we humans seem to have evolved in such a way as to have a relatively long period of immaturity, during which we require the protection and assurance of the 'god-like' adults.
It isn't much of a stretch of the imagination to speculate how primitive, pre-scientific humans may have 'personified' the capricious and hazardous natural world with controlling entities, 'gods', to whom they turned for succor.

So, to recap: A BELIEF in the supernatural is not necessarily ridiculous, viewed in the light of human evolution.

However, just like the human appendix, it has become superfluous. Supernatural realms and spirit beings are simply no longer necessary. The gods may have once provided supposed explanations for natural phenomena, but repeatedly have been shown to be the stuff of purest fantasy -- magical thinking.

While God-BELIEF is neither ridiculous, and yet ultimately not actually necessary, the very NOTION of a creator God, which isn't even a valid concept, IS absurdly irrational.
For example, 'God' is never, ever defined in any coherent, reasonable way, so 'God' is simply a meaningless word.

Whereas a religious BELIEF may be supportable, for various quite valid anthropological reasons including social environment and conditioning, any notion purporting to be a valid concept or, 'theory' of a deity is either meaningless, incoherent, contradictory, or just plain silly.

To recap: A religious belief may be supportable; a 'God' notion is not.

Hi Tal

Thanks for the answer.

>A belief in a Creator is not, in and of itself, necessarily ridiculous. For example, it may be possible for such a belief to offer some degree of comfort to those who feel the need.<

Here you allow religious belief to be non-ridiculous only for the sake of those in need of comfort. The point I was getting at though was less subjective i.e. Is the very notion of there being a Creator ridiculous?

Anyway...your question:

>What is the connection, or relationship, if any, between evidence-based reason and faith-based belief?<

My christian faith is a reasonably-arrived-at conclusion to evidence. Evidence of the New Testament account of Jesus Christ. Evidence of healings witnessed. Evidence of personal experience re answers to prayer and other apparent divine interventions.

Jesus Christ's life and words challenge the listener/observer to seriously consider whether there is a God and whether there is an unseen spiritual realm. When I first heard of Jesus Christ, it seemed too good to possibly be true but, on closer examination, I concluded that I needed to respond in faith to this Man.

You claim that the notion of God is absurdly irrational and I hear and understand what you are saying...you make your point well and clearly. I disagree with your conclusion. I have examined the evidence surrounding Christ and his claims and I have concluded that there is a God.

Mikey2

Gif

Thanks for your detailed answer.

Your conclusion:

>Easy. Science is based on parsimony. If there's no evidence for it, it ain't science (and it *almost* certainly ain't true). There is no evidence for a creator - this is not a 'testable hypothesis'. Therefore, from a scientific viewpoint, the only reasonable conclusion is that there is no creator.<

Your logic is flawed. You say that 'if there is no evidence for it, it almost certainly ain't true.' Rather one should say: 'if there is no evidence for it, we lack the means to come to a conclusion'.

You say that 'because it is not a testable hypothesis, from a scientific viewpoint, the conclusion is that there is no Creator'. Surely science doesn't rule anything out until it can test it. One can't come to a hard and fast conclusion if one lacks the means of testing.

I am still willing to listen and learn. But my calculations, based purely on the scientific method still produce the answer 'agnosticism'! Please correct me if you think I am deluded.

Mikey2

Interesting discussion, with some potential to make progress. ( At last! )

I'm just putting down a marker to raise the difference between methodological materialism and philosophical materialism as well as the philosophical, theological and scientific conclusions that stem from those positions and the tensions that lie between them and the respective disciplines that engage with them.

And on that enigmatic note, I'm retiring for this evening, but I'll put some effort towards explicating my thoughts tomorrow.

Repost from last week for Michea1 to reply to properly:-

"

I can: Martin Ankers. I knew him when he did a student placement at the place I was working. Brilliantly nice guy.

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/faith/stories/story1.html

Read it.

But I will highlight one sentence: "Martin was able to accept both his epilepsy and his cancer as part of God's plan for his life."

Yes, what a great being his god is.

If any human being had the power to give soime one epilepsy, then year on year allow him not to have a seizure and hence be able to drive THEN give him a seizure THEN give him cancer THEN allow him to recover from cancer THEN give him cancer again and then kill him, you would think that human being to be a heartless sadist and yet Martin actaully thanked his god for the cancer.

I really do remain amazed at the human capacity to rationalise the most horrid things in this world as some plan from some omnipotent all powerful and loving being when if the same things were done by humans (the mother of baby P?) you would call them inhuman evil monsters and put the in jail and throw away the key.

And this is one of the reasons I beleive supernatural beings do not exist because no human being with that much power and supposed benevolence would allow the things, or indeed, do the things that happen on this world. Especially to people who do truly believe and put hteir whole faith in you.

Right that's it. I didn't want to drag that up as I went through the same feelings when he died but when such moronic stuff is being thrown about I had to."

I have a question, too.


Can we all agree that science and its products *work* whether we believe in them or not? The toaster toasts bread whether we believe in electrons or not, right? Someone who develops a widget based on science can demonstrate its function and effectiveness to anyone, whether they believe in science or not, right?


Can believers in religion do anything of this sort? Can believers demonstrate the function and effectiveness of a religious widget to anyone, whether they believe in that religion or not? I suspect that the only major religions which could demonstrate such effectiveness would be the meditative types of Buddhism and Hinduism, and perhaps the Sufis of Islam and some of the mystical sorts of monastic Christianity -- in short, meditation seems to be something with a demonstrable effect *on the individual meditating*.


Science can build a trebuchet which can lob a brick quite a distance no matter what the operator of the trebuchet or the target might believe.

What can religion do to a brick regardless of the beliefs of the individuals involved with that brick?

>>The point I was getting at though was less subjective i.e. Is the very notion of there being a Creator ridiculous?<<

Yes, it is a ridiculous notion. Didn't I make that clear enough?

It is ridiculous because there isn't any evidence, in the scientific sense, for such an entity, nor is there sufficient philosophical rationale requiring the existence of such an entity, and plenty of clear, well-formed refutations to the arguments for any particular god or gods, defined or not.

>>My christian faith is a reasonably-arrived-at conclusion to evidence. Evidence of the New Testament account of Jesus Christ. Evidence of healings witnessed. Evidence of personal experience re answers to prayer and other apparent divine interventions.<<

Your 'reasonably-arrived-at conclusion' depends a great deal on what you are willing to accept as valid evidence, and indeed ultimately on your personal, special definition of the term, 'evidence'

More importantly, I suggest your belief in God, or your need or desire to believe, precedes and informs your interpretation of what you consider as evidence for God's existence

For example, the Biblical, New Testament account of Jesus Christ is, as I'm sure you've heard here countless times already, merely hearsay. It isn't even acceptable as prima facie evidence in a legal sense, and is certainly not scientifically acceptable evidence.

But if you already believe the Bible is God's word, and contains a valid account of God-as-man, you are predisposed to accept it as evidence.

Pretty much the same could be said of witnessed 'healings' (sic)
While you may be willing to suspend disbelief, and accept such reported or even personally experienced occurrences as 'miraculous', impartial observers are rare to the point of non-existence, and validation of miracles is typically made by those with a vested interest in them, ie, the sponsoring religion.

Another problem with miracles is why there is a necessity for them at all? Why does the alleged God apparently deem it necessary to perform so capriciously, and in such a manner as to be stubbornly resistant to independent verification? And why would an all-powerful deity confine itself in modern times to such insignificant, difficult to confirm actions, compared with, say the astonishing alleged miraculous events attributed to God in the Bible? More bizarrely, why doesn't the alleged God simply, for example, disallow disasters in the first place, instead of selectively 'saving' some individuals?

Personal religious/miraculous experience, while it may be significant or reassuring to the person experiencing it, is hardly acceptable objective evidence, now is it? I've met individuals who claim to have seen Bigfoot , or alien spacecraft

And there is that problem with 'answers to prayer' -- I assume by the manner in which you have phrase this that you mean prayer as petition or request. Do you not see how making a request of an allegedly all-knowing entity is patently absurd? God not only already knows what you want or require, he has already 'made up his mind' about it.
Stop pestering him, for God's sake!

The same can be said regarding 'divine interventions'. If your God is already in charge, there is no need for any intervention.

~~~

btw, my favorite prayer of thanksgiving, posted on Internet Infidels a few years ago following a near-earth collision with a fairly large asteroid fragment:

"Thank you, Lord, for saving us from the rock you sent."

~~~

There is no SCIENTIFIC evidence supporting the notion of any supernatural agency, including a god or gods. This is not to say that science provides proof of the non-existence of any supernatural agency, just that so far no such evidence supporting the notion has been discovered, despite, I have little doubt, countless sincere efforts to do so.

Science has proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, that a 'Creator God' is not required for the existence of the natural universe. Whether or not God exists, science has rendered God, and the supernatural, superfluous.

It is therefore ridiculous to believe in that for which there is no objective, scientific evidence.

There are very many simple and obvious PHILOSOPHICAL refutations which effectively dismantle any and all purported proofs of various god-concepts or defined gods.

It is therefore ridiculous to believe in that for which there is no valid, irrefutable argument

While it is not possible to refute claims of the existence of an UNDEFINED god, it is also not necessary, due to the fact that until and unless the term 'God' is defined it is something less than a concept.

It is therefore ridiculous to believe in that for which no meaningful definition can be provided

Oh, and 'agnosticism' is NOT a philosophical position, despite being frequently mis-applied as such.

Agnosticism is not a 'middle ground'; insofar as theism/atheism is concerned, it is really an adjective; a word which describes a characteristic of some theists and atheists.

An agnostic theist believes in God, but will not pretend to offer valid objective evidence proving God's existence, whereas an agnostic atheist does not believe in God, and will not claim certain knowledge thereof

Agnosticism is sometimes thought of as being equivalent to skepticism, but a more accurate definition would be 'lacking knowledge of' or 'not amenable to falsification'

Agnosticism is not the same as being undecided, or even uncertain. It is simply an acknowledgment of a lack of definitive evidence.

So yes, science may be considered agnostic, in that it offers no proof regarding God's existence or non-existence. This does not alter the fact that it is ridiculous to believe in something for which there is no acceptable scientific evidence

3.s

Bit busy right now but...what was wrong with my first reply?

Mikey2

(From the article on the Spanish bus cmpaign):
>"It is an attack on all religions," said Javier Maria Perez-Roldan of the church's Tomas Moro centre

Um, well, yeah... points to the guy in the funny headgear.

Gif

Hi Mikey,

>My christian faith is a reasonably-arrived-at conclusion to evidence. Evidence of the New Testament account of Jesus Christ. Evidence of healings witnessed. Evidence of personal experience re answers to prayer and other apparent divine interventions.

We've been here before. Why do you accept the evidence for Christianity, but reject the evidence for other religions? Why do you not accept scriptural evidence of Mohammed or Gautama Buddha? Why do you discount the evidence of personal experience and prayers of non-Christians (who make up the majority of people who pray)? Why do you discount the opinions of medical experts on the medical value of prayer? If your answer is that you put more stock in the opinions of people whose opinions you share, you are not being rational at all.

I seem to recall that when pressed to explain why you find the NT to be good evidence (e.g. for the Resurrection), you have in the past fallen back on other arguments, saying things along the lines of 'you need faith to believe the NT' or 'I know the NT is true because I have a personal experience of God'. So are you saying that the NT documents present good evidence when assessed as we would assess any other historical documents?



>Your logic is flawed. You say that 'if there is no evidence for it, it almost certainly ain't true.' Rather one should say: 'if there is no evidence for it, we lack the means to come to a conclusion'.

OK, let me explain.

There are infinitely many things we can imagine. Most of those things are not real. Yet it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of something that doesn't exist. For instance, can you prove that there has never been a 100-foot-tall man? Or that there isn't a giant teapot in orbit around Mars? Would you say that you cannot come to a conclusion on the existence of either of them? If your life depended on it, you might as well toss a coin?

Since we have no reason to think these things exist, we assume that they do not. It's not just science that works this way. Effers has already pointed out that our legal system assumes innocence unless guilt can be shown. And the principle is named after the monk who invented it for application to religious ideas: A21648783

Yes, there always exists the possibility of something existing (which is why it's rare to find an atheist who claims to be 100% certain God doesn't exist). But that possibility is so remote that for practical purposes it can be ignored. If you come to a conclusion that something exists without evidence, essentially you are guessing - and you are virtually certain to be guessing wrong.

Gif

(anhaga)
>>And, for the sake of white liberal consciences, Morrison fans haven't had to face genocide, suppression of their language and culture, institutionalized physical and sexual abuse of their children, etc.

Yes, yes. Agreed. But my point is that surely that's a *political* issue, not a religious one? Will the wrongs perpertrated against the indigenous peoples be in any way redressed by dumping this stone back in the creek, or would that require....well - something more practical?

Incidentally...it's not clear to me whether the tobacco and bits of cloth are being left by members of the Cree nation following an old tradition - or by well-meaning souls who've got into the whole buzz of the issue. In either case, would the stone be more accessible to (let's call them) adherents in Edmonton or near Sedgewick?

I'm not meaning to be argumentative here (other than for the sake of an entertaining conversation, obviously )...but on a wider point - are there any other wrongs against people, worldwide, for which you think the answer is 'More religion!'? Or is this particular case perhaps consistent with notion that the value of the First Nation People is as a living ethnographic museum piece?

What a surprise. You always seem to get busy when a difficult question is raised.

Your first reply did not deal with why Martin or anyone else should logically and willing thank someone for giving them a cancer that will kill them and why someone should worship the person who decreed that that was part of their plan.

A human doing such things would be branded a sadistic monster not a benign, benevolent loving god. Religious people seem to clam up and go quiet when this comaprison is made or just throw a banal Bibilical verse.

I want cogent reasoned evidence/facts/conclusions to justify why we all should give our lives to such a god as the god that Martin seemed to believe in.

GifordMy christian faith is a reasonably-arrived-at conclusion to evidence. Evidence of the New Testament account of Jesus Christ. Evidence of healings witnessed. Evidence of personal experience re answers to prayer and other apparent divine interventions.

We've been here before. Why do you accept the evidence for Christianity, but reject the evidence for other religions? >

Or indeed reject evidence that Winnie The Pooh existed. It's documented in a book. Or the Minotaur or Medusa or anyother living creature described in ancients texts.

>Your logic is flawed. You say that 'if there is no evidence for it, it almost certainly ain't true.' Rather one should say: 'if there is no evidence for it, we lack the means to come to a conclusion'.>

This is why people stop debating with Christians and other religious people as they either have no facility to understand scientific method and what 'evidence' really means or are so bent upon keeping whatever beliefs they have that they will willing keep part of their minds blinkered to ensure they do not start to corrcetly challenge what they believe is true.

Hi mikey,

In the light of your recent claims to be open minded about whether or not to continue with your present faith positon, I thought to re-read the journal you display on your ps which explains the story of how you came to have a faith. I thought it may spread some light on the apparently perpetual difficulties that go on here on this thread in be able to move on.

You say,

'... ****I thought to myself: 'I'm going to believe this message even if I find out it's not true!'**** At that very moment, I was suddenly overwhelmed by joy...a feeling totally alien to me. I turned round and said: 'Hello, who was that?' because the experience was as real as if someone had hit me!

Three months later, I was baptized at our local church(and able to share my story fluently with a large group of people) and so began a journey of working through my mountain of problems with a new faith and a new group of friends.

Three months later, I was baptized at our local church(and able to share my story fluently with a large group of people) and so began a journey of working through my mountain of problems with a new faith and a new group of friends...'



(My asterisks around what I think to be the significant statement, ie *I thought to myself: 'I'm going to believe this message even if I find out it's not true!*)

Do you still hold with this, statement? After all we all change our minds about things. But if you do how does that square with your claims here to have an open mind?

(I hope you don't mind me posting some of your journal here, but it is on free public access and people are always free to post anything I may have posted in the past to try to understand better where I am coming from. I would then try to explain the context for the comment and indicate whether I had since changed my mind from when I had posted.

Presumable you shared this experience with your fellow christians and this would be described as *evidence* for God/Jesus by you and them? Am I right in thinking this.

***

I only post this here in order to try to throw some light on the endless circles we appear to be going round in, when discussing things with you about whether it can be considered 'resonable' to believe in this 'unseen spiritual world', when there is no evidence for it.

er sorry for the accidental double posting of one of the lines

'Three months later, I was baptized at our local church(and able to share my story fluently with a large group of people) and so began a journey of working through my mountain of problems with a new faith and a new group of friends...'

my mistake.

You apologise for a double post by posting the same thing again?

Will you be including this in all your posts from now on?





Gif

Oh get lost I was trying to be completely clear about my mistake so as not to perpetuate muddle.

Gif