London Bombings

[QED]

Soon after the news channels started covering the four bombings on the London Underground and Bus last week, all the media channels started wheeling-in Christian and Muslim spokesmen for comment.

What am I to make of this? I am always arguing the danger of letting people grow their own set of rules around imaginary concepts so making it a no-go zone for reason and logic. This I've pointed out provides a loophole through which fanatics are able to invade the minds of people accustomed to the unquestioned acceptance of whatever it is that they're being told by their spiritual leaders.

In every other sphere people are expected to justify their beliefs and actions. But this single exception is made for religion. I deplore this fact.

[QED]

I really don't see it as the state's right to impose restrictions on faith but it could do more to educate. Also, if the state acted more like the good guy than the bad guy there would be less reason for people to rebel against it. I am not condoning the terrorists in any way, but I realise we must be pragmatic.

Good grief no, it's too late for the state to intervene (although no doubt it will try some clumsy attempt to curb the fanatical elements in a belated attempt to be seen doing something useful). It's only ever going to be a personal decision now. What I suggest is that we come to understand how we have arrived at the place we're at now.

Part of this understanding is that the whole business of faith has been condoned by former states not necessarily because the leaders of men were likewise believers themselves, but because it seemed pragmatic to encourage a form of superstition that yielded widespread civil obedience. Of course it's far more complex than this, but the intersection of superstition and authoritarian rule has obviously happened somewhere along the line -- and I suggest that was a big mistake.

Consider this: Whole nations have marched to war declaring god to be on their side. When the victors come home they know this to be the case. How justified is that?

[ENIGMA]

If any of you are interested, I would like to share with you an observation:
9/11/2001......9+1+1+2+0+0+5 =14
7/7/2005........7+7+2+0+0+5 =21
14/7/2005......14+7+2+0+0+5 =28

The bombers believe they end in paradise, they believe in 7th heaven, 35 could be several dates but 49 (7x7, the worst) can only be 30/12/2005 this year.
Before you post saying I am insane, seeing insanity is not the same as suffering insanity.

BTW Madrid train bomb 11/03

Ok, first off, please work out which side of the Atlantic you happen to be on:

American dates are month/day/year.
European dates are day/month/year.

Choose one and convert the other dates accordingly.

Your division of numbers into digits seems purely arbitrary with 9/11 being split into 9 + 1 + 1 and 7/14 (being the American I am) being split into 14 + 7

Without such a standardization of splitting digits the results degenerate into a similar kind of meaninglessness as a web script I saw a while back which showed how any string of characters you would care to input is actually evil (through a generated process, ending on a result 666 or a numerical representation of Hitler's birthday, or the year that Monty Python first showed the "I'm a lumberjack and I'm ok" sketch, etc.).

Pattern recognition is something that humans are good at doing. Too good.

[QED]

Pattern recognition is something that humans are good at doing. Too good.

Too true. Although Curious did warn us that he was seeing insanity which might have been a motivating influence. The terrorists are interested in squeezing every last drop from their advantages. Picking their dates is just one example. It's chilling contemplating what arbitrary acts could be performed.

I desperately want to see more public debate about the role of faith in arbitrary conduct, but I fear that the subject has passed too far into the realms of taboo to get a reasonable treatment in the mass media.

[QED]

Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction.

Evidently my frustration is nothing new. Where are the voices defending the faith I wonder? The Identity of the bombers that have been arrested so far reveals people with Somali, Kenyan and Ethiopian connections. Very ironic considering the emphasis the British Government was placing on humanitarian aide to Africa at the G8 summit the day before the first wave of attacks.

The bond that exists between the disparate countries producing these terrorists is clearly that of the Muslim faith -- albeit a hideously distorted version. But in the absence of any form of verification or justification for any faith just how should we go about measuring any such distortion?

[Curious]

Your division of numbers into digits seems purely arbitrary with 9/11 being split into 9 + 1 + 1 and 7/14 (being the American I am) being split into 14 + 7

Without such a standardization of splitting digits the results degenerate into a similar kind of meaninglessness as a web script I saw a while back which showed how any string of characters you would care to input is actually evil (through a generated process, ending on a result 666 or a numerical representation of Hitler's birthday, or the year that Monty Python first showed the "I'm a lumberjack and I'm ok" sketch, etc.).

Pattern recognition is something that humans are good at doing. Too good.

I agree with you completely but this does not mean that it is not used in this way. Both are valid numerological methods and I am quite sure that anyone capable of blowing innocent civilians up would have little compunction in using either method whenever it pleases them.
I believe one of the main obstacles in preventing such acts is the fact that they don't have to make any real sense.

[NGR]

Life intruded and I have not had the opportunity to continue this discussion till now.

In my view, morality is selected based on the experience of society. It evolves in conjunction with one's philosophical views. If a society's general philosophical view is personal theism, then morality will be based on the belief that an objective set of morals has been revealed to that society. If, on the other hand, the society adopts an atheist perspective, then morality will be believed to be based on whatever the majority (or possibly strongest) of that society could dictate to the rest. I believe this has would have appalling consequences. I think it would shift the current trend in Western society from seeking to do the right thing because it appears objectively the right thing to some kind of "new" experiment with society. This experiment would be disasterous since it would encourage less interest in harmony and truth and more interest in poll numbers. In fact, this is what we are beginning to see more and more.

Where do these objective set of morals come from though Harvey1 and how were they revealed to society. I assume from this that it is your set of revealed morals that is important and would trump some other set of morals that have been revealed to anyone else. Please explain how they differ from any subjective set of morals? For example the Aztec's Sun God Huitzilopochtli needed a daily nourishment of blood to ensure his continued rising and setting cycle and the Aztec's carried out daily human sacrifices as a result. Do you feel that because such behaviour was "revealed" to the Aztec society that it therefore has some special objective value?

I don't think the history of "God beliefs" is relevant to whether there is a God. Everyone in the universe might be solidly a strong atheist and there could be a God, and conversely, everyone in the universe might be strong theists, and there could be no God. So, what you must do is present your evidence for some metaphysical knowledge of the world that you claim to possess. If your justification of this metaphysical knowledge that you claim is correct is that this God is something we must learn in order to have knowledge, then I really don't think you have argued from a valid position. You must substantiate why it is that you feel you have knowledge of the Universe.

I think God belief is relevant as it is the only evidence(if you could call it that) that we have in connection with a God. When theists are asked why they believe in a God they can provide only emotional based responses that deal with faith. When we look at the various belief systems over the years we are faced with the simple logic that theists are dealing with their own imagined construct. I can only deal with the arguments put forward by those that deal in imaginary concepts and to date I have seen nothing that provides convincing support for a theistic point of view. Indeed it's theists very behaviour with respect to their constructs that shows that they do not have the knowledge they're alleged to possess.

Notice that I replaced the metaphysical term "God" with the metaphysical term "Causation." I cannot see from this argument why you would reject that things in the universe have causes simply because you cannot see causes or that humans have historically different conceptions of what a cause is.

I made no such claim. God and cause have two different meanings and while God could be a cause(in your mind at least), cause is not automatically God.
God-The supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions.
Cause-Events that provide the generative force that is the origin of something.

Or, you could open some philosophical literature on the subject as to why a number of philosophers believe there is a God. Just a thought...

Another thought would be that there are also philosophers that consider the philosophical arguments for a God to lack merit. You wont find God in a philosophical text book Harvey1 and few theists around the world attempt to do so. They derive their view of God from an emotional response to a need for answers and support and only reach for a philosophical explanation when their beliefs are questioned by non believers. The philosophical explanations put forward are simply intellectual curiosities and have no merit to anyone not already indoctrinated into a theistic position.

I don't buy that argument for a few reasons. For one, there are many metaphysical issues that this is paragraph is true of (I just mentioned causation, but there's a whole list). You seriously cannot favor a metaphysical position on the sole basis that there are many different views on a subject.

I can favour anything I like. My task is to come to a conclusion about the existence of a God and I approach that task in any manner I see fit.
People have different views on a lot of things however we are not talking about a difference of opinion here. Theists of what ever variety speak of a personal connection with their God that confirms the faith they have placed in the belief and their lives are transformed as a result. They "know" that their God exists. The problem with that is despite the fact that they claim personal knowledge of their God that extends beyond the physical it is clear from the history of God belief that their perceptions are self induced and have no connection with reality.

Secondly, we have a history of a similar phenomena happening with the laws of physics going all the way back to Thales. Thales believed the world was composed of water. We know today that Thales was wrong. However, that doesn't mean the world is not composed of something. Nor does it mean that Thales was wrong in a certain sense. For example, water is composed mostly of hydrogen (2 atoms of hydrogen for every atom of oxygen), and Thales would be correct in the sense that currently observable matter is mostly composed of hydrogen (approximately 75%).

That's the point harvey1 we are not talking about the physical world we are talking about the supernatural. Remember there is no physical evidence for a God and according to theists themselves God only makes his presence felt through the individual concerned. If God has a conduit to his followers in whatever form you wish to describe it then there should be clear evidence that the information received by the followers has some validity. Unfortunately for theists the opposite is very clear and is evidenced by the discarded Gods of the past, and the religious practises that have varied over the millennia ,all the way from human sacrifice to love thy neighbour.

And, thirdly, in your quest for knowledge you've taken on a great deal of boldness. You've come to a point to where you state that any form of God suggested through the ages (including pantheism) doesn't exist. So, I'd like to have the evidence for your position. Where did you come to this knowledge, based on what evidence? I know where I came to my conclusions about there being a God, but I have no idea of your belief other than the fact that you just don't like people batting around a philosophical notion for ages. That's not good enough. Atheism has been batted around for ages too, does that mean it isn't correct? The only consistent belief that one could construct from your approach is that "everything is uncertain, even this."

Theists make bold assertions that there is a creator of the Universe that looks over their shoulders attends to their wishes and provides a "special" existence after they die. They do this without any physical evidence but simply base it on hearsay and a leap of faith. This seems to me to be a very bold act. I simply look at the evidence they present and find it lacking.
If I see no evidence for a God based on what God believers declare as their evidence then why am I entertaining the possibility of a God. I don't see any possibility for leprechauns or mermaids either, so why would I assign any special treatment to a mythical God above any other mythical creature?

So, are you or aren't you an atheist? Are you or are you not claiming that you possess metaphysical knowledge that no God exists? If you are not making this claim, then can everyone start referring to you as an agnostic? That is, you don't believe there is enough evidence in the universe to know if God exists or not.

Man has a vivid imagination but just because something can be imagined does not mean we automatically assume there is a possibility for its existence.

God continues to be discussed because the evidence from the universe requires it. You argue that such a God is not reasonable, but yet you provide no evidence for your belief. When pushed you default to agnosticism. Now, what am I supposed to think if you hide behind the agnostics?

There is no evidence from the Universe that requires a God belief harvey1. The God construct continues to be discussed because there is a large proportion of society that have various God beliefs. The lack of evidence for those beliefs and the variance between the beliefs provides a catalyst for the discussions.. Rational atheistic minds simply wonder at the silliness of it all.

Science is based on law and mechanism not an exhaustive state space. If you wish to propose that the universe is a result of an uncaused exhaustive state space, then I maintain that it is you that is appealing to a "X did it" philosophy. I, on the other hand, am appealing to law and mechanism. In order for something to be a law it must eventually terminate to some axiom(s) for those laws, and this Axiom(s) is what historically has been called God. You tell me that no such Axiom(s) exists and the evidence shows that to be the case. Okay, I'm open-minded, tell me your evidence. Why should we thwart over 300 years of promising scientific explanation in order to salvage atheism?

We live in a cause and effect Universe and I have made no alternate claim. You simply make the mistake of assigning attributes to causes that you simply have no justification in doing. As I pointed out earlier in this post cause and God have two different meanings and your efforts to conflate the two is where you wonder off into fantasy land. God has a specific connotation in human society the most notable being a real connection with his followers and an intent concerning their existence and wellbeing. There is simply nothing in support of such conjecture beyond a lot of hand waving and wishful thinking.

Here you revert back to social studies. What I want to know is your physical evidence for philosophical atheism. I have no problem with personal God hearing prayers and bringing an afterlife. But, we can get in that discussion later. What I want to know now is why do you hold a metaphysical position that you say you are correct in holding? What is your physical or philosophical argument that applies to the physical evidence itself? Is social studies the only justification you have for committing yourself to an ontological position about the World?

There is no physical evidence harvey1 that is why I don't believe in a God. There is social evidence in that a large part of the current and past population of the world have or had religious beliefs. However when you analyse such beliefs it is clear that people believe not because there is anything to believe in but simply because they need something to believe in. People are entitled to believe in anything they like but if a rational analysis of the beliefs show that they are lacking in any logical substance then there is simply no reason to give a God myth any more thought than any other myths from antiquity.

Not so. I give reasons for my philosophical position that not based on the social sciences. In addition, I am eager to learn the evidence for philosophical atheism, but to this day I haven't found any. I've tried real hard to find an atheist who will give this to me. However, when pressed all I get back are mostly agnostic and even pantheist arguments. I don't want to hear agnostic or pantheist arguments from an atheist because I know the reasons for their beliefs. What I want to know is the reasons for your beliefs.

Philosophy is in a broad sense any personal belief about how to live or deal with a situation. I have clearly put forward my beliefs in relation to a God in many posts and clearly stated the reasons for my belief.

Let's confine our discussion to philosophy. As you know, there are scientists who are anti-realist about the entities that science discovers, so it is meaningless to try and use science to make philosophical points.

Yet you raised the nonsensical analogy concerning the quark.

I think most delusional people are stupid, you don't? Delusion requires one to just throw out evidence for no apparent reason other than whatever suits their fancy. Why is that not a stupid thing to do? Are you saying that it is not stupid for people to intensionally believe in a delusion if indeed that is what they are doing?

A stupid person is someone that is not very bright intellectually and I have no reason to believe that theists would be overly represented in that category as a proportion of the population. Theists are delusional however in that they believe in a concept despite all evidence to the contrary. The point is that theists don't approach religious beliefs based on reasoning they base it on emotion. A person can be intelligent and well educated but still have an emotional need for a God. The emotional need outweighs the rational analysis of the situation which makes them delusional but not stupid.

Unlike you, I don't think the majority of humanity is delusional (or stupid). So, I do think they are in contact with God. I know of few theists who think they know God in full. I would think most theists on the planet would consider such an attitude as extremely arrogant and fool-hearted.

Yet there is no evidence that they are in contact with God and the current crop of theists are in no better position in this regard than the Aztec's who just knew that sacrificing a person each day was required to keep the Sun on its daily journey. Please explain the difference and why one persons beliefs are superior to anyone else's regardless of geographical or temporal displacement?

I think it is a result of prejudice of atheists to talk history when they really should be presenting their philosophical argument for no God. I mean really, an atheist is somebody claiming k-n-o-w-l-e-d-g-e, and to justify their claim of knowledge they talk about an altogether different subject. Why would somebody do that? Imagine if we were debating substantivalism and relationism and I started talking about what 1st-20th century Nepal had undergone as a result of beliefs about space. Would that make any sense to you on why I was either a substantivalist or relationist? Wouldn't you at some point think that I was prejudiced against a particular philosophy and went ranting on about something that happened in Nepal for no apparent reason?

Theists claim knowledge harvey1. Reflection on the historical insanity of religion shows this "knowledge" to be so much hot air. If theistic claims are clearly nonsense then we can dismiss the focus of their attention, God, as no more than the delusional construct of those seeking guidance and comfort in a harsh world.

My contention is that atheism consumes way too much in the way of resources away cosmology in general. This slows the reception of better explanations that do not rely so heavily on exhaustive state space solutions. As an example, a great deal of hoopla has been made of the anthropic principle in solving scientific problems, but as Lee Smolin has pointed out , there's a deep concern about this style of approaching scientific problems. Why raise the anthropic principle with so much vigor? Well, an atheist often feels they need the AP. The effort on the part of the AP adherants just doesn't justify the amount of resources devoted to it.

I only skimmed through the paper you linked to but his major concern appeared to be how some of the theories put forward about the structure of the Universe were unfalsifiable and as such deviate from the historical structure of scientific research. I don't have a problem with that but I find it difficult to see how that would bolster a theists position of a God construct that is outside our time and space and who is automatically outside the purview of science on similar grounds. By the way he went on in that paper to put forward his own version of the multiverse idea based on cosmological natural selection. Seeing that you have previously stated your distain for such ideas I assume you feel Mr Smolin showed great insight in his views on the anthropic principle in science but this insight deserted him when it came to his multiverse theory.

Quite honestly, I debated within myself if I wanted to continue having a pleasant discussion with you based on this comment. Do you think we can avoid the ad hominem attacks?

Sorry harvey1, spur of the moment comment.

I haven't backed away from giving an argument for God's existence, whereas you haven't provided an argument that God doesn't exist (social science notwithstanding). Please provide some arguments in support of your position, otherwise I suppose there's nothing for us to discuss.

You may not be happy with my reasons but I have provided them non the less. In regard to your theistic view I haven't participated in much of the discussions here but from what I have read in some of the threads that you have been active in your arguments seems to boil down to the existence of order in the Universe which you interpret as being something of significance. Your explanations for such beliefs have always been wordy and highly abstract and seemed more aimed at obfuscation than a clear articulation of your position. You have also steered clear of any personal expressions of theism and have referred to theists as though they are some third party group to which you do not belong. It is though you have this distant arms length view of God that is so sterile and theoretical that it would be of little use to an average theist . So no harvey1 you have not provided much of an argument for your position.

I think we are getting a little too far off topic here. Although the debate has wandered into very interesting territory it's far more suited to that marathon thread started by harvery1.

Sorry QED you are right but as with most threads on the forum they start out with a specific focus and tend to wander towards the basic debating point which is the God no God situation.

Harvey1 claims that god provides us with objective morals, yet here is evidence that even praying five times a day is not enough for his message to get through in an unambiguous way (unless of course it was correctly interpreted). But what if god does not exist? What in the name of humanity is going on

Well he makes the claim but he has failed to support the proposition and as you point out the evidence suggests otherwise.

To me it seems like an hideous problem. I think the tolerance shown toward religions has historically come from the state who found it useful in controlling their citizens. Much like the way the US has sponsored otherwise dubious regimes in third-world counties for political motives. It may be oversimplifying things a bit, but a process similar to this has been going on from well before the Common Era in one form or another.

I think all through history religion has been used to manipulate and control the population. Rulers were regularly considered and fostered the idea that they were Gods or at least favoured by the Gods which gave them additional authority above what they would have attracted by behaviour alone. Its difficult to believe that these rulers actually believed such nonsense but the credulous population was certainly a godsend.

But having become so entangled, the secular society is now poised in an awkward position where its citizens are no longer separated by geographical boundaries and tolerance turns into hatred. With everything built upon a 'white lie' (after all, if it were the truth, everyone would be in 100% agreeance) there is no end of division and dispute.

Religion has been historically interwoven into society but it had a far larger and controlling influence in the past. Western societies nowadays have a clear separation between church and the state and the majority of the population seem content to keep it that way, well outside of parts of the USA that is.

But I was also trying to look deeper than this and suggest that the mistake is for state to have ever permitted widespread and arbitrary faith in the first place. Now this suggestion will seem very contentious but it is central to my point: If anyone can justify anything in the name of god then it is too ubiquitous to be acceptable to humanity as a whole.

Well where do you draw the line. All religions are nonsense so how would you go about assigning legitimacy on one religion over another. I think moves are being made in a number of countries to deport(they always seem to be outsiders) those religious clerics that directly foster unrest and that is a step in the right direction.

[harvey1]

QED,

In order to keep this thread dedicated to discussion about Current Events only, can we move the posts between myself and NGR to a new thread that I just started?

[harvey1]

QED,

In order to keep this thread dedicated to discussion about Current Events only, can we move the posts between myself and NGR to a new thread that I just started?

NGR, I replied to your monster long response here

[QED]

Thanks for that Harvey1. When I came split off the posts I found there were other participants involved and it looked like it would be too messy. Entanglement y'know