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]

After a bit of a ponder, I'm beginning to wonder if the recurring problem we have here with meaning is that harvey1 can't help but map his own psyche onto the mind of an Atheist and doesn't like what he sees. I say this because I was reminded by a recent news item that some people feel the need for a rigid framework around them to thrive within. The news item in question was about delinquent teenagers who had been terrorizing their neighborhoods for kicks. Yet when interviewed they said they actually wished they were in the army or even prison so that they had some meaning and order in their lives.

Now that's a total anathema to me, not because I want to be at large so I can commit crime, but so I can pursue my creativeness and go about exploring the world. Therefore my total inability to comprehend what harvey1 is on about may simply be because of the differences in the way our brains are wired. I just don't get this business about tuning in to the meaning of life, or to the meaning of the universe...

Similarly, if the universe has no intent, then all the interpretable sequences that arise from the universe are also meaningless. We might be able to assign meaning to those sequences just for the heck of it, but that doesn't make them meaningful in itself. It is fully meaningless, every last bit of data. If you think otherwise, then please explain to me how a meaningless sequence can acquire any real meaning

...OK I give up. It's all totally subjective, a beautiful sunset is agony to someone with Iritis. A red rose can become a hated icon. What you fear is the lack of a consensus framework. So it looks to me as if you attach to the biggest thing you find around you (Christianity) and expecting everyone else to be just like you, in need of a rigid framework, you emplore them to join in -- or at least convert to Pantheism. But while meaning has to be subjective, what of morals?

Morality is very common in world religions, and we can use those morals to predict successful means by which to enjoy life better. It's not because we invented those morals that this happens, it is because certain good morals actually have a relation with bad morals which make them better. There is nothing subjective about those morals. They are better and the pragmatic outcome of living by good morals clearly demonstrate this.

Here you describe how morals are objective by virtue of their relationships with other morals. I quite agree. I also suggest that we can dispense with any notion that they were created by intelligent design. It is impossible to have good if there is no bad. How much designing does that take?

We can both imagine societies living by objective morals formed by consensus. The rule of law in the secular democracy of the UK has been quite effective in moderating the behavior of its citizens, however I note particular exceptions to this being the result of Religious factions taking up arms and indiscriminately blowing people up. Hatred lies behind all these atrocities. This would seem inevitable within secular societies for the differences of arbitrary religious persuasion clearly become divisive in the minds of fanatics. I say again that arbitrary division is the key to this sort of problem, and that the reason nobody can agree is because they are all guessing at what it is that they suspect exists but cannot see.

[harvey1]

After a bit of a ponder, I'm beginning to wonder if the recurring problem we have here with meaning is that harvey1 can't help but map his own psyche onto the mind of an Atheist and doesn't like what he sees.... Now that's a total anathema to me, not because I want to be at large so I can commit crime, but so I can pursue my creativeness and go about exploring the world. Therefore my total inability to comprehend what harvey1 is on about may simply be because of the differences in the way our brains are wired. I just don't get this business about tuning in to the meaning of life, or to the meaning of the universe...

Well, I think this is itself another thread. However, I think you are right on the money that atheists aren't so much concerned about the truth as they are about pursuing their own agenda (or pursue your "creativeness"). I'm concerned about what is true. That's it. If I weren't, I wouldn't spend time debating and researching these issues. Of course, I believe that life should be as meaningful possible, but I see it as a tradeoff. You can't sacrifice rationality to arrive at meaning, nor can you ignore the arguments against meaning if they are in fact right. My contention is that many atheists are like yourself, they aren't so much trying to find out whether God exists (they've already decided that issue), the issue for them is how to roam the world with the "freedom" that they have created for themselves. I've seen it up close in some individuals who became atheists, and atheists will disclose such experiences after they convert from theism, so it is little wonder that you do get so much certainty from them about the metaphysical side of things when the subject matter is particularly about theism.

What you fear is the lack of a consensus framework. So it looks to me as if you attach to the biggest thing you find around you (Christianity) and expecting everyone else to be just like you, in need of a rigid framework, you emplore them to join in -- or at least convert to Pantheism.

I know that is how you feel, but QED, what I want to learn is what you think based on the arguments against atheism. I've noticed that you often will back away from moving away from atheism to agnosticism even despite the fact that you have admitted that pantheism is okay. What am I supposed to think of that except that you won't consider a possibility simply because you feel your "freedom of creativity" will be restricted as a result?

Here you describe how morals are objective by virtue of their relationships with other morals. I quite agree. I also suggest that we can dispense with any notion that they were created by intelligent design. It is impossible to have good if there is no bad. How much designing does that take?

You miss the point. With atheism you cannot have objective morality. There is nothing but a meaningless universe to base a moral decision. Morality for the atheist must be entirely subjective and therefore there is no difference between Stalin's murderous regime and the old ladies who work at Goodwill on Wednesday's collecting clothing for the poor. Morally, they are all equivalent in terms of any objective stance on the issue. Of course, you'll just think that I'm trying to restrict your freedom of creativity by imposing objective morals onto Stalin, but I assure I'm just deducting from your own premises.

[ST88]

You're not making the correct distinction between the meaninglessness of a situation and applying meaning to a situation. In the case of ... Either A)... or B)...

I think the world is more complex than this ST. Humans produce meaning not be inventing it as they go, rather humans look for a comprehensive explanation of events, and when one of those explanations becomes clear (e.g., the New Deal, monetary policy, etc.), they naturally cling to those new explanations until they fail. In the case of the war on terrorism, it looks very similar to the Cold War strategy which worked (we're here, right?). Unfortunately humans are slow to adapt to new paradigms until the old strategies are clearly failing. That's when they become open to new paradigms and are willing to "vote" a new group into power who provides hope of a new strategy. If those strategies pay off, then they become part of the sacred writ of the culture (and this even includes the scientific culture).

Using the dochotomy of meaning vs. meaninglessness, A and B appear to be the best way to sum up the siutation, if I do say so myself. Naturally, real-world systems are more complicated. In the above paragraph, you're even applying the B form of meaning. Placing the meaning upon it depending on the context. "Inherent meaning" implies that there is some overall plan we are not aware of. But just because one thing leads to another does not mean that it was meant to happen that way in a human sense. Did the Iraq war have to happen? Not if enough people in Dade county didn't vote for Pat Buchanan by "accident".

What will the London Bombings lead to? Only where we let them lead us to. Atheists don't say, "It's just a meaningless blip on the map of history." Quite the contrary. Atheists would be perfectly within their rights to say that this was a horrific tragedy, made all the more horrifying by the fact that it was done in the name of religion.

Your paradigm explanation makes a good deal of sense. People are too hesitant to accept new ways of looking at the world, even when events demand it. I would contend that it is the religious viewpoint that encourages this kind of steel-trap thinking because the meanings of an earlier era are still too precious to be abandoned in favor of new ideas.

[NGR]

After a bit of a ponder, I'm beginning to wonder if the recurring problem we have here with meaning is that harvey1 can't help but map his own psyche onto the mind of an Atheist and doesn't like what he sees. I say this because I was reminded by a recent news item that some people feel the need for a rigid framework around them to thrive within. The news item in question was about delinquent teenagers who had been terrorizing their neighborhoods for kicks. Yet when interviewed they said they actually wished they were in the army or even prison so that they had some meaning and order in their lives.

Actually I think you are correct in regard to harvey1's views. He does seem to spend a lot of time wrestling with his straw men instead of dealing with reality. His fabricated construct of a consistent Atheist is a case in point. He has been called on this a number of times but continues to trot it out for public view when he feels the need to flail away at a predictable enemy.

I know that is how you feel, but QED, what I want to learn is what you think based on the arguments against atheism. I've noticed that you often will back away from moving away from atheism to agnosticism even despite the fact that you have admitted that pantheism is okay. What am I supposed to think of that except that you won't consider a possibility simply because you feel your "freedom of creativity" will be restricted as a result?

I'm sure QED will provide his own answer to this but I hope no one minds me giving my .02 cents worth.

You cannot prove the non-existence of a God anymore than you can prove the existence of one and in a true logical sense we all should be agnostic. However the fact that there is no proof for the existence of a God is the key issue here, as we all start out with a clean slate, and are introduced at some time in our lives to a God concept. From then on we become a Theist or an Atheist based on our subjective analysis of the matter. Seeing that the God concept is merely a construct of mans mind and history is littered with the carcasses of discarded Gods it is difficult to see how anyone could adopt an agnostic stance. Just how many failed attempts are required?

You miss the point. With atheism you cannot have objective morality. There is nothing but a meaningless universe to base a moral decision. Morality for the atheist must be entirely subjective and therefore there is no difference between Stalin's murderous regime and the old ladies who work at Goodwill on Wednesday's collecting clothing for the poor. Morally, they are all equivalent in terms of any objective stance on the issue. Of course, you'll just think that I'm trying to restrict your freedom of creativity by imposing objective morals onto Stalin, but I assure I'm just deducting from your own premises.

The old fabricated consistent Atheist gets another airing . There is no such thing as objective morality. Morality is purely subjective and what one individual considers good another may considers bad. This varies from culture to culture and time to time, slavery is a good example. The Universe doesn't give a rats arse about the collective works of Stalin or the little old ladies but people do whether theist or atheist and I'm surprised that you would make such a comparison.

Apart from the few sociopath's out there we all, whether Theist or Atheist, have empathy for our fellow man and for other living creatures for that matter. The strength of that empathy varies from individual to individual but it is the driving force behind our social interactions and the many laws we enact to govern them.

[QED]

When I started this topic I asked why it was that Muslim and Christian Religious leaders were immediately called-up onto our TV screens to talk about the London bombings. I felt that it was very revealing about the divisiveness and destructiveness of Religion, but harvey1 didn't wast any time switching the argument to the way Atheists are presumed to behave.

Well, I think this is itself another thread. However, I think you are right on the money that atheists aren't so much concerned about the truth as they are about pursuing their own agenda (or pursue your "creativeness").

In your opinion of course. I think I can steer this back on-topic by examining this concern of yours for the truth...

I'm concerned about what is true. That's it. If I weren't, I wouldn't spend time debating and researching these issues. Of course, I believe that life should be as meaningful possible, but I see it as a tradeoff. You can't sacrifice rationality to arrive at meaning, nor can you ignore the arguments against meaning if they are in fact right.

So in this pursuit for the truth we have an excellent example: The Afterlife. Of all the myths of Religion this one, to me, is the most extraordinary and counter-intellectual. Maybe we should resurrect that topic (!) and see how much truth we can extract from it, but I think it's also worthy of a little bit of discussion here...

It now turns out that all four explosions were the work of suicide bombers, the first examples in Western Europe. Details are starting to emerge with the ages of two of these young men being announced as 19 and 22. Even more disturbing is that they were all born and raised here in England. From the latest news report today, one of them was revealed to be the son of a successful businessman, with all the advantages a well-off family would provide. Another surprise is that nobody suspected that such a plan was being put into practice, the bomber being a 'normal' intelligent student. But all this sounds rather familiar.

So what is it that enables these young men with a World of opportunity before them to end their own lives in order to murder others? I think we all know it's through their susceptibility to faith. Faith in that which they are taught, among other things, about the Afterlife -- which promises them a much more attractive World than that which they already enjoy. You yourself did not hesitate to tell me that you share this faith and would no doubt claim that it came to you as part of your exhaustive search for truth. Well, it strikes me that god is being irresponsible if this is indeed his truth. Rather though, I'm inclined to borrow from your favoured style of argument and call the concept of the Afterlife utter crapola. It smacks of being every last bit a man-made fantasy born from the overwhelming instinct to remain alive. This obvious motive weighs almost as heavily against the Afterlife as does its lack of mechanism or manifestation.

My contention is that many atheists are like yourself, they aren't so much trying to find out whether God exists (they've already decided that issue), the issue for them is how to roam the world with the "freedom" that they have created for themselves.

And this freedom worries you more than the sort enjoyed by religious fanatics who have clear-cut enemies and orders direct from god himself? Sorry to drag this back on-topic again, but it's obvious what a big problem this presents us with. No wonder you quickly turned it into yet another opportunity to tell me what crap Atheism is.

If everyone can have free access to the sort of truth you talk about, why does Islam have a very different religious identity to that of Christianity? Why were 7000 muslim men coolly separated from the women and children in Sebrenicia and executed? Why was my dear friend murdered in Northern Ireland? All of this, according to you, is happening right under gods nose, in full view of the truth that's there for all to plainly see.

You see, to me it looks like a lot of people who think they are party to god's truth, exercising the freedoms they think he has granted them. And then, once someone's convinced that god thinks it's OK, they can be very bold indeed. Now, as a consistent Atheist, I never consider what god thinks is OK because it's obvious to me that he's not there to have an opinion. As a result of this I'm hyper-cautious about doing anything that might be seen as undesirable by others because I don't feel I have a god-given right to do anything. Instead I have my own conscience to live with, and I trust in that alone being the best way for mankind to move forward in an age of communication and openness.

What you fear is the lack of a consensus framework. So it looks to me as if you attach to the biggest thing you find around you (Christianity) and expecting everyone else to be just like you, in need of a rigid framework, you emplore them to join in -- or at least convert to Pantheism.

I know that is how you feel, but QED, what I want to learn is what you think based on the arguments against atheism. I've noticed that you often will back away from moving away from atheism to agnosticism even despite the fact that you have admitted that pantheism is okay. What am I supposed to think of that except that you won't consider a possibility simply because you feel your "freedom of creativity" will be restricted as a result?

You do like to 'pick' on the personal things I mention. Yes I'm proud of my creativity. I've been honest with you all along that I see great value in the products of a universe which allows for the transformation of chaos into order, and I'm proud to be able to play my own role in this. But far from being a threat to my freedom in this respect, I can't see any of the theisms you would like me to convert to hindering me in this either. Maybe then, there's another reason why it seems I won't consider the possibility of there being god person. I've stated it to you often enough: that software supervenes on hardware. That mind supervenes on matter. If you want to convert me you will first have to demonstrate how this could be otherwise.

I will concede this much to you though: If all races intermix and achieve genetic equilibrium, we will all end up coffee-coloured people. Similarly if proper Democracy replaces all forms of Totalitarian rule we all become free people. If Christianity replaces all other religions then we all become members of the same family and care for one another accordingly. But while I can see a possibility for the first two taking place in the future the last would seem utterly impossible. I submit that the reason for this would be that unlike the first two, there is no objectivity to religion and hence no consensus.

[harvey1]

but harvey1 didn't wast any time switching the argument to the way Atheists are presumed to behave.

Why, thank you. I think it is important to clear the smoke of any discussion.

So in this pursuit for the truth we have an excellent example: The Afterlife. Of all the myths of Religion this one, to me, is the most extraordinary and counter-intellectual... So what is it that enables these young men with a World of opportunity before them to end their own lives in order to murder others?

Kids looking for some meaning to their lives can be twisted into doing this kind of thing. If they don't find it at home...

You yourself did not hesitate to tell me that you share this faith and would no doubt claim that it came to you as part of your exhaustive search for truth.

No, I have not found an afterlife in any search for truth. What I of course already mentioned is that we have good reason to believe that the information identifying our particular lives is in principle recoverable in the future and not restricted to the here and now.

Rather though, I'm inclined to borrow from your favoured style of argument and call the concept of the Afterlife utter crapola. It smacks of being every last bit a man-made fantasy born from the overwhelming instinct to remain alive. This obvious motive weighs almost as heavily against the Afterlife as does its lack of mechanism or manifestation.

Well, to be frank, you are smitten with a meaningless view of the world. I would even use the word "fooled" by the appearance of the world.

And this freedom worries you more than the sort enjoyed by religious fanatics who have clear-cut enemies and orders direct from god himself?

I think the propagation of meaningless is what often inspires fanatics to act as they do. So, yes, I do see a very disconcerting effect with the rise of secularism in Western society. Islam has been here a very long time and I grew up not recalling any Islamic suicide bombers walking the streets. Of course, the U.S. in particular has not helped matters by setting up bases in their sovereign nations. But, this, I think, is not the problem. The larger problem is the creation of huge pockets of skepticism and the effect it is having on those whose lives become unstable when they feel like they are losing meaning in their lives. It often first occurs with people in poverty and living under oppression, but this, I think, is because they are the most vunerable to the sense of meaninglessness and the effect it has on them. However, if the pockets of meaninglessness continue to grow in a global society, the phenomena of radicalism and fanaticism continue to grow. Soon you have entire governments acting fanatical (e.g., atheist North Korea) and, even more dangerously, you could see the spread of fanaticism in places where it is extremely dangerous if such governments start having a populace and government who become fanatical in their views.

You see, to me it looks like a lot of people who think they are party to god's truth, exercising the freedoms they think he has granted them. And then, once someone's convinced that god thinks it's OK, they can be very bold indeed. Now, as a consistent Atheist, I never consider what god thinks is OK because it's obvious to me that he's not there to have an opinion. As a result of this I'm hyper-cautious about doing anything that might be seen as undesirable by others because I don't feel I have a god-given right to do anything. Instead I have my own conscience to live with, and I trust in that alone being the best way for mankind to move forward in an age of communication and openness.

Well, you were raised in a first or second generation Christian home. You are still benefitting from the close connection you have with those religious values that were passed along through your family. You are like the heir of a fortune that you didn't have to earn to obtain. That's not to suggest that I think you would be an immoral person had you grown up in three or four generations of atheism, however the likelihood that you would have been immoral increasing greatly. Over time, consistent atheism would take root in the family and it would gradually start to take on other values, values in full contradiction to Christianity. Those new values would have gradually eroded your family and you would have instead grown up with those values. This same erosion is happening to Western society, and we are gradually feeling the effects of a society seeking meaning from pursuits that don't involve going to Church on Sunday. Unfortunately these kind of pursuits are generally sensationalist in their structure, and these tend to de-humanize us and make us less compassionate to others.

You do like to 'pick' on the personal things I mention.

I don't mean to offend you, but I think it is significant on how atheism is affecting individuals in very subtle ways. You see, that sense of freedom, good or bad, would perhaps not be there in quite the same way had you stayed with your family tradition of Christianity. You may well be talking about the meaning that God provides for you in your life kind of thing. Fortunately for you, your close enough to the embedded values passed onto you that this sense of freedom has not done to you as it is doing to many secular kids out there. For them, that sense of freedom has become licentiousness. That licentiousness provides meaning when done with groups and still larger groups, and that is a big concern as those groups grow and become more integrated in society. In the U.S. we've seen this in terms of unprecedented amount of corruption in corporate centers and the utter disregard to their employees and stockholders. The secular response is to teach ethics to corporations, however this is a bandaid to a much larger and prevalent trend. Something that the teaching of ethics cannot solve.

I can't see any of the theisms you would like me to convert to hindering me in this either. Maybe then, there's another reason why it seems I won't consider the possibility of there being god person. I've stated it to you often enough: that software supervenes on hardware. That mind supervenes on matter. If you want to convert me you will first have to demonstrate how this could be otherwise.

Yet, when an atheist such as Quentin Smith says the wave function is a proposition you seem to have no problem with that. Last I checked, there are no propositions floating around which we can study with microscopes and such. Please be consistent, QED! You can't in one post say you have no problem with the universe supervening on immutable logic and in the next post say that everything in the World must supervene on matter.

Note: I editted the above because of poor choice of words...

[QED]

I think the propagation of meaningless is what often inspires fanatics to act as they do. fanatical in their views.

Yet you have been claiming that the Theistic universe is the only one to have meaning. When interviewed on the lunchtime news a neighbhour commented that the only change in character of one of the bombers was that he had recently become more religious. No doubt this is where he found his true purpose. You are flogging a dead horse trying to switch this argument to Atheism being the real danger. The very next news item was Catholics injuring eighty or so Policemen in Northern Ireland following a Protestant march. All these people are your archetypal god-fearing citizens and they all think god is with them every step of the way. At most only one group in any given conflict can be right about this, so you need to be able to tell me how one is to differentiate the real truth (if any) from all the competing mythology.

Well, you were raised in a first or second generation Christian home. You are still benefitting from the close connection you have with those religious values that were passed along through your family.

And the benefit was? I've seen a photo of me playing a reluctant looking Joseph in a Christmas Nativity scene - but you know what, I can't recall this experience ever moderating my behavior. I'm far more influenced by the common sense notions in life, and while I agree that many of these overlap with Christianity I should be expected to have a greater tendency to reject them as a reaction to my unwelcome Christian upbringing. But despite all this, as a rational humanist I cannot and I suspect that even you would not be overly dismayed in the way I conduct myself.

I think you had it right when you talked about objective morals. There are no such thing of course as truly objective morals, but the method you employed to argue their existence can still be used to create morals we would all approve of. For example, if someone parks their car across my driveway, I note that this upsets me. Next time I park my car I recall this fact and make sure I don't block anyone elses drive. Given thorough application and sufficient time what do we get? A set of morals which reflect the type of society we all would like to live in.

Of course this has to be applied in the negative form i.e. I don't block a driveway. If I were Neo-Nazi I might like the idea of a large Swastika on my garage door, so I do not advocate positively going out to paint a Swastika on someone elses door. This is the fallacy of "Do unto others only that which you would have done to yourself". It must be "Don't do unto others anything you wouldn't want done to yourself".

Yet, when an atheist such as Quentin Smith says the wave function is a proposition you seem to have no problem with that. Last I checked, there are no propositions floating around which we can study with microscopes and such.

You know full well that I quoted this sort of research to demonstrate in principle how an acausal universe could exist. This is in support of a notion rather than the reason for it.

Please be consistent, QED! You can't in one post say you have no problem with the universe supervening on immutable logic and in the next post say that everything in the World must supervene on matter.

If anything, you're seeing a reflection of the duality of what we have been discussing. Of course it's possible for us both to put our particular spin on our sides of the argument but, like the particle/wave duality, I believe the real answer is that ultimately it is neither. Just as causality blurs in the quantum domain I anticipate there being a simultaneous state in which information and energy emerge from a quantum field. When I refer to software supervening on hardware, this is all large-scale stuff. The sort that can create a plan and engineer a universe. Common sense tells me this can only possibly evolve from far humbler beginnings.

[harvey1]

Yet you have been claiming that the Theistic universe is the only one to have meaning.

There's a difference between objective meaning and subjective meaning. Objective meaning is the meaning that events actually possess, and subjective meaning is what we place on importance of events. One can have a quite meaningful life that is focused entirely on the old Star Trek series. Going to conventions, etc.. However, if the universe is without objective meaning, then this is a meaningless exercise (it's a meaningless exercise by my own subjective stance too). In any case, an atheist that hangs out in front of Churches by picketing them (e.g., "God is not home") might have a life full of subjective meaning. In the broader scope all the events in the consistent atheist's view would have to be considered entirely meaningless, though.

If the theist grew up struggling with finding a satisfactory subjective meaning, they may especially be prone to sensationalist attempts to find meaning (e.g., holy wars, monastic life, etc.). However, mundane subjective meaning (e.g., caring for the lawn, eating dinner with friends & family as the week's amount of excitement) is much easier to sustain as subjectively meaningful if this meaning resides on top of finding/believing in an objective meaning for life. When secularism comes along, it tends to rip the objective meaning away, and slowly but surely the disease of secularism begins to eat away at the contentment that people found in the mundane subjective meaning (which was before residing on top of the objective meaning such as what people took comfort in at the death of loved ones, etc.). Once this happens, all sorts of hell starts to break lose. Those in poverty and oppression feel it first since no longer are they content with being poor. They want more because secularism teaches that it is the "now" is all that matters for us as individuals. Then gradually even the wealthier and middle class find life mundane and insignificant and those who are emptied of meaning in their life will start thrill seeking and other sensationalist means to keep the cup of meaning full. And, then, comes the appearance of bizarre and radical behavior by those who join groups having the same needs for sensationalism. This may even take the form of religious hatred, religious cults, nationalistic hatred, etc.. The people are still far from the joy of meaning since the internal harmony obtained from spiritual belief is far removed from their sensationalist religious zeal.

By the way, it's not only secularism which can cause this kind of troubling trend in society. Oppressive governments, an unfair economic system, an unfair justice system, etc., can also strip away an objective sense of meaning since government, economic fairness, justice, etc., are "objective" for the individual. When those objective institutions are seen as corrupt, then there is less objective meaning to found one's life upon. In those situations one might be like Jesus who grew up in this kind of unjust world, but they might also be like the Zealots who tried to overthrow the government. In any case, in our Western world the corrections to government, economic fairness, justice, etc., have largely been made. Unfortunately secularism is slowly creeping in to strip us of our sense of meaning which can be a destructive force if not kept in check. I should say, though, that a balance of secularism is very healthy and required of any society to prevent oppression, economic unfairness, etc., but the balance must be respected. I fear that atheists and agnostics do not see the consequence of too much secularism. Nor do they pay attention to the signs of a society struggling with meaning and the consequences that occur. Just like the environment I fret that we may near a phase transition where a critical point is reached, and sudden changes take place. This is something that I hope we never reach, but it must be taken seriously.

All these people are your archetypal god-fearing citizens and they all think god is with them every step of the way. At most only one group in any given conflict can be right about this, so you need to be able to tell me how one is to differentiate the real truth (if any) from all the competing mythology.

Firstly, I believe that truth is superior in terms of the kind of society that it produces. So, if you hold to a true belief, and that belief has certain worldviews associated with it, then this worldview will cause you to act differently. As you act differently there will be consequences of acting differently. The cultures that produce more success will tend to go back to the well that provided water last time, so they will extract as much truth as possible. (Like I said, there's some truth to the joy of having secularism in society.) However, as the well goes dry and the worldview is diverting away from what is true, the people will start searching randomly for other answers. The one that looks right will suddenly become the one that people tend to go (not necessarily, though, since there's a great deal of randomness as they near the critical point of change). However, over a number of these kind of transactions the truth tends to bubble up to the top. Eventually you have "truths" that at one time were competing against other ideologies. I can imagine, for example, that at one time it was considered a sin to live in a city. However, as people found the benefit of living in cities, those folks who opposed living in cities eventually perished and the city folks became the places of kings and emperors, and now everyone just thinks that living in a city is the customary practice. Of course, if the world becomes a much more dangerous place, then there may again come a time when living in a city is considered a sin.

There are no such thing of course as truly objective morals, but the method you employed to argue their existence can still be used to create morals we would all approve of.

I think where you miss the mark is the reason why pragmatic approaches tend to produce these results. I think it is because pragmatism is a principle deeply tied to objective truth. That is, like a cellular automata that naturally uncovers the equations of physics, I think pragmatic approaches toward morality naturally uncover the equations of morality that objectively exist in the World.

You know full well that I quoted this sort of research to demonstrate in principle how an acausal universe could exist. This is in support of a notion rather than the reason for it.

Nevertheless, you still consider it reasonable that the wave function is a proposition that caused (in a probablistic manner) the universe, do you not?

I believe the real answer is that ultimately it is neither. Just as causality blurs in the quantum domain I anticipate there being a simultaneous state in which information and energy emerge from a quantum field. When I refer to software supervening on hardware, this is all large-scale stuff. The sort that can create a plan and engineer a universe. Common sense tells me this can only possibly evolve from far humbler beginnings.

Your view is too scattered to really be a "theory of everything." It sort of assumes that you have the laws of physics over there doing its own thing, you have a metauniverse over here doing its own thing, you have the emergence of galaxies and life doing its bizarre thing nearby here, and everything just sort of happens. I find that approach to be in contradiction to the beauty we actually find in the equations of physics. What I see is a world governed by simple and beautiful equations which are governed by yet more simple and beautiful equations. The natural follow-through to all of this is that the world arises from the Logos and that this Logos provides an all-encompassing, all-meaningful explanation for everything. All things are tied into each other. There is ultimate order to our world.

[harvey1]

Hello NGR,

Actually I think you are correct in regard to harvey1's views. He does seem to spend a lot of time wrestling with his straw men instead of dealing with reality. His fabricated construct of a consistent Atheist is a case in point. He has been called on this a number of times but continues to trot it out for public view when he feels the need to flail away at a predictable enemy.

Well, if someone can give me a reason why the consistent atheist is in contradiction with her atheist views, then I don't see why we cannot discuss this interesting character. She is alive and aware of her surroundings. She understands that all the b.s. morals of religion fed to her are based on myths. She doesn't have to listen to atheists who are a generation or two deduced from those religious morals. All she must abide by are her own opinions in how they directly affect her. If you can show me how her views are contradicted by an objective need, then I'll be quick to drop discussing her.

I'm sure QED will provide his own answer to this but I hope no one minds me giving my .02 cents worth.

Don't ever feel like you have to make such a statement with us. Jump right in.

You cannot prove the non-existence of a God anymore than you can prove the existence of one and in a true logical sense we all should be agnostic.

But, somehow or another I think I'm about to hear why you were wrong afterall for making this qualifying statement...

However the fact that there is no proof for the existence of a God is the key issue here, as we all start out with a clean slate, and are introduced at some time in our lives to a God concept.

There's no such thing as a clean slate. We need knowledge in order to comprehend the world, so our current slate is based on that original slate. In terms of humanity as a whole, our original slate where we first began to investigate the world was under the assumption of religion. Our slate as human beings depends, I suppose, on what our parents taught us at a young age. The key is that we don't know if our collective slate (both as humans and as individuals) is correct or not, so we must go about the process of re-building Neurath's ship. We do that by looking at what we have been given and from that we re-make our ship as we are actually sailing.

Seeing that the God concept is merely a construct of mans mind and history is littered with the carcasses of discarded Gods it is difficult to see how anyone could adopt an agnostic stance. Just how many failed attempts are required?

I don't see this is a valid means by which to reason, NGR. From a purely skeptical perspective, why should the past have any great effect on what we believe today? This sort of contradicts your argument that we start off with clean slates. If we, as you suggest, start off with clean slates (or we can imagine what having a clean slate would be like), then what does it matter what was believed before? Why not just look at the evidence before us and make a determination of what we believe based solely on the evidence. However, speaking from a theist perspective, I visualize God as a phenomena that is encountered in the world. That Phenomena is subject to all sorts of different interpretations. Strangely, there are many common features in the major religions when describing God. So, that in my view would lead me to believe that religions are describing an objective experience and not a fictional phenomena.

Morality is purely subjective and what one individual considers good another may considers bad. This varies from culture to culture and time to time, slavery is a good example. The Universe doesn't give a rats arse about the collective works of Stalin or the little old ladies but people do whether theist or atheist and I'm surprised that you would make such a comparison.

You are close to a consistent atheist perspective. Now, after you've just educated the atheist youth of your community of this view, what do you do when the little brats come back to you showing you how much money they stole? The insist to you that the universe doesn't give a rats arse about what they just got away with and they assure you that there is no way they could get caught. They aren't interested in your ole fashion Christian morals which you or your parents were raised. How do you convince them that they are wrong in stealing from others just as long as it benefits them and there is no chance they can get caught?

Apart from the few sociopath's out there we all, whether Theist or Atheist, have empathy for our fellow man and for other living creatures for that matter. The strength of that empathy varies from individual to individual but it is the driving force behind our social interactions and the many laws we enact to govern them.

The little brats read your comment here. Here's what they said:

Geez, NGR. There you go again talking about the end of the world with us becoming sociopaths. We aren't going to go out and kill anyone. We do emphathize with the people we took that money, but they are rich people. They probably won't even know its missing. In fact we know they won't since we know someone who notices that they pay no attention to how much they own. So, ease up grandpa. Thanks for the atheism lesson when we were young. I feel so much more free, our actions wouldn't have been considered as smart without you.

[ShieldAxe]

There's no such thing as a clean slate. We need knowledge in order to comprehend the world, so our current slate is based on that original slate. In terms of humanity as a whole, our original slate where we first began to investigate the world was under the assumption of religion. Our slate as human beings depends, I suppose, on what our parents taught us at a young age. The key is that we don't know if our collective slate (both as humans and as individuals) is correct or not, so we must go about the process of re-building Neurath's ship. We do that by looking at what we have been given and from that we re-make our ship as we are actually sailing.

How can we NOT start off as a clean slate? It makes no sense that when we are born our slates are not clean.

I don't see this is a valid means by which to reason, NGR. From a purely skeptical perspective, why should the past have any great effect on what we believe today?

It's preposterous to think otherwise.