Whats the reason for this belief?

[Scrotum]

We all know that the majority of the worlds population is ´stupid´, to simplify. But how come so many educated people, with capacity to think, still believe in gods?

Instead of talking about gods specifically , i would like to use the Tooth Fairy as a substitute, as there is no difference, and shows the ridicule of the whole thing.

-
Both John/Harvey & Otsent believe in the Tooth Fairy. Otsent believes in a specific Tooth Fairy, together with John, whom is more of a fundamentalist, Whiles Harvey is more close to a Different Tooth Fairy.

None of these people have any proof or logical based evidence for the existence of their Tooth Fairy. None at all. They simply state he or she exist, and thats the end of story.
-

Why?
Personally, i always presumed the contemporary belief of a Tooth Fairy to be because of fear. Death is a scary thought for most people (remember, the general population is ignorant, and ignorance brings fear), and also the fact that you would be forced to take responsobility for your life,which the existence of the Tooth Fairy removes.


Whats your view?
Why do you think people believe in such things? Is there other reasons then fear and plain ignorance?

[harvey1]

That much is clear enough, and is why I felt we were looking at a physical independence.

Well, it contradicts a material beginning entirely. If there is nothing material, then it is impossible for the universe to have come into existence.

Well, as you know, the H-H wave function is a sum over all possible histories using Feynman's path integral formulation of QM, and therefore it would have to be a law.

But this conclusion is based on one of many QM interpretations. To my eye the path integral formulation looks very much like a mathematical device used to describe something as yet unknown.

That's the point, though, there is nothing physical for the path integral to describe. It is completely unphysical if there is "no spacetime and thus no elementary particles and no electromagnetic force, no weak force, no strong force and no gravitational force."

You probably see me as being an obstinate material realist when I argue like this, but I've yet to see an unequivocal proof that the world is essentially dualistic.

Honestly, I think you're grasping at straws to save an ideology that doesn't want saving. Materialism cannot claim to be right while denying its fundamental postulate that spacetime is a primitive.

[QED]

You probably see me as being an obstinate material realist when I argue like this, but I've yet to see an unequivocal proof that the world is essentially dualistic.

Honestly, I think you're grasping at straws to save an ideology that doesn't want saving. Materialism cannot claim to be right while denying its fundamental postulate that spacetime is a primitive.

Here's where you're assuming stuff: If I say I don't believe in dualism, then you instantly assume I'm a materialist. You're the one who talks about stuff being "kickable", which to me is imposing an arbitrary divide on things that I believe are fundamentally indivisible. It's much like our argument about consciousness: I don't see individual atoms as being conscious or unconscious any more than large collections of atoms. To me the divisions are arbitrary and confusing in both cases.

[harvey1]

Here's where you're assuming stuff: If I say I don't believe in dualism, then you instantly assume I'm a materialist. You're the one who talks about stuff being "kickable", which to me is imposing an arbitrary divide on things that I believe are fundamentally indivisible. It's much like our argument about consciousness: I don't see individual atoms as being conscious or unconscious any more than large collections of atoms. To me the divisions are arbitrary and confusing in both cases.

QED, you're not giving me much to work with here. I mentioned my point that the material universe cannot be independent from the regularities of the material Universe. If there are no platonic laws, then the material Universe might suddenly and inexplicably change from our concept of lawful to our concept of random. This would affect our material universe too.

You say that the material universe can be independent from all of this. You suggested that I read Quentin Smith who you feel has a reasonable solution of how this independent spacetime is possible. I read it, and find that our spacetime came from physically nothing at all (in contradiction to a material Universe), and that he is using a non-physical equation to show how it all comes into material existence. This shows that there are platonic laws and that the material universe is not independent from these laws. You say that there is this mysterious third category of law that is between just being regularities of a physical world and platonic laws of a platonic world which has its own set of properties. Okay, but how can this universe be independent from those mysterious laws? They cannot be regularities if there is no spacetime since there is no oscillations or motion in a nothing Universe to find any regularities within. Therefore, it would seem impossible for the universe to be independent from these mysterious (non-platonic, non-physical) laws since the universe comes into existence because of them.

Why not just become a pantheist like myself and make it easier on yourself? Why resist to the point of adopting the form of mysticism you seem to be adopting?

[HughDP]

Why not just become a pantheist like myself and make it easier on yourself?

That made me laugh Harv. Thanks, I was having a rotten afternoon.

But, to the point in hand, don't you think there are loads of possible avenues yet to explore regarding the creation of our universe before we settle on a Creator? The science in this particular area is in it's infancy and the physics around what we might, for convenience, term 'pre-creation' is only just being formulated.

I'm not suggesting we should discount the Creator possibility, but when we have multiverses, oscillating universes, zero sum universes and a whole bunch of other stuff still to investigate, it might be jumping the gun a bit to make a final declaration just yet.

[QED]

But my point is that when we refer to things as being "material" we are using a form of shorthand, a convenient label for something the nature of which is not fully understood. This doesn't mean that it's mysticism but it doesn't take too much surveying of current research into Quantum Gravity to see that matter is a form of illusion. I think we get into these dualistic arguments precisely because of this arbitrary classification. I'm kind of disappointed that you don't have much sympathy with this observation because no amount of argument based on an arbitrary divide between material realism on the one hand and platonism on the other is going to make much sense to me.

Here's an article that you will probably enjoy, it reveals the dilemma faced by materialists:

In a New York Times article on black holes, Dr. Raffael Bousso of the University of California at Santa Barbara, describing the holographic principle first articulated in 1993 by Dr. Gerard ’t Hooft of Utrecht and later developed by Dr. Leonard Susskind of Stanford University, said: “We clearly see the world the way we see a hologram. We see three dimensions. When you look at one of those chips, it looks pretty real, but in our case the illusion is perfect.” Susskind added as clarification for the reporter, “We don’t read the hologram. We are the hologram.”54 This means that it is a fundamental mistake to attempt to imagine the universe as it appears to God,55 and that our models of the universe, even those models based on mathematics, are forever doomed to reflect the holographic perspective of the observer. The materialist, if he is right, is condemned to be trapped forever within a near perfect illusion, one he may know is there, but one he cannot in principle transcend.

[harvey1]

But, to the point in hand, don't you think there are loads of possible avenues yet to explore regarding the creation of our universe before we settle on a Creator? The science in this particular area is in it's infancy and the physics around what we might, for convenience, term 'pre-creation' is only just being formulated. I'm not suggesting we should discount the Creator possibility, but when we have multiverses, oscillating universes, zero sum universes and a whole bunch of other stuff still to investigate, it might be jumping the gun a bit to make a final declaration just yet.

I understand your point, and in the areas that encompass the majority of scientific investigation this is like an absolute truth if there is such a thing. However, there are very slight exceptions to this rule that are so obvious that they are mostly hidden assumptions. In this case, for whatever reason, these mostly hidden assumptions have been ignored or at least given no higher epistemic status than the the principle you mentioned here (let's call it the principle of theoretical ignorance: when in a state of theoretical infancy/ignorance on a topic, we ought not to commit to an ontological position regarding the topic).

However, this principle of theoretical ignorance is itself based on the following hidden assumptions:

1) Principle of rationality: The principle of theoretical ignorance only applies to rational conceptions. No one is suggesting that we allow ourselves to remain ignorant with regard to completely irrational conceptions (e.g., this would be false: "we don't know what the quantum theory of gravity looks like, so it could entail the physics of Bugs Bunny's Looneytune world").

2) Principle of conceivability: Theoretical ignorance cannot apply to what is not conceivable since in that case all scientific knowledge would be faulty and never able to overcome the objection that we simply cannot conceive of whatever it is that makes the theory false. True, we might forever be wrong because of our lack of being able to conceive of things, but epistemically we are not justified in this kind of extreme skeptical position since no human knowledge can meet that level, and we must be justified in believing certain things as correct knowledge given our pragmatic experiences with having human knowledge (e.g., scientific knowledge).

In almost every case where we apply the principle of theoretical ignorance, these two principles I mentioned are of higher epistemic value. In fact, there wouldn't even be any meaning to the principle of theoretical ignorance since knowledge couldn't even exist for us to be cautious about coming to premature conclusions.

However, in the case of my discussion with QED, here we have the two principles clearly violated. It is not rational to believe that nothing can produce regularities which somehow make a universe independent. In addition, it is not a valid argument to say that we simply cannot conceive of a way that this could be true therefore we should remain uncommitted since this argument could be used for every instance of scientific knoweldge (or any kind of knowledge such as there are minds other than ourselves).

The principle of theoretical ignorance has its place once it can be shown that the principle of rationality and principle of conceivability have not been violated or ignored. So, as an example, I think string theory demands that we remain theoretically ignorant since there are other possibilities (e.g., quantum loop gravity), and string theory has many areas that are far from having a solution. I have shown that I'm not rationally compelled to believe in string theory because of this, and I have also shown that there are real conceivable solutions that aren't wholly based on what we know not.

[harvey1]

But my point is that when we refer to things as being "material" we are using a form of shorthand, a convenient label for something the nature of which is not fully understood. This doesn't mean that it's mysticism but it doesn't take too much surveying of current research into Quantum Gravity to see that matter is a form of illusion. I think we get into these dualistic arguments precisely because of this arbitrary classification. I'm kind of disappointed that you don't have much sympathy with this observation because no amount of argument based on an arbitrary divide between material realism on the one hand and platonism on the other is going to make much sense to me.

I understand, QED, however you are saying that we can't even conceive of an answer to a very simple philosophical dilemma. It's not the same situation of pointing out to me many ways in which the view can be wrong, so we must wait for empirical data/theory to confirm it. Here's a case where there's no conceived solution that can possibly solve the proposal for a independent universe. The proposal doesn't make sense from what I can see, yet you don't think that should count against it. From where I stand that eliminates it as an epistemic consideration.

[HughDP]

1) Principle of rationality: The principle of theoretical ignorance only applies to rational conceptions. No one is suggesting that we allow ourselves to remain ignorant with regard to completely irrational conceptions (e.g., this would be false: "we don't know what the quantum theory of gravity looks like, so it could entail the physics of Bugs Bunny's Looneytune world").

We have to be very careful when we attempt to define 'rationality'. The suggestion that time is relative would have seemed totally irrational at one time (no pun intended!), and I'm sure the idea of 11-dimensional spacetime, string/M-theory, holographic universes and such could have seemed Looneytune long ago but now receive genuine scientific attention.

In principle though, I'll grant you that we have to proceed within certain bounds of rationality or we'd make no progress. It would seem ludicrous, for example, for me to suggest that the universe was croaked into existence out of the mouth of a giant frog and I'd suggest that most people would agree that's irrational by any standard.

2) Principle of conceivability: Theoretical ignorance cannot apply to what is not conceivable since in that case all scientific knowledge would be faulty and never able to overcome the objection that we simply cannot conceive of whatever it is that makes the theory false. True, we might forever be wrong because of our lack of being able to conceive of things, but epistemically we are not justified in this kind of extreme skeptical position since no human knowledge can meet that level, and we must be justified in believing certain things as correct knowledge given our pragmatic experiences with having human knowledge (e.g., scientific knowledge).

Yes, but isn't this linked to what is rational? When we push the boundaries of our knowledge, we conceive of new ideas that sometimes become rational within science (of course, sometimes they don't).

However, in the case of my discussion with QED, here we have the two principles clearly violated. It is not rational to believe that nothing can produce regularities which somehow make a universe independent.

Well I had a certain sympathy for the suggestion because of the zero sum universe theories, in which the net balance of matter/energy is, in fact, zero. Yet they still postulate how the universe could come into existence, literally from nothing.

The principle of theoretical ignorance has its place once it can be shown that the principle of rationality and principle of conceivability have not been violated or ignored.

As I said above, I almost agree with you there, but we have to be very careful not limit ourselves with rigid mindsets.

So, as an example, I think string theory demands that we remain theoretically ignorant since there are other possibilities (e.g., quantum loop gravity), and string theory has many areas that are far from having a solution. I have shown that I'm not rationally compelled to believe in string theory because of this, and I have also shown that there are real conceivable solutions that aren't wholly based on what we know not.

I think my point was, though, that you appear to have settled on a pantheistic position, even given that we both agree (I think) that science still has an awful lot to learn. I simply thought it was jumping the gun. Are you, for example, prepared to continually re-evaluate that position and abandon it in the light of new discoveries if necessary?

Anyway, please carry on with your discussions with QED which I appear to have rudely interrupted. They have made for interesting reading.

[harvey1]

Yes, but isn't this linked to what is rational? When we push the boundaries of our knowledge, we conceive of new ideas that sometimes become rational within science (of course, sometimes they don't).

Sure. However, I think if you look back into history, almost every scientific advance was at least conceived at an earlier time; such as, evolutionary theory (Anaxiamander 611-547 b.c. and Lucretius 99-55 b.c.), natural selection (Maupertuis in 1745), black holes (John Mitchell in 1783), multiple universes (Giordano Bruno in the 16th century), nebula cloud formation of planets (Immanuel Kant in 1755), atoms (Demicritus in the 4th century b.c.), etc..

Well I had a certain sympathy for the suggestion because of the zero sum universe theories, in which the net balance of matter/energy is, in fact, zero. Yet they still postulate how the universe could come into existence, literally from nothing.

This is different than saying the universe came from nothing. There are laws which exist (e.g., the uncertainty principle) in those ideas which is the reason given for the universe popping into existence. The universe would be dependent on those laws.

As I said above, I almost agree with you there, but we have to be very careful not limit ourselves with rigid mindsets.

Of course, thinking that we shouldn't limit ourselves can also be a rigid mindset. Afterall, there's still people out there who think the earth is flat (i.e., assuming they are serious).

I think my point was, though, that you appear to have settled on a pantheistic position, even given that we both agree (I think) that science still has an awful lot to learn. I simply thought it was jumping the gun. Are you, for example, prepared to continually re-evaluate that position and abandon it in the light of new discoveries if necessary?

Sure. However, I established this view because I don't see any other way to avoid it and still be committed to a rational conception of the universe. In order for that to slip away there would have to be some very odd findings of science that would bring about deep skepticism of science.

Anyway, please carry on with your discussions with QED which I appear to have rudely interrupted. They have made for interesting reading.

You're not interrupting. It's always enjoyable to get other points of views.

[Bro Dave]

We all know that the majority of the worlds population is ´stupid´, to simplify. But how come so many educated people, with capacity to think, still believe in gods?

Scrotum, you approach this topic with the assumption that no one experiences God directly, personally. You are incorrect. Just because it is not possible for that experience to be directly shared or proven, does in no way negate its reality. It is as real as any experience you have had, physical or not.

Instead of talking about gods specifically , i would like to use the Tooth Fairy as a substitute, as there is no difference, and shows the ridicule of the whole thing.

Oh goody! A “strawman” argument.

Both John/Harvey & Otsent believe in the Tooth Fairy. Otsent believes in a specific Tooth Fairy, together with John, whom is more of a fundamentalist, Whiles Harvey is more close to a Different Tooth Fairy.

None of these people have any proof or logical based evidence for the existence of their Tooth Fairy. None at all. They simply state he or she exist, and thats the end of story.


Why?
Personally, i always presumed the contemporary belief of a Tooth Fairy to be because of fear. Death is a scary thought for most people (remember, the general population is ignorant, and ignorance brings fear), and also the fact that you would be forced to take responsobility for your life,which the existence of the Tooth Fairy removes.


Whats your view?
Why do you think people believe in such things? Is there other reasons then fear and plain ignorance?

We all were created as free will beings. You get to choose whether or not you want God to be a part of your life or not. You, obviously have chosen “not”. So, why ridicule those who on a daily, moment to moment basis, have a personal relationship with God? Is it a fear thing?

Bro Dave