Your last point first: I share your awe of science and all it shows us as we peel back layer after layer. I don't see a conflict in admiring science's ability to tell the "how" of things and philosophy or religion's search to answer the "why".
Regarding a prime mover vs. an answer not yet found by science, I think each takes a leap of faith. You choose to speculate that science will someday find an answer to the start of all things and that that answer will not involve a prime mover in any way, shape or form. You eliminate any possibility of a prime mover out of hand. It would seem that a consistent answer should instead be "I do not know, and I cannot eliminate the possibility of a force beyond my comprehension. Though I think such a thing is improbable, still I cannot eliminate the possibility." Right?
To say belief in a prime mover begs a greater question of who created the creator. It is a not starter. I you believe in the possibility of a prime mover, accepting the idea that you cannot define its scope or origin is small potatoes. And the argument is a diversion from your own leap of faith in the impossibility of such a prime mover. Because I choose to speculate that something may have initiated all of this, and that its substance is beyond my comprehension, seems no more speculative than your belief that that cannot possibly be possible.
I don't find such speculation sad or silly, just open. And I don't see the openness as ignorance, just a humble acknowledgement of the possibility. I don't see it negating anything that science answers nor do I see it trivializing what science seeks. To the contrary, I find great inspiration in both, and pride in man's capacity and perseverance.
What I find somewhat puzzling is the definitive answer offered by atheists to the ultimate question. Again, it would seem more intellectually honest to say that without absolute evidence we cannot eliminate the idea of a prime mover.
I can comfortably say that you may be right, but that I choose to believe in the possibility that you are not. That is my leap of faith.
If you cannot comfortably say the same about my view, it would seem your position is the blind leap of faith.
Now, with all that said, I enjoy your thoughtful posts, and always look forward to these sorts of threads.
I don't believe dinosaurs roamed the earth playing with little baby humans, nor that the earth is 6000 years old, nor that a snake talked to our singularly perfect ancestors. Theology, mythology, whatever. I believe that the way you live your life is infinitely more consequential than the philosophy by which you live it.
But I do believe in the possibility, and for me that informs the way I live life.
Cheers,
Rob
"You choose to speculate that science will someday find an answer to the start of all things and that that answer will not involve a prime mover in any way, shape or form" . . . . . . . "Again, it would seem more intellectually honest to say that without absolute evidence we cannot eliminate the idea of a prime mover. . "
What I stated was that to date I have seen absolutley no evidence to suggest a 'prime mover', a god, or anything of that sort. Let me try and be very clear here. I don't really know of any atheists who do absolutely rule out the possibility of some sort of god absolutley, or as you prefer to say 'prime mover'. Even Richard Dawkins prefers to use a scale when speaking about this. As an example, 10 being absolute certainty that no god exists, and 1 being that one does. Most athiests I am aware of would rate themselves a 9, Dawkins included. Just because there is as of now no evidence or logic behind the idea of something, does not of course mean we can absolutley rule it out completely. This is the same for the tooth fairy, and santa claus. I cannot absolutley rule out the possibility that a tooth fairy exists. In the sense that the evidence absolutley proving the non existence of the tooth fairy is not absolute. Yes that is very true. However, I would not call myself a 'tooth fairy agnostic', for the same reason that I do not refer to myself as a Quezecoatal -agnostic, or a Thor agnostic, or a Jesus agnostic. Bertrand Rusell's tea pot analogy answered this question for me sometime ago. I understand that others with similiar views may still prefer the term 'agnostic', but for reasons of clarity as it refers to the common use of language I myself find atheist much more accurate.
". . .Again, it would seem more intellectually honest to say that without absolute evidence we cannot eliminate the idea of a prime mover."
See above, this argument can also be said for santa claus, or the tooth fairy. And I am a tooth fairy atheist in the same sense that I am a Allah or Jesus atheist. But you are quite right in that I cannot rule out the possibility absolutley that the tooth fairy is real. As you stated above. . "Though I think such a thing is improbable, still I cannot eliminate the possibility." That stated, I don't consider non belief in the tooth fairy to be a question of faith, anymore then I consider the belief that if I throw an object in the air gravity will cause it to fall back down to be a question of faith. And I certainly wouldn't ever equate it to the sort of faith people who believe in a personal god claim to hold. Those are two very different things, factually speaking.
And as I stated previously, the attempt to answer a question like "where did life come from" with something like God, an intelligence, aliens, or a "prime mover", is not actually an answer. It is in truth, the failure to even seek an answer. When you attempt to answer the question, 'where did intelligent life come from', by positing an even greater form of intelligent life, you only compound the problem. Surely you can see that?
And if you add to it that this intelligence is 'a force beyond my comprehension', all you do is relegate the question itself to a position beyond science. A position beyond testing, argument, or the tools of rational inquiry. This is what mankind has always done with questions they felt no answer was available for at the time. The majority handed it over to the clerics and witchdoctors, and instead of true knowledge mankind got superstition aka: religion.
What if Darwin had said simply "God made it, and God is a force beyond our comprehension". That was after all the common paradigm at the time. Where then would modern biology be? God, the force, aliens, the flying speggetti monster, Jesus, Krishna, the prime mover, whatever name you want to insert, is not an answer to the queston of life, it is simply a failure to seek further human understanding of our universe.
In that sense Monty Python was quite correct, science class would consist of a short one line sentence to all of life's great puzzles. . ."god (the prime mover) did it".
If evidence where to arise that pointed to some form of great intelligence which designed the universe, I'd love to see it and be very interested in it, to say the least. But in the absence of such evidence I see no more reason to posit a belief in some sort of personal creator diety, especially one with a cultural name such as Odin, Alah, Jesus, or Thor, then I do to posit the belief in the tooth fairy. And I certainly see the destructive nature of such beliefs systems posing a great threat to the future survival of our species. Each believing it holds the answers from the one 'true' prime mover, and each holding an equal amount of evidence for that said belief. Which is to say, none.
Thanks for clarifying your position. It is perfectly reasonable and defensable.
Matt Thornton - But you are quite right in that I cannot rule out the possibility absolutley that the tooth fairy is real. As you stated above. . "Though I think such a thing is improbable, still I cannot eliminate the possibility."
The problem is, that in the matter of debate and logic, the argument 'It's true because you can't prove that it ISN'T true' is an ignorance fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
It's not a defensible position, as you stated.
Kai,
I'm not sure that the appeal to ignorance applies here as we are not attempting to prove or disprove on absolute terms the existence or non existence of God. We're in the realm of belief and opinion. The discussion reached a conclusion with each party acknowledging that his belief structure leaves room for the possibility that he might be wrong.
If you can offer an absolute proof to either POV, that would make some interesting reading!
Cheers,
Rob
robc - Kai,
I'm not sure that the appeal to ignorance applies here as we are not attempting to prove or disprove on absolute terms the existence or non existence of God. We're in the realm of belief and opinion. The discussion reached a conclusion with each party acknowledging that his belief structure leaves room for the possibility that he might be wrong.
If you can offer an absolute proof to either POV, that would make some interesting reading!
Cheers,
Rob
It has nothing to do with opinion or the like. When you debate a point, you are bound by trying to make your case logically.
When you you rely on a fallacy as your main point, you have no argument.
You forgot a few...fallacies, that is....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man - equating the tooth fairy (a childhood myth universally debunked by parents) to questions that remain unknown (e.g., the location of Thor's hammer)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illicit_minor - all religions point to the existence of a deity (or prime mover), all religions are flawed, therefore the concept of a deity (or prime mover) is flawed.
"all religions point to the existence of a deity (or prime mover), all religions are flawed, therefore the concept of a deity (or prime mover) is flawed. "
I have yet to see anyone use that as an argument. Must be reading a different thread. Perhaps the one Thor's hammer is located in.
www.straightblastgym.com
Premise 1 (Religion is flawed): The historical reality is that you can directly blame religious belief (faith) for a whole host of destructive attrocities [from a previous post].
Premise 2 (Critical thinking is not flawed and is blameless): You cannot blame a lack of belief (faith) for anything. Communism is, and certainly was under Stalin a dogma [also a statement from a previous post].
Conclusion (there is no God): A-theism is simply a lack of belief in an imaginary figure [again, a statement from a previous post].
Or is this not an attempt at a logical argument and the statement...
I certainly do hope my grandkids see our culture as a whole as less then rational. After all, a large population of Americans still believe noah took two of every animal on the ark, that mankind is 6000 years old, and that snakes can talk. . .yep, no doubt thats silly. The fact that the above is silly is not a difference of opinion. Its just a fact [from the same post].
..is not based on a series of premises and conclusions but merely the bold assertion that 'Its just a fact.'
Not certain where the critical thinking is there. Maybe in another post or thread.
Fascinating how a group of people who spend hours every day practicing how to bend, fold, spindle and mutilate other human beings in the pursuit of something intangible (e.g., becoming a better person, conquering your fears, some sort of enlightenment, etc.) can have any criticism of the term or practice of 'blind faith.'
There is absolutely no evidence to point to the fact that training in any sort of martial art yields any degree of character development.
The ranks of skilled martial arts practitioners are replete with convicted criminals and individuals who have made their own adverse contributions to society. Not to criticize the practice or sport, but if the intangible was guaranteed then we would never see...http://www.wnct.com/nct/news/crime/article/local_martial_arts_instructor_sentenced_on_indecent_liberties_charges/26571/.
Practicing for the purpose of anything other than learning how to impart or avoid physical violence is not that many steps away from 'blind faith.'
Or is that the only reason to practice?
Or is it just blind faith in another deity? Not Thor but MMA? Not the tooth fairy but Bruce Lee?
Odd, your connecting dots to a drawing you created yourself. Those are not the arguments written in the thread. Lets unpack this:
Is religion responsible for a whole host of atrocities?
Of course it is. I offered the attacks of 9/11 as one example, the atrocties of the Talban would be another low hanging fruit. As would the failure to send condoms to 3rd world nations on grounds that are labeled outright as "religious". We could go on, but the list is almost endless.
Is a lack of belief in something a 'dogma'?
Of course it isnt. I don't believe in astology either. But my lack of belief in astrology does not constitute an anti-astrology dogma. The fact is I am simply not convinced by the "evidence" that astrology is anything other then nonsense. The Koran claims to be the last true testament of the one true god. However, I am quite sure that the vast majority of Christians are not convinced by this statement. And that is of course why they do not convert to Islam. Is that failure to be convinced by the argument of Islam, a dogma? No it is not, it is simply a lack of belief.
Was that reality, the fact that religion is quite often directly responsible for negative things, and the fact that lack of belief is not in and of itself a 'dogma', presented as the 'evidence that there is no 'god'?
No it was not.
So you are simply making things up, confused, and/or reading a different thread.
Your second post is a bit strange, so you will have to forgive me but I have no idea what you are trying to say there. And regards the opinions of a 'group', these are my opions, not some 'groups'. Everyone else can and should get their own opinions, regardless of "group".
BTW, where are you from?
so no link between the examples and discussion of the destructive nature of superstition (religion), the comparison between believing in a deity and believing in Zeus (or the tooth fairy), the labeling of religious belief as fiction and the lack of need for the term 'atheism.'
just a religion is foolish (destructive, tantamount to believing in Zeus) tome? and a thumbs up for the movie?
ok...
the second post was perhaps a poor attempt to bring attention to the fact that everyone chooses to believe in something that they cannot entirely quantify or prove the overwhelming merit of....and that misplaced belief is in the eye of the observer and an almost purely subjective labeling.
Tom Petty -> you believe what you wanna believe...and everyone does....so what...no need to label it as silly and/or destructive.
From DC (originally).
"so no link between the examples and discussion of the destructive nature of superstition (religion), the comparison between believing in a deity and believing in Zeus (or the tooth fairy), the labeling of religious belief as fiction and the lack of need for the term 'atheism.'"
The fact that Jehovah, Zeus, the tooth fairy, and Allah are all mythological characters does not mean that there is no god. And nobody attempted to make that argument.
"that misplaced belief is in the eye of the observer and an almost purely subjective labeling."
Not all beliefs, all superstitions, and all religions are equally dangerous. We have yet to see a Jain suicide bomber, and last I checked Christians were no longer throwing rocks at young womens heads until they die. Where as some Muslim nations still do. Those are all positive changes. So your moral equivalence there is a bit missplaced. But I do agree that belief without evidence shouldn't be something we label as 'noble'. The world does not suffer from too much rational thinking.
www.straightblastgym.com
so morality is somehow intrinsically related to the value of a belief system (dangerous vs. a conduit for positive change)?
how is this related to the plausibility of that same belief system?
what if the positive impact was overwhelming but the religion was based entirely on nonsense?
or if the underlying principles were indisputable but the results of exercising the practices of this particular faith were entirely destructive?
"so morality is somehow intrinsically related to the value of a belief system (dangerous vs. a conduit for positive change)?"
I am not sure what a given society would label as "morality". But there can be no doubt that behaviours and actions are directly linked to belief systems. Such as the belief in an Islamic heaven, and its direct relationship to suicide bombers.
"what if the positive impact was overwhelming but the religion was based entirely on nonsense?. . . or if the underlying principles were indisputable but the results of exercising the practices of this particular faith were entirely destructive? "
Both very good questions that have yet to be discussed on this thread. But questions we should all ask ourselves when dealing at the practical level of providing resources to help others.
www.straightblastgym.com
Different strokes for different folks.
I think we can universally agree on that fundamentalism is evil.
I personally train because it is subjectively fun for me. If religion on whatever scale from believing in talking snakes to suspecting an anonymous prime mover is subjectively fun for someone - who am I to stop or convert him?
If religion on whatever scale from believing in talking snakes to suspecting an anonymous prime mover is subjectively fun for someone - who am I to stop or convert him?
If it were only that simple Jorx. First, nobody I am aware of has ever suggested 'stopping them', not through legislation, or any other such means. What has been suggested is a level of conversational intolerance when it comes to superstition being applied to everyday adult policy decisions which effect others.
Why that is important is because people that believe in a talking snake quite often want to legislate laws that effect the rest of us, based on religious ideas that hold the same rational basis as the talking snake does. And that is bad for everyone. And in other places, such as some Islamic nations, the insanity is taken much-much further. So no, it's not just a "fun" idea that people tend to hold onto, while leaving everyone else alone. If that were the case religion today would look far different then it does.
Yup, true. But as they have some kind of a unitary belief and value system to unite under and we critical and intelligent ppl do not (not to mention tendency for mass movement and easier influence and group thinking) then I think we are a dying breed:)
(add to that the fact that ppl with higher IQ tend to have less children and what u get is not a brighter self-organizing future which will regulate itself toward the better as older more fundamentalist generations die out)
"I was wondering if the priest Maher talked to at the Vatican was really a Priest or just some crazy person"
A crazy Catholic priest, isn't that redundent?
"there were a couple of scenes where Maher pulled historical evidence out of his ass that simply doesn't exist."
Can you give an example of one of these facts?