The Problem with Religious Moderation

[helene_t]

But why did He do it on the 2017149th day...

+/- 4,000,000,000,000th days I thought? Or has the big bang theory recently been revised?

[billw55]

+/- 4,000,000,000,000th days I thought? Or has the big bang theory recently been revised?

I think Rik is referencing young earth ideology. 6000 yr ~ 2x10⁶ days.

[Vampyr]

In what way?

 

The gods created us - why?

We created the gods - why?

 

I see no purpose, just a useless circle. What do you see?

 

I don't see it either. We are here, and many individuals have a purpose, which might be to find a cure for cancer or be a tyrannical dictator. But as for "us, being here" for a purpose... I'm not even sure what it would mean for the whole of humanity to have a collective purpose. If there is something specific we are supposed to accomplish, I never received the memo (and I did go to Catholic school for nine years, and have read all of the Bible. So the answer is not in those places).

[PassedOut]

But why did He do it on the 2017149th day...

 

Didn't He have his priorities straight? ;)

 

Rik

If he had given it more thought, god would have invented science much earlier. Better late than never.

:P

[Trinidad]

But why did He do it on the 2017149th day...

 

Didn't He have his priorities straight? ;)

 

Rik

Oops... I just noted this is a Sunday. No wonder christian fundamentalists have a problem with science.

 

;)

 

Rik

[mike777]

For some reason people choose to forget that great advances in science were made by Christians who accepted Jesus. Just as those who rejected god created great evil. To name only a few, Hitler, Mao, Stalin and many others.

 

If your point is many others sinned in God's name, I agree. And yes the pews are full of sinners including me. Thus some of us pray for Grace.

 

As I yet point out you can fully believe in an afterlife and yet reject all gods.

[Vampyr]

For some reason people choose to forget that great advances in science were made by Christians who accepted Jesus. Just as those who rejected god created great evil. To name only a few, Hitler, Mao, Stalin and many others.

 

And vice versa. What is your point?

 

As I yet point out you can fully believe in an afterlife and yet reject all gods.

 

Yes, you have mentioned this many times. Do you have a source?

[Trinidad]

For some reason people choose to forget that great advances in science were made by Christians who accepted Jesus.

Of course, there have been Christian scientists. But I think it is generally recognized that major scientific advances were made during the Enlightenment when it started to be possible to doubt the classic Christian dogma's. I think it is also recognized that Christianity has been a barrier for scientific advancement.

 

Most of the western scientists (Galilei, Newton, etc.) were Christians, for the simple fact that everybody was a Christian. There was not much choice.

 

I don't know many great scientists who converted from non-believers to Christians by actively "accepting Jesus". I do know good scientists who are Christians, but all their ancestors are Christians too.

 

Just as those who rejected god created great evil. To name only a few, Hitler, Mao, Stalin and many others.

There are bad people everywhere: among believers and among non believers, as well as among white, black, yellow, red, short, tall, slim and fat people, among communists and capitalists, men, women, young and old.

 

But did any of these bad guys ("Hitler, Mao, Stalin and many others") commit their athrocities in the name of non-believing? I don't think so. That was a little bit different for -just to name one- the Spanish inquisition.

 

If your point is many others sinned in God's name, I agree. And yes the pews are full of sinners including me. Thus some of us pray for Grace.

I also make mistakes. I will try to learn from them to prevent making them again. Asking an Almighty_Being_Who_Probably_Doesn't_Exist for Grace seems like a waste of time that I could use to analyze why I went wrong to begin with and how to prevent this in the future.

 

As I yet point out you can fully believe in an afterlife and yet reject all gods.

Of course. I don't see a need for a causal relationship between believing in afterlife and believing in god(s). I may have missed something, but I don't think anyone claimed there was a need for such a relationship. There seems to be a fair degree of correlation, though, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything.

 

Rik

[Winstonm]

 

I also make mistakes. I will try to learn from them to prevent making them again. Asking an Almighty_Being_Who_Probably_Doesn't_Exist for Grace seems like a waste of time that I could use to analyze why I went wrong to begin with and how to prevent this in the future.

 

Rik

 

Of all the post on this thread, this one gets to the very heart of the Sam Harris argument - that reliance upon a god to directly solve man's difficulties is too often used as a simplistic proxy for the complex reality-based task of finding human answers to human problems, and such reliance on these proxies inhibits genuine human growth.

[Vampyr]

Of course. I don't see a need for a causal relationship between believing in afterlife and believing in god(s). I may have missed something, but I don't think anyone claimed there was a need for such a relationship. There seems to be a fair degree of correlation, though, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything.

Except in some very unusual cases, none of which spring to mind, of course the relationship is causal. And in any case, it would require some supernatural agent to enable our consciousness to continue to exist while our brains are worm food or ashes.

[barmar]

Today's Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal is apropos:

 

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=3161

[billw55]

Except in some very unusual cases, none of which spring to mind, of course the relationship is causal. And in any case, it would require some supernatural agent to enable our consciousness to continue to exist while our brains are worm food or ashes.

Perhaps. But the supernatural agent need not, itself, be conscious; in which case I would not call it a god.

[helene_t]

it would require some supernatural agent to enable our consciousness to continue to exist while our brains are worm food or ashes.

hmmm ... I think I disagree, except in the trivial sense that if 2+2=5 then everything is true (including the existence of god).

 

People who believe that the mind can exist independently of the brain, and therefore interpret out-of-body-experiences literally, and believe in reincarnation etc, are probably prone to believe in many weird things, spiritual and otherwise. But in principle I see nothing inconsistent in believing that the mind is made of some strange stuff that isn't bound to our 3-dimensional space, while at the same time not believing in god.

[blackshoe]

Why is there Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal on Thursday?

[barmar]

Why is there Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal on Thursday?

SMBC is so good, it comes out every day.

[mikeh]

Perhaps. But the supernatural agent need not, itself, be conscious; in which case I would not call it a god.

Completely off topic, the best book I have ever read on the effect of consciousness is, of all things, a science fiction novel: Blindsight, by Watts.

 

It posits the discovery in near-space of a structure that, on investigation, is the work of a space-traveling form of intelligent life that lacks consciousness. At the same time, humans have identified a sub variant of homo sapiens that underlies vampire myths, and have been able to 'civilize' such people, but one of their characteristics is that while they are very intelligent, they, too, lack consciousness.

 

It sounds weird, especially the vampire bit, but it isn't 'fantasy' fiction. It is in fact what is called 'hard science fiction' in that nothing in its imagined world is inconsistent with our current understanding of physics....no warp drive, no magic. And vampirism doesn't bestow eternal life nor does a stake in the heart constitute the only sure way of killing them :P

 

His main idea seems to be that consciousness comes at a real price: that intelligence that lacks self-awareness is likely to be far more efficient than our messy version, but that is very definitely, from our perspective, bad news.

 

I have seen Blindsight deservedly, imo, on lists of the best science fiction novels of all time, but I also know that it didn't sell well, perhaps because Watts is not a widely known writer, and partly because science fiction is very much a niche market. If by writing about the book, I can get him some sales, so much the better :D

[Vampyr]

hmmm ... I think I disagree, except in the trivial sense that if 2+2=5 then everything is true (including the existence of god).

 

People who believe that the mind can exist independently of the brain, and therefore interpret out-of-body-experiences literally, and believe in reincarnation etc, are probably prone to believe in many weird things, spiritual and otherwise. But in principle I see nothing inconsistent in believing that the mind is made of some strange stuff that isn't bound to our 3-dimensional space, while at the same time not believing in god.

 

Yes, fine, but the majority of, eg Christians, believe that Jesus provides eternal life.

[blackshoe]

Laurence Watts? I remember that name, though I don't remember reading him.

[nige1]

IMO, consciousness is simply the ability of your brain

• to collate relevant stimuli and memories
• to create an imaginary model of reality with you and your internal processes as part of that model
• treating yourself as a unique distinct self-aware active agent,
• so that you can estimate the effect of your actions on yourself and reality in a purposeful way,
• icing on the cake is being able to verbalise this so that other conscious beings understand.

Under such an interpretation, a computer-program can pass any Turing-Test for consciousness.

 

Incidentally, the soul is the God particle (Genesis 2:7) :)

[mike777]

IMO, consciousness is simply the ability of your brain

• to collate relevant stimuli and memories
• to create an imaginary model of reality with you and your internal processes as part of that model
• treating yourself as a unique distinct self-aware active agent,
• so that you can estimate the effect of your actions on yourself and reality in a purposeful way,
• icing on the cake is being able to verbalise this so that other conscious beings understand.

Under such an interpretation, a computer-program can pass any Turing-Test for consciousness.

 

Incidentally, the soul is the God particle (Genesis 2:7) :)

 

 

Not so simple. I doubt this is generally accepted as a definition and measure. As I understand it still no accepted definition and way to measure and compare.

[32519]

Which is heavier?

1. A kilogram of feathers, or

2. A kilogram of gold.

[Zelandakh]

The kilogram of feathers is heavier, since gold is measured in troy weight and that is lighter than a standard gram. If using the same measure then the question is obviously trivial.

[Trinidad]

I would say that it depends on whether the chicken is still attached to the feathers.

 

Rik

[helene_t]

if by "heavier" you mean "have bigger weight" while by "a kilogram of ..." you mean "a quantity with mass 1 kg" then the gold is heavier because of Archimedes' law (it replaces less air). But maybe that is not what the question means .....

[gwnn]

I expect that in any normal measurement if you get 1.00kg in a weighing scale, there would be significantly less than 1 kg of actual feathers due to the air packed next to them (even leaving aside the air trapped inside each individual feather). Conversely, if you put 1 kg of actual feathers in a large bag and weighed it, it would be significantly heavier than 1.00 kg.

 

edit: how could I forget about buoyancy! It is a complete game changer!