"The Religion thread" Part II

[Rusty]

Basic rule: you can choose your religion but not your race, sex, or sexual orientation.

Much like an insurance company, we'll permit discrimination on the choosable, but not on the unchangeable.

[Lusipher]

Last time I looked you werent the Infra Admin, Rusty.

Hopefully, when we get a new Infra Admin we might see this stupid off topic forum finally changed so we can all get back to stop sparring with each other and working on the project.

[Rusty]

Nothing makes you post - or even read - here, Danubus. You have a choice; if OT upsets, exercise it and ignore.

[Lusipher]

No, thats not the point, Rusty. The fact the project allows the bashing or even some of the topics is what makes me upset. We try to promote ourselves as this huge community and try to make ourselves not to be the roleplaying nazis that most folks in the NWN community think we are. This crap thats allowed in the OT really makes folks coming in here as newbies think twice about us. Ive been to a lot of other NWN community projects forums and they dont allow this type of crap and their communties are tight knit, work together, and dont have all the drama and annimosity.

Its the fact that the project allows it is whats wrong. If you cant see that then your just dense.

[AlmightyTDawg]

Or as Spinoza and Einstein believed, the Big Bang *was* the go button, and the creator spirit hasn't been involved directly since. But this POV fails under Occam's razor, since there is no reason a being has to push the go button in the first place. If you seriously grapple with the origin of the idea of gods and monsters, they come from the stone age, and there is no reason to believe such ancient fantasies have any basis in reality. That's the crux of the whole thing. Our concept of the creator spirit comes from pre-history, a time when we understood exactly nothing. Yet, the idea has been too attractive to give up despite our accumulated knowledge for most people, which I suppose is proof of the persistence of ideas at least, if not the underlying premise of the supernatural.

Last time I checked, failing Occam's Razor does not mean that something is wrong. It's merely a mutual-theory selection strategy, the basis for which is itself an additional (and hence potentially unnecessary) underlying assumption or theory (oh the irony). In fact, there is a very serious question unanswered under the "go-button" theory, which goes back to simple conservation-of-energy. What was the basis for the mass-energy zero-point that exploded in the first place? Who created energy, given that we ostensibly can't do it ourselves?

Regardless of the history of the emphasis on a greater being, I suspect it would or could come about in much the same way that it did for the greatest of scientists. The mere appreciation of the vastness and beauty of the universe around us points to something higher than ourselves. Given the form of a deity (personified to some extent) or a consciousness/force/etc. just makes it easier to conceptualize. Granted we don't have the same level of need (and, given the religious right, a good many of us actively reject) for social ordering. And the sorts of ethical problems we're struggling with now are well beyond the basics of the Ten Commandments and long removed from subsistence-living community-survival-focused ancient teachings.

Given the ubiquity of the concept, it's probably difficult to isolate an individual and see if it spontaneously generates without sociological influence. But as to my way of thinking, I believe the concept of a deity is largely a reflection of how we feel things should be, even to the extent it's bounded and molded by an organized religion - I call it the existential victory.

Mulu will inevitably score points on the silly-o-meter with the dogma of some religions, at least in terms of jiving with empirical observation. But my only point with the "go-button" example is that it is both possible and reasonable to blend faith and science seamlessly. That it's unnecessary is a purely logical argument. Being that we're not purely (or even mostly come to think of it) logical creatures, it's also somewhat futile.

[Nekulor]

Or as Spinoza and Einstein believed, the Big Bang *was* the go button, and the creator spirit hasn't been involved directly since. But this POV fails under Occam's razor, since there is no reason a being has to push the go button in the first place. If you seriously grapple with the origin of the idea of gods and monsters, they come from the stone age, and there is no reason to believe such ancient fantasies have any basis in reality. That's the crux of the whole thing. Our concept of the creator spirit comes from pre-history, a time when we understood exactly nothing. Yet, the idea has been too attractive to give up despite our accumulated knowledge for most people, which I suppose is proof of the persistence of ideas at least, if not the underlying premise of the supernatural.

Last time I checked, failing Occam's Razor does not mean that something is wrong. It's merely a mutual-theory selection strategy, the basis for which is itself an additional (and hence potentially unnecessary) underlying assumption or theory (oh the irony). In fact, there is a very serious question unanswered under the "go-button" theory, which goes back to simple conservation-of-energy. What was the basis for the mass-energy zero-point that exploded in the first place? Who created energy, given that we ostensibly can't do it ourselves?

Regardless of the history of the emphasis on a greater being, I suspect it would or could come about in much the same way that it did for the greatest of scientists. The mere appreciation of the vastness and beauty of the universe around us points to something higher than ourselves. Given the form of a deity (personified to some extent) or a consciousness/force/etc. just makes it easier to conceptualize. Granted we don't have the same level of need (and, given the religious right, a good many of us actively reject) for social ordering. And the sorts of ethical problems we're struggling with now are well beyond the basics of the Ten Commandments and long removed from subsistence-living community-survival-focused ancient teachings.

Given the ubiquity of the concept, it's probably difficult to isolate an individual and see if it spontaneously generates without sociological influence. But as to my way of thinking, I believe the concept of a deity is largely a reflection of how we feel things should be, even to the extent it's bounded and molded by an organized religion - I call it the existential victory.

Mulu will inevitably score points on the silly-o-meter with the dogma of some religions, at least in terms of jiving with empirical observation. But my only point with the "go-button" example is that it is both possible and reasonable to blend faith and science seamlessly. That it's unnecessary is a purely logical argument. Being that we're not purely (or even mostly come to think of it) logical creatures, it's also somewhat futile.

Almightytdawg is my hero. Thank you for saying exactly what many of us here who think god is both plausible (and, in my case, a reality) needed to hear said. Sure, mulu can bash every known religion from here until the apocalypse (not sure I believe that will happen, mind you. Destruction on a universal scale? That would be some BIG power there.), but in the end, what is he accomplishing? Establishing that he believes religion is silly, and that other people agree? While that is perfectly fine if he wishes to believe that, I also have the right to my beliefs. I can't and won't force them on people, so essentially calling our beliefs stupid ,in a very polite way, is still attacking our beliefs.


I understand this is inevitable in a religion thread, and Mulu makes some valid arguments, especially that the Bible is not a perfect text, because it wasn't written by god himself (if it was, I certainly missed the book signing tour). All I'm trying to say is, that for every nonreligious person, there are many more who do believe. Is it wrong to do so? I don't think so, and until we prove or disprove god's existence scientifically the debate goes on. However, I look at the order the universe is in, and the chaos it should be in do to universal entropy, and I think that something has to be governing this crazy mess we live in.

Of course, if god is proven not to exist, I'll use quantum gate technology, move to the inevitable "Universe containing the forgotten realms"* and proceed to set up a life there.


*Due to quantum theory's assertion that all possibilities of a universe can exist in the multiverse, each with the possibility in variance of basic laws of physics, the probability of a "forgotten realms" universe in the multiverse is actually a near certainty, due to the infinite nature of the multiverse.

[Veilan]

Ockham's Razor fails everytime the sound of hooves really is caused by zebras.

[AlmightyTDawg]

Almightytdawg is my hero. Thank you for saying exactly what many of us here who think god is both plausible (and, in my case, a reality) needed to hear said. Sure, mulu can bash every known religion from here until the apocalypse (not sure I believe that will happen, mind you. Destruction on a universal scale? That would be some BIG power there.), but in the end, what is he accomplishing? Establishing that he believes religion is silly, and that other people agree? While that is perfectly fine if he wishes to believe that, I also have the right to my beliefs. I can't and won't force them on people, so essentially calling our beliefs stupid ,in a very polite way, is still attacking our beliefs.

Maybe the idea is to evolve religion - or better yet, your own personal faith. Religions tend to, by the nature of dogma, be stubbornly resistant to those sorts of things. To pirate shamelessly from Dogma:

Bethany: You're saying that having beliefs is a bad thing?
Rufus: I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier.

For me, that's involved taking a look at the nature of "editing" of God's word, the sort of cynical look at the way many religious functionaries still to this day pimp out God for their own personal belief structures, and a sort of comparative look between religions and the social interplay. Granted I'm nowhere near studied enough to contribute to this thread, but I look on religion back "in the day" as serving a social function - opiate or downright necessity depending on how you look at it.

It makes me tend to look on much of what is written less like facts and more like an allegory. I'm sort of Newton's Watchmaker in bent with Christian leanings, and I do believe in the concept of free will, and I don't believe in an afterlife where we're judged. It's funny, I spent so many years railing against existentialists as trendy goth pseudo-intellectualism only to end up one myself.

And I think that's why the Occam's Razor thing, applied to religion, is possibly a flawed application. The Razor is about selecting the more simple of two (or more) theories that account for the same observations. But religion isn't about observables and modeling. Religion is about answering the question "why?" And that's ultimately a personal question. For me, to believe there's no God-given purpose but to exercise my rationality to create the world I want to live in - well, that's enough for me. The brusque logic of the type Mulu (and plenty of others) espouse(s) is enough for me, because I find meaning in my mere existence. Some find it in the context of an afterlife. But because it's a personal question, various answers may be more or less unsatisfactory to a given person, and thus the premise of Occam's Razor (that multiple theories either confirm the data or answer the question appropriately) may not even be satisfied for those people.

[Mulu]

Last time I checked, failing Occam's Razor does not mean that something is wrong.

No, it just means it's less likely, but here is where I can tell you didn't actually read the threads. I've already explained the irrational basis for even allowing the possibility of a creator spirit. You're not addressing that prior argument at all. In fact, no one has really.

Who created energy, given that we ostensibly can't do it ourselves?

Current hypotheses has it coming from other dimensions. Zeus or his modern day incarnation isn't high on the list of possibilities among the rational, though I know it's a favorite among Americans.

The mere appreciation of the vastness and beauty of the universe around us points to something higher than ourselves.

Spoken like a true non-scientist. You know your math T, but you obviously never studied the natural sciences very much. What the Universe shows us more than anything is how incredibly trivial our species is, which is the opposite message of religion.

But as to my way of thinking, I believe the concept of a deity is largely a reflection of how we feel things should be

No, it's just cultural indoctrination. Read your sociology.

even to the extent it's bounded and molded by an organized religion - I call it the existential victory.

And I call it an irrational defeat. Or as Carl Sagan would put it, succumbing to superstition and fear.

But my only point with the "go-button" example is that it is both possible and reasonable to blend faith and science seamlessly.

With sufficient cognitive dissonance, you can blend any two beliefs.

Being that we're not purely (or even mostly come to think of it) logical creatures, it's also somewhat futile.

Speak for yourself. Then again, it probably is futile for the vast majority of humans. I've always felt athiesm is a sort of IQ/rationality test that most people simply fail. This is why I don't bother to try to convert people. It's something you have to realize for yourself. And at that point I'd be more than willing to leave it alone, but the failures of that IQ test keep trying to change governmental policies to reflect their superstitions rather than our scientific knowledge, and it really pisses me off that the fastest breeding monkeys win in a democracy, no matter how wrong they are.

[AlmightyTDawg]

Current hypotheses has it coming from other dimensions. Zeus or his modern day incarnation isn't high on the list of possibilities among the rational, though I know it's a favorite among Americans.

The last I knew of those theories, they didn't actually answer the question, merely reframed it. How the energy was contained in other dimensions, or rather what curled up the dimensions into the point, investing that insane energy inside of them, whatever. It doesn't matter if the idea of a deity isn't high on your list or anyone else's. It doesn't matter if it is more or less likely.

[quote="Mulu""]Spoken like a true non-scientist. You know your math T, but you obviously never studied the natural sciences very much. What the Universe shows us more than anything is how incredibly trivial our species is, which is the opposite message of religion.[/quote]
I'll just be sure to bin my bachelor's on your say-so. I actually take the opposite view - the limited development of conscious thought, the incredibly tiny beacons of space capable of supporting complex organic life, and the insane complexity in our biosphere - it's less about us, and more about the universe itself. Consciousness is the distinction, and while we've certainly learned that it's not a binary since then, the level of introspection and appreciation is clearly a pretty unique factor - whether you want to use the concept of a soul or self-revelation via the elegant refrains of the latest Lil John ditty.

No, it's just cultural indoctrination. Read your sociology.
...
And I call it an irrational defeat. Or as Carl Sagan would put it, succumbing to superstition and fear.

I think you missed my point there, which was that even within religion, individuals have their own personalized conceptions of God - within the "wiggle room" in some instances, and in the cases of a good many condom-loving Catholics, outside the "wiggle room."

Speak for yourself. Then again, it probably is futile for the vast majority of humans. I've always felt athiesm is a sort of IQ/rationality test that most people simply fail. This is why I don't bother to try to convert people. It's something you have to realize for yourself. And at that point I'd be more than willing to leave it alone, but the failures of that IQ test keep trying to change governmental policies to reflect their superstitions rather than our scientific knowledge, and it really pisses me off that the fastest breeding monkeys win in a democracy, no matter how wrong they are.

What a remarkably self-congratulatory IQ/rationality test you set up there! You must be very proud of your results!

Look, I'm with you on the extent to which religious belief can itself breed a superiority that certainly isn't commensurate with the tenuousness of that belief structure. Individual faith... good. Trying to force others to live with the consequences of your "gut" feel... bad. If it wasn't God that was involved, but rather the "Holiday Inn Express" intuition versus actual scientific study, there'd be no problem. The idea for God to "even the odds" is a bit sketchy, and trust me Mulu you'll find me at the front of the choir on most anti-religious right things.

But stick to the overdeveloped presence of religion in politics and education and the legal system.

[Mulu]

The last I knew of those theories, they didn't actually answer the question, merely reframed it. How the energy was contained in other dimensions, or rather what curled up the dimensions into the point, investing that insane energy inside of them, whatever. It doesn't matter if the idea of a deity isn't high on your list or anyone else's. It doesn't matter if it is more or less likely.

But it does matter if it's impossible, due to being wishful thinking rather than derivative of reason. Go back and read the thread, and the one before it. You've missed out on most of this debate, and I'm certainly not going to repeat it all.

I actually take the opposite view - the limited development of conscious thought

Unless you're talking about Christians I don't know what you are referring to. We have no way of knowing how many sentients there are in the Universe, but it stands to reason that they number in the billions of species, given the number of trials and time available. I wouldn't call that "limited." Don't take our ignorance and turn it into special purpose.

I think you missed my point there, which was that even within religion, individuals have their own personalized conceptions of God

A personalized conception of a nonexistant being is still a fall from rationality.

What a remarkably self-congratulatory IQ/rationality test you set up there! You must be very proud of your results!

They are remarkably predictive.

But stick to the overdeveloped presence of religion in politics and education and the legal system.

And where do you think that comes from? We Americans are quick to point out how moderate Muslims allow extremist Muslims to function, but seem to ignore that same affect here among Christians. This is what I tried to explain to Killy, why even a so-called "harmless" Christian really isn't harmless at all. They are enablers of the worst behaviors of the religious right, especially in regards to policy. And let's face it, they believe in something equivalent to Santa Claus. It's just embarassing man. I hope we don't meet any advanced civilizations anytime soon, we'd be the rubes in the room.

[Rotku]

Hopefully, when we get a new Infra Admin we might see this stupid off topic forum finally changed so we can all get back to stop sparring with each other and working on the project.

FWIW, I can see two things in the last few pages that may slightly boarder on a person attack and even then it is at a vast stretch. You must note the difference between a debate about a belief and an attack on someone. To quote myself: "Criticize and discuss to your heart's content, but do it constructively. No personal attacks, insults, or flames - be it on someone's person, religious beliefs, race, national background, sexual orientation or whatever."

[AlmightyTDawg]

A personalized conception of a nonexistant being is still a fall from rationality.

And...? The problem is that you have to have the underlying assumption that rationality is the ideal mode of operation for that statement to have the meaning I know you ascribe to it. It's likely why the argument is ultimately unconvincing to people - because from a philosophical perspective, you're touting the equivalent of a religion. Just one without an omnipotent, omniscient presence - which, incidentally, may make it explicitly unattractive to some people.

Man, if I listed all of my daily "falls from rationality" out on paper, the sheer weight of them might convince you that I'm borderline retarded. Hell, watch my behavior in the presence of a cute large-breasted dark-haired woman - nothing rational about some of the choices I make.

And indeed, plenty of social research has moved us well away from the idea of the "rational choice actor." We make decisions by instinct and emotion, and we are remarkably poor predictors of our future happiness.

And where do you think that comes from? We Americans are quick to point out how moderate Muslims allow extremist Muslims to function, but seem to ignore that same affect here among Christians. This is what I tried to explain to Killy, why even a so-called "harmless" Christian really isn't harmless at all. They are enablers of the worst behaviors of the religious right, especially in regards to policy. And let's face it, they believe in something equivalent to Santa Claus.

Merely subscribing to a belief structure, even a dogmatic structure, is not the equivalent of supporting everyone under that umbrella. Hell man, you just made Pinkerton liability look tame. Now, it clearly creates a problem in addressing people or having that discussion, "well, Bob... maybe you might want to ease up on the literal interpretation of that verse... unless you want to put down that pulled pork sandwich." But it's not impossible to hold a belief structure and militantly argue that it doesn't belong in politics precisely because of the inherent self-skepticism of the fact that it is indeed a belief. Maybe a bit too nuanced for everyone, but certainly possible.

But I think in the end, your beef is not with religion or faith - whether someone chooses to be rational or irrational on their own time is irrelevant. The issue is with how religion plays out in the common sphere, how it seems basically impossible to completely divorce it from its initial social ordering role.

But in continuing to focus on the "what" and "how" of religion, I think you miss the main point, which is the "why." Cold rationality is not necessarily sufficient for people. Whether or not I really do have a chance with my friend from Torts, and however I convince myself of it, really is none of anyone's bloody business. And unless they're a friend with privileges, they come off as a pretentious snot judging me for my belief, however misguided it may be. I'm with you on the public sphere. But man, you've gotta find a new delivery mechanism - it comes off as the sort of self-aggrandizement that makes so many haughty atheists equally as intolerable as haughty holy-rollers.

[Swift]

Hopefully, when we get a new Infra Admin we might see this stupid off topic forum finally changed so we can all get back to stop sparring with each other and working on the project.

FWIW, I can see two things in the last few pages that may slightly boarder on a person attack and even then it is at a vast stretch. You must note the difference between a debate about a belief and an attack on someone. To quote myself: "Criticize and discuss to your heart's content, but do it constructively. No personal attacks, insults, or flames - be it on someone's person, religious beliefs, race, national background, sexual orientation or whatever."

See Rotku, the problem is, Danubus is a reformed Off Topic Troll who, no matter what anyone says, will crusade until the forum is shut down. Trolling the trolls essentially, which is just as bad and against the rules you have proposed as trolling itself.

Should the rules you have proposed come to be, it'll be interesting to see who gets hit with the stick first

[paazin]