Religion
Related: About this forumReligion and evolution
Can religion and science find some common ground?
Dr. Francis S. Collins is one of the world’s leading scientists. As head of the nation’s Human Genome Project, he led what may well turn out to be the most important biological breakthrough in modern history. Collins is one of a substantial number of the world’s premier scientists who are also people of religious faith. These theistic scientists have formed a group called “Theologis” believing that science and faith can share common ground. The group includes, among many others, a number of Nobel Laureates. They reject both Creationism in which faith trumps science and Intelligent Design in which science needs divine help. Collins spells out six premises as discussion points linking faith and science. They are:
1-The universe came into being out of nothingness approximately 14 billion years ago.
2-Despite massive improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life.
3-While the precise mechanism for the origin of life remains unknown, once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity over long periods of time.
4-Once evolution got underway, no special supernatural intervention was required.
5-Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes.
6-Humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation, which points to our spiritual nature. This includes existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes human creatures throughout history.
Collins, Francis S. “The Language of God” Free Press (Simon And Schuster) New York 2006 page 200.
While those at both extremes might reject any one or more of the above premises, there are serious scientists who believe these may be a way to start a rational
discussion.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)immoderate
(20,885 posts)So this guy allows that he will agree with what's undeniable?
Half of Americans don't accept what "we all agree on."
Edit to add: The anthropic fallacy is like marveling at the fact that, wherever you go -- there you are!
--imm
tama
(9,137 posts)is based on the fact that of all possible values, the physical constants have values that allow observers like us: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
I assume you are calling it fallacy just to make some obscure rhetorical point? Besides ID-hypothesis in some form or other, it can be explained by some form of cosmology that is consistent with Aristotelian view that all possibilities actualize.
It is also related to what Buddha said about codependent causality or causality as co-dependence: "if this arises, that arises, if this ceases, that ceases", but perhaps even better example would be the virtual particle pairs.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)There is a circularity in inferring a meaning to the anthropic principle, or that cosmology depends on it.
It also implies that the universe is the only possible environment for consciousness.
--imm
tama
(9,137 posts)and what's wrong with circularity? I'm constantly amazed by a 1D-line that by the transcendental power of pi becomes a circle, an ouroboros, by the fact that a sphere is a 2D surface or couple of them inside-outside, by the Moebius loop that has only one surface and goes very odd when cutting it with a pair of scissors, etc...
And as for the implication you mention, anthropic principle is a misnomer as it refers more generally to carbon based observers and the values of constants that allow carbon to exist and behave like it does. "Consciousness" usually refers to something very vaguely defined, so that is difficult to comment, but if you mean it in most general or fundamental way, relation of x being conscious of y or something similar, that could be said also about fundamental particles, especially entangled particles in quantum experiments. In that way I see no implication that consciousness would be limited to only to the universes which allow carbon based observers like us.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)postulates that life as we know it is the produce of scientific realities that allow life as we know it. Thus the claim that this is a circular argument that therefore has little special merit. Hawking, and others, reject the fallacy and rely on what we know about physical reality. To quote him:
"Why did the universe start out with so nearly the critical rate of expansion that separates models that recollapse from those that go on expanding forever, that even now, 10 thousand million years later, it is still expanding at nearly the critical rate? If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller even by one part in 100 thousand million million the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size."
Hawking "A Brief History of Time.... page 138
His argument continues with the converse. If the universe had been greater by even one part of a million, stars and planets could not have been able to form. so the universe as we know it rests upon a knife edge of improbability.
or Hawking A Brief History".... p.144
"It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as an act of God who intended to create beings like us." And Hawking is hardly a theist!
mr blur
(7,753 posts)does not mean "it's unthinkable to explain..."
"why" is not the most correct question in this context.
Response to Thats my opinion (Reply #9)
GliderGuider This message was self-deleted by its author.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)#4 should say: "Evolution requires no supernatural intervention."
Not all theorists buy #1. Some say we're a blip in a brane. I don't lean any particular way, just pointing out it's not settled.
#6 is dealt with above. No concession there.
--imm
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)The first part of (1) is simply declared without evidence; we don't know what the universe arose from. And how this requires religious faith to be injected into the equation remains unexplained. The second part of (1) is pure science, and also require no injection of, or intersection with, religious faith.
The "fine-tuning" argument in (2) is deeply and irretrievably flawed as an argument for the existence of "god"
(3), (4) and (5) also require absolutely no intersection or "common ground" with religious faith.
All of (6) is also simply declared without evidence. Further, having a "spiritual nature" (whatever that even means) need not involve religion or "faith" of any kind.
Collins, like a few other scientists, enjoys playing into the need of a lot of other people for there to be SOME room left for god when science has done its job. But what the object of this "rational discussion" he's trying to start might be also remains a mystery.
Festivito
(13,452 posts)So, let's say, without equivocation that the world was created in six days, as outlined in Genesis.
Could God have created an entire universe with a complete history -- in six days?
The creationists are stymied, since they cannot say that God is not powerful enough to do so.
They are left without a religious trump-card fallback in their argument and are forced to deal with the numbers as they are.
It is an end of argument argument for me so far.
Of course, having created a world with a history that continues, He certainly can intervene, or, He certainly does not have to intervene. The main point becomes that we must use His gifts with the history He left and must accept that we do have a limited amount of oil for one item, which only need anger the Koch brothers, not the Bible thumpers.
tama
(9,137 posts)of the seven days myth is that it refers to 7 chackras, and creation as *now* with arrows of time creating both "past" and "future".
dmallind
(10,437 posts)Let's all dance and sing in respect for crustaceans of essence so we may know the kundalini of Atma. Ommmmmmm.......
OriginalGeek
(12,132 posts)I bet lobsters effin HATE melted butter.
oh wait - my bad - that's ghee.
Festivito
(13,452 posts)I do not think it does.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)The discussion here is not about right wing fundie nutjobs, but thinking individuals. Either try to participate or sit back and maybe you'll learn something from all sides. You may not have noticed but there are some interesting thought and ideas being floated here that may help all of us grow. Just saying.
Festivito
(13,452 posts)There are "right-wing fundy nut jobs" who consider themselves rational thinking persons, and they do not need to be discarded because you decide that you can draw a line where you chose to draw one separating what you call thinking versus what you call a nut job.
If the OP wants to only be in the middle when it is not necessary to be only in the middle, let the OP respond. Seemed articulate enough.
dmallind
(10,437 posts)
jeepnstein
(2,631 posts)I'm sitting through a nasty case of six day literalism at my own church right now. The folks leading the charge insist that the time frame is strictly 24 hours in a day and that it has to be done exactly according to their reading of Genesis. Any disagreement, requests for clarification, or mention of the huge body of scientific knowledge is met with a strong rebuke. They are insisting on stuffing God into their own tidy little box and making Him play by their rules.
Myself? I don't know what to make of Genesis. I do know it has some useful tidbits in it if one is setting up a society. The whole notion of taking a day off, for example, that's good stuff. But for someone to stand there and tell me what is going on when Adam's descendants started marrying, moving to foreign lands, and building cities leads me to believe they're pulling it out of their back sides. The standard answer they mandate for any scientist bringing forth a theory of the early history of the Earth is "Where you there?". If you pull that one on them when they're handing out the doctrine on Genesis you get kicked out of the group. The Bible is not an easy book and I strongly suspect it was intended to be that way.
I prefer to not make God punch a time clock for me.
On the bright side, my wife and I have managed to call on several sick and elderly members of our congregation over the last few days. The visits were quite nice and it got me out of having to deal with the legalism surrounding the Genesis bunch.
Festivito
(13,452 posts)I'm guessing that they are bullying. I don't take well to bullying. (I can take it myself, but if I see someone bullying someone else, there is going to be a bully with a lot words coming at those ears.)
And, there seems to be some two-faced behavior. That sounds like a problem. I'm guessing that they are exercising their power from some position of power, and they need to be dropped a notch or two.
The quickest way for me presented with "Were you there?" would be a funny: "You're not inferring that you were!" Continuing. "Back to the 24 hour day thing, you're not inferring that God is not powerful enough to have created a world with a history in six 24-hour days, are you?" I can answer it for them, and diffuse the situation by answering for them. "Of course not." (Remember, bullies have feelings.)
If I can handle it quickly, I have more time for those visitations.
Good luck.
I hope the two-facedness does not force a more concerted effort to remove their power structure. That's a big job.
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)eggs should ALWAYS be cracked at the small end.
I'm a "Little-Endian".
spin
(17,493 posts)I am really curious as while I enjoy studying the Bible as well as other religions, I have never been able to see how some Christians can insist that it is the literal truth. The more I study the Bible the more contradictions I find. I view it as more of an assembly of stories authored by different people over many years and finally gathered into one book rather than the literal written word of God.
In the first chapter of Genesis both men and women are created after the animals.
Genesis 1
New International Version (NIV)
***snip***
20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
However in Genesis chapter 2, Adam was created before the animals and Eve was created later.
Genesis 2
New International Version (NIV)
***snip***
5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
***snip**
18 The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.
But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
jeepnstein
(2,631 posts)I'm struggling with that right now myself. And it has confused far smarter people than me.
spin
(17,493 posts)as I fear that I might raise questions that would cause others to question their beliefs. That would never be something I would wish to do.
I see value in religion and I believe that it can be a benefit to society as long as the both church and political leaders do not use it to incite people to violence or to oppress others who do not believe the same. Unfortunately this happens all too often.
jeepnstein
(2,631 posts)aren't alive, in my opinion. As long as we keep the essentials in order, conduct all ourselves in a spirit of brotherly love, and never worship our own knowledge more than our God, most churches can stay on track. Hey, if you can get two out of three of those you're doing pretty good actually.
I firmly believe that the church as a body is dumbing itself down and this is not a good thing. Christianity is a tough thing to really get a firm grasp of. I don't think any of us ever really get it right. Problem is most people don't like to do hard things.
In the spirit of benevolent interpretation (aka "cherry picking" 
) this difference could refer to dual (or more...) aspect of man, first as carnal being among others that evolved after other beings, second as eternal soul, a star, light within, and the masc-fem duality as supersymmetry or sumfink light that. 
In short, first story could refer to evolution, second to being before time and space, the Source, the Divine spark within.
But let's also remember that a myth is a myth because it cannot be literally interpreted but is open to many interpretations. It's often said that a myth can be only understood by living it.
jeepnstein
(2,631 posts)Don't hold your breath. This may take a while.
anytime, all the time, as long as you want to carry those questions.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)tama
(9,137 posts)Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)both of which came very late in the collection of the Old Testament. They come from very different religious traditions. Neither attempt to recite history. They are STORIES! You don't try to reconcile the differences in stories. You do try and discover what is behind the stories--and that is the interesting task of Biblical criticism. The stories are not contradictory. They are STORIES! If we all can just get that literary tradition, so much of what worries people can be resolved.
spin
(17,493 posts)as I said in my post:
The more I study the Bible the more contradictions I find. I view it as more of an assembly of stories authored by different people over many years and finally gathered into one book rather than the literal written word of God.
My question is how the churches that insist that the Bible is the literal word of God and creation happened in 7 days of 24 hours can explain the difference in the two creation stories in Genesis. The poster I replied to went to such a church and was having a difficult time with literalism.
Surely some in the congregation or Sunday school classes must raise the question of the two stories.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)The fundamentalist churches just say, "God said it. I believe it. That settles it."
When I was in the parish our yellow pages add had as its heading,
"Where you don't need to leave your mind outside the church door."
spin
(17,493 posts)
Thessalonians 5:2
King James Version (KJV)
21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
I'll use the KJV since that would probably will be the one used in many such churches.
OriginalGeek
(12,132 posts)KJV or nothin, man....
(sorry - I like joking around. Even when done poorly. )
spin
(17,493 posts)The more modern and far more accurate translations of the Bible are often criticized by the more conservative Christians as being liberal.
edited for typo
tama
(9,137 posts)on the ground that there is no good reason to presume any fundamental difference between humans and other forms of life on this planet, also terms of spirituality and assuming any superiority of humans over other species.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)but to demonstrate that many scientists far brighter than any of us have concluded that it is sufficiently cogent to see a compatibility between religion and science.
tama
(9,137 posts)seeking the border areas of science and "spirituality", and it's clear that not all science and not all theology are compatible, but the areas where their meet are most fascinating and fruitful. IMHO both science and theology that are based on strong belief in reductionistic and limited idea of linear causality and nothing else, are both bad science and bad theology.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)You are appealing to authority, and that is fallacious.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)The universe is in no way fine-tuned for life. That self-replicating molecules can exist is a coincidence, not a consequence.
Consider just our solar system: Nearly 100% of the solar system by mass, area, or volume is lifeless. When you extend that to the universe as a whole, the numbers don't improve. Nearly 100% lifeless is about as far away from "fine-tuned for life" as you can get.
tama
(9,137 posts)are different questions, and their relation can be worth looking into. What assumptions are behind question is x consequence of y? What is causality, what kind of assumptions it makes about time and space?
Is causality a real physical force that can be objectively measured and proved in terms of empirical positivism, or just a metaphysical assumption that some theories are build upon? How does a coincidence become a consequence?
Bad Thoughts
(2,522 posts)The sun provides energy and light. The gas giants clear out rogue bodies. The Earth provides water and other essential minerals. The sun alone is 99% of the solar system's mass on its own.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Last edited Tue Jan 17, 2012, 01:39 AM - Edit history (1)
1. Okay.
2. Luck counts too.
3. Cool
4. Still cool.
5. The coolness continues.
6. I wish I could run seventy miles an hour or fly or swim 500 feet under the ocean. Now that's some miracle shit right there. Instead I'm stuck with a canteloupe head full of perhaps, maybe, and self reflection balanced on an overloaded back and knees that work the wrong way. What a raw deal.
hunter
(38,309 posts)... and He's still picking the shrapnel out of His ass.
But it worked pretty much like He thought it would.
That's Hunter's Big Bang theory of Creation.
hunter
(38,309 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)Maybe it's the phone. Thanks!
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)#1 is a good place to start, I guess.
#2 seems to imply life maters more than non-life, which is obviously subjective. The existence of life is no more meaningful than the existence of helium or heat. It also seems to suggest we know all of the possible forms life can take, and we know what most of the universe is like.
#3 is also subjective. Complexity is in the eye of the beholder, and diversity probably is too.
#4 leaves room for the possibility of an unknown, supernatural force, which is fine.
#5 is fine.
#6 is a little weird to me. I deny the existence of moral law and right and wrong, as I believe the terms are being used in this article. In my opinion, the search for God is so subjective, I am not sure it should be included as a shared, human experience.
tama
(9,137 posts)the way you use the word "meaningful". It's stuck to my memory what a friend once said during discussion in sauna: "humans are beings that give meanings".
Do helium and heat also give meanings, and if so how and what kind? Or if not, what and how is lack of meaning?
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)I don't think helium and heat give meanings because I don't think they think.
I was trying to say the authors of that list seem to think life is more interesting, or more meaningful, than non-life, and that is too subjective for a list of facts.
tama
(9,137 posts)But it seems to me that generally life is so self-centered (selfish genie?) that it finds life more interesting or more meaningful than non-life. But maybe that's just an ego-trip...
As for levels of complexity (a notion that is also subjective to some extent) I'm under the impression that life is actually defined as higher level of complexity than non-life. And at what level of complexity do the notions of interesting and meaningful arise?
tama
(9,137 posts)From Wikipedia:
"His definition of humanity states that "man" is "the symbol using, making, and mis-using animal, inventor of the negative, separated from his natural condition by instruments of his own making, goaded by the spirit of hierarchy, and rotten with perfection."[6][7] For Burke, some of the most significant problems in human behavior resulted from instances of symbols using human beings rather than human beings using symbols."
Sounds familiar, very similar criticism shared by Zerzan the "anarcho-primitivist" who blames "The Fall" of humanity into alienated symbolism on the ancient shamans. The sauna talk was, however, more in the spirit of acceptance than of (self)condemnation, and maybe I should add that there were couple or more shamans present in the sauna, relaxing after a drumming circle.
As for philosophical attempts to answer the Burke-Zerzan criticism, this from (a non-Indoeuropean) language philosophy or attempt towards, in case this interests an English teacher: http://www.anarchist-developments.org/index.php/adcs/article/view/22
Jim__
(14,074 posts)4. Once evolution got underway, no special supernatural intervention was required.
I am aware that the Theory of Evolution is not specifically concerned with the origins of life. Does Collins accept that life itself arose as part of an evolutionary process from a chemical environment where some chemical processes were long-term, stable processes? Does he see the process of evolution as a continuous progression from non-living, stable chemical processes to chemical processes that we would describe as living? Premises #3 and #4 seem to draw a line here. I realize that we don't know the processes that led up to and, at some point, crossed this line. I think the general assumption among scientists is that there is a progression from non-life to life.
Do you know if Collins accepts the premise that life arose out of the natural processes of the universe that led to the planet earth and then the subsequent chemical environment on earth? That seems to me to be a critical assumption to accept and my guess is that Collins accepts it.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)He accepts the notion that life arose from non-life chemical processes, and that these chemical processes operate in a continuum we call evolution.
Jim__
(14,074 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)1. First, define nothing, current models suggest a point of nearly infinite mass where all 4 known forces were combined into one. Then something happened that expanded this point and broke the 4 forces apart. This isn't nothing.
2. The problem with this one is its again wrong, if you take the 4 forces we have, at least one most likely isn't necessary to have a universe nearly indistinguishable from our own, the weak nuclear force. This only points out an observational bias, we see one universe that is capable of supporting life on one planet(so far), so we assume its finely tuned for our existence. This assumption is unwarranted without other universes to measure it by.
3. This one is somewhat accurate, though evolution didn't really take hold until descent with modification took place, before that it was different(single celled organisms exchanging genetic material and dividing asexually).
4. Most likely correct.
5. Also correct.
6. Again, unwarranted assumptions, neither of these defy evolutionary explanation, he just chooses to ignore it, to make us special. Humans evolved as social creatures, and just like all highly social animals, we developed rules for behavior that increased the reproductive chances of the group(natural selection in action). This included encouraging cooperation and discouraging anti-social behavior, there's safety and security in numbers, after all, and if you can't trust your neighbors, then you are truly alone and chances are, eaten by a lion because your neighbors don't trust you either.
The second point is perhaps more difficult to explain, because he's very specific, which is also unwarranted. Most likely it was the development of conceptualizing the future and our recognition of each other as individuals in addition to attributing personal agency to random phenomenon that lead to the development of superstition. This can't, really, be called "finding God" simply because the concept of God didn't exist in such societies in the beginning, such developments as gods developed much later, right when agriculture really took hold. Before that, ancestor worship, shamanism, and animism were perhaps the first supernatural belief systems of humans.
Also, I don't see what's extreme about rejecting unwarranted assumptions. That's the problem, this isn't and can't be considered common ground when number 6 actually directly contradicts current evidence on evolutionary behavior development, a whole field of study that he rejects out of hand because it contradicts his religion.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)and his area of scientific knowledge is far beyond me. My purpose was to affirm that there are serious scientists who are also theists. Unless one starts out from a perspective that atheism is the only legitimate position, then there is room for discussion. Collins dismisses all Biblicism that questions scientific processes. He simply invites the discussion.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)evidence is presented to prove the existence of deities. That's my biggest issue, he's arguing that science has common ground with religion, he's presenting us with an impossible situation. Religion is based on faith, which by its nature is not based on empirical or verifiable evidence, whereas science needs both of those to function at all. It should be enough to say that religion and science occupy two different aspects of human thought, and hence shouldn't interfere with each other, even in cases where religions make real world claims that can be verified or refuted, then science should interfere.
Am I saying its impossible to be religious and a scientist? Of course not, people partition their thoughts all the time, if he's a good scientist, then while he's performing experiments or conducting observations to test a theory, any gods or religions shouldn't enter his mind or interfere with that work, keep those thoughts in your private life and church.
ON EDIT: To clarify, he is a good scientist when it comes to evolutionary biology, but not in studying the evolutionary origins of behavior in animals, because he lets his religion interfere with his empiricism. I wouldn't trust him to talk about, for example, altruism displayed in the great apes versus humans, he's showing an unscientific bias that cannot be reconciled with his profession.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)What I find most interesting is the need of the faithful believers to find people engaged in the sciences who also share their own faith and belief phenomena, as if they have some of their own doubts, and have a need to scurry the planet and find some other person somewhere to back up their totally unscientific faith.
It's sort of like the little bully in first grade relying upon an older brother to protect him.
relying on a older brother - who speaks language we don't understand - to protect the little bully of the only true totally scientific faith.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)comprehend. I don't know if they are meant as humor or as intense philosophical thinking.
I just don't "get" them.
tama
(9,137 posts)MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)they come across as spam, interfering with logical thinking, and are hardly entertaining as humor if that is how they are meant. Very sorry, but many of them look more like childish nonsense to me.
I'll take that "childish nonsense" as a compliment, so don't be sorry.
And as for logical thinking interfered by childish nonsense, have you read Douglas Hofstadter's classic work 'Gödel, Escher, Bach'?
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)Sometimes students would come back from their preaching assignment in small churches, and say, "They told me I was preaching over their heads."
My response:
"Your job its to teach them how to raise their heads."
Or--for every serious question there is a simple answer---which is probably wrong.
And then there is humor, irony and "childish nonsense." And that sort of thing may not stir the mind, but it ought to stir the imagination.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)a lot.
The arrogance of the statement "Your job its to teach them how to raise their heads"
reveals a lot more, too!
Only on the religion forums do we see people openly asserting their superiority over others, based upon their religious beliefs.
tama
(9,137 posts)the inferiority complex, seeing everywhere superiority over it.
I know much about low self-esteem, emotional insecurity, loneliness, and the compensating side too - I've struggled with that complex all my life. It tends to ease a bit with age, naturally, and I have been blessed with friends with the talent to teach better self esteem, in many ways.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)Your adolescent understanding of human complexes, quite revealing which posts you respond to, and which you choose to denigrate.
I can only laugh at your 40+ year ancient understanding of human psychology with phrases like..
"I know much about low self-esteem"
Such a silly, naive, 20th century concept.
I don't consider anyone superior to me, or inferior. Those concepts belong to king of the hill games of power hierarchies, which I'm not interested in. I'm satisfied at being the center of the universe, according to theory of general relativity, together with other centers of universe, but if someone insists he's just a worthless pile of atoms in the lowest corner of an insignificant galaxy, that's OK too - as long as that worthless pile of atoms does not try to push it's dogmatic materialism down my throat .
I've seen dogs that cry for help and kindness, but are so full of distrust and fear that they bite at anyone coming near. I guess people can be that way too.
But perhaps that's just silly, naive folk psychology, as proponents of eliminative materialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism) claim. Does your logic, your axioms and conclusions, tell that anyone who continues thinking and acting in terms of folk psychology instead of believing in eliminative materialism, is an ignorant fool that needs to be cured and shown the right path?
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)no longer to engage in these sorts of personal attacks. Therefore our conversations here are ended.
tama
(9,137 posts)I'm currently reading Steven Weinberg's 'Dream's of a Final Theory'. Even though the author is a self declared reductionist and the book has a whole chapter called against philosophy (arguing mainly against positivism), the book is of course deeply philosophical, talking much about importance of beauty in physics, being of equal importance as empiricism.
As beauty - "which cannot be defined, but known by experience" - together with empiricism is the guiding principle of forming and accepting theories - e.g. Special Relativity and QED were first generally accepted because of their beauty, before convincing empirical evidence... how is the relation between aesthetics, ethics and truth?
Creation as search (and cause?) for new forms of beauty, with all of us participating, does not exclude neither science nor theology.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)Beauty introduces the whole field of values. Science must deal with ethical issues as substantial to its discipline. Plato--et al-- sought to define "the good" no only in terms of natural processes, but of overarching forms. While values may be essentially a philosophic concern, all of life's disciplines must have one eye on the question of values. Aristotle fleshed out that argument at length.
bananas
(27,509 posts)I tend to agree with this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=228&topic_id=50336&mesg_id=50455
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)Conclusion
"I don't know of any other Theistic Evolutionist with such a superb defence of evolution and such an unambiguous rejection of YEC and ID. Collins does not claim a supernatural origin of life. Theistic Evolution is a more science-friendly form of religion then YEC and ID, although Collins has strong disagreements with the Darwinian explanation of altruism. He needs to rethink his Moral Law argument, which is not a coherent argument and ignores animal behaviour research as well as a lot of modern theoretical research in the evolution of altruism. If God did instil the Moral Law into humans, He failed to teach us an unambiguous and powerful Moral Law. The historical record shows that humans are very confused about what exactly the Moral Law tells us to do. And besides altruism, humans are surely endowed with a capacity to hate. However, Collins and evolutionary biologists seem to agree on one issue and that is that humans are not universal altruists, often behave selfish and as Jerry Coyne has put it: "evolution built us a brain capable of allowing behavioural flexibility, and we can use it to consciously override our genes to teach virtuous behaviour.". What we need now is a discussion of the merits of a list of moral behaviour codes which benefit the whole planet, irrespective of their supposed religious or evolutionary origin."
http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof83.htm#TE
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)And what are those?
Besides, every species is unique in many ways. None defy evolutionary explanation.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)Whether that defies an evolutionary explanation is unclear. I would rather think that it comes with evolution, and does not defy it. I'll give this more thought and in time file a thread about what I think Collins means.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)We have ample evidence of animals caring for each other. We have voluminous evidence, of which I am sure you are aware, that certain species warn each other of potential threats of predators, from birds to monkeys.
We also have evidence of animals caring for injured members of their species, aiding in the healing, and, of course, caring for the young by members of the same species who are NOT the parents, adoptions of orphaned animals, etc.
We have recorded film of this in the wild, and in other laboratory conditions,
under observation caring for each other, enhancing the experience of each other before they become "verbal", we even have older siblings in nature, not yet mature themselves, not reproducing, (bears, elephants, horses), caring for the newest fold, after the parent becomes absent. We have surrogate mothers allowing babies who are NOT their own offspring to share in the suckle of a lactating mother.
None of that is evidence of "moral" law from a god, or more. It is a survival instinct more than a moral law.
If you'd like to " file a thread about what I think Collins means", perhaps you could begin with what research a geneticist might not be too familiar with from the animal world.
Let's face it, some animals, (humans included) care for their fellow members of their species: while others, (humans included) eat their young. A comprehensive study of animal biology and their life cycles from a naturalist, rather than a genetic perspective, will reveal that this concept of a "moral" law coming from a god is a rather selective view of the entire animal kingdom. Evidence for and against exists in all species.
So when you start your thread, be sure and be inclusive of all those instances when humans did NOT show "moral" law from a god, while other species did.
tama
(9,137 posts)and thanks for reminding that compassion and love is not limited to human animals - as anyone who has had closer relationships with other species knows.
But I would be reluctant to reduce compassion and love - and beauty - to mere "survival instinct", as well as "moral law". IMHO love and beauty don't really need explaining, as they are best known by experience itself, not from explanations, and trying to explain them with Darwin's theory (or distortion of) is stretching the theory beyond it's intended explanatory scope.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)where do you place your mythological god in all this mess of science?
Does he come BEFORE there was the big bang, or after?
Does he allow ALL evolutionary phenomena, or does he stop some here and there?
Does he come in the door of the Universe, and just tweak the Earth in our solar system, one of a hundred BILLION solar systems in the Milky Way, the Milky way being one of a hundred Billion known galaxies?
Where does your god enter and exit?
spin
(17,493 posts)As I sit here typing, my cat has just entered the room. It's time for his monthly treatment of Advantage Flea Treatment. I grab the little tube of flea drops and try to subtly approach him while he is eating. He realizes my intent and runs out the door of the room and hides.
No matter how I try to explain to him that the evil smelling liquid I place on the back of his neck will protect him from fleas, he will never understand. He lacks the intelligence.
I believe that humans have just enough brain power to be able to have some tiny comprehension of whatever or whoever "created" this universe, but we we can't and will never fully realize just what this entity or force is. Some call this force or entity omnipotent but we really have little comprehension of exactly what that word means.
I'm not even positive that this force has any real interest in us as He/She/It may view us as insignificant as I view fleas on a stray cat that doesn't belong to me.
It is possible that He/She/It was the nothing that existed before the multiverse as our universe may well be just one of an infinite number of universes. He/She/It may be part of everything and everywhere.
We often view God as an old man with a beard on a cloud. This, in my opinion, is a foolish representation and places a limit on a force that can't be limited.
The Creation of Adam - Michelangelo
tama
(9,137 posts)and don't mind if others do, but i admit that I'm interested to "know" better the gap between thoughts.
onager
(9,356 posts)1. Here's another look at the weaselly Saint Francis and his "Language of God." He put words in the mouth of Richard Dawkins, or allowed a proxy to do so.
In June 2011, Christianpost.com ran an article with the title - "Francis Collins: Atheist Richard Dawkins Admits Universe's Fine-Tuning Difficult to Explain:"
Comment 49 by Richard Dawkins: I don't remember talking to Francis Collins about this, but it is one of the commonest questions I am asked, and this is how the conversation usually goes:
Questioner: "What is the best argument you have heard for the existence of God?"
RD: "I have never heard a good argument for the existence of God."
Q: "OK, but if you were forced to choose the best of a bad lot?"
RD: "Sorry, no, I repeat, I really don't think there are any good arguments for the existence of God."
Q: "But surely there must be one argument that, however bad, comes closest to being a good one?"
RD: "Well, if you really twist my arm and force me to choose, I suppose I'd say the fine tuning argument, but I must stress that it is still not a good argument."
Questioner (later, when I am no longer present): "Aha! Gotcha! Dawkins admits that fine tuning is a strong argument for the existence of God. The walls of atheism are crumbling. The tide has turned. The forces of Jesus are on the march and scent victory!"
It's a version of the Eddington Concession, and I suppose I really should learn not to offer them even an inch or they'll take a mile.
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/641942-francis-collins-atheist-richard-dawkins-admits-universe-s-fine-tuning-difficult-to-explain
2. The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us by Victor J. Stenger
A number of authors have noted that if some physical parameters were slightly changed, the universe could no longer support life, as we know it. This implies that life depends sensitively on the physics of our universe. Some influential scientists, such as National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, think so. Others go even further, asserting that science "has found God."
In this in-depth, lucid discussion of this fascinating and controversial topic, physicist Victor J. Stenger looks at the same evidence and comes to the opposite conclusion. He states at the outset that as a physicist he will go wherever the data takes him, even if it leads him to God. But after many years of research in particle physics and thinking about its implications, he finds that the observations of science and our naked senses not only show no evidence for God, they provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that God does not exist.
Calling Stenger just a "physicist" is sort of like referring to Napoleon as a "soldier." Stenger is a quantum physicist who participated in the experiments that helped establish the properties of strange particles, quarks, gluons, and neutrinos. He also has a Ph.D. in philosophy and teaches that subject.
http://www.amazon.com/Fallacy-Fine-Tuning-Why-Universe-Designed/dp/1616144432/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1309325450&sr=8-1
tama
(9,137 posts)no beef, just a a fluffy bun of sales prop of a book. Argument from authority is not enough, not in any direction.
Have you read it and if so, can you tell does "standard models" refer to THE standard model, and which other theories, that explain the "fine-tuned" values of physical constants in the way that they cant be any other? And what is his interpretation of the "measurement problem"?
Wikipedia tells that the author has retired from scientific work and is working as a preacher of the so called skeptical movement, which I consider a semi-religious movement of scientism.
There was plenty to bite in the OP, to critically fine tune the arguments, but you give nothing to the hungry.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)The argument is that "life" could not have evolved without a "fine tuning" of the physical constants of the universe. And yet it requires a conscious entity, capable of deliberate action and of affecting the physical world to do the "tuning". If that's not "life", assumed to precede the need for "fine tuning", then what is it? If whatever "god" supposedly did the fine tuning could come into being before that fine tuning took place, then why couldn't life of a variety of other types? Maybe not exactly like what we see now, but something that would easily qualify. The type of matter and life we see may be just what fell out. Principle of Necessary Improbability.
tama
(9,137 posts)that anthropic principle is a proof of an ID God-tuner? I'm just pointing to the deeper fallacy of using anthropic principle as a weapon for either side of the theist-atheist debate.
It is scientifically and philosophically interesting example of the codependencies and symmetries that science is facing in search of the final theory. The fallacy of using it as a weapon in the STUPID theist-atheist debate is staying fixated on this STUPIDITY instead of learning more and thinking better, also about the meaning of the the anthropic principle. There is a whole world outside the STUPID debate of blame gaming, quilt tripping, etc. between the two camps. Camps that are also very good examples of codependency and symmetry, I might add.
PS: where is the nearest, according to you required, "conscious entity" you can find?
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)as part of your post, so apparently you think it matters. So why are you now giving a ringing endorsement to someone calling the whole thing "STUPID"?
tama
(9,137 posts)linking religion and science." And that's what we doing. Spirituality, religion, science and philolosophy (lol spelling mistake) are not just about either-or god-concepts or numbers of them, but asking similar deep questions about meaning of life, universe and everything.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Thanks for making my point.
And no, religion is not JUST about god-concepts, but it is about them to a significant extent. Otherwise, why would there be so many different religions with different conceptions of god?
And what does that teach us about believing in concepts and definitions?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that the fine-tuning argument for god is fallacious. I showed you why it is. That is not an argument or "weapon" against the existence of god, but merely a discrediting of an argument that has been offered for of the existence of god.
For you to call the debate over whether god exists or not "STUPID" when the question underlies so much of what goes on in the world is simply ridiculous. Are you actually arguing that if the question was really and truly settled that it would have no significant impact on anything?
And the fine tuning argument isn't mine. Why don't you ask someone who makes it what else but a conscious entity capable of deliberate action could do what they claim was done?
tama
(9,137 posts)there has been an misunderstanding. Anthropic principle is not fallacy (except for the poorly chosen name) as such, and it is not an argument against Architect-hypothesis or against various multiverse-cosmologies, both are possible explanations and there may be many others. But it certainly does not lend any support for the naive deterministic materialism of the Big Bang reductionism or false objectivism that excludes the measuring subject. What is stupid is using it as a weapon in the either-or game that it does not give any answers to, instead of asking what does that piece of scientific evidence really tell us.
Are you claiming that "so much of what goes on in the world" is not simply ridiculous and stupid? 
Ridiculous and stupid has a very significant impact. The question whether god exists indeed underlies so much of the ridiculous and stupid going on in the world. Any case the true answer is 42 so go find the correct question.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)I'm well aware that the anthropic principle is not fallacy, and never said otherwise. I simply stated the fact that the fine tuning argument is fundamentally flawed as an argument for the existence of god (pretty much like all of the other arguments, in that respect). If you'd care to dispute that, be my guest.
And yes, it is ridiculous that so many people base so much of their thinking and behavior (some of it quite despicable) on belief, without any rational basis, in the existence of some "god" or other. As you seem not to comprehend, the question is not the problem, it s the people who base their lives on an unswerving devotion to an unsupported answer to that question. Perhaps you think that efforts to dissuade people from that are also ridiculous and stupid. It wouldn't surprise me.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)that the fine tuning argument is "fundamentally flawed."
I suppose if you start out with the proposition that all arguments for "A" are fundamentally flawed, that apriori conclusion judges how all arguments are viewed. That may be a clear perspective, but it prohibits reasonable discourse.
Rel100stu
(1 post)I am going to begin by telling my stance. I believe that we and everything around us is a creation made by the Christian God. I understand that people have their strong beliefs about this and I do not want to step on anybody's shoes. I am simply putting out how I feel for you to get a perspective you might not understand.
What exactly is evolution? Berkely.edu defines it as, ’Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small‐scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large‐scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.’ Many people do not know this, but a lot of Christians do believe in small-scale evolution. It is seen prevalently in nature and is hard not to believe with all of the proof available. Large-scale evolution, on the other hand, is not so widely accepted.
Christians believe in the stories from Genesis chapters 1 and 2. In these stories, God creates man kind. According to large-scale evolution, everthing evolved from a common ancestor. This would completely discredit the stories from Genesis 1 and 2. If the first and arguably two of the most important chapters of the Bible were discreditted, what is to keep people from saying the whole Bible is false? This would tarnish the faith of Christianity.
According to a poll of scientists listed in American Men and Women of science, 52.5% of the biologists who responded were Christians and 40.6% believed in life after death. The scientists that were polled spend their lives researching about evolution, but still do not fully accept it. In my opinion, that is saying something.
Science will never be able to confirm nor deny the existance of God, it is beyond science. If we were to have an exact answer, what would be the point of having faith. The Bible does gives many different counts of the origin of life; for example, as mentioned previously Genesis 1 and 2, Proverbs 8, Job 26, and Psalm 74. When reading the Bible your focus should not be on how heaven was made, but how to get there.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)Believe me, I really would enjoy seeing some - and if you can give some testable proof for your god's existence, I would be perfectly willing to change my atheist POV. Although I suspect the reverse wouldn't be true.