• In total there are 41 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 41 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Religious kids believe in fantasy

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Religious kids believe in fantasy

Unread post

I think worldviews are preeminent when it comes down to how we answer these questions.You asked a lot of questions Interbane, which would probably require treatises to attempt to answer.It seems to me that your views are rooted in a kind of ultra-materialism.Your philosophy or a great deal of it, arises from your belief in evolutionary theory. For instance, you answer the question on how organic machines can make moral choices and the question of how if lust is a residue of our evolutionary heritage, rape can be a crime, with a sort of philosophical answer based on evolutionary premises.Because we have empathy,we need to get beyond our tribal past, and it's socially desirable that it should not happen. Is it not intrinsically wrong though?
It strikes me that,Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett embrace the free will is an illusion concept with gusto, because it provides them with a metaphorical club to bash religious people over the head with.There's no such thing as sin and guilt really. Harris thinks we should regard the ax wielding psycho and the hungry bear with equal equanimity if only for the good of our mental health. We probably just need to transport all psychopaths to an equivalent Van Dieman's Land,though I expect they would have fun killing each other there.It would make a good horror movie,if nothing else.
Codes only exist materially.Not necessarily. Someone could think of a code and it could exist in abstract thought form.Though the brain is necessary for such thought,nevertheless the code in abstract thought is immaterial.God is a spiritual,not a physical being but is nonetheless a being capable of thought we could not even dream of.Complex codes would require complex thought to imagine and create. Thus,Lennox's argument re Dawkins book being a coded representation of his thoughts in material form.
These things are interesting in many ways, but of course unless our worldviews change neither will our beliefs. I appreciate your thoughts and Johnson's and others but I would need an awful lot of time to address the many questions raised and on a lot of the scientific stuff am not competent to address them.
As for Youkrst's diatribe.I think she's a mythical person really.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Religious kids believe in fantasy

Unread post

The evolutionist is convinced that what evidence is there supports their interpretation.
_____________________
Interbane says no,and resolves it to his satisfaction by postulating baby step information.
The first sentence can be unpacked in a curious way. It's not merely the evolutionist that is convinced(not sure how you choose which people to apply that label to), but rather anyone who learns more and more about evolution, on average. The more you learn about it, the more convincing it is. I would wonder what a non-evolutionist beleives is the reason. Is it that naysayers to the orthodoxy are weeded away, or questioners are brow beaten into erudite submission? Or do a few exceptionally intelligent people manipulate the data to sway everyone that learns of the theories? Is Satan behind it perhaps, above even the most intelligent of us, manipulating the data in a metaphysical way?

The more you learn about it, the easier it is to see the truth of it. Yes, there will always be exceptions, famous people who reject evolution. But look at the statistics. It's like explaining to a first grader how 123x456=56088. For a long time while learning how to perform math, the answer appears contrived. The dots aren't connected. The end result is separated by too much process from the origin. But when you finally gain a full understanding, you realize the end result is the product of simple rules, followed many times over. You finally realize the teacher wasn't pulling a fast one on you, hiding something or manipulating things to come up with the answer.

That complex information is arrived at by baby steps is not an answer that satisfies me alone. It satisfies the majority of people who have learned extensively of evolution. It is satisfying(and I say this from a vantage point that seems arrogant but truly isn't), because it gets to the point where the truth is seen almost as easily as the math problem above. Once you intuitively understand the evolutionary algorithm, you see how something so simple could create information so complex.

There is a reason even the Pope's panel of scientists said that evolution is true. Because when you finally decide to educate yourself to the point where you can arbitrate the information for better or worse, it's easy to see that we are products of evolution. There will always be people who get a doctorate's degree with one single zealotous thought on their mind: to disprove evolution. To these people, they cannot properly arbitrate the information. We have one such member on these forums, Stahrwe.

Lennox is perhaps another. He can't see that the refutation of his claim is right in front of his face. Information created by the laws of physics is exemplified by evolution. It is the example that proves him wrong. He looks around at all the humans create and wrongly assumes that since we create so much information, information can only be created by intelligence. I don't think he grasps the evolutionary algorithm.
Is it not intrinsically wrong though?
How can right or wrong be intrinsic to an act? Isn't judgement required? During the judgement, it's not as though some permeating force is extracted and interpreted. The judgement comes from a person's life wisdom, from inside the minds of those that judge. If a person breaks into your house to rape your wife and you shoot and kill him, is the fact that you killed him "intrinsic" to when you pulled the muscles that fired the gun? Or is the breaking in of the house a countervailing force that fights against the badness intrinsic to the act you performed?

Morality is something that we all learn. How can one act be intrinsic in one culture, but not in another? How could one act be intrinsic in one set of circumstances, but not in another? You're forced back into hermeneutics, and if your audience is someone adept at philosophy rather than a fawning congregation, you'll see that defense of the idea simply isn't sustainable. You will retreat into absurdity. I could post a thousand morally grey scenarios for you to answer here, that shows the issues with intrinsic morality.

Morality is not intrinsic to action. Unpacked far enough, the idea becomes silly. See the SEP for more reading(it's not necessary to this discussion): http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
Codes only exist materially.Not necessarily. Someone could think of a code and it could exist in abstract thought form.
When you think of a code, neurons are firing. There is supervenience. So say that a thought in abstract form is immaterial ignores the fact that snipping a single dendridic connection would also sever the thought. The supervenience of our thoughts means that no form of abstraction exists without a physical medium. The two are never detached. The information that supervenes on physical systems can be translated. For example, when you translate the subjective experience of seeing red to the linguistic interpretation of that experience. These two categories of information aren't transferrable, they can only be translated. But once translated to lingual format, the information can be transferred to a medium other than our neurons. Airwave compression, patterns of graphite on paper, strings of bits in a computer through keyboard, etc. No matter what the information is, a physical medium is required.
These things are interesting in many ways, but of course unless our worldviews change neither will our beliefs.
That's like asking someone to rebuild the Burj Dubai after arguing about the placement of a few rafters. I completely agree. It's still a fun discussion, however.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Religious kids believe in fantasy

Unread post

Those who are not persuaded by neo-Darwinism don't dispute aspects of the theory, but of course don't accept macro-evolution but argue that one species of animal doesn't evolve into another.Bugs stay bugs,sheep stay sheep.Do the majority of scientists believe in it because someone has manipulated the data?There are times when people have tried, with hoax missing links and suspect drawings.For the most part no,,but data is subject to interpretation.Stephen Jay Gould for example,though an evolutionist doesn't appear to accept the baby steps version,with his punctuated equilibrium.
Richard Dawkins is right I think, when he says the neo-darwinian theory disposes with God. The Pope and his scientific advisors may try to accommodate both, but I think Dawkins is right.It's either evolution or God made man in his image.Is there a higher percentage of atheists amongst scientists than say, nurses? I'm guessing the answer is probably yes.
I don't want to be picking on Richard Dawkins all the time.He seems a nice enough guy. You have to wonder though,why he is so keen on the multiverse.The anthropic principle can be a bit awkward and suggestive.Is God a neutral concept?If he's the universal judge of mankind,I don't think so. The argument of preference cuts both ways.Not that you were making that argument.Others do. Incidentally,you asked, jokingly I'm sure, whether Satan manipulated the data. No, I wouldn't say that. As a matter of interest though,in the book of Revelation, it says Satan deceives the whole world.I wouldn't expect you to believe that of course.
There's too much in your post to respond to here, so that's it for now.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Religious kids believe in fantasy

Unread post

Those who are not persuaded by neo-Darwinism don't dispute aspects of the theory, but of course don't accept macro-evolution but argue that one species of animal doesn't evolve into another.
When I first heard of the rationalization that suggests there are different scopes of evolution, I thought it was a scientific distinction. Looking deeper, I see that there is no such distinction, that the concept was fabricated in an attempt to hold onto religious views despite the inarguable truth of evolution.

I posed questions to Stahrwe some time ago about how the believe in micro vs macro evolution is maintained. For example, if an organism has random mutations that results in it having increased height, there would have to be a mechanism in place that “disallowed” the random mutation from happening to a certain length of its genome. Knowing how mutations occur(copying errors/radiation/etc), such a restrictive mechanism would require an entirely separate set of baseline DNA for comparison that was impervious to mutation or copying error.

Another way to think of it is to consider the copying of books. The way evolution works is that book A is copied to book B. Then book B is copied to book C, so on and so forth. For any distinction between micro and macro evolution to hold water, book A would need to be carried forth from generation to generation. We know beyond the shadow of a doubt that this doesn’t happen; it simply isn’t the way evolution works.
Stephen Jay Gould for example,though an evolutionist doesn't appear to accept the baby steps version,with his punctuated equilibrium.
Punctuated equilibrium still involves baby steps. The difference between smooth transition and punctuated equilibrium is the distribution across time of those baby steps. In punctuated equilibrium, all the baby steps happen close together, in a few million year period.
As a matter of interest though,in the book of Revelation, it says Satan deceives the whole world.I wouldn't expect you to believe that of course.
You’d be amazed at how open my mind is Flann. Beliefs are leaves in the wind to me. What if the deception was the Christian bible? If there were such a being as Satan, he could tell the future, and would have no compunction about pulling off the ultimate intellectual heist.

Could he perhaps foresee the consequences of things such as climate change, and put in to place a religion that would be against the institution that informed us of such a thing? Perhaps Jesus was actually Satan, and his newly formed religion would later turn out to be against science, yet our only salvation would be to trust in science.

Instill distrust in the only source of knowledge that can save us. How faulty would faith be, if the only source you have are books written by Satan? The words I'm typing now could be from Satan, or could be salvation. Belief is odd when the only anchor you have isn't grounded in anything objectively certain.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Religious kids believe in fantasy

Unread post

Your scientific knowledge is far greater than mine for sure, but like R.D.your theological grasp is poor.Only God foresees the future.He didn't give Lucifer that particular perk.
What Dawkins and his acolytes don't understand, is that Christians who believe God created everything are not just being pigheaded when they reject his version of events.Lennox certainly wouldn't agree with you that Christianity is anti-science.He believes in the bible and science.
Christians enter into a relationship with God and he hears and answers their prayers.I might as well try to convince you that the postman does not exist and doesn't deliver your letters.We just think that God knows better than Richard Dawkins how life originated.
You give the impression that science has the definitive answer and there is no debate at all,no dissenting voices.To dispel that notion,and for those following this thread here again is Berlinski's: The Deniable Darwin. www.rae.org/pdf/dendar.pdf Just to give a sense of why some question this theory on rational grounds.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Religious kids believe in fantasy

Unread post

Your scientific knowledge is far greater than mine for sure, but like R.D.your theological grasp is poor.Only God foresees the future.He didn't give Lucifer that particular perk.
Ahh, but you’re still thinking inside the box Flann. If Christianity was Lucifer’s greatest intellectual heist, what makes you think the bible contains truthful information, especially when it comes to Lucifer himself? He wouldn’t give his heist away so easily, by expressing that he had knowledge of the future. That would be a secret worth hiding or lying about, don’t you think?
Lennox certainly wouldn't agree with you that Christianity is anti-science.He believes in the bible and science.
If Lennox were to defend his position, he would win and lose at the same time. He would win the argument that science and religion could be harmonized, but lose the argument that they are not at odds. All we have to do for the second argument is look at the percentage of our population who believes the Earth is young. That belief is, without a doubt, anti-science and pro-religion, and Lennox would agree. In aggregate, religious beliefs do run contrary to scientific ones, even if it is possible on an individual level(Lennox for example) to harmonize the two.
You give the impression that science has the definitive answer and there is no debate at all,no dissenting voices.
The answers from science are always provisional, sorry if I made it seem as if they were definitive. While some points are inarguable, the whole picture is not so concrete. Berlinski’s arguments are well known to us, you’ve brought him up before, if I recall correctly.
Besides the well-documented fact that Berlinski gets many facts wrong in his books, his tone is as argumentative(or moreso) as those he condemns. An excerpt of Berlinski’s prose:

"Comments such as these [Michael Ghiselin's withering criticism of Darwin on Trial] had the effect of raw meat dropped carelessly among carnivores. A scramble ensued to get the first bite. No one bothered to attack the preposterous Ghiselin. It was Richard Dawkins who had waggled his tempting rear end, and behind Dawkins, fesse à fesse [buttock to buttock] Charles Darwin. With the publication in 1991 of Darwin on Trial Phil Johnson did what carnivores so often do: He took a bite."

This brings us back to what I said before. There will always be intelligent, well informed men who disagree with any consensus. The next step in this argument is to show that consensus sometimes fails. The follow-up counterargument is that the examples of this show that all such examples are apples to oranges. For example, there was consensus that the Earth was the center of the universe at one time. That consensus was in spite of information, rather than a result of information. We’ve gotten much better at judging the justification of our knowledge.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
Dexter

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I dumpster dive for books!
Posts: 1787
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:14 pm
13
Has thanked: 144 times
Been thanked: 712 times
United States of America

Re: Religious kids believe in fantasy

Unread post

I skimmed through Berlinksi's paper. Not that my opinion holds any weight, but I found it surprisingly weak. Most of it comes down to simply disbelieving that the appearance of design can be the result of natural selection, and he seems to think that most of evolutionary theory is made up of stories that are not falsifiable such as "hey, that animal has cool adaptations, it must have evolved." For all his apparent scientific background, he doesn't seem to have put much effort in examining the evidence.

Scientific credentials by themselves are not impressive. It would be surprising if some creationists did not go ahead and get a PhD to boost their credibility.

That's the benefit of actual science -- it doesn't matter who you are if your theories don't stand up to scrutiny.
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Religious kids believe in fantasy

Unread post

I think we have wandered from the original thread topic here which is partly my fault. Just a few general comments on some things raised here. Free will is an illusion.The argument of causality.While no one I think would deny that our decision making is influenced by many factors,saying the decisions we have made were the only ones we could have made is pushing this too far I would say.That we had no choice really, but to make them.
Sam Harris' view that Saddam Hussein's son could not but have committed the appalling crimes he did is highly questionable. On this basis the Nazi war tribunals were based on an illusion that the perpetrators could have been any in way responsible for their actions.This is subversive, making the victims mere statistical casualties(wrong place,wrong time) and the perpetrators hapless victims themselves.
That Harris is not Hussein and vice versa is simply a matter of chance, according to him.Both just happened to be born to their particular parents,to have the genetic make up they have, and so on.

I find an interesting symmetry in Harris' thinking on a couple of big questions. What in the final analysis caused the actions of Harris and Hussein? Chance! And what is the great cause of all living things in the first place? Chance! Now why didn't I think of that?Where did I leave my rabbit's foot? Gotta find it quick!
Just to complete the symmetry of Sam Harris' ideas as I see it. Those who think their choices are not an illusion are deluded, and those who think God exists are deluded also.The appearance of design in nature is an illusion which deludes many. Sam though is lucky and certainly not deluded.
I listened to the Richard Dawkin's interview Dexter highlighted which I found mildly interesting.While tempted to pick holes, I made the decision not to, which of course was an illusion.
Last edited by Flann 5 on Fri Jul 25, 2014 8:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
youkrst

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
One with Books
Posts: 2752
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:30 am
13
Has thanked: 2280 times
Been thanked: 727 times

Re: Religious kids believe in fantasy

Unread post

Flann 5 wrote:Sam Harris' view that Saddam Hussein's son could not but have committed the appalling crimes he did is highly questionable.
what about the bible Flann? what does it say...
So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH.” 18So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

19You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” 20On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? 21Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? 22What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Religious kids believe in fantasy

Unread post

Hi Youkrst, How are you? An interesting post.Thought provoking. It's way past my bedtime but I'll definitely think about it and come back to you on it, when I've done that.I need some sleep now.
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”