What I Believe

[David Sklansky]

Spelling it out:

1. No religion is logically impossible.

2. The teachings of specific religions is about as farfetched as the teachings of those who believe in rushes, alien abductions, astrology, most forms of ESP etc.

3 Some form of life after death is slightly conceivable. Putting yourself into a computer might work. Continuing to live in another dimension. See the last chapter of Poker, Gaming and Life, "An Unexpected Ending".

4. My limited knowledge of science makes me reject both religion and atheism. The spookiness of quantum physics, especially randomness and double slit experiments makes me think something is going on that we can't explain. The Big Bang also confuses me. So does the fact that the speed of light and other constants are what they are. Ditto for human consciousness. I don't share computer experts confidence that computers will one day actually be conscious.

5. I have a vague understanding how residents of a universe with mega dimensions would appear godlike to us.

6. Thus the existence of some sort of entity that had a hand in getting a three dimensional universe started seems plausible to me. Less plausible but still conceivable is that conscious beings are somehow a relevant part of this.

7. On the other side of the coin is the fact that there are quadrillions of stars that will never interact with us, millions of bugs that don't matter, no miracles or suspensions of the laws of physics ever occuring, things that were once unexplainable now easily explained, DNA explaining mutations, aliens probably existing, tsunamis etc. etc. etc. Plus the fact there there are dozens of religions vigorously defended by their practitoners.

8.Thus my belief is that:

A. It is conceivable that the known three dimensionsal universe and the big bang had an entity that caused it.

B. It is less likely that this possible entity is in any way omnipotent. (In other dimensions I believe time could fold back on itself.)

C. It is even less likely still that this posssible entity is specifically involved with Earth human beings.

D. It is even less likely still that this possible entity
answers prayers by Earth humans.

E. It is even less likely still that this possible entity
specifically provides various afterlifes.

F. It is even less likely still (and the height of absurdity) that this possible entity makes the deciding factor (in the incredibly unlikely event that E. is true) for competing afterlifes whether you believe in a particular theory about him.

This has always been my stance. And I have still not given detailed reasons for it. I might one day or I might not. Others have done a decent job before me. Remember I do not claim that a specific religion is impossible. Neither is astrology or rushes. And I don't have a big problem with those who say that their religion is logically possible and they "hope" it is true or "feel" or have faith it is true. I only have a problem with those who imply that an objective examination of the evidence should lead an objective observer to make their religion more than 50% to be true rather than all other theories combined.

I have an even bigger problem with those who would admit that objective evidence will not lead you to this greater than 50% figure, while simultaneously believing that God would punish those who don't believe what they do.

The fact is that there is really only one reason I have been getting into religion debates. And it is neither because I am searching for something or because I feel the need to convert people. Rather it is simply because I am fascinated by those posters who make arguments defending their stance. I want to study them. Mainly to help my poker game. Also to learn how to get through to people who rationalize. Similar to, as I said before, to those stroke victims who say they are not paralyzed. Actually I would love to get Kopefire or Felson or Not Ready or Pair The Board to admit their beliefs are as silly as astrology. But not because I care about religion in the slightest. What I care about is the technique of rational persuasion. I'm already real good at that. But I need to get better yet if I am to persuade the stroke victim or the specifically religious. And that was all I ever really cared about.

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
But I need to get better yet if I am to persuade the stroke victim or the specifically religious. And that was all I ever really cared about.

[/ QUOTE ]

David, if you ever perfect this, can we send you on a world tour?

[GrunchCan]

Selfishly, I'd like to know why:

[ QUOTE ]
I don't share computer experts confidence that computers will one day actually be conscious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it becasue you don't think consciousness can be built? Or do you think it is doable, but you don't think humans will ever be smart enough to figure it out? Something else?

[David Sklansky]

I have my reasons. Don't want to change the subject.

[GrunchCan]

I understand. Which is why I said, "selfishly."

[gasgod]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually I would love to get Kopefire or Felson or Not Ready or Pair The Board to admit their beliefs are as silly as astrology.

[/ QUOTE ]

This will not happen, as you well know. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Ditto for human consciousness. I don't share computer experts confidence that computers will one day actually be conscious.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think they already are, in a very rudimentary way. Consciousness, like its first cousin, Free Will, is a purely subjective phenomenon, and, like beauty, has no objective existence.

All in all, I think you views are rational. I think it's possible that an entity created the universe we observe, but it's extremely unlikely that the entity is the omnipotent God of Christianity.

But even though I agree with much of this post, I see no hope that it can help your poker game.

But, what do I know?

GG

[andyfox]

Your hope to be more persuasive will fall on proverbially deaf ears when it comes to people's religion. Life and death are so profound, so mysterious, so difficult, that people need more explanation than is offered by their five senses or their brain. Add to that that the vast majority of people live lives of quiet desperation (and desolation) and that organzied religion is a big business with an almost unlimited advertising budget and you have the perfect recipe for people to believe in the great, invisible man in the sky who watches everything and knows everything and has a list of rules to follow and who, even though he loves you, will punish you with eternal damnation if you break one of those rules. In much the same way that you'll wonder where the yellow went when you brush your teeth with Pepsodent or that we are a peace-lvoing nation: when the big lie is something that people want to believe, there's no need to lead the sheep to slaughter--they'll march lemming-like straight for it. You'll sway nobody with rational persuasion.

[David Sklansky]

"Your hope to be more persuasive will fall on proverbially deaf ears when it comes to people's religion. Life and death are so profound, so mysterious, so difficult, that people need more explanation than is offered by their five senses or their brain. Add to that that the vast majority of people live lives of quiet desperation (and desolation) and that organzied religion is a big business with an almost unlimited advertising budget and you have the perfect recipe for people to believe in the great, invisible man in the sky who watches everything and knows everything and has a list of rules to follow and who, even though he loves you, will punish you with eternal damnation if you break one of those rules. In much the same way that you'll wonder where the yellow went when you brush your teeth with Pepsodent or that we are a peace-lvoing nation: when the big lie is something that people want to believe, there's no need to lead the sheep to slaughter--they'll march lemming-like straight for it. You'll sway nobody with rational persuasion."

I think I got a shot at felson

[A_C_Slater]

Oh yeah, well...

There is no God but God.

Ha! Let's see your reason tackle that one.



Also reason is a lie ; for there is a factor infinite & unknown ; and all their words are skew-wise. --- The Book of the Law 2:32

[Shakezula]

"I think they already are, in a very rudimentary way. Consciousness, like its first cousin, Free Will, is a purely subjective phenomenon, and, like beauty, has no objective existence."

From Webster's
consciousness: the state of being conscious; awareness, especially of what is happening around one; the totality of one's thoughts, feelings, and impressions; mind.

Can you not objectively observe what is in existence around you? Are you not aware? Are you not conscious? Do you not have in memory a recollection of your feelings and thoughts? Do you not have a mind?

Have you studied the nature of your own consciousness? Did you figure out why a room can appear smaller when you are sad, although no measurable physical changes have occurred? And when you are happy, did you solve the question of why the room appears brighter? Consciousness has no objective existence, perhaps, but one can see its effects and form conclusions. Is rationality going to give you answers?

To experience and understand a simple thing, say for example, an orange, do you test it, probe, and measure, propose complicated theories that certainly are observable, without ever daring to taste the orange?

Until you have become aware of being outside of your own physical body, cognizant as always, conscious as always, thinking just as you always do, knowing (by obvious experience---please use some common sense) that your consciousness or awareness, your sense of self, is independent from your own physical body because you can see it still lying in bed, and then have this occur naturally and on many occassions, by your own experience you will know what consciousness is. Until then, keep rationalizing the orange...

[A_C_Slater]

[ QUOTE ]
"I think they already are, in a very rudimentary way. Consciousness, like its first cousin, Free Will, is a purely subjective phenomenon, and, like beauty, has no objective existence."

From Webster's
consciousness: the state of being conscious; awareness, especially of what is happening around one; the totality of one's thoughts, feelings, and impressions; mind.

Can you not objectively observe what is in existence around you? Are you not aware? Are you not conscious? Do you not have in memory a recollection of your feelings and thoughts? Do you not have a mind?

Have you studied the nature of your own consciousness? Did you figure out why a room can appear smaller when you are sad, although no measurable physical changes have occurred? And when you are happy, did you solve the question of why the room appears brighter? Consciousness has no objective existence, perhaps, but one can see its effects and form conclusions. Is rationality going to give you answers?

To experience and understand a simple thing, say for example, an orange, do you test it, probe, and measure, propose complicated theories that certainly are observable, without ever daring to taste the orange?

Until you have become aware of being outside of your own physical body, cognizant as always, conscious as always, thinking just as you always do, knowing (by obvious experience---please use some common sense) that your consciousness or awareness, your sense of self, is independent from your own physical body because you can see it still lying in bed, and then have this occur naturally and on many occassions, by your own experience you will know what consciousness is. Until then, keep rationalizing the orange...

[/ QUOTE ]


I agree.

Sklansky needs to take lots of peyote.

Then his pale reason will come apart at its seams.

[Scotch78]

David,

Have you read any of Kierkegaard's work? I suspect you would find some of his arguments enjoyable/difficult to refute. My experience is certainly limited, but from what I have seen, Kierkegaard puts up the best logical defense of a specific religion.

Scott

[Shakezula]

I apologize if my comments seemed direct. No offense intended. I only am curious why so many obviously-intelligent people here do not fully use their inquistive minds and search for the answers within their own experience. Dreams are rationalized away as being meaningless biological processes. Reason is held to be the pinnacle of man's acheivements. Intuitions and feelings are taken as pointless emotional states, because the high prize is man's rationality. Proof is required for everything, before anyone dares to speculate any further. How can we intiate a new concept or idea if we don't use our imagination to dream of one?

Consciousness comes first. You are aware of objective phenomena because you first are aware. You know you need proof because you know first that you need it. The mind comes first. You are aware, before anything else takes place. It is simple, perhaps too simple, but you know it. It is what you know that matters. Knowing---mind again. First things first. Consciousness, awareness, mind. The mind looks outward into the world. Isn't the mind first? Your mind spins off these great theories and complicated logical conclusions. Mind first. Consciousness first.

It isn't what is taught in schools or books or churches. You have to experience your consciousness to know it.

Animals have consciousness, plants do, even matter has it. The smallest particle that we have discovered has it. Yes, even your body has it own consciousness, and your own is "wedded" to it. It is yours, but not yours. You are not your foot, but the foot is yours. An amazing conglomeration of individual consciousnesses, uniting into gestalts and organizations that operate instantaneously with one another. Incredible, to become aware of that basic biological level, then experience directly how the individual portions cooperate to form the entire structure. Such comprehensions that occur cannot be put into words. Experience is its own teacher. (Still, it was an amazing thing. And that was only the beginning of that particular experience. You get what you concentrate upon. I concentrate on knowing the unknown. Always have, always will. Dream, imagine, and create---reasoning is the easy part.)

[PairTheBoard]

DS: "Actually I would love to get Kopefire or Felson or Not Ready or Pair The Board to admit their beliefs are as silly as astrology."

I don't think you've really been reading my posts David. When have I admitted to believing anything on this Forum except for Santa Claus? And Santa Claus is definitely not as silly as astrology.


Rational persuasion requires dialogue. You're not going to persuade people by just repeating the same speach over and over. You keep repeating your mantra about examination of evidence and ignore the possibility that in the realm of spirit/poetry/art/beauty/awe/compassion/empathy/love the experiential rules rather than the evidential. These are the sources of religions and religious belief, not examined evidence.

What religions offer can move people at deep deep personal levels where language is inadequate to describe. It's the kind of level at which a Mother feels a bond to her child. It's the kind of level at which a soldier feels a bond to a buddy who saved his life in battle. It's the kind of level at which a hopeless drug addict finds freedom from addiction. It's the kind of level that moves people to do things they never dreamed possible. How a person gets moved so deeply is something of a mystery but it is what's at the core of religion and religious belief. Not examination of evidence.

David, your ignorance on this point makes your attempts at persuasion nothing but straw man spam.

PairTheBoard

[reubenf]

[ QUOTE ]
And I don't have a big problem with those who say that their religion is logically possible and they "hope" it is true or "feel" or have faith it is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

I tend to have a problem with people who hope I will burn for eternity.

[reubenf]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I got a shot at felson

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if you convince him for a moment, I hope you realize he is almost certain to revert.

[J_V]

You've been riding felson for a while now - any particular reason you chose him over other staunch believers?

And lastly, I agree with your ideas, they seem very straightforward, which begs the question why so many excellent philosophers and logicians were/are religious.

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
which begs the question why so many excellent philosophers and logicians were/are religious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kierkegaard is the only "excellent" philosopher I can think of who was patently religious in his thoughts. Of course, I don't consider dolts like Descartes excellent, but that's another story.

Scott

[NotReady]

Thanks for giving us your credo.

Perhaps some think this makes more sense than Christianity. I can only say I'm glad I don't think like you about this subject.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
No religion is logically impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

<== All fantasies are logically possible.

[ QUOTE ]
The teachings of specific religions is about as farfetched as the teachings of those who believe in rushes, alien abductions, astrology, most forms of ESP etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Some form of life after death is slightly conceivable. Putting yourself into a computer might work. Continuing to live in another dimension. See the last chapter of Poker, Gaming and Life, "An Unexpected Ending".

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a big difference between automatic and artificial life after ‘death’.

[ QUOTE ]
My limited knowledge of science makes me reject both religion and atheism. The spookiness of quantum physics, especially randomness and double slit experiments makes me think something is going on that we can't explain. The Big Bang also confuses me. So does the fact that the speed of light and other constants are what they are. Ditto for human consciousness. I don't share computer experts confidence that computers will one day actually be conscious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lots of interesting stuff here; you sound confused. See subpost.

[ QUOTE ]
I have a vague understanding how residents of a universe with mega dimensions would appear godlike to us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Appearing godlike is no great issue. There have been numerous human ‘gods’. Anyone with a few tricks could con the gullible.

[ QUOTE ]
Thus the existence of some sort of entity that had a hand in getting a three dimensional universe started seems plausible to me. Less plausible but still conceivable is that conscious beings are somehow a relevant part of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are some questions that I know that I will never know the answers to. Rather than create complicated fantasies to answer them, I prefer to just believe there are some questions that I know that I will never know the answers to.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
My limited knowledge of science makes me reject both religion and atheism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I consider the term atheism to be an essentially meaningless; as it’s meaning depends on a word whose definition no two people seem to be able to agree on.

[ QUOTE ]
The spookiness of quantum physics, especially randomness and double slit experiments makes me think something is going on that we can't explain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quantum theory models the limitations of the observer. So the weird quantum effects that theory produces are really observer centric and not to be confused with reality. Don’t know anything about double slit experiments.

[ QUOTE ]
The Big Bang also confuses me.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you ever believe you understand the big bang, you have caught an illness, probably thought spending too long in the Psychology forum.

The way I view the big bang, is that the universe contracting as you go back in time indicates information degradation.

At the extreme the information loss is so bad that you cannot distinguish any two points in the universe. So even at maximum resolution the universe still only appears as a single point.

But I doubt I know what I am talking about, but then neither do I think anyone else does.

[ QUOTE ]
So does the fact that the speed of light and other constants are what they are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chill out, its just a model that can be useful at times.

[ QUOTE ]
Ditto for human consciousness. I don't share computer experts confidence that computers will one day actually be conscious.

[/ QUOTE ]

maurile thanks for recommending Consciousness Explained . I really think Daniel C. Dennett hit the nail on the head.

[Zygote]

Why does the big bang confuse you?

[NotReady]

I love this quote from a reviewer of Dennett

[ QUOTE ]

Once you understand the dimensions of the problem, and the philosophical constraints within which it must be solved, Darwinism is practically true by definition -- regardless of the evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Monumental.

[IShark]

Who gives a [censored] what your views on religion are? You were put on earth (or appeared on it) to write about poker not your current babblish obsession.

[mackthefork]

I gotta use this line on the well meaning, ill informed guys who are always at my door, trying to 'sell crazy'.

[ QUOTE ]
Who gives a [censored] what your views on religion are?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe they will leave faster, I normally have to spend 10 minutes trying to help them see the light.

Mack

[mindflayer]

David,

What you believe is rooted in the world of math and physics.
I am also rooted there, but I have a little faith. Not a great one, mind you. You have even less, but since you can make your statements of belief by using probabilities, you have not ruled out the existence of God.
With only faith can a rigidly sientific mind "believe" in such unprovable collection of ideas.


Jokingly
I find it very interesting that you would think it more probable
that an N dimensional creature which in our minds we would consider god like might have farted or spilled his milk or by some N dimentsional accident created us 3 dimensional humans and possibly our universe
than the existance of God (as the religious belive him to be) and Him/or her creating our universe.

In the following story a philosopher is trying to understand a mystery.. he has the faith to believe in God and religion but not one of its teachings.
YOu more rightly apply the questioning mind to the first of the questions about the existence of God and wether religion is a worthwhile (+ev) persuit, but the same story applys to the lack of faith in the existence of God.
(Replace 'mystery of the holy trinity' with 'existence of God' and read the story)


One day, after spending many fruitless nights trying to fully comprehend the Mystery of the Holy Trinity, St. Augustine was walking along the beach as an attempt to clear and sooth his mind. As he was wandering, he came across a young boy playing on the beach. The boy had dug a hole in the sand, and was racing back and forth between the ocean and his hole filling his bucket from the sea and emptying it into his hole.
St. Augustine watched the boy for a few minutes, then approached, asking:"My son, what is it you are trying to accomplish?".

The boy looked up and said, "I'm going to empty the ocean into this hole".

St. Augustine laughed, saying, "My dear child, you cannot possibly empty the ocean into that small hole!".

The boy stopped, looked the saint straight in the eye, and said in a voice that struck St. Augustine straight to his soul, "I have a far better chance of emptying the oceans of the world into this tiny hole, than you have of completely understanding the mystery of the Trinity, Augustine."

With that, the boy vanished, leaving St. Augustine alone on the beach. The saint realized that he had been visited by an angel, and realized that he had reached the limits of his comprehension of the Mystery.

a parable of the unbridgeable gap between faith and reason (http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/g/gozzoli/4gimigna/2/12scene.html)

[gasgod]

[ QUOTE ]
"I think they already are, in a very rudimentary way. Consciousness, like its first cousin, Free Will, is a purely subjective phenomenon, and, like beauty, has no objective existence."

From Webster's
consciousness: the state of being conscious; awareness, especially of what is happening around one; the totality of one's thoughts, feelings, and impressions; mind.

Can you not objectively observe what is in existence around you? Are you not aware? Are you not conscious? Do you not have in memory a recollection of your feelings and thoughts? Do you not have a mind?

Have you studied the nature of your own consciousness? Did you figure out why a room can appear smaller when you are sad, although no measurable physical changes have occurred? And when you are happy, did you solve the question of why the room appears brighter? Consciousness has no objective existence, perhaps, but one can see its effects and form conclusions. Is rationality going to give you answers?

To experience and understand a simple thing, say for example, an orange, do you test it, probe, and measure, propose complicated theories that certainly are observable, without ever daring to taste the orange?

Until you have become aware of being outside of your own physical body, cognizant as always, conscious as always, thinking just as you always do, knowing (by obvious experience---please use some common sense) that your consciousness or awareness, your sense of self, is independent from your own physical body because you can see it still lying in bed, and then have this occur naturally and on many occassions, by your own experience you will know what consciousness is. Until then, keep rationalizing the orange...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what to take from this post. On the one hand, you seem to disagree with my observation:

[ QUOTE ]
Are you not aware? Are you not conscious? ... Do you not have a mind?

[/ QUOTE ]

But then you appear to agree with me:

[ QUOTE ]
Consciousness has no objective existence, perhaps, but one can see its effects and form conclusions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Douglas Hofstadter in his wonderful book Godel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid comes as close to explaining consciousness as Daniel Dennett, in my opinion. Hofstadter's speculation that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the mental activity that takes place in the brain is very compelling. One simple epiphenomenon is the fact that in Go, "two eyes live". Nowhere in the rules of the game is this explicitly stated; it is just a necessary outcome of the rules.

So, too, is consciousness a necessary outcome of the mental activity necessary for survival. I am by no means scoffing at your poetic view of consciousness, but the reason it exists is accidental. If we do what is necessary to survive, we will be conscious, but that fact doesn't contribute to our survival.

It is significant that our brain is programmed to periodically switch consciousness off, that is, sleep. This adaptation was a puzzle until somebody noticed that it had survival value. Primitive man would be less likely to survive if he blundered about in the darkness of night, hence the necessity of sleep.

Consciousness has three components: memory, data input, and the ability to reason (process data). The epiphenomenon of self-awareness has no particular survival value, but it certainly is highly interesting, as your post points out.

Consciousness is so fragile; why is this? Drink a beer and it changes. Dozens of chemicals can affect it in diverse ways. Isn't it obvious from this that consciousness arises somehow from the mental activity that the brain engages in?

In a way, I view consciousness as a grand illusion, a negation of the Cartesian "cogito ergo sum". This illusion is so convincing that we carry out research, write booke, and spend endless hours thinking about it. This doesn't mean that I think consciousness doesn't exist; it most certainly does. Dreams also exist, but we clearly recognize them as illusions.

Again, don't think I'm trying to refute your poetic view of consciousness, I quite agree with most of what you said. But if you follow my reasoning, it leads to the conclusion that a computer is also conscious, albeit to a much lesser extent than we are.

Our inability to understand consciousness is akin to the inability of a camera to photograph its own closed shutter.

GG

[HDPM]

Good post Andy, and my gut reaction is to agree that persuasion of the religious is hopeless. After all, by definition they fall for non-rational argument. In fact, many religious beliefs are just beliefs composed of essentially meaningless language. However, I don't think the cause is hopeless. Here's why:

The human animal has not been around all that long. Our present forms are pretty new, and our brain functions seem to be evolving quickly. In less than 50000 years we have gone from a primitive thing to an animal capable of investigating the nature of the universe. We have made tremendous progress, but have a long way to go. As David said, it isn't exactly clear what human consciousness means. It may well be that religious belief is caused by a brain mechanism that is there for other reasons. Or it may be that religious belief is a hallmark of a being intelligent enough to wonder about things which cannot yet be explained; i.e. the being has not evolved enough to understand the things which he is intelligent enough to wonder about.

Some evidence of the progression of human development is the evolution of religion itself. Several primitive societies had religions that seemed to be based on individual audio hallucinations. The idol worship spoken of in the Bible. An idol would be built and it was considered a god. And people seemed to actually hear them talk. This evolved into the first big monotheistic religion. Judaism itself has evolved and softened as you know. Animal sacrifices are not required as they were a mere couple of thousand years ago, and all the places where the Old Testament says to kill rule breakers are interpreted in such a way that people aren't actually put to death for firing up a smoke on saturday. Christianity has evolved too. The Church used to torture and kill many people for heresy, and this doesn't happen now. Sure, there are more fundamental sects in all religions, but the overall trend over the last thousand years has been to a more liberal, open, "soft" form of religious belief. Many people have some beliefs that just aren't as literal or fundamentalist as they used to be. And I think this trend will continue and is actually why we notice some of the backlash against softened belief, i.e. Islamic nut case extremists or fundamentalist religious right people here etc... So while things seem grim and hopeless now, I actually think there is room to persuade people. Darwin came along less than 200 years ago. Advances in physics came along more recently. Human evolution will continue.


I didn't answer KJS's poll yesterday about 2 kinds of people. But I think for the purposes of this thread we can break people into 2 camps. Those who think the universe, our existence, afterlife, etc.... is knowable through rational, natural processes, and those who think those things can only be known by a non-rational feeling or faith in the supernatural. Obviously we don't know all the answers, but I think all of these things are knowable.

[Zeno]

Excellent response HDPM to Andy's post (which is also excellent).

You touched on some subjects well (evolution of religion for example) that mirror much of my own thoughts. And indeed some people have postulated that 'religious belief' (or the sense of mystery or wonder that is constantly interpreted as religious feelings) is part of and intertwined with the evolution of the human mind and societies, in conjunction. A survival mechanism that will be slowly shed has human's progress toward a more rational outlook. That is, if we make it that far. Which is very much in doubt - we may outstrip our capacity to evolve quickly enough and end it all with a bang or slowly fade away.

-Zeno

I'll post more later if I have time.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

It may well be that religious belief is caused by a brain mechanism that is there for other reasons. Or it may be that religious belief is a hallmark of a being intelligent enough to wonder about things which cannot yet be explained; i.e. the being has not evolved enough to understand the things which he is intelligent enough to wonder about.


[/ QUOTE ]

Aw shucks, yall, i thunk its cuz we's all skeert,igneret n irationel.

[LuvDemNutz]

[ QUOTE ]
Why does the big bang confuse you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I can't speak for David but one reason the Big Bang confuses me is that I wonder what was there BEFORE the Big Bang?

[sexypanda]

[ QUOTE ]
It may well be that religious belief is caused by a brain mechanism that is there for other reasons. Or it may be that religious belief is a hallmark of a being intelligent enough to wonder about things which cannot yet be explained; i.e. the being has not evolved enough to understand the things which he is intelligent enough to wonder about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great post David, Andy and HDPM. Personally, I think religious belief addresses a current duality in human nature. More specifically, it reconciles our natural curiosity regarding our existence with our inherent laziness.

What separates us from all other beings on our planet is not just our ability to better comprehend the world around us, but our unquenching thirst to understand the meaning of our existence. In the "Myth of Sisyphus," Camus postulates that "there is but one true philosophical question, and that is suicide. Whether or not the world has three dimensions or the mind nine or twelve categories comes afterwards." We all have the ability to end our existence at any moment in time, but at each of these moments we consciously decide that life is worth living. The reason we do so is our "faith" or "belief" that there is a meaning to our existence. We don’t know all there is to know; I don’t believe that we’ve even scratched the surface. Our mind still requires solutions though, solutions to problems we’ve yet to solve. Religion provides these solutions, or at least temporary solutions, so we are able to set our minds at ease, justify our existence, and go on with our lives.

People are inherently lazy, and these temporary solutions are all that many need to justify their existence and move on. There are few though that feel uncomfortable with these answers though, and try to search deeper. These are the scientists and philosophers that push humanity forward. David, your post reminds me of Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave”. Here, Plato tells a story of slaves chained to a wall in a cave, facing the wall, with a fire behind them. These slaves define their existence by the shadows that are cast on the wall from the fire behind them. This is all they know, and all they understand. One day though, a mighty philosopher comes and frees these slaves, leads them out of the cave, and shows them the light. The slaves though, aren’t grateful, but instead are fearful. They begin to despise the philosopher and run back into the cave back to the comfortable existence that they know. Some people just don’t want to be enlightened, but it’s up to the philosopher to show them the light.

God hides himself in our own ignorance, and as we learn more and more, and dig deeper and deeper, god continues to retreat into the unknown. Religion will stay with us until we ourselves become omnipotent, omniscent and omipresent beings. Maybe “God” is an ideal that we’re striving towards, but in any case, the only way to come face to face with him is to continue learning and to continue digging deeper.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
8.Thus my belief is that:

A. It is conceivable that the known three dimensionsal universe and the big bang had an entity that caused it.

B. It is less likely that this possible entity is in any way omnipotent. (In other dimensions I believe time could fold back on itself.)

C. It is even less likely still that this posssible entity is specifically involved with Earth human beings.

D. It is even less likely still that this possible entity
answers prayers by Earth humans.

E. It is even less likely still that this possible entity
specifically provides various afterlifes.

F. It is even less likely still (and the height of absurdity) that this possible entity makes the deciding factor (in the incredibly unlikely event that E. is true) for competing afterlifes whether you believe in a particular theory about him.

[/ QUOTE ]
None of this should be controversial (save the "height of absurdity" comment). A through F must get progressively less likely, since each is a proper superset of the next.

[ QUOTE ]
The fact is that there is really only one reason I have been getting into religion debates. And it is neither because I am searching for something or because I feel the need to convert people. Rather it is simply because I am fascinated by those posters who make arguments defending their stance.

[/ QUOTE ]
You want to see fascinating? Get into some discussions with Young Earth Creationists. I believe Daniel N. is one.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I can't speak for David but one reason the Big Bang confuses me is that I wonder what was there BEFORE the Big Bang?

[/ QUOTE ]

you can't and its not even worth getting riled up about because anything before the big bang can have no conesuence on the subseuqent universe. There is no time before the big bang, the big bang is when we think time started.

[DanS]

[quote I want to study them. Mainly to help my poker game.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's my boy!

Without speaking as to where I am on the religious spectrum (though I offer that it's far from any extreme on any matrix), I don't get how you can say that you hold disbelief/mild bemused contempt for both atheism and religion, and claim that your only interest is to improve your poker game.

I thought I was mildly weird, Mr. Sklansky, but you sir... you win.

Respectfully,

Dan

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
It's the kind of level at which a Mother feels a bond to her child. It's the kind of level at which a soldier feels a bond to a buddy who saved his life in battle. It's the kind of level at which a hopeless drug addict finds freedom from addiction. It's the kind of level that moves people to do things they never dreamed possible. How a person gets moved so deeply is something of a mystery but it is what's at the core of religion and religious belief. Not examination of evidence.


[/ QUOTE ]

Just like how an online poker player knows for a fact that party poker is rigged. Why do they need an examination of evidence?

[List]

[ QUOTE ]
And I don't have a big problem with those who say that their religion is logically possible and they "hope" it is true or "feel" or have faith it is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a problem with this. Most religious belief systems require a certain amount of effort to follow. Having been raised Jewish, a significant part of my childhood was wasted(in my opinion) on religious ceremony. If one religious belief system is no more likely(objectively) to be correct than any other, the logical course of action would to be gravity towards the one that requires the least effort. This would have to be balanced with the possible social costs of having a religious belief system that is disapproved of by one's peers, and the costs of faking the "proper" religious belief system. Anyone spending a significant amount of effort(relative to this) following a religion with the hope that they'll win the roll on the infinitely large die is being silly. Any other religious people would fall into the category of

[ QUOTE ]
those who imply that an objective examination of the evidence should lead an objective observer to make their religion more than 50% to be true rather than all other theories combined.


[/ QUOTE ]

Basically, if all belief systems are equally likely to be correct, it only makes sense to follow the least-cost system.

I suppose this also assumes that all belief systems have an equal probability in resulting in infinite reward, punishment, and everything in between.

[PairTheBoard]

David Sklansky - caps added
"5. I have a vague understanding how residents of a universe with mega DIMENSIONS would appear godlike to us.

6. Thus the existence of some sort of entity that had a hand in getting a three DIMENSIONAL universe started seems plausible to me. Less plausible but still conceivable is that conscious beings are somehow a relevant part of this.

A. It is conceivable that the known three DIMENSIONAL universe and the big bang had an entity that caused it.

B. It is less likely that this possible entity is in any way omnipotent. (In other DIMENSIONS I believe time could fold back on itself.)

C. It is even less likely still that this posssible entity is specifically involved with Earth human beings."

David, this seems like interesting psychology that's going on here with you. In your mind the concept of higher "dimensions" legitimizes the plausability of a powerful creating entity. But the concept of Love does not. Your mind can extend this Universe via dimensions but not via Splendor. You can see time folding back via dimensions but not the Eternal Life of a Loving Creator.

You are comfortable with the metaphor of "dimensions" because you have experience with it in the study of mathematics. You are probabaly more generally comfortable with "machine" type metaphors for explaining things. But when it comes to the mystery of existence you might just consider the possibility that these "science based" metaphors are inadequate to the point of being silly.

PairTheBoard

[tek]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact is that there is really only one reason I have been getting into religion debates. And it is neither because I am searching for something or because I feel the need to convert people. Rather it is simply because I am fascinated by those posters who make arguments defending their stance. I want to study them. Mainly to help my poker game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please point out how this will help your poker game. Also, please contrast how knowledge of these people will benefit you more than the knowledge you already have of people who play poker poorly in general. And finally, how will you know "those posters who make arguments defending their stance"? (The same way you are able to determine peoples' IQ...?).

[evil_twin]

[ QUOTE ]

Quantum theory models the limitations of the observer. So the weird quantum effects that theory produces are really observer centric and not to be confused with reality. Don’t know anything about double slit experiments.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong. The fact that you don't know anything about double slit experiments is the source of your ignorance.

[Joe826]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, I don't consider dolts like Descartes excellent, but that's another story.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was tounge-in-cheek, right?

What about Kant? From what i've read it seems like he was *genuinely* a devout Christian, and he was brilliant, for sure.

[David Sklansky]

Dimensions aren't metaphors. Read flatland. And how does "Love" create the universe. It was wrong of me to lump you in with Kopefire, Not Ready, and Felson.

[trying2learn]

the best insults/digs always come short, cold, and final.

i /images/graemlins/heart.gif sklansky.

[HDPM]

yes, unfortunately kant was clever enough to fool people with his drivel.

[Joe826]

[ QUOTE ]
yes, unfortunately kant was clever enough to fool people with his drivel.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. I doubt ANYONE on this board is in a position to make comments like these with respect to philosophers like Kant and Descartes. Even if you don't agree with them, they deserve at least a bit of charity due to the fact that they were many times smarter than you or I.

[HDPM]

yes, you are falling into a trap when you don't want to exercise your judgment of kant based on some irrational call to tradition or authority. Please do not lump me in that by telling me not to judge kant or say what I did about him. I admitted kant was clever, but his philosophy was drivel. And yes, I am in a position to make a comment like I did. So are you. You will be happier when you realize it.

[Joe826]

it's not like i agree with most of what kant said. but, labeling these guys "dolts" (which you haven't done, but scott did) is just ridiculous. even if their arguments don't ultimately work, they are still quite impressive.

what is it about kant that you find so offensive, anyways?

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
I have an even bigger problem with those who would admit that objective evidence will not lead you to this greater than 50% figure, while simultaneously believing that God would punish those who don't believe what they do.

[/ QUOTE ]
How does this bear on your first point -- that no religion is logically impossible.

Christians believe (a) that God is just, and (b) that God will damn all non-believers to eternal punishment in hell.

That's not a logical contradiction?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Christians believe (b) that God will damn all non-believers to eternal punishment in hell.


[/ QUOTE ]


Wrong.

[ QUOTE ]

That's not a logical contradiction?


[/ QUOTE ]

Why would it be?

[IronUnkind]

No reasonable person should be persuaded by the argument as you've presented it. Even if one accepted that the questions you ask could be answered in terms of probabilities, they should not be swayed by your claims because you have yet to step up to the rigor of providing a proof.

[PairTheBoard]

David Sklansky -
"Dimensions aren't metaphors."

"Flatland" is a perfect example of the use of "dimensions" as metaphor.

I am giving you the present of a very deep concept here David. My thinking thirty years or so ago was very much like yours. But you know the feeling you get when you read a flawed proof and there's something about it that just doesn't seem right? So you look more closely and discover the flaw. After quiting my phd program in mathematics I studied and contemplated things like history, various religions, quantum physics, Godel's work, art, music, myths, deviant psychology, pedagogy, human sexuality, and read lots of science fiction. I attended thousands of meetings where people talked about practical spirituality. Not religious dogma but principles that work in people's lives.

What I came to realize was that the wrong question was being asked. The really deep question is not; What do we know? It's, HOW DO WE UNDERSTAND?

I concluded that as far as the vehicle of language goes, WE UNDERSTAND BY WAY OF METAPHOR. When you teach a child something new they resist. They don't "get it". Then they see that it's something "like that". Something they are already familiar with. Now the light goes on and they integrate it. They "Understand" it. This is how we come to understand new things, through experience to the point of familiarity and through linking with what's already familiar.

Thus the predominance today of Science Based Metaphors. We have become familiar with mathematical models and theories of physics. These things are great for predicting experimental results. But when it comes to telling us what "really is" they are nothing but metaphors. This is a radical concept which disturbs almost everyone because it shakes the foundation of their sense of reality. It is met with the same ferocious resistence as most radically new but valid ideas. In fact, even more so as it violates what for many people amounts to a their de facto personal religion.

You ask, How does "Love" create the Universe? What you're really asking for is a Science Based metaphor to allow you to understand the proposition. The answer to your hidden question is that Science Based metaphors are inadequate to the task.

PairTheBoard

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]

Thus the predominance today of Science Based Metaphors. We have become familiar with mathematical models and theories of physics. These things are great for predicting experimental results. But when it comes to telling us what "really is" they are nothing but metaphors. This is a radical concept which disturbs almost everyone because it shakes the foundation of their sense of reality. It is met with the same ferocious resistence as most radically new but valid ideas. In fact, even more so as it violates what for many people amounts to a their de facto personal religion.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that david, or anyone for that matter, thinks that science currently has the answer for what "really is". Maybe we can never know. Maybe there is nothing to know.

My question to you is, why do you think your spiritual sources are the right way for determining what really is? I think david is saying that science has so far proven to be the best way of attaining consequentially benefitial results. Within our world, our dimensions, and our life times, scientific theory is the best way to analyze a hypothesis.

[ilikesarging]

You in your mind are capable of imagining these greater sentient beings. Since you can do this, you can undoubtedly imagine the greatest possible sentient being, a being than which no greater can be conceived.

What qualities would a being than which no greater could be conceived have? It is hard to say...would it have the qualities of the greatest possible pornstar??? Who knows. Certainly though the greatest possible being does have the quality of omnipotence, however unlikely and implausible that quality may be. For if one is supposedly imagining the greatest possible being and this being is not omnipotent in one's mind then one is indeed not imagining the greatest possible being.

Surely it should follow that the greatest possible being is all of the "omni's" such as omnibenevolent and what not.

Also...since we can imagine this being existing not only in the understanding but also in actual reality...it must necessarily exist in reality because if it does not than one is not conceptually imagining the greatest possible being.

Therefore religion and all things like it are different interpretations and attempts to understand the nature of this being than which no greater can be conceived that necessarily exists in reality

[PairTheBoard]

I'm not promoting any spiritual sources. I presented what I consider to be a Fundamental Concept which challenges the complacency and oft times arrogance of just about everybody. As far as I know the idea is original.

PairTheBoard

[Guthrie]

Can I have the movie rights?

[andyfox]

Your points are certainly valid and well-thought out. I can't argue much with your analysis of human history nor with your logic.

And yet . . .

I just returned from a trip to The Heartland. My nephew graduated from Illinois and I spent the weekend in Champaign/Urbana. Jesus is very big there. He'd certainly beat Kerry or Hillary in an election and probably Bush (and Cheney, even Lynne) too in a landslide.

So while I agree that I wouldn't have been pilloried as a blasphemer had I posted my original post in this thread on a billboard there, there might well have been petition to do so.