Is it better to be happy or right?

[Bodhi]

I think Chicken Gods are something different than the judeo christian God. Or the out-side-of-the-universe God invoked by creationists. Chickens are tasty and go well with beer. In fact, the whole creationist argument would be even more laughable if it claimed that chickens designed matter and physics.

[Cyrus]

"It would be very unlikely that lobsters exist if none were ever seen."

This presumes that it is more likely that we know something exists than otherwise. However, as we progressively learn more about the cosmos, we realize that we know less than we previously believed. ("More" and "less" are used in the quantitative sense.) This has been established.

On the other hand, we have brought into theoretical "existence" various constructs, some of which were "encountered" later on through experiments or even "physically", e.g. astronomy's gravity holes. (In other words, we have established the "existence" of some things without first "seeing" them.)

Henceforth, if we have never "seen" A (e.g. lobsters), the probability that A exists, at the very least, is not affected.

[Cyrus]

"The randomness and other spooky aspects of quantum theory and the fact that computers might never be conscious while humans are, seem to be things that are much more easily explained, for now anyway, by invoking some sort of god. Not, of course the god of organized religions which obviously believe nonsense. But some sort of god. Or gods."

Taking a look back, at our "past performance" (never a certain indicator, but certainly a reliable one!), we can conclude that we had a lot of "holes" in our understanding of the world plugged through using the all-purpose parameter of God (or gods). As knowledge of the world progresses, and not just in the purely scientific aspect, we have unplugged "God" from those "holes" and filled them in "properly" -- i.e. with an "explanation" that reflects the highest level of our related knowledge at the time of said "explanation".

Therefore, on the basis of our record thus far, we can be more certain that non "god"-involving explanations exist for the epiphenomena of our "spooky" world than otherwise.

[David Sklansky]

"Taking a look back, at our "past performance" (never a certain indicator, but certainly a reliable one!), we can conclude that we had a lot of "holes" in our understanding of the world plugged through using the all-purpose parameter of God (or gods). As knowledge of the world progresses, and not just in the purely scientific aspect, we have unplugged "God" from those "holes" and filled them in "properly" -- i.e. with an "explanation" that reflects the highest level of our related knowledge at the time of said "explanation".

Therefore, on the basis of our record thus far, we can be more certain that non "god"-involving explanations exist for the epiphenomena of our "spooky" world than otherwise."

This is different. Especially the quantum theory part. In fact it has already been sort of proven that there won't be any further scientific explanations. I believe Bell's theorem basically does this.

[David Sklansky]

"Sorry, still doesn't hold water. There are many things in this universe that have not been seen, yet still exist.

Just in my opinion a bad argument."

You weren't following the original argument carefully. We were talking about probability here. Basically there are three kinds of things in the universe as we know it. Stuff that can't exist, stuff that must exist, and stuff that is logically possible to exist but isn't necessary for the universe as we know it, to be. Only an infintesimal fraction of that third category actually exists. Lobsters being one of them. If God is in that third category, as is seven legged spiders who spin gold, its a big underdog that he exists. Until recently most people thought that he was in the second category.

[MMMMMM]

Hi Benny,

Interesting question; just a few quick thoughts then I gtg.

[ QUOTE ]
If you think belief in God leads to a more fulfilling life but have some logical doubts about various claims made by all religions, would you choose skepticism or faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think believing in Truth (whatever it may be) is the most rewarding and fulfilling (at least so for me).



[ QUOTE ]
If you don’t believe in religion, all you have is this life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps. "You" were produced by the universe (produced somehow), right? Therefore, who's to say "you" can't ever be produced by the universe again? On the other hand, the uniqueness of "you", and the uniqueness of many things in life, gives some measure of meaning and reality to things that otherwise would be far less special or important. So maybe you can exist again at some point after death, but it won't be the unique "you" which now exists. But it still will be you. Not saying this is so but how to rule it out? There is nothing you can definitively point to and say this is "you", "you" are constantly in flux and changing. Maybe death is the great change. The above are not my original thoughts and I'm not claiming veracity for them; just that such may be a possibility.

Individual existences may be something like bubbles in a pot of boiling water. I came up with that one on my own ( (;-) lol)

[ QUOTE ]
Why would you choose something that you gives you less of a sense of meaning and hope?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see it as necessarily an inherent or unavoidable dichotomy.

Ultimately, the closer one's beliefs are to reality, the better, IMO. After all, when you act in accordance or harmony with the universe, with reality, with nature (and possibly "god", whatever "god" might be), rather than in opposition or conflict with, you generally ought to do better than when you are opposed to such forces or principles.

I think one reason most people see "no afterlife" or "no god" as implying "less meaning or hope" is because we think of "nothingness" as being truly empty. But is it?

The more narrowly one defines "god", the less likely
"god" is to exist, IMO. A more accurate definition (if there is one) would, IMO, be greater and broader than that in religious texts, and probably greater than we can conceive in some aspects.

I think you may be thinking of things a bit too narrowly in posing your question. God may exist but not as simply as defined in religious texts. Death may or may not truly be the end. The universe cannot permanently "lose" parts of itself, can it? Change yes, but "lose"? So you are part of the universe so how can you be "lost"? I suspect great changes but doubt the universe can actually lose parts of itself.

And I'm nearly going to be late. Ciao.

[Bodhi]

Our theoretical "constructs" are tied to observable consequences.

What is lacking in this dialogue is Charitibility in Interpretation and so far I have seen very little given by those who wish to deny that observation is worth more than a fart.

If you want to get technical, try this: It would be very unlikely that lobsters (quarks, muons, leptons, whatever) exist if their empirical consequence had never been observed.

Empiricism is going to be around for a long, long time.

[David Steele]

[ QUOTE ]
This is different. Especially the quantum theory part. In fact it has already been sort of proven that there won't be any further scientific explanations. I believe Bell's theorem basically does this.

[/ QUOTE ]

The experimental result of some non-localness has been proven, but so what? The speed of light rate for information travel is not violated. What are you worried about with this phenomena? It certainly doesn't need a god to make sense of it, as you point out, it is already understood. I will grant that it is weird ( in a "who ordered this?" way ) but strangeness is not that surprising ( the Zen are right ).

The Copenhagen interpretation of QM bothers me more and leads to some nasty stuff. Please, no multiple universe solutions.

As for no possible computer consiousness, what result are you thinking of there? We haven't even had decent computers in our own lifetime, give it more years. Penrose is full of it when it comes to computer science. I can't follow Searle's claim either. I think the computers will be consious given the lack of any reason why not.

D.

[FrogMouth]

Lets just cut the retoric and agree that the existance of god will not be proven or disproven in our lifetime. No amount of word play or mathimatics can disprove existance, and I can think of nothing short of God himself appearing in the sky and shaking the earth like a snow globe that can prove his being (even then, I'm sure there will be someone with a scientific explanation).

Getting back to the original question, are we better off if we belive in God? On a person by person level, I would say no. But I do believe that society and the human race as a whole is better off with faith in God. It binds our species, and gives meaning to a majority of our lives. I would hazzard to say that it is a major factor in the civilization of our race. Maybe I'm wrong, but all the early civilizations I can think of were organized and ruled under some sort of faith in an all-mighty.

I wouldn't mind hearing thoughts to the contrary.

[dana33]

[ QUOTE ]
If you think belief in God leads to a more fulfilling life but have some logical doubts about various claims made by all religions, would you choose skepticism or faith?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't accept the premise that belief in God leads to a more fulfilling life. And anyway, you present a false alternative. I choose neither faith (belief in the absence of evidence) nor skepticism (doubt in the absence of evidence), but rationality, based on evidence and logic. The onus of proof is on those who claim God exists. Through centuries of trying, through numerous convoluted arguments, the theists continue to fail to meet this burden.

[ QUOTE ]
If you don’t believe in religion, all you have is this life. Why would you choose something that you gives you less of a sense of meaning and hope?

[/ QUOTE ]
On the contrary, if this life is the only one you have, why would you choose to waste even one minute of your precious time on earth fretting over what's required to achieve a nonexistent afterlife? A high school friend once said that if he didn't believe in God, he would kill himself right away. As an atheist even then, this response baffled me.

Getting back to happiness...
The whole premise of most religions is that while this life is a vale of tears, there's a better one waiting for us after we die. But if religion is wrong, and this life is all there is, then we should enjoy it while we can.