What I Believe

[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.