Religion and Logic

[David Sklansky]

So as not to have my position on this point buried deep in the Poker and Religion thread I will start a new one.

I did not say it was impossible to be both religious and logical. It depends what you mean by religious. What is illogical is to believe very precise things that any certain religion believes, when that belief contradicts what science tells us, not to mention the contradiction with the other religions.

It is important to remember that the original beliefs of any certain religion were not as absurd when they were first formulated, as they are now. They made more sense before we knew about germs, chemistry, DNA, carbon dating, and the fact that there are trillions of stars (that cannot interact with us) and millions of different species.

In spite of the above scientific facts, I would still feel less comfortable about rejecting a precise religion if there was only one that all religious people believed. But given there are several major religions, all of whom disagree with each other on VERY SPECIFIC factual points (eg was Jesus the "son of God") it makes far more sense to believe that they are all wrong, and that science is right, rather than that all but one of them is wrong.

On the other hand there is no good reason to disbelieve in a much less precisely defined God. Especially if he is one that isn't paying any particular attention to us, doesn't intervene in our day to day affairs, set up the laws of physics (not math though) but then allowed evolution to decide what is ultimately to be created (with one possible exception to be noted shortly). That is actually a reasonble thing to believe in, given our lack of knowledge about pre big bang, life on other planets, parallel universes, ten dimension space and the like.

Personally I am sitting on the fence about this vaguer God for the time being. Surprisingly there is a scientific breakthrough that might or might not occur that will swing me one way or the other. I'm speaking of artificial consciousness. In other words can a computer or robot be created that will truly know it exists? (Of course one can never be sure it does, since it may simply "acting" like it knows it exists. But that is beyond the scope of my point here.) If such a robot is created, I will be forced to push any belief in God either further to the back of my mind. But if achieving artificial conscious can't be done then it would seem that mere evolution can't do it either. Was the Eve -apple story an allegory for the moment that prehistoric man came to realize they exist in the way no animal fully does? If so, did that moment happen simply because the complexity of his brain was automatically enough to force consciousness to "emerge". Most computer scientists think so. My father has his doubts. If he's right then it bodes well for the existence of at least some form of higher power. But not the one we hear Pat Robertson talking about.

[steamboatin]

If you ever actively search for God, you will find him. I am a believer but also have serious problems with the religous right as currently defined.

For them to state that God is the creator which makes Him The Ultimate Engineer, (which I believe to be true)and then expect me to believe The Ultimate Engineer didn't allow for upgrades is ridiculous.

God gives us the freedom of choice but the extreme religous right whishes to take away any choice, they don't agree with and I see that as a problem.

If we as religous people (myself included) would spend more time helping people make better choices instead of condemming people for the choices they have made, I believe that would be a +EV action.

Okay time to get off the soapbox, shuffle up and deal!

[Dan Mezick]

David,

The reason I posted the Jefferson Bible and Thomas Paine's Age of Reason on the Poker and Religion thread was precisely because these guys Jefferson and Paine were sons of the Enlightenment-- and deists.

As you apparently are at the present time:

[ QUOTE ]
...On the other hand there is no good reason to disbelieve in a much less precisely defined God. Especially if he is one that isn't paying any particular attention to us, doesn't intervene in our day to day affairs, set up the laws of physics (not math though) but then allowed evolution to decide what is ultimately to be created ...

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
de·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dzm, d-)
n.
The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.


[/ QUOTE ]

The Thomas Paine essay Age of Reason is basically a defense of deism.

Regarding how life started on earth, certainly the theory of Cosmic Ancestry incorporates much of current science, and supports deist-like views.

Cosmic Ancestry: A Theory of the Origins of Life on Earth

Lastly, I believe it important to make the distinction between spirituality and religion. Many so-called religious leaders (such as one you named) seem to be full of religion but are lacking in spirituality.

Jesus in some sense has been hijacked by these religious types. They were called Pharisees in his day.

It is certainly interesting to note that he handled them in a special way and had some "special" words for them.



[ QUOTE ]
hy·poc·ri·sy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-pkr-s)
n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies
The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
An act or instance of such falseness.


[/ QUOTE ]

[Kopefire]

[ QUOTE ]

I did not say it was impossible to be both religious and logical. It depends what you mean by religious. What is illogical is to believe very precise things that any certain religion believes, when that belief contradicts what science tells us, not to mention the contradiction with the other religions.


[/ QUOTE ]

Spoken with all the fervor and arrogance of someone who is neither a well trained scientist nor a well schooled theologian.

"Science" is not, simply by being science granted some heightened level of epistemological warrant. Moreover, given the entire tenor of your post, I have grave reservations in granting that you are in fact aware of what specific claims any particular religion makes.

I have my name on publications in medical journals and in theological texts published by Oxford University Press. And frankly, I think your point is B.S..

Have you heard of Stanley Jaki? He's got a PhD in nuclear physics from Fordham, and is a Benedictine priest with a PhD in theology. How about Polkinghorne, he's a theoretical physicist from Cambridge and an Anglican priest. Maybe you've heard of Haught who runs the Georgetown center of science and religion?

How about cosmologist George Ellis who lectured at Cambridge and was a professor at Fermi Institute. He is the co-authoer of "The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time" with Stephen Hawking. He's also he served as J.K. Russell Fellow of Science and Religion at the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences in Berkeley, California and wrote "On the Moral Nature of the Universe: Cosmology, Theology and Ethics."

Sorry, but I think the problem is that you can't makes sense of it, not that it's illogical per se. Stop making the mistake of thinking that people you don't understand are just stupid. Often the problem is not that they are stupid, but that you don't even understand the question.

[cnfuzzd]

David, i think you would find and of the work by Nietzche to be of a valuable read, if you havent done so already. His ideas about human development and creating a mind that doesnt need to rely on blind obiediance to anything, be it a god or science, is a fascinating experience. Especially given that we as poker players are continuously trying to impose our rational thoguht processes onto a game that is based essentially on nothing but pure mathmatic randomness.

That having been said, i think that the idea of a God is above all ludicrous, especially if we are talking about a god who has any interest in us as individuals or as a species. The whole idea of "God" usually exists to justify some sore of moral code or societal contract, which is highly suspicous. I dont mock those who are religous, or feel sorry for them, i just wish they had enough belief in themselves to not need a ghost in the sky to create a definition of right or wrong.

Your example of artificial inteligence is highly intriguing. I think you are precluding the idea that "human intelligence" is really nothing more than natural "artificial" intelligence. I think too much is made of our brains, which are essentially just chemical-regulating agents, meant to enforce, or run, a certain code. As a group, humans are almost always looking to ensure their own survival, or whatever it is that we deem neccesary for "survival". Systems of Ethics, Bodies of Law, and systems of Belief, are nothing more than tools meant to further our survival. What is even more appaling, is that since we have become advanced tool-makers, we refuse to believe that those beings that dont utilize artificial manipulation of external environments, human or otherwise, as "intelligent, when in fact these groups have often found ways to survive in highly simple and effective ways.

Thought provoking ideas on the boards...

peace

john nickle

[chawinski]

[ QUOTE ]

Personally I am sitting on the fence about this vaguer God for the time being. Surprisingly there is a scientific breakthrough that might or might not occur that will swing me one way or the other. I'm speaking of artificial consciousness. In other words can a computer or robot be created that will truly know it exists? (Of course one can never be sure it does, since it may simply "acting" like it knows it exists. But that is beyond the scope of my point here.) If such a robot is created, I will be forced to push any belief in God either further to the back of my mind. But if achieving artificial conscious can't be done then it would seem that mere evolution can't do it either. Was the Eve -apple story an allegory for the moment that prehistoric man came to realize they exist in the way no animal fully does? If so, did that moment happen simply because the complexity of his brain was automatically enough to force consciousness to "emerge". Most computer scientists think so. My father has his doubts. If he's right then it bodes well for the existence of at least some form of higher power. But not the one we hear Pat Robertson talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting point of view. I personally can't see why this would sway your belief. Consciousness is truly a complex and intruiging thing, but i think that if you study it then some viewpoints make it much less mysterious(such as Functionalism). Its still just a series of bits an pieces flying around according to cause-effect, albiet complex. Infact the mainstream view that is accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community(whatever value that may have) is that AI is possible in principle - although the technical details are so vast that it is not practical.

You say that if AI is not possible then intelligence could not seem to have evolved naturally either. Maybe this is true. But nevertheless if we never create AI then this doesn't weaken the argument that intelligence evolved(by Darwinian Natural Selection) on Earth(this actually smells of a God-of-the-gaps argument - 'if we can't figure it out then it must be God'/'if we can't create AI then Natural Selection can't either').

Prsonally i think that the question of God is one of the most important questions you can ask yourself. I've spent most of my time at university doing subjects loosely relatedto this topic(philosophy of mind/biology/religion/science/AI + physics) and everything i;ve seen and read has molded me into an Atheist. My job(in answering the question) is easy because i don't have to bear the burden of proof. And so far nothing i have come across suggests that a God exists.

Just my 2c.

[David Sklansky]

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I did not say it was impossible to be both religious and logical. It depends what you mean by religious. What is illogical is to believe very precise things that any certain religion believes, when that belief contradicts what science tells us, not to mention the contradiction with the other religions.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Spoken with all the fervor and arrogance of someone who is neither a well trained scientist nor a well schooled theologian.

"Science" is not, simply by being science granted some heightened level of epistemological warrant. Moreover, given the entire tenor of your post, I have grave reservations in granting that you are in fact aware of what specific claims any particular religion makes


Who says I was. All I said was that WHEN a particular religion makes a statement about a fact (rather than morals or ethics) that is contradicted both by science and other religions it is pretty farfetched to beleive that statement to be true. I am not claiming to have expertise in which statements they may be.

As far the religious physicists you cite, they are few and far between. And I'd be willing to bet that they reject most of the more precise factual assertions that their religions assert.

[Kopefire]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont mock those who are religous, or feel sorry for them, i just wish they had enough belief in themselves to not need a ghost in the sky to create a definition of right or wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

No. you just condescend.

It couldn't be that it's the reasons some people hold a belief you don't is precisely because they hold sufficient epistemological warrant to hold that precise belief, could it.

No . . that would be a magnanimous conclusion. It's much easier to just assume some psychological weakness.

There are plenty of people who's intellect I respect who hold differing views on religion than I. Have you never met someone you respect who holds a different view than you?

If you have, then why attribute such beliefs to psychological problems, or intellectual weakness, or whatever?

If you haven't, then why are you living such a sheltered life?

[chawinski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I did not say it was impossible to be both religious and logical. It depends what you mean by religious. What is illogical is to believe very precise things that any certain religion believes, when that belief contradicts what science tells us, not to mention the contradiction with the other religions.


[/ QUOTE ]

Spoken with all the fervor and arrogance of someone who is neither a well trained scientist nor a well schooled theologian.

"Science" is not, simply by being science granted some heightened level of epistemological warrant. Moreover, given the entire tenor of your post, I have grave reservations in granting that you are in fact aware of what specific claims any particular religion makes.

I have my name on publications in medical journals and in theological texts published by Oxford University Press. And frankly, I think your point is B.S..

Have you heard of Stanley Jaki? He's got a PhD in nuclear physics from Fordham, and is a Benedictine priest with a PhD in theology. How about Polkinghorne, he's a theoretical physicist from Cambridge and an Anglican priest. Maybe you've heard of Haught who runs the Georgetown center of science and religion?

How about cosmologist George Ellis who lectured at Cambridge and was a professor at Fermi Institute. He is the co-authoer of "The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time" with Stephen Hawking. He's also he served as J.K. Russell Fellow of Science and Religion at the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences in Berkeley, California and wrote "On the Moral Nature of the Universe: Cosmology, Theology and Ethics."

Sorry, but I think the problem is that you can't makes sense of it, not that it's illogical per se. Stop making the mistake of thinking that people you don't understand are just stupid. Often the problem is not that they are stupid, but that you don't even understand the question.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know you directed the comment at Sklansky, but i'll respond as if it were directed to me(we are in the same boat afterall).

I've read work by all the people you mentioned. I especially admire Russell. His view of spirituality is distinctly different to most theists i've met. His view is firmly grounded in philosophical assumptions(everyone has them) and then he extrapolates it so that no part of science is in contradiction with his vesrion of belief.
I strongly disagreee with Polkinghorne's views - he'd like scientists to be 'Supernaturalists' instead of 'Naturalists'...

Anyway, my point is that even having read all these physicists/theologans i still see a huge gaping hole in the place where they should provide the burden of porrf(or even reasoned argument) that would convince me of their belief systems.

[David Sklansky]

Well I see I am going to be attacked from both sides here. Cool.

As to my point about artificial consciousness. I agree that whether human beings are able to or not able to create that, proves anything either way. It's just evidence. Meanwhile I am not talking about AI- artificial intelligence. Something could be intelligent without knowing that it exists, eg zombies or gorillas. The converse is also true, eg Britanny Spears.