Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Pope Francis: Free expression doesn't mean right to insult others' faith watch

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    The subjective experience. And if it has no bearing on any physical claims about the universe, then what is it? On what level is it reality?

    God is brought into being in a similar way. It's hard to consciously reflect on whether you're in love or not, mainly because you have no properly measurable evidence about what love actually feels like, and even if you did, you'd still have no way to objectively judge the nature of your own feelings.

    So if you decide you're in love, you're in love, and nobody can really say otherwise; if you decide God exists, he exists, and nobody can really say otherwise.

    God of course does not really exist outside of people's minds, except insofar as people's individual concepts of what belief in God is supposed to consist of are shaped by shared religious traditions, which are an attempt at someone else's effusion of their own spiritual experiences. Same as love, which is shaped by shared fairy tales, music, and other scripture, which are attempts at someone else's effusion of their own romantic experiences.
    If you're saying that god doesn't exist outside people's minds, then I don't think we have much to disagree on.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    If you're saying that god doesn't exist outside people's minds, then I don't think we have much to disagree on.
    I think we do. Unless I'm pigeonholing you too much, you think that because we can't measure it, it's not real in any helpful sense. That's wrong. If we can't measure it, we simply can't prove it's real.

    That's the end of the road for some lines of debate, but for others you can assume it's real for the sake of argument and draw conclusions further down the line based on that assumption. A bit like how theoretical physicists postulate particles, fudge factors and cosmological constants to simplistically explain phenomena we see in the real world. We can then construct a theory that uses those assumptions, and bring it to a logical conclusion that, like a God of the gaps, fits in with what we know so far. Then we can adjust the theory if more stuff is discovered.

    I admit that in practice religious doctrines are hardly paragons of the sort of inductive, mathematical logic used in theoretical physics, but it's basically the same thing in my eyes.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    I think we do. Unless I'm pigeonholing you too much, you think that because we can't measure it, it's not real in any helpful sense. That's wrong. If we can't measure it, we simply can't prove it's real.
    I think you've jumped the gun there. It would be bizarre to think that things can only exist by virtue of us being able to detect them.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    I think you've jumped the gun there. It would be bizarre to think that things can only exist by virtue of us being able to detect them.
    OK, I was pigeonholing then, sorry.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IC3DOutStunn4)
    In what way exactly is the opinion ridiculous? I'm a Christian but believe that the drawing of muhammed was taking it too far. Also how is religion outdated, the only place its declining is Europe. Outside of Europe religion is increasing.
    I am offensive and I find this muslim.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    That's the end of the road for some lines of debate, but for others you can assume it's real for the sake of argument and draw conclusions further down the line based on that assumption
    The problem is that many religious people take that man-made assumption and then expect the rest of us to treat it as if it is real.

    In fact, many go further from that assumption to say that they know what this god they've assumed to exist wants us to do, who he prohibits us to sleep with, on what day this assumed god commands us to worship him, and so on.

    That's just completely made up. Even if we're to accept the possible existence of a deistic god, the theist still has all his work ahead of him to substantiate even in the flimsiest way the supposed desires of this god

    A bit like how theoretical physicists postulate particles, fudge factors and cosmological constants to simplistically explain phenomena we see in the real world.
    The distinction there is that physicists are hypothesising about explanations that tie together things we already know about the physical universe. And in many cases their hypotheses have proven correct when we later create the technology to confirm their theories. Other TSRians with greater scientific knowledge than I will be able to further outline the clear distinctions between things like the Theory of Relativity, and the assumption that Yahweh exists

    Einstein's theory of relativity proved right - again!

    The difference with theistic religion is that it's not based on any particular physical principle, it's purely man-made speculation with no physical substantiation of any sort.

    The fact that the theistic god failed to insert any scientific facts into biblical texts that would later prove advanced knowledge (like if the Bible contained an expression of e=mc2, in an equivalent form with explanation... that would prove advanced knowledge and perhaps go some way to demonstrating that it wasn't just made up by humans at the time).

    Instead, the evidence that we do have is entirely consistent with what we'd expect to see if there was no god and religion was completely man-made
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    The problem is that many religious people take that man-made assumption and then expect the rest of us to treat it as if it is real.

    In fact, many go further from that assumption to say that they know what this god they've assumed to exist wants us to do, who he prohibits us to sleep with, on what day this assumed god commands us to worship him, and so on.

    That's just completely made up. Even if we're to accept the possible existence of a deistic god, the theist still has all his work ahead of him to substantiate even in the flimsiest way the supposed desires of this god
    I'm pretty sure God is an inanimate prime mover in proper deism (or at least the sort I think is worth discussing), so you wouldn't need to ascribe desires to him. Surely to do so would make him a theos rather than a deus. The ultimate creator god of the gaps, whose gap can never be closed, is therefore nothing more than the interplay of the anthropocentric viewpoint and the random probability distributions for fundamental forces and mathematical constants, which at certain values produced a stable universe in which observers could evolve.

    The distinction there is that physicists are hypothesising about explanations that tie together things we already know about the physical universe. And in many cases their hypotheses have proven correct when we later create the technology to confirm their theories. Other TSRians with greater scientific knowledge than I will be able to further outline the clear distinctions between things like the Theory of Relativity, and the assumption that Yahweh exists

    Einstein's theory of relativity proved right - again!
    Well, religions are also hypothesising about explanations that tie together things they observe in the physical universe. As I said, they don't have anything like the logical rigour of materialist scientific inquiry, but the upside is that there are no hard limits to what religions can theorise on. Science can never theorise on qualia, for example, and concepts like Boltzmann brains and the unobservable universe cast doubt on the universality of any scientific observation.

    And like I said, because the ultimate answer science can provide for the creation is just "it's random, and you are here because otherwise you wouldn't be asking the question", this is another limit on what science and formal logic can explain - there is no explanation, the same way there is no value that satisfies x = 0^0 in all situations. That doesn't mean there aren't other ways to think about it in your mind. Maths just says "undefined, function not continuous at the origin", so you take that idea and use it to open up a new sort of logic that deals with that concept. Maths also did this in the past with negative numbers, irrational numbers and complex numbers.

    The difference with theistic religion is that it's not based on any particular physical principle, it's purely man-made speculation with no physical substantiation of any sort.
    While I will concede that the observations made, as well as the logical progression, are of incomparably higher quality, most of the broader theories in physics are just as far removed from observations of reality because they are based on as many assumptions as it takes to construct the broadest theory they can. They might as well do so, as inductive logic doesn't take any time or resources in the same sense direct observation does.

    The fact that the theistic god failed to insert any scientific facts into biblical texts that would later prove advanced knowledge (like if the Bible contained an expression of e=mc2, in an equivalent form with explanation... that would prove advanced knowledge and perhaps go some way to demonstrating that it wasn't just made up by humans at the time).

    Instead, the evidence that we do have is entirely consistent with what we'd expect to see if there was no god and religion was completely man-made
    This is basic stuff, I thought we were way past this point. Religion doesn't work on evidence, because evidence means faith is meaningless, "and without faith I am nothing". If God included e=mc^2 in the Bible, there would be nothing special about believing in him would there? The distinction between religion and objective reality would melt away, rendering the argument moot. "Believing" in God would be like "believing" in gravity.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.