A Thread for Nilsen

[Hazzer]

For myself my morality is based on judeo christian thinking wether I like it or not.I believe in the ethics not the mumbo jumbo.

I understand that many people find comfort in their belief,and respect that and have no wish to force my lack of belief on someone else.That includes my lovely wife...err...  God bless her.

[Seagoon]

Hi Moot,

I was surprised to see that this thread is still going, especially since it was originally intended to just be a brief dialogue with Nilsen. Then again, I should have known that things around here have a life of their own. Anyway, I'll try to respond to the questions in thread as I have the time (which is unfortunately, very seldom) I'm trying to squeeze this one in, for instance, before doing marriage counseling. So please forgive me if the answer isn’t as full as it could be.

Originally posted by moot
Seagoon, can you (as time allows) refute that religion is irrational, and therefore cannot be rationaly argued in any conclusive way?

Obviously a book could be written about this. But I’ll try to give you a succinct answer. First, in your question you seem to have two assumptions in place:

1) Science is Absolutely Rational and Real
2) The Law of Verification is True

As a philosophy major friend of mine once commented speaking of the work of Richard Dawkins, he wished that practical scientists would stay out of philosophy, because they inevitably make a host of assumptions that philosophers of science (even atheistic ones) wince at. One is the idea that Science is provably all about Rational Realism, when there is a huge debate going on over whether Science rests on a foundation of Rational Realism, Rational Nonrealism, Nonrational Nonrealism, or one of the associated offshoots. I don’t have the time to explain the differences between them, but I’ll try to give you an example that shows the problems with assuming that science is all about “brute facts” and that Science is all about empirically true descriptions of the universe. Truth does not change and therefore it is about ontology (the way things are), truth is truth whether or not anyone knows it or agrees with it. A rational belief on the other hand is about epistemology (or human knowledge). Our beliefs may be rational without necessarily being true, and our knowledge changes as additional evidence comes to light.

So for instance, Science is actually an Epistemological pursuit not an ontological pursuit. It is about forming paradigms that explain the evidence as we have it. They are not “truth” or they would not be able to change. Actually, without a truly all-knowing, objective (outside the box) observer, it can be shown that knowing that something is TRUE with 100% accuracy is impossible. Darwin doubted that human brains were built for that kind of thing, and Nietzsche described our view of reality as the artificial order we impose on Chaos in order to make life livable. Interestingly, he argued that Science and logic and all explanations were ultimately comforting lies we tell ourselves. Philosophically speaking, we might play at being God and kid ourselves that we can know truth, but unless there really is an omniscient being who can tell us what truth is, then there is actually no way of making the leap between “I believe that” and “the truth is.”

Secondly, the Law of Verification, which you seem to have so much confidence in, states that “only what can be known by science or quantified and empirically tested is rational and true” is, and has been demonstrated to be, self-refuting. There is SIMPLY NO WAY TO VERIFY THAT STATEMENT! This is a philosophical statement and not a scientific one, and we don't use science to verify its own philosophical presuppositions. If the only statements that are rational are those that can be empirically verified, then almost all of philosophy, logic, and life becomes meaningless. For instance, a statement like “I Love You” is not capable of being empirically verified, but that does not make it irrational OR untrue.

Additionally, no one, not even scientists, really live this way - insisting moment by moment on empirical verification of everything before it can have any meaning. 9 times out 10 when they act, they act on the basis of faith and trust in authority. Often these things are more reliable than our senses in any event. I’ll try to explain why, in the next post, trust in these things is not irrational

- SEAGOON

[Seagoon]

Moot,

Regarding the reasonableness of faith and authority (for instance, you'd probably be amazed at the number of things you take on faith - rather than empirical evidence - and via trust in authorities in any given day if you quantified them) and why the Christian faith is rational, let me quote briefly from BB Warfield (first) and RC Sproul (second) for the sake of time:

The limitation which is placed upon our knowledge by our very nature as finite beings is greatly aggravated by the circumstance that we are not only finite but immature beings. We do not come into existence in the maturity of our powers; indeed, we remain throughout life, or we would better say throughout eternity, creatures whose very characteristic is change, or, to put it at its best, ever-progressing growth. At no given point in this development, of course, are we all that even we shall become. For the attainment, then, in our immaturity, of such knowledge as belongs to us as finite beings, there is obvious need of help from without. In other words, there is place for authority, and its correlate, faith. This is an ordinance of nature. Those who are first infants, then children, and only through the several stages of gradual ripening attain the maturity of their powers, will need at every step of their growth the guidance of those who are more mature than they, that they may accept on their authority, by faith, what they are not yet in a position to ascertain for themselves, by reason. And, as it is inevitable even among mature men, that some should outrun others in the attainment of knowledge; and especially that some should become particularly knowing in this or that sphere of knowledge, to which they have given unusual attention, or for which they have enjoyed uncommon facilities; there will always remain for creatures subject to change and developing progressively in their powers, not only a legitimate but a necessary place for authority on the one hand and for faith on the other. Not, of course, as if faith should, or could, supplant reason, or be set in opposition to reason. On the one hand, a right faith is always a reasonable faith; that is to say, it is accorded only to an authority which cornmends itself to reason as a sound authority, which it would be unreasonable not to trust.

The biblical record of the existence of God and the truth claims of Jesus appeal again and again to empirical evidence. It is based on what is seen with the eye and heard with the ear. Why then does Hebrews speak of faith as evidence of the unseen?

The author of Hebrews had no intention of divorcing faith from reason or faith from empirical evidence. Faith is based upon evidence; it is based upon what is seen, but it goes beyond what is seen. In summary it works like this. We trust Christ, who is seen, about matters which are unseen.

God displays Himself in creation. He reveals Himself in history. History is the arena of the seen. But much remains unseen. For example, I cannot see tomorrow. No crystal ball is strong enough to see the future. But God knows the future. When God tells us about the future we trust that what He is saying is true. We cannot see it. We have no empirical data available to us from the future. But we believe God’s Word about the future because in the past He has proven Himself, both rationally and empirically to be utterly trustworthy. Our faith in the future is established by the evidence of the past. Scientific predictions can and have been wrong. God’s predictions cannot be and have never been wrong.

To trust God in matters of things unseen is not a matter of blind faith. It is not credulity. It is a reasonable faith. Indeed, to not believe one as well as attested as God for the future is to crucify the intellect. It is foolish not to trust Him when He has evidenced Himself to be utterly trustworthy.
In the final analysis positivism offers a truncated science, a science so limited in scope that it ignores the wider realm of truth. It seeks to make science independent of other closely related fields of inquiry. It cuts us off from ultimate meaning. If that is what Comte meant by cultural maturity it means we pay an awfully high price to grow up.

(RC Sproul, Lifeviews, "Positivism", Fleming Revell, 1986)

[Laurie]

something pretty out of this world and divine HAS to have started the UNIVERSE and been the 'first cause' a theory which is  thought to prove the existemce of a greater force.

SOMETHING with powers we cannot imagine to understand started the ball rolling. if you just keep going back and back and back you eventually come to the piont where... whats outside the unvierse..... what put it here... what started it all off? this is why i still have believe that there IS a god, whatever religion he may be. i feel that different religions are just different ways off attempting to contact and be in sync with this god or force.

something must have amde The very forst atom, It CANNOT have come from nowhere.
we simply do not know anyway near enough to dismiss the existence of a god and most of what we do not seems to suggest that maybe there is if you choose to believe it.

[Elfie]

Therein lies one of the amusing pieces of christianity. Doesn't matter if you're a good person or not, as long as you 'accept the lorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrd' and you get into heaven. But if you're a good person as don't accept the lorrrrrrrrrd then its off the hell with you.

The God that I believe in doesn't consider a little white lie to be any less evil than a murder. Both are equal offenses in His eyes. This is how Jeffrey Damher (sp), if he had found his Salvation through Christ could still get into Heaven while a good person that never found his Salvation could be left out. God loves each of us no matter how bad we have been.

We can compare this to a father that has children. When his children disobey him, does he suddenly dislike them or disown them or stop loving them? Of course not. He continues to love them simply because they are his children.

Salvation itself is a gift from God, given freely. All we have to do is accept it.

[Angus]

Ehh:
" look at it like this; either you believe & have faith or you don't. If you don't & God is real then you're in deep trouble. If you do & God is real; at least you have a shot & you haven't lost a thing in the process."

And if you do, and there is no God, you've been hoaxed?

Watch it when you put your saddle on the bible, for the bible you have isn't quite the full version. There are, after all, some good chunks that were chipped off.
For it looks you have fallen for the fear of the unbeliver not entering God's kingdom, while the centerline of what Jesus preaches is charity, - CHARITY.
So, look better into the bible seagoon.

[Brenjen]

Originally posted by Angus
Ehh:
" look at it like this; either you believe & have faith or you don't. If you don't & God is real then you're in deep trouble. If you do & God is real; at least you have a shot & you haven't lost a thing in the process."

And if you do, and there is no God, you've been hoaxed?

 And my point is still valid. You've lost nothing by believing. So you were a little nicer to people, so you tried to watch your language a little more & stay out of trouble...is that bad?

 

 I'd rather believe & be wrong than not believe & be wrong.

[Angus]

The world, IMHO, has way too many people that consider them selves belivers enough to enter the golden gate with a smile - yet their real life efforts do not demonstrate that they pay any heed to the main centre of what Jesus preached.

(Not to mention those God belivers who excercize  the certain virtues that will insure them to have a bunch of virgins in the afterlife)

[Flame 2 the boy]

this post could go on forever...but idont thinkany one willchange their beliefs just becuase they are told to. I am a christian, but that doesnt mean i think less of nonchristians. Rather than words people need to be shown through example and be spoken to one on one.

I know where im going when i die......do u?

[Brenjen]

Originally posted by Angus
The world, IMHO, has way too many people that consider them selves belivers enough to enter the golden gate with a smile - yet their real life efforts do not demonstrate that they pay any heed to the main centre of what Jesus preached.

 I agree 100% with that statement.

[Angus]

"I know where im going when i die......do u?"
So you have a grave ordered?

Anyway Brenjen, TY

[Flame 2 the boy]

nah...i was kinda hoping on getting strapped to a bomb and dropped out of a plane. >

[Seagoon]

Hello MT,

As above, I'm trying to respond to all the posts that interact with me directly (incidently, ty Flame Boy for your comment to me) but I'm still several days behind. Anyway, you wrote:

Originally posted by midnight Target
I'll grant the Universe to be a closed system, but this still proves nothing. If you are going to hang your hat on Entropy then you are using the hatrack of the 1st law... Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. A "Natural Law" that required no God yet explains a universe that has always been.

Respectfully, here you are setting the First and Second laws of Thermodynamics  in opposition to one another. Properly understood they do not contradict, but build on one another; the first law states that the amount of energy in a closed system remains constant but is transformed into different states, the second states that this energy is being transformed into less usable energy. The energy remains constant but is subject to the unstoppable force of entropy, therefore eventually in any closed system, the Second Law states that eventually all the usable energy will be expended. To put it in non-technical terms, the laws of Thermodynamics state that Universe is "running down." This is why Astronomers like Jastrow in his Until the Sun Dies affirm that it is impossible for the universe to be eternal either as to it's beginning or its end. That is why the "Big Bang" theory ending eventually millenia from now "not with a bang but a whimper" (to quote T.S. Elliot)  is the current favorite of naturalist science. Existence is for them a brief blip between two oblivions.

There are really only three possibilities to explain the existence of the Universe:

1) It Was Spontaneously Generated - Nothing Generated Everything. This violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.

2) It  is Eternal - This violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the amount of energy in a closed system is constant and that energy and that energy while not lost is becoming less and less usable, entropy as I quoted earlier means that "the amount of energy available to do work is decreasing and becoming uniformly distributed. The universe is moving irreversibly toward a state of maximum disorder and minimum energy."
 
Had the Universe always been here entropy would have been completed - you'd already have maximum disorder and minimum energy.

3) It Was Created - this violates neither of the Laws of Thermodynamics, but it does obviously upset a great number of people who don't like the implications. I can sympathize having been there myself.

Anyway, MT all that to say, its not Creation which messes with the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics, its actually the attempts at alternate explanations.

[Seagoon]

Hi Nilsen,

Originally posted by Nilsen
Clearly what we view as evidence are very different. None of what you listed in either category is evidence in my book.

Please forgive me but I've just realized  I never asked you what would you consider to be "evidence." It might be immensely profitable if you could help me to understand that.

- SEAGOON

[Seagoon]

Hi Vulcan,

Originally posted by Vulcan
Interesting isn't it. Some religions don't require a god to create the universe, some go as far as to openly state they do not fully understand the universe (honesty in religion is such a rare thing) . Even more interesting is how some religions readily label other older religions as mythical despite the supernatural beliefs of their own religion.

But of course nearly every religion thinks it is the 'special one'. Some even go as far to actively discriminate against those that do not agree with their religion.

One of the essential differences between say Pantheistic Monist religions like Hinduism and Buddhism and Christianity is over their view of history. For the Pantheistic Monist world history is to a great extent merely Maya or illusion. Like Siddharta in Herman Hesse’s novel of that name, they would say that those who believe in “history” in the Western linear sense are standing on the bank and looking at the river at a single point without seeing that it is all really part of the continuous vapor/rain/spring/stream/river/ocean/vapor cycle in which all things eventually lose their individuation and blend together. So for them a Myth that helps us to understand is more valuable than a historical event. Therefore, for instance, the Upanishads make no claim at being “history” nor do the Gurus who teach from them. They would say that such a claim is missing the point. In Western terms they would say these myths are still true even though the events did not happen in the linear sense that we frame history in.

Christianity, on the other hand, claims to be built on the testimony of eyewitnesses to actual events, as Peter put it “For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty.” (2 Peter 1:16) In other words, this is not, “once upon a time” stories designed to teach a pithy truisms but rather, ‘let me tell you what happened to us.’” Explained with John’s end in mind: “And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.” (John 20:30-31)

I know that the idea of one form of religion viewing itself as “special” or not merely “a way” but “THE way” is inherently offensive to many, because they either see all religions as equally true or equally false. A position which while it seems normal we wouldn’t think of applying to other spheres ”All Political systems are equally true: Democracy, Tyranny, Anarchy, Fascism, Communism, they are all the same so in the end it doesn’t matter one wit if we have Western democratic republics or one world ruled by Sharia law.”

Now if I can boil it down via a crass analogy, Christianity says that mankind is rather like people locked in a house that is on fire. One religion says that the fire is inevitable so its best if we just go back to sleep, another says that there really is no fire, another says that we must all stay put and think the fire away, while yet another says that the best thing to do is to attempt to claw our way out through the brick wall. On the other hand, Christianity says, there is fire door out of this place, I know the way to it, and I have the key to unlock it when I get there it was given to us by someone whose already been through that door, follow me.