In Gods We Trust(?)

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 8:34 pm

Wrong. Some of us use women.

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 8:37 pm

Frank -- what is the point of demolishing a God which absolutely no one claims to believe in.

The Catholics may say their God is omnipotent, but they *also* explicitly state that He can't do anything which is a logical contradiction. I assume most protestant and evangelical denominations feel the same way.

So at best you've established that they define omnipotence differently than you do; but aside from wrangling over the definition of a word, you haven't demonstrated a false belief. Much better to let them have "omnipotence" if they want it. Hold their heels to the fire on things which are actually incompatible, not just poorly worded. You know, like Omnipotence+Free Will

Anguirus · Post by **Anguirus** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 10:58 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote: lol what? Yes we do, you just don't like the standard definition for some reason so you're intentionally pretending that it's in dispute so the ugly truths don't become evident.

We? Are you a social scientist now? The standard definition, if the field has one, defines religion in strictly cultural terms such that a popular criticism is that for some, Baseball could be considered a religion under it. How about this, name three contemporary scholars that are forwarding definitions of religion wholly dependent on systems of belief and will concede the point, until such a time, kindly stay out of matters of which you know nothing.

Lago PARANOIA wrote: CG answered it pretty well, but I would just like to add that saying that religion is more than a belief system is getting the cart 'before the horse. A religion starts as a belief system but then gets codified by some sort of social experience. Because it's a social experience it invariably gets saddled with some other feature that really distinguish it from more benign forms of belief systems, but that's how they all start.

1) Look, it's part of what makes a religion a religion. It's like me saying that every tabletop RPG so far was born out of a need to fantasize. It's frankly a vacuous truth at best and I don't see what's so objectionable about it.

Hyper rational Neo-Confucianism does not make truth claims outside of those which are also made by the larger society in which it is found. It is hard to say that a belief system, whatsoever, differentiates / differentiated a neo-Confucian from your average high society Chinese.

Lago PARANOIA wrote: 2) If you can post me something that qualifies as a religion that does not have one of those three motives I described, I'll be much obliged.

First, when I make claims I like for them to be substantiated. I don't make claims about the ancient origins of most religions because the evidence for such claims are exceedingly sparse. Secondly, Carvaka, I imagine, doesn't have any of your suggested motives as its origin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C4%81rv%C4%81ka I can't prove this claim, however, because I like to use evidence...

Heath Robinson · Post by **Heath Robinson** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 10:58 pm

Psychic Robot wrote:I merely said that the bullshit "hurfdurf, nothing matters, I AM SO LOGICAL THAT MURDERRAPEKILL AREN'T ACTUALLY WRONG" worldview is linked to i mmaturity.

Yeah, nihilism is generally associated with the wangst that teens go through. Just, please use the right name otherwise you piss off those of us who feel that rational inquiry is a force for good in the world.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 11:57 pm

We? Are you a social scientist now? The standard definition, if the field has one, defines religion in strictly cultural terms such that a popular criticism is that for some, Baseball could be considered a religion under it.

Why don't you show me this standard definition and where you got it from then? I got mine from wikipedia, which pointed me to some assbomb named Charles Geertz.

Geertz saw religion as one of the cultural systems of a society. He defined religion as:

(1) a system of symbols
(2) which acts to establish powerful, pervasive and long-lasting moods and motivations in men
(3) by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and
(4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that
(5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.

With symbols Geertz meant a carrier that embodies a conception, because he saw religion and culture as systems of communication.

How about this, name three contemporary scholars that are forwarding definitions of religion wholly dependent on systems of belief and will concede the point, until such a time, kindly stay out of matters of which you know nothing.

Don't feel like it.

Also don't feel like respecting dismissive elitist claims.

But anyway, a quick check of wikipedia tells me that his definition is generally the accepted one in use. If you really press me on this I could look a little harder, but a cursory look tells me that the definition I posted does have some critics, like Talad Asad and some douchenozzle named Timothy Fitzgerald so you do have some room here.

Hyper rational Neo-Confucianism does not make truth claims outside of those which are also made by the larger society in which it is found. It is hard to say that a belief system, whatsoever, differentiates / differentiated a neo-Confucian from your average high society Chinese.

How does hyper-rational neoconfucianism differ from regular neoconfucianism? A quick check of neoconfucianism does show that this make completely untestable claims (indeed, some outright laughable ones), so yes, it does claim to hold some truths outside that of larger society. Does Hyper-Rational somehow change this?

First, when I make claims I like for them to be substantiated. I don't make claims about the ancient origins of most religions because the evidence for such claims are exceedingly sparse. Secondly, Carvaka, I imagine, doesn't have any of your suggested motives as its origin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C4%81rv%C4%81ka I can't prove this claim, however, because I like to use evidence...

You don't need to know the exact circumstances to know how it was created. Even though we know nothing about the people who started the protosciences of alchemy or alienism, we do know that these ideologies were crafted from ignorance. Yes, there were some valid scientific inquiries into their fields of study (which is why they got absorbed into real sciences), but from the most part the bodies of their work were pulled out of their asses.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:09 am

Lago wrote:You don't need to know the exact circumstances to know how it was created. Even though we know nothing about the people who started the protosciences of alchemy or alienism, we do know that these ideologies were crafted from ignorance. Yes, there were some valid scientific inquiries into their fields of study (which is why they got absorbed into real sciences), but from the most part the bodies of their work were pulled out of their asses.

Isn't the purpose of science to find out the whys and hows of the universe? Isn't it to explain those things we don't know? Science comes from ignorance, finds knowledge, and extrapolates the information so we can learn. It's entirely based on the belief (postulate, if you rather) that the world is knowable - that the laws of the universe are not inscrutable, and our magnificent humans brains are actually capable of recognizing and understanding those laws.

What I'd really like to know is why people evolved a brain that believes in some mystical/spiritual/deific force. Evolutionarily speaking, I don't understand what benefit that bestows upon the survival of the species.

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:20 am

Maj wrote:It's entirely based on the belief (postulate, if you rather) that the world is knowable - that the laws of the universe are not inscrutable, and our magnificent humans brains are actually capable of recognizing and understanding those laws.

Indeed. Those beliefs being false is the basis for Lovecraftian horror.

Maj wrote:What I'd really like to know is why people evolved a brain that believes in some mystical/spiritual/deific force. Evolutionarily speaking, I don't understand what benefit that bestows upon the survival of the species.

Probably the placebo effect.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:26 am

You'd be surprised at what hope can do.

Ganbare Gincun · Post by **Ganbare Gincun** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 2:24 am

Psychic Robot wrote:You'd be surprised at what hope can do.

The Melians found out the hard way that relying on hope is tantamount to a death sentence. It's never an advisable course of action.

Ganbare Gincun · Post by **Ganbare Gincun** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 2:44 am

ckafrica wrote:You know just because the word "Rational" is in the name does not automatically make an unbiased. Atheism/Humanism/whateverism are just as biased in their interpretations of religion as Religion is at interpreting itself.

Rational thinkers are inherently biased against concepts such as deities and religion. That's because there's an absence of evidence to prove that deities exist and the religious laws that they supposedly hand down are sacrosanct. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence to indicate that overly religious people have a tendency to use their faith as an excuse to discriminate, harass, and even commit outright atrocities against their fellow human beings. Fuck that noise.

On the day that someone can produce solid evidence that can prove to the world beyond a shadow of a doubt that Thor, Yahweh, or Brahma are actual living, breathing, gods, I'll gladly admit that I'm wrong and that deities actually exist. Until then, I'm unconvinced.

Ganbare Gincun · Post by **Ganbare Gincun** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 2:56 am

shau wrote:Ah yes, the MURDERRAPEKILL stage of development. I went through this stage rather early. I was still in high school when I first began picking up men in bars, inviting them to hotels, then drugging them, slitting their throats and defiling their bodies. It is a little embarrassing now, but it is just one of the embarrassing stages of life we go through until we become mature.

Right guys? Back me up here.

You grew up as a character in a Vampire: The Masquerade campaign?

Heath Robinson · Post by **Heath Robinson** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 3:05 am

Maj wrote:What I'd really like to know is why people evolved a brain that believes in some mystical/spiritual/deific force. Evolutionarily speaking, I don't understand what benefit that bestows upon the survival of the species.

Apophenia, Illusion of Control. Apophenia is simply an overactive relationship inference mechanism. However, it's responsible for our ability to learn new tricks and tools. The Illusion of Control is a secondary aspect of the relationship inference - the perspective that we can use our inferences to control the world, even if what we're doing is completely useless.

It's an emergent side effect.

ckafrica · Post by **ckafrica** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 4:35 am

Ganbare Gincun wrote: Rational thinkers are inherently biased against concepts such as deities and religion.

That's bullshit. There are plenty of rational people who consider possibilities of the validity of god concepts and the precepts of religions perfectly rational things to discuss. The fact that you don't except/agree with their thoughts on the matter does not make them irrational.

Heck Galileo, Newton and Einstein had no problems with the notion of the existence of god, and they seemed fairly rational.

I'd say allowing you bias to automatically dismiss any argument made by those you're biased against is itself irrational.

I'm not religious probably for exactly the same reasons you are but I don't feel the need to be automatically dismissive of anyone who disagrees with me.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 4:46 am

ckafrica wrote:Heck Galileo, Newton and Einstein had no problems with the notion of the existence of god, and they seemed fairly rational.

Is this statement from ignorance or deception?

Pantheism is not a god belief.

ckafrica · Post by **ckafrica** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:22 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Religious_views

"I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

"I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."

Why speak for a man who can speak for himself

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:27 am

There's no such thing as a "rational human".

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:54 am

ckafrica wrote:Why speak for a man who can speak for himself

And why don't you put down your +5 quote miner and and admit that people use god for a lot of things, including "the order of the universe" but when someone makes a categorical statement that they don't believe in a personal god, it's probably indicative of their lack of belief in a "god" by any meaningful definition.

Iaimeki · Post by **Iaimeki** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 7:07 am

ckafrica, your selected quotes don't give an accurate portrayal of Einstein's religious beliefs (at least at the end of his life). While he sometimes used "God" in a way that doesn't have much in common with the way any religious people use it, he didn't believe in a personal deity, souls, or supernatural force behind morality. What he was is largely a matter of semantics, because people argue over the boundaries between agnostics, atheists, pantheists, and so forth, but it would probably be a stretch to even call him a deist as most people use the term, and he did not believe in anything resembling any doctrine of any major religion.

(See http://www.skeptically.org/thinkersonreligion/id8.html.)

Newton believed in alchemy, among other weird things, and assigned the spectrum seven colors because of the number's mystical significance, so while he was a brilliant scientist, he was a product of his time and not exactly a model of rational inquiry as we understand it today. Galileo was actually much closer to a modern rationalist, but he was also a product of his time, so it's likely he believed in some variation on Roman Catholicism. However, even if he had been a complete atheist he would never have risked saying so anywhere, because after all he was put on trial for heliocentrism since it contradicted some Bible passages; what would have happened to him if he'd said that god didn't exist?

More broadly, citing scientists from several hundred years ago who believed in religion doesn't very much pertain to what it's reasonable to believe today. It's a bit like citing the beliefs of eminent ancient political philosophers who were racists and sexists as arguments for racism and sexism today. If you need to cite religious scientists, I'd suggest you start with Francis Crick and other people who are alive today or who died not long ago. Of course, this still makes it a variation on an argument from authority, but I can't help that.

And even more broadly, people use "rational" two different ways. The first is the ability to start with some axioms and reason correctly from those axioms to some conclusions. But there is also an implication of rationality in how you go about choosing your axioms in the first place. You can get crazy-sounding results if you choose crazy axioms, and most people call people who believe crazy axioms crazy (except when they're members of the same religion), even if their reasoning process is flawless.

MartinHarper · Post by **MartinHarper** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 9:47 am

Kaelik wrote:When someone makes a categorical statement that they don't believe in a personal god, it's probably indicative of their lack of belief in a "god" by any meaningful definition.

When someone makes a categorical statement that they don't believe in a personal god, it's probably indicative of their lack of belief in a personal god.

When someone claims that the only meaningful definition of "god" is a personal god, it's probably indicative of a Christian upbringing.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 11:09 am

Boolean wrote:Frank -- what is the point of demolishing a God which absolutely no one claims to believe in.

None what so ever. Except that people seriously do believe in a truly omnipotent god. If you grab a random religious person off the street and ask them if there is anything their god can't do (specifically as opposed to won't do), the vast majority of them will say "No."

Fuck, even the C. S. Lewis answer to the question of whether his god can do something that he can't undo is seriously "Lalala! I can't hear you! You can't ask that! You're a poopy face!" When the inventor of the trilemma argument actually believed explicitly in true omnipotence, claiming that no one really believes in true omnipotence is horse shit. It's stupid and contradictory, but they believe it anyway.

It's not in Judaism in any official capacity, but we're talking about Christians and Muslims here mostly.

-Username17

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 11:20 am

Maj wrote:What I'd really like to know is why people evolved a brain that believes in some mystical/spiritual/deific force. Evolutionarily speaking, I don't understand what benefit that bestows upon the survival of the species.

What makes you think it's limited to humans?

Pigeon Religion Experiments

The vertebrate brain attempts to find patterns in the world around it. Past events are used to make theories as to how future events will unfold. That's a useful talent. Given enough information, an animal can go to where fruit will ripen when that fruit ripens in order to have a steady food supply. Given insufficient information, the actions are... less adaptive.

Ritual behavior is simply a natural reaction to stimulus resulting from events that are too complex for a pattern to be successfully elucidated. Or from events that are in fact just completely fucking random - because the brain doesn't stop looking to find an exploitable pattern to events just because there isn't one.

-Username17

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 11:28 am

FrankTrollman wrote:Yes it is. Because any chain of actions is an action. If you can't lock yourself out and subsequently let yourself back in, then that's a thing you can't do.

But at the point in time when you can't let yourself back in your are explicitly no longer omnipotent. Also the you who is still omnipotent can reach forward in time and let the non-omnipotent you back in.

I'm not willing to force people to use a definition of omnipotent that includes 'able to perform logical impossibilities'. Doing that would be a total dick move because you couldn't have an intelligent conversation with them. Assigning an impossible belief to people who don't hold it is not going to help convince anyone that reason is the way forward.

Anyone who actually does believe God can do illogical things is someone you can't convince with a rational argument in the first place and you shouldn't try. They have to be won over with rhetorical devices, peer-pressure or simply bypassed and removed from the education system.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 3:14 pm

MartinHarper wrote:When someone claims that the only meaningful definition of "god" is a personal god, it's probably indicative of a Christian upbringing.

Right, because all those Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Romans, Norse, Greeks, Eastern Buddhists, ect. They don't believe in personal gods.

The reason we have the word god/gods as a different word then Divine is precisely because believing in gods means believing in some sort of intelligent conscious entity.

When someone claims that believing in any Divine nature is the same as believing in "God," it's probably indicative of them being intentionally deceptive in order to support their argument.

TOZ · Post by **TOZ** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 3:30 pm

Half-formed thought tangent. Posting it here since it doesn't warrant its own thread yet.

So being good or evil has no drawbacks, right? Follow your team's colors all the way, you get your 72 virgins. You go and chill on your lords home plane for eternity.

What if the gods are lying?

None of them know where the good people go, and the evil people go to hell to be part of the stock exchange. The common folk NPCs don't know this, and so can be fooled into the churches claims of other planes and rewards.

Why hasn't this lie been exposed? By the gods themselves or high-level characters? Well, if one god pops the bubble, they all get screwed. For whatever reason they like having worshippers. And it would be bad for business on the devil's end too.

PCs don't give a crap about all that, even the good ones, and no one believes them anyway. If someone gets high enough to go planehopping and find out his great grandfather ISN'T living happily ever after, waging a social campaign to enlighten the material is low on his list of things to do. Evil characters powerful enough to find out they're destined for infinite torture get bribed with power and position, just like the usual.

The main purpose of this thought is to bring back the redemption theme a little, make it a little more logical. Please poke it with sticks and see if it pops.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 4:27 pm

Frank wrote:What makes you think it's limited to humans?

Humans - to the best of my knowledge - are the only creatures who can take simple cause and effect relationships and turn it into a complex system of higher beings that may or may not exist.

What you linked to was essentially the same as the athlete who doesn't wash his socks during the playoffs. I get that - it's the same method by which I train my seven month old to function (When you're sitting down and not screaming, you get to have a bite of Mom's ice cream). It's not the creation of a divine entity that may or may not have your personal welfare in mind. I don't understand why the ability to make that leap from one behavior to the other evolved. I don't understand the evolutionary benefits of having done so.

The Gaming Den

In Gods We Trust(?)

Gods?