RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (7) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Wrong? Moi?, Ah sweet error!< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2007,04:16   

Dear all,

Discussions of late have sparked a thought or two. Nasty and naughty as I can be, I am always amused by other people blaming their failings on me (or others) and projecting their flaws and fears onto their "opponents". It's always an amusing and fascinating part of the process that I am sure everyone here is familiar with. Thus, a question I haven't asked in a while occurred to me:

What if I am wrong?

I'll explain. As a scientist I ask myself the question "What if I am wrong?" about 50 times a day. In this "debate" about creationism I have in the past asked myself "What if I am wrong?". With regard to my lack of belief in a deity or set of deities, I have frequently asked myself "What if I am wrong?". I think I can recognise people who ask this question of themselves and I think I can recognise people who are incapable of asking this question of themselves, preferring instead to blame their insecurities and failings on others. I think the question lies at the heart of any debate or discussion, and is indicative of productive humility. I'd go as far to say that anyone who cannot honestly ask themselves this question is someone who has yet to mature to the point where they can participate in any discussion or intellectual pursuit in anything approaching a productive manner.

So I thought, despite the cheeky title, I'd ask everyone a very serious question, or rather series of questions. These are delieberately hypothetical questions by the way, the manner of answer is as important as the answer itself.

1) For the atheists/agnostics etc: What if you are wrong and god(s) do(es) exist? How would you feel and what would you do? What are the social, ethical and political ramifications of this, if any?

2) For the theists/deists etc: What if you are wrong and god(s) do(es) not exist? How would feel and what would you do? What are the social, ethical and political ramifications of this, if any?

3) For the scientists and people who accept modern evolutionary biology as the best explanation we currently have for the diversity of life on earth: What if you are wrong and IDC or YEC or whatever creationism you care to name is correct? How would feel and what would you do? What are the social, ethical and political ramifications of this, if any?

4) For the creationists/evolution sceptics of various stripes and colours: What if you are wrong and IDC or YEC or whatever creationism you care to name is incorrect, and the modern state of evolutionary biology is correct? How would feel and what would you do? What are the social, ethical and political ramifications of this, if any?

Just to be fair, I'll answer the relevant ones quickly:

1) I'd be very happy to discover that a god or gods existed. I would have found out something new about the universe I didn't now before. Of course I'd be a little curious and I might have to ask dear old god or gods a few potentially impertinent questions, all in all I think it would be an amusing thing to discover. Any of the ramifications I mention and what I would do personally depend on the nature of the deity discovered. A Greek or Norse pantheon wouldn't alter my actions massively, and I would imagine that human life would go on pretty much as it does now with all the concommittant wars and what have you. A single deity of certain attributes might force me to change my behaviour in some directions and not others perhaps, but it rather depends on those divine attributes.

3) Firstly, I'd be a bit bloody surprised! But since we are dealing with a hypothetical situation, I'd have to say I'd be perfectly happy with this, If the evidence did support some form of creationism, then I'd hve to go with the evidence. That is, after all, my calling! What I would do is obviously try to get a job in this new and potentially lucrative scientific field! I would love to find out the mechanisms and evidence proposed and supporting this new creationist science. Political, social and ethical ramifications? None. Is does not equate to ought. This is, of course, excepting the case where the creationism discovered was linked to some particular deity. If it was YEC for example then this has implications mentioned in question 1), i.e. a deity of specific attributes that would have political and social etc ramifications. However, ID which (wink wink) doesn't predict a specific designer would be a different bag. Anyway, as I have said before, I don't care WHAT is true, I care HOW we know it to be so.

Enjoy, improve on, etc

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2007,08:35   

Thanks Louis.  Why do I feel like I am back in Philosophy class, and the Professor just sprung a suprise blue-book test on me?

But I did print out your 3 page essay - and will try to give your questions the serious thought and response that they deserve.

When do we have to turn in our work sir?

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2007,08:59   

Quote (J-Dog @ Oct. 10 2007,14:35)
Thanks Louis.  Why do I feel like I am back in Philosophy class, and the Professor just sprung a suprise blue-book test on me?

But I did print out your 3 page essay - and will try to give your questions the serious thought and response that they deserve.

When do we have to turn in our work sir?

Don't take the piss. That was short for me!

;-)

Louis

ADDED IN EDIT: P.S. How dare you! Those questions do not deserve serious thought. Honestly. A week next Thursday will be fine btw.

--------------
Bye.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2007,09:50   

Is this gonna be on the exam?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2007,10:03   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 10 2007,15:50)
Is this gonna be on the exam?

Yes.

Louis

P.S. Actually, no.

P.P.S. Maybe. The trouble with you students these days is you don't work as hard as we did in our day, etc moan whinge complain.

P.P.P.S. Have I fucked up here? Questions too dumb? Tone too cheeky?

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2007,19:19   

Interesting.

2)  The actual results of this would be nothing.  Just consider the source.  I wouldn't ever learn that God or something "else" doesn't exist because I would die and that would be it. Oblivion.  Consequently, I couldn't change anything about my actions, political, social or otherwise, because the premise is not presently disprovable.  This is not to say that it could become disprovable at some point but I can't conceive of a way that that would be possible.  If it became possible to disprove the existence of God while we were still living that would be an entirely different question.  Given that premise,  I would see some changes in my life, the obvious ones like attending church but overall I would not change much else because in general I'm very happy with myself and the way life has turned out based upon the choices I have made which were influenced by my beliefs.  I would greatly fear the impact of this premise upon the population at large and would predict great instability and uncertainty as not everyone might feel so constrained.

3 & 4)  Not too impactful either way.  I live in a world, professionally, in which CToE is the rule so no changes there.  If the converse were to be true it would affect people personally but science still attempts to describe the world empirically and I don't see any major changes there.  If creationism reaches a level of testable, repeatable observation then it just becomes science and we march on with a newer understanding of the world around us.  Of course, we still wouldn't be satisfied with that description and we'd continue to search for a better model.

  
The Wayward Hammer



Posts: 64
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2007,19:22   

Louis - I think they are interesting questions.  

I am a "mild" theist and I would be disappointed if that belief (and it is only a belief) was wrong.  I find great wonder and beauty in the universe so it is not as if some great portion of my happiness is dependent on theism being true.  I must admit some fear of mortality - OK, a big fear of mortality  - so most of my disappointment would honestly be about my ending.

I have a much stronger feeling about evolution.  If it was somehow found to be incorrect I would be quite puzzled.  The evidence seems so strong and broad that the only way to overturn it would be spectacular new data and that would be exciting.  Puzzling that we did not see it sooner, but exciting.

However, if it ends up that the evidence was just some devious subterfuge by a deity then my disappointment would be more with that deity.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2007,19:45   

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 10 2007,05:16)
1) For the atheists/agnostics etc: What if you are wrong and god(s) do(es) exist? How would you feel and what would you do? What are the social, ethical and political ramifications of this, if any?

I would be extremely curious to know what it's like. What can we understand about it? In what kind of world does it live? Can we communicate with it? It would be very exciting. And brand new, as I don't expect it would have much of any resemblance to the religions I'm familiar with, which seem to be provincial, petty, ridiculous, and both unfairly self-aggrandizing and unfairly self-abnegating. I would also be a little frightened that this very powerful force may be malign.

Quote
3) For the scientists and people who accept modern evolutionary biology as the best explanation we currently have for the diversity of life on earth: What if you are wrong and IDC or YEC or whatever creationism you care to name is correct? How would feel and what would you do? What are the social, ethical and political ramifications of this, if any?


This is a broad question.

a) IDC could be right in some chintzy little way like, you know, evolution went for a billion years and then some space aliens added a gene or two to make it go multicellular. That would be less interesting about the added gene than about the cool new knowledge of space aliens trucking around the galaxy. That would lead to some really phenomenal stuff. Where are they from, how'd they zoom around those distances, what happened to them, etc.

b) YEC is correct: I would be instantly depressed. Not only would that mean the cheap little fairy tale is true, but we were deliberately deceived by a being who planted millions of misleading clues from the deepest fossil to the farthest star. And I'd be under the eternal thumb of the insane monster described in the bible.

Edit: Adjectives are like salt on french fries, more is always better. So change 'insane monster' to 'insane, vainglorious monster'. That is all.

Edited by stevestory on Oct. 10 2007,20:49

   
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2007,22:24   

Quote
3) For the scientists and people who accept modern evolutionary biology as the best explanation we currently have for the diversity of life on earth: What if you are wrong and IDC or YEC or whatever creationism you care to name is correct? How would feel and what would you do? What are the social, ethical and political ramifications of this, if any?


There would be no need to do any scientific investigation on anything ever again.

Any/all evidence/history can be changed/faked at whim by The Powers That Be just to deceive/test people.

And TPTB also could shift its (their?) nature and the resulting rules and consequences at whim.

Last Thursdayism writ large.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2007,11:15   

Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 11 2007,01:19)
Interesting.

2)  The actual results of this would be nothing.  Just consider the source.  I wouldn't ever learn that God or something "else" doesn't exist because I would die and that would be it. Oblivion.  Consequently, I couldn't change anything about my actions, political, social or otherwise, because the premise is not presently disprovable.  This is not to say that it could become disprovable at some point but I can't conceive of a way that that would be possible.  If it became possible to disprove the existence of God while we were still living that would be an entirely different question.  Given that premise,  I would see some changes in my life, the obvious ones like attending church but overall I would not change much else because in general I'm very happy with myself and the way life has turned out based upon the choices I have made which were influenced by my beliefs.  I would greatly fear the impact of this premise upon the population at large and would predict great instability and uncertainty as not everyone might feel so constrained.

3 & 4)  Not too impactful either way.  I live in a world, professionally, in which CToE is the rule so no changes there.  If the converse were to be true it would affect people personally but science still attempts to describe the world empirically and I don't see any major changes there.  If creationism reaches a level of testable, repeatable observation then it just becomes science and we march on with a newer understanding of the world around us.  Of course, we still wouldn't be satisfied with that description and we'd continue to search for a better model.

Just one question to kick off with:

Are you seriously saying that you (and presumably based on your comment others) do not go hog wild because you are "constrained" by your belief in god exisiting?

The only thing that stops you (and/or others) wigging out and going on a killing spree is your faith in a big beared man in the sky watching you?

Forgive my flippant tone but I am aghast! Please tell me this is not what you think.

Louis

P.S. No one said DISPROVE the existence of god, Skeptic, you should know by now that it's not possible to prove a negative. There is no reproducible, reliable evidence that unicrons exist. As far as we know, unicrons do not exist. Presumably you think there is evidence for the existence of god (I'd love to see it some time. Special pleading doesn't count), imagine a world without that evidence.

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2007,11:25   

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 11 2007,01:45)
b) YEC is correct: I would be instantly depressed. Not only would that mean the cheap little fairy tale is true, but we were deliberately deceived by a being who planted millions of misleading clues from the deepest fossil to the farthest star. And I'd be under the eternal thumb of the insane monster described in the bible.

Edit: Adjectives are like salt on french fries, more is always better. So change 'insane monster' to 'insane, vainglorious monster'. That is all.

Oh I agree. That's why I said it depends on the attributes of the god(s) that exist in my hypothetical example.

If BibleGawd were real, my reaction would be curiosity mingled with concern. BibleGawd isn't a nice bunny.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2007,13:39   

If BibleGod is real, I'd still refuse to worship him.

He has the worst qualities of the most evil dictators we can imagine, and his followers love him for it.

They can shove their god.

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2007,20:25   

Quote (Nerull @ Oct. 12 2007,13:39)
If BibleGod is real, I'd still refuse to worship him.

He has the worst qualities of the most evil dictators we can imagine, and his followers love him for it.

They can shove their god.

Dear Professor Dr. Louis,

Me too.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
ck1



Posts: 65
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2007,21:35   

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 10 2007,04:16)
1) For the atheists/agnostics etc: What if you are wrong and god(s) do(es) exist? How would you feel and what would you do? What are the social, ethical and political ramifications of this, if any?

3) For the scientists and people who accept modern evolutionary biology as the best explanation we currently have for the diversity of life on earth: What if you are wrong and IDC or YEC or whatever creationism you care to name is correct? How would feel and what would you do? What are the social, ethical and political ramifications of this, if any?

1) How would I find out I am wrong about this?  I die and end up in hell?  I have been considering this issue for 45+ years, and it is unlikely that anything would change my mind at this point short of a miracle or dementia.  This new knowledge would likely come too late to make a difference in my life in this world (the social, ethical, political ramifications you mention).

3) I would redesign my research program where appropriate. What ramifications do you mean?

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2007,02:02   

Quote (ck1 @ Oct. 13 2007,03:35)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 10 2007,04:16)
1) For the atheists/agnostics etc: What if you are wrong and god(s) do(es) exist? How would you feel and what would you do? What are the social, ethical and political ramifications of this, if any?

3) For the scientists and people who accept modern evolutionary biology as the best explanation we currently have for the diversity of life on earth: What if you are wrong and IDC or YEC or whatever creationism you care to name is correct? How would feel and what would you do? What are the social, ethical and political ramifications of this, if any?

1) How would I find out I am wrong about this?  I die and end up in hell?  I have been considering this issue for 45+ years, and it is unlikely that anything would change my mind at this point short of a miracle or dementia.  This new knowledge would likely come too late to make a difference in my life in this world (the social, ethical, political ramifications you mention).

3) I would redesign my research program where appropriate. What ramifications do you mean?

Hi Ck1,

Ramifications. Well we hear from certain of our theist chums that evolutionary biology is responsible for the Nazis and teenage pregnancy and what have you. So I was trying to elicit thoughts along what would the effect of creationism (of whatever stripe) being true along those lines be. We also here that we horrid nasty evil materialistdarwinistatheistgodhaters who accept evolutionary biology as the best explanation we cirrently have for the diversity of life on this planet are horribly biased and adhere to our religion of darwinism without question and ability to be moved. You've actually just answered question 3) perfectly by the way (as have several others), I'll explain why (you already know I'm sure but I want to make it clear):

Evolution is wrong? Some species of creationism is right? Ok, big deal, how does this affect what I am researching? How can I best adapt my research to study this new understanding we have gained of the universe?

Not a shred of bias or outrage, just dealing with the facts as they are presented in this hypothetical universe defined by the question and working with those facts. Does that strike you as a massive contrast to certain mindsets and mindsets that are claimed on our behalf by certain elements on the creationist benches? It should!

I think Steve has put it well: it depends on what "creationism" is true. I confess I'd be more than shocked and dismayed if certain YEC things were true because they fly so far in the face of what we know very well now, so something very odd would have to happen for those things to be true. In reality obviously this is an impossibility, but considering it hypothetically is interesting. Of course I making the massive assumption that if YEC were true the universe would actually operate. Given the ramifications of YEC for the strong and weak forces (for example), I doubt we'd even have atoms, but that's another tale for another day.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2007,02:09   

Quote (J-Dog @ Oct. 13 2007,02:25)
Quote (Nerull @ Oct. 12 2007,13:39)
If BibleGod is real, I'd still refuse to worship him.

He has the worst qualities of the most evil dictators we can imagine, and his followers love him for it.

They can shove their god.

Dear Professor Dr. Louis,

Me too.

I'd agree with much of that! When we are talking about a specific deity with specific attributes, then there are certainly specific deities with certain attributes claimed for them that I wouldn't like too much. A christian friendly one is imagine if satan were actually real and actually the only deity. Given what we know about this chappie from mythology I can safely say I wouldn't be overly amused! Sadly, BibleGawd fares little better in the "being a complete prick" stakes. Mind you if we could have a deity who's attributes with could conveniently pick and choose, that might be a different matter.

Louis

P.S. J-Dog, sadly I am not a professor. You can just call me "Your Imperial High Majesty Oooh Gosh Aren't You Impressive. Wow!". Cheers ;-)

Or "Louis". Either is good.

--------------
Bye.

  
Nomad



Posts: 311
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2007,23:50   

Hmm.. hypothetical questions..  Always entertaining..


1.  Honestly.. I'd be thrilled.  To be fair, I'm not at all keen on the whole godless life cycle.  Ya'know, get born, live, die, that's it.  If you could magically get rid of my fear of oblivion (yes I know that's KIND of illogical, I'll never experience it so why should I fear it?) then I'd probably slide further towards rabid atheism.  You prove to me that all that metaphysical stuff, including life after death, exists and I'd be rather pleased.  How it effects the way I approach life depends on how it's done.  If it's, say, Jesus riding down the street on a dinosaur while playing Stairway to Heaven on an electric guitar (I just love that image), but NOTHING MORE.. it gives me no guidance.  It doesn't tell me if the bible is literal or allegorical.  It doesn't tell me what I'm supposed to be doing with my life.  It doesn't tell me if God hates the gays, or if that's just a primitive response by the conservatives against their own latent homosexual tendencies..
The minimal situation would probably give me some blind comfort without causing me to drastically alter my behavior in any way.  Perhaps I'd be a bit more willing to risk death due to the knowledge that, theoretically, something BETTER comes after this existence, but..  without further guidance I'm still left with the same moral compass I possessed beforehand.
A far more interesting question is what I'd do if God came down to Earth and commanded me to do some things that go against my established moral boundaries.  Ya'know, bomb abortion clinics, hurt people, preach a religion of hatred.  I honestly can't say.  I'd like to think I'd tell God to go jump in a lake, but.. come on.. it's GOD.. I'm only too aware of my own limitations.  He created EVERYTHING, he can use force to compel me to do his bidding.  I mean it's largely established that the question isn't whether torture will or will not work on an individual, just how much torture is required.  And if we're talking about the vengeful god of the old testament..  I'd be screwed.  Make the wrong move and I'd end up in the digestive tract of a marine mammal.


3.  Oh boy..  this is problematic.  Dare I admit that in much the same way that fundamentalists feel that accepting evolution somehow means that their entire world would be turned upside down, the same would happen to me if creationism was confirmed?  First off I have to accept that a great deal of the scientific picture is wrong.  Yes, the scientific process DOES result in accepted theories being overturned from time to time, but..  the creationist story means that a great deal of observed evidence is false.  There's no way it's being misinterpreted, it would have to have been intentionally misleading.  How am I supposed to react if I found out that the entire world was designed to mislead me?

I've heard a lot of irrational stuff from the god-head's out there.  Perhaps my favorite was a girl offering her evidence for creationism on a radio show I was listening to.. her evidence for creationism?  "The creator is in my heart".  Turn that around 180 degrees.  That kind of thinking would be perfectly reasonable.  In that world my rational thought would be as ridiculous as that statement.

Let's see.. I see a couple possible results.  I might end up as a crazy homeless person, wandering the streets, babbling about hypothesis and observable phenomenon.  At least I could still count on good Christian charity, right?
Or I might go the full insane hermit route, living in a cave somewhere, eating rats..  Or perhaps the most likely scenerio would find me in a mental hospital.  Run by fundamentalists.  Being fed drugs that are supposed to help me adapt to the new world around me.

I have difficulty looking beyond my personal reaction.  If you trust the surveys than more than half of my country already believes they live in this sort of a world.  So.. if anything things would only become more so.  Given the success of such things.. abstinence based sex education, the occurances of pedophilia among the clergy, the deviant (by THEIR standards) sexual behavior among both conservative religious and political leaders..

I guess I'd expect more of all of that.  Which would help motivate my move to the hermit cave I spoke of.

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2007,00:13   

See, it's like this for me; I hate being wrong.  It makes me vomit.

So, I go to conferences and I give papers.  That way people can tell me right away if I am right or wrong, and I don't have to waste time writing it all out and sending in for review from only a few asswipes, who because they are experts in the same things I am an expert in, know who I am anyway. (Anonymous?  No way.  If you can't pick out two out of three of your reviewers you are not an expert.  I don't even try to be anonymous any more- it is useless).

So at a conference people- dozens or hundreds, will feel perfectly happy to tell you what they think. Especially in the hotel bar.  I got tenure and grants mostly by giving conference papers (eventually published in a Proceedings) and arguing face to face, and circulating manuscripts.  I once had 150 requests for a manuscript.  I never did publish it in a book, and it was too long for any journal.  Professional societies once had monograph series, but they had died due to high cost.

So, the deal is that being challenged by other people is much easier, and more fun than trying to keep yourself streight.  Some jack asses take it all personally, and once it has degraded to that point you might as well play that as well.  There is nothing wrong with dislikeing pig shit on your boots.  An interesting thing in my personal experience is that after people have made serious attempts to kill you, trivial threats made by trivial people are merely amusing.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2007,00:26   

So, on the point;

Quote
1) For the atheists/agnostics etc: What if you are wrong and god(s) do(es) exist? How would you feel and what would you do? What are the social, ethical and political ramifications of this, if any?
If there are creatures of the sort described as gods, they have evovled.  They might have knowledge and abilities I lack, but they are no more than beings.  I have knowledge and powers that my dog lacks.  He is only vagely aware of this, and is generally appreciative when I use my thumbs to open the food can. If confronted with a god I will endeavor to emulate my dog, and still remember that the bastard will fall asleep sometime.

Quote
3) For the scientists and people who accept modern evolutionary biology as the best explanation we currently have for the diversity of life on earth: What if you are wrong and IDC or YEC or whatever creationism you care to name is correct? How would feel and what would you do? What are the social, ethical and political ramifications of this, if any?
Well, the simple fact is that we are not wrong.  The sad fact is that we are not wrong.  It would be so much fun if there were little pixies, and ghosties and angels and even bad ol' thunder/fertility big daddy.

There isn't.  Sorry, I can't play that game except on PCRPGs or old style PnP D&D.  There are no gods.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2007,00:33   

I've been wondering if I should have put my response on the Bathroom Wall, because this board is not supposed to be for religion bashing. But having thought about it, I think my response was okay, because it's largely agreeable to smart christians. As a philosopher once told me, "Good science doesn't disagree with the facts, but neither does good religion." If I were a christian I wouldn't want to find out that the earth was 6,000 years old, because a mountain of evidence says it's several billion years old. I'd much rather believe, were I a christian, that YEC belief is an error in the reception, translation, or analysis of god's message, than to believe god planted 100 deceptive lines of evidence. This would fit in with my belief, were I a christian, that the old testament was largely mistaken, and the monstrous god described therein had essentially nothing to do with the real, new testament god.

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2007,00:42   

The 6,000 year old earth isn't biblical either.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2007,02:59   

Dr GH: Oh I agree we aren't wrong, and I think the proposition you've raised that gods, if they existed, would have evolved is an interesting addition.

Steve: I don't think your response is religion bashing, after all the problem of evil is a genuine topic in theology and since these hypothetical questions fall under that general  area of discussion, I'd guess you is ok!

I must confess to an ulterior motive  (oh it was SOOOO subtle). I wanted to show certain personages that not only could we consider the possibility that we're wrong about really key things (not that we are, just that we can consider the possibility exists however infintesimal it is) but that they could too, just as an exercise. I get the impression that accusations of bias are thrown from certain people because those people have never considered they might be wrong consciously.  This appears to have been a failed attempt to get them to try that.

Oh well

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2007,10:22   

Nomad:  

Check this site out - I think this guy interprets it right, and his site will give you the answers you have been looking for.

Bottom line Cliff Notes:  Old Testament God's a Real Dick™

http://www.jaypinkerton.com/backofthebible.html


HTH :)

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2007,10:29   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 16 2007,00:26)
So, on the point;

Quote
1) For the atheists/agnostics etc: What if you are wrong and god(s) do(es) exist? How would you feel and what would you do? What are the social, ethical and political ramifications of this, if any?
If there are creatures of the sort described as gods, they have evovled.  They might have knowledge and abilities I lack, but they are no more than beings.  I have knowledge and powers that my dog lacks.  He is only vagely aware of this, and is generally appreciative when I use my thumbs to open the food can. If confronted with a god I will endeavor to emulate my dog, and still remember that the bastard will fall asleep sometime.

Quote
3) For the scientists and people who accept modern evolutionary biology as the best explanation we currently have for the diversity of life on earth: What if you are wrong and IDC or YEC or whatever creationism you care to name is correct? How would feel and what would you do? What are the social, ethical and political ramifications of this, if any?
Well, the simple fact is that we are not wrong.  The sad fact is that we are not wrong.  It would be so much fun if there were little pixies, and ghosties and angels and even bad ol' thunder/fertility big daddy.

There isn't.  Sorry, I can't play that game except on PCRPGs or old style PnP D&D.  There are no gods.



Look at all those designers.

Speaking of which, I likes the old Greek gods, where each god was responsible for a few things.

Rich - god of Wednesday, and Microsoft excel and, erm, tea... oh and bell-bottoms.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2007,12:12   

Rich, You did the bellbottoms!  Oh I liked those.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2007,12:40   

Careful, Rich. Woden's gonna be pissed if he hears you claiming Wednesday. (Unless you're him? In which case, glad to see you've given up the whole war thing.)

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2007,22:39   

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 12 2007,11:15)
Just one question to kick off with:

Are you seriously saying that you (and presumably based on your comment others) do not go hog wild because you are "constrained" by your belief in god exisiting?

The only thing that stops you (and/or others) wigging out and going on a killing spree is your faith in a big beared man in the sky watching you?

Forgive my flippant tone but I am aghast! Please tell me this is not what you think.

Louis

P.S. No one said DISPROVE the existence of god, Skeptic, you should know by now that it's not possible to prove a negative. There is no reproducible, reliable evidence that unicrons exist. As far as we know, unicrons do not exist. Presumably you think there is evidence for the existence of god (I'd love to see it some time. Special pleading doesn't count), imagine a world without that evidence.

Sorry for the absense but both my computer and I were ill and needed time to recover.

Actually, I run into something of a loop.  I, speaking for myself, happen to agree with the "contraints" offered by my faith to a large degree and so I don't view them as "constraints."  I also don't see my opinion of them changing just because the underlying faith may be misplaced.  I have perfectly rational and irrational reasons for believing as I do and it just so happens that these reasons and my faith coincide.  Now you can say that they coincide because I believe or because I believe they coincide.  That's were the loop comes in but I can't answer that question.  That is a question for my subconscious, if it exists, and falls outside the realm of discovery, IMO.

The thing that keeps me from going on a killing spree is the belief that it is wrong with a capital 'W'.  That God also says it is wrong lends more credibility to Him as a source of knowledge.  If I viewed God in the same way as opinions articulated on this board then I wouldn't follow Him either but I'd still believe in Him.  It would be arrogance on my part to say that because I disagree with Him then He just doesn't exist, IMO.

One other thing, as a basis for this hypothetical we would have to actually "know" that God doesn't exist.  Hence the disprove comment.  Otherwise, we're really just in the same boat we are now with no one really knowing the Truth.  Without proof that God doesn't exist, or even that specific deities don't exist, a person of faith would find it very difficult to honestly contemplate what life would be like without God because faith is all they're running on in the first place.  Does that make any sense?

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2007,08:26   

Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 19 2007,04:39)
Sorry for the absense but both my computer and I were ill and needed time to recover.

Actually, I run into something of a loop.  I, speaking for myself, happen to agree with the "contraints" offered by my faith to a large degree and so I don't view them as "constraints."  I also don't see my opinion of them changing just because the underlying faith may be misplaced.  I have perfectly rational and irrational reasons for believing as I do and it just so happens that these reasons and my faith coincide.  Now you can say that they coincide because I believe or because I believe they coincide.  That's were the loop comes in but I can't answer that question.  That is a question for my subconscious, if it exists, and falls outside the realm of discovery, IMO.

The thing that keeps me from going on a killing spree is the belief that it is wrong with a capital 'W'.  That God also says it is wrong lends more credibility to Him as a source of knowledge.  If I viewed God in the same way as opinions articulated on this board then I wouldn't follow Him either but I'd still believe in Him.  It would be arrogance on my part to say that because I disagree with Him then He just doesn't exist, IMO.

One other thing, as a basis for this hypothetical we would have to actually "know" that God doesn't exist.  Hence the disprove comment.  Otherwise, we're really just in the same boat we are now with no one really knowing the Truth.  Without proof that God doesn't exist, or even that specific deities don't exist, a person of faith would find it very difficult to honestly contemplate what life would be like without God because faith is all they're running on in the first place.  Does that make any sense?

Glad to find your self and computer back in fine health! Gesundheit and all that.

So Skeptic, are you similarly open minded about unicorns, pixies anf fairies at the bottom of my garden? After all, to quote you with one word altered:

Quote
One other thing, as a basis for this hypothetical we would have to actually "know" that pixies don't exist.  Hence the disprove comment.  Otherwise, we're really just in the same boat we are now with no one really knowing the Truth.  Without proof that pixies don't exist, or even that specific pixies don't exist, a person of faith would find it very difficult to honestly contemplate what life would be like without pixies because faith is all they're running on in the first place.  Does that make any sense?


To answer the question, erm, no it doesn't make sense. By which I mean it is a logically fallacious combination of special pleading, non sequiturs, argument from ignorance and circular reasoning. Does it make sense in some emotional or perhaps personal sense? Doubtlessly it does. But I'd hope you are smart enough to see through it.

You seem to be implying, Skeptic, that if someone came up with a series of ideas that fitted your preconceptions/prejudices better than your current religion does that you'd switch. Even if this switch isn't a possibility, do you realise the very shaky ground you have placed yourself on. Do you realise that asking for a negative to be proven is not the same, and does not in any way equate, to asking for positive evidence supporting a proposition?

Do you understand, for example that atheism is not the position that there is no god(s) (although there are subsets of atheism that believe this, and I excoriate them for the same reasons I excoriate you) it is the position that there is no evidence for god(s) and thus belief in such a concept is unsupported. Do you understand why your answer fails to address the questions I asked? (Except in the sense that you have once again abundantly demonstrated your inability to think outside of your faith)

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2007,13:06   

Quote
not the position that there is no god(s)



This is my current position, butonly because there is absolutely no evidence for, need for, or reason to believe in god(s). If I am proved wrong I will change my mind.

As for the questions, if god were proven I would be a little miffed, but otherwise fine with it. However, if it was the god of the bible and the bible was also literally true, I'd be lining up behind Christopher Hitchens to bemoan how much that sucks, and how evil said deity is. If it was just a nice benevolent deity then I'd be cool with that, but any god who set us up for a fall or plated false evidence towards evolution and old earth etc.

So I think that answers both your questions.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2007,13:10   

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 19 2007,08:26)
Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 19 2007,04:39)
Sorry for the absense but both my computer and I were ill and needed time to recover.

Actually, I run into something of a loop.  I, speaking for myself, happen to agree with the "contraints" offered by my faith to a large degree and so I don't view them as "constraints."  I also don't see my opinion of them changing just because the underlying faith may be misplaced.  I have perfectly rational and irrational reasons for believing as I do and it just so happens that these reasons and my faith coincide.  Now you can say that they coincide because I believe or because I believe they coincide.  That's were the loop comes in but I can't answer that question.  That is a question for my subconscious, if it exists, and falls outside the realm of discovery, IMO.

The thing that keeps me from going on a killing spree is the belief that it is wrong with a capital 'W'.  That God also says it is wrong lends more credibility to Him as a source of knowledge.  If I viewed God in the same way as opinions articulated on this board then I wouldn't follow Him either but I'd still believe in Him.  It would be arrogance on my part to say that because I disagree with Him then He just doesn't exist, IMO.

One other thing, as a basis for this hypothetical we would have to actually "know" that God doesn't exist.  Hence the disprove comment.  Otherwise, we're really just in the same boat we are now with no one really knowing the Truth.  Without proof that God doesn't exist, or even that specific deities don't exist, a person of faith would find it very difficult to honestly contemplate what life would be like without God because faith is all they're running on in the first place.  Does that make any sense?

Glad to find your self and computer back in fine health! Gesundheit and all that.

So Skeptic, are you similarly open minded about unicorns, pixies anf fairies at the bottom of my garden? After all, to quote you with one word altered:

Quote
One other thing, as a basis for this hypothetical we would have to actually "know" that pixies don't exist.  Hence the disprove comment.  Otherwise, we're really just in the same boat we are now with no one really knowing the Truth.  Without proof that pixies don't exist, or even that specific pixies don't exist, a person of faith would find it very difficult to honestly contemplate what life would be like without pixies because faith is all they're running on in the first place.  Does that make any sense?


To answer the question, erm, no it doesn't make sense. By which I mean it is a logically fallacious combination of special pleading, non sequiturs, argument from ignorance and circular reasoning. Does it make sense in some emotional or perhaps personal sense? Doubtlessly it does. But I'd hope you are smart enough to see through it.

You seem to be implying, Skeptic, that if someone came up with a series of ideas that fitted your preconceptions/prejudices better than your current religion does that you'd switch. Even if this switch isn't a possibility, do you realise the very shaky ground you have placed yourself on. Do you realise that asking for a negative to be proven is not the same, and does not in any way equate, to asking for positive evidence supporting a proposition?

Do you understand, for example that atheism is not the position that there is no god(s) (although there are subsets of atheism that believe this, and I excoriate them for the same reasons I excoriate you) it is the position that there is no evidence for god(s) and thus belief in such a concept is unsupported. Do you understand why your answer fails to address the questions I asked? (Except in the sense that you have once again abundantly demonstrated your inability to think outside of your faith)

Louis

I am totally skeptical that "skeptic" will ever get it.

He will have no meaningful answer for your "Pixie Replacement" example.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
  194 replies since Oct. 10 2007,04:16 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (7) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]