Religion

[Umlaut]

I'm an atheist. It doesn't come up often, but I don't think about it much at all anymore. I used to be a strong atheist (aka an asshole), but that just didn't make sense to me when I really thought about it.

[Robin S]

I used to be a strong atheist (aka an asshole)

That's a bit harsh on strong atheists. I used to be a strong atheist, and I don't think I or anyone else considered me an asshole for it.

Attacking people for their beliefs when those beliefs aren't obviously dangerous is different, however.

[Umlaut]

A vocal strong atheist, rather. It was a phase.

[mosc]

A vocal strong atheist, rather. It was a phase.

I think I had one of those too. That time in your life when you've decided that you've completely solved one of the great questions of humanity and it's so blatant and simple that you just feel compelled to tell everyone you meet. I think they call it "17".

[zenten]

A vocal strong atheist, rather. It was a phase.

I think I had one of those too. That time in your life when you've decided that you've completely solved one of the great questions of humanity and it's so blatant and simple that you just feel compelled to tell everyone you meet. I think they call it "17".

I know a 30 year old who's still in it. Mind you, he's like that about everything. He's a cool guy outside of that, but it got to much for me, and I basically cut him out of my life.

[zar]

I didn't say you were crazy, I said you were intolerant. I didn't ask you to ACCEPT my position, I asked you to respect it. Discussion is the point yes but it can only be accomplished from a position of mutual respect.

We are intolerant because we... ask reasonable questions? Again, I'm not seeing why you would be so offended by people asking questions. That's sort of a major part of discussions.

My god is undefinable.

This is getting silly. Do you realize that you are defining your god to be undefinable? I still don't have the slightest idea as to what you mean when you say "god". You seem to be scrambling to make your "god" into something that can never be challenged by anyone, yet in doing so chip it away to nothing. What exactly is your god?

[Umlaut]

Someone already brought up the teapot, right? Good. The point here is that he is defining his god as unquestionable, so don't question it, just ignore it. If people cannot agree on a basic premise, theological debate isn't useful. So what if there is a teapot? Ok, I agree that it is there, now what does that mean for you?

[Nath]

The thing that I find confusing is why people believe in specific things that we cannot perceive: gods, for instance. Now, 'god' is a loosely defined word; I'm assuming it refers to an intelligent, sentient mechanism that is directly or indirectly responsible for human life. I don't see how the existence of imperceptible things implies the existence of this specific imperceptible thing.

My god is undefinable. Your definition is limiting. "Directly or indirectly responsible for human life" is a specific interpretation that is not required to believe in god IMHO.

OK. I'm not asking you to define your god. I'm asking you to define the word 'god' as you are using it.

The word obviously means something; if not, it would be a nonsense word. For two people to use a word usefully in a conversation, they must agree on what the word means. What does this word mean?

I'm asking whether you believe that the perceptible universe would be different.

I BELIEVE that a human being is incapable of KNOWING the answer to your question. I BELIEVE I must be open minded about it because I accept that I am incapable of knowing. If you want me to speculate blindly, I'd have to first decide on even a basic description of the entire universe (both perceivable and imperceivable) and that's just too absurd for me to try and do. Knowing the unknowable is a game for psychics and fortune tellers. All I'm saying is I have accepted there are things I cannot know. Also, I find the question itself kind of silly. How would the universe be different without gravity? Uh, ok... how about VERY different? Or maybe there's the same thing except we call it gravito? Or maybe it's 99.999% the same? I dunno, why the hell would I speculate? See my point?

There's a distinction here. I didn't ask how the world would be different without god. I asked whether you thought the world would be different at all without god. I think that's an answerable question.
To use your gravity example: yes, I think that the universe would be different without gravity. That's because we use the word gravity to describe some phenomenon in the universe. A universe without that phenomenon would be different from a universe with that phenomenon.

[mosc]

This is getting silly. Do you realize that you are defining your god to be undefinable? I still don't have the slightest idea as to what you mean when you say "god". You seem to be scrambling to make your "god" into something that can never be challenged by anyone, yet in doing so chip it away to nothing. What exactly is your god?

A fair question and a respectful one. The word "God" to me means an entity beyond my ability to perceive that is inherently positive. Definitively positive, good. Sometimes I toy with more specific definitions but they're often contradictory and I don't illude myself by thinking they're factually correct. They're just my fumblings, thoughts of the moment, and attempts to grasp. See, I can answer your question but you have to accept before I do that I believe I am not right. I know that's kind of hard to accept but think of it... in terms of significant figures. The answer is a bazillion digits long and I have maybe 1 digit and even that one's got some plus or minus to it. I like to call it tolerance and open mindedness but I realize it can be confusing when you've been told all your lives that x religion believes y and there is no variation, debate, discussion, or grey area. To me, the divine is ALL grey. That's why I say undefinable.

Sometimes I like to think of god as the common morality we all seem to share (or at least most of us). That sense of right and wrong. I draw from Jewish texts mostly (not that I like everything there) and I tend to dwell on things like 'god is present where 2 or more individuals gather', 'god is good', etc. I think it's a literal equals sign.

Nath, I'm going to re-phrase your question in a way I can actually answer, hope you don't mind. "Does God interact at all with the perceivable universe?" Answer: Not in any perceivable way, at least with our current level of perception. Belial asked a few months back if I thought we might evolve over the eons and expand our perception enough to change that answer and I had to say "maybe".

I think what you're struggling with here is two tenants of my personal faith:

1) I don't have any more answer than you do. I don't say "I'm right and you're wrong" in matters I cannot use the scientific method on. I don't think I have some special covenant or understanding of the divine and I appreciate all beliefs that simply accept things in this universe beyond our ability to perceive.
2) I don't like most traditional religious structures as much as any atheist. In fact, many religious people would label me atheist. I think the concept of a god who performs miracles and such is kind of far fetched, absolutely. That doesn't mean religion itself doesn't have value or that there is no God.

[mosc]

Another angle here... I take a lot of flack here for my definitions of God, Religion, Atheist, and Agnostic as overly vague or too broad. I think they are supportable and that most dictionary definitions are easily disproven by things only slightly out of the mainstream. Still, by the dictionary definition of God and Atheist, I'm probably an atheist. I think that kind of thinking is very narrow minded though.

I just get especially irked when people say "Science proves there is no God" because I have studied a great deal on both Religion and Science and I find the two often distant. Clearly though you want to ask me a question like "Do you believe Jesus was the son of god who was born of virgin birth, died for your sins, and was reborn?" I'm going to say HELL no and THEN wield the broad axe of science to show how completely implausible it is. I think that question is a seriously long way from "Do you believe in God?" though, although I have to admit to many Christians they're exactly the same (the poor narrow minded fools).

[darkbladedancer]

As a pseudo-aside from all of this, let me point out that the great majority of philosophy done in the last 100 years or so has been to explain just what knowledge is. For a long time we started out with the premise that:

Knowledge = Justification + Truth + Belief

This concept, that knowledge is justified true belief doesn't work because there are cases in which justified true belief does not equal knowledge. Most famously in philosophy, a guy named Gettier proved this in about a page and a half. As a result of his explanation the conception of knowledge had to change.

Originally, many of the philosophers involved in 20th century epistemology believed knowledge was something like a building. A set of 'stories' set on top of a foundation that was based in empirical observation. A.J. Ayer, the Vienna Circle, and a host of other people held this view until Gettier and others came along and proved all their work wrong.

A little before Gettier, a guy named W.V.O. Quine came along and demonstrated that knowledge was not like a building, but more like a net -- every 'element' of knowledge resting on every other. The greatest ability of this net was that any one 'element' could be taken out, examined, replaced, or discarded. The problem though arises when you examine either too many elements and your net becomes too weak to support anything. The other problem is when one element is fundamentally bound to so many other strands of the net that the entire thing collapses when the primary string is pulled.

(NOTE: The preceeding is lay philosophy and may be somewhat incorrect due to misrememberence or error...)

Religion is like the second example for many people, in that it can't be pulled out and scruitinized with the requisite rational vigor, becuase they're afraid of the collapse of their 'web' if they do.

[Nath]

Thanks, mosc; I think I'm starting to understand where you stand. Could you make a couple of clarifications, however:

The word "God" to me means an entity beyond my ability to perceive that is inherently positive. Definitively positive, good.

Is it accurate to say that 'god is the set of imperceptible phenomena that are inherently positive'?

If so, in what sense can an imperceptible phenomenon be good or bad?

You had mentioned that 'common morality' might be god. But morality is far from imperceptible. We feel it all the time.

I don't have any more answer than you do. I don't say "I'm right and you're wrong" in matters I cannot use the scientific method on. I don't think I have some special covenant or understanding of the divine and I appreciate all beliefs that simply accept things in this universe beyond our ability to perceive.

I'm a little unclear about what this bit means.

Is your position:
a) it is possible but not certain that there exists some inherently positive yet imperceptible entity, or
b) there is certainly such an entity?

I ask this, because I have known people who believe the former, but still claim to believe in god. I find this position a little inconsistent; I thought 'belief' meant being at least fairly certain, as opposed to merely being open to a possibility.

[Matthias]

When using science to explain things you MUST SUBSCRIBE TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE. Otherwise you are -not- using science. It is not arbitrary at all. Souls are non-physical (unless you use some definition of soul other then the common one) and are therefore by DEFINITION Supernatural (not subject to natural laws). Thus using "Conservation of Energy" to describe the eternalness of the soul (even if they had some similar concepts) is quite ridiculous. Also supernatural things have NOTHING to do with being imaginary. Supernatural things are things which -by definition- are unexplainable via. natural laws.

As for your astral projection "Spooky action at a distance" has absolutely nothing to do with it... it's called hallucinations.

So far I've seen you misuse scientific principle after scientific principle while talking about your non-physical supernatural soul. I have no problem with you believing in a soul but trying to validated it by using scientific principles which you obviously misunderstand is unscientific (via. philosophy of science) and frankly quite ridiculous, your supernatural beliefs need no validation within logic OR science, so trying to prove that your belief is logical or scientific is un-needed.

There is no need to assume that the soul--if it does exist--sits outside the realm of natural laws. They could feasibly exist in one or more of the non-spatial dimensions that M-theory calls for. Or not. The point I'm making here is that what seems supernatural might not be. It might simply be that we don't yet have the science and research to explain so-called supernatural phenomena. As little as three hundred years ago, people still thought lightning was the judgment of god. That didn't place lightning in the realm of the supernatural, it was in the realm of "not-currently-explainable." I think the soul is in the same place, and in a rather literal sense I don't believe in the supernatural.
Setting aside whether or not the soul exists, I'm going to focus instead on your proposition that trying to prove its existence is un-needed. Maybe you don't need me to prove the existence of the soul--which is handy, because apparently I can't--and maybe the several billion people who believe in it don't need to validate the idea to themselves, but I do. I am of a scientific mind--even if I am not, it seems, so learned as you--and I can't just adopt a religion on faith alone. So, I traced it back to the fundamental question, the one that determines whether adopting a religion at all is a valid idea--the existence of the soul--and worked from there to the views I hold now.

So, call it ridiculous or irrational if you like, but I don't think it is.

As to your second part, I only really need to touch on two things.

1) You (and I, and most everyone) accept scientific axioms as true because they are reasonable and allow science to work. I accept philosophical axioms as true because they are reasonable and allow analytical philosophy to work.
2) Occam's Razor states that the preferable theory is the one with the least assumptions. Our opposing explanations for my alleged astral projection have the same amount.

@Nath:You're right; probability is not always equally divided. I was thinking about this earlier today, actually, and I came up with the following problem.
If you take two ideas, the existence and non-existence of the soul, you have fifty-fifty odds. If, however, you add other possibilities--the various ideas on the nature of the soul if it exists--then you reduce the odds for each possibility. If you have four different theories on how the soul is constructed, you can still only really have one theory on how it's not constructed, so the odds are 20% each--and now there's an 80% chance that the soul exists. By that logic you could prove beyond the shadow of a doubt the existence of the soul by coming up with an infinite number of theories on its construction. This is obviously ridiculous.
I still go with fifty-fifty, on the basis that there is no way to know the odds, but the fact is that the probability doesn't matter. Basically, either the soul does exist, or it doesn't; without proof of either theory there is no way to calculate the odds, and come to think of it assigning probability fields to something that has already happened (or not) seems a bit, I don't know, silly?

Anyway, as I said, it either exists or it doesn't, and as it stands there's really no way to pick which one except through assumption. I therefore assume (or believe, if you like) the idea that I like better: that the soul exists.

[Nath]

I still go with fifty-fifty, on the basis that there is no way to know the odds, but the fact is that the probability doesn't matter. Basically, either the soul does exist, or it doesn't; without proof of either theory there is no way to calculate the odds, and come to think of it assigning probability fields to something that has already happened (or not) seems a bit, I don't know, silly?

I agree that the numerical value of the probability you assign is not all that important; I was just pointing out that there's no real basis for picking fifty-fifty.

As for assigning probabilities to unknown past events: I don't think that's silly at all. This is a standard way to deal with uncertainty in artificial intelligence, and it turns out that it works pretty well.

Anyway, as I said, it either exists or it doesn't, and as it stands there's really no way to pick which one except through assumption. I therefore assume (or believe, if you like) the idea that I like better: that the soul exists.

OK. But I find this approach philosophically troubling; the fact that you like one idea or the other better has no impact on how likely it is. To return to a previous example, it's like assuming that I'll win the lottery.

The thing is, in this case, you don't need to pick one of the two alternatives. You can accept them both as possibilities, and assume/believe neither.

[Malice]

I am of a scientific mind--even if I am not, it seems, so learned as you--and I can't just adopt a religion on faith alone. So, I traced it back to the fundamental question, the one that determines whether adopting a religion at all is a valid idea--the existence of the soul--and worked from there to the views I hold now.

@Nath:You're right; probability is not always equally divided. I was thinking about this earlier today, actually, and I came up with the following problem.
If you take two ideas, the existence and non-existence of the soul, you have fifty-fifty odds. If, however, you add other possibilities--the various ideas on the nature of the soul if it exists--then you reduce the odds for each possibility. If you have four different theories on how the soul is constructed, you can still only really have one theory on how it's not constructed, so the odds are 20% each--and now there's an 80% chance that the soul exists. By that logic you could prove beyond the shadow of a doubt the existence of the soul by coming up with an infinite number of theories on its construction. This is obviously ridiculous.
I still go with fifty-fifty, on the basis that there is no way to know the odds, but the fact is that the probability doesn't matter. Basically, either the soul does exist, or it doesn't; without proof of either theory there is no way to calculate the odds, and come to think of it assigning probability fields to something that has already happened (or not) seems a bit, I don't know, silly?

As for the first part, it seems to me that the fundamental question of religion is not "is there a soul" but "is there a god". If there was a god--some being which created and/or orders the universe--but no soul (something which lives on after death), you could still come up with a religion based around the way you live before you die. If there is no god, but a soul, there would be no point to a religion surrounding that fact; it might change the way you choose to live but it wouldn't set a moral guideline for you; it wouldn't give you a goal or standards the way a religion does.

As for the second part... You can never provide probabilities for theories, only levels of confidence in the evidence behind them. It is not, "I am 100% sure the sun will rise tomorrow", it is, "I am 100% sure that the evidence we have collected proving that the sun will rise tomorrow is entirely accurate." There are no "odds" of a soul existing or not; either it does, and the odds are 1, or it doesn't, and the odds are zero. Had we evidence either way, we could attach some kind of probability.

[Habanero]

I'm pretty much agnostic, but as I see it there are three ways to look at our existence.

1. We are an evolving fungus living on a rock hurtling through the void of space. Perhaps a clever fungus, but a fungus nonetheless.

2. There is a god, this god has a specific objective or product, and we are pieces of the machine required to produce this outcome. Terrific. Feels like most of the rest of my life as a tooth in the cog.

3. There is a god, this god looks after me at a very personal level. This god wants my life to have meaning, value, and some significance. Sometimes one might wish that this god would pay just a little more attention to someone else, but I digress.

I'm still agnostic, but you might admit that option 3 does have a certain appeal.

[Nath]

As for the second part... You can never provide probabilities for theories, only levels of confidence in the evidence behind them. It is not, "I am 100% sure the sun will rise tomorrow", it is, "I am 100% sure that the evidence we have collected proving that the sun will rise tomorrow is entirely accurate." There are no "odds" of a soul existing or not; either it does, and the odds are 1, or it doesn't, and the odds are zero. Had we evidence either way, we could attach some kind of probability.

Sort of. There are multiple interpretations of probability. The Bayesian interpretation of probability allows you to assign a probability to any statement, describing your subjective belief that the statement is true.

[Matthias]

I agree that the numerical value of the probability you assign is not all that important; I was just pointing out that there's no real basis for picking fifty-fifty.

As for assigning probabilities to unknown past events: I don't think that's silly at all. This is a standard way to deal with uncertainty in artificial intelligence, and it turns out that it works pretty well.

Yeah, I can see what you mean; I'm not too familiar with AI, but I think I can see how past probabilities would be helpful. Something along the lines of debugging, I suppose?
But I think the existence (or non-existence) of the soul would fall more under the realm of natural law than past event, so I still say probability doesn't necessarily apply. It would be rather like, for instance, assigning a probability to the existence of gravitons: they either do or they don't.
*Shrug*

OK. But I find this approach philosophically troubling; the fact that you like one idea or the other better has no impact on how likely it is. To return to a previous example, it's like assuming that I'll win the lottery.

The thing is, in this case, you don't need to pick one of the two alternatives. You can accept them both as possibilities, and assume/believe neither.

I know my opinions don't affect the nature of the universe. But until one possibility or the other is proven conclusively then, whether I like or not, I pretty much have to pick one. I know you say I don't really need to, but need is a relative term, I think. What I mean is, there is no such thing as "pure need." You need <thing> in order for <other thing.> For instance, you need food to not starve, you need a job to pay your bills, etc.

I, meanwhile, need to pick one of those possibilities to satisfy my dislike of personal indecision. I don't like being on the fence about things I feel are important.

Edit: @Malice--The non-existence of gods does not necessarily make morals unimportant. Apart from the fact that good morals tend to be good for humanity overall, there is also the possibility that karma exists and functions on some sort of natural law. Say, for each ethical action, there is an equal and appropriate reaction. That's a discussion on its own, but I don't really want to get into it right now.

[zenten]

As a pseudo-aside from all of this, let me point out that the great majority of philosophy done in the last 100 years or so has been to explain just what knowledge is. For a long time we started out with the premise that:

Knowledge = Justification + Truth + Belief

This concept, that knowledge is justified true belief doesn't work because there are cases in which justified true belief does not equal knowledge. Most famously in philosophy, a guy named Gettier proved this in about a page and a half. As a result of his explanation the conception of knowledge had to change.

Originally, many of the philosophers involved in 20th century epistemology believed knowledge was something like a building. A set of 'stories' set on top of a foundation that was based in empirical observation. A.J. Ayer, the Vienna Circle, and a host of other people held this view until Gettier and others came along and proved all their work wrong.

Ok, I just read a description of what Gettier said here: http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/course ... ttier.html

Is that a good description of his argument? If so, I don't buy it, because my intuition of what knowledge is does not match up with what the claim is of what people's intuition tells them.

To me knowledge is just a belief that happens to be correct. It's a fact that a person holds (note, in specific fields there can be technical meanings of these terms that don't match up, but I'm not talking about say legal facts here). So, his argument doesn't make sense, as those are all pretty much examples of knowledge.

[Nath]

Yeah, I can see what you mean; I'm not too familiar with AI, but I think I can see how past probabilities would be helpful. Something along the lines of debugging, I suppose?
But I think the existence (or non-existence) of the soul would fall more under the realm of natural law than past event, so I still say probability doesn't necessarily apply. It would be rather like, for instance, assigning a probability to the existence of gravitons: they either do or they don't.
*Shrug*

No, I wasn't specifically referring to debugging. I mean all forms of uncertainty. For instance, let's say you have a robot that's trying to figure out whether it's in room A or room B. This is in the realm of natural law; it's either in one or the other. The common approach is for the robot to look around, and based on what it sees (as well as its prior beliefs, if any), it comes up with probabilities that it is in each room.

I, meanwhile, need to pick one of those possibilities to satisfy my dislike of personal indecision. I don't like being on the fence about things I feel are important.

Fences are often uncomfortable, but what if the fence is the only logical place to be?

Let's go back to the lottery example, and change it a bit. Let's say you meet Bill Gates tomorrow, and he asks you to bet on a coin toss. Heads, you get a billion dollars. Tails, he makes you work in a basement in Redmond for the rest of your life.

There are two possibilities here: you might win, or you might lose. Which do you believe it will be? I don't think it makes sense to just pick one and run with it. In fact, I don't think I could pick one and run with it, even if I wanted to. I'd have no choice but to accept that there are two possibilities.

[Matthias]

There's a third choice: walk away. If you're using this as a metaphor to convince me of the virtues of indecision, please consider the following:

If you feel the idea of "pick an option and run with it" troubling, and avoid it on that ground, I hope you can see the logic in my avoiding the idea that agnosticism and uncertainty are the only logical conclusions, on the same ground.

[william springfield]

I was born a snake handler, and I'll die a snake handler.

[Gelsamel]

There is no need to assume that the soul--if it does exist--sits outside the realm of natural laws. They could feasibly exist in one or more of the non-spatial dimensions that M-theory calls for. Or not.

Occam's Razor...

The point I'm making here is that what seems supernatural might not be. It might simply be that we don't yet have the science and research to explain so-called supernatural phenomena.

Again Occam's Razor.

2) Occam's Razor states that the preferable theory is the one with the least assumptions. Our opposing explanations for my alleged astral projection have the same amount.

"In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood."

Also note "It often happens that the best explanation is much more complicated than the simplest possible explanation because its postulations amount to less of an improbability."


Astral Projection:
-There is an unobservable untestable soul +1 Assumption and +1 Entity, +Improbable (due to being unobserved)
-That Soul has strange abilities that have allowed you to defy the laws of physics multiple times. +1 Assumption +Improbable (due to being unobserved)

Hallucination:
No Axioms here... Hallucinations are fully explained with neuroscience. Maybe if you want to be picky:
-Science Works (heavily evidenced by EVERYTHING AROUND US)

Anyway, as I said, it either exists or it doesn't, and as it stands there's really no way to pick which one except through assumption. I therefore assume (or believe, if you like) the idea that I like better: that the soul exists.

Doesn't Exist:
Assumption that an unobservable doesn't exist. +1 Assumption

Does Exist:
Assumption that an unobservable does exist +1 Assumption +1 Improbability.

[Malice]

Occam's Razor is simply a recommendation. It should not be used to dismiss a theory entirely, especially when the two theories are, as you demonstrated, so mathematically close.

[Gelsamel]

It should not be used to dismiss a theory entirely, especially when the two theories are, as you demonstrated, so mathematically close.

Like aether right?

Edit: Unobservables and Improbability are HUGE REASONS to dismiss theories.

Of course it doesn't mean they're 100% definitely wrong (obviously) but they're most likely to be wrong (or un-useful).

[Nath]

There's a third choice: walk away.

I fear I'm stretching the metaphor here, but:
Consider the above situation, except that you've just accepted the bet, and the coin is about to be tossed. You are now trying to figure out what whether you'll win or not.

If you feel the idea of "pick an option and run with it" troubling, and avoid it on that ground, I hope you can see the logic in my avoiding the idea that agnosticism and uncertainty are the only logical conclusions, on the same ground.

Ah, but I've been trying to explain why it's troubling. The reasons aren't aesthetic. I object to the "pick an option" strategy because it's inconsistent with reality.
Back to the robot example. If you were programming the robot, would you just have it assume it's in Room A? It's more comfortable to only have one option, after all. Unfortunately, if you use this approach, you are frequently wrong.

Sort of a tangent; skip it if you're not interested:
The robot example is actually quite applicable. Until not so long ago, the dominant approach in artificial intelligence was to have the agent assume simply that it was correct. Agents only knew facts, and assumed that each fact was either true or false; they had no concept of how likely a fact was to be true.
This led to problems. When you collect a large enough sample of facts, each of which is slightly uncertain, you end up with contradictions. The thing about hard logic is that the whole house of cards breaks down if you have one single contradiction. This is why the AI of the eighties and early nineties was so brittle.
Today, people know better. Most AI's beliefs are probability distributions, rather than simple lists of true-or-false facts. This approach is computationally more complicated, but works a lot better in the real world. In other words, the switch from 'sitting on the fence' to considering all possibilities has turned out to be a very wise move.

[Bluggo]

Lots of interesting points here, as was to be expected in this forum - I do not post much, usually, but I lurk a lot here.

Personally, I (try to) believe in God - but, I will admit it freely, my belief is far from being rational.

Then, why do I? My answer, pathetic though it may be, is "because I need to".

I need to believe that I am something more valuable than a fancy-shaped brick, that the universe follows a structure and a plan, and that my grandpa - the one person I had the most respect for - is now something more than a bunch of mushy, smelly bones.

Therefore, I choose to believe in God, and I do not care if my reason tells me that this belief has about the same foundations of the belief in invisible pink unicorns: the difference - and it is not a small one, in my opinion - is that I don't give a damn about invisible pink unicorns, whereas I do care - and much - about the immortality of the soul, the meaning of the Universe and all that stuff.

And if I am wrong, what of it? A clot of polymers that decides to believe it is a quasi-divine entity may be mistaken, but its mistake is much more glorious than it being right would ever be.

I'd rather believe and be wrong than not believe and be right - and yes, this is as irrational as it gets, but irrationality is part of human life: no one's actions and beliefs are always rational, and in my opinion that is a most excellent thing!

This said, I bear no animosity towards atheists.

If they are right and life is nothing more than a sled ride towards oblivion, may it be a fulfilling, long and fun ride for both them and me; but if instead - against all reason, all probabilities and all common sense- it's me who is right, may all of us someday share a good drink in the Eternal Jerusalem St.John speaks of.

[zenten]

It should not be used to dismiss a theory entirely, especially when the two theories are, as you demonstrated, so mathematically close.

Like aether right?

Edit: Unobservables and Improbability are HUGE REASONS to dismiss theories.

Of course it doesn't mean they're 100% definitely wrong (obviously) but they're most likely to be wrong (or un-useful).

Like Aristotle versus Newton. Aristotle's ideas on how the planets move are much simpler than Newtons, so by Occam's Razon Aristotle wins.

He's still wrong though.

Anyway, it generally only applies to two theories that have exactly the same amount of evidence. Otherwise you just go based on the evidence, not simplicity.

[Gelsamel]

It's not the "Same evidence" it's the "Same level of explanation"

If Theory X about Y explains Y sufficiently, and Theory Z about Y explains Y sufficiently then it comes to which has the (least+most reasonable)axioms + least posited entities. (And evidence plays into reasonability/likelihood)

In fact, Occam's Razor is infallible (tautologous really). Lets say we someday we DO observe aether, then the Einsteinian theory of electromagnetism is NOT SUFFICE anymore, and thus Luminiferous aether is no longer equal.

Some may say "well it was wrong back then!", and of course, over the course of things we will eventually dismiss theories (do to Occam's Razor, that come back because we discover something new). But Occam's deals with the likelihood of being right, and without following this principle we'd still be testing all the random bullshit people come up with.

[zar]

Lots of interesting points here, as was to be expected in this forum - I do not post much, usually, but I lurk a lot here.

Personally, I (try to) believe in God - but, I will admit it freely, my belief is far from being rational.

Then, why do I? My answer, pathetic though it may be, is "because I need to".

I need to believe that I am something more valuable than a fancy-shaped brick, that the universe follows a structure and a plan, and that my grandpa - the one person I had the most respect for - is now something more than a bunch of mushy, smelly bones.

Therefore, I choose to believe in God, and I do not care if my reason tells me that this belief has about the same foundations of the belief in invisible pink unicorns: the difference - and it is not a small one, in my opinion - is that I don't give a damn about invisible pink unicorns, whereas I do care - and much - about the immortality of the soul, the meaning of the Universe and all that stuff.

I find this reasoning quite puzzling. It may be said that a good thing about believing in god is the comfort received from it. But that's not a reason for actually thinking that it's true. There are lots of things that I would like to be true or like not to be true, but I don't reject the existence of AIDS simply because it quite discomforting, or force the belief on myself that those infected don't really suffer much from it because I would feel better. And I think ultimately that would be doing a disservice not just to those suffering, but also to myself.

Believing in the immortal soul for the same reason seems very similar to rejecting the existence of an illness because it makes you uncomfortable, except this goes a step further. Once belief in the soul is accepted, then it is perfectly reasonable to shrug off the deaths of others -- after all, they're not really dead (or at least not their "soul"). Who cares about the starving children? They're just going to a better place anyway. In fact, the fast they die, the better. This is the dangerous reasoning that follows quite logically from that belief.

Finally, how can one force oneself to believe something? Even if I wanted to, I would not be able to force myself to believe in a god unless I was presented with good evidence. (Perhaps this is a skill that only some have, and one that I am clearly lacking.)

[Matthias]

What is your view upon religion? I'm not promoting World War III of religions here, just I'm wondering what your view is upon your own religion from a purely analytical perspective.

Gelsamel, you've mentioned your religion, yet done nothing to explain it. All you've done is try to disprove mine--after calling it irrational, unscientific BS.
Also, in your notes on Occam's razor, you fail to realize that the probability of whether the soul exists or not is incalculable, and so assigning "bonus assumptions" based on probability is somewhat invalid. I would also refute your method of counting assumptions, or point out inconsistencies in your thoughts about the infallibility of Occam's Razor, but I think any further discussion between us is likely to get us nowhere. I think the only option for us here, if we wish to be mature about it, is to agree to disagree.

Nath, you haven't even mentioned yours, although you can pretty much glean it from comments made to others, but thanks anyway for remaining civil.
As for the bet thing, assuming this situation was legally binding and you really only had two choices, it still doesn't really apply. For a coin toss you're trying to predict something that's going to happen. For the question of the soul, you're determining something that is true or not. But, in a sense it's sort of the same situation: the truth is the truth no matter which one you pick. Whether you assume that you'll win, assume you lose, or don't pick either one, you're still going to either win or lose. That being said, from an analytical viewpoint I'd do the same thing I'm doing now: hope for the best, and plan for the worst. (If I had time before the coin flip I'd plan for the worst by hiring a good lawyer, but there's no real planning involved for the non-existence of the soul. And yeah, I know best and worst in this situation is a matter of judgment.)
So you see, picking an option isn't necessarily inconsistent with reality.

Edit--@Zar: The existence of god and the existence of a disease are different for a very important reason. AIDS has clear, irrefutable evidence for its existence, whereas the existence of god is by nature uncertain. Also, belief in the existence of the soul does not promote dispassion about the sufferings of others. Most people who believe in the soul also believe in adhering to moral codes.

[Nath]

Nath, you haven't even mentioned yours, although you can pretty much glean it from comments made to others, but thanks anyway for remaining civil.

I haven't mentioned my religion because I don't have one. I come from a Hindu background, though, if that helps. The fact that I don't consider myself a Hindu any more pretty much gives away what I think about my (former) religion. (It's not bad as religions go, but still does not stand up too well to close examination.)

As for civility: thank you. Most people grow fangs when you ask them hard questions. I once had this happen with a family member, much to my surprise.

That being said, from an analytical viewpoint I'd do the same thing I'm doing now: hope for the best, and plan for the worst. (If I had time before the coin flip I'd plan for the worst by hiring a good lawyer, but there's no real planning involved for the non-existence of the soul. And yeah, I know best and worst in this situation is a matter of judgment.)
So you see, picking an option isn't necessarily inconsistent with reality.

Hoping for the best and planning for the worst is fine. Good advice for anybody.

Assuming the best and running with it is a different strategy.

Also, belief in the existence of the soul does not promote dispassion about the sufferings of others. Most people who believe in the soul also believe in adhering to moral codes.

It is debatable whether there is a correlation between soul-belief and moral acts, but let's leave that aside for the moment.

I don't think the central question here is whether religious belief is useful. It has its uses, as do stories telling children that ogres will eat them if they misbehave. It also has some downsides, which need not be mentioned. The more interesting question, I think, is whether these beliefs stand up to rational analysis. This question is completely independent of the other one. Even if religion made perfect citizens of us all, I'd still want to know if there was any truth to it.

[zar]

Edit--@Zar: The existence of god and the existence of a disease are different for a very important reason. AIDS has clear, irrefutable evidence for its existence, whereas the existence of god is by nature uncertain. Also, belief in the existence of the soul does not promote dispassion about the sufferings of others. Most people who believe in the soul also believe in adhering to moral codes.

I was responding to Bluggo, who basically said that he believes in the god because he very much wishes that it exists. With the same reasoning, one might choose to believe that disease doesn't exist, because they very much wish that it doesn't. There are obvious problems with thinking in this manner.

And my point point about not caring as much about death is very valid. That seemed to be Bluggo's whole reason for believing. He didn't want to feel as bad about the death of someone he cares about, so he has adopted this belief, if I understand him correctly. I was simply saying that maybe we shouldn't adopt beliefs that make us care less about death, because it might cause us to be less compelled to help the dying. I'm making no claims about the morality of people who hold such beliefs, I'm just noting what logically follows if one really holds to a belief in a soul or heaven. Would it not be rational to celebrate death and try to bring it about if you really believe in heaven?

[Greyarcher]

I find this reasoning quite puzzling. It may be said that a good thing about believing in god is the comfort received from it. But that's not a reason for actually thinking that it's true. There are lots of things that I would like to be true or like not to be true, but I don't reject the existence of AIDS simply because it quite discomforting, or force the belief on myself that those infected don't really suffer much from it because I would feel better. And I think ultimately that would be doing a disservice not just to those suffering, but also to myself.

I think that I'm familiar with this type of reasoning, or at least one of its cousins. I'll try and explain it, and how the AIDS objection poses no threat.

A hypothetical situation: one is faced with the choice to believe or not believe in x. The character of x is such that one cannot subject it to many of the procedures one would normally use in deciding whether to hold a belief or not. Indeed, one's ability to weigh the epistemic merits of believing or not believing in x are hampered to the point that the issue is undecidable on epistemic grounds. However, if one believed x, there would be notable benefits; not believing x would confer no such benefit. As such, there are more reasons to believe x than not. These are not epistemic reasons (i.e. they are not reasons that pertain to the "truth" of x), but they are consequentialist reasons. On this reasoning, disbelieving in AIDS may indeed be impermissible, but belief in x would be permissible (e.g. the existence of a deity, or a soul, etc).

Believing in the immortal soul for the same reason seems very similar to rejecting the existence of an illness because it makes you uncomfortable, except this goes a step further. Once belief in the soul is accepted, then it is perfectly reasonable to shrug off the deaths of others -- after all, they're not really dead (or at least not their "soul"). Who cares about the starving children? They're just going to a better place anyway. In fact, the fast they die, the better. This is the dangerous reasoning that follows quite logically from that belief.

There are people who don't care about starvation and suchlike even though they don't believe in immortal souls; similarly, there are people who care even though they do. Even though not caring may be rationally consistent, this won't necessarily stop a person who cares from caring. Insofar as one's belief in the soul/God has significant positive benefits and negligible negative consequences, then one may suppose that it is reasonable to cultivate/hold said belief. This may be entirely possible, particularly if one's beliefs are very "personal" (i.e. they impact your own conduct in positive ways, but you do not try and base things like social policies on the truth of the belief).

Finally, how can one force oneself to believe something? Even if I wanted to, I would not be able to force myself to believe in a god unless I was presented with good evidence. (Perhaps this is a skill that only some have, and one that I am clearly lacking.)

I've wondered the same thing. I believe the answer is that one does not "force oneself to believe"--one merely takes advantage of a pre-existing inclination to believe and justifies/permits it on consequentialist grounds. People who have no pre-existing inclination would have to first reach a point where they consider the issue epistemically undecidable. Otherwise, the best they could do is hope that x is true rather than believe x (though these can be rather similar in some cases).

[Bluggo]

Zar, I will start by addressing your final remark:

Finally, how can one force oneself to believe something? Even if I wanted to, I would not be able to force myself to believe in a god unless I was presented with good evidence. (Perhaps this is a skill that only some have, and one that I am clearly lacking.)

I think that one of the main sources of our disagreement is that we are using different interpretations of the word 'believe': correct me if I am wrong, but I get the impression that you are identifying 'religious belief' with 'religious certainty', whereas I view these two concept as separate.

As I see it, religious belief is a behavioural, rather than epistemiological, concept, and is perfectly compatible with doubt: I 'believe' in X if I decide to behave as if X were true, and if I accept to face the consequences of my mistake if my belief would prove itself wrong.

In the same sense, a roulette player could be said to 'believe' that the next number will be a 9 - and of course, he would have absolutely no knowledge about that!

This is the only way I can be said to believe in God: I have had no mystical experiences (and I'd probably be skeptical about them, if I had them), the experimental evidence is lacking, I am not aware of any truly satisfying proof of the existence of God, and therefore I'd be lying if I said that the sentences "I am sitting on a chair" and "God exists" have the same epistemological status for me.

As an aside, if "faith" were just a fancy name for "certainty of unknown things" then I would have to conclude that faith is self-contradictory: if I don't know that X, then by definition I can not be certain that X, and vice versa.

But if "faith" means "behaving accordingly to X, although it is not known if X" then the matter is more nuanced: surely such a behaviour would have no rational justification, but as I said before I think that perfectly rational behaviour is neither possible nor desirable.

To quote St. Augustine, "credo quia absurdum".
Since it is absurd, I believe: if it were reasonable, I would know, or at least suppose.

Given this, my answers to your other two points are straightforward:

I find this reasoning quite puzzling. It may be said that a good thing about believing in god is the comfort received from it. But that's not a reason for actually thinking that it's true. There are lots of things that I would like to be true or like not to be true, but I don't reject the existence of AIDS simply because it quite discomforting, or force the belief on myself that those infected don't really suffer much from it because I would feel better. And I think ultimately that would be doing a disservice not just to those suffering, but also to myself.

I agree, to wish that X is true is no rationale for thinking that X is true, and it is not even sufficient to rationally justify acting as if X were true.

However, I can still decide to act as if X were true - this would be irrational behaviour, of course, but I am still capable of it, and it might even be the right choice if X is not known with absolute certainty!

Of course, I then have to accept my responsibilities were my assumption is wrong - in your example, if I decide to behave as if AIDS did not exist then I have to face the possibility that very probably - in this case, I'd almost say with certainty - my decision will have grave consequences on the life of many people, myself included.

In the case of religious belief, if I am wrong then it sucks to be me - I have no real reason to say that this would significantly damage other people's lives, and I could even say that, to the degree in which religion helps me to be a better person, it could even favor them.

Therefore, so far I made this choice: I hope I'm right, but I cannot be certain that I am right, and I cannot ignore the possibility that soul is not immortal after all, or that any of my beliefs could be, in fact, wrong.

Refusing to admit the possibility of being wrong would not be having faith, in my opinion - it would just be being stupid.

Believing in the immortal soul for the same reason seems very similar to rejecting the existence of an illness because it makes you uncomfortable, except this goes a step further. Once belief in the soul is accepted, then it is perfectly reasonable to shrug off the deaths of others -- after all, they're not really dead (or at least not their "soul"). Who cares about the starving children? They're just going to a better place anyway. In fact, the fast they die, the better. This is the dangerous reasoning that follows quite logically from that belief.

As I said, I do not exclude the possibility that my beliefs are wrong and that dead people stay dead.

However, even if I had the absolute certainty in the immortality of the soul I would have no reason for shrugging off the deaths of others: first of all, I would still care about people's pain, and secondly a human death is still something that robs our life "down here" of some of its beauty - and I happen to enjoy this world very much.

EDIT: I see that you and Greyarcher wrote more on the topic while I was working on my answer.
I'd like to discuss further, but it's pretty late here - I am going to sleep now, I will check this thread tomorrow.

Good night

[Tchebu]

I 'believe' in X if I decide to behave as if X were true

How does belief in God or an eternal soul or any other religious notion alter your behaviour? You answer differently to "do you believe in God?" and that's it? Or are there further implications such as you don't feel so bad when someone dies, you get a feeling of purpose and direction in life etc? But surely you must know that there are other ways to get those benefits without having to make a statement that is so often treated as an epistemological one (despite the fact that you say it isn't) and leads to all sorts of crap. Also, note that the consolation and feeling of purpose actually arises not from the belief in God itself but rather from the belief that you are, as someone said here in an earlier post, "God's precious snowflake". So essencially your entire belief amounts to you tricking yourself into getting a feeling of being the center of the Universe (or at least somewhere close to the center) and acting accordingly.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you're a selfish jackass (to the contrary, your beliefs should theoretically push you towards a somewhat moral way of life), but this is something that I find particularly ... umm... repulsive, for lack of a better word, in religion, and a very important reason for my disbelief: the fact that religion always, even if it's in a very subtle and indirect way, seems to say that human beings are somehow very very important on a cosmic level. In fact I dare hypothesize that it is that statement (and perhaps that statement alone) which ensured religion's existence within our minds for as long as we remember.

[Nath]

As I see it, religious belief is a behavioural, rather than epistemiological, concept, and is perfectly compatible with doubt: I 'believe' in X if I decide to behave as if X were true, and if I accept to face the consequences of my mistake if my belief would prove itself wrong.
...
But if "faith" means "behaving accordingly to X, although it is not known if X" then the matter is more nuanced: surely such a behaviour would have no rational justification, but as I said before I think that perfectly rational behaviour is neither possible nor desirable.

That's fascinating. Seriously. That's probably the first real insight I've had into people who say "there's no rational basis for thinking this, but I believe 'X'". Rational 'beliefs' (in the conventional sense, rather than the behavioural sense), but irrational actions.

My question is this: why does one choose irrational behaviour? Very few people are completely rational, true, but most people adjust their behaviour if they know that they are being irrational. Is it just that certain behaviour makes you feel better, even if you know it's based on false assumptions? Is it comparable to children playing 'pretend'? Or is that an oversimplification?

[Bluggo]

How does belief in God or an eternal soul or any other religious notion alter your behaviour? You answer differently to "do you believe in God?" and that's it? Or are there further implications such as you don't feel so bad when someone dies, you get a feeling of purpose and direction in life etc?

Apart from what you said, another consequence of my beliefs is that I subscribe to a given set of morals - love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, self-sacrifice, and all that.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying I, personally, am awesomely good - more often than not, I do end up behaving like a selfish jackass.
I am trying to fix it, but so far my results are objectively lacking: honestly, my misanthropy is way above an acceptable level, and in general my soul could definitely use some polishing - in D&D terms, I am probably closer to Neutral Neutral that to Neutral Good

However, this is the ideal I strive to imitate, and I can not say it would still be if I believed that life is nothing but an empty, purposeless game.

I am aware of the fact that there are people who have no religious beliefs and still are a lot closer to my personal ideal of moral perfection than I have ever been - I even know a few myself.
Good for them! They are for me a source of encouragement, and if my beliefs hold true then they will be repaid of their kindness.

But it seems to me that their belief system is at least as irrational as mine: I do not know of any rational reason for, say, wasting time in some humble service towards the dying, or for forgiving a serious offense, or for donating food to homeless people who, after all, are probably fully responsible for their own wretched situation.

I do not buy the "they do it because they feel good doing it" explanation: more often than not, good behavior is a thankless chore which does not give any "fuzzy, warm feeling" to speak of - otherwise, why isn't it more common? And why even inside the associations - religious or not - which have the expressed purpose of doing good there exists such a great amount of pettiness, self-importance and bigotry?

As I see it, the main difference between an hypothetical "perfectly moral" atheist and an hypothetical "perfectly moral" theist is that the former pays homage to the impersonal, abstract Idea of Good, while the latter pays homage to an omnipotent, self-conscious entity which happens to coincide with the Idea of Good- it's not that big a difference, and I personally feel more attracted to the theistic perspective.

Also, note that the consolation and feeling of purpose actually arises not from the belief in God itself but rather from the belief that you are, as someone said here in an earlier post, "God's precious snowflake". So essencially your entire belief amounts to you tricking yourself into getting a feeling of being the center of the Universe (or at least somewhere close to the center) and acting accordingly.
...
this is something that I find particularly ... umm... repulsive, for lack of a better word, in religion, and a very important reason for my disbelief: the fact that religion always, even if it's in a very subtle and indirect way, seems to say that human beings are somehow very very important on a cosmic level

Could you explain me what precisely do you feel repulsive in the statement "people are important"?
If anything, I'd have a strong dislike for a belief system which implied that people are worthless.
And if humans and their opinions are really worth nothing, why are we discussing the respective validity of different belief systems?

As an aside, the fact that people are important does not prevent other entities or things from being important too - if I can get theological for a moment, I think that in God's mind everything and everyone - Bruce Lee, a tick, me, that gluon inside that proton of that star over there - is "the center" and every entity is worthy of His total, undiluted love, although of course the way it is expressed may vary according to the nature, the purpose and the needs of the entity.
Therefore, from the undeniable fact that humankind is an animal species, and as part of the evolutionary process as is the hedgehog's or the turtle's species, it does not follow - I think - that humans do not matter: they do, and so do after their own ways hedgehogs and turtles!

But now I am entering the realm of wild speculations, this is not an essential part of my beliefs - however, I think it would make sense if it were so.

My question is this: why does one choose irrational behaviour? Very few people are completely rational, true, but most people adjust their behaviour if they know that they are being irrational. Is it just that certain behaviour makes you feel better, even if you know it's based on false assumptions? Is it comparable to children playing 'pretend'? Or is that an oversimplification?

I am not really convinced that people adjust their behaviour if they know that they are being irrational.
Most of what we do is irrational, in the sense that we do not know - and, often, we are not even looking for - a rational justification for it.

Let's take art as an (admittedly trite) example: when a painter uses that specific colour in that specific position, he does not care about any rational reason for doing this: it's simply that, according to his experience and his talent, that colour in that position feels "right".

Or consider Love - I am speaking here of true love, not mere hormone poisoning: what's the point of it? To be willing to face hardships for the well-being of a person, no matter what the other person could do for you or if the other person feels the same way... rationally speaking, that's nuts, but it's still the highest, noblest emotion a person can feel.

I am not saying that rationality is useless - I respect it and the contribute it gives to the human condition, and indeed the main purpose of my current mathematical studies is that of training my reason.
In line of principle, if rationality tells you that doing X is going to have bad consequences, you are better off not doing X: I accept that.
But a man is worth more than his mere reason, and I believe that there are situations in which rationality only needs to shut up and sit down.

So no, I do not think it's not like a kid playing pretend - it's more like a girl waiting for his long-disappeared fiance, believing - against all common sense in this world, and with all her heart - that she has not been forgotten, and that some day he will return and they will be happy forever after.

Dumb? Probably. But it's life, and I will not wish for a world without it.

[Nath]

I am not really convinced that people adjust their behaviour if they know that they are being irrational.
Most of what we do is irrational, in the sense that we do not know - and, often, we are not even looking for - a rational justification for it.

Let's take art as an (admittedly trite) example: when a painter uses that specific colour in that specific position, he does not care about any rational reason for doing this: it's simply that, according to his experience and his talent, that colour in that position feels "right".

There's an important difference here. What colour feels right in a painting is a matter of subjective preference. Feeling right is being right.

Whether something exists in the universe -- god, the soul, life on Mars, whatever -- is a matter of objective reality. Feeling right is not the same as being right.

Or consider Love - I am speaking here of true love, not mere hormone poisoning: what's the point of it? To be willing to face hardships for the well-being of a person, no matter what the other person could do for you or if the other person feels the same way... rationally speaking, that's nuts, but it's still the highest, noblest emotion a person can feel.

I am not an authority on love, but I can think of simple biological reasons for such an emotion to exist. Like all emotions, people under its influence are less rational than usual, but that doesn't mean they realize it.

So no, I do not think it's not like a kid playing pretend - it's more like a girl waiting for his long-disappeared fiance, believing - against all common sense in this world, and with all her heart - that she has not been forgotten, and that some day he will return and they will be happy forever after.

I would be tempted to ask this girl whether what she was doing was like a kid playing pretend.

[Gelsamel]

What is your view upon religion? I'm not promoting World War III of religions here, just I'm wondering what your view is upon your own religion from a purely analytical perspective.

Gelsamel, you've mentioned your religion, yet done nothing to explain it. All you've done is try to disprove mine--after calling it irrational, unscientific BS.
Also, in your notes on Occam's razor, you fail to realize that the probability of whether the soul exists or not is incalculable, and so assigning "bonus assumptions" based on probability is somewhat invalid. I would also refute your method of counting assumptions, or point out inconsistencies in your thoughts about the infallibility of Occam's Razor, but I think any further discussion between us is likely to get us nowhere. I think the only option for us here, if we wish to be mature about it, is to agree to disagree.

I sure do agree to disagree.

However I'm not sure what religion you're talking about. I don't have a religion. And I don't think it's BS, just Unscientific (since it's unfalsifiable and supernatural) and irrational (since there is no reason to conclude there is based on the evidence available).

And I'm pretty sure that not ever observing the soul empirically for ALL MANKIND's HISTORY = Improbable that it exists.

50/50 is a ridiculous assumption. You think there is a 50/50 chance Thor or Ra exist?


Edit: Of course irrational and unscientific things aren't inherently bs or bad.