MNb wrote on 07/14/10 at 20:27:05:


The Whole Damn Thing, whether it started with a Big Bang, was hatched from an egg, or has simply persisted like this forever, could be considered a "miracle," if that is the term we choose to apply to something that is, in principle, incapable of being explained.  But we've been over this before.

P.S. I wasn't aware that general relativity implied a Big Bang, but rather thought that the latter was deduced from the apparent circumstance that all the observed galaxies are flying away from each other; that and the background noise which is said to the be radiation emanating from the initial event.

Well there is no way to disprove any assertion of a supposed god who never shows up and never does anything, but it certainly does all seem outrageously improbable, given what we now know of the nature of the Cosmos.  Gone are the days of an Earth-centric Cosmos; a human-centered understanding of life on this planet; and a spiritual as opposed to a brain-chemistry based understanding of mentality, whether in humans or any other creatures.  Why, for example, is the supposed lord of the entire Cosmos preoccupied with the conduct of one species on one apparently insignificant planet?  Does he care similarly about how intelligent squid on some remote planet conduct their reproductive processes?  Is there a intelligent squid "son of god" or did we intelligent apes get the only one?  Or for that matter, why isn't the Lord of All concerned about the rest of the animal kingdom on this planet?  Are there ten commandments for dogs?  I could go on, of course. 

So it does seem to me moderately outrageous to hear people say that science doesn't confront religion.  Science has confronted religion plenty, by never finding in this nature of ours the slightest indication of spooks, spirits, gods or miracles.  If any of these things were present in the world we could well imagine a science of spirits and how they fit in.  The fact that we don't have such a science illustrates that science and religion aren't "separate magesteria."  They are both ways of understanding the field of experience; one systematic and fact-based; one derived from human culture, anthropomorphic and without  regard for the facts.

One thing I would wonder here is, does becoming a better person by following Biblical rules include, for example, obeying the injunctions to stone people to death for heresy, adultery, homosexuality, working on the Sabbath, worshipping graven images, practicing sorcery etc.?

up and comer wrote on 06/20/10 at 00:34:22:

You asked about it.

up and comer wrote on 06/20/10 at 00:34:22:

No. You confuse scientific laws with legal laws.
Scientific laws are hypotheses that some way or another describe natural phenomena. As such they are a product of human imagination. They certainly don't require a metaphysical law maker.

up and comer wrote on 06/26/10 at 15:17:46:


And what I'm saying is that Hubert the Magical Slug made God.  Alte Hex made Hubert; Abner of Shrewsbury made Alte Hex; The Great Cosmic Horned Toad made Abner of Shrewsbury; and so on, and so on, and so on.  Any you have to worship each and every One of Them, you know, since each One is greater and more powerful than His creation.

Or just take the Cosmos itself, sans deity, as That Which Cannot be Explained.  That's what I do, with the very great simplification that I don't have to posit a magical, quasi-Santa-Claus type being "behind" It, certainly not one that is supposed to be a Father to Mankind but never shows up and never even pays child support.   But I see no reason to worship the Cosmos, since it obviously is not the sort of thing that is capable of knowing or caring about Mankind.   Awe is perhaps appropriate, reverence not, and prayer is a freaking waste of time.  It is not in the image of Man, not even close.

Spree K wrote on 06/24/10 at 01:23:27:


To take the last point first, yes, certainly if Hubert the Magical Slug gave unmistakable indication of his existence and powers, then that would end the discussion.  The whole point is that he doesn't, and very likely never has.  On the other hand, there are very good explanations of why human beings in given social contexts are disposed to believe in gods, spirits and the like, notable among which is that religion is a powerful instrument of social control.

As to what is an atheist, we could get into some fairly deep philosophy about the meaning or absence thereof of such statements as "There is a God" and "There is no God."  But my rough take on this question is that working models of the nature of the Cosmos (and perhaps what lies "behind" it) are useful for organizing activity even if the model isn't subject to disconfirmation in Popper's sense (parenthetically I reject Popper's notion that any complex model of what lies "behind" experience, scientific or otherwise, can be subject to unambiguous disconfirmation; it is only a question of its comparative usefulness).  

So I would say, an atheist is someone who maintains a working model of the Cosmos as sufficient unto itself; definitely not in Man's image; neither loving, caring or the like; and in fact indifferent to Man's interest.  Agnosticism I take to be a polite, or perhaps cowardly would be a more appropriate characterization, form of atheism.  I very much doubt that anyone claiming to be an agnostic maintains genuine doubt on the question of whether an all-powerful, loving spirit is paying attention to his conduct or listening to his prayers.  So he proceeds fully on the basis an atheist working model while refraining from taking an open stand against the popular point of view.  I think that there would be fewer "agnostics" if fewer believers took offense at hearing their most deeply cherished beliefs denied.