Markovich wrote on 08/08/10 at 19:28:48:
So in the 16th Century you would have thought Copernicus insane. Everything people knew back then indicated that the sun was rotating around the earth. Before Tycho Brahe, who did his observations after Copernicus' death, the scientists had quite a strong case against Copernicus. In fact it was fear for being declared insane that prevented him of publishing his famous book.
See Arthur Koestler, Die Nachtwandler, 1959.

sloughter wrote on 08/08/10 at 11:47:34:


There is no bar.  It is only that things of this sort never happen.  Yes, there is the occasional report that someone's cancer was cured after Pope John Paul II came to town, or that the Virgin Mary appeared to a couple of Portuguese children, but these reports are so sporadic and so obviously dependent upon the strong degree of prior religious belief of those reporting them, as to mock the notion that they are true.

I can assure you, if you would only stand in the middle of Central Park and summon up a band of angels; if the trees there would all bow down to the priests; if the crucified Jesus with his dripping wounds would come as well and cure all the cancer cases on Manhattan, you would make a believer out of me.  But not only does nothing like that ever happen, but it is very easy to understand why it doesn't.

The remarkable thing is not that some people don't believe in that stuff, but that anyone does.  But that belief is easy enough to explain by culture and upbringing.

sloughter wrote on 08/08/10 at 11:47:34:


I don't know that all those speculations are true, but in principle, I agree.  Each of the various religions is but a model of reality, a guide to action.

I would only say that each is fairly obviously false and unuseful in light of Mankind's current knowledge of this world.  [Why does my spell check think that "unuseful" is not correct?]
Uruk wrote on 08/07/10 at 14:00:36:


Yes indeed, in general.  There are many models that we unconsciously apply every day, secure only in our faith that they are true.  That the experiential field is not the totality of existence, but is but the indication of an objective reality, is a notable one.  There is nothing scientific about that in Popper's sense.  There is nothing falsifiable about it.  Yet it is a highly useful model, the rejection of which would be taken as a sign of insanity.  The same way with the consciousness of other people.

In science. Man is not rational and evolution is not teleological.

Moreover this is a non-sequitur:
Uruk wrote on 08/07/10 at 14:00:36:

unless you use the word efficient in two different meanings.
1) applying Ockham's Razor;
2) most fit to the circumstances man has to live in.
These two are not necessarily the same.

Uruk wrote on 08/07/10 at 01:53:35:
In science, yes. No god is a scientific entity. Consciousness in the totally stripped off definition Markovich prefers to handle when it suits him is probably neither. But I am far from an expert on this subject.

Markovich wrote on 08/06/10 at 21:57:21:
They don't support your statement that agnosts only doubt god:

Markovich wrote on 08/06/10 at 21:03:27:
This is simply not true. I refer to the examples I gave above.

The stripped off definition of consciousness you gave is very special for certain, as it makes it completely impossible to make any meaningful observation.
We determined our disagreement on Popper before. There is no need to rehash it. You can't prove your view is better. I can only repeat that physics doesn't allow yours and add that you misrepresent Popper somewhat:

Markovich wrote on 08/06/10 at 21:57:21:

You should have written: meaningful in science.

MNb wrote on 08/06/10 at 17:09:40:

Easy ? 
Their task is to find a problem that God solves, and can't be solved much better otherwise.
After all, algebraic geometry solved Fermat's and a whole bunch of other problems.
All parts of mathematics (and physics) alive today, live because of their proven solving power. The fittest theories survive.

Religion solved some problems for the Neandertal man. But today :
- thunder is explained by meteorology,
- the formation of planets by astrophysics,
- the formation of man by biology (Darwin)
etc.

Religion has consistenly lost the battle you deem 'easy'. Better theories came along, and this is normal.
So sorry, algebraic geometry is a thousand times more useful to mankind at this point in time.

Now you ask, if survive only the fittest, why has religion survived ?
You know the answer : for controlling people, it is the best weapon ever invented.

P.S. I'm saying essentially the same as Markovich. Models of reality are chosen for their efficiency.

Markovich wrote on 08/06/10 at 21:03:27:

Of course you pick the example of consciousness on purpose, because a) it's a disputed matter; b) there is no clear-cut definiton, so c) you can use that limited definition that suits your purpose best.
But you know, such doubt is essential for physics. Does force exist? Has the Big Bang taken place? Does time exist? Don't think physicists take any answer for granted.
I think Quantummechanics is correct and that chance is a fundamental feature of the Universe. But you know, I can't prove it. Neither can I prove that determinism is correct.

Willempie wrote on 08/06/10 at 13:40:37:

That god thought it enough that a certain football club becoming national champ for the first time was enough to please a certain atheist on this forum.
[/quote]
That's just proof that the devil exists and that he likes irony

Here is an interesting link with and interview with one of the most famous atheists dying of cancer:

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2010/08/05/ac.hitchens.on.cancer.g...