Formulae

[The Terrible Sweal]

The concept of a 'secular society' seems at times to be viewed by some as being, in an of itself, an specific choice, as though at some point 'the founders' decided amonst themselves to toss a coin on the point, and we came up 'secular'.

In fact, a 'secular society' is merely the result of a different choice, one made on the basis of observed history and humane principle -- the choice between a society based on reason or one based on unreason.

[CanadianPatriot]

WHat are you refering to when you say a society based on ´´unreason´´? What is the issue up for debate here?

[The Terrible Sweal]

Well, 'reason' is a more or less well understood concept ... reliance on facts, the application of logic to them, (and therefor the capacity to form common standards of meaning).

Therefore, I suppose, by 'unreason', I meant a reliance on belief over fact, and the application of illogic (preventing the capacity to form common standards of meaning).

I'm not sure what the issue for debate is. I think my initial point was that having a 'secular' society is not the point in and of itself, but is merely the result of having a rational society with the capacity to form common standards of meaning. These features would be frustrated in a 'non-secular' society.

[DAC]

I think my initial point was that having a 'secular' society is not the point in and of itself, but is merely the result of having a rational society with the capacity to form common standards of meaning. These features would be frustrated in a 'non-secular' society.

You are buying into a popular misconception. The secularist as much as the religious person has beliefs which underlie his thinking. Both secularists and religious people can be utterly irrational. And both can also be very rational. The difference between them does not lie in the way they reason, but in their presuppositions.

Let me illustrate with the two views of origins (I realize there are many variations on the theme, but I'll use the two most common).

Christians and those of other major religions believe that God (whichever God they serve) created the universe, and gave it certain rules by which it operates. Modern science rose in the West, largely because Christians believed it was a good thing to examine the orderly world God made and try to understand it. Many of the best scientific "reasoners" in our history, right up to the present day, have been fervent Christians.

Secularists believe that the universe began with a primordial atom, which then exploded (the big bang). They have no idea where that atom came from, or why it exploded. They believe that by purely random accidents, the universe as we know it developed to be an orderly place. Although ever since Pasteur, the first law of biology has been that life comes from life, not from unliving matter, secularists believe that somewhere back in prehistory life formed by purely accidental combinations, and through billions of further accidents (mutations) formed us. They have no evidence to say that the formation of life was not guided by intelligence (God). It’s a blind faith assumption. They have no explanation for origins. They simply on blind faith deny that their primordial atom came from God. They have no explanation for why the physical “laws” which we can discern in this universe exist. They take it on blind faith that it just happened by accident.

Tell me what is more rational about the secularist approach than the religious approach. My Christian understanding does not have an irrational beginning, an irrational orderliness, nor an irrational origin of life. Nor for that matter am I irrational in deciding to believe in God. He has given ample evidence to make that decision completely reasonable. He’s also explained why so many people do not want to consider that evidence. So what is more rational about secularism?

[Digby]

I think the reason alot are so quick to throw out God beleaf And buy into the evolving explanation is most cannot understand why God allows so much wrongs on this earth .

Why Does he allow Disease ? Why War? Why Children being Murdered ? and so on ,so at that point instead of searching to find an answer that makes sence they just throw out God and accept evolution and all its missing facts ?

Also they go and look into the religous world and in most cases?????????

.

[Reverend Blair]

Or it could be that evolution makes sense.

[DAC]

Or it could be that evolution makes sense.

My challenge is still unanswered. "Tell me what is more rational about the secularist approach than the religious approach. My Christian understanding does not have an irrational beginning, an irrational orderliness, nor an irrational origin of life. Nor for that matter am I irrational in deciding to believe in God. He has given ample evidence to make that decision completely reasonable. He’s also explained why so many people do not want to consider that evidence. So what is more rational about secularism?"

Show me that it makes more sense, don't just ask me to accept it on blind faith.

[Digby]

Ive heard that if you loaded a truck with all the materials in a house and backed up slamming the breaks on till you built a house ,you would have better chances then a human body evolveing .

don't sound sensible to me .

even after billions of trys i doubt you could get a house by just dumping the materials .

then when you start looking at how nature fits together a rational thinker would have to conclude it was designed.

then when you study the bible and relise the bible is hitting right on when fortelling the future . nothing is out of place . who ever wrote the bible had to either be able to see the future or in the least control the future .

it all makes sence if you hear the whole story .

[August1991]

If you look at a clear night sky far from a city's lights, you can see about 4000 stars. All these stars are suns in our galaxy, the Milky Way.

In fact though, there are about 100 billion stars in our galaxy.

And it is estimated that there are at least 125 billion galaxies in the universe.

These numbers are so beyond anything comprehensible that literally anything is possible. If you say there is "one chance in a billion of life evolving in a solar system", then in the universe, it would have happened 10 trillion times.

[DAC]

These numbers are so beyond anything comprehensible that literally anything is possible. If you say there is "one chance in a billion of life evolving in a solar system", then in the universe, it would have happened 10 trillion times.

Many years ago I read the analysis of a well known mathematician of the odds of the accidental formation of a single protein molecule, with the assumption that an earth sized mass of the right elements was shaken at high frequency, for an extended period of time. This was back when my studies in physics were fresh in my mind. There is a large number, which physicists took then as the largest number that has any meaningful reference to the physical universe - I don't remember its name. In any case the result this mathematician came up with was something on the order of 1/(that number) squared. It was something like 1 chance in 10 to the power 40. I'm sorry to be so vague. This was 30 or more years ago, and I didn't save it then.

The point in any case, is that your probability suggestion is so far too big as to be ludicrous.

Aside from that, the evolution issue is the only place in which "scientists" would talk about such low probability occurences being meaningful. Scientists don't study miracles. They study repeatable acts, in which cause and effect can be discerned. They resort to the secular miracle explanation (low probability events) only when they are clinging in blind faith to heart beliefs which go beyond their science.

[Hawk]

Well said DAC, I completely agree xD

[Black Dog]

Tell me what is more rational about the secularist approach than the religious approach. My Christian understanding does not have an irrational beginning, an irrational orderliness, nor an irrational origin of life. Nor for that matter am I irrational in deciding to believe in God. He has given ample evidence to make that decision completely reasonable. He’s also explained why so many people do not want to consider that evidence. So what is more rational about secularism?"

There's zero evidence to indicate the existence of God.

Just because a belief system is well-structured and neatly packaged does not make it "rational" if it is based on an assumption usnsupported by any real evidence. Moreover such a belief system is fundamentally flawed in that it replaces doubt (ie. "we don't know") with faith, which is applied in a haphazard, ad hoc fashion: if we can't explain it, it is the work of an invisible superhero in the sky.

Nobody of any repute denies evolution as the mechanism by which life developed on Earth. And to me it's distressing that, in the 21st Century, people still cling to outmoded superstistions and sky-god fairy tales.

Aside from that, the evolution issue is the only place in which "scientists" would talk about such low probability occurences being meaningful. Scientists don't study miracles. They study repeatable acts, in which cause and effect can be discerned. They resort to the secular miracle explanation (low probability events) only when they are clinging in blind faith to heart beliefs which go beyond their science.

Nonsense. All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.

[Michael Hardner]

There's zero evidence to indicate the existence of God.

Or the non-existence of God.

Just because a belief system is well-structured and neatly packaged does not make it "rational" if it is based on an assumption usnsupported by any real evidence. Moreover such a belief system is fundamentally flawed in that it replaces doubt (ie. "we don't know") with faith, which is applied in a haphazard, ad hoc fashion: if we can't explain it, it is the work of an invisible superhero in the sky. 

This is true. But it also follows that atheism is irrational because there is no way of disproving God's existence.

All you can say is that we don't know how everything started. It's the tower of babel thing, right ?

Nobody of any repute denies evolution as the mechanism by which life developed on Earth.

Including the pope himself. It should be noted that belief in God doesn't completely displace belief in science either.

And to me it's distressing that, in the 21st Century, people still cling to outmoded superstistions and sky-god fairy tales.

I find it more distressing when I see how many people in our society lead meaningless lives of consumption and self-gratification.

Ideally, people should accept responsibility and control over their lives and try to do something worthwhile with them. Unfortunately, many people religious and non-religious people don't do this.

[The Terrible Sweal]

... The secularist as much as the religious person has beliefs which underlie his thinking. Both secularists and religious people can be utterly irrational. And both can also be very rational.

[*] The difference between them does not lie in the way they reason, but in their presuppositions.

Let me illustrate with the two views of origins (I realize there are many variations on the theme, but I'll use the two most common).

Christians and those of other major religions believe that God (whichever God they serve) created the universe, and gave it certain rules by which it operates. Modern science rose in the West, largely because Christians believed it was a good thing to examine [1] the orderly world God made and try to understand it. Many of the best scientific "reasoners" in our history, right up to the present day, have been fervent Christians.[2]

Secularists believe that the universe began with a primordial atom, which then exploded (the big bang). [3 & 4] They have no idea where that atom came from, or why it exploded ... ...have no evidence to say that the formation of life was not guided by intelligence (God). It’s a blind faith assumption. [5] ...

Tell me what is more rational about the secularist approach than the religious approach. [6] My Christian understanding does not have an irrational beginning, an irrational orderliness, nor an irrational origin of life. [[7] Nor for that matter am I irrational in deciding to believe in God. He has given ample evidence to make that decision completely reasonable. [8] He’s also explained why so many people do not want to consider that evidence. [9]So what is more rational about secularism?

Well, you started strong, but came up short, I'm afraid. As you see, I have inserted some markers to refer to my comments in reply...

1. Indeed, it was people who were Christian who did this, but you can hardly claim it was because of Chrisitanity that they did so. Usually it was opposed to Christianity's organized face that any progress was acheived.

2. It's obvious that people who profess Christianity (and other faiths) can and do reason. However, the do not reason (by my definition), through, by, or about religion. Religion requires specifically the suspension of disbelief in a dogma structure. I.e. the suspension of reasoning. To the extent that one exercises true reason in relation to the dogma structure of one's religion, one is failing to be religious.

3. Your harangue against 'secularists' seems to miss the point you were responding to. In fact, I was actually distinguishing 'secularism' from the belief system of science which you criticise. Secularism is a policy choice resulting from the adoption of reason as the prefered meaning-making system for society. Reason is preferable because it invokes objective principles rather than those based on the more or less arbitrary preferences of religious partisans. Accordingly, your long list of complaint about the belief system of science is not really on target of the explanation of 'secularism' I was making.

4. Notwithstanding 3, I do also argue that reason is more useful than religion for making choices, and that religion and reason are essentially incompatible, and in consequence that a reasonable state cannot admit religious imperatives into its decisionmaking and execution processes.

5. Much of what you wrote in this passage is incorrect. Science is very much based on evidence and most of the items you attacked are in fact supported by substantial amounts of evidence. Are the assumptions correct? Is the information sufficient to support their conclusions completely? Science itself answers: "We don't know." And that is what makes it more reliable and useful than religion. Contrary to you assertion, it is not 'blind faith', it is blind groping.

6. To be specific, the religious method goes at the world with an Answer, the rational method goes at the world with a Question.

7. Well, it's difficult to address this point, because of course I have no specific idea what you mean by 'your Christianty'. But look, even if it is granted that the existence of order is evidence of a designer, you need to go a lot further than that to support the dogma structure of Christianity. How, exactly, does Christ's death atone for the sins of someone else? What are the mechanisms and/or moral criteria that make that possible? I don't mean to be offensive, but the central story of your religion lacks explicative content, and so you fill the gaps with Belief. But belief is not reason; it is the opposite.

8. In my opinion you have asserted evidence which doesn't exist -- what evidence has 'he' provided that you invoke?

9. Which IS very convenient.

[Black Dog]

This is true. But it also follows that atheism is irrational because there is no way of disproving God's existence.

All you can say is that we don't know how everything started. It's the tower of babel thing, right ?

How does one prove a negative? Given the lack of evidence pointing to the existence of a benign Supreme Being, its entirely reasonable to conclude that there's no such thing.

And we may not "know" for certain how things began, but we can utilize the ever-expanding body of scientific knowledge to formulate plausable theories based on available evidence. It's no coninidence that, as man's knowlegde of the universe's workings has increased, belief in God, or at least in the traditional theistic origins of the universe, has declined.

[Michael Hardner]

How does one prove a negative? Given the lack of evidence pointing to the existence of a bgenign Supreme Being, its entirely reasonable to conclud ethat there's no such thing.

But you still can't prove with certainty that there's no such thing.

And we may not "know" for certain how things began, but we can utilize the ever-expanding body of scientific knowledge to formulate plausable theories base don available evidence. It's no coninidence that, as man's knowlegde of the univeres'e workings has increased, belief in God, or at least in the traditional theistic origins of the universe, has declined.

And through the years, as science has disproven various religious superstitions, various religious institutions and religious individuals have slowly accepted the facts.

But they will always be able to retain their faith in God because proof or disproof will never be supplied.

[The Terrible Sweal]

It might be productive to properly qualify our claims on all sides.

To claim that there is 'NO' evidence for the existence of 'God', is actually incorrect. The evidence includes the claims of religious people, and the improbability of existence taking this particular form. So what we have is inconclusive evidence for the existence of God.

The same is true for the evidence that there is no 'God'. It includes the positive evidence otherwise explaining natural phenomena, and the absence of clear intentionality in the unfolding of natural law. It too is inconclusive.

This leaves us in the position of having to evaluate the plausibility and probability of the claims. (In this respect, both sides must concede or abandon the claim about the probability of their ontology, because viewed from our position of ignorance here inside the box, the probablilty of either one is immeasurable but undeniable.)

[The Terrible Sweal]

But they will always be able to retain their faith in God because proof or disproof will never be supplied.

If one believes in an omnipotent God, clearly S/He/It would be capable of deceiving human inquiry forever.

Of course, if one believes in an omnipotent God, it becomes difficult to explain why that being should be worshipped.

[Black Dog]

But you still can't prove with certainty that there's no such thing.

I can't prove with certainty that the Universe doesn't reside on the back of a giant invisible tortoise either. But such a concept is just as ridiculous as God. Again: you can't prove a negative.

To claim that there is 'NO' evidence for the existence of 'God', is actually incorrect. The evidence includes the claims of religious people, and the improbability of existence taking this particular form. So what we have is inconclusive evidence for the existence of God.

I can "claim" to be King George III, but barring any evidence to support my claim, I'd probably get locked in the nuthouse.

As for "improbability": improbability does not preclude soemthing from happening. And what's more improbable: the existence of an anthropomorphic, ominscient, ominipotent entity that created all life and all matter in the universe, or that life came about through a series of observable natural processes?

[The Terrible Sweal]

You go into further detail about the characteristics of 'God', an dof course, the less persuasive is the evidence as you do. The detailed claims of religions become increasingly farcical as the detailed scientific claims are proven out by experience again and again.

[Black Dog]

You go into further detail about the characteristics of 'God', an dof course, the less persuasive is the evidence as you do. The detailed claims of religions become increasingly farcical as the detailed scientific claims are proven out by experience again and again.

Exactly. Not to mention: if God, then which god?

[Hugo]

Not to mention: if God, then which god?

I believe that all religions are essentially distant descendants of a common source. Therefore, the God worshipped in each is essentially the same being. Christianity and Islam are both offshoots of Judaism, for one example. The origins of religion are buried so far back in the history of time that we can never be certain of them and are compounded by translations, dead languages, cultural differences and hostilities and, of course, the human touch, especially when concerning a being and concepts that are beyond our ability fully comprehend. If twenty people witness a car accident, each will give the police a different version of events. It's like that. Of course, I have no conclusive evidence of this, but it makes the most sense to me out of all the alternatives.

And what's more improbable: the existence of an anthropomorphic, ominscient, ominipotent entity that created all life and all matter in the universe, or that life came about through a series of observable natural processes?

A good argument I heard on this was that if you take a car to pieces, put all the parts in a giant mixing machine and mix them for a million years you will never end up with a complete car.

If you look at the incredible complexity of the universe and the fact that it all works, deliberate design is the only realistic conclusion. Anything else is self-delusional and irrational. To speak of "natural processes" is very well, but who or what set these processes in motion? An automated assembly line can run virtually unsupervised, but somebody has to design and build the thing and then actually throw the switch. Until then, it will just sit there and produce nothing.

You go into further detail about the characteristics of 'God', an dof course, the less persuasive is the evidence as you do.

A being that is omnipotent, omniscient and exists outside of both space and time is necessarily beyond all human comprehension. Our attempts to describe such a being are like the efforts of ants describing human society.

can utilize the ever-expanding body of scientific knowledge to formulate plausable theories based on available evidence.

Knowledge of the functioning of the universe does not discount the existence of God. Let me give you an example. In the Old Testament, the rainbow is a symbol of the Covenant between humankind and God after the flood ended. Now, we know that rainbows are the refraction of light through airborne water drops, but just because we know how it is done, can we assume why it is done?

For another example, let's say the police are investigating a murder. A man has taken a knife and stabbed to death his wife of many years. Let's say it was witnessed by several people and videotaped. The police know exactly how the killing was performed, but unless the murderer tells us and we can be absolutely sure that he is not lying, we will never know why it was done.

[Michael Hardner]

I can't prove with certainty that the Universe doesn't reside on the back of a giant invisible tortoise either. But such a concept is just as ridiculous as God. Again: you can't prove a negative.

Correct.

[Black Dog]

If you look at the incredible complexity of the universe and the fact that it all works, deliberate design is the only realistic conclusion. Anything else is self-delusional and irrational. To speak of "natural processes" is very well, but who or what set these processes in motion? An automated assembly line can run virtually unsupervised, but somebody has to design and build the thing and then actually throw the switch. Until then, it will just sit there and produce nothing.

Nonsense. The complexity of nature is by no means a corollary of intelligent design. The "watch maker" analogy is weak in that such a "first step" is not required, nor does it explain where this "designer" originated in the first place. It's one of the great contradictions and weakness of theistic thought: we are expected to believe that a supreme being is responisble for setting all in motion, while at the same time believing the existence of said supreme being is eternal and predates the universe itself. Why not simply assume the universe itself is eternal and constantly in flux, thus cutting out the cumbersome and highly illogical notion of a supreme being? Natural explanations are simpler, and more in line with what we know about the universe.

A being that is omnipotent, omniscient and exists outside of both space and time is necessarily beyond all human comprehension. Our attempts to describe such a being are like the efforts of ants describing human society.

In other words, this "God" thing is a philosophical concept, a handy catch-all to explain the mysteries of the universe that are beyond our grasp. Fair enough.

But it's a helluva stretch to go from this conceptual deity to one that dabbles in human affairs, listens to prayers and arbitrarily consigns humans to the pleasures or horrors of an afterworld.

Knowledge of the functioning of the universe does not discount the existence of God. Let me give you an example. In the Old Testament, the rainbow is a symbol of the Covenant between humankind and God after the flood ended. Now, we know that rainbows are the refraction of light through airborne water drops, but just because we know how it is done, can we assume why it is done?

Why does there have to be a why?

[Hugo]

Your reasoning is perfectly sound, Blackdog, and I won't argue with it. You are free to believe what you want, religion is a personal matter and you have no obligation to anybody's spiritual welfare but your own (and you can quote me on that the next time the Jehovah's Witnesses come a-knocking). I was just explaining why I believe what I do. I think what we are just debating is either/or, and since neither of us can prove anything it's mere conjecture. It comes down to faith, or if you prefer, "do you believe?"