"The origin of the universe is a question for physics, not philosophy. There are dozens of discoveries in physics (especially things like as quantum physics) that confound philosophy, and that make no "sense" to the classically trained philosopher, but are nevertheless true."

This is a classic case of the "not invented here" syndrome. There are dozens of discoveries in physics that have confounded prior PHYSICS and make no "sense" to the classicially trained PHYSISIST of the day, but are nevertheless true.

This guy is blowing of a whole academic discipline because he assumes it died with Aristotle (or perhaps Aquinas) - which is bizarre, because most of his core arguments are based on the work of such PHILOSOPHERS as Locke and Hobbes.

Modern philosophers are conversant with the findings of the modern sciences - both physical and social - and seek to actively use them to improve our understanding of the world and ourselves. It's both arrogant and ignorant to claim otherwise.

The thing is, it's impossible NOT have a personal philosophy. You may not be self-aware enough to recognize your assumptions, but they are there.

As an aside, Jed suggests that "[t]he equations and evidence may eventually prove that matter sprang into existence on its own without cause." Just what sort of evidence might that be?

It's certainly possible that we can find a point at which the universe existed, but before which we can find no evidence of its existance (in fact, it appears that we already have). We can imagine learning a great deal about its structure at its first moment of existance. One can imagine finding something in that structure that would suggest the nature of a prior cause.

But what physical evidence could you possibly find for the lack of a cause? Some sort of quantum background potential out of which universes spring into existance? Possible - but wouldn't that constitute a cause (at least in a probabilistic sense)?

These are exactly the kind of questions thoughtful scientists and philosophers are discussing - but Jed's awol from the discussion, because of his great distaste for "philosophy" and his unwillingness to think hard about what the findings of modern cosmology really mean.

Anonymous wrote:

"There's nothing to suggest that it is eternal, and while you have an allergic reaction to philosophy, it's not good philosophy to assume that everything sprang into existence out of nothing."

The origin of the universe is a question for physics, not philosophy. There are dozens of discoveries in physics (especially things like as quantum physics) that confound philosophy, and that make no "sense" to the classically trained philosopher, but are nevertheless true. Our "assumptions" and our "good philosophy" have never been a useful guide to what is true. People tried to use good philosophy to understand nature for thousands of years, but in the end they knew little more than cavemen did. Only experiments, observations and scientific theory can teach us ANYTHING about the universe. Time after time, they have shown that our assumptions were wrong.

The equations and evidence may eventually prove that matter sprang into existence on its own without cause, just as radioactive elements disintegrate on their own without any physical cause. Many cosmologists expect that will be proved. If it is proved, it will not matter that this seems counter-intuitive, untenable or impossible, or that it conflicts with philosophy. When facts conflict with philosophy, philosophy is always wrong.

There is infinitely more in the universe than dreamed of in your philosophy. The human imagination alone, unaided by experiment, is incapable of learning anything about nature.

Jed, are you nuts? In response to the argument that "Something has to be uncreated."

you respond: "No, it doesn’t. If God does not need to be created, then neither does matter. And if everything does need a first cause, then so does God."

You're either not reading, or not thinking. The claim you seem to object to wasn't that everything needs a first cause, but that there must have been SOMETHING that DIDN'T have a cause - which is exactly what you then proceeded to say!

The appeal to authority (Mills) is beside the point, because we're directly addressing Mills' objection. All modern thinkers agree that there must be something that is uncaused. We also agree that it COULD be the physical universe.

But everything we know about the physical universe through science suggests that it did, in fact, have a beginning. There's nothing to suggest that it is eternal, and while you have an allergic reaction to philosophy, it's not good philosophy to assume that everything sprang into existance out of nothing. At a minimum, that's as big a streatch of the imagination as to suppose that someone or something (be it God, Allah, or little green men from the larger multiverse) that is responsible.

You keep assuming that philosophy is frozen in some prior point in time, and that as a result you can reach back and grab some hoary old bon mot and dismiss the entire enterprise. This is foolish. Philosophers are quite well aware of what the scientists are up to, and use those results to refine and correct their understanding of the world (serious theologians are as well, for that matter). Why would you assume otherwise? Is it only scientists who are so provincial as to be completely unaware of what's going on in other disciplines? That's pure intellectual hubris (and one reason so many scientists look foolish when they try to talk about philosophy or religion).

One more clarification is in order. The question was:

"What if we can't discover it - what then?"

My answer:

"Then we shall remain forever ignorant. . . ."

I took that question to mean "what happens if we cannot discover it?" Perhaps it more intended to mean: "What if we cannot, even in principle, discover what caused the universe to materialize?"

It is much too early to judge whether this can or cannot be discovered. Science is still in its infancy. For all anyone can say, it might take another million years of progress before the question is settled. However, in the past century, we answered many questions that were thought to be "beyond the power of science to address." It would be foolish to imagine that we now know what the eventual boundaries of knowledge will be, or what is knowable and what isn't. I agree with Jefferson, that progress will continue "not infinitely . . . but indefinitely, and to a term which no one can fix or foresee."

I wrote:

"Scientists have never observed microscopic evolution of large species, or the initial formation of DNA and the first cells in primordial circumstances . . ."

Foiled again by voice input. I hope it is clear that was supposed to be "MACROSCOPIC evolution of large species."

Note that "cause" is used in two senses here: 1. Trigger, or give rise to, as in push over the first domino; and 2. Plan, arrange, build, as in set up those dominoes in the first place. Subatomic particles undergo reactions spontaneously, without a cause in the first sense. There is no reason to think anything triggered the creation of the universe.

Russell was hardly the first to repudiate the 'First Cause' argument. In my opinion there are many other valid arguments against the existence of God, including many that are less philosophic and more technical. See Dawkins, chapter 4.

Indefatigable Anonymous wrote:

"'In the realm of morality it has not yet been improved upon, in my opinion.'

This is actually a very interesting statement. Given your presuppositions, what possible moral standard can you use to judge the worth of Christian philosophy as a moral code relative to, say, Social Darwinism or National Socialism? That you like it?"

I apply the same methods you do. I apply intuitive moral standards. They are instinctual; a product of evolution. Many of our moral standards are shared by other intelligent primates. Chimpanzees, for example, share similar instincts and behaviors for morality, political rivalry, sex, care of infants, and organized group homicide (war). You suffer from the illusion that these moral codes were given to you by a higher power, whereas I know they are inborn and instinctual, and also species-bound and culture-bound.

Obviously I have high regard for the Christian philosophy because I have lived in a culture shaped by this philosophy. Perhaps Christianity has inherent logical value compared to other philosophies, but it is difficult for me to judge because like anyone else I am influenced by my upbringing, and a prisoner of my own worldview. If I had grown up in Nazi Germany I would probably find much of value in National Socialism. That would especially be true if they had won the war. Suppose the Anglo-American cross-channel invasion had failed, Russia had fallen, and the Nazis still ran Europe. By now everyone but the European Jews would be reconciled to it, just as we were reconciled to the Soviet Union during the Cold War. (The European Jews would all be dead, of course.)

"The assertion was that in any time or place where the physical universe DOES NOT EXIST, any science that is solely and completely dependent on observing the physical universe is totally useless - because there's nothing for it to observe."

You assume more about the limits of physics than many modern physicists do. In any case, I know little about cosmology, so I cannot address these issues.

"Let's spell it out in simple terms. Anthropology is a good way to learn more about humanity - but if we all were to die, and there were no more people, it would be of greatly limited use."

You mean if humanity and every trace of us disappeared, it would be of no use. Anthropologists study people and cultures that vanished thousands of years ago. Scientists often study things that are no longer there, or never were there but might have been.

"To make it as clear as possible - if what a science studies ain't there, then it cain't study it."

This is oversimplified. Science often addresses hypothetical and unproven assertions, and events which cannot be re-created precisely, but only in approximation. As I said, anthropologists study vanished civilizations. Scientists have never observed microscopic evolution of large species, or the initial formation of DNA and the first cells in primordial circumstances, yet they know much about how these events happened. They can recreate similar events on a smaller scale. Perhaps, when enough is known about the Big Bang, the reasons it occurred will be worked out even though we cannot directly observe another Big Bang, or cause one.

"Think of small pox - natural epidemic, or did the evil white men give infected blankets to the indians? Same natural laws - which has a purpose, and which doesn't?"

There is no evidence of purpose and no conceivable mechanism by which a deity could impose his will or purpose on events such as disease, earthquakes, or evolution for that matter. (Evolution seems to be a favorite target of many religious people.) The laws of physics preclude it. A person can cause a small pox epidemic, but a deity with no hands who cannot manipulate blankets cannot cause one.

"Bottom line - please prove your assertion "That which is not [physically] apparent somehow, to some instrument, at some level, does not exist"
Many philosophers would agree with you - but they could tell me why they believe it. Others disagree - and they can tell me why as well."

Then I suggest you read them. They do a better job explaining these things than I do, and if they cannot convince you, neither can I.

"'Because otherwise you multiple entities. That is what is prohibited by Occam's razor; it does not call for 'simplicity' as some people think. You have to ask what created the creator, which is an infinite regress.'

. . . completely misunderstands the philosophical argument. Something has to be uncreated."

No, it doesn’t. If God does not need to be created, then neither does matter. And if everything does need a first cause, then so does God. As Bertrand Russell put it:

"About two years later, I became convinced that there is no life after death, but I still believed in God, because the 'First Cause' argument appeared to be irrefutable. At the age of eighteen, however, shortly before I went to Cambridge, I read Mill's Autobiography, where I found a sentence to the effect that his father taught him the question 'Who made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question 'Who made God?' This led me to abandon the 'First Cause' argument, and to become an atheist."

I am sure you are familiar with this argument. No doubt you disagree, but please do not pretend ignorance. I am convinced by this, and you are not, and let us leave the discussion there.

"But now we know, thanks to science, that it almost certainly has not always existed. So, what's the cause for the universe?"

Perhaps there is no cause. Who knows? There is no logical reason to think that uncaused things must be eternal. Even if this does "seem" logical or plausible to you, you will find that physics are full of discoveries which do not seem logical but are definitely true.

Your ideas about these subjects are very old fashioned. As Bertrand Russell put it, 'causality is not what it used to be.' ". . . [A]nd this is the most disturbing of all since it seems to show that the law of causality, in which science has hitherto implicitly believed, cannot be applied to the doings of individual electrons." (And other subatomic particles.)

"It could be an earlier or broader physical universe of which we are not aware (bang/bust cycle; multiple universes; universes giving birth to daughter universes, etc.). Not much evidence for that, but it's logically possible."

Until there evidence for this, there is no point to speculating about it.

"Engage here! What do you think - did the universe have a beginning?"

Apparently it did. The evidence points to that.

"Are you simply assuming that there will be a PHYSICAL cause that we will discover?"

First, not all events are caused, as Russell pointed out. Anyway, assuming the creation of the universe did have a cause, I am certainly not assuming we will discover it. I have no idea whether we will or not. If we do, it will be in the realm of physics, not metaphysics. What I do assume is that every other physical event is without moral content or purpose, so the beginning of the universe was also without moral purpose.

"What if we can't discover it - what then?"

Then we shall remain forever ignorant. We are ignorant of many things, and even if our species lasts a billion years I am sure that there will still be countless unanswered questions left when we finally go extinct.

"Do you just assume that the universe sprang into being for no cause whatsoever?"

I do not assume that, but why not? Perhaps it had no cause (or trigger, in any case). We do not know enough to rule this out. If subatomic events such as the disintegration of an atom can occur without a cause, perhaps macroscopic events can as well.

In any case, I assume nothing. I do not know how the universe sprang into being. I do not pretend to know, and I do not assign imaginary causes without evidence and then label them "God." It is better to admit ignorance than to make assertions without evidence.

"In the realm of morality it has not yet been improved upon, in my opinion."

This is actually a very interesting statement. Given your presuppositions, what possible moral standard can you use to judge the worth of Christian philosophy as a moral code relative to, say, Social Darwinism or National Socialism? That you like it?

"There are only two places where anything has ever been shown to exist: in our minds, and outside of them."

This is completely bogus. Please, please, please, Jed - take at least an introductory philosophy class and an introductory logic class at a school with a serious philosophy department.

You have completely begged the question here by ASSUMING that nothing can be shown to exist by any other means than physical observation, and then then saying "ah ha - presto bingo, we've used physical observation, and it shows that nothing exists outside the physical universe!"

Get serious here. Many philosophers claim that valid logic can demonstrate, depending on the philosopher, the reality or probable reality of things that you're blowing off.

In response to "One we reach a point where the physical universe no longer exists (either before, beyond, or after it), the physical sciences must stand silent." you replied "How do you know? We have not reached the end of science yet. In fact, we have hardly begun."

This completely missed the point. The assertion was that in any time or place where the physical universe DOES NOT EXIST, any science that is solely and completely dependent on observing the physical universe is totally useless - because there's nothing for it to observe. That in no way says anything about the limits of science as a way of observing the universe - just that it is in fact limited to observing ONLY the PHYSICAL universe (and cannot speak to ANYTHING else).

Let's spell it out in simple terms. Anthropology is a good way to learn more about humanity - but if we all were to die, and there were no more people, it would be of greatly limited use. Botany is great for studying plants. If you are in a place with no plants, botanists have nothing to study. Zoology is great for studying animals, but if you don't have any animals (even human ones), then zoology isn't going to help you learn much. Geology is great for studying the planet earth - and, potentially, other planets as well. But if all the planets disappeared, it wouldn't be of much use. Astronomy is a wonderful tool for studying the celestial bodies, intersteller dust and gasses, cosmic background radiation, etc. But if all the stars, planets, dust, gasses, radiation, comets, black holes, and miscellaneous chunks of stuff out there were to disappear, then astronomers would have nothing to do except re-hash old astronomy books.

To make it as clear as possible - if what a science studies ain't there, then it cain't study it.

We may not have "hardly begun" with the physical sciences. What they've begun to show, however, is that the physical universe had a definite beginning, and that it is not infinite in extent. Serious scholars believe these findings are of potentially great philosophical importance.

You're just spouting hot air until you engage their arguments and prove that their methods do not and cannot work. Actually dig in and do the philosophical heavy lifting of proving that all valid knowledge of the nature of reality must ultimately depend on physical observation - until you do, you're just spouting off. When you claim that you want "objective proof," that's not what you're really asking for. You're asking for "physical proof" - and rejecting out of hand any reasoning from the observation that the universe isn't eternal, or that it exists at all, or anything else.

Face it - you're picking and choosing which observations you're willing to examine, and rejecting without examination any line of reasoning that comes to a conclusion that clashes with your materialistic world view.

When you responded to:

"How, for instance, can you prove through science that the universe has no purpose?"

with:

"Because it is governed by physical laws and they have no purpose. We know how they work. Not completely of course; we shall never learn all of the laws of physics. But we know enough to say they are not affected by thoughts and they have no signs of being biased in favor of doing good instead of evil. When you fire a bullet on the battlefield it does not stray or change its path to hit an evil person instead of a nice person. Disease strikes at a cellular level with no regard for how nice, important, faithful, or loving you are."

. . .your line of reasoning was just plain silly. Your hypothetical bullet is governed entirely by physical laws. So is a forest fire. So is an smallpox epidemic. So is a pocket watch, for that matter. A complete examination of the flight path of a bullet cannot prove or disprove its purpose. Forest fires are even more fun. Two firest are governed by EXACTLY the same physical laws. One is accidental - the other is arson. One has a purpose, while the other does not - but you're argument would allegedly "prove" that both had no purpose. Think of small pox - natural epidemic, or did the evil white men give infected blankets to the indians? Same natural laws - which has a purpose, and which doesn't?

So by all means, examine the natural laws of the universe. The fact that it is governed by such laws speaks not at all to the question of purpose. Let's face it - for all you know the universe could be part of an elaborate practical joke played by an intelligence we don't understand. Or perhaps it's intended to somehow compost and recycle that intelligence's waste? I don't think so - but you can't prove otherwise by saying "hey, it's governed by natural laws."

Bottom line - please prove your assertion "That which is not [physically] apparent somehow, to some instrument, at some level, does not exist"

Many philosophers would agree with you - but they could tell me why they believe it. Others disagree - and they can tell me why as well.

You simply keep repeating it. Could it be because that's what you were culturally conditioned to believe? I hope not, because then it's frightenly close to this "faith" that so disturbs you.

As an aside, the statement:

"Because otherwise you multiple entities. That is what is prohibited by Occam's razor; it does not call for 'simplicity' as some people think. You have to ask what created the creator, which is an infinite regress."

. . . completely misunderstands the philosophical argument. Something has to be uncreated. Or, in other terms, something must ultimately be uncaused. Unless you're willing to accept a sort of spontaneous creation out of nothing (i.e., the universe wasn't, then it just leapt into existance for no reason whatsoever), then what is uncreated/uncaused must also be eternal.

One simple answer to this question is to say that the physical universe has always existed - it's eternal, uncreated, and uncaused.

But now we know, thanks to science, that it almost certainly has not always existed. So, what's the cause for the universe?

It could be an earlier or broader physical universe of which we are not aware (bang/bust cycle; multiple universes; universes giving birth to daughter universes, etc.). Not much evidence for that, but it's logically possible.

The other approach is that the cause is something non-physical that is itself eternal, uncreated and uncaused. That in no way creates an infinite regress - in fact, the nub of the argument is that at some point the regress must come to an end, and that end must necessarily be something eternal and itself uncreated.

Engage here! What do you think - did the universe have a beginning? Are you simply assuming that there will be a PHYSICAL cause that we will discover? What if we can't discover it - what then? Do you just assume that the universe sprang into being for no cause whatsoever?

Thanks to voice input I wrote:

"If it is not in principle answerable by science and it is not answerable at all."

Meant: ". . . answerable by science THEN it is not answerable at all."

Please note that my comments regarding what fish think of people are humorous. Fish do not appear to be sentient, pace "The Little Mermaid." On the other hand, we hunt and kill intelligent primates, who definitely are sentient and who do understand that humans live in groups and act deliberately. They probably would be delighted to kill us off if they could, or see us commit mass suicide. You can't blame them. What is moral to one society or species is immoral to another. There are no absolute moral standards; right and wrong only have meaning from a particular species' point of view, in a given situation, in a specific place and time.

Anonymous wrote:

"All of the major religions believe in a non-material diety or aspect of reality - one that exists outside of our imaginations."

There are only two places where anything has ever been shown to exist: in our minds, and outside of them. Everything outside is physical and ruled by the laws of physics. So far we have not discovered any other hiding places. Speculating that such places may exist is not the same as discovering them.

"They may, of course, all be wrong . . ."

Yes, they are. That is the lesson of the last 400 years of science.

". . . but if there is some aspect of reality that is non-material and outside of us, it can't be subject to physical examination by the physical sciences."

If you cannot detect something by any means, even hypothetically, that is the same as not existing. If it can affect the physical world, there has to be a way to detect it.

"'Of course I believe in non-material things! . . . Poetry, love, valor, jealousy criminality -- a world of things. . . .'

Then why do you reject out-of-hand the concept of a non-physical Dao, or spirit, or God, or what have you? It's because of this next presupposition of yours."

The Dao or Spirit is a moral system that exists in our minds, like any other philosophical system. A philosophy can motivate people to do wonderful things, or terrible harm, so it is important. But it is a nonphysical idea. When we go extinct, or when the Dao philosophy is forgotten in the distant future, all trace of it will vanish. It does not linger in physical space in any sense.

"This is a presupposition. You're assuming that if we can't touch or sense something, or that it doesn't have a consistent reproducable _physical_ effect, then it doesn't have a "real" existance independent of us - it's not part of "reality" other than in our minds."

Right, that’s what I assume.

"This is, whether or not you recognize it, a philosophical conclusion about the nature of the universe (you've already gone farther than you thought)."

Of course it is a philosophical conclusion! Of course I recognize that. It is the scientific method, and it is supported by the outstanding success of science over the last 400 years. Science is the most successful and powerful philosophy ever devised. It has rendered all previous philosophies obsolete. It has done more to empower human beings (for both good and evil) than the previous 100,000 years of philosophies and technologies combined. It has given us the power to destroy the whole human race. What more proof do you want that it works? (And that it has no moral content.)

"Many religious people -- including you, I gather -- believe that an intelligent being created the physical universe and that entity either takes an active role in day to day events, or somehow imbues events with cosmic justice or meaning."

Yep, we do."

You believe it, but you cannot prove it by experiment, therefore your belief has no basis. All statements about the physical universe must be testable by experiment in principle, albeit in many cases not in practice. Any object or force which affects physical particles can be detected in principle, and it must conform to the laws of physics.

"And many non-religous people -- including you, I gather -- believe that the universe is uncreated, even though it now appears to have had a definite beginning."

Apparently so. The physical evidence of the Big Bang points to that.

"Why do you think Occam's razor cuts on the side of "'t just happened?'"

Because otherwise you multiple entities. That is what is prohibited by Occam's razor; it does not call for 'simplicity' as some people think. You have to ask what created the creator, which is an infinite regress.

"But we don't see an eternal universe. Why did it begin? Why is there a universe at all? . . . but that's precisely where cosmology starts looking like philosophy and theology."

Theology answers no questions at all. It is a fancy way of saying "we don’t know" meaning "we give up and shrug our shoulders." That's not an answer. If these questions are ever answered, the answer will be in the form of an equation describing a set of physical laws that make it inevitable that the universe should spring into existence.

"I am dead serious about one question here - given that the universe is not eternal, why did it begin? Do you believe that this question is, even in principle, answerable by science?"

If it is not in principle answerable by science and it is not answerable at all. All questions regarding the physical universe appear to be answerable by science, and not one has ever been answered correctly by religion. All of the answers provided by religion in previous centuries have turned out to be wrong. (I mean the answers pertaining to physics, not morality!!!)

"One we reach a point where the physical universe no longer exists (either before, beyond, or after it), the physical sciences must stand silent."

How do you know? We have not reached the end of science yet. In fact, we have hardly begun.

"You may argue that the question is unanswerable . . ."

It is presently unknown – that’s all we can say. Since many other phenomena which people once thought unknowable can now be explained. There is no reason to think this question will not be answered in the future.

"'Indeterminacy is built into the structure of matter, as I expect you know. Even God cannot overrule Schrodinger.'

Those are pretty bold statements."

Yes, science has made bold discoveries, and it has answered questions that people even a hundred years ago considered unanswerable. Lots of books written before 1952 said that life is a miracle and reproduction will never be understood. Then we discovered DNA and it turns out life is explicable after all. In another few thousand years we will probably learn just about every important detail about how the human body works.

"How, for instance, can you prove through science that the universe has no purpose?"

Because it is governed by physical laws and they have no purpose. We know how they work. Not completely of course; we shall never learn all of the laws of physics. But we know enough to say they are not affected by thoughts and they have no signs of being biased in favor of doing good instead of evil. When you fire a bullet on the battlefield it does not stray or change its path to hit an evil person instead of a nice person. Disease strikes at a cellular level with no regard for how nice, important, faithful, or loving you are.

"Purpose is non-physical . . ."

Exactly! Purpose therefore does not exist in physical things. It exists in our minds alone. It is an idea that can mean nothing to an outside observer, such as an extraterrestrial observer or one of the animals we eat. When you look at us from the point of view of the fish that we catch and eat, we are evil incarnate. Everything we consider kindness, such as helping children or putting food on the table, they must see as making their lives miserable. They would prefer we kill ourselves off and go extinct. From their point of view, that's perfectly justified, even though from our point of view genocide and suicide are the ultimate evil.

"You can argue, based on the patterns you see in it, that it has no apparent purpose - but that's a far cry from proving that it has no purpose."

That which is not apparent somehow, to some instrument, at some level, does not exist. If we later discover a bias in the universe in favor of purpose then perhaps we will have discovered the existence of God. At present we have not discovered a trace of that. You can speculate all you like that there might be a purpose, which we might someday discover, but until we actually do discover it, you are wrong and your speculation is an empty waste of time.

"It's even more far fetched to claim that you can prove that 'God, if he existed, could not affect the path of a single electron for a single nanosecond.' It's one thing to prove that an omnipotent, omniscient creator does not exist - it's another to claim that if an omnipotent, omniscient creator did exist, He couldn't do anything!"

If he does anything to the physical world, sooner or later we will spot his actions. Until we do measure his actions we have no evidence he exists, and no reason to believe he exists, and I never believe in things without evidence. I have the opposite of faith: I demand objective proof of every assertion.

"Regardless of your definition of prayer, please note that the vast majority of religious texts and believers claim that prayer DOES affect the outcome of events in the real world. . . ."

We do. But not in the sense of a magic incantation or some sort of spell . . . Prayer is a request to an intelligent being, who sees further than we do, and has purposes that we are many times not privy to.

It is impossible for you to distinguish between these two situations:

1. God exists but has decided not to do what you asked, and never, ever shows a bias in favor or against your prayers.

2. God does not exist.

Since the outcome of prayer never has any effect on the course of physical events, diseases and so on, it is simpler to assume #2.

"Setting aside the quibbles, and there are many, about the studies on both sides that you're referring to . . ."

No there are not. The ones showing effects from prayer are bogus.

"Your heartfelt rejection of religion seems to be more based in your distaste for the picture of God you've picked up from the religious people you've met, than it is in any philosophical objection to the possibility."

It is not the religious people I have met. Most of them are fine people. It is the religious books that I have read that gave me a bad taste. They are full of logical errors and unproven, circular assertions. The worst thing is, they demand "faith," which they define as believing in things unseen that cannot be proved. Faith is the enemy of science and sanity. It is one of the worst ideas people have ever came up with, right up there with race purity, man’s domination of the earth, and men being superior to women. It is a sick, stupid, backward, dreadful idea. You should never believe anything without objective evidence.

That discovery that objective evidence is paramount loosely defines the scientific method, along with the need for experiments. It is the most liberating, valuable, and powerful idea ever discovered. It has brought more benefit to mankind than all the religions ever practiced, and all the prayers ever offered. Of course it may yet destroy the human race in a nuclear war or with global warming, so in the long run, perhaps it will be more of a curse that a blessing. But so far it has been good for us. Darwin's science has no moral content whatever. You cannot draw a single conclusion about right and wrong or how to treat people based on the fact that we evolved from single-celled organisms. But it does offer some advantages religion never did: it is the TRUTH, and we can PROVE it, and build upon it, use it to cure disease and to create profound self-knowledge. In the past we were ignorant and wrong and now we know how we were created, and by what forces, and to what purpose (none whatever -- the workings of blind nature). Charles Darwin was the "Emancipator of the Human Mind."

By the way, I am well aware that science and enlightenment philosophy are rooted in Christan philosophy. This philosophy and the notion that God exists did a lot of good to mankind, and not much harm. In the realm of physics, it gave birth to its successor, the scientific method. In the realm of morality it has not yet been improved upon, in my opinion. Although it is superseded in physics, and we now know that the universe has no creator or moral content whatever, the idea was pretty good while it lasted. Perhaps the scientific method will someday be rendered obsolete by some philosophy that works even better. Perhaps we will even discover that the universe does have a moral bias, good is rewarded, and prayers answered. I think the chances of that are exceedingly remote, but in any case, until that happens and someone proves it rigorously by experiment I will not believe it.

"Wait a second here. I mean nothing can exist in the palpable, touchable sense."

But no one has ever suggested that Dao, Allah, or Jehovah "exist in the palpable, touchable sense" - in fact, Daoists, Muslims, Christians and Jews make exactly the opposite claim. All of the major religions believe in a non-material diety or aspect of reality - one that exists ourside of our imaginations. They may, of course, all be wrong - but if there is some aspect of reality that is non-material and outside of us, it can't be subject to physical examination by the physical sciences.

"Of course I believe in non-material things! The qualification seems obvious -- sorry I did not explain it previously. I hope this explanation is clear. Lots of things exist outside the physical world, in our minds. Poetry, love, valor, jealousy criminality -- a world of things. When the human race goes extinct I suppose they will all cease to exist in any meaningful sense, but they are here now. I guess you could say the laws of mathematics and Shakespeare's plays will survive until the last syllable of recorded time, but with no living creature left to enjoy them it is hard to know what "surviving" means."

Then why do you reject out-of-hand the concept of a non-physical Dao, or spirit, or God, or what have you? It's because of this next presupposition of yours.

"The reality in our minds only. Thoughts alone. Not in the real world that you touch, or sense, or where your actions have consequences. Religion and philosophy tell us only how to think and how to make moral judgments. I agree 100% with that statement, but that is as far as I go. "

This is a presupposition. You're assuming that if we can't touch or sense something, or that it doesn't have a consistent reproducable _physical_ effect, then it doesn't have a "real" existance independent of us - it's not part of "reality" other than in our minds. This is, whether or not you recognize it, a philosophical conclusion about the nature of the universe (you've already gone farther than you thought).

"Many religious people -- including you, I gather -- believe that an intelligent being created the physical universe and that entity either takes an active role in day to day events, or somehow imbues events with cosmic justice or meaning."

Yep, we do. And many non-religous people -- including you, I gather -- believe that the universe is uncreated, even though it now appears to have had a definite beginning.

Why do you think Occam's razor cuts on the side of "it just happened?" If science were suggesting that the universe has always existed, then we might have a different discussion. But we don't see an eternal universe. Why did it begin? Why is there a universe at all? There is scientific speculation about cycles of big bangs and big crunches, and multiple universes, and all sorts of stuff - but that's precisely where cosmology starts looking like philosphy and theology.

I am dead serious about one question here - given that the universe is not eternal, why did it begin? Do you believe that this question is, even in principle, answerable by science? I don't. The methods of science limit it to the current nature and history of the physical universe. One we reach a point where the physical universe no longer exists (either before, beyond, or after it), the physical sciences must stand silent.

You may argue that the question is unanswerable - I don't think you can successfully maintain that it is not meaningful.

"That is the domain of science, and science proves that atoms are ruled by the cold, hard laws of physics alone, without a shred or morality, purpose or meaning. If God exists he is powerless to affect one atom or put one thought (electrochemical state) into your mind. Supernatural events never occur. God, if he existed, could not affect the path of a single electron for a single nanosecond. He cannot even tell exactly where a given particle is or where it will be; the question is meaningless. Indeterminacy is built into the structure of matter, as I expect you know. Even God cannot overrule Schrodinger."

Those are pretty bold statements. How, for instance, can you prove through science that the universe has no purpose? Purpose is non-physical, and not subject to the methods of science. You can argue, based on the patterns you see in it, that it has no apparant purpose - but that's a far cry from proving that it has no purpose. It's even more far fetched to claim that you can prove that "God, if he existed, could not affect the path of a single electron for a single nanosecond." It's one thing to prove that an omnipotent, omniscient creator does not exist - it's another to claim that if an omnipotent, omniscient creator did exist, He couldn't do anything!

"Regardless of your definition of prayer, please note that the vast majority of religious texts and believers claim that prayer DOES affect the outcome of events in the real world. That can be tested experimentally, and it has been tested, and found wrong."

We do. But not in the sense of a magic incantation or some sort of spell, where specific words said in the right way with enough intensity will always produce a predictable result. Prayer is a request to an intelligent being, who sees further than we do, and has purposes that we are many times not privy to. Setting aside the quibbles, and there are many, about the studies on both sides that you're referring to, no church teaches a form of prayer that goes like this "God, please heal . . . BOOM, it's done! God, please heal . . . BOOM, it's done! God, please give me a . . . BOOM, it's done! God, please give me another . . . BOOM, it's done! God, please make my wife . . . BOOM, it's done! God, please give me lots more . . . BOOM, it's done!"

That's a picture of Aladin's genie, not the ruler of the universe. Destroying that paper tiger may be fun, but it doesn't really accomplish much. As somone said earlier, if every heartfelt prayer were answered with a "yes," no one would ever die. If God did create the universe, life and death were built into the design. Do you really think we can ask him to redesign it to be more with our liking, and expect Him to say "o.k., that sounds good, let's re-work it!"

"I cannot understand why you crave approval or guidance from some higher power, or an absolute standard of morality, or even why you think any of that would be a good idea."

Well, here's the problem - the existance of God isn't a matter of whether I think it's a good idea, a divinity either exists, or does not. Religion can be true, or false, or it's not worth believing in.

Your heartfelt rejection of religion seems to be more based in your distaste for the picture of God you've picked up from the religious people you've met, than it is in any philosophical objection to the possibility.

Anonymous says: "I've been watching your jousting with Demos, before he got tired of you and left"

That's funny - I thought you were Demos.

Whatever happened to Demos, anyway?

Anonymous misunderstood, alas, and wrote:

"'I do not worship anything, least of all science. Science is a tool like Microsoft Windows, only less reliable, with no help-line. It has no moral content.'

Interesting comment. You won't admit to even the bare the possibility of any other source of knowledge about the nature of existence, and claim that nothing can exist if it can't be studied by science."

Wait a second here. I mean nothing can exist in the palpable, touchable sense. All particles of matter are governed by physical laws.

But there are any number of non-material things such as philosophy, mathematics, morality, love, hate, patriotism, literature, etc. that have nothing to do with the physical world. Science can teach us little or nothing about them. Science can never establish guilt or innocence, or cruelty and kindness.

Biology, for example, can show how and why our sense of morality arose from evolutionary processes. It demonstrates that other primates and intelligent animals share much of our morality. But it is no help if you are trying to decide moral conundrums, such as whether war is ever justified; or whether you love someone; or whether gay people should be allowed to marry. Biology proves that morality derives from our primate nature, which is a product of evolution, but that tells you nothing about what is moral and what isn't. For that, you have to be inside a primate mind, and in touch with our instincts, experiences and culture.

This is analogous to saying that biology proves that sexual desire and love are caused by the instinct to procreate. I presume no one would dispute that?!? That tells you nothing about whether you are sincerely in love and should marry or not.

"When pressed, you consistently say 'in the physical universe' - but then you won't even discuss what the qualification means, or your reasons for putting it in. Fess up - you do not believe that anything other than the physical universe exists."

Of course I believe in non-material things! The qualification seems obvious -- sorry I did not explain it previously. I hope this explanation is clear. Lots of things exist outside the physical world, in our minds. Poetry, love, valor, jealousy criminality -- a world of things. When the human race goes extinct I suppose they will all cease to exist in any meaningful sense, but they are here now. I guess you could say the laws of mathematics and Shakespeare's plays will survive until the last syllable of recorded time, but with no living creature left to enjoy them it is hard to know what "surviving" means.

"We weren't discussing prayer - we were discussing whether your assumption of bare materialism was justified, and why you're so unwilling to explore the foundations of it."

I am quite familiar with the foundations of scientific thought! And the limitations.

"Besides, your sample is pretty skewed. Intercessory prayer is a part of most religions - but it's not at all the only kind of prayer."

No doubt there are other kinds. I did not mean that to be a comprehensive list. I mentioned a few other kinds, such as the therapeutic variety favored by Unitarians. None of them have any effect on physical reality, and none of them communicate with a deity because there is no such being (as far as I can tell).

Regardless of your definition of prayer, please note that the vast majority of religious texts and believers claim that prayer DOES affect the outcome of events in the real world. That can be tested experimentally, and it has been tested, and found wrong.

"How would you know? For all you can tell, I might have been religious years ago . . ."

Because by now you would have said so."

Nope, I wouldn't. That would prejudice the discussion. As it happens, I have drifted from agnostic to a somewhat more atheistic point of view, but for the most part I agree with the Buddhists that we should pretend to know the unknowable.

Elsewhere you wrote:

"Yes, most Eastern 'religions' are more akin to Western philosophy than to the Abrahamic religions. So what? They are serious efforts to understand the nature of reality, and represent world views very different from the one you espouse."

The reality in our minds only. Thoughts alone. Not in the real world that you touch, or sense, or where your actions have consequences. Religion and philosophy tell us only how to think and how to make moral judgments. I agree 100% with that statement, but that is as far as I go. As for the rest --

People in ancient times (and many today) believed that religion is also a means of controlling events in the real world with prayers and amulets and such. I gather you agree with me that's wrong. They thought that religious texts described actual historical events such as Adam and Eve, which is completely wrong, and the worldwide Flood. There was a big Middle Eastern flood but it was not worldwide. I gather you don't believe in Adam and Eve. Good for you. Pressing on . . .

Many religious people -- including you, I gather -- believe that an intelligent being created the physical universe and that entity either takes an active role in day to day events, or somehow imbues events with cosmic justice or meaning. As you expressed it, religion is about the "nature of God, His relationship to people, and how He expects us to live." There can be no such nature, and there can be no cosmic entity with expectations about us. You are only multiplying entities in any case, without any evidence.

"Creating the universe" or affecting matter in any way means manipulating atoms and molecules of physical matter. That is the domain of science, and science proves that atoms are ruled by the cold, hard laws of physics alone, without a shred or morality, purpose or meaning. If God exists he is powerless to affect one atom or put one thought (electrochemical state) into your mind. Supernatural events never occur. God, if he existed, could not affect the path of a single electron for a single nanosecond. He cannot even tell exactly where a given particle is or where it will be; the question is meaningless. Indeterminacy is built into the structure of matter, as I expect you know. Even God cannot overrule Schrodinger.

Many religious people (including you, I think) believe that religious laws were handed down by a "higher power" -- that is -- a non-human intelligent entity. God, Gods, the Emperor Hirohito, or what-have-you. There is not a shred of evidence for that and the notion is preposterous. Extraterrestrial visitors would be slightly more plausible and there is no evidence for them either.

The whole idea is grotesque. Why do you even want to hand over responsibility for human morality to some nonhuman intelligence? We are responsible for what we think, and for the morality we create, and for what we are. We can't blame it on God, or give him credit for it either. Morality is entirely our creation. We create our own purposes and meaning, and when our species goes extinct, all that we have known, and loved and created, and all the good and bad that we have done will vanish with us. My Buddhist friends they will tell you that is a good thing. There is much to be said for annihilation.

I cannot understand why you crave approval or guidance from some higher power, or an absolute standard of morality, or even why you think any of that would be a good idea. You are capable of dealing with your own life and deciding for yourself what is right and what is wrong. You must do that: there is nothing else in the Universe that cares about you or understands what morality is from a human point of view. All species are unique, and they can barely grasp one-another's point of view. We can barely communicate even with our closest primate relatives, not to mention dogs, bees or whales. What can a God or a whale or some other sentient creature tell you about love or bravery or whether it is okay to kill your daughter (as ordered by your Old Testament God)?!? These are human constructs -- they exist in our minds alone, as a product of our nature and our biology, the outcome of our evolution. Our choices, our minds and will are an infinitely greater and more wonderful thing than your cramped notion of religion with fixed, absolute morality, do's and don't set down by someone else, and passing off responsibility and decision to an invisible cosmic entity. We are, as Hamlet put it:

. . . noble in reason! . . .infinite in
faculties! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals!

What more do you want? Why invent a God when nature and evolution have endowed us with so much? Why insist on some higher power? We are high enough.

Well, I guess I'll just have to watch out when 6:00 rolls around, won't I?

This last message would make a lot more sense if you hadn't consistently been blowning off philosophy as well as religion.

Yes, most Eastern "religions" are more akin to Western philosophy than to the Abrahamic religions. So what? They are serious efforts to understand the nature of reality, and represent world views very different from the one you espouse.

Noting that dao, atman and dharma aren't worshiped doesn't really help your position much either. The concepts are meaningful, and relevant to how Daoists and Buddhists understand the nature of reality. They aren't, by any stretch of the imagination, crude superstitions like the alchemy and astrology you bring up as red herrings.

Let's throw all the amulets, charms, potions, statues and the like out.

Is there anything inherently illogical in the concepts of dao, atman and dharma? Can you disprove them - scientifically or otherwise? (I guess it would have to be "otherwise" - you've already said that science doesn't speak to those issues.)

There is no dust, there is no mirror. What does that say about the nature of reality? Is it wrong? How do you know?

One last note - your analysis of religious faith is off the mark again. All of the various Christian churches that still maintain a traditional understanding of the Christian faith would, in fact, be miffed if they thought you were "faking it" - that's called hypocracy.

Let me clarify something for the benefit of people not familiar with Taoism (Daoism). I wrote:

"'If that doesn't make sense to you, please explain how you would disprove the Daoist view of reality using modern science?'

Science has nothing to do with such things. You might as well try to disprove general relativity by pointing to the rules of baseball."

I meant the non-supernatural aspects of taoism, which are a large chunk of the whole. It is mainly a philosophy rather than a religion in the Western sense of the word, although they do have some ritual. Quoting Wikipedia, which is surprisingly on the mark:

"Tao is rarely an object of worship, being treated more like the Indian concepts of atman and dharma."

Naturally I hold that the religious rituals associated with Taoism have no validity. The alchemy and astrology associated with it are also invalid, which I suppose even Anonymous would agree with. The philosophy is well worth studying.

The same goes for some of the less superstitious forms of Buddhism, which I think many Westerners would hardly recognize as religion. Their philosophy is similar in many ways to the New England Transcendentalism, which is a form of Unitarianism. These are rare sects that are perfectly happy to leave God out of the picture. At most churches you have to at least pretend you believe in God and the supernatural, whereas at these places I think they would be miffed if they felt you were faking it. The Buddhists would be miffed and amused.

It is worth noting that the only declared atheist in the U.S. Congress, Stark (D, Ca -- of course) is a Unitarian. I heartily approve!

After extensive exposure to their thought I would be hard to put to decide whether the Zen Buddhists believe in anything, or nothing, but I recommend it. I would like to see Mr. Anonymous get whacked over the shoulder at 6:00 a.m. for thinking too much and for declaring that God exists -- or doesn't exist, as the case may be. It is a good antidote to over-zealous Western-style analysis, and a cure for people who think they know things that are unknowable.

"I do not worship anything, least of all science. Science is a tool like Microsoft Windows, only less reliable, with no help-line. It has no moral content."

Interesting comment. You won't admit to even the bare the possibility of any other source of knowledge about the nature of existance, and claim that nothing can exist if it can't be studied by science. When pressed, you consistently say "in the physical universe" - but then you won't even discuss what the qualification means, or your reasons for putting it in. Fess up - you do not believe that anything other than the physical universe exists. You also have no interest in understanding how anyone else could come to another conclusion - because any other conclusion is inconceivable to you.

"Well, most people who pray tell me they do it because it affects the course of events, by helping them recover from sickness, for example."

We weren't discussing prayer - we were discussing whether your assumption of bare materialism was justified, and why you're so unwilling to explore the foundations of it.

Besides, your sample is pretty skewed. Intercessory prayer is a part of most religions - but it's not at all the only kind of prayer.

"I do, actually. I just don’t agree with them. I think you should stop accusing me of being unfamiliar with this or that. That's fruitless, and obviously false."

No need to accuse - you've demonstrated it over and over. Your faux pas of describing the Bible as intended to provide a primative scientific explanation for the workings of the physical universe was a joke, as was your misdating it by over a millenium.

What's more, you've clearly stated that your only interest is in the psychology and motivations of religious individuals - HOW and WHY they come to believe, not WHAT they believe.

Now, what exactly did you think the purpose of the Song of Songs was again? I've seen it described as early Israelite wedding litergy, as an extended allegory of God's love for His people, and even as an early Hebrew sex manual (that was the most enjoyable commentary to read) - but never as a "creation myth."

"I am quite familiar with them. You seem a little confused. Do you think the Japanese amulets are only decoration and no one actually thinks they prevent automobile accidents?"

Yep, and some scientists were lucky shirts when they play soccer. Petty superstition runs in all social classes and settings. If you're going to reduce all Japanese thought to amulets, you're blind. (Besides, do you really think they're an essential part of Japanese thought or philosophy? If so, then tenure fights and funny graduation gowns are essential to Western academic thought.)

"You can wonder about such questions until the Cosmic Crunch, but unless you perform experiments and observations you will never arrive at an answer. Speculation about physical phenomena without experimentation is sterile."

Again, you fail to engage. We've specifically said we're not talking about physical phenomena - the question is whether or not really includes anything anything OTHER than physical phenomena.

You know, you remind me of the business man who understood everything in terms of money. He believed in sex, because he could buy it. He didn't believe in love, because he couldn't buy it.

"I believe the physical limits of the universe are well-established."

No kidding - and guess what, it is limited, both in time and in extent. You're like a man in a locked room who is not just incurious about what might be on the other side of the walls, he won't even discuss the walls because he can't imagine anything outside the confines he's become accustomed to.

"Philosophers have been asking questions like that for thousands of years. They are no closer to an answer now than they ever were. Such questions can only be addressed with the tools of science, or not at all."

What, are you going to claim now that not just religion, but PHILOSOPHY hasn't changed in "4,000 years?" Come on - that's a bit much. Look, there ARE philosophical arguments for the position you're taking. There are strong arguments on the other side as well. Unfortunately, you seem completely unaware that the discussion is being carried on, much less of the issues involved. To take a simple example, before the development of modern cosmology, exponents of the side you're taking commonly argued that the physical universe was eternal, obviating the need to ask where it came from. Modern cosmology has forced a significant reevaluation - on both sides(the dust hasn't settled from this one yet). Serious scientists are interested in the issue - why aren't you?

"Experiencing another culture forces you to question your core beliefs. It is unavoidable."

Really? What do you consider a core belief? Did you question your assumption that reality is limited to the physical universe? Did you question whether you were correct in dismissing a Daoist world view(or a Buddhist world view, etc. . . .)? Did you simply ask yourself if there was anything to satori other than a neurological phenomenon - and if so, how it might be explained?

"Aren't we? Are you sure?"

Absolutely sure! Open mindedness is an intellectual issue, and very different from being adventurous in more mundane ways. Both are good - but the kind of narrow-mindedness you've attributed to believers and mocked has nothing to do with adventurousness. Very, very fundamentalist believers travel the globe eating and living EXACTLY the way the people they're trying to reach eat and live. Christianity takes different external shapes and forms in every country it's found in, adapting those externals to the culture. Everything you claim to have done is done every day, all over the world, by the very believers you mock as being close-minded. They take the squeemishness and unsettledness you claim as your badge of openmindedness, and eat the sushi too!

"Not for me it isn’t! No sushi, no thank you. I do not care for fish, raw or cooked. And whale meat is indigestible."

You should try it. I'd suggest the rolls - they're easier for us Westerners to face. If you're bothered by raw fish, try the artificial crab meat. It's pre-cooked. We make sushi rolls at home with smoked salmon and artificial crab. Easy (but messy) and fun. You can also get beef sushi - it's a bit chewy, but tastes a lot like a rare steak. (I must admit that I don't do shrimp sushi - the raw shrimp sitting on top looks too much like a big ol' bug.)

"Science has nothing to do with such things. You might as well try to disprove general relativity by pointing to the rules of baseball."

On this much we believe - some questions science can't answer. If you do reject the Daoist world view, on what basis do you do so? It can't be scientific. I suspect it's a philisophical one (probably your assumption that nothing exists other than the physical universe). Whether you do it here or not, please go through the exercise of disproving Daoism - it will force you to work through the basis of your beliefs and, if done honestly, will expose a number of presuppositions.

"How would you know? For all you can tell, I might have been religious years ago and now I have changed. You seem to define change exclusively as "going toward religion" What about people who drift away from it? For that matter, have you changed? Are you more religious or less religious than you used to be? If so, are you sure you are going in the right direction?"

Because by now you would have said so. Are people who drift away from religion open-minded? Yes, in many cases. (Others do it out of shear inertia.) Am I more or less religious? I'm differently religious. Some of by beliefs have changed, I understand my religion very differently in some respects, and have a very different view of how it relates to modern secular thought. I have some open questions about the interaction of science, philosophy and faith as well. That's part of growing and maturing intellectually - and it can be a fascinating journey, whether you come full circle, or end up in a very different place. If nothing else, I can say this - I have a much clearer view of exactly what I do believe, and why.

"I do not know why you are so certain that change only works in one direction."

I'm not - change works in all directions. I'm still interested in the latest that science has to say, and the implications for my convictions. Those convictions have changed and evolved over time. I'm just not going to go "oh well, Hitchens says he's explained it all away and disproven God . . . he's a scientist so he must be right . . . too bad, so sad, but God's dead now . . . " That's foolish - particularly when there are other, equally intelligent thinkers who are convinced that science and faith can be reconciled - and that some of the newest findings in physics may help point the way more clearly than ever in the past.

"Also, you seem to assume that people who experience alien culture alway adapt those cultures and pick their side -- for example, when you supposed I have some animus toward Western religion. People who experience alien cultures learn to appreciate their own culture more, and grow closer to their own traditions, rather than embracing the alien culture. That too is a form of spiritual growth and it can be beneficial."

Well, I assumed an animus against Western philosphy and religion based on what you'd said about them. I didn't realize at the time that you were an equal opportunity critic, so to speak. I guess you just hadn't had time to clarify your animus for Eastern thought as well.

What's curious is that you seem to have examined Eastern thought purely as a sociological specimin. That's sad. Yes, studying other systems of thought can strengthen your own - but we generally gain new insights too.

But to do that, you have to be open to honestly evaluating the content of the other culture's world view and belief system (and the weaknesses of your own), and not just the cultural and sociological trappings. Otherwise, you pick up meaningless scraps like a totalitarian dictator who holds periodic rigged "elections," but completely rejects the idea of democracy.

Anonymous wrote:

"'There is no conflict here! We agree nearly 100%.

No, we don't - not even a little bit. Science I accept - but not people who worship science."

I do not worship anything, least of all science. Science is a tool like Microsoft Windows, only less reliable, with no help-line. It has no moral content.

"'It is not fair to say that I have not looked. For hundreds of years, I and other people have looked vigorously for signs of supernatural phenomena, such as the efficacy of prayer.'

It is absolutely fair. You have a warped understanding of philosophical and religious thought that equates them both to either bad primitive science, or the type of crude magic where a prayer or incantation is used instead of a machine to produce a physical effect."

Well, most people who pray tell me they do it because it affects the course of events, by helping them recover from sickness, for example. They sell amulets in Japanese temples for various specific purposes such as passing examinations and traffic safety. Other people, with a more philosophical bent (such as Unitarians), say prayer makes them feel better internally but it can have no effect on the outside world.

Still others say they pray and God decides whether to answer or not. Since prayer demonstrably never have any effect on physical events, I conclude that if God exists he has evidently decided to ignore prayers and decide without taking them into account, so I suppose there is no point in offering them. Also I suppose there is no way to distinguish between God existing but never responding in any measurable way, and God not existing at all. The latter seems simpler to me, and I always go with the simpler explanation, per Occam's razor.

"'I mean anthropology. I mean that I have studied the uses and practice of religion in many cultures, comparative religion, and I know that people actually believe in claims.'

And it's clear that you have almost no familiarity with the actual religious beliefs or texts themselves."

I do, actually. I just don’t agree with them. I think you should stop accusing me of being unfamiliar with this or that. That's fruitless, and obviously false. As I said, I am sure you ARE familiar with various concepts, such as the idea that morality can be divorced from religion, but you disagree. Please grant that I too have knowledge, but I disagree with your conclusions.

"'People do in fact "believe in claims" - that's what 'religious belief' means. But you're completely clueless about what those claims actually are."

I am quite familiar with them. You seem a little confused. Do you think the Japanese amulets are only decoration and no one actually thinks they prevent automobile accidents?

"A meaningful moral order does not necessarily require the God of the Abrahamic religions - but it does some aspect of reality that provides value over and above the blind and morally-neutral workings out of physical laws."

Physical laws, biology and the like have nothing to do with morality. You might as well try to base your morality on a train schedule or Microsoft Windows.

"'If you don't like God, Allah or Jehovah, try Daoism, or Buddhism, or any other Eastern or Western school of philosophy that posits a moral framework for existence.'

The conclusions these sects reach are in some cases diametrically opposite. Some favor peace, others war. How can you support them all, or say that they are all valid? You would not say: "If you don't think protecting children is moral, go right ahead and cut their throats -- as long as you can find a religion that supports your decision, such as selected portions of the Old Testament."

I will stick to the philosophies which do not posit any higher power, but which arrive at roughly the same answers as Christianity. There are such things, you know. You may not agree with them, but surely you have heard of them.

"This does display a lack of imagination. It's not that hard to ask 'why is there something rather than nothing' or 'there seems to have been a definite beginning point to the universe and physical limits to the universe - what might there be before or outside it?'"

I believe the physical limits of the universe are well-established.

As for the other questions: Yes, anyone can ask such questions. And I can call spirits from the vasty deep. ("Why so can I, or so can any man, but will they come when you do call for them?" - Henry IV) Yes, you can ask, but can you answer?

You can wonder about such questions until the Cosmic Crunch, but unless you perform experiments and observations you will never arrive at an answer. Speculation about physical phenomena without experimentation is sterile.

"Or as a philosopher might ask it, 'if it's possible for the universe to not exist, and it both appears to have had a definite beginning and we can't prove that it has always existed, do we assume that its existence is contingent but uncaused? How can that be?"

Philosophers have been asking questions like that for thousands of years. They are no closer to an answer now than they ever were. Such questions can only be addressed with the tools of science, or not at all.

". . . and the church is a corrupt business cartel that's ripping you off, you dummy . . ."

Well a lot of churches are corrupt. Judging strictly by cash flow, the U.S. Catholic Church seems mainly to be in the business of raping children. The Shinto churches in the 1930s were mainly in the business of mass-murder.

". . . but hey, I could analyze your psycho-social relationships for you and explain to you why you're so gullible - interested in that, maybe?"

Not gullible; traditional.

"Reading about and experiencing cultures is one thing - actually questioning your core beliefs is another."

Experiencing another culture forces you to question your core beliefs. It is unavoidable.

"It's easy to do and eat weird things . . ."

Not for me it isn’t! No sushi, no thank you. I do not care for fish, raw or cooked. And whale meat is indigestible.

"Harder yet to take the time to study Zen - not study ABOUT Zen and its adherents, but actually experience it . . ."

Actually, I have done that. I used to go every week. Very nice people, and not bad if you don’t mind getting up at 5 a.m. and meditating in the snow. Some of their sects resemble Unitarians, in that they are open to atheism and much of their philosophy has no supernatural element and no claim about the deity. Their philosophy is one of the things that attracted me to Japan.

"Or explore Daoism. Or anything else that challenges your presuppositions."

I have explored these things, but I do not agree with them. At least, not with their supernatural claims.

"Am I a Daoist, or a Zen Buddhist? No."

Agreed! I know ‘em when I see ‘em, and you ain’t it.

"But since you seem to have a particular animus against Western religions . . ."

This is cognitive dissonance on your part. I disbelieve all religions equally, Eastern and Western, ancient and modern, without animus or prejudice. I presume that you believe in only one religion and disbelieve and all the others, so we are almost alike.

"If that doesn't make sense to you, please explain how you would disprove the Daoist view of reality using modern science?"

Science has nothing to do with such things. You might as well try to disprove general relativity by pointing to the rules of baseball.

"But we're not talking about squeemishness or a resistance to being unsettled by what other people do and say."

Aren't we? Are you sure? That makes me doubt that you have spent much time living overseas. Frankly, I think a dose of squeemishness and being unsettled would do you good, although I don't recommend sushi.

"Open-mindedness is a willingness to entertain changing how YOU think and what YOU believe about things that are important to YOU. That's something you've not even begun to demonstrate."

How would you know? For all you can tell, I might have been religious years ago and now I have changed. You seem to define change exclusively as "going toward religion" What about people who drift away from it? For that matter, have you changed? Are you more religious or less religious than you used to be? If so, are you sure you are going in the right direction?

I do not know why you are so certain that change only works in one direction.

Also, you seem to assume that people who experience alien culture alway adapt those cultures and pick their side -- for example, when you supposed I have some animus toward Western religion. People who experience alien cultures learn to appreciate their own culture more, and grow closer to their own traditions, rather than embracing the alien culture. That too is a form of spiritual growth and it can be beneficial.

"There is no conflict here! We agree nearly 100%."

No, we don't - not even a little bit. Science I accept - but not people who worship science.

"It is not fair to say that I have not looked. For hundreds of years, I and other people have looked vigorously for signs of supernatural phenomena, such as the efficacy of prayer."

It is absolutely fair. You have a warped understanding of philosophical and religious thought that equates them both to either bad primative science, or the type of crude magic where a prayer or incantation is used instead of a machine to produce a physical effect. No one in this discussion has said "oh, I know that Islam is true because Allah always answers prayers to heal the sick if you just believe hard enough and chant loudly enough in the right mosque."

"I mean anthropology. I mean that I have studied the uses and practice of religion in many cultures, comparative religion, and I know that people actually believe in claims."

And it's clear that you have almost no familiarity with the actual religious beliefs or texts themselves. People do in fact "believe in claims" - that's what "religious belief" means. But you're completely clueless about what those claims actually are.

You define morality as "a set of ideas and ideals that appeal to the moral sensibilities of ordinary sane people." Interesting. But that's inconsistent with the New Testament understanding of morality, which you find so admirable. It's also a definition that's indistinguishable from one of "good taste" or "useful social rules."

A meaningful moral order does not necessarily require the God of the Abrahamic religions - but it does some aspect of reality that provides value over and above the blind and morally-neutral workings out of physical laws. If you don't like God, Allah or Jehovah, try Daoism, or Buddhism, or any other Eastern or Western school of philosophy that posits a moral framework for existance.

"I cannot imagine how there can be any phenomenon in the physical world that is not amenable to study by scientific methods, and detectable by some instrument, at least in principle. Perhaps this is because I lack imagination, but that is how I am."

This does display a lack of imagination. It's not that hard to ask "why is there something rather than nothing" or "there seems to have been a definite beginning point to the universe and physical limits to the universe - what might there be before or outside it?" Or as a philosopher might ask it, "if it's possible for the universe to not exist, and it both appears to have had a definite beginning and we can't prove that it has always existed, do we assume that its existance is contingent but uncaused? How can that be?"

Honestly, we may never be able to answer some of these questions - but brilliant people in all sorts of different disciplines (cosmology, philosophy, theology . . .) are working on them, and doing fascinating work. Do you somehow know that they're all kidding themselves, and that even if they don't solve the big questions, they won't learn anything of value? Or are you simply not interested?

"It isn’t that I "won’t talk about it." I cannot talk about it. I have nothing to say."

You could consider listening to people who do have something to say, rather than endlessly repeating "no, no, no . . . nothing you could possibly say about anything I don't believe could ever be of value . . . and besides, you're a dupe who're just kidding yourself . . . and the church is a corrupt business cartel that's ripping you off, you dummy . . . but hey, I could analyze your psycho-social relationships for you and explain to you why you're so gullible - interested in that, maybe?"

"I have translated books from Japanese, and written one in Japanese. What better proof is there than that that I am open minded and willing to look at new ideas?"

That only proves that you're interested in the Japanese language and culture - it's a bit like a radical Muslim "proving" that he's open minded by learning English and eating at McDonalds (or perhaps even traveling someplace where women wear bikinis instead of chadors). Reading about and experiencing cultures is one thing - actually questioning your core beliefs is another. It's easy to do and eat weird things - much harder to say "I might be wrong in parts of my world view."

Harder yet to take the time to study Zen - not study ABOUT Zen and its adherents, but actually experience it - with the idea in mind that you might truly learn something about the nature of reality from it. Who knows - you might even reach satori. Or explore Daoism. Or anything else that challenges your presuppositions.

Understand also that it is completely misguided to describe a thoughtful Zen or Daoist philosophy as superstition (though both religions/philosophies have superstitious adherents). They do not reject any of the methods or findings of modern science, and their advocates see no conflict with science. But they do believe that there are other aspects of reality that are important to understand and explore. It's also a misnomer to describe them as "supernatural" - they believe those aspects of reality are part of the natural order of the universe.

Am I a Daoist, or a Zen Buddhist? No. But since you seem to have a particular animus against Western religions, and at least some interest in Eastern thought, they're good examples of something that you could usefully challenge your thinking with.

If that doesn't make sense to you, please explain how you would disprove the Daoist view of reality using modern science?

"With all due respect, I know how to take these things in stride, but I expect they would knock you to a fair-thee-well."

Could well be - I do like my comforts. But we're not talking about squeemishness or a resistance to being unsettled by what other people do and say. Open-mindedness is a willingness to entertain changing how YOU think and what YOU believe about things that are important to YOU. That's something you've not even begun to demonstrate.

Anonymous wrote:

"'The Bible as a whole is sometimes called "a creation myth" in anthropology jargon, but that does not mean it only about creation. All ancient religious texts deal with both creation and morality, love, and so on.'

You're trying to backfill here and cover your butt. Your original assertion was that the Bible was "intended to explain the physical workings of the universe" in opposition to Demos' assertion that it was not primarily intended to do that. You can only redeem your argument by demonstrating that an issue that takes up less than 1% of the the Hebrew scriptures represents its purpose or intent."

There is no conflict here! We agree nearly 100%. I think I made it clear that I agree with you that most of the Bible is about morality and the things you cite, and only a small portion is "intended to explain the physical workings of the universe." The Bible is both a moral lesson and an attempt to explain physical workings. I am saying that the latter part is invalid.

This is a separate issue, but I also pointed out that I disagree with some of the moral lessons in the Bible, such as the notion that you should slaughter innocent tribes of people.

"Try to cover your butt all you want - this foolishnes won't stretch far enough to do it.
'Now you're saying ‘I would never say Hamlet is stupid or invalid just because I do not believe in ghosts’ - but that's just what you've done with the entirety of world religion.'"

Not the entirety! Not the moral lessons, literature and so on. I only reject the supernatural parts of religion: God, prayer, miracles and so on. Of course I realize that believers feel this is the essence of religion, but I am convinced it is entirely mistaken. Perhaps some people in 1600 felt that the essence of Hamlet was a ghost story -- the ghost was the most meaningful part. From the modern perspective the ghost is mere fantasy to help the plot along, and the human interactions and morality are the crux of the story.

"'Oh, I am shallow regarding religion!' But you claimed it was your "bailiwick'".

I mean anthropology. I mean that I have studied the uses and practice of religion in many cultures, comparative religion, and I know that people actually believe in claims. These are not symbolic: ancient Christians and Jews believed in the Adam and Eve myth; modern Japanese sincerely believed that the Emperor was a God.

"You've mischaracterized it's purpose as providing a 'scientific' explanation of the physical workings of the universe, when by your own admission that - at absolute most - represents less than 1% of the total . . ."

We agree! I am only concerned with that 1%! I am critiquing that part. I agree with you that is only a small part, and I have no quarrel with the rest. But surely you agree that 1% is there. You are not suggesting that there are no supernatural claims in the Bible? It is not entirely symbolic. People did believe in Adam and Eve, the Flood, miracles, prayer, or that God wants us to do one thing but not another. Even you believe the latter. Those are supernatural beliefs, by definition. I think they are physically impossible and without foundation.

"2) "The morality of the New Testament is 100% worthwhile and it has nothing to do with myths or superstition, any more than King Lear or Hamlet does.

You can't have it both ways! "

Of course I can! You may disagree, but surely you know that many people feel that morality can be divorced from religion, and we can have it "both ways."

"Which is it?"

Both.

"Are we the product of a natural universe that has no moral content or meaning?"

Yes, we are. Exactly right. Evolution has absolutely no moral content or meaning, and we are the product of that process. There is not a cell in your body or a thought in your head which is not the product of natural selection.

"If so, how can the morality of the New Testament be characterized as 'worthwhile?'"

Well, there are two interpretations for this: 1. It is worthwhile in its own right, without reference to the physical universe. See existential or Zen Buddhist philosophy. 2. We feel that it is worthwhile, and valid, because we and other intelligent species are evolved to feel that way. In a healthy individual, morality promotes survival of the individual, the group, and the genes.

Actually, I think these are two sides to the same coin.

"Useful in controlling people, perhaps - but given your assumptions it can't have real moral content."

I believe you are saying that real moral content requires supernatural approval (scripture, revelation, a sign from God, or something along those lines). Obviously I disagree. As I said, I am sure you are aware that many philosophers feel that moral content can be divorced from religion. Evidently you disagree, but please do not pretend you have never heard of this concept.

"If it does, where did the moral content come from? If people are simply deciding on the rules they like and find useful . . ."

That is the only place moral content can come from. People have to decide, because God does not exist. Some people imagine that God decided for them, and told them what to do, but this is an illusion. Actually they decided for themselves and then pointed the finger at God. For example, when the ancient Israelites and the modern Japanese wanted to massacre innocent people, they first convinced themselves that God had commanded them to do this.

You may think that your morality comes from a higher source, but it does not. The Bible was written by ordinary mortal people, and it was entirely a product of their imagination. They thought that God was talking to them. I am not suggesting this was insane or unbalanced or anything like that. Pre-modern people have many similar illusions. For example many people even today believe in witchcraft. When they get sick, they think someone has put a hex on them. Of course they are wrong; this is physically impossible, and we know that sickness is caused by bacteria, environment and other natural causes. These people are mistaken but they are perfectly intelligent and well adjusted.

"Come on now, are the New Testament teachings really a "morality?" What does "morality" mean in a purely natural universe where everything is the result of natural processes that have no moral content or meaning?"

It means a set of ideas and ideals that appeal to the moral sensibilities of ordinary sane people. That is a bit like asking what does mathematics mean in a purely natural universe. When a sane person agrees that 2 + 2 = 4, and that assertion fits his mental picture of how things work, that makes it correct. When sane people everywhere agree that helpless children should be protected by adults, that makes it a universal standard of morality. You will find there are very few such standards. What is considered a sin in one culture is often a virtue in another. For example, in the Old Testament it was considered morally right for Jephthah to sacrifice his daughter, and the Incans considered it morally right to take their children up mountains and cut their throats to sacrifice to the gods.

"All you could say, over and over again, is "nope, if the physical sciences can't study it, it don't exist, I won't talk about it . . ."

Well, only with regard to the physical universe, not morality, literature, mathematics and so on. It isn’t that I "won’t talk about it." I cannot talk about it. I have nothing to say. I cannot imagine how there can be any phenomenon in the physical world that is not amenable to study by scientific methods, and detectable by some instrument, at least in principle. Perhaps this is because I lack imagination, but that is how I am.

It is not fair to say that I have not looked. For hundreds of years, I and other people have looked vigorously for signs of supernatural phenomena, such as the efficacy of prayer. We have not found a single trace. Not one experiment, not one objective test. As far as anyone can tell every particle in the universe is governed by physical laws and these laws have no moral content. You might wish it were otherwise, but wishes have no effect on reality. As for me, I am perfectly happy with the universe as it is. (Or as it appears to be, in any case.) I have no desire to see a built-in moral, intelligent agent, or some arbiter of morality higher than human imagination.

"And you're the open-minded ones who're willing to critically examine their beliefs and consider new ways of thinking about things?

I'd love to see your support for that."

I have spent most of my life examining Japanese and Chinese cultures and beliefs, which are often quite alien to my background. I have translated books from Japanese, and written one in Japanese. What better proof is there than that that I am open minded and willing to look at new ideas? I have read about and experienced many beliefs, customs, religions and ways of life that I expect you would find disconcerting, alien and even horrible in a few cases. With all due respect, I know how to take these things in stride, but I expect they would knock you to a fair-thee-well.

P.S. I don't really feel much need to mock you either - you're doing a good enough job of it yourselves.

"The Bible as a whole is sometimes called "a creation myth" in anthropology jargon, but that does not mean it only about creation. All ancient religious texts deal with both creation and morality, love, and so on."

You're trying to backfill here and cover your butt. Your original assertion was that the Bible was "intended to explain the physical workings of the universe" in opposition to Demos' assertion that it was not primarily intended to do that. You can only redeem your argument by demonstrating that an issue that takes up less than 1% of the the Hebrew scriptures represents its purpose or intent.

At least you've admitted that you're spouting anthro-babble.

Try to cover your butt all you want - this foolishnes won't stretch far enough to do it. Now you're saying "I would never say Hamlet is stupid or invalid just because I do not believe in ghosts" - but that's just what you've done with the entirity of world religion. You're backpeddling so fast you're turning red in the face. Please try not to trip.

"Oh, I am shallow regarding religion!" But you claimed it was your "bailiwick" - how is that? If you only dabble shallowly in your specialty, I'd love to see how badly you screw up with things you don't claim any special expertise in.

You've misdated the Bible by over a 1,000 years. You've mischaracterized it's purpose as providing a "scientific" explanation of the physical workings of the universe, when by your own admission that - at absolute most - represents less than 1% of the total (and, at the same time, foolishly extended that mis-characterization to include all "ancient religion.")

Beyond that, you're so unthoughtful about your the sources and implications of your own beliefs as to contridict yourself in ways that would be an embarassment to a sophomore philosophy student.

1) "Humans and all other forms of life and all objects are the product of natural causes, which have no moral content or meaning. At least, that's how I see it. "

2) "The morality of the New Testament is 100% worthwhile and it has nothing to do with myths or superstition, any more than King Lear or Hamlet does."

You can't have it both ways! Which is it? Are we the product of a natural universe that has no moral content or meaning? If so, how can the morality of the New Testament be characterized as "worthwhile?" Useful in controlling people, perhaps - but given your assumptions it can't have real moral content. If it does, where did the moral content come from? If people are simply deciding on the rules they like and find useful, based on practical considerations arising from your natural causes, then we're talking just about by-laws, not moral principles! Come on now, are the New Testament teachings really a "morality?" What does "morality" mean in a purely natural universe where everything is the result of natural processes that have no moral content or meaning?

Please, you should at least keep your story consistent.

You seem to want to duel over who's the most narrow minded. I've been watching your jousting with Demos, before he got tired of you and left. You picked someone who accepted the scientific method that's so important to you, accepted the conclusions of modern science regarding the workings of the physical universe, and didn't mock you for being non-believers. He thought there were limits to what we could learn from the physical sciences, and that philosphy and religion had something important to add about the purpose and nature of reality. He tried to engage you in a discussion of the phil