All Comments (71)

reasonable:

regardless of which definition of truth one adopts,

you just flat out contradicted yourself.

will you admit that?

betty

(would you suggest that we throw out the dictionary and all make up our own definitions?)

So science can only function if it stops trying to answer questions about the world? Please. The goal of science is knowledge, to ask it to stop to respect your foolish religious sensibilities is a joke.

Quoting "This is the oddest statement yet:
"What people like many on this board want is empirical proof that "proves" something that simply can't be proven." I can only say, QED."

The LORD is known for Judgment, if it was fulfilled, then you know there is Truth.

Moses said “And Moses said, Hereby ye shall know that the Lord hath sent me to do all these works; for I have not done them of mine own mind. If these men die the common death of all men, or if they be visited after the visitation of all men; then the Lord hath not sent me.” Do you see “for I have not done them of mine own mind”

And Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the Lord hath said will we do. And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel.

Do you see “told the people all the words of the Lord, and all the judgments” The LORD is an enemy of the enemies of Israel.

Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that the Lord thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers: And he will love thee, and bless thee, and multiply thee: he will also bless the fruit of thy womb, and the fruit of thy land, thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep, in the land which he sware unto thy fathers to give thee. Thou shalt be blessed above all people: there shall not be male or female barren among you, or among your cattle.

Do you see “if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them” “he will love thee, and bless thee” “he will also bless the fruit of thy womb” “Thou shalt be blessed above all people”

Cursed be he that perverteth the judgment of the stranger, fatherless, and widow. And all the people shall say, Amen.

Do you see “Cursed be he that perverteth the judgment of the stranger”

For I lift up my hand to heaven, and say, I live for ever. If I whet my glittering sword, and mine hand take hold on judgment; I will render vengeance to mine enemies, and will reward them that hate me. I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh; and that with the blood of the slain and of the captives, from the beginning of revenges upon the enemy. Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people.

Look at the Words of Moses “I will render vengeance to mine enemies” “I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh” “for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries”

Now Look at the Words of David:

The Lord is known by the judgment which he executeth: the wicked is snared in the work of his own hands.

The Lord executeth righteousness and judgment for all that are oppressed. He made known his ways unto Moses, his acts unto the children of Israel.
Do you see “He made known his ways unto Moses” ” “I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh”

The Words of Isaiah:

The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain: And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.

Do you see “the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it” the Words of Moses “I will render vengeance to mine enemies” “I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh” “for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries”

But thus saith the Lord, Even the captives of the mighty shall be taken away, and the prey of the terrible shall be delivered: for I will contend with him that contendeth with thee, and I will save thy children. And I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine: and all flesh shall know that I the Lord am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.

Now look at “And I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine” Do you see “Cursed be he that perverteth the judgment of the stranger” Do you see “the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it” the Words of Moses “I will render vengeance to mine enemies” “I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh” “for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries” Those of the faith of the sinner creatures eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood. It is their own flesh and blood.

What do you have to see to understand the Words of David, “The Lord is known by the judgment which he executeth”

David said “Howbeit the Lord God of Israel chose me before all the house of my father to be king over Israel for ever: for he hath chosen Judah to be the ruler; and of the house of Judah, the house of my father; and among the sons of my father he liked me to make me king over all Israel:” Do you see “chose me before all the house of my father to be king over Israel for ever” David will always be the only King of Israel. Do you see “he hath chosen Judah to be the ruler; and of the house of Judah, the house of my father” JUDAH is the Name of the LORD. Next verse “And of all my sons, (for the Lord hath given me many sons,) he hath chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel.” Solomon is to sit on the throne, David is and will be the only King of Israel.

Rafael said "But they are hardly truths in any sense of the word. If anything ought to be true regardless of one's personal point of view, it ought to be "truth", no?"

If you are a Christian or catholic then:
You have the mind of who you worship, you are as wise as a serpent. The words of your god "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" The judgment of the LORD is clear "And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." You are the seed of the serpent. "thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field" You have the mind of christ "carnally minded is death;." the words of Paul are clear "For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be."

It doesn't take psycho-analysis to recognize that most people believe what their parents believed. If you think that somehow constitutes an independent arrival at "truth" during a process of objectively searching through the various scripture options the world offers, you probably lack self-awareness in other ways.

And you misunderstand those who lack "faith" (in your god, you mean--remember that you lack faith in the countless others that we also lack faith in)--we too feel hope, love, kindness, faithfulness, compassion, and all the etc.'s you care to name, except a belief in and assertion of dogma for which there is no evidence.

This is the oddest statement yet:
"What people like many on this board want is empirical proof that "proves" something that simply can't be proven." I can only say, QED.

Hammered?

The "boys" are doubters and skeptics that quote the dictionary- Mr Mark uses a definition where truth has the word "true" in its definition-like that works.

What people like many on this board want is empirical proof that "proves" something that simply can't be proven. They can't understand faith, so they disdain it and mock it. It is simply an excuse to go your own way, do your own thing, and ignore wonderful things like faith, hope, love, kindness, faithfulness, compassion, etc- that are included in the whole package that JC offers. Now, that is the choice people make. What did Paul say- that the gospel is foolishness to men but to the believer it is the power of God that completes us(not the exact quote).

BTW- I don't hold these beliefs because of "indoctrination" but because I found them to be true through searching the scriptures in the New Testament. What I always find funny about the atheist crowd is their psycho-analysis of believers, like they really do understand what believers think and how they came to their conclusions. Again, Paul pegged all of you right in the bulls eye. You can mock me all you want, but you can only "think" you can mock God.

Boy Mr Reasonable

Sure got hammered by the boys on that one, eh?

Come on over and I'll give you a beer and a massage to make you feel better.

Reasonable,

Your definitions are very confused indeed. Truth is something we "just know," evidence be damned, but facts we prove?

First, "facts" are never proven. They are demonstrated to be supported in favor of the absence of that fact with a certain probability statement attached. Our understanding of the world advances, conservatively, as the process of science rejects ideas in favor of better supported ideas. But nothing is ever proven, which means that ideas arrived at by science are always open to falsification in the face of new evidence.

Second, what you call "truth" could maybe be called a "hunch" or at best a "belief." Otherwise, how are we to reconcile the Christian "truth" that Jesus is the son of the Christian God, the Muslim "truth" that Mohammed was the last messenger and prophet of the same God, and the Jewish "truth" that the messiah has not yet arrived. You and the Jew and the Muslim hold these beliefs because at some point you were indoctrinated into them, typically (not always, but 95% of the time) by family early in life--a time when many such beliefs that have no evidence are fixed.

But they are hardly truths in any sense of the word. If anything ought to be true regardless of one's personal point of view, it ought to be "truth", no?

Reasonable NOt Reasonable

you write
" I can't prove that Jesus is risen but I know it to be true."

then you write in the next paragraph:

"What you want is to have everything put before you with 100% certainty. Science can't do that , and neither can man made religion. "

do you see how you are not being reasonable.?

You can NOT know that Jesus is risen. Unless you are speaking a language that is not English. as Mr Mark appropriately points out.

and you contradict YOURSELF above. that is NOT reasonable.

Lovingly
Henry

RBH writes:

"Truth is something we know in our hearts is right, but can't be proven. Facts can be empirically proven."

Yet another religionist redefines the meaning of words - in the case, the word "truth" - to provide a threadbare lifeline to reality.

Look up the word "truth" in any dictionary, and you will see that truth is entirely dependent on facts and reality. Imaginings and fantasies - like those of religion - aren't truths. They're opinions, guesses and beliefs.

How are we supposed to have a discussion if the religionists are allowed to make up their own definitions for the most-common words around?

Truth

"the state of being the case : fact (2): the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality; a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true c: the body of true statements and propositions
3 a: the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality, chiefly British : true 2 c: fidelity to an original or to a standard

— in truth : in accordance with fact : actually"

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/truth

Adrienne-

The problem with your last statement .. and the answer is the following. There are truths, and there are facts. Truth is something we know in our hearts is right, but can't be proven. Facts can be empirically proven. I can't prove to you everything that is true- that my daughter loves me, that I have faith in God and men, that great hope is a thing that is substantive. I can't prove that Jesus is risen but I know it to be true.

What you want is to have everything put before you with 100% certainty. Science can't do that , and neither can man made religion.

PS The reason it is not tolerable is usually the method in which it is delivered. (Put down's, extreme disdain, etc.) All you have to do is go to Bgone 's silly site and see that.

Gaby: it's also called avoiding the issue. Either religion is true or it's not. the implications for the role of science are entirely different, depending on how you answer the first question. there's a lot that science can do without caring who answers the question either way, but in the end, it matters, and there's nothing to compromise at all.

"When science respects its limits to powerfully explain the external, physical and material world and religion respects its limits to powerfully illuminate our interior experience, our inner world, and our higher levels of development and consciousness, then there can indeed be mutual respect and even an alliance."

It's also called compromise!

While the good Rabbi's comments are nice and everyone, well most of the folks who don't look at themselves as 'fundamentalists' at least, can feel warm and fuzzy, there really isn't a lot there. When the author says, "When science reduces values, spiritual experiences, and transpersonal waves of consciousness - our interior realities - to brain states and chemicals it overextends."

What, precisely, does that mean? Is the author saying that our brains simply cannot be studied? If so, why can't they be? Why is it that the heart, as an organ, is amenable to scientific study, and the skin, as an organ, is amenable to such study but the brain, as an organ, is not? Now, this is not to argue that science is a *meaning* creation system because it is not and I would not argue that point.

What I suspect the author and many religious sectarians truly do not grasp in what Dawkins and Dennett, certainly, represent is non-theists actually having and claiming a voice. In the West, it is simply considered not cricket to even *say* that you don't believe that there's an immortal soul and no work for it to do even if there is. Please note, there's no calling of names, no extremism there, simply stating that the kinds of things we say souls do (e.g. come up with art, have emotions, etc.) can *all* be explained in terms of biological things happening in the brain. But merely *saying* that is considered impolitic because if a religious statement is made, it is to be treated as being correct full-stop. NO counter-arguments are to be countenanced *unless* those counter-arguments are phrased in equally religious terms. So, it is considered entirely reasonable for, say, a evangelical Christian to say "well, the difference between the Buddha and Jesus is that the Buddha is dead but Jesus is risen..." but it is *not* considered at all tolerable for a non-theist to say "please demonstrate that Jesus is risen, thanks".

Ron
Apologies for the Tooth Fairy comment. Can we substitute Allah instead of Yahweh and carry on with the discussion.

Clarification: I clearly said God was “possible.” My argument and
Dawkins’ is that
If the Universe and its constants are improbable
A god Smart Enough to create it is even more improbable.

BTW, I find Dawkins’ arguments persuasive most of the time, but I am only a “disciple of myself.

If a God can be demonstrated, I will believe it. I will depend on evidence, not gut feelings and chest burnings.

Dawkins demolishes your 747 analogy in a way that is convincing to me, though it may not be to you. My argument is a short version of his, but I recommend his to you if yhou want more detail.

Whatever else Dawkins is, he is a brilliant scientist who understands probability at least as well as you or I.

He speaks of God as incredibly improbable (though not impossible).
As do I, who aced all my statistics courses.

Doesn’t mean we’re right. But it does mean we aren’t ignorant of the arguments or unable to handle probability theory.

Love
Henry

Terry,

Thanks very much for your reply to my post - I really appreciate it. A lot to think about and ponder here.

I wish I were able to respond to your post in detail. But I'll have to do a lot of reading before I'm up for that.

I guess, though, that if you're dealing with an infinity or near-infinity of universes and time, all kinds of things can happen, including our world and us.

Since Buddhist cosmology seems to envision an infinity or near-infinity of universes and time, maybe Buddhism has things just about right (as it does with ethics).

Thank you again, & best wishes.

Science is devoted to unimpeded, free inquiry into facets of reality that constitute the universe. Religion is devoted to preserving superstition and exalting the existence of supernatural forces, with most of its premises based on mythologies put forth in the Bible and other writings, which were authored in an era when humans knew very little about existence. Learned rabbis and other scholarly theologians can prate all they want to, but their fictions do not merit equal status with facts.

Science is devoted to unimpeded, free inquiry into facets of reality that constitute the universe. Religion is devoted to preserving superstition and exalting the existence of supernatural forces, with most of its premises based on mythologies put forth in the Bible and other writings, which were authored in an era when humans knew very little about existence. Learned rabbis and other scholarly theologians can prate all they want to, but their fictions do not merit equal status with facts.

gago!!!

Henry James -

Right you are! But intelligent design enthusiasts attribute that level of incomprehensible intelligence to a designer without a second thought - for them it's just a given, rather than going with a simpler and far more logical explanation. For believers, the emotional investment is huge, and this really separates science from religion in yet another important way.

A fair analogy at the micro level would be to imagine that a human was not only consciously responsible for building their own body from scratch (including the vastness of all the right DNA combinations mentioned by Rafael) but was then required to operate an infinity of cellular, systemic and neuronal process second by second - all by the power of thought.....and have down time for drinks and dinner at the end of the day!!

The same would of course be required of every life form and once you get past primates, thinking processes probably get pretty fuzzy in 'lower' species. The development of autonomic processes was clearly among the first steps to both bio-complexity and bio-diversity, in the long evolutionary ascent to humanhood.

Humans design their deities in their own image and likeness and then gift them with divine attributes - eg. the projection phenomenon.

I wonder what the discovery of Occam's Razor did for William of Occcam, a 14th century English monk?? Ironically, it probably didn't change his world view or cosmology much - but of course we were the center of the universe at that time.

Terry

The more science grows and develops in all its different spheres,the more irrelevant religion seems to become. For religion,the future's looking grim.
It will end up with no more stature or credibility than astrology; which also had power and influence,back in the days when ignorance and illiteracy were the norm.
Times do change,and knowledge and literacy will surely become the norm one day,everywhere.
It just seems inevitable when you think about it.
Superstition won't survive the future.

The wish for peaceful coexistence of science and religion based on each humbly confining itself to its proper sphere--science to reality and religion to values--is understandable. While such a rapprochement is theoretically possible, the problem is that religions, by and large, actually do not confine themselves to values and meaning and such, but rather undertake to describe and discuss reality. As long as they do so, of course, the possibility arises that what they say about reality will conflict with what science says. That being the case, we should not let wishes for peaceful coexistence and calls for humility deter or deflect scientific inquiry of reality. If such inquiry leads to conclusions about reality at odds with what religion says, so be it.

Your individual existence is almost infinitely improbable. Given the odds of your particular genetic sequence occurring in the 3 billion base pair sequence of DNA in a human genome is approximately 4 to the 3-billionth power (4^3000000000). To give you an idea how big that number is, MS Excel can only calculate 4^3000 (= 10 to the 180th power), and even that number is greater than the number of atoms in the universe. You can't even imagine how big 4^3000000000 gets.

And yet you are here to observe that you are here. Does that mean your particular sequence did not occur as a result of chance, and must be due to a divine base pair shuffler? Of course not. Anyone at all familiar with probability knows that although choosing any individual sequence is infinitely small, the collective probability of being chosen among all such sequences is no lesser (more or less) than expected by chance.

The problem with the anthropic principle is the same. The universe seems so highly improbable that, to some, it must appear not to be due to chance. The equivalent problem is that there are a large number of "constants" that might have occurred but we would never know about them because (I presume) they wouldn't lead us to be here to observe their existence. We can appreciate the improbability of this universe only because we are here to see it.

Those who claim the anthropic principle as proof of the existence of a divine force either don't understand probability very well or are being purposefully deceptive to suit their agendas.

Henry James

For a moment there I thought that you were really interested in hearing and discussing another opinion and maybe even respecting someone who had an opinion at odds with yours. Then your comment about the Tooth Fairy. You sound like a Dawkins disciple in belief and practice. For you to say that it is incredibly improbable that a being sufficiently intelligent to create and sustain (tune) the 18 constants is demonstrated as the product of either an incredibly high degree of arrogance (“if I don’t think it’s possible, then it can’t be”) or imagination (“I’m not really a “free-thinker””).

You seem to like analogies, so please let me leave you with one. Suppose, for a minute, that a random explosion in a sheet metal factory yielded a perfectly functioning 747, that is, one that could take off and sustain flight (assuming that the appropriate laws of physics were observed, of course). To your point, this example would be incredibly improbable. However, 747’s fly every day. They fly because they had a designer intelligent enough to make flight possible, in fact, a veritable host of such designers. There surely must have at least one person who thought that the probability of a person or persons intelligent enough to make a fully functioning 747 was “incredible”. Anyone who lived and died before 1903 comes to mind as a reasonable example. So, despite the probability that a 747 could not exist by chance, the reality (100% probability) is that many do exist by design with the obvious 100% probability that one or more designers do exist, irrespective of the shortsightedness of those who died without seeing powered flight by man and the evidence of a 747.

I respectfully also suggest that you brush up on probability and treat it as a science, which it is, and not a philosophy. As science, probability depends on observation for proof of a theory. For example, if you were to flip a coin 100 times, the probability that it would turn up “heads” is 0.5, or 1 in 2 – that is, half the time. We know this is the probability because no matter how many times we perform the experiment, the same result is observed within a standard degree of deviation. To speak of God as incredibly improbable is to ignore the science of probability and enter the realm of philosophy. That’s OK, but you really shouldn’t try to present your philosophy in the guise of scientific probability.

Peace, and God bless you.

Ron R

You are correct. God IS one of the possible answers. We just have no evidence that God is the answer, and there is no logical reason to think that HE is.

In fact, this "argument from improbability" is actually a problem for God Believers.

If it is Incredibly Improbable that the 18 constants would be perfectly tuned BY CHANCE

It is Much More Incredibly Improbable that there is a being sufficiently intelligent to tune them perfecctly by His Intelligent Design (that is, that a being that intelligent could exist).

In other words, if we are relying on Probability Theory to Prove God, and therefore putting trust in Probability Theory.
Probability Theory makes a God incredibly improbable. Though, I admit, possible.
The Tooth Fairy is also possibly true.

Henry James

Thank you for your reply.

I think I do see the logical error – the 2 statements you made are non-sequitur, although that may not be the logical error you had hoped for me to see. ;-)

But you haven’t answered the question – from where did these constants come? If the answer is unknown, then there must be an infinite number of possible answers. Is it reasonable to assume that God cannot be in that set of infinitely possible answers?

Intelligent Design

Terry writes "either solution mentioned above would be a way of overcoming the considerable odds by designating an architect or cosmic intelligence with a purpose and a plan - thus no statistical probabilities to overcome)."

On the contrary, designating an architect does NOT Overcome the Odds.

It makes the Odds Much Worse.

If the odds of those 18 constants coming out right are incredibly long,
the odds that there is an intelligence/designer brilliant enought to figure out how to tune the constants is Much More Improbable.

So the Improbability argument is hoist on its own petard.

Ron R

Let me give you an analogy.

For thousands of years, humans did not know where Thunder comes from.
They therefore thought there MUST be a Thunder God.

No one knows exactly how the 18 constants developed.
Therefore there must be a Thunder God, oops, I mean, a God.

See the logical error?

Just because we don't know, that does not mean that "God" must have fixed the constants. Or that "any being" fixed them.

Norrie -

I think a major issue with physicists (not being a physicist myself) has to do with statistical probabilities. My impoverished layman's view is as follows - by crunching the numbers, the odds of everything falling together just right is pretty astronomical ... for example, one of the constants mentioned requires a precise outcome with chances of 1 in 10/60th power that it might happen (several trillion, trillion, trillion). That's mighty long odds!

Since quantum logic and wave/particle duality says reality is a probability wave function or equation only, until the moment it collapses into observable phenomena, the mystery is why everything coalesced into the universe we happen to observe, from it's origination at the moment of the big bang....and a very compact universe it was at that moment.

According to inflation theory, the primordial seed was calculated to be Planck length in size (among the smallest mathematical measurements possible & smaller than a hydrogen atom by a factor of 10/33 ). The universe emerged from this point at comparable quantum speed, making the speed of light seem like slow motion. Crazy numbers, no?! All of this as a result of a fluctuation in the quantum vacuum or 'foam' as it's called (see David Bohm's theory below).

Thus were the constants and first conditions established at that moment - the speed of light limit happens to be one of contants mentioned, along with gravity, electro-magnitism, the strong and weak nuclear forces, etc. - everything necessary for the formation of atoms, their constituent parts, and their most peculiar behavior.

What might be on the other side of the Big Bang is unknown to science because of Planck limits - the math and the buck stops there.

Since physicists are generally opposed to the idea of a creator, and for the same reason avoid the slippery slope of intelligent design they need alternate explanations for how this all happened, and how it is that we all get to ask this question?! (either solution mentioned above would be a way of overcoming the considerable odds by designating an architect or cosmic intelligence with a purpose and a plan - thus no statistical probabilities to overcome).

The quantum uncertainty principle forces physicists to speculate on why or how things could indeed be the way they are, and also how they could be otherwise.

One theory is the multi-verse, or another variation is parallel universes. In these scenarios all possible universes & with all possible outcomes (an infinite number) have been created separately & simultaneously at the moment of the Big Bang - thus ensuring that at least one or maybe a few have the right conditions for life to emerge. All are forever separate and unknown to one another, other than hypothetically (which kind of makes it worthless -and many physicists agree).

Then there's string theory, quantum gravity theory, and on and on.

The physics that I like is David Bohm's implicate/explicate order theory - the implicate order contains an infinite probability potential, and the revealed universe remains enfolded until it emerges in the explicate or phenomenal order through observer participation and the right constellation of circumstances and conditions - it then disappears again into the implicate order from which it came. This is happening from moment to moment. A great book, 'Wholeness and the Implicate Order'.....sounds alot like Buddhism and he admits that it influenced his thinking.

Quantum logic seems to have a real problem with
the either/or dicotomy, which I agree would make
this problem a lot simpler to resolve! This is exactly what Einstein disliked about quantum mechanics, even though he helped lay the groundwork for it.

For me, trying to walk down this primrose path initially was about like walking on broken glass bare-footed, but eventually you develop callouses if you try it enough times!

Best regards, Terry

Dear Norrie Hoyt & Henry James,

Norrie’s point is: “O.K., so if the 18 constants weren't just exactly the way that they actually are, then no universe, no life and no us.

But how do you get from the fact that the constants are as they are, and that there is a universe, life, and us, to hypothesizing about "intelligent design" and a creator?”

My view: If there is no “intelligent design” and a Creator, then from where did the 18 perfectly formed, perfectly balanced and perfectly sustained constants come? If we are to believe Dawkins via Henry James, then the existence of these awesome constants does not require God. OK, then to what do we owe their existence, i..e., what does their existence require?

In the spirit of Norrie’s post, comments welcome.

I can just see it now. I swallow my pride and agree to join in a recycling drive with my believing brothers...and get stuck on the truck next to Harold A. Zeller.

Norrie
as Arnie Arons used to say...no, let me start over.

I found Dawkins' chapter on Non-Intelligent Design in The God Delusion to be concise and unimpeachable.

Of course, there is no reason why the 18 perfect constants would require the existence of God.

As you know, humans have fallaciously posited an intentional being to explain natural phenomena since they could talk. The Thunder God, etc.

Brother William gives these folks an F in logic when they try to pull this stuff in his Harvard Classes.

Terry, Henry James, et al.,

I have only a vague notion of what the supposed anthropic principle is all about.

I also have a simple or simplistic mind (which is fine with me and made me good at my work).

Please comment on the following if you feel like it:

O.K., so if the 18 constants weren't just exactly the way that they actually are, then no universe, no life and no us.

But how do you get from the fact that the constants are as they are, and that there is a universe, life, and us, to hypothesizing about "intelligent design" and a creator?

I don't get it. No certain constants = no universe/life/us. But there are certain constants, which = a universe/life/us.

So what? I don't see the connection.

Why do you need a designer? The constants as they actually are, simply = a phenomenon associated with our universe/life/us. No creator needed.

Comments welcome.

Regards.

One of the many problems with religion is the misguided idea that not being able to prove something is not true, means one can have some justification in declaring that somnething is true! You see this all the time; You can't prove there is no God, so I am equally justified to believe in a God, in fact more so because I really, really believe!

This is a complete fallacy! In fact it is pretty nutty; I could for example claim the middle of the Earth is hollow and filled with dragon eggs. You can't prove otherwise and I can come up with a zillion things that dragons could do to make it look like the Earth is solid, molten, etc. All I need to do is find a few like minded souls, get a millionaire or 2 to see the economic potential; build a Dragon cave to meet in, get donations to help Dragons to hatch their eggs to bring peace and prosperity to mankinfd forever...and we are off to a life of comfort and ease!

The only difference between this and Christianity is the 2000 years to perfect the pitch; it is just as loony!

Henry -

You know this stuff already, and I would agree that the anthropic view has a certain appeal, and Intelligent Design is what comes of it when creationists apply their particular brand of logic. But for those that didn't read the book, here's an excerpt of sorts......

Thuan alludes to the necessary (about 18) constants and 'first conditions' after the Big Bang that must be exact within very close/quantum-level tolerances in order for the phenomenal universe to emerge in the first place, much less for life to appear. For him, that implies purpose. But that's really putting the cart before the horse.......

On the other hand, we also know from quantum physics (seconded by Buddhism) that observation and interaction virtually give shape to the observable universe. The observed is 'nothing known' without an observer. In that sense, self-aware life is quite capable of generating meaning and does, without projecting it on a process (or a Processor)... when we do so, (It) seems to be 'out there' but is really 'in here'. The credit for imposing meaning and purpose on the cosmos is all ours - there may be no 'objective' reality at the heart of things.

I'm reminded of the great Crosby, Stills and Nash song line .... 'we are stardust'.

Science says that is exactly what we are - but in my view we are also of the nature of Mind - and without first causes. The great 9th century Chinese Zen master Huang Po re-iterated Bodhidharma's message that the substance of the universe and the Original Nature of Mind are not different and cannot be separated.

He said, 'The moment of realizing the unity of Mind and the 'substance' that constitutes reality may truly be said to baffle description'.

Now that would be a moment to remember!

Best, Terry

Henry: not the sort of purpose man speaks of. unless we attribute consciousness to the universe itself, it can only have the sort of purpose of which Einstein speaks. a sort of manifest destiny kind of purpose, without judgment. Spinoza was sort of on to this when he pointed out that for God, or from God's perspective, the concepts of hope, love, etc. were meaningless (and actually said God doesn't love us, we just act as if he did from our finite perspective). same for purpose if we are taking the perspective of the universe. the concept itself is a human one attributed to what we see. cheers back at you.

my third paragraph should have read:

what i was getting at is: does *the universe* have a purpose without an entity that has motivation/intention? can it?

Joey
well said. i think i completely agree with you.

individuals like you and me can and do definitely have purpose in life. and for us the activist god helps not at all.

what i was getting at is that *the universe* have a purpose without an entity that has motivation/intention?

you and i have motivation/intention. and purpose.

cheers,
henry

Henry: I would agree with you that without a personally involved creator who can judge whether man is pursuing his purpose (there could be no other), there can't be the sort of purpose that Rick Warren preaches. On the other hand, we have brains (and hearts) sufficient to collectively arrive at a purpose that makes society, and socialization, possible. Think of lower orders of creatures. We are told that herds of elephants, apes, goodness knows what else, all manage to pursue a purpose that is in the collective best interests of the herd, and in the process, each other (they figured it out before professor Nash). That should tell us that humans can manage all the purpose we need without invoking an activist god.

JP: you beg the question. it is silly to use religion to fill in the gaps in science without coming down firmly on whether you believe it is, in fact, true. religion as a useful, provisional stopgap is at least heresy, an insult to both religion and science.

Isn't science designed to vet out religion? Religion serves as an explanation of all that we don't know, which is almost everything. When common sense and science fail us, religion is a way to explain the unexplainable.

Who's to say the brain states and chemicals are not a result of the unexplainable, rather than a cause?

Humans, including Einstein, know very little about anything and, at the same time, are not wired to be comfortable in that state. Most don't have the powers of observation or objectivity to see or experience the miracles that happen around them on a constant basis.

I cannot get on board with unquestioned religious belief, nor the convoluted stories that come along with it. But knowing that even the immediate world is so far beyond our meager powers of comprehension, there will always be more questions than answers. And no amount of human, short-sighted science is going resolve most of them.

thanks Terry. i had a strong feeling i was misreading you.

i am a Buddhist as well as a Pagan, so I am quite familiar with the philosophy you outline, but it was a pleasure to read your clear and provocative slant on it.

And i have read the book you cite: agreed, very interesting and smart.

You write "ife is the purpose behind the fine-tuned universe, but without the personal creator/architect thrown in the mix."

this sparks the (to me) interesting question:
"Can there be a Purpose if there is no being with the motivation/intention to see that Purpose realized." I have always thought not, but not categorically. What do you think?

best
Henry

Our panelist writes: "When science reduces values, spiritual experiences, and transpersonal waves of consciousness - our interior realities - to brain states and chemicals it overextends."

So in these areas you choose ignorance. Why?

And then continues: "Such narrow science can not but be in conflict with religion and ought to be, for the consequence of such science is that we all lose touch with powerful experiences of higher levels of consciousness attested to by mystics of every tradition who have used time tested techniques that any one can use to have similar deep religious experiences."

Do we? Do we lose touch or does our touch simply become more informed?

If one wants to believe in hocus pocus but to rationalize it on the basis of if was good enough for Einstein, good enough for me well than perhaps
you should know Einstein believed in science as the highest calling not in the drivel of religion

Einstein defined his religious views in a letter he wrote in response to those who claimed that he worshipped a Judeo-Christian god: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

Look at “Did Einstein really say, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"? I wonder what he was thinking. Lame? Blind? Are you saying that Einstein believed in religion while not believing in God?” Einstein knew more than you can perceive. Do you know who the blind and lame are.

For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges. For their vine is of the vine of Sodom, and of the fields of Gomorrah: their grapes are grapes of gall, their clusters are bitter: Their wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps. Is not this laid up in store with me, and sealed up among my treasures? To me belongeth vengeance and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste. For the Lord shall judge his people, and repent himself for his servants, when he seeth that their power is gone, and there is none shut up, or left. And he shall say, Where are their gods, their rock in whom they trusted, Which did eat the fat of their sacrifices, and drank the wine of their drink offerings? let them rise up and help you, and be your protection See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand. For I lift up my hand to heaven, and say, I live for ever. If I whet my glittering sword, and mine hand take hold on judgment; I will render vengeance to mine enemies, and will reward them that hate me.
I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh; and that with the blood of the slain and of the captives, from the beginning of revenges upon the enemy. Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people. And Moses came and spake all the words of this song in the ears of the people, he, and Hoshea the son of Nun.

Do you see “For their vine is of the vine of Sodom”, who is the vine for the faith of the Christians and catholics. Do you not understand “To me belongeth vengeance and recompence” Upon whose rock is the god of the sinner creatures “Where are their gods, their rock in whom they trusted” What does it say “I will render vengeance to mine enemies” Who eats the flesh and blood of the son of man “I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh” What does Moses say “Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries”

Then came all the tribes of Israel to David unto Hebron, and spake, saying, Behold, we are thy bone and thy flesh. Also in time past, when Saul was king over us, thou wast he that leddest out and broughtest in Israel: and the Lord said to thee, Thou shalt feed my people Israel, and thou shalt be a captain over Israel. So all the elders of Israel came to the king to Hebron; and king David made a league with them in Hebron before the Lord: and they anointed David king over Israel. David was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty years. In Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months: and in Jerusalem he reigned thirty and three years over all Israel and Judah. And the king and his men went to Jerusalem unto the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land: which spake unto David, saying, Except thou take away the blind and the lame, thou shalt not come in hither: thinking, David cannot come in hither. Nevertheless David took the strong hold of Zion: the same is the city of David. And David said on that day, Whosoever getteth up to the gutter, and smiteth the Jebusites, and the lame and the blind that are hated of David's soul, he shall be chief and captain. Wherefore they said, The blind and the lame shall not come into the house. So David dwelt in the fort, and called it the city of David. And David built round about from Millo and inward. And David went on, and grew great, and the Lord God of hosts was with him.

What is written “Then came all the tribes of Israel to David unto Hebron” Look “they anointed David king over Israel” Do you see “Except thou take away the blind and the lame, thou shalt not come in hither” Do you not understand “the lame and the blind that are hated of David's soul, he shall be chief and captain” Remember Aaron is a prophet for Moses. What does moses say “I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh”

Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for My name is in him. But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries.

What does the LORD say to Moses “Behold, I send an Angel before thee” “obey his voice” “for My name is in him” Look “But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries.” Do you believe the words of Moses “Then sang Moses and the children of Israel this song unto the Lord, and spake, saying, I will sing unto the Lord, for he hath triumphed gloriously: the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea. The Lord is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation: he is my God, and I will prepare him an habitation; my father's God, and I will exalt him. The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name.” What did the LORD say “I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries.” What does Moses say “The Lord is a man of war”

Their brethren also the Levites were appointed unto all manner of service of the tabernacle of the house of God. But Aaron and his sons offered upon the altar of the burnt offering, and on the altar of incense, and were appointed for all the work of the place most holy, and to make an atonement for Israel, according to all that Moses the servant of God had commanded.

Do you see “unto all manner of service of the tabernacle of the house of God” But Israel follows the LORD. Why was the house of the God built? Where was this house built? Hebron.

Thus they gave to the children of Aaron the priest Hebron with her suburbs, to be a city of refuge for the slayer; and Libnah with her suburbs,

Do you see, “Hebron with her suburbs, to be a city of refuge for the slayer” Do you not understand “the lame and the blind that are hated of David's soul, he shall be chief and captain” Remember Aaron is a prophet for Moses. What does Moses say “I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh” Do you see “For their vine is of the vine of Sodom”, who is the vine for the faith of the Christians and catholics. Who eats the flesh and blood of the son of man. "their grapes are grapes of gall, their clusters are bitter: Their wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps." What do the sinner creatures believe, they are led by the spirit and not the law. Remember they were commanded to be as sheep, and be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.

Now to Einstein’s revelation, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"? Who are the blind and the lame “the lame and the blind that are hated of David's soul”

YoYo -

Thanks for your comments. I believe Einstein had more in common with our forefathers the Deists - a creator that does all the work up front and departs to let it all unfold as it will. Einstein was in awe of the processes of nature and to my understanding did not have a theistic view of cosmology or creation in particular. He was hard-headed and practical and had a difficult time with the 'fuzziness' of quantum mechanics and the idea of probabilities rather than certainties. Thus far it's basic (mathematical) positions have never been disproven in any experimental setting.

Henry James -

Not at all. My orientation is Buddhistic if anything. A book I've greatly enjoyed recently is 'The Quantum and the Lotus' by Ricard & Thuan - A discussion between a research biologist turned Buddhist monk and a Vietnamese Buddhist turned astrophysicist.

Dr. Thuan is fairly reknowned as an astrophysicist and curiously, comes off as tacitly supporting the 'weak' anthropic position in cosmology.... eg. life is the purpose behind the fine-tuned universe, but without the personal creator/architect thrown in the mix.
Of course, he's a Big Bang proponent.

The Buddhist position is that everything re-capitulates itself eternally, without beginning or end....thus, no need for a creator. Infinity is both difficult to grasp as a concept and somehow unsatisfying and even repugnant for many, so it seems clear that most folks like a story that has a beginning and (eventual)end. The Big Bang just keeps banging away, in the Buddhist view.

That said, there is an issue with an expanding universe that may not have enough matter to contract - the most distant galaxies are apparently picking up speed in their journey away from everything. There is still dark matter and dark energy to contend with - the twin cosmological conundrums of the present age.

Buddhism also proposes eternally existing consciousness or pure awareness as the other half of the equation. This does not equate with a self-existent diety or creator, because the self-generating, eternally existing process of emergence does not require it. But, life must have consciousness (not necessarily self-awareness) by definition, even at the most primitive level. Consciousness co-exists for all time with the (apparent) perpetual rhythm of emergent phenomena. How it may exist is the whole point of Buddhism, to my way of thinking.

It's a book well worth reading.

Best to all -

Terry
you "seem" to imply that
Because strange things like entanglement *seem* to happen in Quantum Mechanics

God *could* exist.

(pardon me if i misinterpret you).

we could *just as logically say*

Because people make strange noises on Halloween
God *could* exist.

Of course, God COULD exist. We just have no evidence that He/She/It does
and plenty of evidence that He doesn't.
Unless of course He is the Moon
Henry the Pagan said.

A lover, the faith, a graceful desire.

There’s a gracious
desire where
the light of a lamp,
with a good grace,
presents in a moment
the care of a
beautiful sunset,
and also that dream,
in a delicate candle,
remembers at once
a luminous lover.

Francesco Sinibaldi