The god inside

Top 28. Oct 5, 2000 6:46 AM

» GaRu1 - standing back !

-- posted by GaRu1

Top 29. Oct 24, 2000 3:05 PM

» The_Thumb - Interesting piece.

Interesting piece. I have to admit Francois that you write a little arrogantly as well. Statements like: Since there is no god certainly aren't expressing a great deal of respect for the poor souls who believe otherwise. Of course, you project the image of a man at war, and I can hardly expect you to be polite with the enemy, and arrogance is a rather ordinary trait among self-righteous warriors :-).

Still, I like your work, and your passion.

Two points struck me in this article that you might have elaborated on. The first was this comment:

most religions are directly contradictory

which is of dubious truth at best. There is a good body of theists who believe otherwise, and ascribe the differences in religions to nuance or flavour, the substance being the same. The Bahais are the greatest proponents of that view. Naive as I find it, it is not easily discredited. The position is simply that the one Word of God underlies all religions, and the clue to finding it, is in fact to extract the common factors from all these religions. In my experience that involves twisting some interpretations rather boldly, but nonetheless they do it, and with some credit.

It might be said that the Message is to Religion as Eating is to Cuisine. The one is common to all of us, the other an expression of cultural nuance.

Of course that's assuming there is a Message. But then there are those that would use it as rhetoric or metaphor for Truth. An article in itself of course, but the point was simply, that you give alternate views little respect - which can detract from a debate and turn it into an argument. Not that I expect any rabid theists to drop by here ;-)

The second point that struck me was that many theists might grab this God Module joyfully, as evidence of a God. They do this with everything of course, so why not the God Module. I can imagine them arguing simply that this organ is what makes man different from animals, is what brings man into contact with God, is what within man reacts to God.

In other words, where the rationalist (rightly adhering to Occam's keen edge) would argue this organ is reacting to the idea of "god", the theist may argue it is reacting to reality of "God". The extended claim, like all robust theist claims would lie outside of the realm of falsibility (cannot be falsified - is discarded on Occam's principle alone, along with a hundred million other fanciful explanations) and hence adhered to.

I side with other readers also in suggesting you provide some good references for further reading when presenting material like this. Either links or more traditonal journal articles. It lends weight and credibility to any article andmakes follow-up reading easier for your readers. Just a polite suggestion.

-- posted by The_Thumb

Top 30. Oct 24, 2000 3:19 PM

» Franc28 - Response

"Statements like: Since there is no god certainly aren't expressing a great deal of respect for the poor souls who believe otherwise."

Actually this is not a neutral area. It's an atheist area. I presume that all my readers are atheists : otherwise, why would they be reading in the first place ?

"Of course, you project the image of a man at war, and I can hardly expect you to be polite with the enemy, and arrogance is a rather ordinary trait among self-righteous warriors :-)."

I am not at war with anyone. This area is for rational discussion, not apologetics, although apologetics is part of atheism in a sense.

"Two points struck me in this article that you might have elaborated on. The first was this comment:
most religions are directly contradictory
which is of dubious truth at best."

Whenever the contradictions are nuances or not, they are still contradictions. You *can*, of course, find the underlying messages under all religions, which for reasons I explain in the article "the god inside" exist, but that does not disprove the fact of the matter. Religious dogma contradict each other on numerous ontological and ethical points of doctrine.

"Of course that's assuming there is a Message. But then there are those that would use it as rhetoric or metaphor for Truth. An article in itself of course, but the point was simply, that you give alternate views little respect - which can detract from a debate and turn it into an argument."

I have no need to respect theism (whenever I respect religious people is another matter, you will note). I do not respect it, see no reason to respect it, and presume my readers don't. However, if there are sensible arguments that may be used by theists for whatever reason (like the one you mentioned earlier), I don't mind analyzing them, of course.

"The second point that struck me was that many theists might grab this God Module joyfully, as evidence of a God. They do this with everything of course, so why not the God Module. I can imagine them arguing simply that this organ is what makes man different from animals, is what brings man into contact with God, is what within man reacts to God."

But since there is no god, that line of argument gets you nowhere. There is no such evidence that the God Module draws from anything but emotions.

"In other words, where the rationalist (rightly adhering to Occam's keen edge) would argue this organ is reacting to the idea of "god""

Not strictly. Like other language-based part of the brain (not an organ, mind you), it reacts to certain stimulis which happen to relate to religion, not reacting to the idea of gods.

"the theist may argue it is reacting to reality of "God"."

Same objection as before.

"The extended claim, like all robust theist claims would lie outside of the realm of falsibility (cannot be falsified - is discarded on Occam's principle alone, along with a hundred million other fanciful explanations) and hence adhered to."

Unfortunately, Occam's Razor does not enter into it, simply because there are no gods. But even if there were, we would still have to show that the God Module is stimulated by gods and not linguistic stimuli. The experiments done were based on linguistic stimuli. Therefore we cannot posit another explanation a priori.

"I side with other readers also in suggesting you provide some good references for further reading when presenting material like this. Either links or more traditonal journal articles. It lends weight and credibility to any article andmakes follow-up reading easier for your readers. Just a polite suggestion."

Actually most of my articles are theoretical or on widely-read topics. They are usually either not related to scientific journals or available at any news source.

-- posted by Franc28

Top 31. Oct 31, 2000 11:46 AM

» The_Thumb - Re: Response

In response to message posted by Franc28:

Actually this is not a neutral area. It's an atheist area. I presume that all my readers are atheists : otherwise, why would they be reading in the first place ?

This seems to me, to have little to do with the issue of respect Francois. If I exude disrespect for the belief of others in a private forum, it remains disrespect, albeit discrete disrespect. Not that any public soapboax like a website could fall under the heading of discrete.

Your presumption that your readers are all atheists, is also of course, presumptious. I doubt this as much as I doubt that all the readers of theistic topics are theists. There is much healthy exchange between the groups, and communication. I hold to the views you have described as weak atheism, yet I read theistic material. This is possible and happens, because many of these people maintain respect for their philosophic opponents ...

It is in fact a necessity, for the open mind, to see counter views from time to time to avoid the trap of dogma, and reading counter material, is vital for both sides.

I am not at war with anyone. This area is for rational discussion, not apologetics, although apologetics is part of atheism in a sense.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. The history of rationalism is itself neither smooth nor complete, nor am I fully aware of what you mean by your half-hearted dismissal of apologetics.

Your chosen style of writing, is in my judgement provocative at least, and arguably warring. You yourself noted in the article "Atheist Rites" (a good article BTW) that people have been routinely persecuted for milder expressions of difference. You go so far as to consistently describe your "belief" (and you confess it is such at least in your text - Arguments of Strong Atheism) as "fact".

If you refute having ever used the word "fact", then I will suggest that "There is no god" and "P(gods exist)=0" are expressions of certainty, and as such perceptions of "fact". If I have erred in that perception, that I doubt that I am alone, and would invite feedback from third parties.

A more fitting expression would be "I do not believe there is a god". For in not so doing, you stand in the same dogmatic trap as the theists you so belittle and who claim "there is a God" and damn you and me to hell or purgatory at least, for our lack of faith in Him (and I have been condemned to hell a number of times – "see you there buddy" being one of favourite replies).

I have no need to respect theism (whenever I respect religious people is another matter, you will note). I do not respect it, see no reason to respect it, and presume my readers don't.

Your readership is unlikely to be as "strongly" atheist as you are. Your presumption that they see no reason to respect theism is, of course, presumptious.

There are various forms of respect. You undoubtedly carry some respect for theism, if only because of the power that it holds over us in our societies. But even so, the initial critism of disrespect of certain views, applies implicitly also to "the poor souls who hold those views". Is it feasible to express disrespect for the views upon which a person bases their life, with which they define their being, and yet express respect for the person? Perhaps, but I suspect it not a welcome respect with that person, it becomes necessarily patronising.

But since there is no god, that line of argument gets you nowhere. There is no such evidence that the God Module draws from anything but emotions.

This is precisely the kind of disrespect mentioned. I find it difficult to imagine that a large body of people who define their very beings with reference to gods would find any solace in respect you may or may not have for them as people, if you utter turns of phrase for which they would comdemn you to hell or the gallows depending upon the culture in question.

Again, what I find most striking about this statement is that you take your belief that there is no god, and express it as inflexible fact [P(gods exist)=0]. Is this not one of the fundamental dogmas of theism? For to allow some possibility of error, is to confess a non-zero P.

Not strictly. Like other language-based part of the brain (not an organ, mind you), it reacts to certain stimulis which happen to relate to religion, not reacting to the idea of gods.

Point taken. Though an ardent theist will ably take this as "evidence" of the verity of those stimuli (their lack of fantasia that is). I have identified a part of my physiology which demonstrably reacts to certain concepts, hence these concepts are real. I'm not arguing that point with you, I'm expressing my confidence that many theists would.

You project a black and white world in this statement that I suspect you mean not to project.

"There is no god", "Even if there were" you write.

You express your conviction as P(gods exist)=0, which surely allows for the clear alternative "gods might exist" as well as "gods exists" (namely 0<P(gods exist)<1 as well as P(gods exist)=1).

Indeed, in any meaningful debate on the matter this middle ground is the a-priori, by definition I should have thought. If it is not, then we are dealing yet again with dogma, with conclusions that are inflexible, concede no possibility of error before the discussion begins and so it becomes a bi-directional soap box a pair of monologues, not meaningful dialogue.

But this is also an aside, because on the subject of "simply because there are no gods" you will meet with very little agreement even from the world of intellectualist atheists. On account of which, those people (not Francois) do and will continue to employ Occam's Razor to dismiss the concept of god as unnecessary. Whether Francois finds it necessary to appeal to Occam or not.

Indeed your Arguments for Strong Atheism defined Occam's razos as:

When we have two different theories, that can satisfactorily explain the same facts, we must prefer the simplest theory.

Now there are a great many god hypotheses that can and do adequately explain the set of facts we collectively describe as reality. A god hypothesis can be trimmed and pared down to any necessary dimension to evade your attempts at dismissal without Occam - sheltering itself quite comfortably within the ever-present realm of "the unknown". But we have already established, provisionally at least, that you see this reality and debate propping, and not the search for truth.

As an aside, I would have cited Occam's razor as: When we have two different theories, that can satisfactorily explain the same facts, we accept as true the simpler of the two.

The difference is subtle, but meaningful, though in the end, admittedly a matter of taste. It is a general concept, not one I have ever (thankfully) found a quote from Occam's lips for ;-).

-- posted by The_Thumb

Top 32. Oct 31, 2000 3:39 PM

» Franc28 - Response

"Your presumption that your readers are all atheists, is also of course, presumptious."

How is it so ? You do not provide any reason to say otherwise, and also a reason to wonder how this would make a difference in what I should say or not say.

"It is in fact a necessity, for the open mind, to see counter views from time to time to avoid the trap of dogma, and reading counter material, is vital for both sides."

You're opening up another issue : the whole issue of tolerence and intolerence. I understand what you're saying, and I will eventually write an article to explain my own position.

"I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. The history of rationalism is itself neither smooth nor complete, nor am I fully aware of what you mean by your half-hearted dismissal of apologetics."

I have not dismissed anything. I have said it is not the place for it. Do you understand the difference ? If you want apologetics help, consult my web site.

"Your chosen style of writing, is in my judgement provocative at least, and arguably warring."

Now that's an unfair accusation. I think you are confusing premises and provocations. Please read more carefully, but from the premise that this is an atheist area.

"You go so far as to consistently describe your "belief" (and you confess it is such at least in your text - Arguments of Strong Atheism) as "fact"."

I have no belief. If you think otherwise, you are free to prove so.
I find your proposition that I am "dogmatic" and holding "beliefs" and "certainty" rather insulting and out of place.

"Your readership is unlikely to be as "strongly" atheist as you are. Your presumption that they see no reason to respect theism is, of course, presumptious."

Why should one respect fairy tales ? How is this presumptuous ? You sound rather insulting towards atheists. I don't understand why you seem to want to vent your vendetta on this board.

"There are various forms of respect. You undoubtedly carry some respect for theism, if only because of the power that it holds over us in our societies."

That's not respect, that's factual acknowledgement of a sad situation.

"But since there is no god, that line of argument gets you nowhere. There is no such evidence that the God Module draws from anything but emotions.
It is is precisely the kind of disrespect mentioned. I find it difficult to imagine that a large body of people who define their very beings with reference to gods would find any solace in respect you may or may not have for them as people, if you utter turns of phrase for which they would comdemn you to hell or the gallows depending upon the culture in question."

Why would people find solace in my respect ? I'm just a writer. I'm not here to provide solace but to inform. If theists want to read my articles, fine, but they have no right to complain.

"Again, what I find most striking about this statement is that you take your belief that there is no god, and express it as inflexible fact [P(gods exist)=0]. Is this not one of the fundamental dogmas of theism? For to allow some possibility of error, is to confess a non-zero P."

No, it's not. Do you know the difference between knowledge and certainty, or "objective method" and "omnipotent means" ? I've already discussed the difference between knowledge and certainty in my article "Reason and faith", on my web site.

"Point taken. Though an ardent theist will ably take this as "evidence" of the verity of those stimuli (their lack of fantasia that is)."

I can't see how.

"Unfortunately, Occam's Razor does not enter into it, simply because there are no gods. But even if there were, we would still have to show that the God Module is stimulated by gods and not linguistic stimuli. The experiments done were based on linguistic stimuli. Therefore we cannot posit another explanation a priori.
You project a black and white world in this statement that I suspect you mean not to project."

Your mysterious answer doesn't mean anything that I can see. Please feel free to chide me if you meant anything at all.

""There is no god", "Even if there were" you write.
You express your conviction as P(gods exist)=0, which surely allows for the clear alternative "gods might exist" as well as "gods exists" (namely 0Of course these propositions exist. They are not true, however.

"If it is not, then we are dealing yet again with dogma, with conclusions that are inflexible, concede no possibility of error before the discussion begins and so it becomes a bi-directional soap box a pair of monologues, not meaningful dialogue."

Once again you fail to grasp the difference between knowledge and certainty. Do you seriously think that everyone uses faith to formulate his opinions, even me ?
If so, you sure have a pessimistic outlook on human nature. I know many rationalists who are serious in their research of knowledge. That *you* may not be so, does not say anything about other people.

"But this is also an aside, because on the subject of "simply because there are no gods" you will meet with very little agreement even from the world of intellectualist atheists. On account of which, those people (not Francois) do and will continue to employ Occam's Razor to dismiss the concept of god as unnecessary. Whether Francois finds it necessary to appeal to Occam or not."

Why should I consider what "intellectualist atheists" think or not think ? Everyone makes his own opinion based on the facts. Do you find the thought of independant thought disquieting ?

"When we have two different theories, that can satisfactorily explain the same facts, we must prefer the simplest theory.
Now there are a great many god hypotheses that can and do adequately explain the set of facts we collectively describe as reality."

Agreed.

"A god hypothesis can be trimmed and pared down to any necessary dimension to evade your attempts at dismissal without Occam - sheltering itself quite comfortably within the ever-present realm of "the unknown". But we have already established, provisionally at least, that you see this reality and debate propping, and not the search for truth."

Of course.

"As an aside, I would have cited Occam's razor as: When we have two different theories, that can satisfactorily explain the same facts, we accept as true the simpler of the two."

Should the simplest hypothesis be TRUE ? No, of course not. Something is true if it corresponds to reality. Two simple and different propositions cannot both be true at the same time in the same respect.

-- posted by Franc28

Top 33. Apr 5, 2001 12:12 PM

» OpheliaGrneyes - Re: the God inside (pessimism)

I was a preacher for the Jehovah's Witnesses in my younger years

You've GOT to be kidding. You were a preacher for Jehovah's Witnesses and now you're an ATHEIST? Were you ever baptized?

Although those people being a pain in the neck; there is a thing with them about cohesion.

A pain in the neck? Perhaps this "cohesion" you see is that they have the only international, interracial, and intersocial brotherhood on the face of the earth.

Although I do not agree with religion anymore;I do see organization.

Organization. Think about what you said. Give it another try; you may be convinced they have what no other religion can offer you.

In response to message posted by marinus:

-- posted by OpheliaGrneyes

Top 34. Apr 5, 2001 10:22 PM

» DaphneDuck - Re: Re: the God inside (pessimism)

In response to message posted by OpheliaGrneyes:

OpheliaGrneyes: most religious groups where I live (have lived in 5 cities in Canada), are very well organized. That's why they call it "organized religion". Not at all limited to JW group. Also many, many religious groups are international, interracial, etc. Also, what has "baptism" got to do with what one thinks decades later. We do change, Ophelia.

If this is a site for Atheism, why are you trying to promote one sectarian group--methinks you are on the wrong site.

-- posted by DaphneDuck

Top 35. May 25, 2001 1:45 PM

» OpheliaGrneyes - Re: Re: Re: the God inside (pessimism)

"many, many religious groups are international, interracial, etc."

Sorry; you're dead wrong. Remember World War II??
Catholics, Protestants, and others killing their Christian brothers in other countries doesn't sound like an international brotherhood to me.

In response to message posted by DaphneDuck:

-- posted by OpheliaGrneyes

Top 36. May 28, 2001 12:59 AM

» The_Thumb - Re:the God inside (pessimism)

In response to message posted by OpheliaGrneyes:

Sorry; you're dead wrong. Remember World War II?? Catholics, Protestants, and others killing their Christian brothers in other countries doesn't sound like an international brotherhood to me

Weird, but what on earth has that go to do with the reality that "many, many religious groups are international, interracial, etc."?

Nothing, I'd have thought ... Sure they kill each other, so? Many religious groups are all the same international and interracial ...

-- posted by The_Thumb