If God is real, then why do we presume to think that cares about the human concept... - Page 2

Well, thank you, sir. You're not too shabby, yourself.

Yeah, I hear it's always in the last place you look.

You were looking for my gall stones?!?

I do. When you get an attack, it sucks like few things are capable of sucking, but thankfully it's not that often. I'll get 'em out eventually, but I really haven't had the time to take off from work so I can let them cut me open...and, so far, it hasn't been an emergency.

You are, of course, correct regarding the etymology (etiology?) of the word atheist. I think "most" people use the word "atheist" meaning "anti-theist," going for the double whammy of "I don't believe in God and I hate his/hers/it's metaphorical guts!" (I know I did)

Well, yes and no. My point was basically "You're not wierd for thinking about God. Lots of people have and do, from all kinds of societies."

It's more of a door-opener or ice-breaker to my main message, and as such, really isn't worth quibbling about.

From <a href="http://www.dictionary.com" target="_blank">www.dictionary.com</a>

the·ism
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

a·the·ism
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
3. Godlessness; immorality.

ag·nos·ti·cism
1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

I agreed from the outset that atheism has come to mean disbelief in God, but when you take the word apart, it is easy to see that is a corruption of its inherent meaning. It's precisely because the word had come to take on the meaning of active disbelief, rather than a simple lack of belief, that Huxley coined the term "agnostic."

But the first definition given for agnostic reveals my quibbles with that term. To be "an agnostic" involves declaring oneself a logical positivist of the Bertrand Russell variety, and there are many (myself included) who would not be comfortable with that designation. We can say we are agnostic WITH RESPECT to the issue of God without any inherent contradiction, but there is a lack of proper terminology for one whose religious outlook is agnostic, while their general epistemology embraces not only Aristotlean empiricism, but also the deductive and inductive reasoning systems of Hume and Bacon.

Michael Shermer has suggested that the proper term for us be "nontheist," which would take on the same historical meaning that atheist would have had if stripped of its political connotations. I can't say I use the phrase much myself, but I respect the need for its creation to help establish a more accurate assessment of how both many self-proclaimed atheists, and many self-proclaimed agnostics, actually feel about the issue.

By the way, I was hoping one of the two of you might have more of a response to my comments about the natural urge toward religious sentiments. Do you find the thesis reasonable?

I cry foul on that one. "Immorality"? How is that a definition of atheism?

It is one usage. Its position as third preferred usage indicates that it's not among the most common usages, but it would be ignoring an existing linguistic sentiment NOT to reflect that "atheist" is sometimes used to connote "godless and immoral."

I have some familiarity with these semantic problems coming from the background of one who would describe himself, politically, as an anarchist (an anarcho-capitalist, to be even more specific.) The Greek an archos should be reflected as "without rule," but one cannot ignore that its more common modern interpretation is "without order"...a synonym of chaos. I neither advocate for chaos, nor believe a political system in absence of governmental rule would create chaos, but I can't ignore that there are many who would infer that misinterpretation of my politics whenever I self-apply the term anarchist.

The best way to trudge through these treacherous definitional landmines is simply to explain ourselves, and allow others to explain themselves, to the best of our collective ability, and iron out any potential misunderstandings as we go along. Humanity is flawed, and so, by necessity, are our various means of communication.

Agreed. And well said, as well.

I'm just quoting. I will agree, however, that "atheist" does not necessarily equal "immoral," and that that usage is falling out of the common vernacular.

Well, I kinda figured no one really meant that third definition (or at least no one would admit it). I was just taken aback by it, but I suppose I can understand why it's in there.

You know we atheists are always spoilin' for a fight...

But to play "angel's advocate" (heh) if I view true morality as a fixed thing then it would be easy for me to view atheists as immoral given the state of men's hearts. Perhaps ammoral would be a better word. Now I am not saying that Christians are in better shape as far as their actions are concerned but we have a desire to follow the Law out of a love for its creator.

Following God's law is to adhere to the tennants of legalism, not morality. Aquinas (certainly no atheist) drew this distinction between divine will which is revealed through scripture, and moral precepts that may be deduced from the state of nature. A theistic belief system might be necessary for the former, but it is certainly not for the latter.

But God's law comes from God's perfect morality.

God's law is God's LAW. It is not a moral code. It is a legal code. Theologians may ponder the moral ramifications of the law, or use it as a guideline in determining the morality of a given set of actions, but it is properly understood as God's will, not God's morals. To say that it is based on "God's perfect morality" presumes a set of moral principles that predate God himself.

I disagree. I believe that God independently created the standards of morality consistent with His character. From that morality he codified the law.

You got anything more substantial than that?

Assuming you are a Christian, Christian morality is generally understood to comprise the whole of the body of ideas about right and wrong conduct that exists in accordance with the dictates of scripture. Christian law is that set of edicts specifically handed down from God to man.

If these aren't your definitions of the terms, then what are?

Did he create his own character? If not, then those "standards" existed prior to his determining them.

To clarify the argument here, morality is the set of ideas about right and wrong conduct that men defer to when determining the rectitude of a given action. These ideas may derive from a consideration of religious law, or they may be deduced from the state of nature (as per Aristotle and Aquinas) or they may come from some other source entirely, such as instinct or arbitrary whim.

God's law is specific set of edicts about what man may or may not do and remain in good standing with God, much as criminal law is a specific set of edicts about what citizens may or may not do and remain in good standing with the authorities.

To say that God's law is BASED on morality logically leads to only two possible conclusions:

1) Utter recursiveness. God determined the law to fit a moral scheme that God also determined, in which case the moral scheme would seem superfluous.

2) God determined the law to fit a moral scheme that God, himself, must live by. It's fine if you want to accept this notion, but realize that the theological ramifications of it would seem to undermine the notion of God as either omnipotent or the prime creator.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cosmic Ray:
<strong>To clarify the argument here, morality is the set of ideas about right and wrong conduct that men defer to when determining the rectitude of a given action. These ideas may derive from a consideration of religious law, or they may be deduced from the state of nature (as per Aristotle and Aquinas) or they may come from some other source entirely, such as instinct or arbitrary whim.</strong>

And I am saying that God's nature is "instinctively" moral, if that makes sense.

<strong>God's law is specific set of edicts about what man may or may not do and remain in good standing with God, much as criminal law is a specific set of edicts about what citizens may or may not do and remain in good standing with the authorities.</strong>

Right.

<strong>To say that God's law is BASED on morality logically leads to only two possible conclusions:</strong>

I love any statement that says "X logically leads to only Y possible conclusions."

<strong>1) Utter recursiveness. God determined the law to fit a moral scheme that God also determined, in which case the moral scheme would seem superfluous.</strong>

What if God didn't "determine" the moral sceme but rather it merely existed as God does, for all time and time out of time?

<strong>2) God determined the law to fit a moral scheme that God, himself, must live by. It's fine if you want to accept this notion, but realize that the theological ramifications of it would seem to undermine the notion of God as either omnipotent or the prime creator.</strong>

God must live by it only because it is His nature.

This is fun. My brain hurts but in a good way.

I don't believe it does. The concept of instinct is that there are forms of knowledge which are not acquired, but are inherrited. From what source would God inherit these instincts?

It would make more sense to me to say either that God embodies and encompasses all moral concepts (including those that are antithetical to any interpretation of his law), or that God chooses which moral concepts are true and which aren't, or that God simply determines arbitrarily which moral concepts might be allowed to exist. But your previous suggestion of God's law being in any way "based" on morality presupposes an existing system of principles that is at least as old as God, if not predating him.

Then there are rules for the proper conduct of God and/or man that God did not, himself, create, which would indicate that he is not the omnipotent prime creator.

This is still placing a restriction on him that is inconsistent with omnipotence. His nature is all possible natures. His morality would then be all possible moralities, such that it would be impossible to have a moral notion that was INconsistent with his nature, including the concept that morality didn't exist at all.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cosmic Ray:
<strong>I don't believe it does. The concept of instinct is that there are forms of knowledge which are not acquired, but are inherrited. From what source would God inherit these instincts?</strong>

That's kind of why I put instinctive in quotes. It's not an instinct as we would perhaps define it. But by the same token I don't believe God chose what was moral and what was immoral but simply recognized those things for what they are. OK having said that I know see what you mean by "morality" existing outside of God.

<strong>It would make more sense to me to say either that God embodies and encompasses all moral concepts (including those that are antithetical to any interpretation of his law),</strong>

No moral concept could be antithetical to his law (as I understand it).

<strong>or that God chooses which moral concepts are true and which aren't, or that God simply determines arbitrarily which moral concepts might be allowed to exist.</strong>

Don't think it works quite that way either.

<strong>But your previous suggestion of God's law being in any way "based" on morality presupposes an existing system of principles that is at least as old as God, if not predating him.</strong>

Since God has "always" existed, as much as you can say that about a being that exists outside time, then nothing can "predate" Him, but then nothing can be "as old as" Him either. He is outside of time.

<strong>Then there are rules for the proper conduct of God and/or man that God did not, himself, create, which would indicate that he is not the omnipotent prime creator.</strong>

I don't agree. God's morality has always existed as He has.

<strong>This is still placing a restriction on him that is inconsistent with omnipotence. His nature is all possible natures. His morality would then be all possible moralities, such that it would be impossible to have a moral notion that was INconsistent with his nature, including the concept that morality didn't exist at all.</strong>

His own nature places restrictions on Him. He cannot lie for instance. Nor can he create a rock he cannot lift, or a square circle. His nature is not all possible natures. Where do you get this?

Good.

I think what you're trying to say here (correct me if I'm wrong) is that no morally correct action could be antithetical to his law. That is a proper formulation of a religious morality....to stipulate, in considering the scope of actions that are possible to an actor at any given time, that moral choices will be, first and foremost, those that do not violate God's law.

Aquinas would agree. But he would then go on to say that there are a whole host of issues of morality that are simply not addressed by God's law, but which we might deduce from careful observation of the state of nature. There are others in his tradition (the Natural Law tradition, which owes its greatest debt to Aristotle) who would say that deference to God or his law is unnecessary, and that all issues of morality may be deduced from the state of nature. Some moral philosophers who have taken this position include such atheists as Ayn Rand, Robert Nozick, and John Rawls.

But that's neither here nor there. Even if you were to believe that God's law is the only thing worthy of deference in matters of morality, it would still be the case that the law itself is a legal code, and that the use of the law as a guide in determining whether actions are right or wrong is what constitutes a moral code. The distinction may be fine, but it is important.

Now, getting back to your response to what I said, I don't think it's possible that you actually believe "No moral concept could be antithetical to his law." I might deduce from the state of nature, for instance, that applying pressure to a man's prostate produces pleasure, that right actions are those that most increase the sum of human pleasure, and that, therefore, homosexual liaisons should be considered morally upright.

This would be a moral concept. It is a moral concept you likely disagree with, but it is a moral concept nonetheless. It is also antithetical to God's law as recorded in scripture.

Which is precisely why, if God based his law on a system of moral precepts, they had to be precepts that he created first. Morality does not describe a quality possessed by some "thing." It describes the actions and interactions BETWEEN things.

In the theistic perspective, God created all things. Thus, God also enabled all the kinds of actions and interactions which those things might have. In scripture, God commands that certain kinds of actions and interractions are forbidden, and others are required. The sum of these commands are his law. Judaic and Christian moral systems interpret, from his law, and from the events described in scripture, a set of principles about what categories of human actions are to be considered right, and what categories are to be considered wrong.

But to say that God, himself, appeals to morality (which is what it would mean to say that his law is based on his morality) is to say that there is some system outside of God that he references for guidance on what would be right and wrong actions for his creations (or for him) to take. This is not possible for a God that is both omnipotent and eternal.

You keep using the phrase "God's morality," while at the same time denying that God created this morality. If he didn't create it, then how is it his?

He cannot create a square circle or a rock he cannot lift because those are NOT possible natures. But I see no reason to believe he can't lie. In fact, scripture seems to record a couple instances of him doing so:

Ezek.14:9 And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet

2 Thesalonians 2:11 For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.

Pet peve; of course it's always in the last place you look. If you find it, and keep looking, you've got prroblems. ;-)

By the way, I'm going to reply to your post about why people look for God, and nature not punishing those who believe any more than those who don't... I'm just really busy, so I haven't gotten around to it yet.

Yeah, that was kind of the point of the joke.

And I'll await your return with bated breath. :-)

Wow. OK, I am going to limp away, let my brain rest for a bit and think this through a bit more deeply.

If you choose to debate Cosmic Ray, that's always a good idea.

I'm beginning to see that. And I don't view it so much a debate as it is me getting whacked on the head with one of those really tiny hammers in the exact same spot over and over and over again. And it hurts so goooooooood.

Not at all. You raise some very interesting concepts. I just think you might be a little fuzzy on the definitional distinctions between moral codes and legal codes. This is a common source of confusion, particularly for adherents to one of the three monotheistic religions, as God's law is, for them, so much the determining factor in issues of morality that the lines can easily become blurred as to where the purview of one system ends and the other begins.

An analogy I'd draw is to use of the word mortgage. People who are shopping for a home often say they are trying to "get a mortgage," when in reality, this is a misnomer. The mortgage is the interest in the home you grant to a lending institution. It's something you GIVE. What you GET is a loan. But because most people would never think of the term mortgage in any context other than procuring a home loan, the two have become virtually synonomous.

I'm not going to argue that pattern recognition is an evolutionary advantage. And, quite honestly, your postulate that religious tendencies are an unexpected side effect of the way our brain works is a possible interpretation of the evidence. This is one of the cases when two people can look at the same facts and come to two completely different conclusions.

Where you see an unintended side-effect of an evolutionary advantage, I see evidence that the One who created us put within us a desire to seek Him out. The Bible says that we are created for fellowship with God, and to worship Him. I believe that this is just as possible a cause for religious tendencies as a chance side effect of evolutionary development, and, given the rest of the evidence, the more logical conclusion.

You are wrong on one point, though; there were,and in some places still are, very real, very serious deterrents to the Christian faith, ones that should have, in all likelihood, brought that small sect of Jews to their knees.

In Western culture today, particularly in America, there is no real negative consequence to religious involvement. A handful of people think I'm fruity, and I tithe, which cuts down on my disposable income some, but by and large, my life, religion and all, is fairly comfortable.

This is not how it is in the rest of the world, though, and certainly not how it was when the church was forming. Some of the largest churches in the world today are not in comfortable America, but in places where the believers have to hide from governmental authorities, places where owning a Bible can get you thrown into prison, and places where proclaiming the name of Jesus can get you executed. There is a two-volume set of books, by DC Talk, called "Jesus Freaks," that tells the stories of a large number of martyrs. Death is certainly an evolutionary disadvantage, and not something that is likely to cause a social group to grow, but if you study church history, you will see, again and again, that the largest growth periods coincide with the strongest oppression. These people, who place more importance on a man nailed to a tree some two thousand years ago than on life itself, are either delusional, or they know something you do not.

Jesus, called the Christ or Messiah by His followers, was executed for His claims. His closest disciples abandoned Him, denied that they knew Him, and after the crucification, locked themselves in a room, lost, confused, and dejected.

Something, though, soon changed them. They went from timid, uneducated laborers to bold proclaimers of the Good News. The religious authorities were astounded at the change in Peter, and when he preached his first sermon, three thousand people joined their ranks. This is not idle speculation, either; these facts were recorded by Luke, who has been called one of the most accurate historians to have ever written, and presented as part of a legal defense for the apostle Paul.

So strong was their belief that Jesus had been raised from the dead that they were willing to suffer and die for it. Paul was tortured and imprisoned for his declaration of the Gospel. 11 of the Twelve (this doesn't include Judas, the betrayer, who committed suicide and was replaced) were executed for their beliefs. Christians were fed to lions, crucified, and burned. This "evolutionary side effect" was resulting in the death of many, many Christians, yet still, the church grew.

People are, basically, practical beings. We may be hard wired to seek out meaning in the universe, but when it comes down to basic survival, most people are willing to leave behind idle speculation. People will not die for what they know to be a lie, or even suspect to be a lie. "If you do not deny Christ, you will be executed" is a pretty strong gut-check, and these people traded their lives for it. Again, they were either all delusional, or all knew something that you do not.

[QUOTE<strong>By the way, I wish to add that it is a very coy rhetorical game to slip in as many different religious precepts as possible (such as the Buddhist system of karma and dharma, or the Chinese system of ancestor worship, or the various pagan belief systems in multiple gods and spirits) into a single heading of belief in "something more," and then slyly changing the point of reference to universal belief in a "Supreme Being."

Sentiments that we might classify as religious probably ARE universal, and I believe they are for the same reasons that science is universal. But belief in a "supreme being" is most certainly not. As a matter of fact, in the course of human history, monotheism seems to be a relatively recent phenomenon, dating back no further than Akhenaton (who failed in his attempt at introducing monotheism to Egypt) and the earliest evidence of Hebrew culture from the same period (which, obviously, succeeded.)

So I can certainly agree that we all seek "something more," but we don't all seek the SAME something. Treating the significant differences between all these various "somethings" as trivial is a pretty poor starting point for any analysis of the human search for meaning.</strong>[/QUOTE]

Yes and no. I wasn't the one who brought up ancestor worship and the like, but it is still a valid point; as you said, just about everyone is "seeking something." People think they have found it in a number of different things; a Wheel of Karma, various flavors of mysticism, science, etc. When I write or speak, I will often use that point as an ice breaker or door opener; it's simply good oratorical practice to affirm people's tendency to question, to say "I've been there, and most people have, as well." Basically, I use statements like that to say "you aren't strange for wondering about God/the meaning of life/etc." Then, after I have hopefully piqued their interest, I will go on to provide evidence that the answers I have found are the answer. As I said somewhere else, I just wanted to open the door a little, and the point isn't that important to my argument that I feel the need to quibble over it.

The differences between Judeo-Christian religion and anything else is, as you said, non-trivial. But that does not change the fact that everyone is seeking. I also believe that, in the end, we are all seeking the same thing; the truth. I believe I have found it, and that's why I spend my time doing things like this.

That's really all I'm after; that spark of interest, that questioning spirit. I believe the evidence speaks for itself, but I can only present it to someone who has a desire to listen. To use Buddhism as evidence for Yaweh would be bad practice, and I'm sorry if you thought that was what I was attempting.

What I would have said if I had time and talent...

Thanks TG.

Short point since I've got stuff to do: the law was used by God not to make people better, but to point out how far they had to go. Basically, it ws God's way of saying "See, you aren't perfect. Therefore, you need a Savior." That's part of what Jesus meant when He said that the Scriptures pointed to Him, and what Paul meant when he said that the Law pointed to the Messiah.

And God is not bound by our concepts of time; time and space are not seperate, so before He created the universe, there was no time, but He still was. When Moses asked Him what His name was, he replied "I AM THAT I AM," meaning in part that he was self-existant, and in part that He could not be described in relation to anything else. He is, in essence, not "The God above all gods," or "The God of the Law," or the "God of Isreal," though these are all true statements; He simply is.

You have evidence? This I'd like to see.

That's a pretty broad generalization. In my experience, very few people are actively "seeking" anything other than material and physical comforts.

</strong>

In retrospect, I regret using the phrase "side effect," as I think it evokes a negative connotation and a designation of being a lesser effect, neither of which were my intention. All I'd meant to point out is that:

A) Notions of science and religion both spring from the same well, that of our in-born and quite remarkable capacity to seek, discern, recombine, and reimagine patterns in the world around us.

B) That those early humans who displayed this tendency would be rewarded with competitive advantage even if they were wrong far more often than they were right.

and, finally,

C) This being the case, the KIND of early human who would be most well-adept at finding those patterns that were of pragmatic use to their survival (such as setting snares and noting which roots and berries were poisonous) were the SAME kind of humans who would have notions that likely did NOT yield pragmatic results, such as those who imagined creation myths or who suggested that sacrifices to the unseen gods, spirits, ghosts that looked after a given tribe would bring health and harmony.

But I think it important to make clear here what I'm NOT saying. First of all, I'm not saying that the former set of pattern-seeking skills is the "good" one and the latter is the "bad." Indeed, it is the ability to imagine wildly IMpractical patterns that have led to almost all of our greatest achievements as a civilization. Tribal humanity may have been on quite the wrong track when they imagined disease to be caused by demonic possession, but to the extent that even that naive and rudimentary understanding led them to seek out herbs, roots, and seeds that would ward off the "demons," it was absolutely essential that SOME form of pattern be imagined such that the field of medicine could be born. And in the end, the pattern they imagined, and the one we understand today (invasion of the body by a variety of infectious agents) aren't as different as we might like to imagine they are.

So, part and parcel of this is the second point that I am not making...one you may have assumed I was. Despite my belief that religious impulses have their origin in the evolutionary advantage of a pattern-seeking brain, it is absolutely NOT the case that I think this is, therefore, evidence AGAINST the existence of God (or of any other pattern of religious belief, for that matter.) ALL concepts that we might rightly call "knowledge" have their origin in our search for patterns (and this is specifically the search I was referencing when I said that we all seek "something.") Newton, as the popular myth goes, saw the apple drop from the tree and deduced a pattern he called his theory of gravity. Somewhere in ancient history, other men saw patterns in the world around them, and deduced patterns they called gods and spirits, angels and demons, and so forth.

Those same urges to find the patterns continue into this day in the work of both scientists and theologians. What separates them are not the origins of their notions, but the specific kinds of evidence they are apt to use to support those notions, and the specific systems that have evolved in each discipline to discern true notions from false ones.

</strong>

That's a pretty massive leap from any point I actually made earlier. I was referencing the evolutionary history of early man, and the fact that those of our pattern-seeking ancestors who discerned false or impractical patterns had no comparitive disadvantage to those who discerned no patterns at all. The consequences of this notion should be apparent. For, if pattern-seeking regularly required major investments of time, energy and resources such that there were serious consequences for guessing wrong, then one can imagine that those who sought no patterns WOULD have had a comparitive advantage, and we would likely be their descendents instead, and also likely be without the benefit of either science or religion. Thankfully for us, the opportunity cost (as it would be put in economic terms) of false notions proved quite low, such that we were able to evolve to be the species we are.

That's quite a different thing from jumping ahead several hundred milennia to commentary on the improbability of Christian dominance in the religious and political spheres -- a subject I'd offered no opinion about whatsoever.

<strong> I would have to most vehemently disagree. The single largest growth period of Christianity took place following Constantine's Edict of Milan and the subsequent Nicean Council, marking the historical turning point of Christians from oppressed to oppressors. Similarly, the historical record of the rise and fall of various Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, and Muslim sects is most easily tracked by following political and military conquests.

If your argument is simply that Christianity tends to be embraced most fervently by the oppressed and the downtrodden, well, yes, of course, I agree. The same is true of Islam. Both religions have features that are inherently quite marketable to those in need of hope -- the notion that the meek shall inherit the earth, that the first shall be last and the last shall be first, that slaves can overcome their masters with assistance of the Lord/Yahweh/Allah, and most of all, that the miseries of this world WILL someday pass and that there will be joy everlasting in the next. These are all, of course, going to be popular notions for those who have little else to look forward to. When they are offered in concert with missionary relief, it should not surprise at all their ability to win hearts and minds.

But that doesn't change at all the simple basic fact that it is, historically, EXTRAORDINARILY rare to find any religion that comes to dominate in a society or under regimes that are hostile to it. Historicall, the overwhelming majority of conversions -- both to and from Christianity, and Judaism and Islam, and even to atheism in the case of some of the Communist states -- have come at the point of a gun or a sword, or the threat of the rack.

</strong>

Or they are in a desperate situation, which I am not, and are looking for any hope they can find. It doesn't take going anywhere near the extremes of political torture and execution to see this kind of behaviour in action. Head down to any 12-step meeting, and you'll find dozens of lost souls who would, likewise, give up almost anything for the chance to believe in a better life than the one they have.

</strong>

Here, you're getting into issues for which the available evidence is pretty darned spotty, unless you take at face value the accounts of the New Testament. I'm presuming that you do, and you can presume just as easily that I do not. Among the issues we're going to have in even beginning to consider this particular area of historical record are that even the earliest gospels -- by the admission of even the most fundamentalist of Biblical scholars -- were not written until 40 to as much as 90 years after the death of Jesus, and almost certainly not by men who ever knew him. Their association with names of apostles is something that doesn't arise in the historical record until late in the Second Century. So, saying that Luke "has been called one of the most accurate historians to have ever written" and simultaneously holding out that the author of the Gospel Luke (who is almost universally believed to have been Greek, and by one popular account, was also likely a woman) is the same Luke written of as the physician of Paul...is just simply going to get us into an area where we really can't hope for common ground.

<strong> </strong>

Of course not, and I would never claim that religion generally or Christianity particularly is a "lie." It would be my opinion that it really doesn't make sense to talk about religious beliefs in terms of truths and falsehoods. Their position as issues of faith put them outside the scope of such empirical standards.

Or, as I would prefer to see it, all believed something I do not. I don't claim to "know" anything about God or his existence, and I highly doubt any human being that ever lived has "known" anything about God or his existence. Christians have beliefs about God that I do not share. I don't think that fact is sufficient to label them "delusional."

And you'll note that the piece you quoted wasn't specifically a reply to you.

Fair enough.

It wasn't. My initial response to you -- my first post in this thread -- was just me being a nit-picky bastard. My response to Burke was an objection to what I think can be a very dangerous tendency to treat important distinctions in different modes of thought as being trivial...particularly those arguments that follow the pattern "Everyone believes (something very general) which is evidence that (something very specific) is important to everyone."

I understand that notion of God (though I'm leery of assertions, even those this vague, about what God IS, rather than summarizing what you believe God to be), and it is in keeping with that notion of God that I don't see it as possible for him to reference a moral system that lies outside of himself.

Cosmic Ray,

Well-put and succinct thesis. I seem to be in the same boat as you. Also, I hold captain Charles in high esteem. So you won't be reading dissent from these fingers.

As for commentary, I like the bit about false positives. Nice logical touch*— says a lot about superstition. Might I also suggest, since I'm more of an armchair enthusiast with some loose academic knowledge(not an expert), The Blank Slate, by Steven Pinker. Reading this (excellent)book will provide you with more indirect commentary than I, or most people, could give directly.

[mini-review]The final chapters are junk, but the rest is brilliant, not to mention rife with glorious academic broadsides(Steven J. Gould takes a hit for his Marx-inspired crucifixition of EO Wilson). The title, The Blank Slate, is fairly telling; an expository on how tight the empiricist grip on science holds social values. Of course, it's a lot more, and you'll find a lot related to this very topic.[/mini-review]

And finally, I'd like to comment on this urge:

This [URGE] to seek ultimate causes of surface phenomena is, in fact, the origin both of religion, AND science.

The urge is what social pychologists call 'need for closure'; basically, a desire to reduce cognitive uncertainty and ambiguity. Closing the pattern, so to speak, and a desire to do so, even if the loose-end are tied willy-nilly. Social psychology, but good social psychology, with loads of research behind it. And it strikes me that pattern-seeking and a desire to reduce ambiguity would recapitualte each other.

That closing paragraph was clunky. I meant to say that the, "need for cognitive closure," phenomenon is attributed to social psychology. Many, myself included, regard social psychology as a being little soft. Of course, every idea must be judged on it's own. Just because the topic is social psychology doesn't mean the topic is air.

The idea that humans dislike ambiguity and seek closure is not a soft concept because wierd social chrinks thought of it.

Actually, I've worked with Steve Pinker and had him come out to give a lecture at a think tank in California where I was the director of public affairs. :-)

And yes, I've read the Blank Slate. Without question, the boldest and most visionary of his "popular" books to date.

Also, fairness would ask that I not take any sort of original credit for the "type-1 hit, type-2 falsehood" theory of the evolution of belief systems. My comments are largely a simplification of a much more complex thesis offered by Michael Shermer in his book How We Believe, and his book, in turn is heavily influenced both by the cognitive science theories of V. Ramachandran (and Pinker, to a somewhat lesser extent) and, of course, the basic skeptical formulations of Karl Popper.

Don't tell him I thought the final chapters of the Blank Slate were junky then.(Like my opinion would leave him shattered.) Visionary stuff aside, what did you think of the book?

Oh, and, yes, I'm with you completely both in not putting an inordinate amount of stock in the sorts of mushy drivel generally proposed by social psychologists, and in trying to keep an open mind about specific sets of claims, regardless of their origin. I'll give even creation science and Holocaust revisionists the benefit of the doubt that there may be SOME kernel of information that could be gleaned from their points of view, so long as it is subjected to the same means and levels of scrutiny as as any other positive hypothesis.

Not your idea, eh? well, so much for the phallic monument of honour.

I enjoyed it a lot. I think it certainly could be considered guilty of overreach in spots. The stuff that dealt with gender differences, in particular, comes to mind as an area where enforced social stratification would seem to still be so overwhelmingly prevalent that a presumption of genetically determined roles produced by evolutionary psychology still seems to me a leap too far. I'd also question whether general acceptance of blank slate models of human nature are nearly as prevalent as he seems to presume they are, to the extent that some of the book seems to be tussling with windmills that don't exist.

But still, overall, I thought it was a great read.

And don't worry, I'm not in a position to squeal on you. I've met him. I liked him. But I'm not to pretend he's someone I'd call my "friend." I'd be shocked if he remembered my name, or was able to recall anything about me that would have stood out from the dozens of other p.r. flacks and book tour groupies he must deal with on a regular basis.

Eh, eh? So I'm guessing that's Victoria, B.C.?

My fiance's from Vancouver, and if she has any say about it (and of course, she has the ONLY say that matters) I'll likely be moving up your way within the next few years.

Well, social psychologists apply closure to "the importance of first impressions." Read: we can help your avertising firm make money. Really, they're stating the obvious; most people like to make a character judgement immediately, and not leave any notions flapping in the breeze.

Really, I was miffed when my text left the concept at that.

Correct.

BC outright gorgeous. Vancouver is culturally bulemic, and tends to purge any sense of city in favour of suburbs. But then, I'm bias, and Victoria is no better.

Of course, if you love skiing, rain, and glorious vistas, you're in luck. Plus, I hear Vancouver is Hollywood North.

We were out there for about a month at Christmas and New Year's. I like Victoria a lot, mostly because I like VictoriaNs a lot (as in the architectural style.) But my employment opportunities are probably a bit better in Vancouver. And if we can swing somewhere around Kitsilano, I think I could live there.

There is some controversy over the accuracy of that statement, however. Some biblical scholars now claim that, in the corrected text, the Lord actually tells Moses: "I AM WHAT I AM."

He then goes on: "AND THAT'S ALL THAT I AM."

This is followed by a great tumult. The heavens reverberate with the tooting of a vast but unseen corncob pipe.