Yes. Evolution.

[President Camacho]

Ant, if you have time I'd very much be interested in reading exactly what your religious beliefs are. I'd like you to be as exact as possible in stating what you believe in - what/who your God is - as well as if you believe in ghosts/angels/demons, any proofs of existence, how your beliefs came down from God to you, so on and so forth.

If you could go into detail, it'd be much appreciated... such as - does god need to eat, who created god, what do angels look like (black, white, asian, smoke, etc.), how the earth was created by god, ... really whatever you can think of.

I'd also like you to explain why yours is the true religion as opposed to all the others.

[etudiant]

I think your working definition of “faith” is an impoverished one. It exposes a very poor religious and theological understanding of faith and reason, and the relationship both share.

And that relationship is? It is easy to convince oneself of certain concepts when ruminating to one's self, especially if these are essential to a sense of well being. When one then has to articulate these in the company of others, it can then be surprising how flimsy they seem in the light of day.

It is not surprising. The commonality among atheists is their prodigious ignorance of related concepts. As an example, Dawkins is a great scientist, but also a blathering idiot when he attempts to characterize religion.

Name calling can be sure sign of a loosing arguement.

To educated yourself on faith and reason you might want to read some Saint Augustine or Thomas Aquinas. I don’t think it’d be a total waste of your time if you wish to be taken serious when you use the word faith as a talking point.

I find it interesting that you promote the views of thinkers from the Middle Ages, but are critical of those today who have the benefit of access to a vastly greater store of knowledge. Hidden meanings here, or convenience? As for being taken seriously, you have been given a definition of faith and reason. Where is yours?

[ant]

Johnson wrote;

Confidence is an expectation held based on a history of corroborative evidence which supports that expectation.

Science proceeds on a confident expectation that there is order to nature, based on the accumulated evidence which demonstrates that to be the case, and seeks to explain natural phenomena as best as possible. If not for the fact that the universe operates through universal laws which we can use to make predictions science could not proceed.

What is the corroborative evidence that supports the "expectation" there are 11 dimensions as claimed by a growing consensus of scientists who support string theory and a multitude of universes?
(note:I'm not talking about the scientists you meet at booths set up at your local grade school science fair.
I'm talking about some BIG names in Physics and Cosmology here).

What observations should science point to as related "accumulated evidence"?
Do you think the scientists that support the multiverse theory confidently expect to discover the reality of endless universes?

Does the Mutliverse explanation fit nicely with Occam's Razor?


You probably are willing to ignore this area of science.
Do you think that it's pseudo science they are engaging in?

.

[ant]

Ant, if you have time I'd very much be interested in reading exactly what your religious beliefs are. I'd like you to be as exact as possible in stating what you believe in - what/who your God is - as well as if you believe in ghosts/angels/demons, any proofs of existence, how your beliefs came down from God to you, so on and so forth.

If you could go into detail, it'd be much appreciated... such as - does god need to eat, who created god, what do angels look like (black, white, asian, smoke, etc.), how the earth was created by god, ... really whatever you can think of.

I'd also like you to explain why yours is the true religion as opposed to all the others.

I'm a theist.
God lives up in the clouds, has a long white beard, and looks a youngish 80 years old.
I believe in ghosts. As a matter of fact, one lives with me! I named him Casper. He's my friend!
I saw a demon once. He was red, had horns, and carried a large, red pitchfork.

I saw God driving through Taco Bell once. I guess he likes tacos cause that's what he ordered, I think.
God's father created God. That's the true, true God, but remains outside our telescope range.

Angels are white - ALL WHITE. Google it as evidence.

I'd also like you to explain why yours is the true religion as opposed to all the others.

Is that you, Richard Dawkins??!!

[Chris OConnor]

Ant, you're asking some great questions here. I think we're on the same page with regards to string theory and some of these pretty wild ideas about multiple universes. I'm on the sidelines as a layperson and I readily admit the math and science behind these subjects is a bit beyond me. So I'll refrain from belief or non-belief and leave the subject up to those more capable of understanding the material.

With that said some of this sounds quite contrary to Occam's Razor. Then again, so does the idea that a deity exists. A God existing clearly isn't the simple answer, as many believers want to posit.

In Michael Shermer's "The Borderlands of Science: Where Sense Meets Nonsense," Shermer argues that string theory is in a grey area between science and pseudoscience. Publisher's Weekly says: Superstring theory is one of the latest inhabitants of what Shermer (Why People Believe Weird Things, etc.), editor of Skeptic magazine, calls the "borderlands" of science: that is, ideas that fall somewhere between established, likely explanations for reality (or some small part thereof) and pseudoscientific claims (e.g., remote viewing or alien abduction).

[Chris OConnor]

Ant, now that you got that out of your system how about you explain your religious beliefs with a bit more seriousness.

[johnson1010]

He is NOT an authority (nor am I) on Faith and Reason. Instead, he is willing to fashion terms in a manner that both eviscerates their meaning AND supports his argument.

There are no authorities. Everyone who has ever tackled these questions did so with human brains. I am not required to bow to Thomas Aquinas. If my framework for discussing this distinction has merit, which I believe it does, it will stand on its own.


I am making the distinction between faith and confidence. In most common usage faith is used as a term which implies total trust in an expectation. An unshakeable trust which is not bound by evidence.


People say you need faith for belief of any kind. That simply isn’t true. MOST of our beliefs are not faithful, but confident. Words get blurry edges. In an earlier conversations someone said that they had faith that they could feed a chipmunk by hand.


I pointed out that faith is a fine word to use in everyday conversation, but if we were speaking didactically it doesn’t apply to that situation. Based on a wide range of information that you have on hand about chipmunks you can be confident that it’s possible to feed one by hand. And it is this confidence, in fact, which is informing your expectation. Not faith.


Lets drill down a little further. How would you be able to tell whether it was confidence or faith that led you to that expectation? If I ask you, “why do you believe you could feed a chipmunk by hand?” Your first impulse might be to say “I have faith”. But if you are pressed for reasons you will likely have them ready. You’ve seen it done first hand, or in a video. You understand that chipmunks like nuts. You know you can procure nuts and other sorts of foods that chipmunks would like. You would likely be aware of a method to gain the animal’s trust by sitting quietly near the food and letting it get used to you before you try to be closer and closer with successive feedings.


These are evidentiary reasons to have confidence it’s possible to feed a chipmunk by hand, even if you attempt to do so and fail.

I think if he made an honest effort, he and I could have a more open conversation about this.

I have been completely open and honest of my thoughts in these conversations, Ant.
Do I evade? Do I not address points? Do I attack the person, to dodge the argument?

Do you think he's standing on the shoulder of giants with his water-downed definition of "faith?"

Please, give us your potent, well concentrated, definition of “faith”.

[Interbane]

Thanks for the link. It's a great one. I plan on looking it over later tonight (honestly).

You're welcome. The SEP is a great source, I go there for anything philosophical.

[etudiant]

Fellows, I think we have indeed proven that one can feed a chipmunk by hand, or at least certainly an ant. In fact, we have already done so (metaphorically speaking), providing nutritious nuggets of logic to one resident on this thread, over and over. But to what avail?

One might hope for some sort of recognition- a twitching of a tail, a sparkling of an eye. But none is forthcoming. We might at least hope to say that we weren't bitten in the process. Alas, even this minimal standard has not been met. We have seen a flashing of tiny claws and teeth; reckless responses that seem more like survival reaction than considered thought.

These peanuts and cashews have value- should we keep throwing them on the ground? And is that consciousness before us truly considering the act in progress, or simpy re-acting in a way that survival (real or philosophical) urges up from lower regions of consciousness? There indeed is a question.

Larger mammals (and maybe insects too) are thrust into the universe with no explanation, and are then required to brave it out. No operater's manual, no tech support, no instructions, no warranty. No wonder some of the deeper recesses of the brain will blunder out: give us a mooring of some sort, some kind of secure berth! It would be nice. But there is none.

Some cannot accept this, and for their own existential imperatives argue in favour of a softer universe, one in which father figures will offer up support of at least some small sort. The fact that evidence does not support this is a major roadblock here, but not impassable. Really, nothing is impassable if psychological need is strong enough. Rationalization will make it into the required shape.

I have a feeling that we never will get an explanation of religious belief from ants, chipmunks, or others. To do so would take what is psychologically necessary and emotionally comforting, and drag it into the the cold light of observation, a place where it stands a good chance of being diminished, or even demolished. That is too big a risk for most species.

[ant]

Ant, now that you got that out of your system how about you explain your religious beliefs with a bit more seriousness.

I'd have to say I have no traditional religious beliefs to speak of.

All manmade institutions have historical blemishes/dark epochs that are worthy of ridicule and or condemnation to a degree. Needless to say, religion is not the exception.

I am not chauvinistically tied to any particular religion that would cause me to proclaim it to be the one, true path to God.

I must say that I am guilty of a mild case of anthropocentrism in that I believe our species is unique in the sense that as conscious beings, it is apparent our uniqueness lies in our ability to experience a "participatory universe." ( John Wheeler).

Although Wheeler prefers the explanation of a universe that is a"self excited circuit," I lean toward a more meaningful purpose for the very fact that we are able to look back in time to our origin. We have in essence transformed the cosmos from a cold, indifferent realm into perhaps an infinite mindscape. Prior to our arrival, perhaps there existed infinite potential which gave birth to us. Who's to say infinite potential and God are not synonymous?

I can not rule out intentionality written into the fabric of creation. We have a mind that has been honed to ask questions based on assumptions of rationality, with expectations of definitive answers.
But is it possible at this point to be certain that the answers we seek are within reach? Why should we assume our evolutionary inheritance provides sufficient guidance for answering ultimate questions?
Why all the certainty from the atheist camp?
And to be fair, why all the certainty from the theist camp?

From a scientific perspective, the only truly reasonable position is that of agnosticism.
From an inferential, intuitive perspective, and an admittance of our finite knowledge of the nature of reality, it is not unreasonable to consider the existence of a Creator, in my opinion.

The human experience is full of paradox and uncertainty.
Even our most refined, logic driven language, Mathematics, is itself filled with paradox and uncertainty. Kurt Godel's legendary theorem tells us there will always be truths that cannot be obtained with absolute certainty.

How can a Christopher Hitchens, a Richard Dawkins, a Carl Sagan, a Stephen Hawking, or even a Robert Tulip tell me with atheistic certainty there is no God?
Surely school is not out as of yet.

(iPhone - I need to hang around computers more often!)