Religion as a drug

[Hypocolius]

An interesting article in today's Grauniad

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/...1043481,00.html

I particularly like the following quotes:



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christianity in Europe is now the marijuana of the marginalised: supposedly harmless, mildly confusing, but not addictive and therefore nothing to get worked up about.

In the US, where Jesus worship takes a more muscular form, religion is a good deal more pumped up and ready for action. So let's say it's the steroid of the suburbanites.

And what of the fundamentalist strain of Islam, the doctrine that overnight turns previously docile communities into breeding grounds of nihilistic violence and resentment? Oh, that's easy: crack cocaine.

We could go on, but before anyone puts pen to fatwa, let me strike a note of egalitarian universalism. All religions are at root as stupid as each other
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I love the Guardian!

Question for Americans; Are there any US papers which would dare to publish an article like this?

[RCNelson]

Here's a working link to the article.

Marx was half right - religion is a class A drug (http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1043481,00.html)

[Samus]

Originally posted by Hypocolius
Question for Americans; Are there any US papers which would dare to publish an article like this? Probably The Onion, but that's about it.

I remember a few years ago, when Jesse Ventura was running for governor in Minnesota, he said that "organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people" (that might not be a direct quote, but it's pretty close). He had to backpedal and "clarify his remarks" for weeks after that. Shame, too, because that man was spot on.

Here in the U.S., we take our religion very seriously. So seriously, in fact, that there are people who genuinely believe society will crumble if people "turn away from god". I don't know how they rationalize all the successful, secular nations in this world, but it must be interesting.

[Franko]

Just out of curiousity ... how do you guys define the term Religion?

[Upchurch]

I usually define religion (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=religion) with Webster (http://www.webster.com/), myself.
re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
Date: 13th century
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- re·li·gion·less adjective

[Samus]

Originally posted by Franko
Just out of curiousity ... how do you guys define the term Religion? Dictionary.com has a couple nice ones:

1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
1b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
---
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. I'd say those definitions work for me. I'm using religion in the strictest terms possible, as in the organized effort to worship a spiritual leader. I realize there are some more liberal applications of the word, such as "Metallica fans are religiously loyal to their band"

[Upchurch]

Found another (http://www.bartleby.com/61/6/R0140600.html).
religion

SYLLABICATION: re·li·gion
PRONUNCIATION: r-ljn
NOUN: 1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. 2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order. 3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. 4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
IDIOM: get religion Informal 1. To become religious or devout. 2. To resolve to end one's immoral behavior.
ETYMOLOGY: Middle English religioun, from Old French religion, from Latin religi, religin-, perhaps from religre, to tie fast. See rely.

[Franko]

C.C.:
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

You have to rely on the dictionary for your definition of the term “Religion”? You don’t know what that word means without looking it up? Why not just describe what religion means to you … in your own words?

But I see a problem with this definition. It really doesn’t make any sense without a definition of the term “Supernatural”.

And I am guessing that your definition of “Supernatural” is going to involve “Magic”, and so I wonder if that means that all of the “Religions” that don’t believe in the Magical creation and governance of the universe would still be considered Religions then under your definition?

By the way, isn’t the Big Bang Creation Myth a Supernatural account of the formation of the universe? Something magically appearing out of nothing without cause, reason, or explanation? What about The Laws of Physics (TLOP)? Don’t they “supernaturally” control and govern the universe?

[Upchurch]

supernatural (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Supernatural)
Main Entry: su·per·nat·u·ral
Pronunciation: "sü-p&r-'na-ch&-r&l, -'nach-r&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Medieval Latin supernaturalis, from Latin super- + natura nature
Date: 15th century
1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)Nope. No magic needed to define "supernatural".

And actually, the "Big Bang Creation Myth" is more of a theory based on observation of physical phenomenon.

[Franko]

So what is the non-invisible agent (process) responsible for the Big Bang?

Also, are you now claiming that God = Supernatural? By what logic do you come to that (self-serving) conclusion?

I thought:

God = a more evolved (superior) consciousness capable of generating a reality (universe).

In your opinion are humans figuratively or literally "supernatural" from the point of view of monkeys?

[Samus]

Originally posted by Franko
You have to rely on the dictionary for your definition of the term “Religion”? You don’t know what that word means without looking it up? Why not just describe what religion means to you … in your own words? Why, so you can pick it apart? ;) Yes, actually, sometimes the dictionary is the best place to go to get a good description of a word.

Originally posted by Franko
And I am guessing that your definition of “Supernatural” is going to involve “Magic”, and so I wonder if that means that all of the “Religions” that don’t believe in the Magical creation and governance of the universe would still be considered Religions then under your definition? Creation and governance of the universe are not matters solely restricted to religion. Philosophers and scientists ponder what created, and study what governs, the universe. Various religions may have their own theories (i.e. creationism), but that is not their only function. At its roots, a religion's primary function is to worship a spiritual being -- that's one thing they all have in common. Some religions purport to know the answer to creation, others don't.

Originally posted by Franko
By the way, isn’t the Big Bang Creation Myth a Supernatural account of the formation of the universe? Something magically appearing out of nothing without cause, reason, or explanation? What about The Laws of Physics (TLOP)? Don’t they “supernaturally” control and govern the universe? Not really. The big bang (http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html) is simply an attempt to say what happened at the beginning of the universe as we know it. It makes no attempt to postulate what triggered the initial explosion of the primeval atom. In my opinion, I don't think one can ever know, to any degree of certainty, what happened just before the beginning of time (it simply wouldn't make sense to discuss "before time", since time had no meaning before the beginning).

[Samus]

Originally posted by Franko
So what is the non-invisible agent (process) responsible for the Big Bang? See my reply above. Regardless of what agent that was, the big bang makes no attempt to explain it.

Originally posted by Franko
God = a more evolved (superior) consciousness capable of generating a reality (universe).

In your opinion are humans figuratively or literally "supernatural" from the point of view of monkeys? We're not gods to them, if that's what you are suggesting. Has there been any research done so as to whether monkeys have enough brain power to conceptualize "supernatural"? Bees, for example, don't see us as supernatural beings, because that word and the concept it describes are beyond the brainpower of bees (to my knowledge).

Carrying that argument along, one might claim that there are things beyond the capability of humans to understand. That there might be another, more conscious being than us, that can create an environment for us without us being aware (or only being slightly aware) of their existence. The problem with that is that there is currently no way to prove that this is the case. We can observe bees, we can't observe a god observing us. Regardless, it doesn't prove or disprove the existence (or increase or decrease the likeliood of existence) of some higher-level conscious being.

Clear as mud?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko
So what is the non-invisible agent (process) responsible for the Big Bang?Current theory is quantum fluctuation.
Also, are you now claiming that God = Supernatural? By what logic do you come to that (self-serving) conclusion?No, I'm claiming that Big Bang is based on natural phenomina and observations of such.

[Franko]

C.C.:
Creation and governance of the universe are not matters solely restricted to religion.

I am just going by what You, yourself said:


1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
1b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

C.C.:
Philosophers and scientists ponder what created, and study what governs, the universe.

That sounds like you definition still …

3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

What’s the difference between a “Scientist” and a “spiritual leader”? A “spiritual leader” is what you call the other guys priest, and a “scientist” is what you call your own … right?

Various religions may have their own theories (i.e. creationism), but that is not their only function.

Are you talking about Atheists and Materialists or Christians?

At its roots, a religion's primary function is to worship a spiritual being -- that's one thing they all have in common. Some religions purport to know the answer to creation, others don't.

Is Buddhism a Religion? Who is the “spiritual being” that is worshipped in Buddhism?

Some Atheists seem to worship Hawking and Sagan. Many Atheists seem to worship the Big Bang Theory as a “spiritual being”. Just like all the Discordians you seem to be vague on the definitions when it suits your subjective whim.

Franko:
By the way, isn’t the Big Bang Creation Myth a Supernatural account of the formation of the universe? Something magically appearing out of nothing without cause, reason, or explanation? What about The Laws of Physics (TLOP)? Don’t they “supernaturally” control and govern the universe?

C.C.:
Not really. The big bang is simply an attempt to say what happened at the beginning of the universe as we know it. It makes no attempt to postulate what triggered the initial explosion of the primeval atom. In my opinion, I don't think one can ever know, to any degree of certainty, what happened just before the beginning of time (it simply wouldn't make sense to discuss "before time", since time had no meaning before the beginning).

Whoa nelly! You seem to be making a whole lot of assumptions here, and I can’t see how you arrived at those conclusions?

First of all, regardless of whether you attempt to explain what triggered the Big Bang you are definitely asserting that something triggered it. Your best explanation seems to be this is what we know happened – now take my word for it.

What makes you assume that no one can ever know with any degree of certainty? Isn’t that the same as a statement of belief in the Supernatural? How exactly is it different? You are claiming that there is a fundamental piece of knowledge about existence that is forever beyond human comprehension. How did you arrive at this conclusion?

And finally, what makes you assume that Time had a beginning, or that Time began with the Big Bang?

How long did the “Timeless period” last before the Big Bang started? Did it last for a long, long Time (on the scale of eternity), or did it last for zero Time?

[Franko]

Current theory is quantum fluctuation.

yeah, but if there was no Time and no matter before the B.B. than what triggered the quantum fluctuations?

Also You seem to be implying that TLOP pre-existed the B.B.

How do you account for the existence of TLOP?

[Upchurch]

Oh, Franko. I'm not going to re-hash the entire conversation we've already had about how spacetime is undefined "prior" to beginning of the universe. The short answer is: There is no "before" the Universe existed.

I'll try to find the thread where this was discussed so you can re-read it.

[Upchurch]

Whoops. My bad.

I'm sorry, Franko. It wasn't you I had this conversation (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26322&highlight=spacetime) with, but EvilYeti. My appologies.

However, it does address the same issue if you care to read it.

[Samus]

Originally posted by Franko
What’s the difference between a “Scientist” and a “spiritual leader”? A “spiritual leader” is what you call the other guys priest, and a “scientist” is what you call your own … right? Scientists are not necessarily leaders. Nor are they necessarily spiritual. Nor does science necessarily have anything to do with the "spirit", so I'm not sure how you could draw this conclusion.

Originally posted by Franko
Are you talking about Atheists and Materialists or Christians? Atheists, by the very definition of the word, do not participate in religion because they lack a belief in a god that the religion might worship.

Originally posted by Franko
Is Buddhism a Religion? Who is the “spiritual being” that is worshipped in Buddhism? I thought of Buddhism after I posted, and indeed, you have a point there. The universalist unitarians are another organization I can think of that falls under the category of religion that doesn't worship a specific spiritual being, so my previous statement was indeed incorrect.

Originally posted by Franko
Some Atheists seem to worship Hawking and Sagan. Many Atheists seem to worship the Big Bang Theory as a “spiritual being”. Just like all the Discordians you seem to be vague on the definitions when it suits your subjective whim. Worshiping in the sense of having great admiration for is a different use of the word. Some people worship their cars, it doesn't mean carism is a religion. You're using the word in two different contexts.

Originally posted by Franko
First of all, regardless of whether you attempt to explain what triggered the Big Bang you are definitely asserting that something triggered it. Your best explanation seems to be this is what we know happened – now take my word for it. I didn't assert that at all. First off, the big bang is a potential explanation, I never said a better theory would never come along. Second, we only know what happened slightly after the "beginning", we don't know what the beginning was or what triggered it. No one does at this point. Do you?

Originally posted by Franko
What makes you assume that no one can ever know with any degree of certainty? Isn’t that the same as a statement of belief in the Supernatural? How exactly is it different? You are claiming that there is a fundamental piece of knowledge about existence that is forever beyond human comprehension. How did you arrive at this conclusion? Which is why I very carefully prefaced my statement with the words "in my opinion". I have no scientific evidence to back that up, it was merely an editorial comment, that I don't think we'll ever be able to accurately describe what caused the universe.

Originally posted by Franko
And finally, what makes you assume that Time had a beginning, or that Time began with the Big Bang?

How long did the “Timeless period” last before the Big Bang started? Did it last for a long, long Time (on the scale of eternity), or did it last for zero Time? I reiterate my earlier statement, that we can't talk about what happened before time, because we have no frame of reference in which to discuss it. If time wasn't always, then what was there before it? If time always was, then at what point did the universe come in to being?

It is difficult to articulate the answers to those questions because all we know is our universe, trying to ponder what might be outside of it, or what happened before it, is arduous at best.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Commander Cool
I reiterate my earlier statement, that we can't talk about what happened before time, because we have no frame of reference in which to discuss it. If time wasn't always, then what was there before it? If time always was, then at what point did the universe come in to being? According to current theory (which certainly seems to be the case based on observed phenomena), there is no time "prior" to the beginning of the universe, just as there "was" no space. (Which is redundent to say, since they are one in the same thing.)

[Franko]

Franko:
What’s the difference between a “Scientist” and a “spiritual leader”? A “spiritual leader” is what you call the other guys priest, and a “scientist” is what you call your own … right?

C.C:
Scientists are not necessarily leaders.

Priests or Philosophers aren’t necessarily leaders either.

It’s only when they develop a cult-like following.

… like Hawking or Sagan for example.

[Scientists …] Nor are they necessarily spiritual.

Define “Spiritual”.

I’ll give you extra credit if you can do it in your own words. ;)

Nor does science necessarily have anything to do with the "spirit", so I'm not sure how you could draw this conclusion.

You are the one who is trying to make a distinction between “Scientism” and other philosophical belief systems. But if you want to establish a real distinction you are going to have to do more than play semantic games.

Instead you give all the appearances of a person trying to rationalize the irrational.

Atheists, by the very definition of the word, do not participate in religion because they lack a belief in a god that the religion might worship.

An Atheists is a person who believes there is no “God”, but there is nothing in the definition of Atheism that implies an Atheists can’t be Religious, or cannot Worship.

For Atheism to mean anything one would have to have a precise and consistent definition of both “God” and “Religion”.

Are the laws of Physics a “God”? Explain why or why not?

TLOP created the universe, and TLOP governs the universe. Are you claiming that (in general) Atheists don’t believe this?

Does a “God” have to be conscious to be considered a “God”? A lot of materialists say that consciousness is just an illusion. If that is truly the case wouldn’t it imply that “God” would not be conscious (just like you imagine TLOP)?

Maybe people who believe that they are not really conscious believe in a God that is not really conscious?

First off, the big bang is a potential explanation, I never said a better theory would never come along.

Okay, but a Christian might say that:

Obviously the Bible is a “potential explanation”. I may die and get to the heaven and then God will explain what really happened and what’s really going on.

Second, we only know what happened slightly after the "beginning", we don't know what the beginning was or what triggered it. No one does at this point. Do you?

It’s a moot point though – isn’t it?

Because what no one seems to dispute is that at the moment of the Big Bang there were two parameters – the laws of physics (TLOP) and the initial state. From these two parameters, everything that has transpired, and everything that will transpire (including all of your actions, thoughts, and beliefs) were preordained.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko
Define “Spiritual”. Spiritual - Having to do with things that are not physical.

spiritual (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=spiritual) spiritual.

Main Entry: 1spir·i·tu·al
Pronunciation: 'spir-i-ch&-w&l, -i-ch&l, -ich-w&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French & Late Latin; Middle French spirituel, from Late Latin spiritualis, from Latin, of breathing, of wind, from spiritus
Date: 14th century
1 : of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : INCORPOREAL <man's spiritual needs>
2 a : of or relating to sacred matters <spiritual songs> b : ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal <spiritual authority> <lords spiritual>
3 : concerned with religious values
4 : related or joined in spirit <our spiritual home> <his spiritual heir>
5 a : of or relating to supernatural beings or phenomena b : of, relating to, or involving spiritualism : SPIRITUALISTIC
- spir·i·tu·al·ly adverb
- spir·i·tu·al·ness noun eh. I was a little off.

[Gulliamo]

Originally posted by Franko

What about The Laws of Physics (TLOP)? Don’t they “supernaturally” control and govern the universe?

I think TLOP "naturally" govern the universe. Not "supernaturally." There is nothing super about an apple that is attracted to the earth via gravity. Its perfectly natural.

[Samus]

Originally posted by Franko
Define “Spiritual”.

I’ll give you extra credit if you can do it in your own words. ;) Upchurch already did, and I still don't see why starting with a dictionary definition (read: somewhat standardized) is a bad thing.

Originally posted by Franko
You are the one who is trying to make a distinction between “Scientism” and other philosophical belief systems. But if you want to establish a real distinction you are going to have to do more than play semantic games. Scientism? Riddle me this: why do you consider science to be a philosophical belief system? Science provides observed evidence for its theories. It's also ever-evolving, and right now, the big bang and the quantum fluctuations preceding it is the "best guess". What is the observed evidence of a god that is more conscious than humans?

Originally posted by Franko
An Atheists is a person who believes there is no “God”, but there is nothing in the definition of Atheism that implies an Atheists can’t be Religious, or cannot Worship. I suppose, as mentioned above, that an atheist can also be a Unitarian. By and large, however, religion's purpose is to worship some kind of god. Lacking a belief in a supernatural god-like being would preclude atheists from most commonly accepted definitions of divine worship.

Originally posted by Franko
Are the laws of Physics a “God”? Explain why or why not?

TLOP created the universe, and TLOP governs the universe. Are you claiming that (in general) Atheists don’t believe this? The laws of physics are not a god if one considers god to be an uber-conscious being that controls us. TLOP do not govern thoughts, nor are they responsible for my decision to type the keys I am typing to form this sentence.

In the materialist's world, I can understand if they might equate TLOP as being god, maybe. But I am admittedly not as learned in Materialism as others around here, and I'm wary of the assertion that there is no consciousness. Although, I can appreciate that argument that all our thoughts and emotions are generated by purely physical processes (brain chemicals, etc.) The consciousness, while it might be considered a separate entity conceptually, may not exist in reality. Much to ponder on Materialism, I have.

Originally posted by Franko
Okay, but a Christian might say that:

Obviously the Bible is a “potential explanation”. I may die and get to the heaven and then God will explain what really happened and what’s really going on. Perhaps, but the Christian's viewpoint comes from a book, and they have taken on faith that the book is correct, even the parts that contradict the other parts. The big bang is a theory constructed around observed phenomena. It's the difference between saying you have read about trees and having seen trees.

Originally posted by Franko
Because what no one seems to dispute is that at the moment of the Big Bang there were two parameters – the laws of physics (TLOP) and the initial state. From these two parameters, everything that has transpired, and everything that will transpire (including all of your actions, thoughts, and beliefs) were preordained. Now this is getting into the realm of determinism, if I'm not mistaken. Saying that everything that ever was or will be was determined since the exact moment the initial state changed (what we call big bang). This I might have believed, except that I don't. Us launching satellites and leaving rubbish on our moon was not "preordained" at the moment this whole thing started. Yet, us changing the mass of our moon (albeit marginally), and sending rubbish off in to space, affects the spacetime around those objects. Man-made objects were not pre-determined, and I'd like to know how you can logically disagree with that.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Commander Cool
I suppose, as mentioned above, that an atheist can also be a Unitarian. I suppose so. :D ;)

[Franko]

C.C.:
Scientism? Riddle me this: why do you consider science to be a philosophical belief system?

I would define a philosophical belief system as an overarching worldview that attempts to explain or rationalize the origin and nature of existence/reality/the universe.

Therefore I would consider both Atheism (or materialism) and Christianity as philosophical belief systems. I don’t see anything inconsistent in this definition.

Science provides observed evidence for its theories.

So do all religions. Otherwise they’d have no adherents.

It's also ever-evolving, and right now, the big bang and the quantum fluctuations preceding it is the "best guess".

All religions evolve over time. One of the main problems that religions face is in balancing eternal constants (old information) against new revelations (new information).

Christianity and Islam both evolved out of Judaism, and to some degree Judaism evolved from the theology of Ancient Egypt, Africa, and the Middle east.

What is the observed evidence of a god that is more conscious than humans?

Are the laws of Physics a “God”? Explain why or why not?

TLOP created the universe, and TLOP governs the universe. Are you claiming that (in general) Atheists don’t believe this?

Does a “God” have to be conscious to be considered a “God”? A lot of materialists say that consciousness is just an illusion. If that is truly the case wouldn’t it imply that “God” would not be conscious (just like you imagine TLOP)?

Maybe people who believe that they are not really conscious believe in a God that is not really conscious?

religion's purpose is to worship some kind of god. Lacking a belief in a supernatural god-like being would preclude atheists from most commonly accepted definitions of divine worship.

where:

“commonly accepted definitions” = commonly accepted yet logically inconsistent definitions

The laws of physics are not a god if one considers god to be an uber-conscious being that controls us.

I would say that depends on whether you consider yourself “conscious” or not. A lot of Atheists apparently believe that consciousness (their own) is simply an illusion. So I don’t see why people who believe that THEY are not conscious would believe that their “God” was?

TLOP do not govern thoughts, nor are they responsible for my decision to type the keys I am typing to form this sentence.

If TLOP is not responsible for the motions and reactions of chemicals and particles in your brain then could you please explain what is?

What makes you believe that TLOP completely controls the actions of the Moon, but NOT your actions?

In the materialist's world, I can understand if they might equate TLOP as being god, maybe. But I am admittedly not as learned in Materialism as others around here, and I'm wary of the assertion that there is no consciousness.

I am not saying whether there is consciousness or not. That “choice” is up to you.

All I am saying is that if you consider yourself non-conscious, then obviously TLOP is also non-conscious, whereas if you believe that you are conscious, it only makes sense to think of TLOP as conscious as well. Otherwise you are only being logically inconsistent.

In either event it would appear that all of the available evidence indicates that whatever controls the behavior of atoms (“the matter”) is controlling the behavior of You.

Although, I can appreciate that argument that all our thoughts and emotions are generated by purely physical processes (brain chemicals, etc.) The consciousness, while it might be considered a separate entity conceptually, may not exist in reality. Much to ponder on Materialism, I have.

Materialism is an unnecessary assumption my friend.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko
Are the laws of Physics a “God”? Explain why or why not?
God (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=God)
god.
Main Entry: 1god
Pronunciation: 'gäd also 'god
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god
Date: before 12th century
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler
1. The supreme or ultimate reality: Perhaps. Once we understood the entirety of the laws of physics, we could maybe ascribe such a connotation to it.
1a. The Being perfect in...: No, there is no indication that the laws of physics is a "Being".
1b. ...ruling over all as eternal Spirit: No, there is no indication that the laws of physics is a "Spirit"
2. a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship: No. Again, no indication that the laws of physics are either being or object nor does it seem to require human worship in any fashion.
2, specifically. one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality: There is no part of reality that seems to not be covered by the laws of physics. However, if you consider all of reality to be a part of reality, then this definition holds.
3. a person or thing of supreme value: No. Again, the laws of physics is neither a thing nor a person.
4. a powerful ruler: hm. The implication here is a person, which the laws of physics are not. However, if one were to losely define "ruler" as "a set of rules", this could apply.
So, are the laws of physics a "God"?

By the definition of "God" we have 4 No's, 3 Maybe's, and 0 Yes's. Assuming a "Maybe" is 50/50, that averages out to 5.5 to 1.5 against.

In summary, the laws of physics wouldn't be considered a "God" in most cases as outlined above.

[Franko]

Upchurch:
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality:

Sounds like the Laws of Physics to me.

… as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness …

Still sounds like TLOP. As for a “Being” … are you a “being”? I’d say TLOP is just as much a “being” as you are (whatever that means).

… who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe

You mean TLOP didn’t create the universe?

Do you mean that TLOP doesn’t control the universe?

Upchurch what did create the universe, and what controls all the “matter” and energy in it?

b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind

See my last post to C.C., but this still sounds EXACTLY like TLOP to me.

TLOP is incorporeal, can you touch the laws of physics?

TLOP is a principle which “rules over all” according to it’s adherents.

TLOP could be described as a “Spirit” since it 1) controls all consciousness, and 2) is incorporeal.

TLOP could be defined as an “infinite mind” because it controls ALL minds.

2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality

Once again this sounds just like TLOP to me. TLOP controls ALL aspects of reality, whole legions of humans have devoted themselves monk-like to its study and comprehension. They have dedicated their lives and their very existence in worship to TLOP.

3 : a person or thing of supreme value

If the Laws of Physics don’t have supreme value, then what does? Without TLOP nothing would exist at all … right?

4 : a powerful ruler

All Matter and Energy are ruled (controlled or governed) by the laws of physics.
Everything which exists is made of Energy/Matter.
Everything which exists is ruled by TLOP.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko
… who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe
You mean TLOP didn’t create the universe?

Do you mean that TLOP doesn’t control the universe?

Upchurch what did create the universe, and what controls all the “matter” and energy in it?Ah, but the laws of physics are not worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe.
TLOP could be described as a “Spirit” since it 1) controls all consciousness, and 2) is incorporeal.

TLOP could be defined as an “infinite mind” because it controls ALL minds. Yes, we've heard this claim before, but you've never backed up excet with more claims. Did your vacation provide you with some evidence of the laws of physics being conscious or that it "controls ALL minds" in the absolute way you imply it does?
a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship;Once again this sounds just like TLOP to me. TLOP controls ALL aspects of reality, whole legions of humans have devoted themselves monk-like to its study and comprehension. They have dedicated their lives and their very existence in worship to TLOP.
worship (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=worship)Main Entry: 1wor·ship
Pronunciation: 'w&r-sh&p
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English worshipe worthiness, respect, reverence paid to a divine being, from Old English weorthscipe worthiness, respect, from weorth worthy, worth + -scipe -ship
Date: before 12th century
1 chiefly British : a person of importance -- used as a title for various officials (as magistrates and some mayors)
2 : reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; also : an act of expressing such reverence
3 : a form of religious practice with its creed and ritual
4 : extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem <worship of the dollar> Obviously 1 doesn't apply in this case.

Please explain how analytical observation and expermentation equates to worship. Further, do you have any evidence of this "monk-like" devotion to the laws of physics?

"monk-like" makes me envision a labratory high on a mountain top where bald, robe-wearing scientists chant to gain enlightenment. :roll: Not really the common setting of modern science.
If the Laws of Physics don’t have supreme value, then what does? Without TLOP nothing would exist at all … right?Not enitrely correct, no. The laws of physics are a consequence of the natural world, not the cause of it. The concept of gravity, for example, is a consequence of matter warping local spacetime. Gravity is not what causes matter to warp local spacetime. There would not be a law of physics if there were not a universe and/or reality for them to be in.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko
… as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness …Still sounds like TLOP. Whoops. Missed this one on the first pass.

What are examples of the wisdom (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=wisdom) and goodness (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=goodness) of the laws of physics?

As "good" and "evil" are relative terms, if the laws of physics are perfect in goodness, goodness compared to what?

[Franko]

Upchurch:
Ah, but the laws of physics are not worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe.

Sure they are, even by the definitions you provided.

1 chiefly British : a person of importance -- used as a title for various officials (as magistrates and some mayors)

Are you saying The laws of Physics (TLOP) isn’t supremely important?

2 : reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; also : an act of expressing such reverence

Are you saying that devotees of TLOP don’t express reverence for TLOP’s omnipotent power?

You seem to be in awe of it.

3 : a form of religious practice with its creed and ritual

Your posts seem to be a religious ritual or creed in defense of you beliefs, and I would further add that Atheists defense of their belief-system seems very ritualized.

4 : extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem

You don’t hold the Laws of Physics and the scientist (priests) who explained their divine functioning to you in high esteem? Don’t you have admiration for men like Einstein, Sagan, and Hawking?

Look, what I was saying is there are people who dedicate their life to studying, analyzing, and comprehending the ways of “God” (i.e. the omnipotent creator and ruler of all existence), and we call these people priest.

And there are people who dedicate their life to the study, analyzing and comprehending the ways of TLOP (i.e. the omnipotent creator and ruler of all existence) and we call these people scientist.

What I am saying is I don’t see any real distinction between the terms “God” and “TLOP” and therefore I don’t see any real distinction between the terms “Priest” and “scientist”. (or Christian religious fanatic and Atheist religious fanatic)

[Samus]

Originally posted by Franko
I would define a philosophical belief system as an overarching worldview that attempts to explain or rationalize the origin and nature of existence/reality/the universe.

Therefore I would consider both Atheism (or materialism) and Christianity as philosophical belief systems. I don’t see anything inconsistent in this definition. And given that definition, you are correct.

Me: Science provides observed evidence for its theories.
Franko: So do all religions. Otherwise they’d have no adherents. Is that so? Where is the observed evidence of Noah's ark? Or any other common Judeo-Christian claim? Besides the bible, which is doubtful as a reliable source. Most religions are almost 100% faith, there are not many testable points.

Originally posted by Franko
All religions evolve over time. One of the main problems that religions face is in balancing eternal constants (old information) against new revelations (new information). Agreed, and I think the same can be applied to any other social system (business, government, etc.) Where religions like Islam and Christianity hit their roadblocks is that for many many years, their holy book was touted as the infallible word of god (or Allah). Show one thing in the book is logically inconsistent, and they're sent backpedaling for reasons. Science never makes the claim of being able to answer everything correctly on the first try, which is why it can evolve better than religions trapped in their dogma.

Originally posted by Franko
Are the laws of Physics a "God"? Explain why or why not?

TLOP created the universe, and TLOP governs the universe. Are you claiming that (in general) Atheists don’t believe this? I would say, in general, that people can accept that their actions have to follow TLOP. That we are bound, to a certain extent, by the environment we live in. It really has nothing to do with a belief in god, it's more the acceptance that when you jump up, gravity will pull you back down. It is that way because of the force that pulls you to the center of the biggest object around you (i.e. the Earth).

As for TLOP creating the universe, I don't think that is a universally accepted proposition.

Originally posted by Franko
Does a "God" have to be conscious to be considered a "God"? A lot of materialists say that consciousness is just an illusion. If that is truly the case wouldn’t it imply that "God" would not be conscious (just like you imagine TLOP)? Since you later state that materialism is an unnecessary assumption, why would you bring this up? If materialism is true, and no consciousness means no consciousness, then I could see the case that a "god" would not be conscious. That's really stretching the definition of a god to fit one's world view.

Originally posted by Franko
"commonly accepted definitions" = commonly accepted yet logically inconsistent definitions Please point out the logical inconsistencies if you're going to make this claim.

Originally posted by Franko
I would say that depends on whether you consider yourself "conscious" or not. A lot of Atheists apparently believe that consciousness (their own) is simply an illusion. So I don’t see why people who believe that THEY are not conscious would believe that their "God" was? More on materialism, which you (again) later state is an unnecessary assumption. Why is it unnecessary?

Originally posted by Franko
If TLOP is not responsible for the motions and reactions of chemicals and particles in your brain then could you please explain what is? TLOC (The Laws of Chemistry) :) I don't know that we have a good enough grasp on how the brain operates to say that there is no degree of randomness to its operation, or that everything is pre-determined, as you seemed to hint in your earlier post.


Originally posted by Franko
All I am saying is that if you consider yourself non-conscious, then obviously TLOP is also non-conscious, whereas if you believe that you are conscious, it only makes sense to think of TLOP as conscious as well. Otherwise you are only being logically inconsistent. Why am I being logically inconsistent to say that we are conscious but TLOP aren't? I guess I don't follow what you're trying to say, can you expound?

Originally posted by Franko
Materialism is an unnecessary assumption my friend. Like I said, why? When trying to define a god, and determine whether such a god can be conscious or not, wouldn't it be important to determine whether consciousness even exists? If one purports that an intelligent creator of some sort made the conscious decision to create the universe, wouldn't it be important to be able to discredit materialism? Furthermore, if one purports that TLOP are what created and governs the universe, and hence the definition of god should be extended to non-conscious entities, shouldn't the merits of materialism be included in that justification?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko
Are you saying that devotees of TLOP don’t express reverence for TLOP’s omnipotent power?What devotees? And what do they say with reverence for the laws of physics "omnipotent"(?) power?
Your posts seem to be a religious ritual or creed in defense of you beliefsExample?
4 : extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem

You don’t hold the Laws of Physics and the scientist (priests) who explained their divine functioning to you in high esteem? Don’t you have admiration for men like Einstein, Sagan, and Hawking?I enjoy studying the laws of physics in the same way I enjoy reading books or playing games. I find it intellectually stimulating. I'd hardly call my interest "extravagant".

And yes, I do admire Einstein, Sagan, and Hawking, but no more or less than I admire Kevin Smith, David Eddings, and the creators of the MYST series of games. And, actually, I admire them significantly less than Jennifer Connelly :D
Look, what I was saying is there are people who dedicate their life to studying, analyzing, and comprehending the ways of “God” (i.e. the omnipotent creator and ruler of all existence), and we call these people priest. But you take it a step further and equate God to the laws of physics, right? However, there are Christian scientists and Jewish scientists and Muslim scientists and Morman scientists, etc. So what you are suggesting is that these people belong to two religions, a traditional religion and priests of the laws of physics? Is this not hypocritical. to be "devote" practioners of not one, but two sperate religions?

Personally, I think your equating science with religion cheapens religion since, by this logic, any devotee to a particular subject, has created a "religion". For example, a movie lover who knows about all aspects of cinema would be a monk of the cinematic religion? Where do you draw the line between interest and religion?
What I am saying is I don’t see any real distinction between the terms “God” and “TLOP” and therefore I don’t see any real distinction between the terms “Priest” and “scientist”. (or Christian religious fanatic and Atheist religious fanatic) Well, that's your opinion and it's your right to hold it, but I doubt you'll find a lot of agreement in either the scientific or religous communities, in general.

[Franko]

C.C.:
Science provides observed evidence for its theories.

Franko:
So do all religions. Otherwise they’d have no adherents.

C.C.:
Is that so? Where is the observed evidence of Noah's ark?

In modern times it may be hard to see, but in ancient times … who knows, maybe the flood myth was a pseudo-historical reference to some calamity in the past? Perhaps it is just primitive mans primitive attempt to explain the various types of creatures around him? Maybe the flood story was just another way to reinforce the brotherhood of mankind (all men descending from a common family)?

I’ll admit that a lot of the Bible stories seem naïve by our standards (and I have no intention of defending the Bible in any event), but I think you have to look at them in the context of their time … just like you have to do with our modern mythology.

Or any other common Judeo-Christian claim? Besides the bible, which is doubtful as a reliable source. Most religions are almost 100% faith, there are not many testable points.

I disagree with that.

I’d say that what most modern people get out of religion is a reason to live moral lives – a rationale for it. I think that a lot of what modern religions preach is pretty much common sense, or at very least generally accepted preconceptions about how the universe works.

Franko:
All religions evolve over time. One of the main problems that religions face is in balancing eternal constants (old information) against new revelations (new information).

C.C:
Agreed, and I think the same can be applied to any other social system (business, government, etc.) Where religions like Islam and Christianity hit their roadblocks is that for many many years, their holy book was touted as the infallible word of god (or Allah). Show one thing in the book is logically inconsistent, and they're sent backpedaling for reasons. Science never makes the claim of being able to answer everything correctly on the first try, which is why it can evolve better than religions trapped in their dogma.

I am firmly with you on this point. I believe that part of the problem for traditional religions is that they are caught up in the notion of an eternal and unchanging God, who has made a set of eternal and unchanging rules. To a point this isn’t too far off base from the modern scientific notion that the laws of physics (in general) are constant across time and space. The main difference between Scientism or Materialism and say Christianity or Islam on this point is that if Science had a “Bible” then it’s adherents would say the “God” (reality/the laws of physics) is always correct regardless of what our Bible states (i.e. “God” is ALWAYS the ultimate authority) whereas some Christians and Muslims seem more convinced of the inerrancy of their holy books then they are in the inerrancy of its creator.

I would say, in general, that people can accept that their actions have to follow TLOP. That we are bound, to a certain extent, by the environment we live in. It really has nothing to do with a belief in god, it's more the acceptance that when you jump up, gravity will pull you back down. It is that way because of the force that pulls you to the center of the biggest object around you (i.e. the Earth).

As for TLOP creating the universe, I don't think that is a universally accepted proposition.

All I am saying is that Atheists/Materialists view TLOP in a very analogous (if not identical) way to the way that Christians, Muslims, and Jews view their “God”. For an Atheist, TLOP is omnipotent, and TLOP is the lawgiver. For a Jew, God is omnipotent, and God is the lawgiver.

Franko:
Does a "God" have to be conscious to be considered a "God"? A lot of materialists say that consciousness is just an illusion. If that is truly the case wouldn’t it imply that "God" would not be conscious (just like you imagine TLOP)?

C.C:
Since you later state that materialism is an unnecessary assumption, why would you bring this up? If materialism is true, and no consciousness means no consciousness, then I could see the case that a "god" would not be conscious. That's really stretching the definition of a god to fit one's world view.

Regardless of whether or not you consider consciousness as an illusion is a moot point. What I am getting at is whatever terms you use to describe your own mind can be used to describe TLOP. If you are not conscious, than it’s fair to say that TLOP isn’t either. However if you would describe yourself as a conscious entity, than it is inconsistent not to describe TLOP that way as well.

C.C:
religion's purpose is to worship some kind of god. Lacking a belief in a supernatural god-like being would preclude atheists from most commonly accepted definitions of divine worship.

Franko:
where:

“commonly accepted definitions” = commonly accepted yet logically inconsistent definitions

C.C:
Please point out the logical inconsistencies if you're going to make this claim.

Well Upchurch is kind of dancing around this point right now. I’d say that if you are going to say that Atheists don’t worship TLOP like Christians worship God then you need to explain what the precise difference is? From my observation any differences between the two are superficial.

Furthermore, as I have stated in previous post, unless you can explain how something appearing out of nothing (like an entire universe complete with the Laws of Physics) is not a supernatural event/occurrence, than my mind has no choice but to believe that it is a supernatural occurrence ( i.e. a supernatural origin and basis for your entire worldview).

A Supernatural occurrence is anything that happens without any cause and is beyond explanation. You have plainly stated that you believe the Big Bang happened without cause and is beyond explanation; ergo by your very words you have described a supernatural origin. I don’t think I can explain myself any clearer on this point.

More on materialism, which you (again) later state is an unnecessary assumption. Why is it unnecessary?

In my view Matter and Consciousness are opposite sides of the same coin. I was attempting to reinforce that point.

TLOC (The Laws of Chemistry) I don't know that we have a good enough grasp on how the brain operates to say that there is no degree of randomness to its operation, or that everything is pre-determined, as you seemed to hint in your earlier post.

Let me pose this to you … if you were asked what is the sum of 2 + 2? And you clearly heard and understood the question and were focused and alert, what are the odds that you will randomly give an answer that is not “4”?

How often do random chemical reactions in your brain cause you to uncontrollably run red lights?

Why am I being logically inconsistent to say that we are conscious but TLOP aren't? I guess I don't follow what you're trying to say, can you expound?

Someone just walked in for lunch, so let me get back to you on this.

Essentially what I am getting at is that in the same way that you control you car when you are driving, and thus you are more conscious than your Car, TLOP controls you, and therefore TLOP must be more conscious than You.

… but there is more to it than that.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko

Well Upchurch is kind of dancing around this point right now. I’d say that if you are going to say that Atheists don’t worship TLOP like Christians worship God then you need to explain what the precise difference is? From my observation any differences between the two are superficial. Ah. This is an easy one (although perhaps difficult to explain). It has to do with the aquisitition of knowledge.

To differentiate, let's call "Christians worship God" simply worship (since that is the traditional useage of the word) and let's call "Atheists (although you're actually referring to scientists, i.e. "monk-like") worship TLOP" simply study.

In worship, information is presented to the worshiper by the authority and accepted.

In study, information is achieved in two manners. First, information is obtained through observation of natural phenomena (i.e. the scientific method). Second, the information obtained through the scientific method is communicated to others. However, unlike with worship, the information is not immediately accepted. It is scrutanized and checked to verify it's authenticity and, even then, held as suspect.
Furthermore, as I have stated in previous post, unless you can explain how something appearing out of nothing (like an entire universe complete with the Laws of Physics) is not a supernatural event/occurrence, than my mind has no choice but to believe that it is a supernatural occurrence ( i.e. a supernatural origin and basis for your entire worldview). "Supernatural event/occurance" would indicate an element or force outside of nature has acted on the natural world. Current Big Bang theory is described in terms of natural observed (or observable) phenomenon with no mention of any supernatural aspect. (Aside: on the chance that one of the component natural phenomenon is shown to not occur in nature, that component, or perhaps the entire theory, will be discarded.) Consequences of natural phenomenon are considered to also be natural, thus the Big Bang thoery, unless shown otherwise, is a natural phenomenon.

As for "something appearing out of nothing", the current theory is that quantum fluctuation (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation) started a period of Cosmic inflation (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_inflation). If I understand it correctly, our universe is merely a "momentary" flux that will "eventually" annihilate itself.
A Supernatural occurrence is anything that happens without any cause and is beyond explanation. You have plainly stated that you believe the Big Bang happened without cause and is beyond explanation; ergo by your very words you have described a supernatural origin. I don’t think I can explain myself any clearer on this point.I can't agree that the current Big Bang theory is beyond explination. In fact, there are several websites and even more books that do just that. Nor do I think that acausal is a necessary element of being supernatural. There are a number of natural occurances that happen acausally (e.g. quantum fluctuation, as mentioned above).

Can you show that acausal quantum phenomena aren't natural?

[Samus]

Originally posted by Franko
I’d say that what most modern people get out of religion is a reason to live moral lives – a rationale for it. I think that a lot of what modern religions preach is pretty much common sense, or at very least generally accepted preconceptions about how the universe works. I wouldn't disagree, perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying. Religion purports to know answers to things that it can not provide observable evidence for. That's where the "faith" part comes in. I happen to agree that, by and large, folks who are religious do it for personal reasons: be it to cope with mortality, or for moral guidance, or any other reason. And that's okay. And I think we're in agreement with the troubles that religion has with "infallible books of god", so no need to further that discussion.

Originally posted by Franko
All I am saying is that Atheists/Materialists view TLOP in a very analogous (if not identical) way to the way that Christians, Muslims, and Jews view their “God”. For an Atheist, TLOP is omnipotent, and TLOP is the lawgiver. For a Jew, God is omnipotent, and God is the lawgiver. hmmm, I'm not sure if I agree with this, although I do see the message you are trying to convey. Everybody, theistic or otherwise, understands that their physical actions are bound by physics. No god-fearing man believes he can jump from here to the exosphere with no propulsion other than his own two legs. Theists have the additional belief that not only are they bound by physics, but that they are bound by god's will, or in some cases, are directly controlled by god (depending on the beliefs).

Originally posted by Franko
Well Upchurch is kind of dancing around this point right now. I’d say that if you are going to say that Atheists don’t worship TLOP like Christians worship God then you need to explain what the precise difference is? From my observation any differences between the two are superficial. I think you are assigning a context to the word "worship" that Upchurch is not, which is where the communication breakdown is occurring. I abide by the law, I don't worship it. My actions abide by physics, I don't worship it. I don't attend services, or pray, or commit my life to singing the praises of, or preach to others the wonders and marvel of the law or physics. There may be law or physics zealots, but not worshippers.

Originally posted by Franko
Furthermore, as I have stated in previous post, unless you can explain how something appearing out of nothing (like an entire universe complete with the Laws of Physics) is not a supernatural event/occurrence, than my mind has no choice but to believe that it is a supernatural occurrence ( i.e. a supernatural origin and basis for your entire worldview).

A Supernatural occurrence is anything that happens without any cause and is beyond explanation. You have plainly stated that you believe the Big Bang happened without cause and is beyond explanation; ergo by your very words you have described a supernatural origin. I don’t think I can explain myself any clearer on this point. I, personally, cannot explain how something comes out of nothing. However, you're assuming that something did indeed come out of nothing, and that whatever it was before the universe is something we can actually acknowledge as "nothing". Excuse me while my eyes spin...okay. :) I did not state that the big bang happened for no reason, I stated that I don't think we'll be able to understand why it happened, at least not in my lifetime.

Originally posted by Franko
In my view Matter and Consciousness are opposite sides of the same coin. I was attempting to reinforce that point. Thank you for making that clear.

Originally posted by Franko
How often do random chemical reactions in your brain cause you to uncontrollably run red lights? It doesn't, but then again, I'm not epileptic, so it's not very often that my brain does not allow me to control my body. Nor do I have Alzheimer's disease, so I don't randomly forget that I need to stop at red lights.

Originally posted by Franko
Essentially what I am getting at is that in the same way that you control you car when you are driving, and thus you are more conscious than your Car, TLOP controls you, and therefore TLOP must be more conscious than You. You've made the makes/controls statement many times in the past, I'm eager to see if you can explain it a little better than using the same words as before your six-month sabbatical.

[Franko]

Upchurch:
In worship, information is presented to the worshiper by the authority and accepted.

Sure … you mean like sometimes the priest says “Angels exist because the evidence for Angels is overwhelming”, and then some other time the priest says “Intelligent Aliens exist on other planets because there are billions and billions of earth-like planets so the evidence for aliens is overwhelming”.

In study, information is achieved in two manners. First, information is obtained through observation of natural phenomena (i.e. the scientific method).

Yeah, except almost all of celestial mechanics (just as one example) was worked out by people who were pursuing astronomy for religious reasons not scientific ones (whatever that means?)

Second, the information obtained through the scientific method is communicated to others. However, unlike with worship, the information is not immediately accepted. It is scrutanized and checked to verify it's authenticity and, even then, held as suspect.

You honestly believe that every time a priest makes a pronouncement every single one of his “followers” accepts it immediately??? Are you really that naïve Upchurch?

How do you account for the recent flap with the Episcopal church and the gay bishop? Are you sincerely contending that this decision was not scrutinized and its logic checked by the church’s devotees?

What about Martin Luther? Calvin? The reformation? If theists always accept the pronouncements of their priest, then why aren’t all Jews Catholics? Either you are being disingenuous or you are more brainwashed then I thought.

"Supernatural event/occurance" would indicate an element or force outside of nature has acted on the natural world.

I disagree.

First of all I have no idea what you are talking about when you refer to something “outside of nature”? Either TLOP includes EVERYTHING, or there is something more profound than TLOP which includes EVERYTHING and that more profound thing becomes the real TLOP.

Supernatural means beyond comprehension or explanation for all time. How are you saying anything different?

It almost seems like you are more interested in mystifying your viewpoint than you are in explaining it.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko
you mean like sometimes the priest says “Angels exist because the evidence for Angels is overwhelming”, and then some other time the priest says “Intelligent Aliens exist on other planets because there are billions and billions of earth-like planets so the evidence for aliens is overwhelming”. er... okay. Are you suggesting that scientists are saying that evidence for aliens is overwhelming (and not that they're just statistically likely)? Can you back that up with an example?
You honestly believe that every time a priest makes a pronouncement every single one of his “followers” accepts it immediately???No. Of course not. Critical thought plays a part too. ;) :D
How do you account for the recent flap with the Episcopal church and the gay bishop? Are you sincerely contending that this decision was not scrutinized and its logic checked by the church’s devotees?The recent argument in the Episcopal church with the gay bishop came from conflicting messages from religious authorities. Some said that homosexuality was a sin and others said it wasn't. The congregation had to then rely on their previous experience with the church's teachings to decide which one they agreed with. The delema was the result.

In all the news, I didn't hear either side question the source of the discrepency.
What about Martin Luther? Calvin? The reformation? If theists always accept the pronouncements of their priest, then why aren’t all Jews Catholics? Again, mostly mixed messages and people choosing (based on self interest, I imagine) which spiritual authority figure they wished to follow.
"Supernatural event/occurance" would indicate an element or force outside of nature has acted on the natural world.I disagree.

First of all I have no idea what you are talking about when you refer to something “outside of nature”? Either TLOP includes EVERYTHING, or there is something more profound than TLOP which includes EVERYTHING and that more profound thing becomes the real TLOP.

Supernatural means beyond comprehension or explanation for all time. How are you saying anything different? Ah. Well, then. Going by your definition of "supernatural" the current Big Bang theory isn't at all supernatural because it is neither beyond comprehension nor explination. Hard though it may be, there are those who do understand it and have explained it. The very fact that it was formed means it has been explained by somebody, specifically Alan Guth.
It almost seems like you are more interested in mystifying your viewpoint than you are in explaining it.I wouldn't throw stones, just yet. ;) You still haven't answer this one (among a vast multitude of others).Can you show that acausal quantum phenomena aren't natural?

[Franko]

Upchurch:
Are you suggesting that scientists are saying that evidence for aliens is overwhelming (and not that they're just statistically likely)? Can you back that up with an example?

Explain SETI.

You call the Drake equation “good science”? Sounds more like wishful thinking (i.e. faith) to me.

Why hasn’t Drake (or why didn’t Sagan) ever address Tipler, or Fermi, or any of the many others who have blown giant gaping holes in the claims of the fanatics at the cult of SETI?

[Checkmite]

SETI does not assume the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence; it is just listening and waiting for any evidence thereof.

[Franko]

SETI does not assume the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence; it is just listening and waiting for any evidence thereof.

Is that the "scientific way" to look for aliens?

Maybe they should try finding some Angels while they are at it?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko

Is that the "scientific way" to look for aliens?Nope, it's the optimistic way. Regardless, SETI has never claimed that the evidence that aliens exist is overwelming, unless you have an example showing otherwise?

[Franko]

Nope, it's the optimistic way. Regardless, SETI has never claimed that the evidence that aliens exist is overwhelming, unless you have an example showing otherwise?

Perhaps you could explain why you believe there is more evidence for aliens then for angels?

What exactly is the evidence for aliens anyway?

You got some "real UFO footage" or a crashed saucer you want to tell us about?

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Franko


Is that the "scientific way" to look for aliens?

Maybe they should try finding some Angels while they are at it?

You're confusing the methods. SETI isn't "looking" for anything - that implies "aggressive" activity. SETI is passive; it receives and interprets data - that's it.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko


Perhaps you could explain why you believe there is more evidence for aliens then for angels?(1) I didn't claim this.
(2) You haven't supported your claim(s). Why should I support the claims you make up for me?

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Franko


Perhaps you could explain why you believe there is more evidence for aliens then for angels?

What exactly is the evidence for aliens anyway?

You got some "real UFO footage" or a crashed saucer you want to tell us about?

There is no evidence for aliens, and no more evidence for aliens than for angels; that "aliens" may exist while "angels" may not is purely a philisophical and academic argument. If evidence for either is obtained, their existence will be accepted.

[Franko]

Maybe angels live on other "earth-like" planets with all those aliens???

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko
Maybe angels live on other "earth-like" planets with all those aliens??? Sure, why not? If it makes you happy to define them that way.

Hey, you're not alone: Angels or Aliens? (http://www.weirdload.com/vat-ufo2.html)

[Franko]

Upchurch:
Sure, why not? If it makes you happy to define them that way.

Right -- and if it makes you happy to not define your religion as a religion then ...

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko


Right -- and if it makes you happy to not define your religion as a religion then ... Actually, my religion is a religion, it just happens to be different than interest in science, which is not a religion.

[Franko]

Upchurch:
… science, which is not a religion.

Sure, why not? If it makes you happy to define them that way.

Myself, I go for consistency, but that's just me.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko


Sure, why not? If it makes you happy to define them that way.

Myself, I go for consistency, but that's just me. Me, I've always prefered reality.

[Dancing David]

I wouldn't say that religion is a drug, but that the same mechanisms that lead to drug addiction lead to religious addiction.

As for the rest of the thread...

the wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round
the wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round,all day long

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Actually, my religion is a religion, it just happens to be different than interest in science, which is not a religion.

Speaking of which, Upchurch, I checked out this Unitarian church near me in North Olmstead; I agree with you about such places - I like the atmosphere and the inclusiveness, and I decided to join it.

[Franko]

Me, I've always prefered reality.

Inconsistent reality isn’t reality.

It’s dementia.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

Speaking of which, Upchurch, I checked out this Unitarian church near me in North Olmstead; I agree with you about such places - I like the atmosphere and the inclusiveness, and I decided to join it. Heh. I'm going to have to have point this out to Ruby. I'm just a regular Unitarian evangalist...

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Franko


yeah, but if there was no Time and no matter before the B.B. than what triggered the quantum fluctuations?

Also You seem to be implying that TLOP pre-existed the B.B.

How do you account for the existence of TLOP?

I think that the current hypothesis is that this universe was spawned from another, much like the Hindo model,

I am not sure that TLOP predate the big band, because according to string theory and infaltion many of the parameters aren't set until the music begins

science doesn't have to worry about where TLOP comes from, just observing if they exist, and leaves ontology to the philosophers.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Dancing David


I think that the current hypothesis is that this universe was spawned from another, much like the Hindo model,I wasn't aware of this. Where'd you read that?
I am not sure that TLOP predate the big band, because according to string theory and infaltion many of the parameters aren't set until the music begins

science doesn't have to worry about where TLOP comes from, just observing if they exist, and leaves ontology to the philosophers. Very punny, but correct as far as I am aware.

[Dancing David]

Quote of Franko[b]
How often do random chemical reactions in your brain cause you to uncontrollably run red lights?
[\b]

Not myself perhaps but, there are people who have uncontrolled seizures and those who have brain events that cause them to run red lights and kill people. Then there are those who willfilly consume alocohol, impair thier alertness and/or have alcoholic seizures.

The only reason that I would argue for semi random brain processes is that the brain is not causal it is more of a reverberation, neurons fire on a probalistic basis to begin withm, which is why neural networks self refernece and use feedback to channel the semi random into an appearance of non random.

And some of us materialists believe that consiousness is real, the mind and the self are the illusion, somewhat like thge illusion of the LOP.

They exist as seperate entities but not as the overaching principle. More of the persistance of vision stuff.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Heh. I'm going to have to have point this out to Ruby. I'm just a regular Unitarian evangalist... Hey Cool!! LOL!!!!:D :D :D

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Franko
Perhaps you could explain why you believe there is more evidence for aliens then for angels?
It depends on your definition of "angel".

When I think of Angels (not to be confused with Pixies), I imagine them as having some kind of paranormal significance. Aliens on the other hand are no more paranormal than cattle.

I dont believe anything can exist outside natural scientific explanation, that is sufficient reasoning to suggest Angels (call them Pixies if you want) have less credibility than Aliens.