Aren't we all sometimes. Lazy that is.

Your three sentences are a good, but simple summary of my current philosophy, so as you can see we're largely in agreement.

Of course, I cannot possibly rule out the existence of some measure of truth in the bible, and there's even some good stuff in it (mainly in Proverbs to be honest). On the other hand, since it is obviously not inspired of God, then it has no more value than any other book on the shelf, and it is this message I try to put across.

I do encourage you to read as much of the bible as you can. It was doing so that turned me away from religion in the first place. I would argue that to uphold your way of thinking, you need to have as much information as possible. It's no coincidence that many religious people have not read the book they claim to follow.

I agree that noone is likely to turn their life around because of the article and thread, and in fact the best way for them to do so is the same way I did: to figure it out by themselves. Still, just as I used to feel the need to go door knocking to spread "the truth", I also now feel compelled to present some facts about the so-called good book, as long as there is the smallest chance that it'll open some eyes. As small as that chance is, it exists. But you are right, I'll need some luck along the way, as the very dogmatism with which some atheists approach this subject is even more abundant in religion.

I'm not in an intellectual quagmire, since I've never held science up as having the answers in the manner in which you think I have. Moreover, I made no convenient division into "philosophy" and "reality". Don't put words in my mouth.

On the other hand, I seem to have more respect for science than you do, since although I view scientific knowledge as incomplete, it is edging closer to your vaunted "reality". It may never get there, but therin lies its excitement. There is no substitution for this that can be found in any religion, belief system or ideaology. Your scorn for science seems to stem from a dislike of me.

And, above all, that can be the only explanation for why you've carried on a meaningless philisophical debate in which we are forced to manipulate human language to strengthen our own position. I really don't want you to keep repeating that you're not supporting the bible. If that is so, then why did you enter the thread? Why oppose my anti-bible thread except to oppose that view? You simply dislike me, if I said black you'd say white. That's called invalidation. If you're an invalidator, then you can never agree with anyone, because you're well practiced at using symantics to oppose any viewpoint.

"Fact is you have no answer to my core points. Nor does Noctis' Gene argument. Reason: the simplistic ideas promulgated by science, WHEN forced into answering dynamic questions relevant to the human phenomenon, fall short of comprehensiveness. In effect you seem to be using a banana leaf to row a boat. Wrong tool for the job."
I am going to keep stating this until you actually do something about it. You have absolutely no proof, in any of your arguments. You can make grand statements all you want, but what are you trying to prove? What are your core ideas? What are these "dynamic questions" you speak of? Alright, so Serpicus, all these grandiloquent statements were not meant as invalidating arguments but are instead meant to address the points that have been brought up in opposition to your own? Why then do you never discuss the proof that has been brought against your initial arguments, but instead dismiss them as false (without giving any reason) and move on? Don’t answer this yet… Every time anyone addresses something you have raised, you worm around the issue. Stop hiding: what are these “basic questions”? Stop philosophizing and start giving empirical statements, as you so often like to state.

“But reality as you put is only 3 dimensional. When physics itself acknowledges the existence of 10 dimensions, your procrastination of "tired" when no viable answer is forthcoming, is frankly dismal.”
Sorry, what? We perceive four dimensions, but what does this have to do with string theory and tiredness? I apologize that I am forced to ask questions, but seeing as I can make neither heads nor tails of your argument…

“Fact is you have no answer to my core points. Nor does Noctis' Gene argument. Reason: the simplistic ideas promulgated by science, WHEN forced into answering dynamic questions relevant to the human phenomenon, fall short of comprehensiveness. In effect you seem to be using a banana leaf to row a boat. Wrong tool for the job.”
As you may have noticed “my gene argument” was directed against one of your earlier statements. Why have you ignored that statement? Please stop disregarding what I have said and actually debate. From what I can gather, you prefer an inordinately complicated idea (unprovable of course) to answer these “dynamic questions”. Therefore I must come to the conclusion that it is impossible to debate with you, because you will offer no logical proof as to why such a complexity works. Simple ideas + simple ideas are “empirical”, easy to prove or disprove, and combine to make a more complicated theory. Starting off with a complicated idea leads nowhere as there is simply no way to argue its validity. Hence the problem with religion as well as much of philosophy. May I quote? “But regardless of how you would like it to be, modern critiques of religion are in themselves inconclusive, and fall short of the very empiricity for whose lack they chastise religion”. One cannot prove something wrong or right, which is in its very nature impossible to prove. One can only show why it is inferior and does not lead to anything.

You talk about restriction, yet you only consider religion as a possibility, why don't you mention a philosophy and why don't you discuss polytheistic religions, or animistic religions, or female deities or... Do you seriously believe that "restricting" yourself to science is as flawed as "restricting" yourself to religion? Next time that you start typing, remember that the circuits that are being used and the laws of physics that they adhere to are not grounded in faith in some deity.

I was not arguing pro-bible. As I have stated time and again - the Bible as it stands today is a compilation of misinterpretation, misunderstanding, and is nothing more than a reconstruction of the middle ages in textual form. Nothing of Christ exists therein.
So how would you know about Christ if you did not have the New Testament? Everything you know—yes everything—about Christ (why are we describing only Christianity here anyway? Refer to restriction argument please) has been told to you by conceptions based on biblical literature. Do you claim to speak directly to this deity? How do you reconcile the fact that “Nothing of Christ exists therein” and your present-day knowledge of him?

“But if one does believe in a higher form - regardless of what it may be - to assume that that higher form has left its "creations" to dance the jig on a lonely obscure planet, without any idea of what that higher being is about - or what it feels is required to bring about order from the primeval chaos - is simply fatalistic.”
Why is it “fatalistic”? Maybe these deities got bored with you, decided there was something better to do and… Why must we be so ego-centric to believe that we are special enough to be “blessed” by a particular deity? I think Dr. Lazarus’s arguments cover this a lot better than I can so…

“But to say that your outlook is superior to any other, or in the position to ridicule another ideology or outlook, in spite of the fact that over the course of this thread it was you and your supporters who were in the end unable to answer the basic questions posed - and digressed to call it "unanswerable philosophy", would be the most simple form of hubris.

To call something inspired by God or not, after yourself confessing to being unaware of any of his intentions - albeit you have acknowledged his existence-, is contradictory in itself. Can you say for sure what the higher being is about, in order to arrive at the criteria to acknowledge a scripture as "his" or "not his".”

Again, you discuss the “flaws” in “our” arguments, but how can you be so certain they are wrong? Wouldn’t this be as much a statement of hubris as you accuse Dr. Lazarus and myself? You are constantly defining this “higher being” and that, in and of itself, is hubris.

“If you look at the situation in the world today, it is the direct result of people who caste themselves in the position of insufferable know-it-alls, trying to push their incomplete information on geo-political situations as the "right" course of action. A little humilty and a lot of understanding will go a long way in shutting hawkish brutes down once and for all.
We aren't going to get that, if even educated people like yourself espouse absolutism - either in condemning or praising a particular ideology - whatever it may be.”
Yes… and the meek shall inherit the Earth, no? What is this “situation” you speak of, how can one have humility if one is always espousing the greatness of their deity? These belief systems are the cause of human agony, for they promote division and hatred to fellow humans. Look at the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are so readily touted as “holy wars”, “jihad”, and “divine” affairs.

1. Exactly as you said Noctis. Neither of us have any proofs of our statements. You beat a drum just as I do - without understanding the notes.

2. Length, breadth, height. The fourth if I have missed what you're thinking of ok. But that still does not make 10. And I was trying to elucidate limited senses. Again, you seem to be splitting hairs and as a result missing the big picture. Typical considering the content of your previous posts in this thread.

3. I was trying time and again to explain to you, but you don;t seem to get it. I was responding directly to your statement of Gene theory. gene theory can try to negate religion as a source of morals, but cannot conclusively propound why we have them. As I said very smply - why is good good, and why is bad bad? You did not respond to that either.

4. Calling an idea "complicated" simply because you are unable to answer it is no viable defense.
Human behaviour is complicated. Economics, philosophy, and other social sciences are considered inexact sciences because they deal with human behaviour. And beleive or not, humans are complicated. Questions relating to human behaviour when reduced to simplicity in order to accommodate them in the realm of science with the simple purpose of disregarding religion is all too convenient for your argument. When the complicated questions relating to the human element are posed, you seem to say they are complicated, and not worth answering. Then, after a period of silence, you come back on and accuse me of not debating... ok.. if you say so.

5. As regards polytheistic religions, I mentioned in my earlier post, but I think you did not read that. Polytheistic religions are intrinsically monotheistic. They always have a central governing god. When we historically look at polytheistic religions, we seem to encounter remnants of periods that are half-way or towards the end of the civilization. In case of the Native Americans, thanks to the Pilgrims and conquistadors and their progeny we seem to have nothing left to analyze.
If we go towards the East, Hinduism is monotheistic in that Brahma is the simgle primordial creator God. In Sumerianism, Egyptian myth, and Zoroastrianism there is always a central head god as it were. The idea of angels as being winged faires is inexact. But if we look at the Hindu and Zoroastrian txts the concept of Deva as a lesser God is akin to the concept of Angel. Perhaps the whole dichotomy of God and lesser god in polytheism, and God and angel in Western philosophy is due to a confusing misassociation in the west. But if one were to propound that the lesser Gods of Polytheism and the angels of Monotheism are one and the same, and that the idea of worshipping an "angel/lesser God" over the Monad or One is the only schism which is repudiated in the subsequent revelations from the same God source. You still cannot go one way or the other. In effect you still cannot be sure one way or the other. As I said the presumptiousness of the modern thought process is its achilles heel. Maybe that's because the education system deliberately brings social didputes into the classroom in order to preindoctrinate the students one way or the other, in spite of both points of view - religion and pure empiricity being lacking in their own respective ways.

6. I have not been defining the higher being. All I am asking you and Laz, is that while not knowing the higher being, how can you decide what is from him and what is not - religion included.

7. When you mention holy wars etc, you should refer to what I said earlier. Religion is the most ubiquitous of ideologies. In order to garner support for a particular geo-political cause, it is standard practice to espouse ideology.
In essence Jihad or a crusade is by all texts supposed to be a war of defense, only if attacked. It goes further to stipulate that women, children, non-combatants, and their places of worship, trees and natural resources etc are off limits. What people do after misconstruing the txts is another thing, and a completely different debate.
But to use the fallacies of people to complain about their religion is ludicrous, and frankly bigoted -like saying all blacks are gangsters.
After all, Stalin, Hitler and PolPot did not evoke religion. They were following their scientific rationale - improving the genetic base of the populace through ethnic cleansing, etc. If you blame religion, you will see that moralless and neutral logic has caused just as many deaths.
The reason is simply because logic is used and bent by the individual based on the facts he has or chooses to have. Given the weakness of human perception, and of course the convenience of human selectiveness in acknowledging the existence of a fact - demonstrated quite a bit in this thread - people can do things and justify them given an empty toilet bowl, forget about the details in a variety of ideologies.

8. Again, your statement about Christ again demonstrates your superficial knowledge of world religion. Suffice it to say, the new testament is not the only book to recognise Christ, or his existence.

From what we have seen here, the new age scientific approach to history is unfortunately narrow. No remaining evidence is used to indicate no evidence. At times this is accurate, at times flawed. Again, when we choose what is human convenience. nothing more.
Posted on: November 17, 2007, 01:20:52 am

---

Lazarus, when you say that "religion" is definitely not the word of the divine, that is absolute in excluding religion. If you did not mean that, then you accept that modern religion may still hold the Divine word. In that you concede that your first statement come off a little differently from your actual stance that the religions of the world - may be not Christianity - hold a chance of being from the Higher being.

And lastly, when you mention the scientific method, I agree with you that the scientific method has been accurate. Not to say that it has not failed. After all the scientific method fails when tests in the lab still fail to prove a real possibility - e.g Late stent thrombosis in Drug-eluting stents (cardiology)
The point is we need to use the correct tool for the job.
When dealing with that with cannot be perceived, using perception based empiricity is then as I said earlier, rowing a boat with a banana leaf.
Economics uses a very scientific method, but still misses the mark and at times goes dead wrong. Why, because it tries to deal with the dynamic variables of human social/economic behaviour- vis a vis likes, dislikes, preference, speculations etc.
Morality is just as complex, if not more so. Science to describe morals, is like Data (without his chip - and quite frankly the chip was a ridiculous introduction to the movies) trying to grapple with understanding the complexity of emotions.

lastly, before I forget Noctis, if you're talking about time as being a dimension we can perceive. Can we really perceive it or simply go through it.
Lastly, I have not mentioned anything to decry points that go against my own. All I have said is that you cannot empirically prove your points, just as I cannot prove mine.

I have said this in at least 3 different posts to this thread.

You also went on to mention that restricting oneself to the laws of physics is not the same as restricting oneself to the laws of religion. Well here you do accept that you are restricting yourself.
As regards physics' laws, are you restricting yourself to understanding the universe based on laws that cannot reconcile quantum dynamics and general relativity. Are you restricting yourself to laws that got baffled with the last supernova or the final discovery of dark matter - previously thought to be non-existent?
Restricting oneself to such limited laws, that until a few years ago considered the universe to be infinite, is also simply a rationalization of faith in incomplete and unproven/quasi-proven ideas.

To rely on the physics of what is known in our miniscule Solar System in order to arrive at a conclusion of that which lies beyond, when discoveries outside our own Solar System leave us awestruck at each turn is amusingly presumptuous and exemplary of Hubris.

It appears you either are not reading what I'm saying or not understanding it. In either case, and I apologize if I come off too abrasive here, but if this is the presumptuous arrogance that clouds your mind when deciding on your point of view, then it comes as no surprise that you say what you say.

Serpicus, be cautious about making accusations of presumptious arrogance. Either, none of us are arrogant, dogmatic and absolutist, or all of us are. You are not exempt from such an accusation.

The fact that religion, or any other entrenched position,  requires such a complex defense, is a warning sign that those positions are flawed. Serpicus, you should not be abusing the fact that some people say we do not know all the answers, by throwing it back in thir faces. The fact that we do not have a complete knowledge of the universe does not validate religion in any way.

If we ever "discover" a "true" "religion", most of the planet will sign up. It will be so plain, and yet so sophisticated, that it will not require apologetics such as yours. I personally view it as undiginfied to keep apologising for something all the time.
Posted on: November 17, 2007, 06:27:49 pm

---

I've also noticed that you do not understand what is meant by the scientific method. The scientific method never fails, people fail. If a lab test fails, it means the assumptions in our theory (which we enthusiatically inserted into the scientific method) were incorrect or incomplete. Newton's theory of universal gravity does not work at speed approaching the speed of light, but this does not invalidate the tried and tested method of forming hypotheses and drawing conclusions. His knowledge was simply incomplete, and his instruments primitive. Einstein used the same scientific method when he revised the classical picture of gravity.

You are either an anti-intellectual (which you claimed you are not), or you have a limited scientific education. I sincerely hope it is the latter.

1.Firstly, I wish you'd stop the Hubris accusations, and you most certainly would if you genuinely could see that the same assault can be levelled against you. It's as though you've found a word you like the sound of, and are using it as a device with which to combat others. You're also in no position to laugh at me for declaring that we can all be accused of arrogance given sufficent imagination. There's nothing amusing about that.

2. As I hope you understand by now, I do not occupy an entrenched position. However, you should not keep repeating that I "admit" that I do not have the answers (even though this infact demonstrates that I do not occupy an entrenched position). The same applies to you, so this is no victory for you. On the other hand, this lack of knowledge on both "sides" does not make religion and science equivalent in worth. See below.

3. I used inverted commas to indicate that such terms such be taken with a (large) grain of salt. In fact I dislike such terms. Yet again, you merely demonstrate how you like to manipulate semantics in a cheap effort to win an argument.

4. Religion is not subject to being disproved by science because it is not a theory, it is not data, it is not science. My biggest point all this time has been that science and religion represent two different methods of viewing the universe.

In using either method, we have an incomplete knowledge of the universe (science is further along though, in that it is better to have less information than to believe wrong information). Religion is wrong because its adherents are prone to believe what they want. The reason? Because religion assumes the existence of a certain truth, and then searches for supporting evidence. Science operates in precisely the opposite direction. By not making prior assumptions about what we want to believe, we are safegaurded against falsehoods, and we are returned to our default position, starting from no beliefs and then proceeding forwards.

You have tried to say that I should not discount religion so readily due to my incomplete knowledge, implying that it is somehow an equivalent, or even alternative, worldview to science. But I propose that this is absurd. Religion, on the basis of how it operates, represents the opposite of science. Each has incomplete knowledge for different reasons, but the reasons are so different that we cannot settle for both. We must make a choice.

On about half your statements I agree, as for the others I won't repeat refutations just because you only glanced at my post rather than reading it. To illustrate, yes I said that science and religion are different ways of looking at the universe, but I did not say they both punch at equal weight. I also went on to explain why. This is just one example where you have not caught even the essence of what I'm saying. Another involves my previous use of the term "true" with regards to religion, a word that cannot possibly be taken seriously so I inserted inverted commas.

I mean no disrespect by this, since I've done the same thing myself, but at this stage, skipping details will drag it out indefinitely.

I also don't appreciate the sarcasm at the beginning. No, you're right, I'm not especially humble, but neither do I have an inflated view of myself, the reality is somewhere inbetween. Until we've met, and gotten to know one another, I'd think twice against pushing this idea which you always feel the need to push.