Religion is reasoning

[Guy Threepwood]

Yes it is, it is a problem of induction and causes a lot of issues in science. The BB can also validate atheist's views due to causality principles. An issue with the BB is that we hit a brick wall in which only mathematical models work. These days people just tack God onto the mathematical models which violates Occam's razor. No one bothers trying to provide a mathematical model for God. Hence why God is part of philosophy and not science.

'Nature is the executor of God's laws' (Galileo) it's not a new observation that those laws operate on precise mathematical principles.

similarly any atheist creation story behind the big bang, multiverse theory, M theory etc is philosophical speculation at best. It's not difficult to make a theory fit the math when you are unencumbered by any observational evidence to comply with.. static, eternal, steady state, big crunch also fit the math, just not observed reality as it turned out.

The composition of the primeval atom has to be accounted for somehow, it's debatable which violates Occam's razor more- an infinite probability machine, an infinite number of monkeys working at infinite keyboards for infinity until they accidentally create the world we see around us... or just one purposeful author

 

[Cephus]

Ok all religions that I know about attempt to explain the world around them. But let's take Christianity for example here. I'm not a theologian but based on discussions I've heard and had with Christians (and muslims) this what I'll say:
Where did this world come from? Well it's complex huge and beautiful, and something like this doesn't pop out of nowhere, so someone must have created it. God. That's reasoning. They believe that this world is impure and difficult to live in, and that there must be somewhere better than this. Heaven. It's pretty natural to feel like life is difficult or even unbearable, so I would say that's reasonable.
Why is this world so hard to live in, why suffering? Why not eternal goodness? Well, it used to be good but something bad happened and now it sucks. Here's when original sin comes in. Why use a story about sin to explain why life sucks? Because "sin" is something that people saw as destructive and harmful to the society's the lived in, and so they included a moral teaching that would have a practical positive effect on society if employed. That's a reasonable thing to do. Have I made my point?

They attempt to explain the world, they simply do not attempt to do it rationally. Rationality requires looking at the evidence and following it to a conclusion. Religion selects a conclusion that they like, then only looks at evidence that can be molded to lead in that direction.

What you describe here is a classic example of the "argument from ignorance", a logical fallacy. It occurs when someone either cannot imagine an answer to a question, or doesn't like the answer, and therefore simply invents one that they find emotionally comfortable. It is not reasonable to make up answers to questions you don't understand, it is reasonable to say "I don't know the answer" and continue to look for a solution. Until there is actual evidence for the existence of any god, inventing a god to make yourself feel good is never going to be a reasonable answer.

 

[Cephus]

As for that other point... You put it in an overly dramatic way. Ignorance and fear are far older than human kind. These people certainly wanted explanations for what's going on here, and yes, they made up stories. Clearly it made sense to them that a terrifying storm would be caused by an angry man in the sky. They reasoned with what information and science they had which was next to none.
Is reasoning only reasoning if it is correct reasoning? I know there's a line, but consider how little these people knew. Also I don't think the fact that reasoning about the world was done partially out of fear means it is not reasoning. ? And lastly it sounds like you haven't ever thought much about some of the philosophy and poetry that exists in some creation stories and religious literature. It might be meant to be taken at face value, but in any case it always pays to look into the symbolism.

Reason is a relatively recent human development, it is disingenuous to claim that ancient man reasoned much of anything. They did not. Humans are a pattern-seeking animal, it is an ancient survival tactic but it makes us see things that are not there as well. Reason and logic allow us to over-ride these basic instincts and make better decisions based on what is actually real, not on what our primitive brains tell us is real. However, it takes effort and a desire to recognize where our untrained brains lead us wrong and think our way around those failures. In the same way we need to recognize that patterns we see in the clouds aren't real, we need to recognize that the desire to seek emotionally satisfying answers, even when they aren't actually answers, is necessary to our growth as a species.

And philosophy and poetry have no bearing whatsoever on reality, sorry.

 

[JRMcC]

And philosophy and poetry have no bearing whatsoever on reality, sorry.

Dude....

 

[JRMcC]

You're actually being unreasonable at this point.

Edited to acknowledge how ironic it is that I said it this way.

 

[JRMcC]

Reason | Define Reason at Dictionary.com

Where did you get your definition of reason?
Also the philosophy and poetry in some of this literature speaks truth about the way the world as we experience it works. It's not always useless information.

 

[Cephus]

Dude....

They don't. They don't actually describe what goes on in the real world accurately. If you think that poetry and science have the same value, just think of how many modern technical gadgets you got because of poetry.

 

[JRMcC]

They don't. They don't actually describe what goes on in the real world accurately. If you think that poetry and science have the same value, just think of how many modern technical gadgets you got because of poetry.

I see what you're saying man. You've made your point very well. Clearly we have very different world views and I don't agree with you on everything, some of it is semantics. I guess people who read our argument will decide who they feel is right!

 

[Shad]

'Nature is the executor of God's laws' (Galileo) it's not a new observation that those laws operate on precise mathematical principles.

Nature laws are descriptive not prescriptive. You can confusing a law like the justice system with natural laws.

similarly any atheist creation story behind the big bang, multiverse theory, M theory etc is philosophical speculation at best. It's not difficult to make a theory fit the math when you are unencumbered by any observational evidence to comply with.. static, eternal, steady state, big crunch also fit the math, just not observed reality as it turned out.

Nope, cosmological theories before the BB are mathematical models so above speculation. Mathematical models are based on previous observations and other models which have been observed. The models work until new observations provide new information. However these are still models as opposed to tacking God on to the end of models made by capable people.

The composition of the primeval atom has to be accounted for somehow, it's debatable which violates Occam's razor more- an infinite probability machine, an infinite number of monkeys working at infinite keyboards for infinity until they accidentally create the world we see around us... or just one purposeful author

This is ridiculous as no one is proposing anything like what you try to disparage here. Amusing too since your own arguments are just special pleading. Defining God's existences by it's properties and as identical as it's properties which is incoherent.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Nature laws are descriptive not prescriptive. You can confusing a law like the justice system with natural laws.

Nope, cosmological theories before the BB are mathematical models so above speculation. Mathematical models are based on previous observations and other models which have been observed. The models work until new observations provide new information. However these are still models as opposed to tacking God on to the end of models made by capable people.

as above, a cosmonogical theory being based on mathematical models alone is demonstrably unreliable, the only one that was supported by observational evidence was the one atheists rejected and mocked as 'big bang'- for not complying with the preferred conclusions of all their mathematical models. The flying spaghetti monster also fits the math perfectly, because I am free to make him do so.

This is ridiculous as no one is proposing anything like what you try to disparage here

you'd have to argue that assertion with Hawking, infinite multiverses are posited to overcome the staggering odds against our universe being created by chance 'if you have enough randomly composed universes, ours would bound to appear eventually' by his own explicit argument

I agree with Krauss on Hawking 'if your theory involves an invisible infinite probability machine.. it's not clear that you even have a theory'

However I also agree with Hawking on Krauss
'that moron couldn't theorize his way out of a bowl of custard'

 

[Shad]

as above, a cosmonogical theory being based on mathematical models alone is demonstrably unreliable, the only one that was supported by observational evidence was the one atheists rejected and mocked as 'big bang'- for not complying with the preferred conclusions of all their mathematical models. The flying spaghetti monster also fits the math perfectly, because I am free to make him do so.

Math can not be unreliable. Only the one making the calculation can be. Yet these models are the same models you tack God on to.

you'd have to argue that assertion with Hawking, infinite multiverses are posited to overcome the staggering odds against our universe being created by chance 'if you have enough randomly composed universes, ours would bound to appear eventually' by his own explicit argument

What is ridiculous is your use of monkeys as some analogue. Yet the comparison fails since it is off based thus becoming fallacious.

I agree with Krauss on Hawking 'if your theory involves an invisible infinite probability machine.. it's not clear that you even have a theory'

If Hawkings theory was so I would agree but it is not.

However I also agree with Hawking on Krauss
'that moron couldn't theorize his way out of a bowl of custard'

So Krauss is a moron now because someone else makes the claim? I never mentioned Krauss at all

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Math can not be unreliable

I though you were joking until I read the rest of your post. You've never heard the expression there are "lies, damned lies, and statistics"? First, the most important unsolved problems and serious issues in modern physics are almost entirely due to problems with our mathematical models. The general theory of relativity, for example, admits the existence of closed timelike curves (CTCs). This refers to the capacity for a system (such as human) to alter their past from the future. As it stands, the only theory that rivals TGR in its successes, quantum mechanics, is supposed to be a description of the subatomic realm except that the orthodox interpretation asserts it is an irreducibly statistical mechanics (meaning that physical systems in quantum mechanics have no physical reality at all). The standard model involves singularities and most of the problems with it stem from the fact that it was constructed by mathematically piecing together quantum mechanics, special relativity, and components of classical physics.

"all models are wrong, but some are useful". Memorize that.

Then there are the ways in which it can be unreliable in a purely mathematical sense. Mathematicians disagree over things as trivial as whether 0 is an integer. There is a fairly large group of mathematicians advocating that the Riemann integral be dropped entirely, while others argue that the Lebesgue integral and indeed measure theory is used less and less by mathematicians and abandoned in any and all applied mathematics. Certain methods of proof (namely those that require a computer) are the subject of much debate. And so on.

So Hawking is a moron now?

No, but he did lose out to Susskind.

 

[Shad]

I though you were joking until I read the rest of your post. You've never heard the expression there are "lies, damned lies, and statistics"? First, the most important unsolved problems and serious issues in modern physics are almost entirely due to problems with our mathematical models. The general theory of relativity, for example, admits the existence of closed timelike curves (CTCs). This refers to the capacity for a system (such as human) to alter their past from the future. As it stands, the only theory that rivals TGR in its successes, quantum mechanics, is supposed to be a description of the subatomic realm except that the orthodox interpretation asserts it is an irreducibly statistical mechanics (meaning that physical systems in quantum mechanics have no physical reality at all). The standard model involves singularities and most of the problems with it stem from the fact that it was constructed by mathematically piecing together quantum mechanics, special relativity, and components of classical physics.

The problem isn't math but the person making the model. I clearly this. You are saying exactly what I said just with more details. This is far difference from an idea which only inferred with nothing else behind the idea other than philosophy, religion and theology. One explanation has predictive power with the other has none.

Then there are the ways in which it can be unreliable in a purely mathematical sense. Mathematicians disagree over things as trivial as whether 0 is an integer. There is a fairly large group of mathematicians advocating that the Riemann integral be dropped entirely, while others argue that the Lebesgue integral and indeed measure theory is used less and less by mathematicians and abandoned in any and all applied mathematics. Certain methods of proof (namely those that require a computer) are the subject of much debate. And so on.

Again this is about the person not the math. This about the axioms of math.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The problem isn't math but the person making the model. I clearly this. You are saying exactly what I said just with more details. This is far difference from an idea which only inferred with nothing else behind the idea other than philosophy, religion and theology. One explanation has predictive power with the other has none.



Again this is about the person not the math. This about the axioms of math.

On a completely unrelated and utterly trivial note: what is your native language? I only ask because of my study and interest in linguistics and languages.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Math can not be unreliable. Only the one making the calculation can be. Yet these models are the same models you tack God on to.

exactly, we're all human, we all have beliefs, faith of some kind, - as long as we acknowledge them as Lemaitre did, and not deny them as Hoyle did, then we can question and separate our own beliefs from math on their own merits. Not simply pretend we don't have any and confuse the two.

So Krauss is a moron now because someone else makes the claim? I never mentioned Krauss at all

The point there would be that atheists disagree with each other's 'reliable' math also, they are both skeptical of each others atheist models, I only go one further, I'm skeptical of them all.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It's not difficult to make a theory fit the math when you are unencumbered by any observational evidence to comply with

Luckily, that isn't the case.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Luckily, that isn't the case.

observational evidence for multiverses?! they are inherently(conveniently) beyond the possibility of observation

 

[Shad]

exactly, we're all human, we all have beliefs, faith of some kind, - as long as we acknowledge them as Lemaitre did, and not deny them as Hoyle did, then we can question and separate our own beliefs from math on their own merits. Not simply pretend we don't have any and confuse the two.




The point there would be that atheists disagree with each other's 'reliable' math also, they are both skeptical of each others atheist models, I only go one further, I'm skeptical of them all.

Completely agree. I just think looking for God strictly through scientific ideas is a mistake. Yes many people disagree with the mathematical models and the axioms one may hold. However as I said people are all to happy to use these models then tack God on to the end. These are not atheist models its cosmology which is a science thus has nothing to say about God. Just as BB cosmology has nothing to say about God, even Lemaitre said this to the pope himself and told him to stop it. Maybe heed his words as well

 

[Shad]

On a completely unrelated and utterly trivial note: what is your native language? I only ask because of my study and interest in linguistics and languages.

I do not have one really. My family spoke German on one side, English on the other. I was raised in a small farming community early in life so I was taught both. When I started school I was enrolled in French immersion which was strict about using other languages besides French.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Completely agree. I just think looking for God strictly through scientific ideas is a mistake. Yes many people disagree with the mathematical models and the axioms one may hold. However as I said people are all to happy to use these models then tack God on to the end. These are not atheist models its cosmology which is a science thus has nothing to say about God. Just as BB cosmology has nothing to say about God, even Lemaitre said this to the pope himself and told him to stop it. Maybe heed his words as well

that was exactly my point, Lemaitre explicitly distanced his beliefs from the theory, while Hoyle and many other atheists explicitly attached their beliefs, as a reason for rejecting the model- that it resembled theistic/biblical claims. And the reason is that Lemaitre recognized his own beliefs, many atheists refuse to acknowledge that atheism is even a belief at all- how do you distance your beliefs if one doesn't acknowledge they have any?

I say- so what if it did imply certain Biblical claims? simply let science support God if that's where the evidence leads- this was a clear case of science v atheism, nothing to do with theistic bias. It was the atheists that made the connection, not me