Angry Christians

[Guest Guest]

No you won't. I've seen this a thousand times. You don't understand your own psychology but it's plain as day to anyone who is well-informed. You're not interested in the truth. You're interested in being told that you're right. So you defend your beliefs by putting up walls. But they are not walls of information or reason. They're walls of deflection. And you'll say anything to defend what you already believe. You'll demand 100% proof positive from anyone who challenges your views but nothing of yourself. And when the scientific community agrees on something, you'll accept it as true if it supports your views and dismiss it if it doesn't. The result is that you ignore a mountain of evidence and side with a wish. Because reason and evidence are not the organizing principle of how you think. Your organizing principle is that if you wish to believe something, you'll say it's true no matter what. This is all plain as day from what you write.

Are you posting this to yourself? You just described just about everything you have posted!

[Guest Guest]

Answering the very long post from Horizon: Science progresses because scientists use their judgment to decide what areas of inquiry are promising. Most scientists spend their time within the boundaries of established theories but some scientists push the envelope. This testing of boundaries is necessary for science to advance but it isn't done on a whim. It's done because scientists evaluate what areas of inquiry are likely to yield results.

The mere fact that a scientist's colleagues disagree with him about what is promising does not mean that he is wrong. In fact, our most important and earth-shaking discoveries have come about because someone thought outside the box.

Sometimes scientists look for advances in particular areas, such as cancer research. We don't know what further advances are possible but the subject is so important that it draws attention, energy and money. And there is a history of progress in the field.

Hameroff and Penrose have unconventional ideas about consciousness. That's fine. But to say that their work somehow provides support for the existence of God would be to misunderstand their work - not that this article says that. Penrose is very publicly an atheist. He's just looking outside the box to try to understand consciousness better. By no stretch of the imagination would he say that his ideas are anything more than hypothetical at this point, or that they in any way provide a basis to think that consciousness can exist without any matter at all.

To say that a conventional theory does not fully explain a phenomenon is not to say that it does not explain anything at all; or to justify a jump to a conclusion about an alternative explanation - especially an explanation like "God did it," which is thrown out there every time there's a gap in our knowledge. This is known as "God in the gaps," and is recognized as anti-scientific. There will always be an infinite number of "possibilities" to chase, and there are always some people determined to chase after certain ones. Hameroff and Penrose raise interesting questions. That's about as much as we can properly say about their work in this field so far.

[Guest Guest]

Are you posting this to yourself? You just described just about everything you have posted!

So how does conventional science advance, if its methods don't work? That's what you're saying, whether you realize it or not.

[Guest Guest]

The argument made by Penrose and Hameroff is not accepted by their colleagues. Its still entirely speculative, and may always remain so. As one of their colleagues writes, their argument is no better supported than any one of a gazillion caterpillar-with-hookah hypotheses. (See the previous link.)

Penrose proposes a computational model of the mind, a minority view within his field of expertise. He does not deny the physical foundations of consciousness. He makes that clear on page 12 of his book Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness, where he writes that such a denial is the viewpoint of the mystic, to which he does not subscribe.

Penroses views on this subject, like the man himself, are complicated, as one might expect of someone of his intelligence. However, those who would argue for God as a conscious entity pre-dating matter can find no solace in Penrose, who is a self-described atheist and a supporter of the British Humanist Association.

If youre going to try to match someone elses writing: (1) make sure you understand what youre putting out there, and (2) dont just lift an entire section from someone elses writing, especially if you dont understand it.

I understand just fine thank you very much! And I'll tell you what I understand you more than you think! I was you twenty five years ago!!! I did not post this article as support of my belief in God. I don't need support in my beliefs! It was presented to contest the notion that's you put forth that consciousness requires an organic brain consisting of " matter". Nothing more nothing less! Just trying to get you to open your mind to the limitless possibilities regarding consciousness! And know I am done! God Bless You!

[Guest Guest]

Maybe the biggest mistake people make in their understanding of science is the false idea that science always provides a definite answer. It was that way in high school chemistry class but that is because the curriculum taught the basics. There are many unanswered questions in science. That doesn't mean science doesn't work, it only means that we are in the process of learning all the time.

[Guest Guest]

I understand just fine thank you very much! And I'll tell you what I understand you more than you think! I was you twenty five years ago!!! I did not post this article as support of my belief in God. I don't need support in my beliefs! It was presented to contest the notion that's you put forth that consciousness requires an organic brain consisting of " matter". Nothing more nothing less! Just trying to get you to open your mind to the limitless possibilities regarding consciousness! And know I am done! God Bless You!

Only in this case, "God Bless You" is a parting shot, not a blessing at all. I know about these possibilities. I also know that there's no evidence that they could ever be real. The point stands: per all the available evidence, consciousness is a product of matter, not the other way around.

And there's no evidence that you understand any of it. All you did was lift a lengthy quotation from a website. You didn't even try to analyze it.

[Guest Guest]

I don't need support in my beliefs!

That statement is true if:

--- all you want to do is express a wish, completely devoid of any legitimate claim to truth;

--- you are unconcerned about being responsible for your beliefs;

--- you are referring to the fact that in a free society, people are free to believe whatever they like, even if it makes no sense.

However, the statement is false if:

--- you value evidence;

--- you wish to say things that are useful;

--- you wish to say things that probably are true.

By any and all of those latter three criteria, you must support your beliefs with fact and reason. The fact that you run and hide for cover about it says that you know your beliefs are unfounded. The posts responding to the Horizon piece show why that is true.

And know I am done! God Bless You!

Q.E.D. So much for open-mindedness.

[Guest Guest]

I understand just fine thank you very much! And I'll tell you what I understand you more than you think! I was you twenty five years ago!!! I did not post this article as support of my belief in God. I don't need support in my beliefs! It was presented to contest the notion that's you put forth that consciousness requires an organic brain consisting of " matter". Nothing more nothing less! Just trying to get you to open your mind to the limitless possibilities regarding consciousness! And know I am done! God Bless You!

We don’t know that these things are possible. “Possible” assumes things about the nature of reality. Hameroff and Penrose are conjecturing but so far there is no evidence to support their conjectures. So while we know that these things are conceivable, we do not know that they are possible. There is a difference, which is demarcated by the boundaries of reality.

“I was you twenty five years ago!!!”

I doubt that you’re 98 years old. If you are, then you should know better than to make a remark like that, especially to someone you don’t even know. You lifted a lengthy quotation from a website. Perhaps you did not expect the critique. It appears you got frustrated and, if you’re true to your word, walked away in what seems like a huff. 25 years ago or now, that’s not how I operate, and you shouldn’t either. Hameroff and Penrose are serious thinkers whose ideas are worth exploring. If you’re going to put them out there, then stick around and discuss their implications – unless, as has been said, you didn’t understand it in the first place.

[Guest Guest]

The Christians posting here keep missing the main point. Knowing everything, or just knowing how everything began, is not how things are. The honest answer to "does God exist" is "no one knows."

Many Christians admit that, then turn right around and say "but I believe in God." Yeah, based on nothing. Why can't you just let honesty speak for itself?

[Guest Guest]

"I don't need support in my beliefs!" What an arrogant presumption that is.

[Guest Guest]

The Encyclopedia Brittanica's entry is misleading. Einstein characterized himself as an agnostic on this question, mainly because he was put off by the atheists he knew. But when you read what he said and wrote on the subject of a god, it is clear that he did not believe in a supreme being. Spinoza was a pantheist, who saw God as nature. In his time, this was a radical departure from theism, which virtually everyone espoused. So when Einstein expressed his belief in "Spinoza's God," he was saying that he thought a unity of all things was important. So he used the word God but he didn't mean what most people mean by it. He made that very clear, repeatedly. In short, he believed in the unity of nature and called it God. By the way, when you lift a quotation from somewhere else, you should cite your source. The above is lifted word-for-word from a site called "Evidence for God."

I don't think any real scientist can claim to be atheist because in science there is always room to be proved wrong. A true scientist will never tell you god doesn't exist because he/she does not know that for sure and it is against science to claim something with no supporting evidence.

[Guest Guest]

"Your demand is illogical, demanding proof of a negative"

Let me ask you " demanding proof of a negative" is that yours? Is this an original argument? And why don't you expand on your idea of demanding proof of a negative for us, what exactly do you mean?

[Guest Guest]

"I know about these possibilities. I also know that there's no evidence that they could ever be real."

You don't think that statement " they could never be real" presents you as a bit arrogant and narrow minded?

[Guest Guest]

We dont know that these things are possible. Possible assumes things about the nature of reality. Hameroff and Penrose are conjecturing but so far there is no evidence to support their conjectures. So while we know that these things are conceivable, we do not know that they are possible. There is a difference, which is demarcated by the boundaries of reality.

I was you twenty five years ago!!!

I doubt that youre 98 years old. If you are, then you should know better than to make a remark like that, especially to someone you dont even know. You lifted a lengthy quotation from a website. Perhaps you did not expect the critique. It appears you got frustrated and, if youre true to your word, walked away in what seems like a huff. 25 years ago or now, thats not how I operate, and you shouldnt either. Hameroff and Penrose are serious thinkers whose ideas are worth exploring. If youre going to put them out there, then stick around and discuss their implications unless, as has been said, you didnt understand it in the first place.

I'm guessing you must hate William Lane Craig???

[Guest Guest]

I don't think any real scientist can claim to be atheist because in science there is always room to be proved wrong. A true scientist will never tell you god doesn't exist because he/she does not know that for sure and it is against science to claim something with no supporting evidence.

You're referring to positive atheism, which says "there is no god." Scientists mainly are negative atheists, who say "there is no evidence of any god." So for the most part, your criticism is founded on a misunderstanding, by you.

[Guest Guest]

"I know about these possibilities. I also know that there's no evidence that they could ever be real."

You don't think that statement " they could never be real" presents you as a bit arrogant and narrow minded?

That's not what the statement says. It says there is no evidence that they could ever be real. You completely changed the meaning, and you falsely put it in quotation marks, to boot!

[Guest Guest]

"Your demand is illogical, demanding proof of a negative"

Let me ask you " demanding proof of a negative" is that yours? Is this an original argument? And why don't you expand on your idea of demanding proof of a negative for us, what exactly do you mean?

Of course it's not originally mine, any more than the Christian conception of God is originally yours, or Newton's laws of physics are either of ours. What matters is whether we can understand and work with them.

In this context, the argument means that we have billions, perhaps trillions of data points about consciousness. In every case, consciousness arises from a living organism, which is made of matter. But those trillions of data points are not persuasive to you, apparently, so you expect those of us who draw the reasonable conclusion that consciousness requires matter to prove that there could never be a counterexample. That is an unreasonable demand. It is for you, who asserts a proposition that is contrary to a vast body of information, to show that your wishful speculation has a foundation in fact, not merely a foundation in what you wish to believe.

[Guest Guest]

I'm guessing you must hate William Lane Craig???

I don't hate people. To hate someone is to take pleasure in their suffering.

Craig is an academic philosopher, more specifically a Christian apologist. In other words, he spends his professional life finding ways to justify what he has already decided to believe. The method is exactly the opposite of what one needs in any honest search for the truth, and indeed, he has made no verifiable contribution to the fund of human knowledge. His main claim to fame is a re-working of the Kalām Cosmological Argument, which is nothing more than setting up a series of premises to justify a desired result. One could easily re-work the argument to derive contrary conclusions, simply by changing the premises in light of 20th-century science, which clearly demonstrates that the premises he uses are questionable at best. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, and the proofs thereof, demonstrate that his premises are false, or at best without foundation. To reduce that to simpler terms, Craig calls himself a philosopher but he is not honest in his methods. He merely decides what he wishes to believe, then finds a way to justify it, ignoring everything that prevents reasonable people from drawing the same conclusions.

And of course, people like you who have also already decided what you wish to believe, accept whatever Craig says because if it was true it would confirm your beliefs. This is called confirmation bias: accepting something not because it is sound but because it seems to confirm your beliefs. We all do this, a little, but in your case, that seems to be all you have.

If you're open to learning anything from this interchange, then try to learn this: to learn, you must follow established methods that yield knowledge. If all you do is seek ways to confirm the beliefs you already hold, you'll close your mind and remain ignorant. Start with the methods and means of learning, not with the answers you hope to find.

[Guest Guest]

I don't think any real scientist can claim to be atheist because in science there is always room to be proved wrong. A true scientist will never tell you god doesn't exist because he/she does not know that for sure and it is against science to claim something with no supporting evidence.

That's true, with two important caveats:

1. This only applies to the kind of atheism where someone affirmatively says "there is no god." It does not apply to the more common form of atheism, which says there is no evidence of a god, and therefore no reason to think there is one. That is why Einstein could be entirely consistent in the other things he said that the Christians on this forum would not like at all. He was making a point that is too complex for their simplistic worldview - though it isn't all that complex.

2. By the same logic, a real scientist will not claim there is a god either. Conveniently, many people offer Einstein's words to support their belief in "God," which ignores pretty much his entire chain of reasoning.

[Guest Guest]

"I know about these possibilities. I also know that there's no evidence that they could ever be real."

You don't think that statement " they could never be real" presents you as a bit arrogant and narrow minded?

Your distortion of the comment, complete with quotation marks, proves that you are either dishonest or extremely careless in either your reading or your writing. You completely changed the comment, including its meaning.

[Guest Guest]

"Your demand is illogical, demanding proof of a negative"

Let me ask you " demanding proof of a negative" is that yours? Is this an original argument? And why don't you expand on your idea of demanding proof of a negative for us, what exactly do you mean?

That last question only shows that you haven't spent much time in any serious discipline that seeks knowledge; or you don't want to think about these issues honestly. But here's my answer:

We have to decide how to spend our time and where to focus our energy and other resources. You can't prove there is no tooth fairy or a flying spaghetti monster. Of course, people just made those things up. And that's exactly the point. People made up all the religions too. That is why the stories people tell about God, all over the world across the ages, are so vastly different from each other. For example, we can trace the content of creation stories from hunter-gatherer societies to agricultural societies to more modern technological societies - and sure enough, "God" changes to reflect the culture of the people telling the story.

Knowing that, we already know that people make up stories about God. They make them up out of thin air. In fact, Christians reject every God but one. The First Commandment, for Christians and Jews, commands the rejection of false gods. So Christianity itself acknowledges that people believe in false gods, and Christians seem to have no trouble at all dismissing those "false gods" without taking any of them seriously. Put the shoe on the other foot, walk a mile in your brother's shoes, then think about this again.

We could conceptualize any number of gods. That's the point of the flying spaghetti monster. People can make up any god they like. If we have to take each and every one of those fantasies seriously, then we won't have time to concentrate on the serious work we need to do, studying things we do know and can know.

That's why it's illogical to ask someone to prove that God does not exist - to prove the negative. We know that people make up gods. If you want to believe in a god AND be responsible in your belief, then the burden is on you to show why it makes sense to believe in your version of God.

[Guest Guest]

I'm guessing you must hate William Lane Craig???

Love the fool. Hate the foolishness.

[Guest Guest]

"I know about these possibilities. I also know that there's no evidence that they could ever be real."

You don't think that statement " they could never be real" presents you as a bit arrogant and narrow minded?

I assume that you're entirely sincere. If that is true, then you just illustrated the most important point in this entire discussion.

You don't realize that you changed the quotation, do you? But look at the top line, then look at what you put in quotations. They're not the same thing, and the difference isn't just in the language. It's in the meaning.

Maybe you did that intentionally but I presume you didn't. I've met quite a few sincere Christians who made this mistake. There's a huge difference between "they could never be real" and "there's no evidence that they could ever be real."

The difference is in the approach. You've focused on the answer to the question. But according to you, we don't have a definitive answer. That's a 180-degree turn, and you don't even realize you did it.

All we have is evidence, and our methods. In this case, all the evidence points toward one thing. That is where we need to put our focus, if we want to know more about what is real and true. That's why it makes sense to focus on the evidence.

if we start with the answer we would like to get, of course we'll find a way to get that answer. That's the problem with so much of this discussion, and so much of religion in our society. Religion doesn't have to be like that. If it's ever going to do us any good, and bring us together into one human family that can live in peace, religion has to change. And that's up to us.

[Guest Guest]

"I know about these possibilities. I also know that there's no evidence that they could ever be real."

You don't think that statement " they could never be real" presents you as a bit arrogant and narrow minded?

If you're going to criticize someone for being arrogant and narrow-minded, make sure you're quoting accurately. If you misquote, you'll look like a jerk.

[Guest Guest]

Posted Today, 10:15 AM

Guest, on 19 Jan 2014 - 10:09 PM, said:

"Your demand is illogical, demanding proof of a negative"

Let me ask you " demanding proof of a negative" is that yours? Is this an original argument? And why don't you expand on your idea of demanding proof of a negative for us, what exactly do you mean?

That last question only shows that you haven't spent much time in any serious discipline that seeks knowledge; or you don't want to think about these issues honestly. But here's my answer:

Really that's what you took away from the question? No I asked the question knowing the answer you would give! And you may have changed a few words here and there but this Russell's teapot argument is atheist 101! But the analogy is deeply flawed!