Why is self-determination an inalienable right for the people of the Falklands, but a gross example of Iranian meddling for the people of Bahrain?
Answers on a postcard please with a twenty pound note and framed photo of William Hague to Wars’R’Us, Oil and Armaments Ltd, House of Lords.
Clark:
I can understand your frustration.
The nutty are usually highly egocentric and unable to listen. No matter how often you explain that atheism is not a ‘faith’, but an avoidance of nonsense, the godfellas bleat: ‘Atheism is a faith, I tell ‘ee!’ Then, they froth about the mysterious
‘fundamentalist atheist’ [who he?], although you can no more be a fundamentalist atheist than you can be a fundamentalist piano-tuner. And of course the godworshipper thinks aesthetics and beauty belong to him alone, and no one else…outside the chosen fairy-tale believers! It’s a psychiatric thing, much like the loopy Argies rattling on about their ‘sovereignty’
over some bit of distant unseen peat bog. I repeat – gents, haul your egos over to Goydian CiF Belief, where you can spend weeks and months on this tosh, and the bollox is infinite.
@Bonifacegoncourt
You are the classic party bore.
Clark. Most of what you say is reiterating the standard distinction between theological belief and religious dogma. No quibbles there.
.
Let me restate your point (1) more carefully, though. Belief in a Universal Creative Whatever is theoretically commensurable with the canon of modern scientific knowledge, yes, but is not supported by it. Furthermore, the belief is not compatible with the principles of scientific epistemology, because it makes causal claims with no evidential basis. This Universal Something is not observable or testable, we only see what you construe as its effects. But it isn’t a necessary theoretical postulate by any means; you are inferring a distinct cause for emergent behaviour. The belief in this Universal Something is profoundly metaphysical, not scientific.
.
You seem to be trying to assert that it is a scientific belief, contrary to the predominant views in theology and the philosophy of religion. But in doing so you are watering down your concept so much it’s becoming theologically irrelevant.
.
As I understand it, you suggest there must be a Universal Creative Something to counteract the second law of thermodynamics. So are you saying the law doesn’t actually apply – or doesn’t apply at local level?? (Remember that it is only applies at the level of closed systems so local variations do not contradict it in any way.) In any case, if something did “counteract” it, surely it would have the same ontological status: it would be a physical law describing the behaviour of matter, not a spiritual Something. Why call it “God” at all … unless you’re trying to slip in some pagan notions of magical causality along with it?
.
You are referring essentially to self-organising behaviour, which emerges like a fractal anywhere there is a non-chaotic regularity, like a Mandelbrot set. The complex order that emerges from very simple artificial models – like the game of life (where little patterns fly around and eat up other patterns), or ‘boids’ (where little blobs display seemingly co-ordinated flocking behaviour) – is indeed amazing, but it isn’t evidence of a supernatural creative force, nor even an artificial intelligence. With those very simple systems we can trace exactly what’s going on and how it happens (but’s it’s still amazing!). With much more complex systems, physical or biological, the amazement becomes awe-inspiring, but again it doesn’t constitute evidence of the hand of God, or indeed any kind of ontological Something. If anything, these emergent enigmas highlight the processing limitations of our finite cognitive systems.
.
When you refer to “people’s natural, intuitive reverence for That Which Continually Creates” it sounds like you’re trying to revive something like St Anselm’s Ontological argument: i.e. we are disposed to conceive of a very impressive Universal Something, therefore there must be a very impressive Universal Something that causes us to think of it; now, this Universal Something must exist because it’s so very impressive (after all, it wouldn’t be very impressive if it didn’t exist). That fallacious nonsense can be easily Quined out of existence. It’s used as a philosophy exercise for 7 year olds. Like other fictions, the concept has sense but (arguably) no reference. It implies an empty set; furthermore, there is no epistemic path back to evidence that would populate that set. That’s why theology is not a science. Believe what you want to believe, metaphysically. Perhaps the only benchmark is whether you find it satisfying, and it doesn’t compel you to immoral behaviour.
.
“This belief … is not a human artefact.” Are you some kind of radical neo-Platonist? Of course it’s a human artefact, like every other belief. Would the belief exist if there were no humans to think it? (Hey, maybe there are lots of beliefs floating around in some Platonic realm, and when they congregate in sufficient clusters they constitute a human mind?) Now, that’s metaphysics for you!
Going back to Craig’s original question and the second comment (mine), part of the answer is given in a book about the Chagossians which you should all ask any library which you can influence to purchase. If you go to my review at http://www.amazon.com/review/RYB86BM8R18LT , please click the “Helpful” button (if you agree).
.
Note that my review on the Amazon.co.uk website has not yet appeared. That’s because UK sites need to worry more about the UK’s libel laws. I have reviews on both Amazon sites of “Murder in Samarkand” – but the original UK one was censored because I was critical of Tony Blair. Comparing the two reviews is instructive.
.
The reason the 2004 Orders in Council denying the Chagossians their right to return were racist is how they were used. Even though the FCO originally wanted to negotiate shared sovereignty with Argentina, ministers would never have been able to impose a settlement on the white Falkland islanders by using these arcane colonial procedures.
@angysoba
“My thinking is that Hamas and Hizbollah are counterproductive to this because they couldn’t appear more like a typical bunch of terrorists in the public mind if they tried.”
.
You call that thinking? It’s called brainwashing you dope.
29 February 2012
Falklands dispute: Argentina ‘urges UK import ban’
On Monday two cruise ships were refused entry to Argentina after visiting the Falklands
.
The Argentine government is calling on the country’s top companies to stop importing goods from the UK, according to the state news agency Telam.
.
Industry Minister Debora Giorgi called the bosses of at least 20 firms to urge them to replace imports from Britain with goods produced elsewhere, it said.
.
The move is linked to the dispute with Britain over the Falkland Islands, which Argentina claims as the Malvinas.
.
Tension has been rising ahead of the 30th anniversary of the Falklands war.
.
The industry ministry is trying to reduce Argentina’s trade deficit with the UK and establish policies that favour countries that recognize Argentina’s territorial claim, Telam reported.
.
/..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-17200528
Nextus writes in relation to belief in a deity:
.
“Of course it’s a human artefact, like every other belief. Would the belief exist if there were no humans to think it?”
.
It is and it isn’t. This belief is strictly speaking human artefact but beauty isn’t. Beauty exists. Humans didn’t invent it yet we recognise it. Since science cannot explain beauty, some ascribe it to a “deity”. To me, this a very different proposition from religious beliefs which, for example, ascribe miracles to phenomena that have scientific explanations.
Mary –
Apparently William’s “I am just an ordinary serviceman in the Falklands” pose has been spoiled by the 20 or so SAS bodyguards who are protecting him against the possibility of an Argentine assassination attempt.
http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1452308-el-principe-guillermo-con-custodia-especial-en-malvinas
His mission is to thwart any possible threat from Argentina.
Jesus what a total waste of taxpayer’s money.
Njegos
http://mail.yimg.com/ok/u/assets/img/emoticons/emo49.gif
@Njegos
Humourless knowalls are never able to answer simple questions. They just huff and puff. Now it seems ‘Science cannot explain beauty.’ And you know this how? Poor Clark’s confusion shows the harm this ‘god’ nonsense can do to impressionable minds. Remember: “A toothache cures all philosophy”. BTW if the Brits want to spend money to protect the life of their future king, what business is it of you Argies?
@BDSM Kontakte
Faszinierender Name! Sollen wir etwas Aufregendes erwarten…?
Bonifacegoncourt,
.
of course there can be a “fundamentalist piano tuner”. Say I have an antique pipe organ tuned to A=451Hz, and I buy a piano. I call out a tuner and ask him to tune my new piano to match my pipe organ. The tuner starts to lecture me that concert pitch is A = 440Hz, refuses to tune my piano to A=451Hz, and offers, for an enormous fee, to weld little extensions to all the tubes of my pipe organ to bring it down concert pitch. I decline this offer and say that I’ll call a different tuner, upon which he calls me stupid and mental etc, and demands a call-out fee because I wasted his time.
.
I’m not sure of the definition of “fundamentalism”, but I think most people would agree that fundamentalists expect everyone else to think and/or do things their way, and are likely to get abusive to various degrees otherwise. Recognise yourself in that at all? Probably not. Fundamentalists generally don’t recognise their own fundamentalism.
.
Angrysoba and Nextus,
.
thanks for your replies. I’m feeling unwell, so I’ll leave it at that for now.
More gross hypocrisy from Cameron and the FCO on the Falklands. Of course Cameron and co have done nothing whatsoever to aggravate the situation.
.
Argentina pursuing policy of confrontation, says No 10
Downing Street has accused Argentina of pursuing a “policy of confrontation” over the Falkland Islands.
.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17205918
@Clark
So not wasting your time on rubbish makes you a ‘fundamentalist’. Fairy tale jockeys seem to need labels for everyone. Why so paranoid? Living without labels is a lot healthier. Have a few beers, do some gardening, get laid. Chill.
@Bonifacegoncourt
Go on then clever clogs. Give me the scientific explanation for beauty (this should be good!)
As it happens, I am not argentine but please feel free to bankrupt yourself on behalf of your beloved kelpers who appear to enjoy having Britain by the balls.
Too much hot air about the Falklands. Remember Ockham’s Razor, which invites us to keep things simple. Every event has a gist. Here it is the Widow Kirchner, suffering from Empty Pussy Syndrome. In World War 2, RAF officer and babe magnet Roald Dahl was tasked with knobbing his way through Washington society to make them pro-British. We need a similar
smooth-talking SAS dude to slip la Kirchner the salami, and get her mind right. Or dishy Prince Will might do. @BDSM-Kontakte, can you arrange a good spanking for her?
Why do you think Mrs Thatcher was so slavishly pro-American, after meeting all those GIs in Oxford in 1944? But that’s another story.
Njegos, I had to wonder whether you were serious. It seems you are. First, you assert the objectivity of a quality that is famously “in the eye of the beholder” and subject to cultural conditioning, to a significant degree; then you claim that modern science has no answer to explain this mysterious objectivity. Have you ever actually bothered to read anything about the philosophy of aesthetics or the psychology of beauty?
.
In fact, there is indeed a degree of concordance (not ‘objectivity’) in what people find beautiful, and in some cases that agreement even transcends culture. That’s just the kind of phenomenon that is ripe for a psychoevolutionary explanation. Watch the following TED animated presentation by Dennis Dutton:
.
http://www.ted.com/talks/denis_dutton_a_darwinian_theory_of_beauty.html
.
And yes, I think it is good. Certainly interesting, whatever your paradigmatic prejudices.
.
If that’s not enough science for you, maybe you should delve into the cognitive science of aesthetics, e.g. the neuroscientist Ramachandran has examined how aesthetic experiences are processed in the brain. Go seek. Take some responsibility for your own education.
Nextus,
.
I’m not really trying to assert much at all. This all started because Bonifacegoncourt chose to be abusive when some people were discussing the differences between branches of Islam. This blog often touches on matters in Islamic countries, and I think that we are fortunate to have contributors who are either practicing Muslims or are knowledgeable about Islam. These religious variations are being exploited by various powerful groups to further their own power. Much death and destruction results.
.
I wrote a comment trying to show that people may believe in “God” for reasons other than gullibility or deception, and that a lot of these differences amount to little more than varying usages of language (26 Feb 3:56 am). Bonifacegoncourt attacked that without ever having appreciated my point, and then continued with further abuse of Islamic ideas. He later chipped in with his highly offensive “freaks without foreskins” remark, as if a procedure forced upon infants could disqualify those people from serious discussion for the rest of their lives. He has since suggested that his offensiveness is actually some kind of humour. Unfortunately for me there was another “radical atheist”, Angrysoba, waiting in the wings to leap to Bonifacegoncourt’s aid, but fortunately for me there was you and Njegos.
.
I’m quite open minded about most of this myself. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics doesn’t convince me outright that there must be a “creative something”, but I do find “Universal Mind” to be a possible solution to the paradox of Wigner’s Friend, etc. Now, if “Universal Mind” is compatible with the most successful scientific theory formulated to date, I find it grossly arrogant of people to dismiss belief in “The Creator” (as opposed to religious dogmatic descriptions of assorted gods) as a mere “fairy tale”, or worse, a con-job.
.
I regard human belief in a “Creative Something” as not an artifact due to its ubiquity. The belief seems so widespread that it appears to be a natural human attribute rather than an idea that spread. Something like Chomsky’s universal grammar, or even language itself, could be comparable. Similarly, the division of functions between left and right brain hemispheres is not an artifact. Interestingly, Bonifacegoncourt has rubbished the functioning of the entire right hemisphere! I wonder if Bonifacegoncourt hates and/or dismisses all music, poetry and art.
.
Regarding possible evidence for Universal Mind in animals, we have migration patterns, behahiour of herds and schools of fish, and the much debated “hundredth monkey effect”. We see no reverence / worshipful behaviour in animals, but we see only limited and debatable artistic, musical or other aesthetic creativity as well. Possibly the needs of survival leave insufficient resources for these, but they blossom in the environment of plenty that human organisation has achieved. Or maybe we’re just not looking the right way. Like I said, I prefer to remain open minded.
Angrysoba, thanks for clarifying your arguments somewhat. They are very scientific arguments, but I’m not engaged in science here. I’m trying to defend some common ground for discussion between people of widely differing beliefs. It’s more a sort of diplomacy than science.
.
Since science (so far) leaves room for a Creative Something, and since many people here have such a belief, I think it’s daft to try to demolish such a belief with a scientific approach that is incapable of doing so in any case. It just does damage to other, more important discussions.
.
To consider a few of your points:
.
“[Faith is a] pathetic trump card to use in lieu of rational arguments…” – Well, for something “pathetic” it carries a lot of power. Maybe we should try to engage rather than dismiss.
.
“Are you serious? The gods in bibles and other holy books are exactly the gods that the vast majority of people on this planet believe in.” – No, they believe in an amalgam. Maybe you’re unaware of the complexity of religious belief. Most religions have mechanisms for discussing the conflicts inherent in their various beliefs. Certain ideas are considered more fundamental than others.
.
“when was the last time you went to a mosque, synagogue or church and told the congregants there that they are confusing the real God with the God of the Koran, the Talmud and the Bible? In the interests of science I’d like to hear what reaction you get.” – Please, Angrysoba, don’t be daft. Entering a place of worship and attacking the predominant beliefs there would be provocative in the extreme. I’m talking about discussion in a mixed environment such as this one, and I’m just saying that (1) we can have moral discussions with religious people without sharing all their beliefs, (2) that we will find those discussions more productive if we don’t immediately attack the core belief and thereby invoke the “immunisation” mechanisms, and (3) that we are scientifically unsupported if we insist that their belief in a creator is entirely primitive superstition.
.
“The concept of “universal creative something-or-other” is vague in the extreme. If you define it as the Big Bang, then maybe it is not incompatible with science but you seem to be defining it as some kind of universal consciousness which is something as yet unsupported by science” – How much have you looked into quantum physics? You really can’t eliminate mind; that is what the old objectivists were so upset about.
.
“The more I think about the physical part of the Schrödinger theory, the more detestable I find it. What Schrödinger writes about visualization makes scarcely any sense, in other words I think it is shit“. Heisenberg to Pauli, 1926.
.
“Quantum physics thus reveals a basic oneness of the universe.” – Erwin Schrodinger.
.
“Bohr was inconsistent, unclear, willfully obscure and right. Einstein was consistent, clear, down-to-earth and wrong.” John Bell to Graham Farmelo.
@Nextus:
“That’s just the kind of phenomenon that is ripe for a psychoevolutionary explanation.”
…
Psychoevolutionary is obviously a word you atheo-fundies enjoy tossing around and I give you credit – it’s sounds very, very impressive but in the end it’s just a theory of how art got started. And although it seems quite plausible (glad you enjoyed the video, btw. I liked it too) in the end it misses its target because art does not necessarily equal beauty and beauty does not necessarily equal art.
…
“Have you ever actually bothered to read anything about the philosophy of aesthetics or the psychology of beauty?”
…
Beauty is something multi-faceted and indefinable but I like to think that it is somehow linked to an ideal. Some ideals are, we might say, more “objective” or universal than others. I was introduced to this idea many years ago when reading Albert Camus’ thoughts on aesthetics and rebellion.
…
“If that’s not enough science for you, maybe you should delve into the cognitive science of aesthetics, e.g. the neuroscientist Ramachandran has examined how aesthetic experiences are processed in the brain.”
…
Please tell me that this was not your “scientific trump card”. Or are the 8 Laws of Aesthetics your Holy Bible? Where does neuroscience account for originality? Where does it account for creativity and inspiration?
…
Hmm. Well I think that is enough for now. Thank you so much for your not-in-the-least-bit condescending attempt to “educate” me.
Clark:
Nil illegitimi carburundum.
They are proud of their closed minds.
Gee Clark I like art and that, I just don’t pretend it comes from moonbeams. Check Ockham’s Razor. La Kirchner’s Post Malvinas Tension would be cured by a bloke in her bed,
to revive her joy of life, then she wouldn’t hate the Bennies. Same with the foreskinless [circumcision is child abuse and merits a life sentence] – imagine spending your whole life with a sore bell-end! No wonder the hate-filled hebrews have spent 3,000 bloodthirsty years taking revenge. To judge a cult you don’t have to know theology, you can judge Jack the Ripper without ‘knowing’ much. Your problem is one of language. If you invent bollox like ‘universal mind’ or ‘creative something’ then you tie yourself into knots trying to invent a meaning. Millions of believers do not make nonsense true. Truth is concrete. We can never explain everything, brother Gödel showed that. Just deal with it. Or are you really a godbanger, in love
with the sound of your own voice like the rest? Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate, innit.
PS Friend Njego seems to have retired in a huff. Don’t bother him with information. In Buenos Aires, they know everything already!
Bonifacegoncourt, you are a card. How does it feel to be in love with yourself?
I am truly sorry that I did not fit into your racist stereotypes of greasy Argentines. True, life would be alot easier if we could pigeonhole everyone but sometimes the unexpected happens and we hit a brick wall (in your case, it appears, again and again).
Do let us know when you uncover that evil argentine assassination plot against William.
God Save the Queen! (get the irony?)
Please excuse my condescension, Njegos, as a natural engagement with such rhetorical goading as: “Go on clever clogs. Give me the scientific explanation for beauty (this should be good!)”. I’m glad you enjoyed the presentation anyway; maybe you even learned something from it too? But persuasion wasn’t my objective – I was simply targeting your sweeping assumption “Since science cannot explain beauty …” I hope I’ve helped to clarify this issue. I have no wish to disavow you of your cherished personal metaphysical assumptions.
.
Njegos: “Please tell me that this was not your “scientific trump card”. Or are the 8 Laws of Aesthetics your Holy Bible? Where does neuroscience account for originality? Where does it account for creativity and inspiration?”
.
I’ll step over the additional taunting, if you don’t mind. As it happens, neuroscience is making good progress towards explaining the cognitive phenomena of originality, creativity and inspiration. Philosophers have been addressing these questions for decades, and now there are models being developed that can demonstrate originality and creativity, and even generate art and music (sometimes of a quite uncanny and unsettling quality). Some use genetic algorithms, some employ connectionist feedback loops, others use hybrids of analysis and recombination. IMHO, the most promising progress is being made with the computational models inspired by neural systems, though I think there are physical limitations that they will never overcome. Nonetheless, these models are helping to clarify how the brain achieves such powerful feats. However, if you’re already so resolutely cynical, and clearly not familiar enough with the topic even to conceive the possibility of an answer, then there’s little point in me alluding to the neurocomputational mechanisms responsible: the relevant theories and models assume a graduate knowledge of neuroscience, AI, psychology and computational mathematics. A more accessible introduction is on the way, incidentally, but it’s a very long read. In the meantime, you are free to make whatever metaphysical assumptions you prefer, but other people aren’t compelled to concur with your blithe assumption that there are no scientific explanations conceivable.
Nextus:
The comment was actually aimed at the preening Bonifacegoncourt but I am glad that you sprung to his defence because between you and me quite frankly, the poor bugger needed it.
…
I maintain that science cannot explain beauty for the reasons that I gave. You, OTOH, have great faith in connectionist feedback loops and neurocomputational mechanisms. I readily admit that I have no idea what these are and I would therefore invite you to explain to me, in plain English, how these techniques are advancing us towards the day when originality and creativity will be defined in purely scientific terms. I am not being facetious. I am genuinely interested to learn. Here is your opportunity to educate me. No tricks. No aces up the sleeve. The floor is yours.
…
I will reserve my pointed stick for the rascal Bonifacegoncourt.
Bonifacegoncourt,
.
you are apparently in need of remedial work. I cannot do it; you’ll need to do it yourself. Here:
.
“I like art and that, I just don’t pretend it comes from moonbeams.” – Yes, it comes predominantly from the right brain hemisphere, which you totally slagged off earlier. So if thine eye offend thee, why not pluck it out?
.
“La Kirchner’s Post Malvinas Tension would be cured by a bloke in her bed, to revive her joy of life…” – Uh, the age-old protestation of the male supremacist. Don’t you know that it’s different for women?
.
“No wonder the hate-filled hebrews have spent 3,000 bloodthirsty years taking revenge.” – Pure Jew-hatred. The vast majority of Jewish men are not “bloodthirsty”, despite Israeli foreign policy. But I agree that non-medical circumcision of minors should be stopped.
.
“Truth is concrete.” – No, you’re eighty years out of date. The closest we get to “Truth” is Bohr’s complementarity; the better you know one thing, the less becomes knowable about its complement.
.
Njegos and Nextus,
.
I’m glad you’ve got past your brief altercation. I fully expect a physical description of aesthetics to emerge over time. Despite Bonifacegoncourt’s accusations, I do not regard certain things as “supernatural”. Unlike him, I do not dismiss major aspects of that which is natural. I reject dualism; it seems unnecessary, since the physical Universe seems quite complex enough to support all phenomena. However, as the full implications of the quantum description become more widely accepted, I expect to see more – er, teleological(?) explanations. I don’t know if that’s the right word. We’re always told that evolution is blind to the future. I expect this to be only partly true.
Gosh, Njegos, I seem to have got inside your skull somewhat. Still, it’s nice and spacious, with plenty of room to stretch out my legs. I never thought the Portenos greasy – gloomy and pompous more like, with big coats, big hats, big briefcases, and an air of being stuck in 1938. I was in a taxi in Buenos Aires when the world cup was in Argentina. The Spanish driver had been in Buenos Aires for 30 years but was cheering on Spain for the cup. I suggested that after 30 years, he might feel Argentinian. He shouted: ‘NO! GENTE HORRIBLE!’
@Clark
At last! ‘need remedial work’! Authentic LOL. I’ve run out of teleological tomatoes to throw so am going to leave you Bedlamites to settle down for the night. Clark I think you can still get a sense of humour transplant on the NHS. Toodle pip!
Clark: Angrysoba, thanks for clarifying your arguments somewhat. They are very scientific arguments, but I’m not engaged in science here. I’m trying to defend some common ground for discussion between people of widely differing beliefs. It’s more a sort of diplomacy than science.
.
I don’t doubt that you are looking for a happy ending where we can all take something of value from everyone’s beliefs and find some common ground and realize we are all one. Or something like that. But I reject the premise. If you look at some of the religions that hate each other the most you will find there is almost total agreement on almost everything except some bizarre and arcane theological point which is meaningless to almost everyone else. For example, what is your view of the Filioque?
.
I also think that, again, you are trying to have things both ways. Some of the time you are arguing that your views come from cutting edge science and then you claim that your arguments are not about science. Which is it? Either you accept that they are to be subject to the same scientific scrutiny as other theories in science or you can’t claim that your views are supported by science. That means that you need to have a clear testable hypothesis which is, in principle at least, capable of falsification and empirical testing. You are, of course, correct that some scientific theories have been repeatedly rejected by the scientific establishment before finally being accepted and held to be true. We can all cite examples of this. Yet, what we don’t hear so much about are scientific theories that are rejected and rejected and rejected and never become part of mainstream science or other dismal failures.
.
Since science (so far) leaves room for a Creative Something, and since many people here have such a belief, I think it’s daft to try to demolish such a belief with a scientific approach that is incapable of doing so in any case. It just does damage to other, more important discussions.
.
I think that most scientists, even the rabid atheists, will agree that there is a possibility of an omnipotent, omniscient creative force and back in the eighteenth century many of them believed it was probable or most likely. They were called Deists. But that doesn’t mean that the chances are fifty-fifty. This is what the celestial teapot analogy is about.
.
As that example is so hackneyed, let me give you another example that I heard second-hand at university. This is called the Seven Realm Theory. Imagine, that the universe is divided into seven realms. In one realm exists all the things we know to exist except for reflections (which exists in Realm 2), and camels (which exist in Realm 1) and flutes (which exist in Realm 4). We live in Realm 1. The other Realms are empty.
.
Now, can you prove that my Seven Realm Theory is wrong? Yet, surely you would think, quite rightly, that I need to be able to prove my theory and provide evidence for it and that without proof the non-belief in the Seven Realm Theory is the default setting. This is what I think is true of atheism and why your theory of the Universal Mind requires substantiation. It is you, not me, who needs to provide the evidence. Now, I know that you keep telling me that I need to study more quantum physics but as far as I can see from looking into it it seems that many physicists have no belief in the type of diety you are talking about or universal mind and warn about hucksters who try to fool amateur dabblers in the subject with superficially plausible stories and quote-mining famous physicists. Richard Feyman and Lawrence Kraus talk of the way their subject has been hijacked by New Age gurus, although I will concede that some physicists such as Henry Stapp seem to say similar things to you and seem to have the qualifications to back them up, yet I am really not sure how far they push these ideas.
.
Well, for something “pathetic” it carries a lot of power. Maybe we should try to engage rather than dismiss.
.
Why should I engage someone’s blunting of all enquiry? The point I am making about “faith” is that it can’t be engaged with. That’s why I call it “pathetic”. It is a cop out.
.
No, they believe in an amalgam. Maybe you’re unaware of the complexity of religious belief. Most religions have mechanisms for discussing the conflicts inherent in their various beliefs. Certain ideas are considered more fundamental than others.
.
There’s an amusing passage in Voltaire’s Candide about the Muslim scholars debating the angel Gabriel’s dictation to Mohammed. Maybe you are unaware of it. Of course there are many ways in which religious views are discussed – the Councils of Nicea, Chalcedon, Trent (you know about these, right?) and of course, Vatican II. Most of them tend to end in schisms though. Similarly there were the inquisitions, the witch trials, the Crusades. All jolly good stuff.
.
Please, Angrysoba, don’t be daft. Entering a place of worship and attacking the predominant beliefs there would be provocative in the extreme. I’m talking about discussion in a mixed environment such as this one, and I’m just saying that (1) we can have moral discussions with religious people without sharing all their beliefs, (2) that we will find those discussions more productive if we don’t immediately attack the core belief and thereby invoke the “immunisation” mechanisms, and (3) that we are scientifically unsupported if we insist that their belief in a creator is entirely primitive superstition.
.
I was making a point about heresy. Sure, we can think that we are being conciliatory and obliging and indulgent as we come smiling and speaking platitudes and homilies about “the Universal Creator”/”Mind” or whatever else. But you are still a heretic and an infidel. I am only more honest about my infidel and godless status. All I am saying is not that people can’t believe. If I have to repeat myself till I am blue in the face be sure that I am not interested in converting anyone. I am just saying that I will not accept anyone telling me that X is right because God/ Yahweh/Allah/Baal says so and Y is wrong for the same reason. I also insist that it shouldn’t be a consideration when making laws. And I’m not interested in dishonest ecumenicism between atheists, theists and miscellaneous.
.
How much have you looked into quantum physics? You really can’t eliminate mind; that is what the old objectivists were so upset about.
.
First, Objectivism is a philosophy of Ayn Rand. I am not an Objectivist.
Second, imagine that we have a nuclear war on this Earth and all human and animal life is extinguished. Will the Earth itself disappear. Will the Moon disappear. Will the Sun and Mercury and Venus and Mars and Jupiter disappear? Will the Universe disappear? If yes, how do you know? If no, what mind is in existence and what evidence do you have for it?
.
@Bonifacegoncourt:
“Argentines are horrible because a cab driver once told me so!” Priceless.
Angrysoba, you are still arguing about religion vs. science. Yes, I have expounded my personal theories on other threads, but on this thread I only wish to establish that Bonifacegoncourt has been acting like a shit, and is scientifically unsupported in so doing. I thought you were opposed to that kind of hate speech? What’s changed since the 9/11 thread?
.
No, I know nothing of “the Councils of Nicea, Chalcedon, Trent […] and Vatican II”. I glanced at Filioque on Wikipedia, and I can’t be bothered to read all that; it basically looks like trivia to me. Do you really think that average religious believers care much about such stuff? I think they just let their clergy get on with it. Sorry I used “objectivist” inappropriately (sigh).
.
Yes, I know of these New Age Guru’s. I’ve had some long arguments with some of their followers. This stuff is as open to manipulation as religion. As is science; see Ben Goldacre’s blog. Manipulating and misrepresenting science to selfish ends is the specialty of corporatism.
.
So you like taunting religious believers. Great. I think that just adds to the problems of the world.
.
What happens to the physical Universe without animals to observe it is one of the questions that has drawn me to the Universal Mind interpretation. There is also the many-billion years before life on Earth to account for. And the problem of consensus.
.
Angrysoba, you have an interest in history, but you apportion much blame for conflict upon the various religions, and then you follow through and blame virtually all of it on belief in “God”! Are you sure you’re not suffering from confirmation bias? As I understand it, many creeds have lived happily and peacefully alongside each other for long periods of time, but of course, that does not make interesting history. If you study all the conflicts, and find that groups from different areas or backgrounds fight, of course you will find people of different religions fighting each other. But you will also find those groups wearing different clothes or uniforms, eating different rations, and believing different non-religious legends.
.
At the core of most religions you will find the moral concepts we need to make the world a better place. They are there because the good sense of people put them there. So why discount them because science hasn’t proven the existence of God? As I said before, maybe you feel drawn to conflict.
.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/god-angrily-clarifies-dont-kill-rule,222/