Underlying Philosophy

The others are giving you good answers, so I hope that I will be able to offer a slightly different perspective. OK, that's a bit weird. "abstract entities"? Is that from that odd pagan idea -- Plato was it? -- that for anything to exist, such as a chair or the color green, there must exist a pure abstract thing which is that thing or quality. Is that what you're talking about here?Well, I must warn you: I'm an engineer. Well, software engineer; the schooling isn't as rigorous, but it's the same community and we work on the same projects. Engineers don't have much patience for iffy stuff like philosophy. Our only use for philosophy is to decide upon and describe our approach to making our design work -- as such, our use of the term is akin to "theory of operation" and is different from yours, I'm quite sure.The thing is that the engineer's approach is akin to that of many atheists, as I personally understand it. We're realists and pragmatists and that's the basic atheist approach. What is the world really like? What works? No underlying philosophy leads to atheism, but rather it's usually the failure of the underlying theistic philosophy/religion that that person was already involved in.The thing is that while it can be said that everybody is born an atheist, we do still fairly quickly become socialized in our families and immediate communities. Even with an atheist population of 10%, that would still mean that most children will become indoctrinated in a theistic religion -- ironically, a common trend in atheist families is to avoid indoctrinating their own children in atheism; I didn't discover until entering adulthood that my own father had been an unbeliever since before he had turned 21. Therefore, the atheist's fundamental starting point is very often religion. Is that starting point valid? No, obviously not, since it's often the person's discovery that his religious views are not valid which leads to atheism.I say "often", because every atheist's story is different, even though there are some common themes. You might want to visit some ex-Christian sites to familiarize yourself. Many are the result of having been lied to or betrayed -- in this category, I would include the effects on a creationist of learning the truth about evolution. In Dan Barker's case, his Christian experience (born and raised in a fundamentalist family, personally called to the ministry by God, etc) was wonderful, but then he started to think. As he described it in his book (godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists -- as of Ch 3, it's a good read) (pg 37):

quote:

---

I remember the way I was thinking then: every Christian has a particular hierarchy the doctrines and practices, and most Christians arrange their hierarchy in roughly the same manner. The existence of God is at the top, the deity of Jesus just below that, and so on down to the bottom of the list, where you find issues like whether women should wear jewelry or make-up in church. What distinguishes many brands of Christianity is where they'd draw their line between what is essential and what is not. Extreme fundamentalists draw the line way down at the bottom of the list, making all doctrines about that equally necessary. Moderates draw the line somewhere up in the middle of the list. Liberals draw the line way up at the top, not caring of the bible as is inherent or if Jesus existed historically, but holding onto the existence of God, whether he or she is defined, maintaining the general usefulness of religion, and valuing rituals to give structure or meaning to life.

​

As I traveled across the spectrum, I kept drawing my line higher and higher.

---

That is how Dan Barker, co-president of the Foundation for Freedom From Religion, transistioned over a few years from fundamentalist preacher to atheist. Note that at no time was he aiming for atheism nor was he influenced by atheists. Indeed, when I first heard him speak it was through the 1980's 15-minute weekly radio program of Atheists United of Los Angeles (yeah, right, atheist programming flooding the airwaves to the complete exclusion of Christian programming); he had gone through his deconversion a few years before in Southern California. In the opening of his speech to Atheists United, he yelled: "Where were you when I needed you?" As he went through that long process, as far as he ever knew he was the only atheist in existence.In my own case, as a young teenager in a mainstream church, I decided I needed to learn what I was supposed to believe, so, proceeding with nave literalism, I started to read the Bible from the beginning. It didn't take long for me to realize that I just couldn't believe what I was reading, so the only thing I could do was to leave Christianity. It was a full half-decade before I ever heard of any atheist authors. So a "philosophy of atheism" had nothing to do with it, nor with my understanding of morality, which enabled me to successfully navigate sexual moral dilemmas, the very promise of which lead Christian teens to fake becoming atheists in order to give free reign to their bubbling hormones (one of the big problems with morality based solely on belief in God).Though my favorite deconversion story is of the Baptist boy who went to college and started dating a Catholic girl. He really liked her and felt so sorry for her that she was going to go to Hell for not being a "true Christian". Then one day she started crying uncontrollable; she really liked him and felt so sorry for him that he was going to go to Hell for being a heretic (ie, non-Catholic). Shocked awake, he went to the library and asked for the most complete history of Christianity they had. Despite repeated attempts by the librarian to spare him ("You really don't want to read this."), he checked it out and read the massive tome in a month, at the end of which he was convinced that there really is a God, then He sure as Hell wasn't Christian.Basically, all that atheists can agree on is that they don't believe in any of the gods; anything else is pretty much up to each individual atheist and will vary pretty much with each individual atheist. For example, my position is primarily agnostic, in that it is humanly impossible to know anything about the supernatural, even whether it exists. From there, we can either assume theism or atheism. My opinion is that the atheistic assumption is the more honest one, because the theist must then make up an awful lot of extra stuff about his particular god, none of which could ever be verified (remember realism and pragmatics?). Even if it were to turn out that a supernatural entity existed that could possibly be interpreted as "God", it would still be the case that the Christian God is made up by Man. Just note that while many atheists would deny the existence of the supernatural, for me it's
highly doubtful but not impossible; rather I concentrate a bit more on how humans could possibly relate to it or know anything at all about it. You know, the realistic and pragmatic stuff.Please know, if you have not already realized it, that just about every atheist is different, that there is no one single "underlying philosophy of atheism". Know also, if you base your "knowledge" of atheists on what the Bible says, that the Bible is wrong about that (an ex-Christian on one site once quoted those verses and I recognized some really stupid things that fundamentalists have said to me over the years). If you want to know what atheists think and believe, then ask them and listen. Of course, given Dan Barker's story, you also now know the dangers that thinking and learning can pose. To begin with, Waltz-Tango-Foxtrot-Oversway? (WTF, over)Morality -- we are a social species. All social species have social behavior -- just why do you think that we can get along so well with another very social species, dog? Without morality, society could not exist. We have formed societies which continue to exist. Those societies include morality. Made by human societies without any contribution from any of the gods. Duh?Ethics -- again, morality, though more codified. We are dealing with other people, dealing in trust. I'd been of the opinion that the fundamental basis of morality is trust, which means that betrayal of a trust is one of the worst social transgressions there that can be. Ethics is a codified way of maintaining that trust. Codified by humans without any help from any of the gods. Again, duh?Logic -- uh, sorry, but Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot-Oscar? Let's grab this bull by the tail and face the situation. Why stop with logic? What about geometry? Or algebra? Or windmills? Or gas turbines? Or klystrons? Or cell phones? Uh, hello? Those are all man-made, each and every one. Whatever gave you the idea that your god had anything to do with any of them? Seriously! Chapter and verse! Now, how could any of them have arisen? Guess what, because they work! Realism and pragmatism! Remember?And, "believe in these entities"? As far as I can tell, those "entities" are just silly Platonian figments of the imagination. However, logic, morality, ethics, etc. Of course I recognize those and believe that they exist. For the same reason that I believe that my car and my computer exist. And, most unfortunately, also my ex. Simply because they do actually exist. Realism. Remember?, fundamentalists (having been one for decades)

Our Zen moment: the sound of one mind boggling.I mean, we are of average and higher human intelligence. And you do not believe that we could possibly be capable of abstract concepts? WTF? What planet are you from?When Dan Barker spoke to that Atheists United meeting in the mid 80's, he described how he grew up with his mother going about the house every day doing her housework while singing in tongues. He then described a fundamentalist phenomenon which he described as "when your theology becomes your psychology."I directly encountered it when I was going through my divorce about six years ago. The singles ministry at a local mega-church (Rick Warren's Saddleback, in case you've ever heard of it) had dance classes for its members (even though the pastors, all married, obviously didn't have a clue how to deal with their singles), a several of whom were in my Lindy class, so when twice as many women than men showed up for class (about 150 to 75) the woman organizing the class recruited some men from our class to try to offset that imbalance, myself included. In order to keep me in the class which I would have had to leave for a divorce class elsewhere, she talked me into taking their DivorceCare class. Worst decision I have ever made. It was geared for the Baptist theology having become their psychology. What kernels there were to glean from it were buried under mountains of religious chaff. According to them, only Christians could ever possibly recover from divorce. She also tried to get me to go to two Christian counselors at Mariner's Church, Cloud and Townsend. They weren't quite as bad, but yet again all the reasons for even wanting to get better was tied directly to "because Jesus wants you to" and "because it gets you closer to God" and never ever had anything to do with reality. WTF?sac, I do not in any way mean this as an insult, but, you see, we are the normals. You are the one who's out there on the very shaky limb. I've read through your responses and ... they are rather strange.For one thing, you keep making the very serious mistake that normals think the same as you do. We don't. We think normally. Your thinking is twisted by your theology.I assume that you are sincerely trying to figure us out. So do so, but please listen to us and try to refrain from projecting your theology onto us; we think normally and not subject to your theology. I've been in contact with and trying to deal with fundamentalists ever since the "Jesus Freak" movement circa 1970, whereas I assume that you are just starting to try to deal with normals. I am speaking from experience.

Because, as Dan Barker described it, their theology has become their psychology.They don't have a clue how we normals think.Edited by dwise1, : added qs

Certain things work and certain things don't. It's as simple as that. You try things out and you discover what works and what doesn't, then you use what works and discard what doesn't. What part of that is so hard to understand?All logic is is setting your thoughts in an orderly manner. The word derives from the Greek "lego", from which we get "lay", to place something down.The pagan Greeks tested what worked and what didn't. And from that they developed logic. What part of that is so hard to understand? Man-made. Pagan-made.Your "reasoning" makes absolutely no sense.

I do not believe in a god (though Thor might become a bit more popular again when the Avengers movie comes out) and yet I know many things -- besides being a working software engineer and polyglot, I can be a formidable force in Trivial Pursuit (as long as I can stay away from Sports, though I won a game once against our minister, a master at the game, by being able to identify what a "California Prayer Book" was). There are many other individuals who do not believe in a god and yet they know much more than I do.So now that the basis of your arguments has been shown to be completely and utterly false, we can abandon it and you can then move this discussion towards something more interesting and fruitful.

---

One of the things I know, having completed the Navy's Quartermaster course, is how a ship's navigator operates. He starts with the ship's current position, which he determines with a navigational fix (taking sightings and performing the math). Then as the ship steams on its course, he periodically plots dead reckoning fixes which determine where the ship should be along its course at any given time. He does that by noting the ship's heading and measured speed and the elapsed time since the last fix and extrapolating where the ship should be now. Then after some dead reckoning fixes, he pokes his head outside, takes some more sightings and plots the ship's plot with a correction to its actual position with a navigational fix.The point is that as useful as dead reckoning is, it is subject to error and the accumulation thereof. If the navigator were to rely solely on dead reckoning, there's no telling where his ship would end up. So every once in a while, he must go outside and look to see where they really are. Or as a friend was once told by his flight instructor when he was focussing too much on the instruments: "Get your head out of the cockpit!"In a way, we use logic to perform our daily "dead reckoning" and observations of the real world to get our corrective fixes; science uses this approach, while theology only has logic and nothing that they can actually observe to give them a corrective fix. As this story illustrates (was attributed to an essay by Carl Sagan):

quote:

---

The Physicist and the Metaphysicist

​

In the 1920s, there was a dinner at which the physicist Robert W. Wood was asked to respond to a toast. This was a time when people stood up, made a toast, and then selected someone to respond. Nobody knew what toast they'd be asked to reply to, so it was a challenge for the quick-witted. In this case the toast was: "To physics and metaphysics." Now by metaphysics was meant something like philosophy -- truths that you could get to just by thinking about them. Wood took a second, glanced about him, and answered along these lines: The physicist has an idea, he said. The more he thinks it through, the more sense it makes to him. He goes to the scientific literature, and the more he reads, the more promising the idea seems. Thus prepared, he devises an experiment to test the idea. The experiment is painstaking. Many possibilities are eliminated or taken into account; the accuracy of the measurement is refined. At the end of all this work, the experiment is completed and ... the idea is shown to be worthless. The physicist then discards the idea, frees his mind (as I was saying a moment ago) from the clutter of error, and moves on to something else.

​

The difference between physics and metaphysics, Wood concluded, is that the metaphysicist has no laboratory.

---

If all you can ever use is dead reckoning (or logic), then you have no way of knowing where you will end up. Grounded on a shoal, broken up on the rocks, or irretrievably lost at sea.Time to get your head out of the cockpit.

I just occurred to me to ask you: do you know anything about logic?Have you studied formal logic? Do you know what a syllogism is, how to construct it, and how to determine its validity? Have you ever visited the Square of Oppositions and do you understand it? Have you ever constructed a Venn diagram? And what sophistry is and how it works?For that matter, do you understand what validity is? And the relationship between a syllogism's validity and its truth?Edited by dwise1, : changed title

Still in the reserves until they kick me out in a couple years. ETC. Congrats on making CWO. As a former DS and professionally a software engineer, I tried to apply for a warrant in the DS field. It isn't easy; kudos to you.You're an HM? I've noticed that the vast majority of Navy recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor are either HMs or SEALs. I've also noticed that in the reserve center, since medical readiness is so highly prized, the HMs (with the DTs having been recently merged into that rating) are the most overworked members of the FTS staff, as well as the reserves on drill weekend. If it's any consolation, I had long ago established a solid reputation with our "docs" of always taking care of all my medical issues immediately. You're too over-worked as it is, so why should I add to that work load?Also in 34 years, I've never come across a CWO; I assume one rates a salute. We're about to move to an Army-run joint-services reserve center, so I'd better get that straight.In college, "what's your sign" was very popular -- that was back in the early 70's, shortly before mood rings came out (just to establish the ambiance). I was always confused that everybody would back off when I'd answer with my sun sign and absolutely refuse to explain why, so I started studying astrology. Fascinating subject. Even came in very handy in astronomy classes; not only was I able to visualize celestial coordinates and the rates and manners in which the planets move, but with my current ephemeris I could tell the class what planets would be visible in the night sky that night and where to look for it (of course, I no longer have a current ephemeris, but I'm working on software to do some of that, as part of my personal C# training).The thing about astrology is that it's a very intricate system with inexerable logic that ties everything together. Unassailable logic. But does it actually work? The thing about logic (and part of what I have asked sac) is that it is not true, but only valid. In order for logic to prove something to be true, at least two conditions must be met: 1) the syllogisms must be valid and 2) the premises must all be true -- that is where sophistry comes in, by getting your victims to accept false premises as true. In astrology, all the logic is valid. So what about the premises? Well, we have no way to test the premises and the results turn out to be inconsistent. And, OBTW, what about the premises of theology? Well, they've hardly been proven to be true, especially as we get into each individual denomination's additional premises of each denomination's chains of syllogisms.It was around in 1974/5 when I learned that lesson, an important lesson about the supernatural: there's no way to test any claims involving the supernatural, so you can get all wrapped up in a web of intricate and valid logic and still end up so far away from reality. That was before I had ever received any training in navigation, so I relied on my father's experience in a short stint of mining with a friend. They wanted to dig a tunnel to another shaft, the exact location of which they knew for certain. So they started digging in the direction that they knew for certain that other shaft was. And they kept digging well past where they should have hit that shaft. Never did hit it.I immediately realized that the same applied to every investigation into the supernatural, including theology. You can devise the most intricate and logically valid system possible, but if even one of your premises is false, or if even one step in your intricate chain of syllogisms went wrong, then you end up with nothing. Well, nothing that you could absolutely depend upon.Now, as already expressed, as an engineer I do not have much faith in philosophy. And as an atheist I do not have much faith in theology. But at the same time I do have respect for theology. The ideal approach is that of science, but science is very limited in what kinds of questions it can handle. Theology attempts -- nay, dares -- to tackle questions that science could never even think of considering to attempt to approach. Questions that reach to the very core of what it is to be human. I may approach various theologies' conclusions with skepticism, but I do absolutely respect their efforts. I am a Unitarian-Universalist, of the atheist stripe. Our first minister (whom I met during a Boy Scouts of America, Inc, lawsuit in federal court, where BSA had gathered a notebook full of messages posted on CompuServe (this was circa 1990/1991, and the lawsuit was Welsh vs BSA circa 1991 -- and, yes, many of those messages, including my own, were taken out-of-context)) once present to us the most basic religious question: "How, then, are we to live our lives?" Our church is identified by the catch-phrase, "To question is the answer", and I do believe that constantly questioning our beliefs and preconceptions and assumptions is a fundamental religious duty.Science could never consider such a question as "how then are we to live our lives?", nor should we ever expect it to. At the same time, the questions that science can consider, it does extremely well, far better than any theology ever possibly could. I guess that this is a call for division of labor: let science handle what it can handle best and theology/philosophy handle what it can handle best and don't let the two encroach into each other's territory. Science rarely encroaches, though almost only in personal statements, whereas "creation science" encroaches on a regular basis, as in ICR's John Morris':

quote:

---

"If evolution is true, then the Bible is not true."
(What is the Purpose of Creation Ministry, in Institute for Creation Research Back to Genesis Report No. 78, June 1995)

​

"If the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning."
(The 1986 International Conference on Creationism by Robert Schadewald, Creation/Evolution Newsletter, Volume 6, Number 5, September/October 1986, NCSE, pp 8-14, in direct response to Glenn R. Morton's question of "How old is the earth?")

---

The fundamental problem is that while science is far superior to theology in its ability to answer questions, it is also extremely limited in the kinds of questions that it is able to answer. At the same time, theology is more than ready to tackle those kinds of questions, but their methodology leads to extremely unrealiable conclusions. This leaves us with science telling us about the real world, whereas theology and philosophy telling us about the really important questions.

Aye, that is true.But sometimes that black cat is all ye've got.Yes, theologians can persuade themselves of anything, but at least they are trying to address the important questions that science could never even begin to approach (nor would be able to approach).The point, as a confirmed atheist (having become one around the traditional age of confirmation), is that there are very important questions that are normally only addressed by theology and philosophy. And that simply because somebody provides an answer does not mean that it's a correct answer.I'm a Unitarian-Universalist. The UU catch-phrase is "To Question is the Answer." My interpretation of that (which was originally meant as a "question authority" type of catch-phrase) is that answers are unimportant, but rather asking the right questions is what is important. The right questions keep us searching, whereas the wrong answers stop that search. A quote that I've obtained that is attributed to Andre Gide is:

quote:

---

Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it.

---

OS got to be a tricky course for me when I got to the chapter on the maneuvering board where we were plotting intercept courses, formation change courses, etc. The earlier examples worked OK, but as it progressed, it became increasingly difficult to work the problems out solely from the course's text; it became increasingly apparent to me that some practical was sorely needed. I also remember from elsewhere reference to submarine officers being able to calculate firing solutions in their heads faster than the equipment could provide it, testament to what the human mind can accomplish. When we chiefs proctor the advancement exams, I inwardly shudder a bit every time I see the dividers and parallel rulers we provide to the OSes.As for getting used to salutes ... . Towards the end of basic training, we slowly started to regain some priviledges, such as a few hours of TV time in the evening. "Star Trek" (TOS was all there was in 1976) and "MASH" took on a whole new meaning with our new-found military background. Remember that episode of MASH where Hawkeye talked someone into giving Radar a field commission ("for bugling above and beyond the call of duty")? At first, he was thrilled at being saluted-to, but then he saw all kinds of enlisted pouring out of the mess tent and he quickly ducked into another tent to avoid them.Well, one morning during tech school (I was active duty Air Force, BTW), we had our early morning formation in front of the school squadron building as usual and then went through the squadron building breezeway to form up in back for marching to class (OSK ("other side of Keesler"), my fate for the first month before graduating from Basic Electronics Doctrine). Our barber shop was there on the other side of the breezeway. We could not help but notice how our squadron XO, a 1LT (O2, for you non-fly-boy types), quickly ducked into the barber shop rather than have to salute each and every airman individually. I can't blame him. One drill weekend, I had the quarterdeck watch at the reserve center. Everybody who entered or left the building had to request permission to enter or leave and we had to return the salute each and every time. The worst part was the Marines, who would individually leave and re-enter the building repeatedly to form up outside, multiple times during the day. By the end of the watch (which seemed much longer than 4 hours), it felt like my arm was going to fall off!I also remember one day in the "Keesler Triangle" (Keesler AFB, MS -- like the "Bermuda Triangle, only infinitely worse!), I was walking down the sidewalk and my squadron CO, a CAPT (O-3, no eagle), was walking toward me. OK, so what does every enlisted man do? He tries to avoid the salute. But what did I see my CO doing? He was trying to avoid looking at me, trying to avoid the salute! At the last moment, he knew he was trapped so he returned my salute. And he gave an "Air Force" salute. OK, we enlisted were trained to salute with the upper arm parallel to the ground, as I'm sure that sailors are trained. Well, Air Force officers would salute with their elbow lowered. I've even seen a film of Army Air Corps officers from WWI (OK, whatever that part fo the Army was back then) salute using the exact-same low-elbow salute. OK, inside a cramped cockpit, what kind of salute do you render? When our VTU gets another airdale, I'll gave to ask him. Thoroughly enjoy having to salute all day!
It's not Schadenfreude. Getting warrant is a helluva achievement! I failed at getting in in the DS field, whereas you succeeded in the medical field. You really have your work cut out for you. You take God damned good care (this from a confirmed atheist) of our people! Sailor, Marine, Airman, Sailor, Guardsman, what the frak ever! Medical is always on the front line! Never fail us!

(system wouldn't let me simply delete content)Edited by dwise1, : need to regroup

Please pardon the springboarding.I've previously mentioned hearing a mid-80's presentation (recorded and replayed on the radio) by former fundamentalist minister Dan Barker (now co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation). He was born and raised in fundamentalism; he described how his mother would every day do her housework while singing in tongues. One of the things I remember from that presentation (not yet mentioned in my reading of his book, godless) is his description of the fundamentalist mentality as being "when your theology becomes your psychology." I saw it at work during my divorce when I was unfortunately talked into going through the DivorceCare program at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church as well as a few visits to Cloud and Townsends' Monday relationships sessions at Mariner's. Everything centers around Jesus! DivorceCare did have a few kernels to offer and there might have been a few more, but it was all buried under mountains of religious chaff. Cloud and Townsend, two Christian counselors, generally offered what other counselors do, so there was a bit less chaff, but then the only reason they offered for why you should take care of yourself is "because that's what Jesus wants." What kind of sense does that make to a normal? And the major message that DivorceCare delivers is that only Christians could ever possibly survive a divorce? What planet are these freaks from?sac is a presuppositionalist. And he is so wrapped up in his theology that that's the only way he can think. Normal thinking appears to be quite beyond him. To hark back to something else I've posted, his head is so firmly wedged in the cockpit that he is unable to pull it out to see what's really going on around him.From that Wikipedia article (my emphasis):

quote:

---

The conclusion of evidential apologetics is that the Bible is probably more accurate about what it reports than not, thus the whole of Biblical revelation is probably true, and where we don't have absolute certainty we must accept the most probable theory. The goal of presuppositional apologetics on the other hand, is to argue that the assumptions and actions of non-Christians require them to believe certain things about God, man and the world which they claim they do not believe. This type of argument is technically called a reductio ad absurdum in that it attempts to reduce the opposition to holding an absurd, i.e. contradictory position; in this case, both believing in facts of Christian revelation (in practice) and denying them (in word). So in essence, evidential apologetics attempts to build from a common starting point in neutral facts, while presuppositional apologetics attempts to claim all facts for the Christian worldview as the only framework in which they are intelligible.

---

So he's trying to back us into a corner. A corner that does not exist. A corner that only exists inside his fevered theology-imprisoned mind. Reminds me of all those fundamentalist proselytizers who had this really great conversion script all rehearsed (eg, the infamous "After-Life Insurance" rehash of Pascal's Wager), only to have me completely ruin it by exposing the gaping holes in their script.When are they ever going to finally realize that they don't have the slightest clue what atheists really believe, think, or do? When are they ever going to finally realize that all they have to do is to ask us ... and to listen for once!sac, I think I've told you this before in another way: normals don't think like you do, so when you're talking with normals, you have to actually listen to what they tell you and think about it. Though, admittedly, thinking can be dangerous; that's how Dan Barker went from being a life-long fundamentalist and prominent preacher to one of the most prominent atheists in America.PS
I remember a Charles Bronson movie where he was in the Border Patrol. As he was training a new agent in the art of tracking, he instructed him to cut a mark in his own boot so that he could distinguish his own tracks from the others'. To euphemize it, he told of an agent who didn't do that. He started following his own tracks. Ended up following himself up his own rectum and nobody ever saw him again.Kind of what you're doing, sac. Time to pull your head out of the cockpit and see what's really going on around you.

You completely missed what Woodsy was saying. Please read the little story I gave you, The Physicist and the Metaphysicist in Message 95 (msgid=553486).Oh, who are we trying to kid here? You'll never go back and read it, so here it is again:

quote:

---

The Physicist and the Metaphysicist

​

In the 1920s, there was a dinner at which the physicist Robert W. Wood was asked to respond to a toast. This was a time when people stood up, made a toast, and then selected someone to respond. Nobody knew what toast they'd be asked to reply to, so it was a challenge for the quick-witted. In this case the toast was: "To physics and metaphysics." Now by metaphysics was meant something like philosophy -- truths that you could get to just by thinking about them. Wood took a second, glanced about him, and answered along these lines: The physicist has an idea, he said. The more he thinks it through, the more sense it makes to him. He goes to the scientific literature, and the more he reads, the more promising the idea seems. Thus prepared, he devises an experiment to test the idea. The experiment is painstaking. Many possibilities are eliminated or taken into account; the accuracy of the measurement is refined. At the end of all this work, the experiment is completed and ... the idea is shown to be worthless. The physicist then discards the idea, frees his mind (as I was saying a moment ago) from the clutter of error, and moves on to something else.

​

The difference between physics and metaphysics, Wood concluded, is that the metaphysicist has no laboratory.

---

Now let's provide the complete quote so that you can again see Woodsy's context: Now it should become clear to you that he was alluding to the story I had posted. Hence that laboratory is a metaphor for the act of verifying through observation, experimentation, just plain pulling your head out of the cockpit, etc, whether the results/predictions of our hypothesis/theory/idea agrees with reality.In science, we are testing our ideas against reality all the time. In religion, that is done practically never. Indeed, when religion does try to verify its conclusions against reality, those conclusions almost always turn out to be wrong (eg, the claims of "creation science").Let us entertain a small example. Let us say that one's interpretation of Genesis leads one to believe that men have one fewer rib than women do. While I am not suggesting that you personally hold such a belief, there have been and still are many who do believe that, so this example is not at all far-fetched. OK, how do we tell whether it's true?Having that metaphoric laboratory, a scientific approach would be to compare two human skeletons, a male and a female, in particular comparing their rib counts. Preferably, several skeletons should be examined, making careful note of any exceptions they find. Even better, the results and the data should be published and several other scientists should then obtain their own sets of several skeletons and perform their own counts and count comparisons. Then, all these groups should communicate with each other and compare their results. As a result, the community can come together and form a consensus based on their research, which we know would be that men and women have the same number of ribs, that men are not missing a rib as was previously thought.Since the religious community does not have any metaphoric laboratory, how does it conduct its investigation?Seriously, how? I cannot think of any way that the religious community could test its conclusions without adopting the scientific method's comparing one's conclusions to reality. Seriously! When you in your theology and logic come to a conclusion, how do you know that it's right? How do you test it?With all due respect, what we've seen of how the religious "test" their conclusions is that they see that it seems to agree with their beliefs, so it must be true, even when it completely contradicts reality. Which is one of the reasons why we have "creation science".Edited by dwise1, : minor clean-up and picking of a grammatical nitEdited by dwise1, : minor rewording

Philosophical implications? OK, yeah. But those are all the implications raised, certainly no practical ones. No, not interpreting the universe based on any gods means by definition that we do not interpret the universe based on any gods, period. Exactly the same as do theists!The universe is the universe and operates all the same regardless of whether we believe in any gods or not. Whether we believe in any gods or not has absolutely no impact on whether a particular engineering design will work. Will this software application work as it's designed and intended to? Gods or no gods, the outcome will be the same. Will that aircraft fly? Gods or no gods, the outcome will be the same. Will a particular chemical reaction take place, a particular decay chain reaction, a particular physical event? Gods or no gods, the outcome will be the same.Scientists, engineers, technicians, mechanics, hobbyists, and weekend repairmen all approach working physically with the universe in the same way, regardless of whether they believe in any gods or not. It does not make one whit of difference. Their own personal ruminations will vary, but their approach and their interpretation of what's going on in the physical processes they deal with will be essentially the same.Are you at all familiar with Isaac Asimov's first Foundation book? Being able to predict the collapse of the Galactic Empire, scientists form the Foundation in order to save all their knowledge and technology so that it can be used to jump-start the rebirth of galactic civilization. Early on in the Darkness, they deal with neighboring barbaric systems by exporting technology, but in a very controlled manner. They couch it in religious terms and train technician priests. The punchline is that in order to make a piece of equipment work, you needed to recite the specific prayers and incantations correctly, then push that red button.So, since you only interpret the universe based on a god, how do you start your car in the morning? Or your computer? Do you need to recite specific prayers and incantations in order to make it work? Or do you simply go the standard start-up procedures? The exact same procedures followed by those who do not believe in any gods? Gods or no gods, what difference does it make? Absolutely none! The universe, your car, and your computer all run exactly the same irrespective of the gods. Which causes problems for you.In studying a particular physical phenomenon, we make observations and take measurements and try to figure it out. We deal directly with the phenomenon. We are free to see it clearly, whereas you must also filter everything you see through your theology. I have a friend at church who used to be a fundamentalist Christian and who used to have to filter out every day everything that contradicted his beliefs; he finally couldn't keep it up anymore and became an atheist and now is much happier being able to deal with reality.That filtering can lead to the false "God of the Gaps" theology, which is widely practiced in creationism and ID. They point to things that we can't explain (or at least that they claim we can't explain) and proclaim that gap in our knowledge to be proof of God. The problem for them is that when we do find an explanation, when we close that gap, then that proof of God disappears. This leads to a distinct difference between scientists and creationists: the scientist sees a mystery and wants to solve it, whereas the creationist sees that same mystery as proof of God and wants it to remain a mystery. True enough. We deal with the universe as it really is, whereas you tie yourself up in a confused tangle of theological knots.I'm sure that you are unable to see it, but obviously ours is the better way to deal with the universe. As does bullshit. So why are atheists the only ones reaching for hip-boots and a shovel?Edited by dwise1, : I'm talking about belief in gods not having any actual impact

I so want to ask just where you get such bizaare ideas from, but then I am familiar with Christian doctrine. Though that does not make your stated position any less bizaare and out-of-touch with reality. Please, you really do need to pull your head out of the cockpit and see what's real.I've encountered such statements before, so I'll share my response from several years ago to another such statement having been made by a father of four children:

quote:

---

The point I was trying to make in my original email is that is if the Bible is NOT (accurate and literal) then I don't see what difference it makes (to me) once I'm dead how I lived life.

​

Completely and utterly and blatantly untrue. I just cannot comprehend how anybody could seriously think such a thing!

​

First, if there is an after-life but your biblical literalism simply got it wrong, then it would still be highly probable that how you lived your life would have a DIRECT effect on what will happen to you once you're dead. True, you'd be very surprised with it, once the Maya had worn off, but then I truly believe that if an after-life exists then a lot of people are going to be very surprised, especially evangelical Christians.

​

Second, even if there is no after-life, how you had lived your life would STILL matter, long after you're dead. Why are you thinking only of yourself? You are a FATHER, a parent! Even if there is no heaven nor hell nor next life for you to go to when you die, how you lived would still matter very much. How you raised your children. How you treated others. Whether you helped or hindered them. What you built; what kind of legacy you left behind. All that matters very much!

​

But let's go back to the subject line of your email: "RE: If evolution is right... ". If evolution is right and our bodies are little more than a way for our genes to reproduce themselves, then it STILL matters VERY MUCH how we live our lives. Because if we do not produce offspring and provide for them in such a way as to enhance their survival and their ability to produce their own offspring, thus propogating our genes into the future, then we will have failed. That includes ensuring that society and community will be able to enhance their survival, thus benefitting the entire gene pool we are a part of. How we live our lives affects the propogation of our genes, so it still matters. In fact, it matters even more, because it directly affects ALL future generations. It cannot matter much more than that!

​

But let's return to your selfish perspective, your asking "but what's in it for ME?". Why bother to live a life worth living? Sounds so ridiculous, once you actually ask the question, doesn't it? And the answer sounds so obvious: because living such a life is worth it! How could anybody really think that it doesn't matter?

---

So you see, sac, despite your selfish, narrowly self-centered theology, it is not all about you. It really is time for you to pull your head out of your theological cockpit, open your eyes, and conduct a reality check. Then why did you even bring it up? And just what exactly is your reason for doing any good things, if it's not for the benefit of others nor for the sake of doing good?

Could you please provide us with that definition to which you are referring. Properly cited, of course, so that we can also go back to the source and see for ourselves what it says. Because you are presenting such a simplistic definition as to make it absurd.Yes, science can only work with what it can observe, but indirect observation also counts. We cannot directly observe blue fairies or pink unicorns, nor can we indirectly observe them since they have no effect on the physical universe. The same applies for all other matters supernatural, which is why God and the like are not subject to scientific explanations.However, we can observe moral behavior, we study it, and we can observe and study its influence on animal societies, including our own societies. Your bare assertion is groundless. What is it with this idiotic argument that you guys keep trotting out? I see it as a clear indication of how much you do not understand or appreciate morality and what small a role morality plays in conservative Christianity. Frankly, if you really and truly believe that argument, then you are a menace to society and out to create more menaces to society.Here's a real-world question for you: why are Christian groups so zealous about upholding the morals of society at large? After all, in their theology, it's all about them, about each individual. Their main concern is whether they personally go to Heaven and if you're saved, then you're supposed to behave yourself. Are you saved by moral conduct? No, that would be salvation by works, which most sects nix, though others OK because that's also in the Bible. So then moral conduct is not part of your salvation, just something that gets tagged on.But, you are only human and so you will inevidably stumble and do something bad. So then you simply ask God for forgiveness, which He always gives you as would any half-way decent invisible friend. So then now everything has been corrected, right? Wrong! Everything we do affects those around us. When you did something wrong, you adversely affected others. When God forgives you, does that make everything alright with those you had adversely affected? No, it does not, not in the least bit. The bad effects of your bad behavior continue on, totally regardless of whether you believe in any of the gods or not.But then it's all about you, isn't it? So you couldn't care less what your bad behavior does to others, because as long as your god keeps forgiving you then everything is alright.So then, why do Christian groups push so very hard to impose what they deem to be the correct morality upon the rest of society? Because they believe in God? No, because they live in the real world. They know that they and their children and all their kin and friends depend on society running smoothly, and morality is the oil that keeps society running smoothly.Yet again, it is our worldview of the real world that they live by, not your convoluted supernaturalistic worldview.Frankly, if you truly believe that if you didn't believe in God you would be a serial axe-murderer, then by all means do continue believing in your God. Only please don't listen to Him when He does command you to go out and kill, as He has commanded so many others.