My Beliefs- GDR

I’ll stick with Tom for the time being as I want to stick with a generic theistic deity. So yes, I believe Tom is responsible for every healthy body and those born with birth defects. I agree that this is a very difficult question for us Tomians to get our heads around.I am firmly convinced that Tom exists for a number of reasons none of which I can prove empirically, and all of which I have gone over here numerous times. I am trying to form my understanding of the desires, personalities and qualities of Tom using what we can actually observe in the world without being influenced by any particular religion and specifically my own Christian faith. (I am probably only partially successful in that.)Yes, I believe in Tom and I want him to be good, kind and just. I concede that it is a very human trait to anthropomorphise our deities. From a personal perspective Tom has to be good, kind and just or I’m not prepared to worship or serve him. Why would I? If I am wrong and Tom hates goodness then so be it. If Tom doesn’t exist then so be it. Still, in spite of your very difficult question I remain convinced that I have it right.I’m not going to go back and repeat in details things I’ve already said in this thread so I’ll simply say that when we look at human history, as well as evolutionary history, it seems clear to me that we are a world in process. The fact that we are in process indicates to me that there is a destination. The fact that we can see over time that the world is becoming a kinder and more just place to live, suggests that the destination to which our world is headed will be just and kind.I hate the suffering in this world and I believe that Tom does as well. As I said before, that just as the physical world has had to go through an evolutionary process to get to where we are at now, (I assume that process is continuing), I believe that to get to a world where love, kindness as justice of universal qualities we are having to go through an evolutionary process as well and that suffering as a necessary part of that process.It also seems to me that humans are to be part of the process of bringing about that new form of existence. For example, the birth defects that you mentioned are now being dealt with by better medical care and greater acceptance so that even their quality of life is improving.
Ultimately though, I believe that all things will be made right in a just, loving and kind manner, and that the suffering that is endured in this world will be justified by the life in the destination that awaits us.Certainly there is a large degree of faith in all of that and I suppose that there is a degree of rationalization as well. I would add though that I don’t think you would say that because there are children born with birth defects that it wouldn’t have been better if Tom, if he exists, had never kicked off this enterprise in the first place. You and I suffer along with children born into suffering, but I believe that Tom suffers right along with them as well, but that in the end he will make it right.

I simply said that I can’t show, (I used your word although prove would be more accurate), the necessity of non-physical elements. My point is that somehow we sense morality without it being even a thought. We just know that murder is wrong whether we do it or not. Some people just don’t care that it is wrong and some people seem to enjoy doing wrong but there does appear to be a universal right and wrong. Our morality is our level of desire to do the right thing. Morality appears to exist whether or not there is life on earth. As I just said in one of my last posts, that what you are describing is the result of the brain processing the thought. It isn’t the thought itself. I didn’t say that we are no longer subject to natural selection. I did say that we have the ability to rise above it and act in contradiction to natural selection by acts of sacrificial kindness, but of course we are still subject to natural selection. I did not say that all views are equally valid. You are giving me facts or theoretical models but then you are extrapolating from that your opinions. I agree with that except I don’t agree with the idea that morality differs by culture. Some things are considered moral in some cultures but not in others, but that isn’t morality itself. What I have said numerous times is that morality is a heart thing — do we love selfishly or unselfishly. Here is a quote by Thomas Nagel:

quote:

---

I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.

---

We may have our desires for Tom to exist or for Tom not to exist but in the end we just want the truth. It might well be true that I want Tom to exist but that does not mean that I have allowed my desire to overcome my conclusions. There are many highly intelligent people who have come to faith in a Tom as adults just as there are those who have rejected Tom as adults.Frankly I find Tom’s existence pretty self evident but I also recognize that there are those far more intelligent and knowledgeable than myself who disagree, and at the same time of course there are those far more intelligent and knowledgeable than myself who do agree, so it isn’t as simple as you try and make out.

Agreed, but there is no scientific conclusions regarding reality that empirically answer the questions concerning Tom’s existence. Of course they aren’t. I agree that I am not one of the great minds on this planet but there are people with great minds that do believe in Tom in one sense or another. That of course does not make them or me right, but it does provide an indication that this isn’t something I’ve dreamed up on my own out of my desire for it to be true. I’ve read some of these bright people on both sides of the question and I do find the position of the theists more convincing. Yes, we can see that socialization develops a view of morality that has evolved over time and continues to do so. Once again, we have the process and the question remains — did Tom conceive this process or is it just the result of mindless particles and mindless evolution? An electrical impulse in the brain is just that. It isn’t a thought. It’s like saying that the visual picture of the mountain I can see out my window is the mountain itself.

I really find it difficult to believe that you need to resort to this. You know it's a fallacy - appeal to authority - but you still do it. That's desperate.I find it particularly poignant because I remember an argument with my mum about this in my early teens. She was washing up dinner plates and i was drying (pre-dishwaher).In exasperation, she said 'well a lot of cleverer people than me and you believe it so it must be true'.The obvious response if you don't know the fallacy is to point out that a lot of clever people know it to be a pile of steaming horse shit - which was roughly what I said and earned me a wet and soapy smack around the head with the dishcloth.One of the clever people she meant was the head of my Catholic Grammar school, a De La Salle Brother in full cassock. He was sent to Papua, New Guinea to do missionary work under a bit of a cloud.We now know why.

I'm certainly no fan of GDR's religious beliefs, in fact I despise them, but more often than not those arguing against him are off the wall.The argument that thoughts and ideas, feelings and so on, are PHYSICAL just because there is electrical activity in the brain while we are experiencing same, is ridiculous, the thoughts themselves are NOT physical, but there is no way to argue against such bald assertions that are backed up by consensus at EvC, which is always the case. So forget it GDR, you can't win that one even though you are right.But the reason I'm writing this is to protest this perennial false idea that arguments from authority are always a fallacy. Common sense ought to tell you that your mother was right, Tangle, that people who are brighter and know more than we know, should be deferred to on subjects we can assume they know more about, and the fallacy is to claim otherwise. Even if other authorities disagree the fact that many agree IS valid argument. Sure there can be fallacious appeals to authority but appeals to authority as such are not fallacious but can be and very often are valid arguments. Argument from authority - Wikipedia Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Why is it necessary to remove the word mindless? How is it value laden? Do you believe that a particle has a mind? If you believe that evolution isn’t mindless then you are agreeing that Tom exists. It there is no Tom then the process of evolution has to be mindless whether it is just in its origin or if it continues mindfully. I don’t know if, when or how Tom intervenes in the process. I do know that both the sperm and the egg involved came from conscious beings. I am fairly sure that consciousness somehow forms as the brain grows but that still tells us nothing about the origins of consciousness.Here is a quote from the this wiki site on consciousness

quote:

---

In 2004, eight neuroscientists felt it was too soon for a definition. They wrote an apology in "Human Brain Function":
"We have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain and we do not know whether consciousness can emerge from non-biological systems, such as computers ... At this point the reader will expect to find a careful and precise definition of consciousness. You will be disappointed. Consciousness has not yet become a scientific term that can be defined in this way. Currently we all use the term consciousness in many different and often ambiguous ways. Precise definitions of different aspects of consciousness will emerge ... but to make precise definitions at this stage is premature."

---

I’ve read other quotes from non-theistic scientists that describe consciousness as the greatest enigma facing science today. Here is just a brief quote from the wiki site on Roger Penrose.

quote:

---

Penrose has written books on the connection between fundamental physics and human (or animal) consciousness. In The Emperor's New Mind (1989), he argues that known laws of physics are inadequate to explain the phenomenon of consciousness. Penrose proposes the characteristics this new physics may have and specifies the requirements for a bridge between classical and quantum mechanics (what he calls correct quantum gravity). Penrose uses a variant of Turing's halting theorem to demonstrate that a system can be deterministic without being algorithmic. (E.g., imagine a system with only two states, ON and OFF. If the system's state is ON if a given Turing machine halts, and OFF if the Turing machine does not halt, then the system's state is completely determined by the Turing machine, however there is no algorithmic way to determine whether the Turing machine stops.)

---

Oh pack it in Faith. Who are these un-named clever people and how do you know they're clever? It's utter bullshit.As it happens, the so called clever people turned out to be bloody paedophiles.

The initial question is whether or not Tom actually exists. For the reasons I have given I have concluded that he does. Now you seem to object to the fact that I come to my conclusions about the nature of Tom in a manner that fits the evidence I see around me. Should I base my concept of Tom contrary to the evidence?I agree that if Tom exists then our understanding of his nature is largely a human construct and then we react to that construct in whatever way we deem appropriate. As I believe that Tom in some way relates to us through our consciousness then over the centuries are understanding of his nature should evolve. In a very real sense we serve the deity we want to serve even if we make a deity out of ourselves.However, just because we don’t have a definitive picture of Tom and we form our own conclusions about his nature does not negate the likelihood of his existence.Just for the sake of argument let’s assume you believe in Tom. How would you go about coming to a conclusion about his nature? Of course it is. I raised my kids to behave and think in a certain way, but I they have always had free will in that they could accept, partially accept or reject what I tried to teach them. It isn’t free in the sense that there is a cost - it is free in that we have freedom.

Thanks CS.At last a reply that I didn't have to put a lot of thought into.
I needed that.

I still go back to my definition for how I understand your view. Obviously you won’t see any validity in theological evidence, but do you consider that there is such a thing as philosophical evidence? Well ultimately I’m the only possible winner here because if I can tell you after we kick the bucket that Tom did exist then I can prove it to you that I was right. If however you are right and we are destined for oblivion then I won’t be hearing from you. That aside however we now have people who believe in string theory. They’ve made it up. That doesn’t tell us anything about whether they are right or wrong at this point. As they gain new information they will nuance their theories and so on. I have my ideas about the nature of Tom and as I continue to have life experiences, and as I continue to try and learn my views will continue to evolve. Just because one set of ideas can ultimately be proven true or false does not mean that other views that are just or even more firmly held are necessarily false. Morality isn’t a thought. It is a state of mind or heart that influences thought. Morality can cause emotions such as shame when we know we have acted against our sense of morality for example. In the first place there is more than just the instinct to save the baby. There is also the instinct of self preservation. If there is no risk to the self, then it really isn’t much of a consideration. If however there is risk then our morality comes into play as to which life gets the priority — mine or the baby’s. Once we sort that out we then have to sort out how to deal with the shame of our cowardice or hopefully how we are going to go about rescuing the baby. I don’t have to prove it. I might say that David Cameron is the best PM Britain has ever had. You might disagree. I have my reasons for believing what I believe and you have your reasons for believing what you believe. I can’t prove it. WE both form our conclusions based on what we know and what we observe.I have offered evidence but you reject it as evidence as it isn’t conclusive evidence as is something that can be proven empirically. You and others have presented evidence that causes you to believe that I am wrong. We weigh it all up and come to our own conclusions. I agree that not all conclusions are equally valid but in this case we would also disagree on which is the more valid conclusion.

Yeah but what was the subject of the pedophiles' supposed expertise and what does it have to do with their criminal sinfulness?

You do paint yourself into some corners don't you?How much credibility would you give to a Catholic paedophile teaching *you* about God?

For the existence of God? No, obviously. Philosophers have been trying to prove the existence of god for thousands of years using thought alone and have failed. If you review all the arguments for a God, you find better arguments against. There are no new philosophical arguments and can't be. Science has taken over where philosophy failed. They don't just say 'I believe in string theory' do they? They have mathematical support for it that others can criticise. It is also merely a hypothesis, it'll be accepted or discarded as we know more. No one is forming a church around it and claiming everlasting damnation if others disbelieve them. We can never know more about your Tom because he's just an idea that's been made up in your head and can't be tested - string theory may or may not be shown to be correct, but my world isn't going to change either way. Ok so you now accept that morality isn't a thought. Can you now also drop this 'heart' thing please - it's innacurate and embarassingly wet.Now that we agree that morality is 'a state of mind' and that it involves a whole set of complex involuntary emotions and feelings can you also accept that these are created by electrochemical interactions in our brain and are not supernatural interventions from Tom? You're in a hopeless position, you can't prove your case and you have no evidence to support it. On the other hand, there is a mountain of evidence against you, getting higher every day. Why should anyone who isn't already indoctrinated listen to your opinion?Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

I'm making a general point about argument from authority. There is no reason a recognized world-class authority on anything whatever couldn't turn out to be a criminal pedophile. Your point is spurious.