Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Alas.

Tob

Posted by Toby928 at December 13, 2005 12:31 PM

A strange part of the poll according to the E&P link was "Surprisingly, some 61% of those who seldom or never attend church are nevertheless convinced that God exists."

What could that mean? Do they think that he exists but doesn't care about them or that no church is true? I understand this less than the trousered ape 1% who are positive that they are alone in an empty room. Atleast not believing is intellectually consistent.

Tob

Posted by Toby928 at December 13, 2005 12:40 PM

It seems perfectly reasonable to me to believe in a God (given that you're going to believe in a God at all) who doesn't care whether or not you got to church, as long as you follow whatever other dictates that you believe He wants. Note also that this poll obviously includes Muslims and Jews, who never go to church...

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 13, 2005 12:46 PM

Good point. I assumed that church was used in the generic sense as a fellowship of believers but I could be wrong. Even granting that, since most Americans profess to be Christians, or atleast believers in the God of Abraham it still seems odd given that Christians, Jews, and Muslems all seem to encourage gathering together regularly for worhsip.

Tob

Posted by Toby928 at December 13, 2005 12:56 PM

Wait, that last post doesn't make sense in response to yours. Scratch the Jews and Muslims etc and just stick to Christian sects which are the vast majority of professed believers in the US.

Tob

Posted by at December 13, 2005 12:58 PM

I think that it is intellectually consistent to imagine God as utterly indifferent to what we do or think.

Like cats.

Posted by at December 13, 2005 01:15 PM

I suspect what this means it that people instinctively recognize it's dangerous to publically express heresy. There's no upside to disagreeing with the dominant religion for most people, so they don't.

Posted by at December 13, 2005 02:00 PM

What amazes me is that the 6% (or 1%, more likely) that don't believe in God are so sure that they honestly believe the other 94% are just stupid...

Kind of sad, really.

To liven things up, in light of the way Darwinism is proven (to make a prediction and then go look for fossils), how about this for a way to prove the existence of God (or at least a non-causal creator): Go find some stuff where humans were "obviously" designed to do X, before X was even possible. My (broken) example (From Blake's seven): Fingers were obviously design for pushing buttons, and yet there were no buttons to push during evolutionary pressure, ergo a creator exists.

I fear such a thing would really be impossible to prove, since we tend to only invent things that we can use ;-}

Posted by David Summers at December 13, 2005 02:04 PM

Rand,

isn't it great that you live in a country where you can be in that minority and not get your head chopped off or something?

Posted by Rick C at December 13, 2005 02:13 PM

Mr. Summers,

As an atheist, I don't think the other 94% are stupid. I just think that they are wrong. There is a very big difference.

The frothing at the mouth, anti-christian, I-don't-actually-believe-anything-but-I-hate-my-parents-so-I-claim-to-be-an-atheist types like Penn Jilette--those people are stupid.

Posted by James Bennett at December 13, 2005 02:14 PM

James, I know that there are many people just like you that think the other are wrong, not stupid (just like we all think in at least some way), but there are some that are very vocal on many forums - and there's only 1% to draw from.

On the flip side, I'd hate to be associated with the rabid aetheists and homosexuals are evil set also - just because I happen to agree with a few of their ideas...

Posted by David Summers at December 13, 2005 02:21 PM

I wonder why women are apparently more religious than men.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at December 13, 2005 02:29 PM

I'm intrigued by the "exactly" 10.02 respondents who are certain of God's nonexistence.

Posted by Andrew Ward at December 13, 2005 02:47 PM

Well, obviously, they killed him!

Posted by David Summers at December 13, 2005 02:52 PM

As an atheist, I see nothing wrong with considering the other 94% of people who believe in god to be stupid. It is a perfectly acceptable term. One good reason for calling them this is because they believe in something that has absolutely no proof.

For some reason, that I have yet to figure out, believers in god are more than willing to admit that things like unicorns, the easter bunny, santa claus, and a whole host of other mythological creatures do no exist. But when it comes to god, a concept that has about as much evidence supporting it as multi-armed creatures on Mars, they seem determined to turn off the rational part of their brain that allowed them to accept the fact that those other fantasies did not exist. Any believers out there that can help my understanding of this little paradox would be helpful.

Posted by Rob at December 13, 2005 03:30 PM

I suspect what this means it that people instinctively recognize it's dangerous to publically express heresy.

I find that odd -- and I do when, say, Rush Limbaugh claims that people lie to pollsters in fear the pollster might think poorly of them, which is the same basic notion.

To me, pollsters are like telemarketers -- the day I worry what they think of me is the day I take up starring in gay child porn, just so I can look up to them.

Posted by McGehee at December 13, 2005 03:45 PM

Any believers out there that can help my understanding of this little paradox would be helpful.

Rob, I can't speak for anyone else, but were I interested in helping you understand "this little paradox" I wouldn't do it here, since this is neither your blog nor mine.

Posted by McGehee at December 13, 2005 03:48 PM

Rob, allow me to help. I am Pagan, so I certainly believe in god. Lots of them, potentially. I also believe in black holes and planets around other stars and genetic drift. I cannot prove any of them.

I don't particularly believe in gravity, though I concede that the theory works really well as a predictive tool until you get into "dark matter" and "dark energy", at which point I just have to throw up my hands and say that you may as well try to convince me that the spiritual experiences I've had didn't actually happen, or indicate psychoses.

Stupid may not be the term you're looking for.

Posted by Jeff Medcalf at December 13, 2005 10:02 PM

I think that it is intellectually consistent to imagine God as utterly indifferent to what we do or think.

Like cats.

My cat cares a great deal about what I do, at least when it comes to ear scratching (his not mine), litterbox changing and regular meals.

As to what I think - he is (I imagine) largely indifferent but like any good employer he prefers I do my chores with a smile on my face and a good attitude. No one likes being attended to by a sourpuss.

Posted by Brian at December 13, 2005 11:30 PM

Jeff Medcalf,

I have the same question as Rob, but your explanation doesn't help me. You see, we can observe planets around other stars, and we can measure genetic drift, and while black holes can't be observed directly we know for sure that _something_ sucks in stars and doesn't spit them back out and we choose to call that a black hole. We can't "prove" any of it which isn't math, but we can observe, hypothesize, and test.

You can have faith in a deity (or multiple deities if you wish), but no one has actually observed them or even observed a single natural phenomena that can't be more easily explained somehow else. You can't test for God (other than committing suicide, I suppose). If God really exists then for some reason he has chosen never to reveal himself to me in all the years I've been on this planet. Now, is that my fault or his?

As anyone could probably guess at this point, I'm in the 6% minority.

Posted by Brock at December 14, 2005 04:07 AM

Brock:

Have you observed a planet around another star? For that matter, has anyone? Some people have observed stars wobbling, and some people have observed stars dimming for a short period of time. We infer that this means that the stars have planets (and we trust that so many people are not lying to us about what they have observed). But we have not observed planets around other stars, nor has anyone directly observed such: we don't have the senses or the instruments to directly observe planets around other stars, so we logically infer them from evidence we believe to be indicative of such. Like we once inferred phlogiston as a massless, colorless fluid that transferred heat.

But we all take a lot of things on faith. I believe that Russia exists because of multiple compelling lines of evidence, including much personal testimony and matching photographs and recordings from sources other than those giving the personal testimony. But then, at the time of Hurricane Katrina, I have photographs — film, even — and reporters' testimony galore about the conditions in New Orleans, and I believed the less spectacular version of that, until it apparently transpired that even the less spectacular version was spectacularly wrong.

Now, we don't have photos of gods, certainly. And we don't have anything other than personal testimony to go by. But if a significant fraction of the population gives personal testimony of experiencing god in some form, and you haven't experienced god personally, then perhaps the problem is with you, not them. And that's fine: you can choose not to believe in things that you haven't experienced, and to believe in other things that you have not experienced, but I wonder how you can be so sure of your beliefs?

On another note, why is it that atheists are always hung up on the Christian conception of god, anyway? (For example, many Pagans don't generally believe that death would have any result in terms of meeting gods.) Is it just cultural familiarity?

Posted by Jeff Medcalf at December 14, 2005 06:48 AM

I would just add that the faith you have that some scientist has really proven (well, sort of) the black hole hypothesis is the same faith that most people have that moses saw God, for example. (Personally, I believe in more recent visits as well). The system is logical (though practically any system can be made logical), there are some eye-witnesses, and it seems to explain many occurences in my life that otherwise are only explained by science as halucinations or dillusions - which in my case is pretty hard to swallow.

Believing in God can be entirely consistent with being rational. Surely you don't think that the 6% represent the best of humankind? (I'll give you a hint - Eistein wasn't in that group!) I would bet that the makeup of that group is relatively close to a normal distribution of people in intelligence, success, though possibly not social status.

Some interesting points: 60% of scientists believe in God. Most of the smart people you know believe in God. Believing in God has (at the very least) a placebo effect that is more important to most medical problems than any medicine we have (ask a doctor, the placebo effect is amazing!) - so essentially believing in God makes people happier and healthier - so who are you, the Grinch? ;-}

Posted by David Summers at December 14, 2005 08:58 AM

Quote from Jeff Medcaff: "Have you observed a planet around another star? For that matter, has anyone?"

Actually we have directly imaged planets outside our solar system. They are orbiting brown dwarfs and therefore we do not have to compensate for the tremendous glare put out by a active star. We have the resolution to take direct images its just the technic to interferometrically phase the star shine that we are still working on.

Also, we are able to actually analyze the atmospheres around extrasolar planets When a extrasolar planet passes in front of its host star we can spectrographically analyze the change in composition of the light given off by the star to detect certain chemical markers.

Posted by Josh Reiter at December 14, 2005 10:51 AM

Quote from David Summer: “so essentially believing in God makes people happier and healthier - so who are you, the Grinch? ;-}”

So, who’d of thought all those happy healthy people would feel so refreshed as to go around kicking off the occasional holy war. “How dare their god make them so happy and healthy, everybody knows our God makes us the happiest and healthiest!!” Or, “My god makes me so happy and healthy I think I’ll go find a little boy to share in my joy.”

I think the majority of people are agnostic and they simply use the word God as an 'Other' category to explain the extraordinary and unexplainable. Most people are humble beings that try not to even pretend that they can adequately define or explain the mechanisms of the Universe, Time, and Everything. It’s easier for our little peon brains to pull the ‘God’ rubber stamp out and say to themselves “God musta dun it” or “It’s God will that diabetes take my feet.”

I believe that science and Religion are really more intertwined then one of the other group of believers would like to think. Back in those oldin’ days the Church controlled everything and blasphemy was a big, big, no, no. Those early purveyors of the Scientific Method were encouraged and allowed to practice early forms of scientific analysis under the guise that they were doing as instructed by God and going forth to discover the Earth and its many wonders – a spiritual journey in a sense. These early discoverers began the process of breaking down God’s creation in several dichotomies that continued on into the disciplines of science that we know today.

Posted by Josh Reiter at December 14, 2005 11:54 AM

kicking off the occasional holy war

OK, Mr Straw Man - you must really enjoy being a communist like Stalin - how many babies must die to stamp out religion?

Making an argument by taking a fringe group and saying if you believe "X" you must be part of a fringe group is insulting. So I guess I just have to insult you back! ;-}

Posted by David Summers at December 14, 2005 12:00 PM

Look, what it comes down to is that I need a certain level of proof before I'm willing to believe anything (and even then, unless it's math, I must always consider the possibility that it is wrong). However, the proof of God consists ONLY of witness testimony. It's much less reliable than you think. If any scientist asked to be published in Nature or Science with nothing more witness testimony they'd be laughed out of the editor's office.

And David, I'm not a Grinch. But it's not my responsibility to play along with your makes-me-happy delusion either.

Posted by Brock at December 14, 2005 01:22 PM

Well, of course you are entitled to your opinion - and yes, only taking things that you have evidence for is normally a good idea (I would say that I have evidence in favor, but leave that aside for the moment).

My real point is that saying that the rest of us are stupid is going beyond your evidence. If you have no evidence, you are free not to believe. But to insult others (or even just to think less of them) simply because you personally do not have evidence one way or the other says bad things about you, I'm fear. You do not know why person X is religious - it could be anything from they have just had a sandwich with God to they are just respecting their dying mother's wishes. To speak (or think) ill of someone based on a generalization is bigottry, right?

Posted by David Summers at December 14, 2005 02:20 PM

"My real point is that saying that the rest of us are stupid is going beyond your evidence."

You said that, not me. You were the first to mention it, not Rand. We simply disagree with your conclusions, which you're going to have to deal with.

Posted by Brock at December 14, 2005 02:41 PM

However, the proof of God consists ONLY of witness testimony. It's much less reliable than you think.

One should also not rule out alternative explanations of the witness testimony, such as mental illness or outright fraud.

Once established, the widespread propagation of a story doesn't make it any more true. After all, if there are N (where N is at least 2) mutually-contradictory religions, then at least N-1 of them must be bogus, even if they are widespread. Supporters of any particular religion should explain why their religion is not similarly bogus.

Posted by at December 14, 2005 02:55 PM

Brock, whether you think God believers are stupid or not was not directly stated (Rob above you did state that, and many others have in other forums), and what I thought we were discussing was the inapropriateness of the common elitist attitude that Aethiests seem to be predisposed to posess. I'm sorry if you took me personally, I should have said "one who believes Deists are stupid" in place of "you" - I did not mean to make a personal attack.

I'm sorry if I offended you. I meant only to discuss the issue.

Posted by David Summers at December 14, 2005 03:15 PM

"As an atheist, I see nothing wrong with considering the other 94% of people who believe in god to be stupid. It is a perfectly acceptable term. One good reason for calling them this is because they believe in something that has absolutely no proof."

As a Christian, I see nothing wrong with referring to people like you as simply arrogant.

I think most people, including those who profess to be religous and those professing to be atheist are really agnostic.

It is just a question to what degree I would argue.

I personally prefer to believe the glass is 50+% full.

To me, to be a hard core Atheist is saying that with your limited preceptive abilities, YOU KNOW there is no God for a fact. That is simply arrogance in the face of the infinite. Perhaps the same could be argued of those on the other end of the spectrum as well.

I perfer to say I don't know but am willing to take a chance on something more as it is a free chance. Pascals wager.

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 14, 2005 04:27 PM

I can certainly see Brock's point: it's a good idea not to believe in things without evidence. In my case, I spent a great deal of time as an agnostic — more time than I have been religious, in fact. In my case, I have evidence in the form of personal experience. I don't expect to convince others with that evidence, and don't proselytize (which is easy to do given that my religion doesn't tend towards proselytizing anyway).

I don't have any problem with someone not believing in god(s). I do have a problem being called stupid for it (which Rob did above, and which many atheists — not Brock that I have seen, to his credit — do in many fora. In fact, go look at the anonymous comment about heresy: people who are religious are characterized as being too weak-willed to disagree with the dominant religion. This characterization even sweeps in those who disagree so much with the dominant religion in Western culture that we were once hunted down and killed for it. A very subtle slander, and more than a few atheists engage in it. (For that matter, more than a few people in any given religion tend to engage in similar slanders against atheists or people from other religions.)

Logic and science are wonderful ways of finding out about some of the realities of life. They are likely the best way of finding out about objective reality. But they are not complete: there are realms of knowledge which are by definition beyond the reach of science, most prominently including any supernatural explanations of phenomena, and anything which cannot be repeatedly observed or measured.

And one correction to an earlier comment I made: I was unaware we had actually been able to physically detect planets. A little research and now I know more. In the particular case I found, the planet was observed over several years, and moved with the star relative to the background. That's fairly conclusive.

Posted by Jeff Medcalf at December 15, 2005 11:55 AM

I do have a problem being called stupid for it (which Rob did above, and which many atheists — not Brock that I have seen, to his credit — do in many fora.

But we know, with absolute certainty, that many religious people have religious beliefs that are false. This is because the major religions are inconsistent, so at most one of them isn't wrong.

If fervently believing falsehoods doesn't grant one the label of 'stupid', what does?

Posted by at December 16, 2005 12:53 PM

osufmjwe jkwb lhjcku hztigen bwesjm ugfvway nekaumh

Posted by xmonra dbltrvqi at March 9, 2007 12:15 PM

osufmjwe jkwb lhjcku hztigen bwesjm ugfvway nekaumh

Posted by xmonra dbltrvqi at March 9, 2007 12:15 PM

Post a comment