The venue selected was improbably beside a bar, whose door was barred by a number of hefty bouncers. But I looked at the address and there was no mistake. The Oxford mathematician John Lennox, who had debated Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens on the question of the existence of God was due to speak somewhere in the building. Lennox had recently written God’s Undertaker, a book which while ostensibly about the God is really about knowledge. A line of well-dressed men and women was forming in a small vestibule beside the bouncers. I had discovered the entrance to the upper floors. None of the elevators worked, so the crowd eventually trooped to the alleyway behind and made their way up the fire escape.
Lennox’s presentation would be instantly familiar to anyone who has thought long and hard about information issues. He reasoned from the existence of a bedrock of mathematically accessible information which made intelligibility possible. Hence the world was deeply structured in some fundamental way. In such a world it was more plausible to inquire into the purpose of the structure than to pretend it didn’t exist. He made his points from Godel, Turing, Watson, Einstein and to my mind thoroughly demolished popular atheism with the same comprehensiveness with which a Richard Dawkins might destroy a simple, unsophisticated country preacher. Having given the subject more than a fair amount of thought, I was pleasantly surprised to see that I’d more or less gone over the same ground independently — although without the same rigor — to arrive at a slightly different conclusion.
Like Lennox, I believed that categorical atheism was ludicrous; that the most logical position one could reach purely on the wings of reason was agnosticism. The value of the bit field representing the truth about the existence or nonexistence of God was a null. It wasn’t categorically either a zero or a one; and therefore our provisional answer to the question, if we had to have one, would have to be based on intuition or a guess, which I suppose you could call faith. Faith in atheism or theism. No one has yet created a Theory of Everything, and produce as it were, a formal proof of atheism right beside Godel’s ontological proof of the existence of God.
The group I had fallen in with repaired to a nearby steakhouse, where over red wine and the first fillet mignon I have ever eaten in my life, we went over Lennox’s arguments. Asked for my opinion, I adventured that Lennox had asserted the easy part: that the world is intelligible and therefore, in some deep sense, purposeful, or at least capable of expressing a purpose. It was fairly easy to establish the weak form of the existence of God, but what Lennox had skipped over was discussion of the strong form: the form most of us are interested in. The question of whether this deep structure which we dimly perceive can hold any love for us. Whether the universe contains such qualities as love, pity, justice. Whether a sparrow falls to earth counted into the deeps of eternity. That’s the kind of God we are interested in, not the God of mathematics. Surprisingly I found that the answer to the question of whether those qualities could exist had to be yes, simply we exhibited some of those qualities. And therefore they existed. But somehow evil, falsehood, hatred and perversion must by the same argument exist as well. Human beings are frightening tokens of what may lie around us. We have only just begun to explore the nature of information; and if the null — if agnosticism — was all I thought we could “prove” it was prudent to assume we might actually happen upon a non-null answer. You had to go through life prepared for the eventuality that you might meet God or the Devil. We aren’t sure enough to exclude either possibility. Lennox’s own tendency was to conclude that the preponderance of evidence (not proof but the weight of the indications) suggested a huge opportunity to participate in a life which we would be fools to ignore. Humanity, in his view, was obviously invited to participate in a world of meaning; they could glimpse it through a partially opened door. It would be crazy to pretend you couldn’t see it.
Coming back to base (the computer) I found someone had sent me a link to a site called IMINT & Analysis, which described the excesses and poor coverage of the Russo-Georgia conflict in great detail, but which incidentally illustrated how humans intuitively seek structure and meaning in the incidents they observe in life. Sean O’Connor observed that evidence of a large scale Russian build up prior to the Georgian incursion could not be established, although it could not be ruled out. “Given the recent history of the Georgian situation, it would be illogical to assume that Russia had not at least outlined plans for a military action against Georgia. Russian troops based in Georgia pre-conflict were described as peacekeepers; peacekeepers would not be necessary were it not for the potential for open conflict, and where there is potential there will most assuredly be a contingency plan. But does this mean that Russia purposely created an environment where such a contingency plan would be called into action?” No. Does but does the evidence mean that Russia didn’t purposely invade Georgia? The answer is again no.
O’Connor was on much stronger ground going on to describe some of the more blatant errors of the press and made the point that too often facts were twisted to fit the narrative: the Russians were the good guys; the Russians were the bad guys; the Georgians were aggressors; the Georgians were the victims. But the facts could support many narratives. He wrote:
Neither Georgia nor Russia are entirely without fault in the current conflict. Georgia escalated the conflict by attacking the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali following clashes with separatists. Russia took it to a wholly different level with a massive military campaign designed to deny Georgia the ability to inflict further damage to South Ossetia. However, misreporting and deliberate distortion of the facts by the worldwide media has led to a convoluted picture of the events that have taken place. The fact that so many of the most commonly reported news items can be disassembled piece by piece with a few minutes of research places doubts on the credibility and objectivity of these establishments. When dealing with Russia after the cessation of hostilities, it would be wise to remember that there is no evidence to suggest a preplanned and orchestrated campaign to allow Russia to invade South Ossetia and Georgia. Painting Russia as a resurgent Evil Empire is a sign of unsubstantiated bias and nothing more. After all, Russia did warn Georgia that escalation was possible, and Saakashvili chose to give them the excuse needed to ensure the integrity of South Ossetia, perhaps permanently. Arguing that Russia’s methods were overkill is one thing, accusing them of trying to take over the Caucasus is another thing entirely.
They are certainly two entirely different assertions, and the answer to which was which remained unanswered. But although we didn’t have the answers we would be fools not to seek it. The absence of evidence isn’t the evidence of absence. Until Western journalists were actually allowed to visit the South Ossetian town of Tskhinvali, the newspapers routinely repeated the claim that it had been “destroyed” by the Russian or the Georgian Army. “But a trip to the city on Sunday, without official escorts … almost all of the buildings seen in an afternoon driving around Tskhinvali were still standing. Russian-backed leaders in South Ossetia have said that 2,100 people died in fighting in Tskhinvali and nearby villages. But a doctor at the city’s main hospital, the only one open during the battles that began late on Aug. 7, said the facility recorded just 40 deaths.” What does that say about intent? If someone asked me whether Russia purposefully invaded Georgia I might have to answer that I couldn’t prove it either way. But that doesn’t mean that the question, even if I never find an answer, is meaningless. What do you believe — about the Russian invasion?
Dave Kujan: Do you believe in him, Verbal?
Verbal: Keaton always said, “I don’t believe in God, but I’m afraid of him.” Well I believe in God, and the only thing that scares me is Keyser Soze.
Tip Jar.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
78 Comments
1. Zim:42= How many roads must a man walk down?
There is a cosmologist who is claiming that a http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jul/16-is-the-universe-actually-made-of-math exists and it is composed entirely of a mathematical equation. It’s a seductive thought, that all is complete within a simple, beautiful equation. I happen to agree, but not in the way the cosmologist means.
Aug 21, 2008 - 5:03 pm 2. OldSalt:@wretchard:
Regarding intent: How is a “peacekeeper” different than an “armed invader”? Well, most, if not all peacekeepers are (a) sanctioned members of a larger, international organization (e.g. U.N., NATO, etc.), (b) there by the invitation (or at least acquiescence) by both parties of the conflict, and (c) monitored and accountable to international organizations. Russia’s “peacekeepers” were unsanctioned, uninvited, and acted without international license. In other words, O’Connor’s base assumption was that Russia’s Army was there as peacekeepers. If that changes to “invaders”, everything else in his logic changes also.
Georgia cannot be considered as “provoking” Russian, when in fact, Russia had already invaded Georgian soil, and had intervened in Georgian internal affairs to Russia’s own gain. Any response of Georgia would in that light, necessarily be considered defensive in nature.
Even given Russia’s premise, the response to “ethnic cleansing” anywhere in the world is not, and never will be, a Russian invasion force. That’s imperialism, taking land from another people, simply because they can.
Aug 21, 2008 - 5:21 pm 3. Eggplant:Zim said:
“There is a cosmologist who is claiming …. that all is complete within a simple, beautiful equation. I happen to agree, but not in the way the cosmologist means.”
I personally believe the universe is a four dimensional variation of Conway’s Game of Life, refer to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway’s_Game_of_Life
I wish I was smart enough to prove this…
Aug 21, 2008 - 5:34 pm 4. Lifeofthemind:The risk of being sucked in to small wars and being used is one reason the United States has usually avoided Peacekeeping missions. This allows us to retain at least the illusion of impartiality. We have a small detachment in the Sinai and have rotated personnel through Bosnia. If you stand guard over a small friend then they own you as much as you own them. In the run my dog plays in a fantasy of freedom. If or rather when he gets in trouble he knows I will soothe and save him but he also knows that if he antagonizes a bigger dog or the pack he can get hurt. If I keep him on a leash then he becomes much more challenging to other dogs. Why? My theory is that knowing that I am attached to him by the leash the dog feels empowered. He can write a check for me to cash. The United States tries to avoid being precipitously wagged by the dog. When Peacekeepers or Observers are needed we prefer that the be provided by Canada or the Netherlands or Malaysia or Fiji. There are countries that now have a made a tidy business out of renting their armies out to oversee other poor countries unhappy minorities or borders. When things blow up everyone then turns to the US to come in and put the fire out.
Perhaps the Ossetians are wholly owned by Moscow and their accelerating campaign on the Georgians in the region was calculated to provoke a response and trigger the waiting column of tanks. Perhaps they used the presence of the Russians and the Russians are as much dupes as the Georgians. One problem the Russians have is that their reputation is so bad that they have a hard time recruiting proxies to serve as buffers for them. Who could they have turned to in 1992 instead of putting their own boots on the ground? This is all academic because the Russian practice of handing out passports destroys the ability to even pretend that they are acting as peacekeepers.
Aug 21, 2008 - 6:01 pm 5. Teresita:No one has yet created a Theory of Everything, and produce as it were, a formal proof of atheism right beside Godel’s ontological proof of the existence of God.
Anselm performed a bit of sloppy reasoning by assuming that there was a difference between the concept of a God and the “true” God which exists in fact, so that he could elevate the latter case as supreme. But if God can be shown to exist through means other than pure reason (such as by direct observation), then his existence is automatically incorporated into the true concept of God. We can have false concepts of God all we want, but the true concept of God always tracks the status of God in reality, whether he exists or does not. So it is never possible to demonstrate the existence of God purely by juggling our definitions of God and making a word salad, which is what the ontological argument is all about.
Aug 21, 2008 - 6:03 pm 6. Manny C:HAHAHA! I love that line from The Usual Suspects. Brilliant.
Aug 21, 2008 - 6:05 pm 7. buddy larsen:42, the year of the 20th century that the demon released by industrial revolution lost its first bid to eat the world.
Aug 21, 2008 - 6:08 pm 8. Zim:buddy, surely you’re speaking of Algore.
Aug 21, 2008 - 6:14 pm 9. geoffb:Let’s see.
The US government decides to finally enforce immigration law. Illegals and their supporters riot all over LA and the Southwest. Local and State authorities are overwhelmed and Mexico eggs on the rioters. Washington sends troops to put down the riots. Mexico then invades the US. Takes control of the Southwest as Mexican territory and then launches an invasion right up to the Appalachians and burns and pillages everything they have taken. Under the “Russia is good” argument, Mexico is the good guy here too.
Aug 21, 2008 - 6:21 pm 10. wretchard:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answer_to_Life,_the_Universe,_and_Everything
Aug 21, 2008 - 6:45 pm 11. E. Nigma:Understanding or belief in the existence of a Supreme Being is limited by our innate 3-dimensional knowledge of the world. The arrow of time moves only in one direction for us.
Aug 21, 2008 - 6:54 pm 12. neolex:But imagine, if you will, a Consciousness that can choose what four-space coordinates to exist in, at any given moment. A Mind that knows Past, Present and Future, simultaneously, and can move at ease to any points in between.
All powerful, all knowing Consciousness, that can also choose not to be physically observed by the eyes of men, but Whose shadow is cast in three dimensions, that we perceive, but as through a glass, and darkly.
And an energizing force for Evil, as a counterbalance? Perhaps necessary as a sink for the entropy created by the movement of the n-dimensional benign consciousness through time and space.
We strive to attach values of “good” and “evil” to the motives of man through the world, but our biggest vanity is that in our own minds, most of always think we are “doing the right thing.”
“If God is with us, then who can be against us?”
Perhaps, but then who is with God? Who abides to the Will and Word of God, above all other things?
Tskhinvali? The premise was that this town was assaulted and “destroyed”, yet apparently it still stands. What is Truth, and what is False? What stands for order, and what stands for entropy?
In their pride, the Georgians sought to hold onto territory full of people that did not wish to be governed by Georgians. They whistled up their worst demon, Russia, who were only too happy to do what they have done for centuries; steal whatever is not tied down. Some of the anecdotal tales of the Georgians are eerily reminiscent of the tales of Germans at the end of WWII. The Russian soldier stealing whatever he could get his hands on.
Sometimes, nothing ever changes. The forces of chaos are being loosened, and even Putin will eventually fail to control them. They are stronger than the will of one man.
A few brief thoughts…
Agnostic is an atheist who doesn’t have the balls to say that he’s an atheist.
No sane atheist would hold a belief that “God does not exist”. Atheism as an anthesis of a believe system. It is abrogating belief in favor of logic and scientific method. Negative, cannot be proven. Atheists simply believe that there is no evidence in support of God, just like there is no evidence in support of unicorns.
God is not required for the description of the world, and is a very complex solution for available problems with existing scientific description, thus eliminated by Occam’s razor.
Purpose is a human concept, which is essentially a proactive intent with regards to design. Purpose does not exist in nature as in evolution all “purpose” is retroactive and is shaped by natural selection.
Any debate about the existance of God is futile. If one accepts the scientific method, one also must accept that there is currently no evidence to support the theory of God.
Aug 21, 2008 - 7:31 pm 13. neolex:Russia’s designs on Georgia is a very different matter. It is uknown, rather than unknowable (an important destinction when approaching information)
On the publicly accessible level, any evidence in regards to Russia’s intent is circumstantial. However, there is some.
1) SO was behind escalations since August 1st. SO are puppets of Russian government, hence the escalation was most likely sanctioned by Russian government.
2) SO began ferrying its Children to summer camps in Russia under a new program, several days before the conflict.
3) Saakashvili claimed that he has received US satellite photos before, showing advancing Russian armor, before making the decision to attack Tshinvali. (the veracity of this is dubious).
4) Russia’s reaction was instant and combat strategy very good, indicating pre-existing plans and high level of readiness. The two things Russia is not generally known for.
My operating assumption, therefore, until I see any evidence to the contrary, is that Russia has planned to invade Georgia all along. Saakashvili simply gave them a better excuse than they hoped for.
Aug 21, 2008 - 7:43 pm 14. Teresita:Neolex: Any debate about the existance of God is futile. If one accepts the scientific method, one also must accept that there is currently no evidence to support the theory of God.
There’s also the question of which theory of God? Islam’s theory is that Allah is powerful, remote, and unfathomable by man. Judaism’s theory is that Yahweh is focused on the descendants of Jacob. Christianity’s theory is that God is united with humanity in the flesh in the person of Jesus. Pantheists say that God is the whole universe. Deists say that God created the universe in the beginning but now has nothing to do with it at all. Mormons say that God and man are the same species at different levels of advancement, and God was once a man, and man will someday be a God. Before this God’s existence can be debated, both sides have to agree on that God’s attributes.
Aug 21, 2008 - 7:56 pm 15. wretchard:Not knowing is not same as not having the guts to put a zero into a bit field when you don’t know if it’s a one or a zero. It’s having the guts to say you don’t know. An atheist is somebody who argues that the value must be a zero. Now personally, I don’t know whether the true value is a 0 or 1. I believe it’s a 1, but can’t prove it to my own satisfaction. So therefore I say I don’t know, but I believe it’s a 1 and live accordingly.
Why does this matter? Because as Professor Lennox argues, organized atheisms (for example Communism) know it’s a zero. I claim they know no such thing. What a Communist knows about economics, history or humanity is pitifully small. What they know about God is probably least of all. Of course that doesn’t keep them from pretending they know so much they can assume to teach kids the “truth”. See subsequent post about Ayers. They might have an opinion about the nonexistence of God, but they don’t have any knowledge of the matter.
By the same token, Osama Bin Laden is so sure of his 1 that he knows exactly what God wants. He wants people to fly themselves into the World Trade Center. He believes they will get 72 Virgins — not 71 or 73 but 72 — as a reward. I claim he can’t know any such thing. He can believe it. There may be indications of his belief, but I don’t think he has a right to kill in the name of his certitude.
Aug 21, 2008 - 8:03 pm 16. Wadeusaf:Too much of the reportedly bad reporting seems to me at least to have been tempered by hindsight, so the perspective is skewed in a different manner, as well as the glass becoming more or less clouded in spots.
What we knew to be true v. what we guessed was the case is now becoming what we can demonstrate to have been the case v. what logic suggests was the probable condition or state. Having watched, and warned on numerous occasions, the Russian peace keepers allowed rocket attacks and other attacks of an increasingly violent nature to be made on Georgia from S. Ossetia. Attacks which were certain to elicit a response from the Georgians south of the runaway Ossetia. When it came, the Russians used a number of excuses they knew to be false or at least were in a position to verify, including the sale and use of soviet armaments and genocide.
Can anyone say Gaza? G-O-R-I, Good!
Chaos is at some level described both mathematically and empirically as a method for achieving a change of state, or change of behavior. It is rarely the end in itself as I believe it was for especially sick and diabolical individuals like Saddam, but nearly always it is the means.
Aug 21, 2008 - 8:09 pm 17. buddy larsen:I agree w/ your conclusion, neolex. However, there is the question of the cover story. The ”our 9/11” meme was instantly everywhere, so apparently RF planned to use the “Georgia attacked” story. But what if Georgia had not mounted what was clearly a spoiling attack? What if the RF column had encountered no opposition? What would RF have said then about appearing in Gori next morning?
Aug 21, 2008 - 8:10 pm 18. Wadeusaf:Chaos is at some level described both mathematically and empirically as a method for achieving a change of state, or change of behavior. It is rarely the end in itself as I believe it was for especially sick and diabolical individuals , but nearly always it is the means.
I think the same can be applied to arguments over the nature and reality of a supernatural being. In the end it is not whether or not we can determine if god exists or does not in fact exist that is important, but how our search even how we ask the question, affects our behavior.
42-is as good an answer as any, but why can say if it is correct, and who will argue why?
Aug 21, 2008 - 8:20 pm 19. neolex:@
Atheism, in general, is not putting 0 into the bit field (though I agree with your statement on organized atheism).
Wikipedia: Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods,[1] or the rejection of theism.[2] It is also[3] defined more broadly as synonymous with any form of nontheism, including the simple absence of belief in deities.
Agnosticism is a kind of nihilism and is a self-defeating concept in a sense that to the extent that metaphysical concepts can be related to all aspects of existence, it is impossible to put anything besides null into any bit-fields, including one for agnosticism itself.
Teresita, the underlying concept is the same G-d that is recorded in Hebrew torah (Quran and Bible are based on it), but likely originates much earlier than Jews. It is that, with some variation, there is a conciousness that is not bound by laws of space and time and that has created the universe and, specifically, man. I think you will find the most people who mention god would agree on these characteristics. Though I see your point about subjectivity.
Aug 21, 2008 - 8:21 pm 20. buddy larsen:another oddity: would you stake an entire campaign justification on a flattened city and thousands of KIA, and then let reporters and NGOs in to report that damage was light and KIA was a twentieth of your sworn claim –the claim that was not just an ex-post-facto rationalization, but the very sine-qua-non of your invasion?
It just don’t add up.
Aug 21, 2008 - 8:22 pm 21. fedya:from Peter Lavelle’S BLOG on russiatoday.com
South Ossetia – the bigger picture
In terms of substances, I have no doubt Russia will create a buffer zone within Georgian territory proper to protect South Ossetia. (That zone is called here the “zone of responsibility”).
This all means that Russian peacekeepers intend to stay for a very long time – beyond the legal and territorial demarcation of South Ossetia. And that presence does fall within legal arrangements signed by Moscow and Tbilisi in 1992 and 1999. This of course will be disputed and ignored by the Western commentariat and their politicians.
What does all this mean?
South Ossetia and Abkhazia are now free and will be free from Tbilisi’s control. And they won’t ever return to central Georgian control. This is the first decisive outcome of Tbilisi’s pre-emptive war.
This is refreshingly frank propaganda for the Russian side, courtesy of “Autonomous Nonprofit Organization TV-Novosti”; it is not a little triumphalistic. And, unless the Georgians are supported in fighting back, “LaValle” will no doubt be proven correct.
The IMINT & Analysis blog is less refreshing. Apart from the tendency of would-be intellectual giants to engage in tendentious critiques (oh boy, Ralph Peters is worth most of a whole blog post dismissing the entire entire press coverage of the Georgian crisis–mostly with the taint of “anti-Russian” bias–while pumping dear little “Sean O’Connor”’s status as a world class pundit.
If you chose him as an example of obfuscation, Wretchard, you did good. I guess that was your point, maybe not.
The fact that Mr. O’Connor begins his piece asserting a timeline of August 8 to 11 already disqualifies his commentary as excessively limited in scope.
As far as the possibility of meaningful engagement with human events is concerned, something Mr. O’Conner is not evidently predisposed to endorse, I would say that it is certainly true that no one outside the Defense Ministries of Geogia, Russia, some of the Black Sea states and the USA is likely to know the exact timing of the Russian mobilization and the exact evidence available, certainly not Mr. O’Conners with his laudable but limited by imagination “open source intelligence” hobby. (yes, he really irritates me)
It is not difficult to imagine, however, that Georgia had many direct and indirect observation points to consider and that the ongoing mobilizations of the Russian fleet and the 58th Whatever could be read daily to ascertain with clarity what range of possibilities could follow. There are too many outward manifestations of the next state of a large unit just off maneouvres: leaves, supply trains, frepair and support facilities, personnel on leave, officers off and about on business, girlfriends visited, blah-blah-blah.
And no big-mouthed, headline happy journo is going to get jack s**t of this information outside of common rumor.
Meanignful engagement with God or current events most certainly is an option, allowing for immense uncertainty. The theory that Saakhashvili is a reckless gambler is so far outside reasonable consideration, I think (hah), that only premeditation with intent to prevail explains Moscow’s behavior.
That does leave us with Moscow’s gamble: do we dare back Georgia with arms and air cover in a guerilla war to recover her independence ?
Answer either way, NATO is still dead. Answer one way: Turkey and Iran divide Central Asia with Russia and the Euro-weenies get their comeuppance.
Answer the other way, and Turkey can provide the cornerstone of a Black Sea Treaty Organization which in turn provides the keystone for an arc of free economies from the Baltic to the Caspian.
Sneaky of old Putie to slip this in just now. Terribly inconvenient for us. And terribly inconvenient for him if his gamble fails.
Aug 21, 2008 - 8:27 pm 22. neolex:@buddy
It doesn’t have to add up. Another 24 hours and it wouldn’t have mattered, as Russia would be in control of Tbilisi and Saakasvhili would be effectively deposed.
It is possible, that Russia only decided to go into Georgia proper after Saakashvili attacked (because now they had a good cover story), and the initial plan was to take over SO.
Aug 21, 2008 - 8:28 pm 23. bobal:The One (not Obama) has, by some slight of hand, or twinkle of the eye, become the manifold, the many, and our apprehension of it is normally held frustrate by our perceptive apparatus, dealing in space and time, and the other categories, as it does, but, say the spiritual masters of mankind, Kant was wrong, it’s not just an as if, because it can be experienced, though not talked about directly, being ineffable, but only experienced by those pure in heart and selfless, and further, the world is the play of the great mother as we might call her, and the penultimate cause of the creation of the world which is her play is to provide a field for liberation of those few who are ripe for it in each generation, but the final cause, you’d have to ask the mother herself.
Aug 21, 2008 - 8:45 pm 24. Lifeofthemind:wretchard:
God does not let you vote “Present” for the important questions in life.
Aug 21, 2008 - 8:46 pm 25. fedya:@neolex:
It is possible, that Russia only decided to go into Georgia proper after Saakashvili attacked (because now they had a good cover story)
Certainly journalisti would like to think they are that important. I’ll stick to the under reported angle: Georgia saved herself with delaying attacks in the face of an in-motion (whether of not the Roki Tunnel had actually yet been transited) invasion.
By this narrative, which I call the “realist” version, no one in the Georgian, Russian or Solivichik (Russ secret service mafias and fake “Ossettian”) forces was surprised by anything higher than tactical surprises. One such surprise may have been Georgian [artillery? | missiles?] putting a dent in the Tskhinvali command/control/ communications centers at the very last “minute” and then falling back in good order… a coup de main comparable to Dunkirk.
But I’m sounding like a broken record…
Aug 21, 2008 - 8:49 pm 26. ed:@neolex 19:31
Your brief thoughts come across as simplistic to me.
“It is abrogating belief in favor of logic and scientific method. Negative, cannot be proven. Atheists simply believe that there is no evidence in support of God, just like there is no evidence in support of unicorns.”
It is noteworthy how in some current atheistic books we read calls to have religion categorized as child abuse. Such suggestions go beyond logic and the scientific method and into ideology. A rigorous scientific skepticism could not, without some value system superimposed, lead to such suggestions.
“God is not required for the description of the world, and is a very complex solution for available problems with existing scientific description, thus eliminated by Occam’s razor.”
Occam’s razor proves nothing. It is a guidepost for those thinking about problems, not a hard and fast rule. In a typical detective story, the stolid (and dull) policeman uses Occam’s razor to solve a crime inadequately, and the clever detective allows for a more complex solution, thus being freed to see subtle evidence supporting it.
Darwin once hypothesized that giraffe offspring were born with longer necks because their parents continually strained upward for food. A simple explanation, to be sure, but when more facts became available more complexity had to be added to the theory. A person speculating in Darwin’s time, however, should could have been bound to the stretching hypothesis with Occam’s razor, falsely.
Historical analysis of 1 Corinthians 15 (a known, historically dated writer pens a letter inviting skeptics to track down 500 witnesses to a resurrected person’s appearance) would lead one, through any sane use of Occam’s razor, to conclude that the person had actually risen from the dead. It is, in fact, additional ideology about what is possible in a closed system that leads people to reject the claims there. Occam’s razor would “prove” the resurrection if it were actually a proof. It is not.
Aug 21, 2008 - 8:53 pm 27. wretchard:Lennox made the observation that freedom is an important ingredient to full participation in the world of meaning. I think this is a correct intuition. God must always be rumor if we are to retain our liberty. If He were to set up office in a ten thousand story tower with lightnings sparking from its pinnacle, we would essentially have no choice about how we would lead our lives. Sometimes I wonder whether that freedom isn’t purchased at the cost of not knowing for sure.
Aug 21, 2008 - 8:56 pm 28. hdgreene:Sounds like Putin’s Casus Belli was caused by Putin. Casus KGB, call it.
Now apparently Sen. Obama is comparing Russia’s actions in Georgia to US actions against Saddam: We set a bad example, don’t you know (and we should have known Putin will only follow the bad one). Of course we spent all that time at the UN getting 16 resolutions and an ultimatum. Putin didn’t pause long enough flip the UN the bird, just charged right in. I mean, I see the point: it is easier to ask forgiveness than to ask permission. But “Vlad the Invader” ain’t asking for forgiveness, either. And if he did, what would be the penance? Give it back? I mean, let’s be realists.
So apparently for Sen. Obama, the UN only exists to act as a check on Republican Presidents. Not tyrants and not Democrats: Republicans. And the UN has proved itself quite useless at that, so who needs it?
Aug 21, 2008 - 8:58 pm 29. buddy larsen:Perhaps the ”flattened Capital of SO” was a valuable early weapon, but later not quite valuable enough to actually flatten ten or so blocks & escort the NGOs over it, but it’s weird they don’t care more about credibility. They care enough to flood the global comms channels, but not enough to arrange the evidence. That’s what don’t add up. But then I’m reading characterzations all around –”light damage” is pretty subjective. The place is an info sink, for sure.
Aug 21, 2008 - 9:01 pm 30. ken anthony:A true scientist could never demand Proof of God. Science provides evidence to support theories that are falsifiable.
How do you know I exist? You don’t. This comment is only evidence of the fact which proves nothing. And evidence is routinely ignored by those that have an axe to grind (as with the piles of propaganda that are being shoveled during this invasion.)
His invisible qualities are clearly seen from the worlds creation onward because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power. It talks about evidence, not proof.
Those that say there is no evidence of God have simply chosen to ignore it. For me, quantum physics and DNA are two very powerful pieces of evidence of Gods existence. While the many worlds theory is strong evidence to me that atheistic scientists are in denial of the evidence.
Oh, and the answer was 42.37, big thought didn’t think anyone would mind if he rounded!
Aug 21, 2008 - 9:27 pm 31. buddy larsen:42, dominos, and the Texas connection
The game is played by four people, in teams of two each, who sit facing each other across the table. The object of the game is to be the first team to reach seven “marks” (points). The game consists of a number of hands, each of which is worth one or more marks, depending on the bid. However, it is important to note that 42, much like any other game, has in many cases been modified by particular groups or families, resulting in innumerable variations on the original game according to particular preference, habit, or family lore and legend.
Aug 21, 2008 - 9:59 pm 32. Teresita:W: Not knowing is not same as not having the guts to put a zero into a bit field when you don’t know if it’s a one or a zero. It’s having the guts to say you don’t know. An atheist is somebody who argues that the value must be a zero.
For the sake of sanity, Atheists default to zero unless extraordinary evidence comes along to argue for putting a one there. Otherwise, people would have to put a one down for every claim from Bigfoot to fairies and elves, to the Loch Ness monster.
Aug 21, 2008 - 10:17 pm 33. NahnCee:Wretchard – I certainly hope you get to meet Kevin Spacey at some point and sit him down to ask him all about Mr. Soze.
Aug 21, 2008 - 10:24 pm 34. Richard Fernandez:For the sake of sanity, Atheists default to zero unless extraordinary evidence comes along to argue for putting a one there.
Actually because the world is intelligible, it is counterintuive to assume a zero. The most obvious intuition is that “something” causes what we observe. Now this might not necessarily be true, but it is far from self-evident that the zero is the natural answer. In the absence of any information about the true value, we are not well served by populating a bit field with zeros unless we have pre-existing knowledge of what the true value is likely to be. If we have no idea, we are simply codifying our ignorance by asserting it is “zero for the sake of sanity”. Thus in a database, you do not enter a default value without some good reason to suspect it will be valid in most cases. If you don’t know the value, you leave it null.
So the argument that “of course” it is a saner to leave it a zero begs the question. Now many of the arguments for atheism introduce a social argument: “see how many people have died in religious wars! If we were all atheists we would leave in peace.” But this is self evidently false. The biggest killers of the 20th century were essentially atheist ideologies. So why not leave the entry null?
Aug 21, 2008 - 10:25 pm 35. buddy larsen:…to the purpose of human history:
A small component on Salo’s spacecraft breaks, stalling him in the Solar System. He requests help from Tralfamadore, and his fellow Tralfamadorians respond by manipulating human history so that primitive humans evolve and create a civilization in order to produce the replacement part. Stonehenge, the Great Wall of China and the Kremlin are all messages in the Tralfamadorian geometrical language, informing Salo of their progress.
As it turns out, the replacement part is a small metal strip, rounded on one corner, with two holes punched in it. Salo’s message, for whose sake the whole of human history was manipulated, is a single dot, which in Tralfamadorian means “greetings”.
to us all, from Bureau 42
Aug 21, 2008 - 10:30 pm 36. cjm:either you believe in god, or the spontaneous creation of life from inanimate material. so far inanimate material tends to stay that way. know any happy atheists? me neither.
Aug 21, 2008 - 10:39 pm 37. oldefogey:As I age, I’m coming back to a form of religion. The main reason being that watching the relativism of today’s society has finally convinced me that there definitely is a right and a wrong. Knowing there is a right is close enough to God for me.
I’ve also learned a lot more about history now that I don’t have a professor teaching me. Finally discovered that most civilizations have depended on a religion (read ideology) of some sort to provide a moral compass for society.
Genghis Khan was not religious yet required that all subjects of his domain have a religion of some sort. He recognized that government is not the right vehicle to provide that. Apparently, Khan was a lot smarter than the bin Laden crowd.
Aug 21, 2008 - 11:49 pm 38. mouse:What a marvelous post, God and Putin in one thread.
A couple of assertions:
–It’s my feeling that when a man approaches faith through intellectual effort he comes to faith in God finally not through his understanding of that God but through the failure of all other faiths he had before. Always a man has faith, it’s only a question of which one. Once he has achieved a concept of a creator immensely beyond him, it seems to me the first response is fear; after all, for all of his life prior to that faith he’s been in denial of that immense God. The only reason that that faith and that fear can be sustained is because within that concept at least there is meaning. The satisfaction of meaning is something that can’t be surrendered even in the face of fear. In time the secondary concept of God –that is, the God that is love– develops. Probably for three reasons: because that’s what’s needed; because that’s the Christian message; and because it’s true.
–The reason there is no ten-thousand-story proof of God –indeed no proof at all, though a world of evidence– is because it would be of no meaning to a God who can create worlds to simply command creatures; but it is meaningful that He receive back from those created beings, through faith, the love that He initially gave.
–As to Pootsie Poop. I imagine he understands what he’s doing in Georgia about as well as he understands economics, history, Man, or God. I have an idea that he has no idea what he’s doing at all, other than operating on the certain knowledge (from his background) that if you use force you scare people. I have an idea that Shaakasveli is a much more complex fellow. I imagine a scenario such as this: Knowing that Russia at some point was going to invade, recognizing that there’s a difference between big and small, recognizing who was which, he decided that rather than simply sit there and take it on the chin he would go forward and tap the bear’s snout. There’s a certain manly pleasure in being the first one to throw a punch in an uneven fight. And there are advantages. You throw the bears timing off somewhat, and you operate according to your own plan. It seems to me that the Georgian army retreated in good order, is now ensconced comfortably in the easily defendable Tblisi, and under American air cover (the “continuous bridge” of humanitarian supplies) is impregnable and safe. Meanwhile the Soviet Hun Despoils My Country, or so anyway seems Shaakasveli’s constant message. Seems to me he’s doing well. I think Putin intended irresistible force, now he’s instead just a vandal with a bad temper.
Aug 22, 2008 - 12:19 am 39. Aether:Re. The nature of the Universe ? The existence of God?
food for thought: http://www.16pi2.com/
Aug 22, 2008 - 3:05 am 40. supercargo:Carl Sagan – an Atheist – chose not to attack the Religios. He would explain that some of the star light that strikes their eyeballs, is 10 billion light years old. Then he would say, either a source existed that was that old or a deity caused light to suspend in mid space. The Goddists can’t explain that. They are debased into resorting to blind obedience to dogma. Islamic Hadith – which is hearsay of Muhammad – includes claims that the self-appointed “prophet” saw a deity the size of 20 men seated on a throne. And the “prophet” claimed that shooting stars were caused by “allah” picking stars out of the sky and tossing them at demons (jinn). Further, the Koran claims that Alexander the Great travelled to the place where the Sun sets and found a swamp. Why attribute nobility to that social idiocy? Why respect someone who prostrates to the god-fiction that was concocted to prop that rubbish? Then there is the Judaeo-Christian garbage about a line from “Adam” that commenced about 6000 years ago.
Atheists are too genteel. Belief in the historical religions is: mind bending to con-men. The “prophets” were liars. We know most about Muhammad, thus we know that his status allowed him to take numerous wives, and claim 20% (khums) of all booty of jihad for himself. I’m sure that Abraham – a Chaldean magician and NOT a Hebrew – was, if he existed, motivated by similar self-aggrandizement. Want easy money? Tell the masses that “god” told him that they must give it to you. To me, the Bible, Koran, Bhagavad Gita, the Dhampada, etc, are testaments to the depravity of liars, and sufferance of their victims. We need religion like we need the AIDS virus. When you die, conscious is extinguished and the body rots. That’s all folks. No reason to wax poetic or to spew about what your precious gullibility in pure hearsay – or “faith” – does to you. It saps your critical faculty, and makes you a mental dependent to frauds.
Aug 22, 2008 - 3:08 am 41. bobal:Good grief Cargo, that’s an amazing screed, but then they say, if a fool looks into a book, you can’t expect a wise man to look back out.
Aug 22, 2008 - 3:52 am 42. wretchard:When you die, conscious is extinguished and the body rots.
The existence of God has nothing to do with the immortality of man. Humanity has been in nature only a small fraction of the age of the cosmos, so the question is unconstrained by solutions in which the physical decay of people’s bodies compels as a solution. But people are the first self-aware things that we know about and the question is whether they recognize something which is like them but on a larger scale than themselves. Humans can ask themselves questions about God; they are natural detectors of pattern; the only pattern detectors we know of and indeed they are possibly compelled to grapple with the question for as long as the species exists because it is inherent in their natures. The existence of stars is separable from the existence of telescopes. The more sophisticated version of the “body rots” argument invokes the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but that applies in a closed system or isolated system. But sort of system do we live in?
With regards to the persistence of information, it is an separable from the underlying medium. Seth Lloyd at MIT argues that the universe is a quantum computer. If the universe is such then there are threads and information storage which go past a human life span, perhaps past any length of time we can imagine.
As Lennox repeatedly pointed out, it is atheism, not theism that is really founded on “common sense tells us” or “sanity requires” types of arguments. But there is nothing logically necessary about that kind of atheism. You can have a logically rigorous type of atheism, but most atheism is really of the cafe or salon variety. I am not suggesting that theism can be demonstrated, but it is not clear at all that atheism can either. Why are people so sure of the zero when the null poses so many interesting questions.
As to arguments like “prophets enriched themselves therefore that is all theism is good for” how far does that theory survive comparing Christ with Stalin? Or Mao? Christ the theist wanted nothing. Stalin the materialist and atheist wanted everything. Atheism time and again makes these social arguments, but they are pointless. They don’t necessarily compel anything.
In the end what does an atheist “know”? About as much as a theist does. The only way to forward given the unknowns is to choose a hypothesis and keep going forward with an open mind. You can admit the null and still plod on in faith. That’s probably more natural than any other course. For those who already “know” that material is everything there is nothing more to be said. But I think that even if God did not exist, it would be in our interest to invent Him. He is the ultimate horizon; and there is no more self-fulfilling a method of extinction; no sounder a basis for tyranny, and no greater a cause for the extinguishment of wonder than dull certitude. At the limit, religious fanaticism and state atheism are nearly indistinguishable. That said, I believe like Pascal, that there is some chance love may exist after all. We see it in dribs and drabs. If so then live the wager. My heart shall never rest, until it rests in Thee.
Aug 22, 2008 - 4:09 am 43. OldSalt:“To me, the Bible, Koran, Bhagavad Gita, the Dhampada, etc, are testaments to the depravity of liars, and sufferance of their victims…..Atheists are too genteel. Belief in the historical religions is: mind bending to con-men. The “prophets” were liars. – Supercargo
You know quite a lot, but what you know is utterly unsupported by the historic record. Yet you spout it as a known truth. What’s that make you?
“The Goddists can’t explain that.” Hmmm.. Goddists; that’s a pejorative term meant to define believers (Christians, primarily, I suppose) in disadvantageous terms. Controlling the language, correct? I wouldn’t dare call an Atheist a “narcissistic-Hedonist”, or an “ignorant-fool”, simply because disagreed with my world view, regardless of the accuracy of those terms. But then again, you toss in a few other purposely insulting terms to warm up your audience “social idiocy” .. “debased” .. “precious gullibility”.
We heard all about your biases and assertions, but not one single “fact”. “Atheists are too genteel?” That says a lot about you and your world view. Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Lenin .. and Putin, would feel right at home in your house. .
Christians may be fools, but if so, they are harmless ones. Your team has killed millions.
Aug 22, 2008 - 4:29 am 44. hdgreene:I think Supercargo is confusing God and religion. To paraphrase the Crash Test Dummies: Why does God cause things like Tornadoes. And Train wrecks?
And Religion? May as well blame Him-er for that, too. I mean, assuming She-he exists.
So if we get rid of all those rules, does that mean we acquire more responsibility? And act like we got a lot less? And why are atheist trying to impose dietary laws?
Aug 22, 2008 - 4:42 am 45. Mike Sylwester:OldSalt:
“But then again, you toss in a few other purposely insulting terms to warm up your audience “social idiocy” .. “debased” .. “precious gullibility”.”
————-
Keep that admonishment in mind next time you yourself call people liars and FSB agents.
Aug 22, 2008 - 4:48 am 46. Mike Sylwester:Maybe I misunderstand, but I would summarize Wretchard’s article above as comprising two questions:
1) How should we think about the purpose of the universe?
2) On a much smaller scale, how should we think about the purpose of the current crisis in Georgia?
For both questions, I think that several considerations are worthwhile.
A) Try to stay objective. Study the facts that are available and try to determine more facts. Do not dismiss facts that might be relevant.
B) Avoid turning the issue into a dramatic morality play, with heroes and villians, with some people who have been chosen for divine favor and some people who are to be cast away into outer darkness, with surprising explanations and bold actions leading suddenly to endings that are defeats for the villians and victories for the heroes.
C) Avoid the presumption that the developments we perceive must have a specific beginning and a specific end. Maybe the developments began much earlier than we thought, and maybe the developments will continue much longer than we think.
D) Consider that purposes are driven by other factors and actors outside our own perception and focus. For example in the second question, perhaps the Ossetians themselves are such a factor, acting on their own initiative and often outside the control of either the Georgians or the Russians. Or perhaps Russia perceives that NATO is the main actor driving events and reactions, whereas we perceive that NATO is doing absolutely nothing at all.
E) The purpose probably will not be revealed divinely to one person who then will deign to explain it to the rest of us mere mortals, who then should suppress our own doubts and should believe fervently forever. Rather, such questions should always remain open for free discussion and debate by everyone.
Aug 22, 2008 - 5:40 am 47. Brock:Wretchard: The most obvious intuition is that “something” causes what we observe.
But is the “cause” willful, incidental, accidental or merely physical? A tree falls in the woods … because of gravity. Gravity is the “cause”, but there is no “will” present.
Everything we see in the universe can be best explained by a bottom up, purposeless chain of physical events – the big bang, star formation, planetary discs, weather, evolution. It’s all physical computation on an atomic substrate – a vast Babbage engine. If some small part of the greater pattern is intelligible to humans it’s because it was in our evolutionary best interest to be smarter than the hyenas, wolves and big cats. Dogs understand cause and effect, but we understand it better.
I kick myself every day for not having saved the link, but I saw a speech given by a cellular automata researcher. He created little worlds every day. Sometimes he gave them purpose, sometimes not. But even in the worlds where he gave no purpose to the creatures, a purpose arose – reproduction. This un-created purpose arose out of the “rules” of the universe in which the little life forms found themselves. The scientist did nothing to create the purpose. Coincidentally, reproduction seems to be the sole (first) purpose in this universe, since all works of art and beauty are for naught if there is no one around in 100 years to observe and enjoy them.
As I see it, there are only two possible explanations: Jefferson’s Deism or a physical mechanism by which universes can spawn randomly. I give Deism less than 1% odds, simply because every other observable process is a physical mechanism. I don’t know what causes big bangs, but I’m sure we’ll figure it out one day.
Oh, and Richard? Have filet mignon more often. It’s awesome.
Aug 22, 2008 - 6:36 am 48. buddy larsen:@brock: “If some small part of the greater pattern is intelligible to humans….” …we might name it and seek to conform to its implications.
Aug 22, 2008 - 8:34 am 49. Barney Frank:For the sake of sanity, Atheists default to zero unless extraordinary evidence comes along to argue for putting a one there.
As Pascal pointed out, and as atheists love to dismiss, the wager is our senses are able to grasp all the evidence there is.
Aug 22, 2008 - 8:39 am 50. buddy larsen:If our senses and mind are provided limited but sufficient evidence now to make a choice, and the extraordinary evidence only comes along after it is too late to make a choice then atheism is not quite as reasonable as it would seem.
I have many times missed the evidence for things right in front of me and clearly sensed the evidence for things which weren’t there at all.
The things that weren’t there did me no harm. The things that were but that I disbelieved often did.
Mr. Frank, wazzup with the House Banking Committee? I needs me a grant –not as big as Fannie’s, tho. Just send, oh, a double sawbuck. Thanks in advance!
Aug 22, 2008 - 9:59 am 51. Ricardo:I don’t know about the binary code of the universe, but I do remember a story my father told me about certain friends.
During a torrential downpour, a horse decides to swim across a rapidly swelling ravine to get to higher ground. A scorpion comes along side him and begs him to let him hop on the horse’s head so his life can be saved. The horse asks, “I could crush you now, but why would I carry you, when you can bite me when my hoofs are busy paddling underwater? The scorpion replied, “Surely you can crush me now, and if you leave me behind I will surely drown, but if you decide to save my life, I will bite your enemies. Besides,why would I bite you during the crossing, if I do , you’ll drown and we’ll both die!”
The horse reflected, and although not fully trusting the scorpion, he saw the reason in his argument. Midway through the crossing the horse felt the sharp sting of the scorpion on his head. Startled, the horse screamed “Now what did you do that for! Now I will drown and we will both die!”
To which the scorpion replied: “What can I say? I’m a scorpion!”
Putin has been murdering his own people as a pretext for war since the Moscow apartment buildings (the last of which was mistakenly announced in the Duma 2 days before it happened), facilitating terrorists strikes in Moscow (the lone escapee from the Moscow theater hostage crisis surfaced a couple of years later boasting of his FSB connections), etc.
Aug 22, 2008 - 12:28 pm 52. Kevin:The Georgia operation is straight out of the old playbook. We somehow decided it would be in our best interests to spare him during the difficult war on terror, and even “carry him” by inviting him to G8, combined NATO excercises, and turning a blind eye when he assasinated Litivenko in London. He has now bitten us because, of course, he is a scorpion.
“The absence of evidence isn’t the evidence of absence.”
An obvious logical error, Richard. But depending on what position one supports with it, it might or might not get you a department chair at a prestigious university.
While I don’t think we can use deduction to prove 100.0% that God exists, I do think that a good inductive case can be made. We can’t use science to show God exists (and saying that something isn’t real unless science can examine it is just the materialist’s conclusion used as a premise) I think that one of science’s key assumptions, used more broadly, is helpful. Induction might be “scandalous” to some, but people embrace it because it has a good track record at helping us understand things, while positivism really just tells us that we can’t understand much at all.
In science it is assumed that anything in the universe we look at has a cause that is external to itself. If we assume that anything caused itself, we cannot use science to understand that thing very well. Indeed the thing would be an anomaly; a secular version of a miracle. But if we assume that each thing in the universe was caused by something external to itself, then why is it illegitimate to assume the same thing about the universe as a whole? If there was a Big Bang, then who or what lit the fuse? If we are consistent and assume that the cause of the universe was external to itself, then the materialist’s credo that the universe is all there is becomes mere baseless assertion. The materialist’s demand that external causality be assumed about all the parts but be impermissible when considering the whole seems to be rigging the game. I think the onus is on them to show why that must be so.
I also like what you said about the strong case. An atheist friend of mine, an otherwise logical person, expects to see justice, kindness, even love, but without a rational basis to expect those things. There seems to be a part of a person that cannot be seen, much less extracted and run through a mass spectrometer, blind faith in impending answers from neurology notwithstanding. In this the materialist switches positions and claims that a collection of atoms, each one lacking a soul, somehow forms a soul when arranged a certain way. It’s amazing what nonsense can have respectability conferred upon it by scholarly titles.
Aug 22, 2008 - 12:46 pm 53. 3Case:God n’ Russian invasions n’ all manner of epistemological back n’ forth is all quite nice, but what I want to know is how’d you like the steak?
Back in the day, I think the name of the place was Callahan’s; on the West side of The Charles out off Route 9 past Chestnut Hill and just before Route 128. The steaks were big, cheap and delicious and the drinks were the same. Thanks for the memory.
Aug 22, 2008 - 1:42 pm 54. wretchard:Now, I’m no connosieur of fine food, but remembered the old warning to beware of steak houses with dim lights, sharp knives and a tableful of steak sauces. This establishment had the location, lighting and simplicity to suggest it had nothing to hide. The sauce was simple deglaze with wine and seasoning. And they brought the wine bottles out. While I don’t know food very well, this transparency combined with a little induction suggested we were getting decent stuff.
It’s fascinating how the same type of analysis that applies to examining information applies to steak houses and applies to Georgia too. If you think of Putin as a maitre d, you wonder why he turns down the lights, shoves the menu at you and pours stuff out of an unmarked bottle into your glass. If he ran a restaurant, I’d hesitate to eat there. Especially if the knives were sharp.
Aug 22, 2008 - 2:29 pm 55. Eggplant:Wretchard said:
“When you die, conscious is extinguished and the body rots. The existence of God has nothing to do with the immortality of man.”
It does indirectly. We’re programmed at the DNA level to survive. However the certainty of our inescapable death contradicts our basic survival programming (this is an unwelcomed side effect of being self aware). To deal with this contradiction, we invented religion. Many people get very ticked off when challenged about their religion because by doing so one challenges their very existence.
Ken anthony said:
“A true scientist could never demand Proof of God. Science provides evidence to support theories that are falsifiable.”
A true scientist would be an agnostic seeking or awaiting evidence to support or refute God’s existence.
Ken anthony also said:
“How do you know I exist? You don’t.”
Baloney. That’s the only thing you truly know, i.e. “Cogito ergo sum”. You just flunked Philosophy 101.
Ken anthony said:
“For me, quantum physics and DNA are two very powerful pieces of evidence of Gods existence. While the many worlds theory is strong evidence to me that atheistic scientists are in denial of the evidence.”
Albert Einstein believed in God so long as he had doubts about quantum physics (Einstein kept saying: “Gott würfelt nicht”). Unfortunately Einstein became an atheist after it became clear that quantum physics’ validity was undeniable. Personally, I think Einstein was in error. Quantum theory tells us nothing about whether or not the Universe is an artifact. Einstein should have become an agnostic and embraced quantum theory.
Aug 22, 2008 - 2:40 pm 56. buddy larsen:The question student-in-a-classroom Ben Stein asks (in the trailer to his flic “Expelled”) his professor during a lecture on evolution; “…but how did it get there?”
Point being, not to discredit science, but to point out that science & faith do not actually contend.
Aug 22, 2008 - 3:13 pm 57. Annoy Mouse:“The Ultimate Question”
What is seven times six?
Aug 22, 2008 - 3:27 pm 58. Annoy Mouse:That God exists is undeniable. What God is is another question altogether. Was God an infinitesimally small point of energy, bound by the strong forces of subatomic particles, only to emanate forth to bloom a universe that is absolutely cold yet lit with the fires of many suns? Crawling with self assembling carbonaceous life forms? What many wonders are beyond the beck and call of our eyes and ears? Is God simply what IS or is he a strong but wisely old man depicted on the Sistine Chapel by Michelangelo? And is there an afterlife where we are greeted as the individuals that we had been whilst bound to flesh and possessed of memory. Or do we pass into Gods domain, shed of our worldly consciousness, a flash of light forever fleeting to the end of time. We know that the ego is that which imagines the self and the beingness is that which is aware of the ego. We can never know if ego transcends the material realm but alas, to me, it seems infinitely unlikely. Yea though I toil to the end of an uncertain path, I too shall be united with God in my time. And I dearly hope that there is an awareness that is preserved to appreciate the glorious return and to have but faintest memory that yes, life is good and God has triumphed over darkness.
Nations do their worst to one another when they are possessed with living up to the image that they have collectively identified with for themselves and the Russian soul has assumed the darkest of demons.
Lord, there goes Johnny Appleseed
He might pass by in the hour of need
There’s a lot of souls
Ain’t drinking from no well locked in a factory
Hey – look there goes
Hey – look there goes
If you’re after getting the honey – hey
Then you don’t go killing all the bees
Lord, there goes Martin Luther King
Notice how the door closes when the chimes of freedom ring
I hear what you’re saying, I hear what he’s saying
*Is what was true now no longer so
Hey – I hear what you’re saying
Hey – I hear what he’s saying
If you’re after getting the honey – hey
Then you don’t go killing all the bees
What the people are saying
And we know every road – go, go
What the people are saying
There ain’t no berries on the trees
Let the summertime sun
Fall on the apple – fall on the apple
Lord, there goes a Buick forty-nine
Black sheep of the angels riding, riding down the line
We think there is a soul, we don’t know
That soul is hard to find
Hey – down along the road
Hey – down along the road
If you’re after getting the honey
Then you don’t go killing all the bees
Hey – it’s what the people are saying
Aug 22, 2008 - 4:02 pm 59. buddy larsen:It’s what the people are saying
Hey – there ain’t no berries on the trees
Hey – that’s what the people are saying, no berries on the trees
You’re checking out the honey, baby
You had to go killin’ all the bees
(Joe Strummer and the Mescaleros)
248?
Aug 22, 2008 - 4:17 pm 60. 2x4:Russian soul has assumed the darkest of demons
I couldn’t pin it down .. Putin reminding me of someone/something…
Gogol’s Вий! (Tansliterated as Vij, pron. viy, y as in day)
Aug 22, 2008 - 4:23 pm 61. buddy larsen:Tell us about him, if you would, 2×4.
This is linked on another belmont thread, as ‘food for thought’ (mongoose?)-
Don’t miss this if you help it.
Aug 22, 2008 - 6:54 pm 62. buddy larsen:(snip from the link –its not pro or anti war –it’s anti-willful stupidity)
Once was not enough
What happened to General Nogi, to his troops, and to the valiant Russian defenders of Port Arthur, was a tragedy. But when tragedy repeats itself, the second time it’s as comedy. And the clowns on the second occasion, the Great War, would neither be held to account nor would they hold themselves to account like Nogi had done. It’s in this macabre farce, worthy of Rowan Atkinson’s Blackadder and Jaroslav Hašek’s Good Soldier Švejk, that Europe’s first suicide was enveloped.
The trauma of mechanized slaughter of millions of cannon fodder conscripts, orchestrated by operetta generals in World War 1 was so great, that almost all the social pathologies of the 20th century may be traced to it. Communism, Fascism, Nazism, “democratic” socialism, pacifism, militant feminism, nouveau liberalism, false egalitarianism, aggressive Third-Worldism – all blossomed from the wreckage of this war.
George Orwell could thus write of an England ruled by “people whose chief asset was their stupidity,” and a generation of post-War writers, from PG Wodehouse to Evelyn Waugh, seconded him in this opinion. Orwell wrote of the British generalship: “The higher commanders, drawn from the aristocracy, could never prepare for modern war, because in order to do so they would have had to admit that the world was changing. They have always clung to obsolete methods and weapons, because they inevitably saw each war as a repetition of the last.” (11) Let it be said, however, that Orwell was advocating socialism as a panacea, even as an Austrian refugee in London was writing a treatise showing that socialism was the road to serfdom .
The Western system of values, its standards of merit and beauty, were destroyed too. An artistic movement called Dada, a urinal on a pedestal in a museum, would have been unthinkable prior to the Great War. The devaluation of manly valor, of honor, integrity, stoicism, fidelity, loyalty, patriotism, began when Europeans realized that millions of their kin had just been sent to automated abattoirs in foreign mud fields by inept, mustachioed martinets in cavalry breeches, spouting patriotic slogans in an unnecessary war.
People who had experienced the horrors of the Great War came to believe that nothing was worth fighting for. Even as Hitler arose amidst them, they would do nothing until it was nearly too late. Philippe Pétain, the hero of Verdun, would mutate into the coward of Vichy. Neville Chamberlain would sue for peace before a shot had been fired. Western intellectuals were marching as one to the drumbeat of a psycho Georgian killer running Mother Russia the way Ivan the Terrible once had.
The Spanish writer, Sebastián Vivar Rodríguez, wrote that Europe died in Auschwitz. But Europe had already died in Somme, Verdun, Ypres and Passchendaele, twenty five years earlier, by its own hand. What incinerated in 1939 -1945 was just the new shoots that had sprouted from the stump of a felled tree.
Aug 22, 2008 - 7:05 pm 63. buddy larsen:Supercar, you exhibit an internal contradiction:
Power of this form of communication is by default persuasion; intimidation can’t work in ether.
In attempting the impossible latter, you fail the possible former.
This is like shooting oneself in the foot: stupid if accidental, crazy if not.
Aug 22, 2008 - 7:54 pm 64. buddy larsen:oops, that supercar post disappeared. makes me reply look a little paranoi. o well, i don’t mind.
Aug 22, 2008 - 7:56 pm 65. chiral:Studying faith as information is a modern idea, one perverted by the travesty of metaphysics.
More traditionally, professions of faith or its lacking were lost to semantics. Faith was a feeling, and language is useless except to bolster self-delusion and manipulate others. As such, many atheists are fooling themselves by denying their intuition, as are regular church-goers who feel empty and should really come out as atheists if they cared to be truthful.
I am in the former group. I say I am atheist, but I fear death and disease, etc. This yields faith in God. Without fear, one neglects mortality and then the claims of atheism become genuine. (Love has similar effects to fear in this regard. Any strong emotion probably would.)
Immortality is temporary… however, real men don’t talk about feelings. It’s useless, alienating, and usually disingenuous.
Aug 22, 2008 - 8:44 pm 66. Mongoose:Buddy, glad you liked the link – I was actually torn as to which thread to post it on. Perhaps I should have put it here.
I actually thought of you (and BC) when I encountered it.
Aug 22, 2008 - 8:47 pm 67. Kevin:chiral,
Your post reminds me that there is a difference between believing something merely because we wish it to be so, and responding to some invisible urging that comes from beyond ourselves. If matter is all there is, there is no reason to be bothered by death, disease, injustice, meaninglessness. But we are.
And I think you might be right. Scratch some church goers, and you might find some atheists. A few pastors even. I’m glad that God is separate from our statements or feelings about Him; otherwise He would indeed be merely created in our image.
I’m reminded of a saying: Truth is that which refuses to go away when I stop believing in it.
Aug 22, 2008 - 9:25 pm 68. buddy larsen:Mongoose, thanks –yessir, it’s a fascinating read –astringent and caustic. The snip i pasted is as you know but one of a half dozen equal passages. The realization of how well the western militaries understood the details of the battle of Port Arthur just adds one more heavy level of incomprehensibility to 1914-18. In a way, the author’s excoriation of the continent is so profound that it actually –given that Europe not only had to swallow the trench wastage, but had to swallow it all over again only 20 years later, making the first even worse for being the cause of the second –pushes through to a glimpse of a Europe actually extraordinarily tough. Tough enough to’ve held itself together, rather than to’ve lost its collective mind completely, a la Russia 1917 (which had not endured the western front, and had quit a year or two earlier, making just the separate peace that it repeated in 1939, only to go balls to the wall on the sneering 1941-45 propaganda effort to make sure the western allies didn’t do the same).
Aug 22, 2008 - 10:44 pm 69. supercargo:My post of question became irrelevant when the offending material was removed. I am not complaining.
Brain impacted dogma – faith – is the last salient in the fight for true freedom. Belief in distant hearsay fictions of contacts with alleged deities, manifests both susceptibility to indoctrination and gullibility of character.
See Bush on faith. So where does he source his propensity to lie at will? He equates religion and freedom, oblivious to the indoctrination question. Muslims are bound by the Bukhari Hadith, which includes a dozen designation of Muslim as: “slaves of allah.” As they say, if there was a devil, he could quote scripture to defend anything.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/149/story_14930_1.html
Does anyone here believe the crap about Jew-Christians-Muslims being a community of belief? Only designated Muslim imams are allowed to touch either a Bible or Jewish Talmud, because these are anathemized with Satanic influence. That is one reason why the Koran includes prohibitions against making friends with Jews and Christians. Muslims are ideologically programed to despise disbelievers. And, after the first crusade, our forefathers hacked off the heads of every Muslim in Antioch and Jerusalem. We are inherently antagonistic and we need to deal with that. We should all agree that religion is a sterile vessel of humanity.
So much religious material. So much waste of trees.
Aug 22, 2008 - 10:46 pm 70. buddy larsen:Ok, cargo, i’m convinced. now what?
Aug 22, 2008 - 10:52 pm 71. chiral:Western and Mideast religions sell straight-forward narratives, where none of our philosophical griping matters: only the story-line and a few worldly lessons apply. Believe in a small set of miracles, and the high priests are only annoyed that we would even raise questions. The “real issue” is whether to forgive your cheating spouse or whatever. It bores a thoughtful person to tears.
Dogmatism and spirituality are very at war. Both are easily hijacked for political gain, in case you haven’t noticed….
Aug 22, 2008 - 11:33 pm 72. ken anthony:Eggplant:
Ken anthony said:
“A true scientist could never demand Proof of God. Science provides evidence to support theories that are falsifiable.”
A true scientist would be an agnostic seeking or awaiting evidence to support or refute God’s existence.
Agnostic or not is irrelevant to my point. Nothing is proven in science, only disproven and science marches on.
Ken anthony also said:
“How do you know I exist? You don’t.”
Baloney. That’s the only thing you truly know, i.e. “Cogito ergo sum”. You just flunked Philosophy 101.
I top your baloney with mustard.
Cogito ergo sum means I know I exist, it says nothing about you knowing.
…and some useful info…
http://www.quantum.univie.ac.at/links/newscientist/bit.html
…which may put an end to the former silly interpretations.
Aug 23, 2008 - 1:13 am 73. ken anthony:In case my obvious point was missed…
Science would look to disprove the God hypothesis. As science fails in more and more attempts to disprove it, the hypothesis would become relatively stronger but never reach certainty (because nothing in science can ever reach certainty.)
For non-scientists, certainty is not such a problem.
You may substitute any other hypothesis for the God hypothesis and all the above remains true. Albert Einstein was noted for saying that even if the eclipse experiments had falsified relativity, the experiment would be wrong and relativity true. Al was an INTJ like me.
Many scientist that have been willing to actually apply the scientific method to the question have ended up believers in a creator.
Aug 23, 2008 - 1:43 am 74. Annoy Mouse:Supercargo – You speak the language well and you have interesting ideas about faith but perhaps you miss the point that faith is founded on religion but first it found in the individual that possesses the capability to ask questions beyond what do I eat who can I “F” and where o I sleep. Denial of god shouldn’t be made on behalf of serving ones own ego, as if to self designate as one’s own god.
Aug 23, 2008 - 1:55 am 75. Annoy Mouse:Buddy- I don’t think you’re paranoid…Just Texan
Aug 23, 2008 - 2:08 am 76. buddy larsen:heh –thanks (uh, maybe), Annoy Mouse. That post was a reply to a supercargo post just above that then disappeared, leaving my reply non-sequitered. A “no really, i heard something!” moment.
Aug 23, 2008 - 8:03 am 77. buddy larsen:@chiral: i would keep some air between ‘dogmatism’ and ‘the search for God’. As in apples and oranges –both fruit, but apples don’t grow on orange trees, and so forth –organized religion being but an eddy in the stream of human consciousness.
@ken anthony: “many scientists…have ended up believers” –i guess looking back on it my long-ago mind-opening moment was realizing that the structure of the 15 billion light-year Universe is repeated in a ‘next-smaller’ molecular ‘universe’ and then again on down into atomic and sub-atomic ‘universes’.
Meaning to me that there’s little reason to accept any dogma about the ‘big’ universe being an end, and not a part of a ‘next larger’.
After all, observable creation is in motion between the two end points, ‘the beginning’ and ‘the end’. If this universe is an end, why the ‘becoming’ nature of everything in it?
Aug 23, 2008 - 8:33 am 78. Recent Links Tagged With "categorical" - JabberTags:[...] public links >> categorical 42 Saved by kikilarue on Thu 09-10-2008 Logotherapy and Existential Analysis: Categorical [...]
Oct 10, 2008 - 6:04 pmSorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.