tar

PeterJ, I have a somewhat unothodox view of things, but I do not think I am taking them front to back, nor back to front. I assume the both are good ways to look at it, and both are true. I assume the other position, and take the one. To me, the best way, the best insights, are the ones that add back, and bolster the credibility of the other. I do not have the philosophical problems you say I must have. I assume that we are in the middle, and that is why there are two ways to look, on any axis you define. It is analogous to looking at a life. To be alive, you have to be born, exercise your entityness, and then die. There was a before, without you, and there will be an after, without you. To be an entity, exactly defines you as a component in a larger entity and a composite of smaller entities. Once in a spacial way, and once in a temporal way, where the longest you can stay you, stay an entity, is but a flash in the vastness of time, and the briefest moment, is time enough for billions of cycles of the entities within you. I suppose, to make a long story short, I assume we are big stuff to the little stuff, and little stuff to the big stuff...we are about mid size. And we are the current situation, formed by the past and predecessors to the future. Here and now is what we are, and that is why we know space and time. Sort of silly to expect to know something different than what we are. But we do it differently than a rock, so there must be reasons, things we do, that rocks do not. Cycles make a difference to us. We are subject to the world, the same as a rock, but have the facility to focus on this or that vibration and remember it, and learn how to use the patterns to our advantage. There is as much god in a rock, as there is in us. Especially if it is a really big rock. We are not so magical in nature as to be superior to the reality that we are in and of. And we are not so unreal and insignificant and fleeting as to be inferior to reality. We are in the middle, between the two extremes, with solid claims to both the self, and the all. All in all it is highly appropriate that we exist, and highly inappropriate that we pass...but thats the way it is. For any entity. A time for every purpose under heaven...so to speak. Regards, TAR2

PeterJ, However, I would not surrender the position that we can figure out, scientifically, what it is, that language is, and what the deep meanings are, that we commonly understand. Even if they are simple things we have complicated and refined to extend our capability and chances of survival and the passing on of our genes. Part individual thought and emotion and creativity, mixed with institutionalization of our highest ideals. I am not ready to throw in the philosophical towel. Kant's metaphysics built up the modal categories, and our "understanding" from our pure intuition of space, and that of time. When we understand why we know time, and we know space, we may understand why we are conscious of these things. From a neurological perspective. I think it may additionally require that we be alive, so an understanding of abiogenisis should be required. But whatever transpired, that wound up with life and conscious life, must be real, made of real entities and the exchanges and interplays between. I do not think a final answer is likely, but a "better" understanding is always within our reach. Better to fabricate the understanding from facts, then from dreams. The solutions are then more likely to fit the facts. Regards, TAR2

John Cuthber, You are quite right. Perhaps I should drop my self appointed apologist role, and argue as Iggy suggests, from the atheist position I hold. It really isn't right to hand the reigns over to a "person" that does not exist. It is, by all evidence, up to us. Regards, TAR2

John Cuthber, No, I don't think you are missing something in particular. And I think religious thinking is a mixture of real considerations and nonsensical considerations. But in musing on my own considerations, of what is real and valuable and what is nonsense, I find a gentle blending between that which we together mean by objective reality, and that which we each individually experience as objective reality. For you and me to talk, or for you and me to think about the same thing, we have to know what the other means when they talk. Some of the exchange is overt and unmistakable, and other parts are veiled or implied or assumed. When considering such a question as whether God and Science can mix it is a nonstarter if the question is whether nonsense and logic can mix. The question has an easy negatory answer, unless you are asking whether intuition and rationality can mix, in which case you might find an affirmative answer in metaphysics. On the other hand, if we are asking if nature and rational man can mix, we again have a non-starter. The answer is obvious, that we already have. If on the third hand, we are asking whether theists and atheists can mix, we again have a non-starter. The answer is in the definition, the two can mix in societies that allow it, and not in ones that don't, on a person to person basis. And definite argument and non-compatibility issues will arise when discussing what should be the proper way to think. The two ways of thinking do not mix, by definition. So my arguments are toward the way my own thinking as an atheist, correspond to the thinking of a theist, and toward the areas where Science and God mix. There may well be areas where there is misunderstanding of what is meant by science, and what is meant by God. For instance, my thought of the day yesterday was how we have faith in our bodies to heal our wounds. Even medical personal, who do not believe in God will pull a sheath out of a vein and apply pressure on the area, allowing blood to continue to ooze from the rupture, and flow into surrounding tissue and around neighboring organs, knowing that clotting will stop the flow, and the vessel will heal, and the body will reabsorb the black and blue and heal. We have "built in" capability, that does not require our rationality. We do not have to know how to metabolize to metabolize. We do not have to know how to reproduce, to reproduce. We do not have to know how to grow, to grow. Life in general must know how to be an organism, to be what it is and do what it does, without requiring science, without requiring logic and rationality. You say that science can do very well, without requiring God. Equally it could be said, that God does very well, without requiring science. Somewhere, there must be some areas where we are not listening, or not understanding, what the other means. Because it seems that science and God already mix. Regards, TAR2

John Cuthber, But in fairness to PeterJ's point, do you get by fine without something "like" God? And remember to also in the answer adhere to the sensible possibility that another of PeterJ's points may well be valid. The one where he says that is it likely that many who refer to God are not talking about one of your choice, that can not exist without breaking physical laws, but may well be considering something that must be, or could be, taking physical laws fully into consideration. Regards, TAR2 Besides, in my equivocations, I am not trying to prove the existence of a God that we would both agree cannot exist. I am trying to prove that people have a need for something like god. A source, a reason, and a destination. A conscience and an ultimate principle or judge. Something that trumps anybody's take. To come from, to exist in and belong to, and to return to, at death. An ultimate thing. Something like God. Hichens does not care anymore. He is no longer alive. It is us, who are alive, that still care about Hitchens' consciousness and thoughts. It is our life that I am speaking about when I say there is life after Hitchens's death, and the memory of Hitchens is part of the life that continues to exist, after his death. His memory is alive, in us. We were formerly, while he was alive, objective reality to him, and he still lives in us and we still judge him. Something "like" what role God is supposed to play in our personal afterlife. (Minus the impossible heaven and hell thing, where Hitchens' himself is supposed to be experiencing the virgins and angels or the boiling oil). Us actual living judges can provide the honors and the chides for him posthumunously. And the fact that we are still alive, and he is dead proves that there is life, after death. Just not for the dier. His/her life is over. Gone, but not forgotten.

PeterJ, I think I have run the experiment and considered it both ways. My conclusion was that the body/brain/heart group, that is the living TAR2 entity, is separate from the rest of the universe, and likes it that way. I want to live. Be in this separate state, because it allows me to witness and internalize, and know the rest. It I did not have this body/brain/heart group to distiguish myself from the rest, and serve as a particular place and time, within the rest, then I would not be me. In your above experiment and argument you changed the definition of you around and forgot your original asumption inorder to do it. Start first with a definition of "you" so I can follow your logic. If you do this, then distinquishing between outside and inside is not difficult. If you blur the definition and allow you to be outside you for real, then your initial definition is blown to peices. I have determined over the course of many exchanges with you, that you are smarter than me, and more well read, and understand the logical barriers to maintaining a certain philosophical stance, and what such stances are called, and where they have been found to be untenable and such. But I don't know that I agree with the logical walls that philosophers run themselves into, when they may have switched modes, without acknowlegeing the switch. And assumed a theoretical stance to support another theoretical stance. This is my main argument against Immortal. He has come to the conclusion that the rest of us have to be inside his head and since his atman understands brahman, then we all are one...and then he destroys his own argument, from both direction by telling the "rest of us" that we do not understand this simple truth. Already defeated, he gets even worse, and suggests that therefore, all the real outside stuff (which there should not be any of by the understanding Brahman pretense) is illusion, orchestrated by some supernatural platoon of gods, which are in turn illusions orchestrated by the eminations from Brahman, and its our "job" to be progressing toward understanding and become one, with the thing we already are, and then distinquishes himself from the rest of us, by saying he knows this truth and the rest of us are oblivious to it. Cementing himself thouroughly within his own imagination, and unquestionly defining the meaning of "inside ones head" to TAR2, an entity which definitely knows he does not exist within Immortals head. What image of me that Immortal holds, is one of an unseen other. Analogous to me, and made up of the forms and patterns of reality, placing me in actuality outside his head, or he would not be able to have an image of me, within it. If you start with my defintion, that TAR2 is a particular living body/brain/heart group, living on Earth, and PeterJ is a different and distinct, unique living body/brain/heart group, then inside and outside have distinct and meaningful meaning. Anything of PeterJ inside TAR2 is imaginary (specially since I'm straight). I do not have the actual PeterJ in my head, in the chemicals and neurons, I have an analog representation of you. Incomplete and inaccurate to be sure. One should not use what is known to be an image, as the real thing. Nor call a real thing an image. The thing and the image of the thing are already understood by virtue of the two pure intuitions Kant figured we each are endowed with, that of space and that of time. And any understand occurs at the now, and at the here. And the only place and time I have, is where the body/brain/heart group of TAR is. And the only here and now that you have is where the body/brain/heart group of PeterJ is. We can coincide, as in being on the same talk board at the same time, or being in the same place, should we run into each other. But there is a clear distinction between what goes on inside TAR2 and what goes on inside PeterJ. And we each are on the the outside of the other. I know this to be true because every single one of us knows there are billions of "other" body/brain/heart groups wandering around the Earth. We have already correctly parsed this inside outside thing, even if the parsing is all done inside our heads. We already know the difference, base on our equipments ability to know the difference. To know the difference between memory and prediction. To know the difference between a hamburger sitting outside on the plate, or inside in the stomach. We must have already figured these things out. They are not a mystery, or a logically impossible stance to take. What is impossible is for you, not to be you witnessing what ever you are focused on. Or put another way, you can not focus on that which you are not focusing on. And its always you, doing the focusing, whenever you are refering to something that the body/brain/heart group of PeterJ is doing. And if there were to be no you, who would you ascribe the point to, should you reach such a point as you were successful in dissolving your Atman into Brahman? With no separate PeterJ to consider, there is no one to acheive a high score, in PeterJ's estimation. But we are WAY off thread, and I am off my rocker. This stuff is really silly to argue about, because we are already both assuming the existence of the other,(you existing outside me, and me existing outside you) to even be arguing the point with each other. Regards, TAR2

...the next morning... OK, I have an argument. Science is a kind of focus. A breaking down of things into simple rules. And then applying the simple truth back on the complex and seeing where it applies and where it does not. Those simple rules, do not, in themselves exist. They are imaginary theories that are representative of the greater reality. Confirmation bias is so strong because the whole purpose of the exercise is to hold within, a model that fits exactly (explains real past and or predicts real future) with every aspect of that which we are in and of. We would all, being rational humans, rather accept, as a good model, that model that accounts for everything. But we all, being rational humans, know that a complete model cannot fit in our heads, we do not know everything well enough, to in truth, make the claim that our model is complete and as you put it, a FINAL assessment. Under the circumstances we have to have faith in that which we do not understand, that which we cannot see, but know must be there. We only have eyes in the front of heads, we only see the scene we are facing and focusing on, yet we have faith in what is unseen behind us. We don't KNOW there is not a child or pet or bug sneaking up behind us as we sit at our computer, but we take it on faith that we don't have to worry about that being the case, that it is safe back there, and we would be surprised if the absence of threat was not the case. You say that a religious person would say it was God, whether the the bullet killed or failed to kill. I say my faith in what is behind me is solid, even if I am surprised because I was a little wrong, and there was a bug that crawled on my neck. The chairback is still true, the shelves full of games and toys my children played with when they were young is still there. I don't have to turn around and look. I don't have to test my theory, (well actually it did just turn around before to check that what I remember being on the shelf was correct and had not changed), I can take it on faith. Along with the side and front wall of my house, the yard and road out front, the highschool a mile away, Pennsylvania, most of the U.S. and the rest of the world and universe that is behind me at the moment. And I can take on faith that the same is mostly true of the stuff infront of me, but outside my view because of walls and distance. I only need a little evidence, the faint glow of light on the tiles above the casement window alcove 15ft infront of me, to know the sun is rising, or the Earth is turning toward it, and everything else that I have faith in being true, is still true. If we have faith in that which is beyond our focus, that is reasonable. Why fault faith if the faith is in that which is beyond our understanding. Beyond the reach of our intellect. It is still OK to have faith in its existence. We know it must be true and we are created by it, subject to its whims, beneficiaries of its beauty and complexity, and manifested entities composed completely of it. I have no faith in God, if God is to be thought of as the model of the universe that exists in another humans head. On the other hand, I have complete faith in God, if God is to be thought of as the thing in which that other guy is placing his faith in. He might be looking at it differently than I look at it, but the "it" must be the same one I have to have faith in. Regards, TAR2 Is there not a similarity between "having faith in the system" whether you are talking about your company, or the financial system, or the scientific community., or the solar system? Something other than "hope".

Phi, I have no come backer. No argument left, against your OP. It is probably true or at least truish. But I have no comeback because I feel rather grounded and at one with things, in a vague, general sense, and that probably means I am in some way fooling myself and anchoring myself to something I can not prove, and in so doing, putting my faith in something that is not real. And I would hate to argue myself right off of whatever rock it is I think I am standing on. So I guess I will just leave it at that, and float the hypothesis that at least some people need to have a base, to operate off of, and that might require making the thing up. Regards. TAR2

Carbon Copy, I almost plused your post, except I don't think it is "just" the play of chemicals in our brains. I think we humans stake out a middle ground, between being controlled by everything, and controlling everything. Sure chemicals have everything to do with it, but it is not like we are not chemicals. If we were to be at the "mercy" of chemicals, it would be what we are, that we would be at the mercy of. Such is a similar conundrum that we face when considering the universe and God and the self. Its what religions address. How one can be simultaneously, only universe material and energy and form, AND something different than the universe. Its the basic "hard problem of consciousness". Its why people come up with the thought, phrased one way or the other, that we are God, in some general sense. Its when its taken specifically to be the case, that it makes no sense, because the self is something different than the all. Immortal thinks the ancients figured it out, and he frames it as eminations from a greater consciouness, or a bunch of them vieing for attention and controll. But it makes no sense. We don't see evidence of this in any way but imaginarily or metaphorically. Its not what is "really" going on. What I am realizing in this discussion, is that Phi for All, and I, may be arguing from the same philosophical/religious stance, that it is reality that we should have faith in. Even if that means we should have faith in ourselves. Iggy, in another thread, was trying to figure out what I was smuggling. I had a thought, just before posting this, that I am smuggling "human judgement", and arguing for it, as the thing that matters most. If we are human, by "accident", it is still "our" accident to have. If we are human by the thought of God , we are still God's thought. In either case, in the general sense, we belong here, and its our universe, and the only one we have. A distinction between us and a rock though, is that we are alive, and do a different thing than try and loose our heat. We try and keep it. Against the general tendencies of the world and universe around us. We represent a long history of evolution, of life on Earth. Carbon based life forms building on each other, separating and collecting cabon chains, making it easier for the copies to do the same. We could not breath but for the trees, we could not eat but for the flora and fauna, we could not drive or fly, or make plastics but for the many lives, the many carbon chains, the heat, concentrated and stored in the coal and oil. Does this mean we should worship carbon? Or worship mitochondria? Or DNA? Or chemicals? It is not "just" chemical interplay that we are. Its specific to us, and we are owners of it, and responsible parties to it. We can have faith in ourselves, because there is a lot there to have faith in. Millions of years of struggle against the entropy of the general universe to call our own. To rely on and have faith in. And we can call the rest of life on Earth our fellows in our success, in our victory. And have faith in ourselves, because any way you look at it, this is what the universe is doing around here, at the moment. Human judgement is what I am smuggling into the discussion. It is ours, and it is valuable and good, and we own it, and use it, and reap the benefits of it being excercised in everybody around us. We should put our faith in it, because however fleeting and frail life is, we are the owners and the judges of it, and it is ours to carry on. Regards, TAR2 But you already know this. Its your name.

I don't think I will ever meet the pup we put to sleep a few years ago rompping in a field on the other side of a bridge, but I don't mind the image. Phi, God loses because he doesn't exist, and is not real, not because we don't need the thought of God. Regards, TARw But I mince words. It is better to believe in the real things that are attributed to God, than to believe in a God that is not real.

I guess at the possibility that everyone might have a few emotional, intuitive coins in the same bank and trust, metaphorically speaking. Phi, And why would you want God to lose, if faith in God was really faith in personal resilience, patience and fortitude. You would not hope that personal resilience, patience and fortitude would fail. Regards, TAR2 You rather have put your faith in them succeeding.

Phi, While I get your point, I had a conversation with a family member recently, where she allowed as that faith gave her the strength to continue on through a difficult time. Who am I to tell her that she did it wrong, and based her faith on something other than material evidence. And who am I to know what rock she found to stand on. And since she is still standing, I have no evidence that it was not solid, that thing that she had faith in. Rather it seems that it was present and effective, in her case, whatever real thing it was, that she latched onto to help her through. Just saying, that if faith is a personal investment in something, whether that something is material or other than material, it still causes real differences in the thinking and actions or non actions of people that have made the investment. It still pays real dividends in some cases. And in the case I am talking about, I think she made a good investment. I had no interest in shaking her faith. And no better bank than the one she found, to suggest a transfer of funds. Regards, TAR2 and I am thinking I might have a few dollars in an account at the same bank, but that only seems likely

farzad didehvar, I do sense you are asking the same question I am. And PeterJ. So it probably is a central question. The answer though, what we each lock onto as an answer, is probably the definiton, or at least an indication of, ones religion or "belief". That is, what it is that one has their faith in the most. The inner or the outer. Gets really complex though, my inner, being your outer and vice-a-versa. Immortal has choosen the inner, for instance, and discounts the outer, or anyone that has faith in the the outer. Some, like myself have faith in the outer, and the inner, because I can not figure or imagine how the inner could be anything but an internalization of the outer. A reflection of, and a consequence of the outer. This makes it not only alright, but necessary to have faith in the outer, because it is evidently available to and internalized by everybody else as well. Hence science, where we all count on each other to verify which and what of what we have internalized is commonly found on the outside, by all internalizers. Then religion, if its faith in the inner we are talking about, becomes alright, if and when we agree that each others inner belongs to the same outer "thing". My theory is that we all know this, and have a common faith in the outer. Disagreements come when we think we are the only one to have noticed and parsed the situation correctly. Regards, TAR2 And linguistic level is the level we have developed to express to each other, the same meaning. We talk to each other in language, and we talk to ourselves in dreams, our own internal language. There is no easy way, however, to express ones own internal language to the outside. It just comes out weird. Hence, its more sensible to listen to yourself in the same language that the people around you understand, than to listen to yourself in a language that is jibberish to everybody else. Consider Google translate. Go to Google translate and think of a private thought. Enter it in your language and translate it into another. And copy and paste the result into the box asking Google to translate back into yours, or into another language. How can google do this, if there is not a mapping between your thoughts and your words, and not a mapping between your thoughts and the words of others, and not a mapping between your thoughts and the thoughts of others. Must there not be a meaning behind any of the words you use, that someone else can mean as well? Conversely, type some jibberish and you will find google did not understand what you meant. It was not on the meaning map. Below, is the above copied into Google translated to hindi, the hindi rendering translated to german and the german to enlish. I do not understand, ask the same question I am. And peterj. So it is likely a key issue. The answer, as we do. An answer to every lock, definiton perhaps, or at least the ones religion or "faith" is an indication This means that it is the one. Most in their faith Internally or externally. However, my hair is very complex, its exterior and vice versa is a. Elected as immortal inner and outer, or someone who has faith in the outer discounts. Reflects, and is the result of an external. So all internalisers science, where we all count on each other, and to which we have internalized, to check what is usually found on the outside. Sun religion, when we talk about their faith in the interior, even if and when we agree that each other inside the same external "thing" is. My theory is that we all know it, and the exterior is a common belief. Regards, TAR2 And a second level of the language developed to express the same meaning. We talk in the language, and we dream, our own internal language speak for themselves. There is no easy way, but the subscription rights of people to express their own internal language. It's just weird. Consider Google Translate. Go to Google Translate and you think of a personal opinion. Enter your language and translate it into the other. Ask Google to translate and copy and paste again in you, or the result is displayed in a different language. The preamble to the US Constitution put through the same process. We the people of the United States, form a perfect union, justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and ourselves and our posterity freedom ordain do Safe blessing औ ramerika establish this Constitution for the United States. There is something that our words mean.

Iggy,<br /><br />I did not know the guy well. Heard a few of his videos and a book title, and was not pleased with his approach. Too full of himself. Me, being full of myself also, felt embarrassed for my kin and felt a need to turn my back on him, disasscociate myself with his approach. Wish he would have been more careful and considerate, and not act so self-sufficient and holier-than-thou. Sorry about adding the g, I know a Hitchings, and I never spoke the word Hitchins. It was an honest typo and not indicative of any hidden agenda, or association to any army.<br /><br />I think you know me well enough to know that I think a little differently than normal, that I am a little eccentric, not likely to be on purpose uttering any group's talking points.<br /><br />If we are to look for whose agenda I am after supporting, we probably have to look all accross the board,(no pun intended). A piece here, and a piece there, is all I can come up with. The biggest group I identify with is the U.S. and its history. Next, Western Philosophy. Then Christians, Buddists, Scientists and such, in no particular order. I read Discover magazine, (though not the last couple issues). I watch TV but ignore the reality shows and watch mostly action/adventure/fantasy movies, NCIS, a little news, and sports when its the Yankees or the Giants. Spend a lot of time here in the Religion and Philosophy section, mostly lately the Religion section, because I have opinions and theories based on emotions and muses and personal takes on the goings on in the world, and few Journal backed studies to bring to the table. I do not easily distinguish ideas, one from the other, enough to know if I got them from Hawkins or Dawkins, or Hawkings.<br /><br />You already know my agenda. My Mom was an eccentric Mathematician follower of Jesus, my Father is a respected, rational, former head of the Psychology dept. at a now defunct college, who does not believe in God. I look for the answers that explain the thinking of both. That mix the two.<br /><br />With the thought that the real world belonged to my Mom, as much as it does to my Dad, and they were both full participants in it. And I loved my Mom, and disagreed superficially, and love my Dad, and don't know that I disagree with him on any level but politically, he and his wife being democrats and me being registered republican, but having had campaigned for McGovern in my youth, and been a "hippy", and served in the Army in Germany...<br /><br />Point being, I have associations that I hold dear. Very many of them, that associate me with a little of this and a little of that, and science and god are all mixed up in the world around me, already.<br /><br />If they are hard to sort out, it might mean that they have already mixed.<br /><br />If they are easy to sort out, it might mean that they do not mix, and are separate considerations.<br /><br />Looking at the history of man, and the current role that religion and wish thinking play in the lives of man and the men and women around me, and in the news, it seems to me that they have mixed and are still mixing. I am looking for the reasons that put the two together, not the reasons that would make them polar opposites. Science and God.<br /><br />You say that Hitchens won't mind. Being dead and all. Not completely true. There are many who still care if Hitchens is considered good or bad. His consciousness is still considered. It has not been removed from ours. He has nothing more to say, but still has listeners. He can not hear what we say about him, but we still talk.<br /><br />Regards, TAR2

Phi for All, Point taken, and point understood. I have to argue along with you against the sense of a pastor giving a sermon "Build the truth into your life". Its not reasonable to attach the word truth to the statements that would guide our interpersonal relations, and trust in each other, and use the word, in the same sense, to trust the promises of Jesus, or the promise of God. Such a sermon comes across to me, as an atheist, as incredibily hypocritical. How can a pastor speak of truth when in the next sentence he speaks such incredible "fabrication" as is contained in the Bible? In general its impossible for me to believe the whole sermon or think anything other than that the pastor is exactly NOT telling me the truth, and is attempting to pull the wool over my eyes, and have me believe I should do these things, ie. tell the truth, that make sense to me, on the basis of something that makes no sense at all. It is as if the religious person believes that true plus imaginary equals supertrue. Which is, I guess what they mean, when they say that nature plus God equals supernatural. Except I do not know how to explain myself, as a conscious human, without the use of agreed upon imaginary "things" like truth and trust, which can only be understood based on agreed upon definitions of commonly held "images". Such an ability, to talk of objective truth is difficult to do without also having the ability to hold a Godlike perspective. Many would suggest that a human mind is subjective by defintion and can not actually hold an objective position. Yet there is no one here, atheist or theist, that is not capable of considering oneself, objectively, or "from" a godlike perspective. Even if that means simply putting themselves, imaginarily, in the shoes of the person, or other conscious being (ie. pet) next to them, or in the lab, or in the church, or at the other keyboard. Regards, TAR2 If you can have a faithful pet...and you can put yourself in its shoes, to determine if you are a good owner, and holding up your end of the bargain, might this be the same basic imaginary transaction required to consider an objective judge that is YOUR owner, in which you place your unconditional faith and trust? It is not unlikely, given the random nature of the attributes assigned to this imaginary judge, that he/she/it would be unable to hold up their end of the bargain.<br /><br />And as you put it Phi, having "stronger faith" in this imaginary judge is in no way going to improve its ability to hold up its end of the bargain.

Iggy, Once was a mystery riddle where the border guards were alerted to a known smuggler approaching the border. They stopped him, stripped searched him and took his bicycle apart, checking that there was nothing in the tires or the hollow tubes. They found nothing. They put the bike back together, apologized for the inconvience and sent him on his way. The next week, the same scene was repeated and again they found nothing. They couldn't figure out what he was up to. Smuggling bicycles of course, was the answer to the riddle. Regards, TAR2 P.S. Not to speak poorly of the dead, but I think Christopher Hitchings was a bit of a dick. I don't want to be like him, even if I agree with his thinking. Perhaps I am trying to smuggle anti-Hitchings serum into the atheist camp. Not to change any minds, but to acknowledge the hearts involved. Or perhaps iNow and I are using the ole good cop, bad cop routine as we interrogate the captive thiest. Or maybe I am allowing myself some fanciful room to still be, in some way, even if TAR2 should die. I am rather attached to existence. I have no interest in doing without it. I want to associate with it as fully as appears to be the case. If this feeling or thought leaks into religious thought and feeling, it is an indication to me, that I might be harboring the same thoughts and feelings that a religious person has. Even though my Mom is dead, she is still in my memory. Her consciousness is stiil known to me. I can talk with her, as an unseen other, and consider her thoughts and emotions, almost as surely as I can do the same with my wife, who is currently in another state, or my dad, who is alive and about 30 miles away, and the same with my wife's aunt, who I saw just two weeks ago, who died unexpectedly two Thursdays ago. If I carry the departed in my heart and mind, they are not completely erased from reality. They still mean something to me, and influence my thoughts and actions. I count on it being the same way, when I die. Those who's life I touched will still have me in their memory. Any works I did will still have been done. Anything I built will still stand. Anything I created will be a part of reality. For me to believe in life after death, it does not require that I be alive myself after my death. That does not happen. That is impossible. I can not be the living body/brain/heart group, that is TAR2, once TAR2 dies. But I still would have been TAR2, and reality would not forget that fact. I know this to be fact because I lit a match when I was 15 (or so) and held it to the stars, and that light is still traveling, even though the match is extinguished.

Iggy, Thanks for the lyrics. Can you hum a few bars? I guess you would have to use musical notation in my case, for me to hear. But then again, I have other computers in the house, whose sound is working, so it would be easier for me to just go upstairs. Anyway, I was watching the St. Patrick's day parade today and the religion I sensed in and around the proceedings was not a bad thing. It had more to do with believing in each other than something other than us. One of the peices on the coverage I saw was the oath, taken by soon to be Airmen, who pledged their faith and alligence to the flag of the U.S. and to the country that it represented. Made me think again of what faith and alligence are. What do they mean. They are not subtances in a literal sense, but are substances in a figurative sense, that have real consequence and real existence. In the same sense as a promise does. To put faith in something, it has to be something of yours, that you are giving to the other thing. I had, a while back, come up with a definition for love. "Love is when you include another entity, in your feeling of self." Perhaps faith is when you put something of yourself into another entity and feel secure about the investment. In the linguistic way I am looking for "meaning" I am proposing that there is a valuable commodity that we deal in that has our consciouness as the currency. That is not readily measured, in and of itself, but is noticable in its consequences, and its apparent presence through signs and signals we give to each other. What is it worth, to have somebody's, attention, or love, or obiedience or trust. Why would one consider it enriching to have somebody else, put their faith in them, if it were not enriching? In your song the moldy one asks me who I have been giving myself away to, with no return on investment. A reasonable question. But not one easily answered by someone not involved in the transaction. "anyone else buy you" The "you" here, is referring, in my estimation to the substance that is used in faith, charity and love transactions. It should not be spent unwisely. And we all hate to see it cast to the pigs. As we would hate to see someone we care about waste their money, we don't like seeing the other valuable substance being misspent or lost or stolen. But as metaphors go, putting ones faith in God, would be quite a waste, if God does not exist. To those on the board, like iNow, and ydoaPs, this is the warning they issue. Don't put your faith in something that does not exist, when there is so much that does exist, for you to put your faith in. My argument has been for a while, that there is a large amount of real stuff that people of faith are putting their faith into. I argue this, because I have faith invested in the same real stuff that religious people I know have invested in. And I know there is no way to show my bank account to you. Interesting though that before, on this or the faith thread, you or Phi used the "keeping two sets of books" metaphor. Perhaps one is the knowledge, capability account, and the other is the faith, trust account. Seems they are not therefore mutually exclusive, and one can be rich in both senses, poor in both senses, or some combination. And it is possible for me to give credit to Iggy for being a scientist, and also for me to give credit to Iggy for caring about others. Which would answer the thread question in the affirmative. Whether considering two people, or considering oneself. Regards, TAR2 The Panthiest thing, is just the closest religious thought I have found so far, that fits, in my case. It does not mean I am one. As in, "I put my faith in everything" Only dishonest in the sense that I don't really mean everything, there is a great deal of people, things and ideas that I either am unaware of or have no faith in. For instance, although I have some faith in any human, by virtue of their humanity, I completely closed my account in the case of Bin Laden and whathisname that killed the kids and teachers at Sandy Hook. By the way, during the parade a bagpipe group stopped at the reviewing stand for a moment of silence, in rememberance of those lost that day...and played Amazing Grace. One of the commentators said that the whole parade stopped, and even the groups ahead stopped and turned...and he had never hear NYC so quiet. Hey! Heres another take on the science and God mix. Consider the Blindmen and the Elephant story. Each scientist argued with the other about the nature of the thing, it was rather like a tree, or a snake, or a leaf or a wall. All of them were partly right and all partly wrong...but they were all talking about the elephant. The SAME elephant.

Iggy, I am at a small disadvantage at the moment, as I do not have sound on my computer. (I broke my .exe executing ability downloading some program I was duped into thinking was going to give me some pdf powers, that begain a scan and manipulate and destroy routine instead, and have not yet figured how to remedy the situation, short of starting over.) My assumption was, that there is a certian element of people with ill will or disregard for the rest of us, that you are against, and you are arguing against them. If my ideas were and line of reasoning was tending to support the people you are against, and I was against the same people, I figured my "target", in the case of arguing with you, may be misaquired, an unintended. Now, I have not heard the "dick" song, so I am blindly proceeding, unaware of which direction along what lines, would take me deeper into dickland or lead me out of it. Nor do I know if being a dick is being currently held (in terms of the thread) as a positive or negative thing, in terms of people having faith in something. Is it the people that have put their faith in something that are dicks, or the people that have not? That being the case, that I am blind, or in this case deaf to the situation, I will have to step back a step explain my purpose, and then proceed to "get at" the deeply woven stuff. This is the Philosophy/Religion section of a science forum. The purpose of the Religion section, is to investigate and discuss the rational foundations of religion. This presupposes that it is possible that there may be rational foundations to consider. Since there is little evidence that sky pixies have given religion to us, we must have made it up on our own, constructed it from whole cloth. I am after the fibres that we have wooven together, or that others have spun for us. My central theme, the perspective I am approaching this from, is "the meaning behind language". I take this tact, because language is something all humans have, even the deaf and blind and dumb ones. And evidence shows that there is a certain universal grammar that all humans use and understand. This I take as evidence that the brain/body/heart group that I have, is rather similar in structure and function to that of my human friends, and that of my human enemies. Common to both those I align myself with, and those I make effort to protect myself and my way of life against. And if there is meaning that all language has, if there is "meaning behind language" there must be something we mean by using it. We cannot sense something, or be informed of something, if there is not something informing us. There must be a form "out there", that gets "in" here, into this TAR2 brain/body/heart group, in some analog, symbolic, representative fashion. If I have "faith" in this outside thing existing, independently of that of it, that I have been informed of, I have done nothing differently than every other body/brain/heart group, on the planet. So I argue from this stance, and feel that scientifically speaking, there must be something that someone is referring to, something that someone means, when they use the word God, and something that they mean, when they say they have faith in it. Although its rather obvious that an atheist is therefore not using God in the same sense that a believer in God means it. Regards, TAR2 So is the thread question talking about scientific people and believers in God mixing, or is it asking if Science and God can mix within one person?

Moontanman, I will agree with your confirmation bias assessment. But that did not seem to affect my Mom when I tried such reasoning with her. This common thing, that we seem to run into, when we try to talk someone out of believing in supernatural things, must have an explanation. One theory I was playing with today, consistent with my general understanding of the world, is that "supernatural" is a word that means something other than unreal, to a lot of people. In my book, supernatural is a synonym with imaginary, in that it is refering to something not to be confused with real things. But imaginary things, and unreal things are partially the same type of thing. There is not a lot of distance between a Platonic ideal, and an unseen judge that would be the arbitrator of such an ideal. If we were to think that there was some reason to believe in the ideal, it would probably have something to do with the fact that we had evidence of some sort that somebody else held the same ideal as we did. At which point, even though it was a flimsy "thought" we were talking about, it would gain some wheight as a "real" thing, exactly because another held it as well. Now this would explain why people might believe in something, just because somebody else does. I think it makes sense, ask you if it makes sense to you, you say yes, and have my thinking that it makes sense to back up your thinking. We could together, manufacture some rather unreal theories, if we both work off some incorrect assumptions, or some bad facts, or a lie. If we were two 5 year olds, we might together act as some sort of magnifying feedback loop and convince each other that Santa really was aware of "if we were bad or good", so we would be good, for goodness' sake. It perhaps is not a completely different kind of thing that two 50 year olds could back each other up on the thought that their country's ideals were worth fighting and dying for. Or that a certain set of rules, was sanctioned and valuable and real, because they were held as valuble and real by the other. In the one sense, the conscience of the one, is formed and informed by the other. (and since the other is a real person, the ideal is NOT unreal or supernatural.) But in the other sense, the two, together, have made the thing up, it is imaginary, unreal, and supernatural in the kind or type of thing, that it is. So maybe this word supernatural, partially refers to the ideas that we have together made up, and reinforced in each others imagination. And when we ask another, if they believe in supernatural things, they might think we are asking them, if they believe in the same fairy tales, principles, ideals, and imaginary stuff, as other people are aware of. To test out this thought, consider a spoken promise, that is not heard by anybody but the promiser and the promisee. Is it a real thing, or a supernatural thing? Perhaps I am still considering that faith between two people, is not a completely different thing than faith between one person and the rest of the world. Or the faith between a religious sect and their world. Regards, TAR2 Interesting that the term is usually "faith in" something or somebody, and not "faith about" or "faith on" or "faith over" or "faith under" or "faith around" or "faith through". Like perhaps it is refering to some part of you entering the the other, or residing there. Like investing yourself in something. This might explain why challenging somebody's faith is taken so personally...because the stronger the faith in something that X has, the more of X there is in that something. Like telling somebody their life's savings are worthless peices of paper. faith between

Iggy, You can call me TAR. I took on TAR2 as a signiture when I had left Guardian Talk for a few years, and went back to find another was signing in, and signing as TAR. It has nothing to do with my equivocation. That is a personality trait of mine, by either signiture. I think, now understanding better the why and what and wherefore of your discounting of faith in the personages that you understandably find it unbecoming in, I am fully ready to drop my argument. I was aiming at the wrong target. I get your drift. Regards, TAR

Phi for All, I do not disagree. I would have more faith in the guy on the cell phone, calling for help, than the guy with his hands together, looking at the sky for help. But either way, objective reality is likely to come to the rescue. In the person of a trained, equipped individual or several. Not likely an angel will show up. But people of faith have a different borderline they draw. The emergency rescue people ARE the answer to the prayer. My mother spoke of a time she was walking a long distance, was tired and thirsty and prayed to Jesus for some help. I guy who was a distant aquaintance saw her walking along and picked her up, and drove her home. She took it as an answer to her prayer. I was not able to convince her that it was the guy that helped her, and not Jesus' love. She drew some very different borderlines than I drew, still Jesus's love was not completely out of the equation, the guy was the brother of someone she knew from a church she attended. A sort of loose network of "helpers" traveling about, not adverse to helping someone in need. It remains a difficult thing for me to say with 100% certainty that Jesus had nothing at all to do with it. Even though I know Jesus himself was not listening to her prayer and commanding the fellow to pick her up. Jesus sort of was listening to the request, and providing the answer. In a figurative way. And since it really happened, a literal way, as well. Which parts of what we do for others, or expect of others are based on material evidence, and which are based on considerations that do not depend on physical evidence, but more on promises and feelings and a shared understanding of a common good we feel a part of? The driver had no particular reason to pick her up. No one else, on her long walk picked her up. My mom explained it as sychronicity...what ever that is. Regards, TAR2

Phi for all, To take the thread on a side track, just to explain myself, in how I am thinking that faith is a scientifically knowable thing. Might seem a bit of a reach, but I have done a lot of thinking about this, and it is hard to explain the connections and possible explanations I am considering, theoretically. It has to do with our predictive motor simulator. It evolved to coordinate our muscle movements, to "practice" various combinations of motor signals and timings, BEFORE the motor neurons are actually fired. It evolved so we could walk and run and climb and dig, and bring food to our mouth, but I think we may have usurped its functions and applied them to coordinated actions OUTSIDE our neural reach. Its a theory, but it may be a clue to the advantage that man has, over most of our mammal relatives. Consider what we do as infants. Learning about the world, not only through our senses, but through learning and remembering the combinations of motor signals that will propel us around in it, and manipulate IT. The human use of tools and coordinated activities beyond our neural reach, separate us from many other creatures, but not all. There was a recent news article about a group of whales that came together and formed a whale raft to support a dying fellow, and keep his blow hole above water. Predicting our next move, imagining it, and rehearsing it, in our heads, before we expend the energy, and take the risk of making it happen, is an important part of what we do. We are more than just reflex, and accident, in this regard. We do stuff on purpose. With some thought behind it. We have had this ability for many 100s of thousands of years, and have developed on top of it, language to describe our plans to each other, so coordinated action can be rehearsed and practiced and remembered between fellows. And over the last 10 or 20 thousand years, there is evidence that we planned things out together in very large groups. Groups big enough to build Gobekli Tepe and the pyramids and such. We do not simply hope the other does his part. We know he will, we have faith in him. And we have the same obligation, back. If this theory is correct, or maybe even if it is just something like correct, it gives us REASON to believe in each other. And if you have followed me, so far, in this line of thinking, it is not difficult to understand why we might have some faith in objective reality, because it is an extension of our collective motor simulators, in one sense, it is what spawned us and created us, in another sense, it is what we sense and are informed of, in another sense, and it is what we imagine and remember and rehearse/predict in yet another sense. That is a lot of senses, for it to not be sensible to have faith in objective reality. Belief based on something other than material evidence. To feel a part of it, from before you were born, and to care about it, after you die. I think there is enough there, in the theory, to explain our confusion about what it is that other people consider God, and what it is that we each individually consider to be reasonalby and realistically "within our sphere of influence". And if your faith in this common reality is strong enough...you can move mountains. Regards, TAR2

Phi for All, King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.) And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity. I do not agree that faith should be singled out, as a stupid irrational thing, that has no place in a modern human, or that it should be thought of as a negative influence on a person seeking the proper attitute to have toward the world, or to see it as a source for the wrong thinking of a creationist, and therefore condemn it to death, not to be used by a reasonable person. As one rationalizing ones bad behavior, incorrectly, and contrary to truth, should not condemn rationality to the chopping block. Faith is a quality pure and simple. And it is usually based on something other than material evidence. This does not warrant redefining it as a bad word, or pretending we all don't have many areas of our lifes in which we use it, count on it, and expect it in others. You would have no problem defending hope and charity(love). Why do you pick on the sister word, faith. Even the Humanist believes in the human spirit, and takes it on faith, that everybody else feels the same way, or should. While I would agree that blaming a failure on ones lack of faith, does not seem very scientific, there is evidence that "believing" things are going to work, help them to work. Several areas where I have seen this. One is in sports, where people "get in the grove", and see it working, so strongly, that it just does. Every little subtle muscle movement and coordination between sense and motor signals working perfectly, with no unuseful or competing signals. Another is in speech, the difference between a clearly spoken word, and a studder. Another is in business, where 90% of success is showing up. Another is in human relations were just being there makes all the difference. Regards, TAR2

Iggy, Well I would argue that interaction with other humans is all we do...if it were not for the rest of reality. And I would argue that interaction with real, existing things is all we could possibly do, if it was not for imagination. When I was young, there was no internet. We thought it up, and made it real. A mere thousand years ago, there was no border between Canada and the U.S. There were not even the two countries to have a border between. We thought the situation up, and made it real. Human interaction, by human interaction. Religious freedom, was one of the drivers of Europeans to the new world. How one was to interact with the world, was not to be dictated by the "powers that be" in Europe. What does "yearning to be free" mean? Free from what? Tyranny and oppression, most likely. But those things come in all sizes, and are normally "thought up" by the same humans we interact with, and count on to help us survive. My argument as an atheist would be that there is no one entity, like a human, running the whole show. There cannot be such. Humans only came about "recently" on one small planet, that we know about. But there remains the question of what are humans like. What is it that we are made of, and reflect? What is it that we copy? What is it that we are in and of? We did NOT make that up, and must be formed in its image, in some sense or manner. If science is our attempt to learn about the world, and God is our "image" of it, preexisting as a "known" thing, from which we are born, and to which we will return, then not only do science and God mix, but they interact with each other, quite regularly. Regards, TAR2

Iggy, The bovines in the neighborhood are safe from me. (except that really cute one) I did have point with that post, but it is obviously more an opinion than a fact. But that oddly enough, was one of the points I was trying to make. There are many things about human life, that are basically consensus opinions. The law, morality, traditions, and stories and promises of all sorts. I tend to obsess on things, I get an idea and overthink the darn thing, and feed it through every ringer I can think of, and look at it from any and all perspectives I can manage. Such is my rut, that Phi for All helped put me in, over in his faith thread, started by his OP that equated faith with an over-reaction required by the need to believe something was true, BECAUSE it absolutely was not true, and only by digging yourself deeper into fantasy land, could you manage to bolster your belief. I don't know that Phi has it right. I think there is something more, involved in "faith". And the faith we have in each other (not math and quarks) but each other, is akin to the faith that people have in God. And it bears on this thread strongly because neither science or faith, has anyplace, or anything other than reality, to be basing itself on, in the sense, that whatever truely is the case, about the universe...is the case about the universe, regardless of our opinion or judgments on the matter, BUT the only things we can really experience, or know, or care about, concerning reality are the things about it that matter to us. So I carry the rut over into this thread, and try and suggest that God and science mix, because the majority of the human race, keep both sets of books. And there most likely is a good reason that we do. Those reasons are what I care to explain to myself. To illuminate my own understanding. It is more opinion than fact that I am going on about. But sometimes science takes a Godlike perspective on things, and everybody knows what taking a Godlike perspective might mean. As if having such a perspective is a real possibility, or that it should mean anything to anybody. (as in Prof. Krauss being the first to know, how the universe ends.) (don't you think he is "pretending" a little, to take such a perspective, and consider it "true") (true to who?). Regards, TAR2 Or to call Andromeda a member of the "local" cluster, when it is exactly NOT local in any real sense of the word local. It is rather the opposite of local. Except in our imaginations where we can take a grain size and manipulate it scalewise, immediately and at will, with no actual sense required. We don't have to add everything back, and make it fit, to imagine it "true". Sort of like belief in god. Just a thought. But a thought about reality. I suppose my underlying point, is a challenge to the Humanist. (which I may be one) How can you have faith in your fellow man, if you think that faith is crap? Immortal, Making hissing and popping sounds with your mouth does not make the disc of the Sun expand. Not really. Regards, TAR2