tar

Iggy, No I didn't realize I was quoting anyone in particular, just using the feet on the ground thing so that my tightrope was laying on it , and I could survive the fall easily, and still have my head in the clouds. Sorry about the cow thing, I guess I milked that metaphor dry. Still would like to know if you have any faith in the whispy stuff that clouds are made of. At the danger of looking like I am arguing for a god that I have already soundly dismissed, I will however probably continue on the abiguity and equivocation route, because I basically am after "what we mean" by god, not "is there a god". I take this route, because it seems a sensible one. No one of us is in the others head. We do not know the subtle differences between our analogies and pattern matchings that make us think the other is missing something important and true. I have long seen an "issue" caused by "the literal" and "the figurative", and what we each think the other is taking in the opposite way than it "should" be taken. On the one hand, the figurative and the literal are easily told apart...but none of us, is convinced that the other could possibly have the same discernment we are capable of...except when we realize that others truely do think and feel in very similar ways, about very similar things. We have no proof or material evidence of this, of course, but there is a lot of circumstancetial (I'll spell that later) evidence that we think and feel alike. We all had moms and dads, many of us siblings, aunts and uncles and cousins, grandparents and so on. We all live in huts or houses or apartments with doors and windows funiture, tvs and computers and such (a lot of us, anyway). Most of us have friends and a way to make a living, or somebody to beg off of. We all get hungry, thirsty, dirty, smelly, and have to go to the bathroom. We all go the the bathroom, or the kitchen to take care of those things. Most of us have two arms, ears, hands, feet, nostrils, eyeballs, legs, cheeks and such, put together in almost exactly the same configuration, with the same senses and motor control working together, guided by very similarly arranged brains. The capabilities any one of us have to sense and remember, feel and predict, plan and act, are not unique to us, individually. However, we exist, in an of a universe that there is only one instance of. In a local cluster of galaxies that is only one cluster of many. but is the only cluster any of us on Earth would call ours. Similarly we all have the same galaxy, the same solar system, and the same Earth. Thus there are things that are solely ours for real, and there are things that are ours figuratively. And the definitions of what is figuratively and/or literally ours, changes with who and what you are including in your definition of self. There are many recipes for how a particular personality can put him/herself together, with this large list of ingredients, some material, some metaphor, some imaginary, some symbolic or analog. And it is difficult for any one of us to get a good taste of what it is, even our spouse, or closest friend, or parent or sibling has cooked up, much less understand the masterpeice put together by an individual at the other keyboard, or building a life on the other side of town, or in another region of the country, or at the other end of the continent or the other side of the world. Yet, we have a clue. We have a feeling, that there is a way we ought to be. To make the others we care about, proud. That we are not alone, and we owe something to somebody or something. And somebody, or something, other than us, cares as well. Our world is very big, and very old, and there are billions of wills on this planet. Each with a vision, of how it ought to be, but each as well with the ability to make it, a little more like that, than it was before. And if this is the case now, as it was yesterday, and the week and year and decade and century and millenium ago, then logic would demand, that we are standing on the shoulders of the people that came before us, and are arm in arm with the people around us. That efforts have been made, ideas turned to reality, inventions and good ideas built on the inventions and good ideas that came before. If one man was alone on this earth, he would be naked and cold and hungry and nothing more than prey to the lions and bears and dogs and boars, snakes and vultures, and open to the elements of cold and wind and water and ice, and subject to infection and disease. He would have to team up with someone, or something. Make some promises, form some pacts, learn from that and those around him, as to how to survive, who and what to align oneself with, and who or what to kill and eat. All in all, I think we have done a good job of working together and taking charge of this place. Technology passed down from generation to generation, and spread between tribes by purchase or robbery or barter or force or simply by observation and copying of that which worked, was certainly one side of the coin. But on the other side of the coin is our feeling of a common connection to all that real stuff, that we are commonly connected to, that we would be nothing and nowhere without. I am not sure there is a normative morality that can be constructed in a purely positivistic way. I am thinking we are subject to the collective consciousness of objective reality, which includes mostly other sentient beings, but also includes some inanimate stuff, like hurricaines and earthquakes and meteors and such, to say nothing of the strong influence of the Sun and its energy, and the Earth and its minerals and gravity, and the air that we breath and the water we drink. When we think of the way it ought to be, we really are about 99 percent there already. And science is only the half of it. The other half, has been in play, and is likely to stay in play, and I really don't think we could or should, do without it. I think the proof that science and God mix, is that they already have. Regards, TAR2

Tar translation of psalm 23 from the King James version, into moo talk. 1<> The Cow is my shepherd; I shall not want. 2She maketh me to lie down in green pastures: she leadeth me beside the still waters. 3She restoreth my soul: she leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for her name's sake. 4Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for the cow art with me; her womb and her teats they comfort me. 5 The cow preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: the cow anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over. 6Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the field of the cow for ever. Phi, Is my belief that reality can metaphorically be taken as a cow (as describe above), and my subsequent "faith" in this cow's existence prior, during and after my life, a sign that I have in any way been duped, as described in the OP of your faith thread? Would STRONG faith in this cow, that lead me to believe that there were considerations to be considered that trumped my personal existence and lifespan, be an untrue or illogical judgment to make? Can you see how I might think that science and God can truely mix and form a solid, edible, cheese. Regards, TAR2

Iggy, Well, thank you for that. It is important to me, to be understood, and considered honest. Its a validation that I appreciate. And I make the milk metaphor to offer the suggestion that "mixing" has a few meanings as surely as soluble does. And if we keep two sets of books, one to account for our fatty acid intake, and one to account for our water intake, we are still drinking the milk, and still owe the cow some consideration. Make the fatty acids money and power, toys and technology, science and logic and make the water charity and love, dance and music, art and religion, and TAR2 can make the cow, the god that people, all people, might have, to consider. Then, with this metaphor, consider the evident situation that there once was a time where human consciousness had not yet emerged. There was something (let's call it the above mentioned cow)which did however exist. My belief in emergent evolution forces me, and I would surmise any believer in emergent evolution, to consider the steps, from "no conscious human" to "the first conscious human", with no magic, unreal "outside" influences. Presupposing this "without us" cow, and understanding an explanation of how the cow now contains us, ties us logically and realistically to the cow. We are not possibly superior to, or separate from the cow, as that we would not be, but for it, and what it spawned. And do not investigate it, or love it as an outsider, but as a child of it. Seems a tight rope best walked with ones feet on the ground, and ones head in the clouds. Regards, TAR2 So as to planting my flag, in the atheist camp. I do plant my flag there. But the flag has a picture of a cow, under a flowering tree, in a green pasture, with a babbling brook running through it, and a bright Sun shining in a blue sky with white fluffy clouds. Just so as that I can still carry my banner and be recognized as a friend, when I leave camp and venture out and visit the other camps.

Nothing trumps the rational mind? That is a pretty big assumption, coming from a tiny piece of mortal flesh, on a relatively small planet circling a star that is just one in millions of stars that make up a galaxy that is just one in a billion or larger number of galaxies that make up the universe. Seems to me that it would only take the existence of one "better" rational mind, to trump a rational mind...and you would not even have to leave the planet to find such a trumper. And to the thread question...does such an assumption, as "nothing trumps the rational mind" require a great deal of faith in the rational mind? How possibly, could any single mind on the planet, or any collective mind we have developed, at this current point in our emergent evolution history be as good as it gets? The collective "rational mind" found on Earth, in 100 years, should be superior to that currently available for comment. So that mind would trump the rational mind of the present, and make your assertion false. And that is not even considering the fact that other kinds of minds other than human minds may be in play, when considering the expanse of the universe, and the fact that the rational mind is not capable of coming up with anything close to the universe. No, I think your assertion is incorrect. The rational mind is in and of the universe. The universe trumps its parts, by default. You would need a tremendous amount of faith (believing in something not requiring evidence)to believe that nothing trumps the rational mind of an early 21st century human on Earth. Regards, TAR2 And such a statement as "nothing trumps the rational mind" throws down the gauntlet, and challenges the mind that came up with the statement "love conquers all". ydoaPs,<br /><br />The representational nature of symbols that are used in logic systems, contain in and of themselves a logical flaw. You can perform operations on the symbols that cannot in actuality be performed on the things that the symbols represent.<br /><br />Finding that something is true, because the symbols say it is true, is as unreasonable and unrealistic as Immortal finding the "rest of the world" at fault, because it does not match how he sees his representations properly fitting together.<br /><br />Having more faith in your own logic, then in the thing your logic is considering, is somewhat arrogant.<br />The representation CANNOT be more correct than the true thing it represents. Complexity cannot be simplified, and still be what it started out as. You may be able to simplify an equation, but E equals MC squared, does not come close to representing the universe. You can simplify the characters of a representational system, but you have to get the symbols into the system first, and this information is incomplete and representational, to begin with.<br /><br />Regards, TAR2 And you can not tell me that a picture of a peanut butter cup on my tv screen is going to be sweet and tasty. Even if it is a PERFECT representation. Some important characteristics have been left out.

Iggy,<br /><br />Parents were.<br /><br />An important consideration to this argument. At least for me.<br /><br />My father was taken to church "religiously" by his parents, and he is an atheist.<br />My mother was taken to church, but I do not remember either of my maternal grandparents as "religious" and my mother was very much a believer in Christ.<br /><br />My sister and I are both atheists.<br /><br />If I would address the thread question, putting my father in the role of science, and my mother in the role of God, I would be left with a little ambiguity as to the answer to the thread question. On the one hand, my parents divorced about 40 years ago, which would be an indication, that in this case, science and God did not mix very well. Except, on the other hand they mixed well enough to spawn me. And I think that is an indication that they do mix, science and God. Although that makes me more of an emulsion than a solution. More mayonaise than sugar water. It still suggests that they mix, science and God.<br /><br />And while it is true that oil and water don't mix. We still drink milk as if the water and fat have mixed well enough to solve our hunger and thirst.<br /><br />The "mixture" is still a solution, in the one sense of the word solution, although it is not a solution in the other sense of the word solution.<br /><br />Regards, TAR2 Immortal,<br /><br />Your "man that plays with fire" needs no water, but drinks milk "instead".<br />Your "man that plays with fire" needs no food, but drinks milk "instead".<br /><br />He has, in actuality, by drinking milk, both eaten oil and drunk water, and has not risen above the need for both.<br /><br />Regards, TAR2

Ringer, If a word has different meanings and you specify the different meanings and compare and contrast the differents meanings and look for the similarities and differences, in an effort to understand what is meant by someone when they use the term you are not being guilty of this... wrong logical conclusion: an invalid conclusion based on statements in which one term has two different meanings Ringer, When you are talking about God, a word that has about a zillion different meanings, one of them being "nature", I think it logical to assume that a person talking about God, if God is to be considered in any real sense, must be talking about nature. Or as you say, they must be talking about something "supernatural", which by default would have to be an imaginary, unreal, unnatural thing. Immortal was just talking about Helios, which I guess is the Sun God, or Ra. It is not an unreal, unnatural idea for an Earthly human to consider the Sun an important source. You and I certainly would be lost without it. Here what is figurative, and what is literal IS conflated. It is not me, that is doing the conflation, or introducing the ambiguity. Just me, pointing out that when the Egyptians referred to RA, or I refer to the sun, we probably mean the same life giving entity. Regards, TAR2 As Brahman cannot be other than the All. And Atman cannot be other than the self. The All and the self are real, common considerations for everybody on the thread. We can talk about them, because they are real and we all have a certain understanding of them both. The words we use to describe them, are still under construction.

Immortal, Nature has not yet done what it is going to do tomorrow. Not exactly what it is going to do tomorrow. There was a time when the Earth was molten and life had not yet emerged. It had a future then, it had stuff to do, that it had not yet done. Such is still the case. The universe has not yet done what it is going to do next. Regards, TAR2

Ringer, Well Consistency has a good point. God is nature and nature is God. When you say we already have a name for nature and it is not God, you are discounting all the people, myself included who consider the one synonymous with the other. If the thread question, is whether or not you can mix science with God, and you have the thought that God and nature are two words with similar meaning, then the thread question is also can you mix science with nature, which no scientist would have any question about answering in the affirmative. As an atheist, I have no requirements to go through any middlemen to associate with God, if God is nature. And if belief in nature is the only requirement to being a believer, then I am one. If I do not subscribe to Mohammed's particular imagined association with nature, or that of the Vedic masters, or that of Moses, or Jesus, or that of any other man that now lives or ever lived, I STILL have direct access to nature, am made completely of it, and have no where to go where I would not be with it. I can not get closer to God, if I am already here. In and of nature. It would appear, that if God is nature, and nature God, then we are all, automatically believers, with total access to, ownership of, and responsibility for it, whether it be called God, or called nature. And if this is true, then religion is a hoax, insomuch as a preist or a wiseman of a religion would claim a special key or access to nature, or claim to have its ear, and be held in special favor by it. This being held in special favor by God, is the separation point, between Science and Religion. The scientist claims no special rights from God/nature, the religious person claims to know nature personally, in a manner inaccessible to someone who does not know the right ritual to perform, or who does not know the Hindi word for an idea. Or basically speaking, the scientist, when he wants to commune with nature, just does, where the religious person needs to ask permission, and wonder if he/she is worthy of its audience. So if God is nature, and nature God then anyone who thinks they are the only one with access, is mistaken. And God and Science can certainly mix freely. But if God is thought to be a privately held thing, then that God, and Science definitely do not mix. Regards, TAR2

Immortal, Part of what you argue, I argue. Part of what iNow argues, I argue. But you put too much faith in that which you do not know, and iNow is right, to call you on this misapplication of faith in your own imagination. And in this Iggy is exactly right to suggest you could test your theory, by placing yourself in a sensory deprivation tank, where you, for real, would not be bothered by your senses. The Vedic masters that suggest they need no food or water, and they could live forever if anybody would ask them to, suffer from the same "too much faith" as you apparently do. I think Moontanman, or someone once suggested you could take the shotgun test. I don't know for sure what he was referring to, but my guess is that basically we are saying to you, that if you think you can pass through walls, because they are illusions, and you are not bound, in reality to your body and senses, that you could settle the whole issue, for yourself with just one simple test. Take a run at a concrete wall, imagining yourself passing through, and tell us the results of the test. I am certain that no amount of concentration on your part will allow you to pass through the wall. This should settle the argument, and you will for certain be brought back to your "senses". (after you wake up from being knocked out). If reuniting with Brahman, is ineviditable, I don't think we can either avoid it, or rush it. I would rather think that whatever the situation is now, is the one we have to live with. While I think we have every right to associate with reality, and every evidence points to the fact that we are already doing that, it is crucial to the scientist, that we do so honestly, and don't make stuff up, that is not true. Regilion makes stuff up, that isn't true, and then expects they can teach these false things to the scientist. When you, Immortal, do this, and suggest that the ancient Vedic masters had a better handle on reality, than we do now, you lose most of us, including me, as to what the heck you might be talking about. And all of us, believe in the wall, much more than in your imaginary ability to pass through it. You should take a run at it. And settle this thing. Regards, TAR2

And perhaps this is my issue with Dr. Krauss who thinks he is holding the high card, because he is the first to "know" how the universe will end. I do not believe he is either correct, or even possibly correct. He has no faith in the true holder of the Ace of trump. And it cannot possibly be him, or a team of scientists, or the human race. My proof of this is that an equation that described the history and position of every quark and neutrino in the universe, and predicted the complete future configuration in all its detail, would have to be bigger than the universe itself, and it would take longer than the universe has, to write the equation, and STILL it would be only a model, a representation, a bunch of non-functioning symbols, that could not hold a candle to the "actual" universe. For instance, the equation for a peanut butter cup is not sweet and tasty. The thought of a thing, needs a thing to have a thought about. And the thing, therefore trumps the thought of it. And as Kant has figured out, we cannot know the thing in itself. We can only make judgments about it. And for my money, I would suggest that this means exactly that we can only take the existence of the thing in itself, on faith. The rational mind cannot know the thing in itself, in any other fashion.

ydoaPs, Faith is an ambiguous term. It cannot be used unambiguously, without equivocation. Rational people have no use for faith, if it is not rational, which it is (not rational). It is not rational to use the term at all to apply to a rational mind. I read your quotes. I did not read them, as you use them. They were made at a time and in a context where faith was a good thing. Something that trumped the rational mind. Back when faith was important, and valuable, and something to be strived for and attained. A feather in ones cap, not a mark against a man. Even in a short a time ago, as my youth, to be godless was a deficit, a mark of a lost soul, a man without purpose or value, an evil, undesirable condition to be in. Oh yea of little faith. Have some faith, man...and that sort of thing. In bridge, a two of trump can take the Ace of any other suit. Science holds all the high cards, and wins most of the tricks, but science does not hold the trump card. Any card, you or I could possibly play, could be trumped. Faith is the common knowledge that as rational as we can get, as smart as we can get, as knowledgeable as we can get, we can still be trumped. And we are out-trumped by the same "personality". No one can beat the Ace of trump, and none of us can possibly hold that card. Its in somebody else's hand, so to speak. Regards, TAR2 Perhaps Immortal is the only person I know, who thinks he is holding the Ace of trump. Certainly you and iNow, and Phi for All, do not think science is capable of holding the Ace of trump. Certainly you cannot believe that rationality trumps faith in the true holder of the Ace of trumps. The totality of the "rest of the universe" automatically trumps any particular piece of it, or individual entity within it.

iNow, While I agree with your #48, it is almost equally difficult to believe that all that amazing stuff is NOT god. One can discount all the bats**t, subtract all the baggage, undo all the usurption of divine will, and forgive all the misapplication and misappropriation and STILL have something amazing left, that any one of us could easily consider his or her's. At that point, calling it the universe, or calling it reality, or calling it God (that which is still the case, regardless of our definition of it) is not really all that different. Whatever is the case, is still the case, and we belong to it, are made up of it, and have no other recourse but to be in and of it. No other position to take, but to believe in it. Whatever science learns about this amazing thing, it has no way to trump it, or to do without it. Science and religion are easily at odds, but science and God should have no quarrel. Regards, TAR2

Phi for All, ydoaPs thinks I am equivocating and that the definition of faith is the one he uses. ""Faith" is now, and always has been, belief irrationally held regardless of any evidence. Even the Bible says as much when it describes religious faith as the "faith of a child" which is believing everyone unconditionally (read irrationally)." In 1976, one of the defintions of faith was: "2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence: faith in miracles." There is a difference between holding a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, and holding an irrational belief regardless of any evidence. All evidence is not material. We can take people's word for stuff that is going on in their minds, with no logical proof, or material evidence to base our belief on. Such a bending of the definition to suit the Dawkins's, and the iNows and the ydoaPs and all those who wish to frame religious people as irrational children, is an equivocation, and it takes something we all do naturally and reasonably, and makes it sound like to have faith, is to be doing something wrong. I am not sure how to point this out, and argue this, and simultaneously agree with those that would point out the irrationality of the creationist, and with those who have noticed the totally transparent usurption of Allah's "power" and position made by Mohammed, and in general do not know how to point out this fallacy to fellow atheists, and persons like myself who have ruled out an anthropomorphic god. To me, the argument against an anthropomorphic God, that writes names down in books, throws lightning bolts at non-believers and such, is already a solid one. i don't need any futher urging in the direction of holding a non-belief in such a character. Such a character is solidly in the realm of unicorns and tooth fairies. But objective reality exists, and conscious beings, other than me exist in it. And if I believe that Phi for All is trustworthy, and that belief does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, but just on a "feeling" I have gotten from reading your words and understanding your arguments, and where you are "coming from", that does not make me an irrational child, just because I have faith in you. Such is my argument in defense of the take on reality that Immortal holds, for instance. Not that I don't disagree with him totally, but he is not irrational, he is not a child, and he is attempting to "figure out" and comprehend the proper understanding that one should hold, concerning Brahman and Atman, the "ALL" and the "self". In this, he is no different than any one of us, atheist or theist, philosopher or fool, wiseman or child. Should any one of us, put our faith in the God of our choice, or pledge our loyalty to any ideal, we have little chance of "proving" our position to somebody else, based on physical evidence. There is no objective truth that makes me more "right" to be a patriotic American, than there is making Bin Laden a servant of Allah. These are distinctions we just have to fight out among ourselves, in the bias way, we do. And put our faith in those who think the way we do, with no proof or physical evidence of the validity of our beliefs. Regards, TAR2

Phi for All, Perhaps faith in the teachings of Christ, or in the teachings of Mohammed is what you are addressing. As in the 1976 definition of "the faithful" in my old American Heritage Dictionary 1. The practicing members of a religious faith, especially of Christianity or Islam. Faith itself starts off with 1. A confident belief in the truth, value or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. and goes on to 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence: faith in miracles. (iNow's favorite take.) and 3. Loyalty to a person or thing: allegiance: "keeping faith with one's supporters." and 4. Belief and trust in God and in the doctrines expressed in the Scriptures or other sacred works; religious conviction. and 5. A system of religious beliefs: "the Moslem faith". and finally 6. Any set of principles or beliefs; "Realism had been his literary faith from his earliest days" (Alfred Kazin). So faith itself is something you can have, without being an idiot, or an irrational liar of some sort. In this, faith in "the teachings" of Christ, or Mohammed, might be considered a separate kind of thing, than believing in unicorns, or Easter Bunnies, or horny leprechans. As early in the thread, faith in ones wife, was brought up. Where one's loyalty is, is not an easily measurable thing. And for the most part, we just have to take each other's word, for where our loyalities lie. In this I am not so sure that the OP is on target. If I have, for instance, a kind of underlying "faith" in reality always being there for me, and a "feeling" that makes me think that even my death will not be the end of it, that IT will continue on, and still be "mine" in some fashion, I don't think that I am being sold a bill of goods. It is rather the way it is. People have been living and dying for quite a while now, and life goes on, the Earth keeps turning, and people keep right on loving each other, and taking care of the place, as if there truely is, a "spirit" that one can have faith in. You know I am an atheist, so the big sky pixie is not what I am talking about...I am talking about having faith in what evidently is the case. Regards, TAR2

iNow, I do conflate the two definitions, primarily because a see a similarity between the beliefs of a humanist and the beliefs of (for instance) of Pope emeritus Benedict. A humanist would suggest that there is purpose and workable goodness to be had, by living in a way that takes other entities into consideration, that their will is important and real, and that there is an overall scheme which our individual attitude toward this greater good fits into. Pope Benedict would suggest that there is purpose and beauty in building ones life with Christ at the center. A humanist would suggest that others should follow their perscription and things would be better. The Pope would suggest that if everyone held Christ in their heart, things would be better. If Pope Benedict is referencing a sky dictator, that does not exist, then people would not find value and purpose in a life, with Christ at the center. If humanism is referencing a common morality that does not exist, then people would not find value and purpose in a life based on a common concern for each other and the planet we reside on. So I conflate the two because the scientist trusts the world to consistently be there, to have been there before, and to be there later. Not unlike the trust in an eternal God. And I conflate the two because the scientist knows the laws of physics to be operating everywhere, all the time consistently in a manner that fits together perfectly, with every piece and part aware of and informed of the rest, and affected by the rest, in time, that there is overriding truth that the universe knows, a truth greater than that held by an individual component of the universe. Not unlike the conception of a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe. I conflate the two, because I personally can not find there to be the black and white distinctions between the two, that you evidently are certain of. And I tend to give everybody the benefit of the doubt, in the sense that they have just as much "right" to reality, as I do, and it could be true, that a Theist's view of it, is more similar to an Athiest's view of it, then what would be guessed or assumed by the Theist about the Atheist's view, or by the Atheist about the Theist's view. Especially interesting to me, when talking about faith and belief, is that I look for agreement toward other people, for validation of my beliefs. Peer review is not limited to only one class of studies. Regards, TAR2

iNow, But someone can engage in scientific method, better the human condition and still be unable to transcend parochial concerns. Such a real condition exists with any one of us that holds onto an idea or principle whose purpose it is to transcend our parochial concerns in favor of a greater good. And faith in that principle can be held, ignoring contrary evidence as in the box on the right under the "faith" column. As it is a tenant of Humanism to attempt to transcend parocial concerns in favor of a common morality that places all humans in an equal position in the eyes of this god, this principle, this transcendent good, and as it is proven that Humanism is compatible with science, in that many scientists seem to hold a belief system akin to Humanism, and have faith in the workable nature of this belief system, then it is possible for a scientist to have faith, ignorant of the impossible nature of transcending parochial, local, selfish, individual concerns. As it is unrealistic to "love the world" by holding Jesus in your heart, or striving 'til all the world is for Allah, or to understand Brahman and Atman as one, it is unrealistic to be a Humanist, and discount the transcendent beliefs of most every "other" human on the planet. If transcendent belief in the unparochial is real, and good and proper and useful, then the atheist can embrace this belief, when found in a theist, and a theist can embrace this belief, when found in a Humanist, and there is a mapping that can be made between the beliefs. And you can mix science with God. Regards, TAR2

Immortal, Well I think there is another way, other than the eminations of rays, to understand our situation. If you believe in evolution, then there was a time when the human mind did not exist. It emerged, as living organisms became more and more complicated with subsystems forming systems and systems developing in concert with each other to "fit" with reality, and pass on a "working" form or stucture, to the next generation. In my muses, I have come to the understanding that my "thoughts" are of reality. My senses pick up sights and smells and vibrations, and reproduce them in an analog way, within the briain. I "remember" reality, in this fashion, and contain a "reflection" of it, in the synapses and neural fibers and connections in my brain. As a smooth lake surface reflects the sky and trees and mountains, reality is reflected in the folds and structures and signals of our brains. That we each have this internal model of reality, within us, is not a separation of us from reality, but a connection, a solid connection to reality, that our thoughts are made of. In addition to our ability to remember reality, is our ability to compare past images with present ones. To notice changes in reality. And our math abilities, our analogies, our mappings, our set theories, our ratios and relationships, our functions and our metaphors, are OF reality. I do not think the mere fact that our minds are capable of this "copying" and noticing of reality, should be taken as if our image is the real thing, and the real thing is an illusion. I think it is rather the opposite. Reality exists, and we build a somewhat crude model of it, in our thoughts or brain, or mind. It is, however VERY uncrude, in the sense that it is a much better model we are able to build, than the model a rock is able to build. We can learn from each other, and follow stories way beyond the reach of our senses, through the use of the language and symbol systems we have developed, which allow us to pass our "thoughts" our evidence, and even our dreams, onto others. In this take of mine, we are reality, we reflect on reality, and our minds and focus are real. No eminations are required to explain the situation. Our association with objective reality is automatic, real, and complete. No magic required. Regards, TAR2 Bottom line, Immortal, anything we think is a derivative of reality. It cannot be the other way around, as you suggest. Except of course when and where we arrange reality to fit our dreams.

Immortal, While we can argue whether a machine can be developed that would have human judgment, it, the consideration, assumes there is real humans that have human judgment, and real machines, that do not. These things we are judging, as to their consciousness or minds are real things, not imaginary things. Exactly not illusions, or dreams. Real, existing entities. If there is a "human spirit" it would be void of any meaning or value, or "place" to exist, if it were not a fact, a real, not an illusion fact, that humans exist. Since any argument, about the nature of man, the genesis of life on our planet, the beginnings of religion, the origin of language, the history of thought, or what is a wrong philosophy or a right one, demands first that there are many examples of humans with various real histories, personalities, wills and ideas, existing on a real planet, with a history and a current existence, and a future that will be real as soon as we all together reach the next real present moment, I would think your "illusion" solution is false, by definition. A sage CANNOT live without food and water and air. He/she will DIE without them. This will render the Sage very unsagelike. No thought, no dreams, no consciousness, no way to sense anything, or make any judgements about what is the difference between this and that, or what is consistently present, or any way to discern reality from illusion, or any reason to make such distinctions. Dead, the sage will not be able to listen to the silence, or rise above, or overcome, or leave anything undone, or complete anything. Without being a live human, the sage cannot experience human experience of reality. Life is a thing you can not live without. Experiencing reality is something you cannot do without reality to experience. Your demand for us to accept the unreal as the only reality is completely devoid of sense and meaning. If you can't find God, in reality, then God is unreal. Only dream, only ideal, only hope, only faith. And these things are not real, until we find them in objective reality, in the person of a real entity, or group of entities, that really exist, like each other, for instance. Our neighbors, our family, the people we socialize with, the people we talk to on forums, the people that have created the wonderful ways they have created to arrange reality for human benefit, and human existence...since homosapiens lifted the first tool, and utter the first word, and made the first human judgment. Regards, TAR2

John Cuthber, I like your argument. I think Immortal will have a hard time finding a logical answer that refutes your argument, and stays consistent with his own conclusions. It is difficult for Immortal to explain an illusion being able to have a "mind" of its own. Though this has been my point against Immortal's position all along. I think you have finally cornered the gentleman. We will see what contortions follow. Regards, TAR2

Immortal, I don't know...what do you think of my "trap" theory. Consider this. Part of the human's ability to rise above other lifeforms on Earth, was our ability to use tools. To extend our pysiological control of our own bodies, to effect and modify and use, the reality around us for survival. Having not the speed and strength, tooth and claw of other animals, we had to outsmart them. Modify the stone and terrain to our benefit. If the stone arrangements in Turkey, that we are talking about, had the purpose I am suggesting, other things might be explained by it as well. Perhaps, when a herd or small group of animals were trapped in such fashion, and all killed, and skinned, there was more meat than could be eaten before it spoiled. Perhaps some animals were trapped but NOT killed. Meat on the hoof, so to speak. The differents rings may have been a system of corrals, where animals could be kept alive by watering and throwing in grasses and vegetation and the inedible, unwearable, and untoolish, portions of the kill. (specially if wild boar were involved in the capture). This practice could have spawned a little animal husbandry, and the retension for longer periods of time, animals that were more managable. The runt and less viscious boars, might have been kept longer, and eventually bred, leading to domesticated pigs. Likewise with the sheep and goats and cattle. It might also explain that Genisis question I have, of why God favored the meat offering over the grain offering. The first "agriculture" might have been arranged to feed the beasts that were going to be eaten later, and grasses and grains were not primarily the food of man, but of their captives. And since it would probably have taken quite an enterprise to get those large stones into position, there may have been use of captive "others" whether man or beast, employed. Hence the "slavery" in the Bible. And some ancestor worship, since once built these "traps" could probably have been used for generations. Such a magnet might explain agriculture and settlement development. Not a psychological need for God...but a partial mastery of objective reality. Arranging objective reality, for our own benefit. Not separate from reality, but having power over it, due to having arrangements with it. Just a thought. Regards, TAR2

Immortal, Brahman is true, Atman is true, but the vedic solution to the problem stinks. It is quite obvious that we are far removed, and well insulated from the beginning and the end of the universe. It is quite obvious that we are tiny compared to the solar system, galaxy and local cluster, much less the universe in total. It is quite obvious we are huge compared to the quarks that make us up. The middle way is the best way. More Buddist than Vedic. And much more realistic than your "illusion" solution provides. I am convinced that I have just as much Atman and just as much Brahman as any other peice of universe that there is. There is no secret that the universe can keep from itself. And I am just as much a peice of objective reality to you, as you are to me, and as a tree is to the both of us. That we are sentient means exactly that we feel reality. Enlightenment means absolutely zero, if there is nothing to illuminate. Regards, TAR2 And the scientific method beats the pants off the sage's method of finding truth.

aqualight, It looks like from the carbon dating that most of the structures predated agriculture, the wheel, and metalurgy. I personally think the places look like animal traps. I'm thinking they might not have been religious but utilitarian structures. Considering folk around then did not have much more than brains, rocks and clubs to kill prey with. Consider this theory. Folks got together, found a terrain with steep cliffs and slopes that they could lure or drive an animal or a group of animals into, funneled them into one of these structures, where they could be contained, and folks standing on the tops of the Ts threw rocks or what ever they had at the animals until they knocked them out or until the animals trampled each other in panic. Then they ate 'em. They maybe were still working on the bottom three tiers of the needs pyramid. They banded together, and planned, and built traps, so they could eat. Regards, TAR2 Actually, not a bad theory. It also addresses the mastery and fullfilment and completes the needs pyramid.

elfmotat, Because I am feeble minded. Regards, TAR2 My errors have been corrected. thanks for pointing them out.

aqualights, Organised religion, the birth, implies to me that religion itself, on a personal level might be already existent...then organised to suit larger populations. Consider what binds families together, then what binds tribes, then what binds nations, then what binds an entire planet of humans together. In this light, sorting through your own stories and workable solutions for themes and morays that are consistent with other workable human systems of beliefs is somewhat of a daunting task. To imagine a greater good that can be referenced, which the larger group is subject to, as well, is somewhat useful, as a guiding principle. And in this light, even the tenants of humanism have a religious overtone. A personal theory of mine, is that God is a collective ideal, commonly held, and exists because the ideal is commonly held, on the one hand, and because we each contain an image of an unseen judge and parent/creator on the other, and the two mesh together in inseparable ways, when it comes to our collective approach to reality. Where organized religions get into trouble, is when the ideal is promoted as actual external influence...that does not actually exist. But similarly humanism could get in trouble if proponents imagine there is principle that should bind all humans together, if such a principle does not actually exist. And to your middle Maslow point. Belonging. We need that. We want to feel loved by and belonging to the groups with which we associate. Adherence to, and enforcement of the rules of the group, is a way to do this. In Islam, the state and the religion are not separate. The rules of the one are the rules of the other. If you want to belong, you go along with Islam. In secular societies you just need to go along with the state rules. Though the state rules may have embedded tribal rules. In humanism you just have to be a human to be accepted, to belong, to be loved and respected, but is this enough without some additional, agreed upon rules of behavior, against which everyone can be fairly judged by the rest of us? And if we, as a planet, should arrive at such a code...would it not be an organized religion? Regards, TAR2

Dr. Krauss, How do you believe you have no beliefs? If we are constrained by evolution, to understand the world based on human perception, experimentation, understanding patterns and predicting courses of actions that will work, you have to believe in an objective reality that will always, consistently be there, that you are in and of, that will be available for you to interact with, any and every time you are awake. If this reality is what people who believe in God, are refering to, why is your belief in it proper, and their belief in it, improper? In both cases, it is one's own personal image of it, that is being believed in. Regards, TAR2 Dr. Krauss, As a follow up question to the question the Political Science student asked you from the balcony during the Q&A when you were with Prof. Dawkins in Australia...Why is not a holistic understanding of our world, including Religion, Science and Politics as important, or even more important, than pursuing an imaginary understanding of what the universe might look like to a Milky Way observer in 100,000,000 years? Regards, TAR2 Dr. Krauss, If our human abiltiy to recognize and remember and understand the universe has emerged in a mere 13.8 billion years, why would the emergence of additional capabiliies not be factored in to your image of what the universe will look like to a scientist, in 100,000,000 years? Those scientists should probably have indepth knowledge of incredible stuff that has not even emerged as of now, and capabilities far beyond anything we can currently imagine. If the big bang is true, I would think there would be some evidence of it, hanging around, for them to figure it out. Wouldn't you think a thing like the big bang would leave some evidence? Regards, TAR2 Dr. Krauss, If the cosmic background radiation is red shifted now, would not a view of the same areas of space, imaginarily taken a billion years ago, been less red shifted? Regards, TAR2 Dr. Krauss, How do we know how far away the cosmic background radiation is? How deep an area of space does the cosmic background radiation represent? If we watched those areas of space, for a couple billion years, would we see them evolve into quasars and galaxies? Regards, TAR2 And would there not then be new cosmic background radiation "visable" behind those quasars, as the wall of the last scattering receeded in our view? Are we currently considered background microwave radiation, by a scientist residing on a planet, circling a sun, in a galaxy that formed, from a glob in the background microwave radiation we see from Earth? If architects are capable of intelligent design, then intelligent design is something the laws of physics allow. What would you propose was the first instance of intelligent design, evident in our natural history?