Sam Harris (an atheist) says that God is possible/inevitable

[Phi for All]

Iirc, I've mentioned to PGJ many times in his earlier threads on the same subject that his definition of belief was too restrictive not to cause trouble. Of course, I offered my personal belief distinctions between faith, hope, and trust (my own obsessive concept). All are types of belief, but the bases for each is different, and important.

I would most definitely agree with a statement that faith is not necessary to do science, but I think trust is. I think one can remove most (all) faith from one's belief system and function very well, thanks. But for critical thinking, you need information and explanations you can trust. That's the type of belief I prefer.

As for the rest, I dislike the talk about god(s) inevitability/possibility as long as all this redefining of terms is going on. The OP and all the links and videos talk about changing and redefining what it means to be a god, based on a fairly narrow definition of atheism.

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

That's not faith. That's acceptance of a probability based upon experience.

 

45 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I would most definitely agree with a statement that faith is not necessary to do science, but I think trust is. I think one can remove most (all) faith from one's belief system and function very well, thanks. But for critical thinking, you need information and explanations you can trust. That's the type of belief I prefer.

Area54 are you saying what Phi for All has said? If so then I'll certainly agree that my definition of faith, trust and belief may need evaluating. Again as per the succulent post by "Phi for All" its also valid in his (Phi) following quote........

Quote

 I've mentioned to PGJ many times in his earlier threads on the same subject that his definition of belief was too restrictive not to cause trouble

Faith and trust are often seen as meaning the same and interchangeable. I accept the subtle differences certainly, as I inferred here  "It is faith based on trust and confidence in someone or something in line with accumulated evidence, rather then of course, faith based on spiritual conviction and lacking in any proof or evidence": 

Edited September 2, 2017 by beecee

[Area54]

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

 

Area54 are you saying what Phi for All has said? If so then I'll certainly agree that my definition of faith, trust and belief may need evaluating. Again as per the succulent post by "Phi for All" its also valid that........(highlight by me)

It is one of the things I am saying, but it is not the central point.

Look in any dictionary and we see that most words have multiple meanings. Often these are quite similar, but still have important differences between them. I am stating, not just suggesting, but asserting that words like faith and belief and trust and acceptance have those differences. In the context we are in here, in this thread, different members are bringing different senses of these words to the discussion. What they are not doing is recognising those subtle, but important distinctions.

Hence a lot of us are saying the same thing with different words, thinking we are in disagreement. As far as I can see any disagreement that exists is small and much smaller that the differences that are being, erroneously, percieved.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

9 hours ago, beecee said:

The gist of the OP seems to be that any belief is essentially wrong or invalid: I find that rather weird  to put it mildly. I believe and accept the scientific method: I base that belief on observation and history. How can one lack belief in all things?        

 

No.

I clearly expressed that belief is a model, that permits both science, and non-science.

However, belief typically facilitates that people especially ignore evidence. (As research, and definitions show)

A model that permits the large ignorance of evidence contrasts science.

Instead, we may employ scientific thinking, that largely prioritizes evidence, rather than a model (i.e belief) that facilitates largely,  ignorance of evidence.

9 hours ago, Strange said:

It makes zero sense to me. Which meaning of concern (as a transitive verb) do you think you are using? 
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concern 

None of them seem appropriate in this construct.

Or perhaps you meant "We may be highly concerned with the evidence".

To concern may be to consider.

So, an alternative is: "We may highly consider evidence.".

Edited September 2, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[Strange]

1 hour ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

To concern may be to consider.

Not in English. This seems to be a (false) belief on your part. 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

20 minutes ago, Strange said:

Not in English. This seems to be a (false) belief on your part. 

Why do you bother to ignore evidence?

https://www.google.com.jm/search?q=concern&oq=concern&aqs=chrome..69i57.1064j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Edited September 2, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

Why do you bother to ignore evidence?

https://www.google.com.jm/search?q=concern&oq=concern&aqs=chrome..69i57.1064j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Well, I have to admit I didn't look at all 479 million google search results. But none of the ones I saw had "concern" meaning "to consider". Perhaps you could provide something more specific. In the meantime, the evidence I have seen shows your belief to be wrong.

1 hour ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

A model that permits the large ignorance of evidence contrasts science.

You mean "ignoring" (i.e. not looking at) not "ignorance" (i.e. not knowing about). Your belief that you are able to write clear English is become less sustainable with every post.

1 hour ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

So, an alternative is: "We may highly consider evidence.".

Which raises the question why you didn't use "consider" if that is what you meant.

And that is a bizarre adverb to use. I am not sure any native speaker would use it.

[Manticore]

All Sam Harris actually said was that one day we might be able to build a computer which to us today would appear to have godlike powers. This idea dates back at least to "The Last Question" by Isaac Asimov which was first published in 1956.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

3 hours ago, Manticore said:

All Sam Harris actually said was that one day we might be able to build a computer which to us today would appear to have godlike powers. This idea dates back at least to "The Last Question" by Isaac Asimov which was first published in 1956.

Yes, I had enjoyed a majority of Asimov's publications some years ago, including the Last Question, and The Last Answer.

I recall of an intriguing short story, also concerning artificial general intelligence, called "A senseless conversation", by Zach Barnett.

 

FOOTNOTE:

As such, the source presented, merely underlined a simple, scientifically grounded equivalence, for the long-established impression amidst the topic of creation, predominant to religious persuasion, namely God.

Such a God, as redefined, was as I had long expressed, similar to the God Sam Harris was referring to, pertinently in the regime of artificial general intelligence. 

Edited September 2, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[John Cuthber]

I look forward to ProgrammingBodJordan reading some football commentator's  description of Pele as " a God among footballers" and citing it as  "evidence" for the existence of God; the Creator.

[Ten oz]

One big problem those of faith have when attempting to interpret philosophical concepts related to religion of athiests, like Sam Harris, have is that those who believe already have a tangible and form view of who and or what God is. It is sort of like when tin foil hat wearing alien hunters applaud scientists saying they don't think earth is the only home of life in the universe. Acknowledging life may exist elsewhere in the universe in no way shape or form supports or defends Area 51 or Phoenix lights conspiracy theories but people attempt to make those connection. 

 

In Science info is only ever at the level of the best as it is known. I believe in gravity to the best I can given the education and knowledge I have to understand it. As knowledge goes and changes so to what may understanding. Nothing is taken on faith. Those who believe in God do so without the best knowledge and education they can understand. Saying life may exist on Mars isn't equal to saying human like aliens built pyramids on mars. One is an acknowledgement of the limits of what is known and the other is wild leap. 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

One big problem those of faith have when attempting to interpret philosophical concepts related to religion of athiests, like Sam Harris, have is that those who believe already have a tangible and form view of who and or what God is. It is sort of like when tin foil hat wearing alien hunters applaud scientists saying they don't think earth is the only home of life in the universe. Acknowledging life may exist elsewhere in the universe in no way shape or form supports or defends Area 51 or Phoenix lights conspiracy theories but people attempt to make those connection. 

 

In Science info is only ever at the level of the best as it is known. I believe in gravity to the best I can given the education and knowledge I have to understand it. As knowledge goes and changes so to what may understanding. Nothing is taken on faith. Those who believe in God do so without the best knowledge and education they can understand. Saying life may exist on Mars isn't equal to saying human like aliens built pyramids on mars. One is an acknowledgement of the limits of what is known and the other is wild leap. 

I apologize, for I am unable to parse your comment above.

 

6 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

I look forward to ProgrammingBodJordan reading some football commentator's  description of Pele as " a God among footballers" and citing it as  "evidence" for the existence of God; the Creator.

Of what consequence is your comment above?

 

FOOTNOTE:

I don't watch football, and I know not who "Pele" is.

[John Cuthber]

1 hour ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

Of what consequence is your comment above?

It depends whether you understand and act on it.

Pele is (was?) a famous very good footballer. He must have been good if I had heard of him because I have no interest in the game.The details don't matter.

Commentators are noted for hyperbole so it's likely that one of them somewhere has described Pele as a "God among footballers".

It doesn't mean that Pele created the universe.

 

Sam Harris has said that we humans would be "gods" to the robots we build- we would have power of life an death etc.

But it doesn't mean that we are the creators of the universe any more than Pele.

 

Yet that's how you seem to have taken his mention of the word "God" you have interpreted it as evidence of his belief in a real supernatural creator.

That's not what he said.

 

 

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

In Science info is only ever at the level of the best as it is known. I believe in gravity to the best I can given the education and knowledge I have to understand it. As knowledge goes and changes so to what may understanding. Nothing is taken on faith. Those who believe in God do so without the best knowledge and education they can understand. Saying life may exist on Mars isn't equal to saying human like aliens built pyramids on mars. One is an acknowledgement of the limits of what is known and the other is wild leap. 

This is why I acknowledge faith as a form of belief that requires your full conviction without any supportive evidence. Hope is a form of belief that's similar to faith by having little to support it, but it rarely requires your full conviction the way faith does (especially religious faith). Trust is the form of belief that is arrived at by delving deeper, finding supportive evidence for your beliefs, and using a methodology that ensures each step is sound. All forms of belief, each with a differing basis for that belief.

Those who are convinced there is a god(s), and make a wild leap changing their entire lives to suit this belief, do so based on faith. Those who believe somehow their "soul" or "energy" will live on after their body dies, but don't feel the need to change their lives to support this belief, are using hope to believe that way. And those that insist on being skeptical of claims, who need to know exactly how their information and explanations were derived, who use critical thinking to remove the wishful bits from their belief system, those folks are using trust as the benchmark of their beliefs.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

It depends whether you understand and act on it.

Pele is (was?) a famous very good footballer. He must have been good if I had heard of him because I have no interest in the game.The details don't matter.

Commentators are noted for hyperbole so it's likely that one of them somewhere has described Pele as a "God among footballers".

It doesn't mean that Pele created the universe.

 

Sam Harris has said that we humans would be "gods" to the robots we build- we would have power of life an death etc.

But it doesn't mean that we are the creators of the universe any more than Pele.

 

Yet that's how you seem to have taken his mention of the word "God" you have interpreted it as evidence of his belief in a real supernatural creator.

That's not what he said.

 

 

Did you miss the OP?

No where there, did I express that "we are the creators of the universe".

 

 

FOOTNOTE:

Notably, I am atheistic, and the original post likewise stipulates of Sam's atheistic nature.

 

[Strange]

On 01/09/2017 at 11:03 PM, Area54 said:

We've already estbalished what he means. "We should concern ourselves with (focus on) evidence (not faith based, fanciful beliefs)."

I am just focusing on the fact that his belief he can communicate in English is a false belief.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

12 minutes ago, Strange said:

I am just focusing on the fact that his belief he can communicate in English is a false belief.

Facts may persist regardless of belief...

 

[DrKrettin]

1 hour ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

Facts may persist regardless of belief...

 

The question of whether somebody is capable of communicating in a particular language or not can only be answered by a consensus of those trying to understand the communication. This capability cannot be classified as a fact, and in your case I'm afraid the consensus is heavily against you. 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

11 hours ago, DrKrettin said:

The question of whether somebody is capable of communicating in a particular language or not can only be answered by a consensus of those trying to understand the communication. This capability cannot be classified as a fact, and in your case I'm afraid the consensus is heavily against you. 

Given the evidence, I seek to enhance how I communicate.

Edited September 3, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[Area54]

@The majority of the participants in this thread other than ProgrammingGodJordan. Your objective appears to be much more to criticise PGJ's writing skills (which I agree are in much need of criticism) rather than to understand what he is saying. I'm sure that is emotionally very rewarding, but it doesn't do much to advance the discussion.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Philosophy tangent has been split 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/109509-philosophy-split-from-sam-harris-thread/