Topic: Jesus Camp(documentary)

[Irandrura]

Reason or method for the universe existing? One is the how and the other is the why. 

Reason - the why. The method is a scientific matter. I haven't speculated as to what the reason is myself (or if I have, I shouldn't have), as I don't know beyond my general conviction that it's beyond that empirically definable - but, if I read you correctly, you suggested that the reason is subjective. I'm curious as to how you came to that conclusion.

As for my justification, I'm one of those with irrational beliefs. Except I don't mind them being classed as irrational being that, generally, they are.

Fair enough, though to be honest that's not a terribly satisfying answer. No hints on how those beliefs may have come about?

Also, presumably it's acceptable for you to possess beliefs independent of reason about this. Would it not then be acceptable for others to possess arational beliefs about the existence of the universe, e.g. God (if one doesn't consider such belief rational)?

[The GrimSqueaker]

Reason - the why. The method is a scientific matter. I haven't speculated as to what the reason is myself (or if I have, I shouldn't have), as I don't know beyond my general conviction that it's beyond that empirically definable - but, if I read you correctly, you suggested that the reason is subjective. I'm curious as to how you came to that conclusion.

Beyond the currently empirically definable. Such discoveries are a continual process and not an end point which we've already achieved. I suggested that the reason is subjective to the beliefs of the person making the judgement.  Those of more religious leanings appear to believe there has to be a reason and others appear to believe there's no such requirement.

Fair enough, though to be honest that's not a terribly satisfying answer. No hints on how those beliefs may have come about?

Also, presumably it's acceptable for you to possess beliefs independent of reason about this. Would it not then be acceptable for others to possess arational beliefs about the existence of the universe, e.g. God (if one doesn't consider such belief rational)?

As I stated above, I consider my personal beliefs to be rather irrational. As, while I believe it, there is no scientific evidence indicating the belief is warrented. Others are perfectly welcome to have equally irrational beliefs if they so wish and if they also acknowledge the limitations of such beliefs. The issues arise when some, such as those who believe their alien soul was previously trapped within a volcano by an evil intergalactic tyrant for example, demand that others accept this belief as rational. Which, as FMG is fond of saying, leaves us with "prove it."

[Irandrura]

Beyond the currently empirically definable. Such discoveries are a continual process and not an end point which we've already achieved.

Of course. But as I think I've made clear enough, I'm talking about something fundamentally impossible to detect empirically. That objection, though you've raised it several times, is missing the point. Or so I think, anyway.

I suggested that the reason is subjective to the beliefs of the person making the judgement.  Those of more religious leanings appear to believe there has to be a reason and others appear to believe there's no such requirement.

But, as I'm fond of pointing out, the fact of disagreement doesn't show that it's a subjective matter. It does nothing of the sort. It's always possible that one of the two groups is wrong. In my opinion the latter group has it wrong, but I don't expect you to accept that straight off.

As I stated above, I consider my personal beliefs to be rather irrational. As, while I believe it, there is no scientific evidence indicating the belief is warrented.

'Rational' doesn't mean 'scientifically warranted'. You can have rational beliefs that have nothing to do with science. This bizarre conflation of science with reason that we sometimes see... I just don't get it.

Others are perfectly welcome to have equally irrational beliefs if they so wish and if they also acknowledge the limitations of such beliefs. The issues arise when some, such as those who believe their alien soul was previously trapped within a volcano by an evil intergalactic tyrant for example, demand that others accept this belief as rational.

While the scientologist perspective, otherkin, etc., are not beliefs I would consider necessarily rational (for I am aware of no particularly convincing rational argument for those things), I do take issue with the implication that theism and supernatural belief are inherently irrational things. I consider myself firmly in the camp of reason, though that might say more about me than it does about reason...

[The GrimSqueaker]

Of course. But as I think I've made clear enough, I'm talking about something fundamentally impossible to detect empirically. That objection, though you've raised it several times, is missing the point. Or so I think, anyway.

You know how I feel about people using the term "impossible" in these matters.    Impossible is not a word to use lightly without further qualification and I will continue to object in its blanket usage. Especially in the context of "...science will never..." which has a history of being more wrong than correct given enough time.

But, as I'm fond of pointing out, the fact of disagreement doesn't show that it's a subjective matter. It does nothing of the sort. It's always possible that one of the two groups is wrong. In my opinion the latter group has it wrong, but I don't expect you to accept that straight off.

It's also a case of you approaching the matter from a philosophical leaning while I'm not. Hence different definitions and understandings of the term and likely my misunderstading what you're asking and/or defining. Which, being that I find such navel gazing terribly boring, please don't try and explain it to me at this time. 

'Rational' doesn't mean 'scientifically warranted'. You can have rational beliefs that have nothing to do with science. This bizarre conflation of science with reason that we sometimes see... I just don't get it.

Clearly. How about this, when the evidence disproves a belief, continuing the belief is an irrational act. A favourite example for me at the very least are the YECs. A discussion previously held at great length in a previous thread.

[Irandrura]

You know how I feel about people using the term "impossible" in these matters.    Impossible is not a word to use lightly without further qualification and I will continue to object in its blanket usage. Especially in the context of "...science will never..." which has a history of being more wrong than correct given enough time.

Naturally, one should avoid saying 'science will never X', where X is some empirical phenomenom. And that's fine, as it's not what I'm saying.

It's also a case of you approaching the matter from a philosophical leaning while I'm not. Hence different definitions and understandings of the term and likely my misunderstading what you're asking and/or defining. Which, being that I find such navel gazing terribly boring, please don't try and explain it to me at this time. 

Bah. Scientists.

Clearly. How about this, when the evidence disproves a belief, continuing the belief is an irrational act. A favourite example for me at the very least are the YECs. A discussion previously held at great length in a previous thread.

And in that sense I agree. The point of difference would seem to be regarding what constitutes evidence. I place more limitations upon empirical sense data than most people. YEC is, in essence, a scientific theory, which is why empirical evidence is sufficient to show that it's utter nonsense. It's the application of physical evidence to metaphysical questions that I'm opposed to.

[The GrimSqueaker]

Naturally, one should avoid saying 'science will never X', where X is some empirical phenomenom. And that's fine, as it's not what I'm saying.

Which, as I have been trying to explain previous if ham handed, is where I think you're running into a dead end prematurely. As what may be considered empirical in nature is an increasing value rather than static. Better instruments and greater understanding allows more to be observed. Consider ghosts and if we were able to create "PK meters" as per Ghost Busters. A previously non-material factor could be observed, measured, and related to. Which is why saying that something is impossible as it's beyond the realm of science is, IMO, short sighted.

[Irandrura]

Its impossibility is part of being beyond the realm of science. If increasing scientific knowledge allows it to be detected and quantified, it was never what I was talking about in the first place.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[The GrimSqueaker]

The ever shifting goal posts. Which is fine as everyone wins that way. 

[small_furry_spider]

I think that this is quite relevant to the discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

This is what I think Irandrura and I are not talking about, but Barr'el might be.

The Christian God is beyond the rules of science so it is not a matter of not knowing how to test for him -he sustains the rules and can alter them at will. Science works on repeatability of experimental tests and a God who works outside it, cannot be tested for. A more useful idea is that of non-overlapping magisteria:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria#Non-Overlapping_Magisteria_.28NOMA.29

[The GrimSqueaker]

You're about two pages late man. Irundrura and I have been around this already.   

There problem there is the bit about altering the rules at will. We haven't seen any evidence of the rules changing. Now, if the constants were observed to change all over the place it would be a different matter but we haven't. It's a common YEC argument to claim that the physical constants were widely different in the past (such as radiological decay) and that is supposed to explain why measurements now give different results than what they want.

We were also speaking of matters wider than the existence of an exact god. You say the Christian god but do you also mean all of the others? They should have an equal ability to perform in the manner you describe.

Concerning the magisteria, is that not myself and others have been asking for when it comes to matters of education and research? Rather than allowing a person's beliefs to interfere with their ability to educate or perform in a professional manner, we would rather such concerns be separate. The same with charitable work. Charity need not come with the baggage of the religion performing it.

[Hells Slingshot]

The little "rally" in part 1 made me think of Hitlerjugend... Am I too far off there, or do others see the same similarity?

I have to agree with you there even though its kinda stretching it.

Technically I grew up in a Christian Family but we only went to Church only twice a year I started to question things (Now I don't go to Church at all). Now I am technically an atheist but I think that it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a God/Goddess or multiple gods and weather or not they exist, who or what created the universe, if there is a heaven/hell etc.

Personally I don't care about the religion of others, I have some very good friends who are strongly religious but what do care about is when religion influences the decisions of a politician.

Mike Huckabee + Elected = Me       

[The GrimSqueaker]

While only just over the two week grace period I'm going to shut this one down. It had a good run while it lasted, a bad run that lasted too long, and the potential to go more bad than good given enough time.