1. Comment #394682 by Damien Trotter on July 9, 2009 at 4:07 am

If only Jesus and Mo were to sport a brace of fluffy dice in their vehicle. Or a SatNav. Heh heh.

Other Comments by Damien Trotter

2. Comment #394685 by Alfster on July 9, 2009 at 4:22 am

Shouldn't they have a SatanNav instead?

It's important to know where the all powerful evil one is so you can throw salt in his eyes.

Other Comments by Alfster

3. Comment #394691 by Enlightenme.. on July 9, 2009 at 4:50 am

Two more Homeopathic gods please, and can you make them really strong.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

4. Comment #394692 by MrPickwick on July 9, 2009 at 5:04 am

Yes. It looks like Armstrong's book should be subtitled: "Why all believers are complete and utter morons except me and a few selected high-brow theologians of my liking".

Other Comments by MrPickwick

5. Comment #394701 by black wolf on July 9, 2009 at 5:29 am

Two more Homeopathic gods please, and can you make them really strong.

You mean, with a whole drop of Spirit this time? Whoa, easy young man.

Other Comments by black wolf

6. Comment #394702 by Cartomancer on July 9, 2009 at 5:29 am

Ah yes, the old negative theology business. Rather unfashionable these days since the decline of neo-Thomism in the later twentieth century.

The principle is delightfully simple. It says that we are so flawed and limited in our perceptions that we cannot say what god is in any positive sense, all we can do is limit the field by saying what it is not.

It falls down on at least three fronts. First of all, the assertion that we are unable to know anything about god is unsubstantiated - god might very well be the kind of entity about which we are able to know things. By simply asserting by fiat that it is not amenable to human understanding the theologian abdicates any kind of responsibility for validating this proposition. It is thus a worthless proposition.

Secondly, even if we assume for the sake of argument that god is beyond human perceptions, why does that mean we can say what it isn't but can't say what it is? Why does negation hold any lesser degree of epistemological clout than affirmation? This means, logically, as the cartoon above suggests, that the only response is complete silence. Aquinas's attempts to demonstrate via negative theology that god is simple, transcendent, not evil, not ignorant and so forth all fall down. Taken to its logical conclusion, negative theology is a comprehensive denial that theology can be done. It denies the utility of religion utterly. In fact it results in atheism, or at least fervent agnosticism.

Finally, even if we skip over this, HOW does one say what god is not? There is no proposed mechanism for distinguishing between which negative statements do apply to it and which do not.

But what really gets me is how people fond of this kind of empty sophistry take great pains to prove that nothing can be said about gods, and then proceed to say an awful lot about them. They say that "does god exist?" is a pointless question, but then assume that because it is a pointless question, the answer must therefore be an incontrovertible yes. Sane people do not think this way.

The correct response to "this is a question we will never be able to answer" is not "therefore it becomes a gateway to a deeper truth that must be affirmed and engaged with on a transcendent personal level". There are plenty of questions we will never be able to answer. "What were Albert Einstein's last words?" Is a question we will never be able to answer, because the nurse he spoke them to did not understand German. "What colour are ideas?" is another, because it does not make semantic sense. Neither of these questions are gateways to deeper personal truths, and neither represents a constant personal affirmation transcending human reason. Why should the question "does god exist" be any different?

The correct response to "this is a question we will never be able to answer" is then it is a pointless and irrelevant question and we would be much better served thinking about something else.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

7. Comment #394714 by Frying Pantheist on July 9, 2009 at 6:16 am

Isn't "no positive claims can be made about the ineffable god" itself a positive claim made about the ineffable god?

Other Comments by Frying Pantheist

8. Comment #394720 by Luis Dias on July 9, 2009 at 6:36 am

Isn't "no positive claims can be made about the ineffable god" itself a positive claim made about the ineffable god?

Obviously not... what are you smokin?

Other Comments by Luis Dias

9. Comment #394721 by Flapjack on July 9, 2009 at 6:36 am

Enlightenment - Have you been watching Mitchell and Webb too?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0&eurl=http://derrenbrownart.com/blog/page/2/&feature=player_embedded

Other Comments by Flapjack

10. Comment #394737 by alabasterocean on July 9, 2009 at 7:29 am

They say, rightly so, that it takes a smart person to do something really really stupid. I grant both Jesus and Mohammad that - I don't think anyone of them had said and done what they did if they knew just a fragment of the consequences for humanity.
...
Im so tired after the There is no God campaign here in Sweden. "You can't disprove God Mr Alabaster" and "Atheism is also faith" and "Christianity is what gave us democracy and liberties"
a. No, and thats why every responsible person doesn't think he exist, and the cause of the word "probably" in the add.
b. My core belief is that you are stupid and ignorant
c. (read b. again)
- I don't know if the adds are worth the trouble
(of course they are, just to much fun - it's exhausting)

Other Comments by alabasterocean

11. Comment #394740 by hogmeal on July 9, 2009 at 7:36 am

Frying Pantheist

Isn't "no positive claims can be made about the ineffable god" itself a positive claim made about the ineffable god?

Don't think it is, isn't it a claim about a claim about god, which is a different category of statement.
Like you might dispute the claim I've just made, which would then be a (third-order) claim about a claim about a claim about god.

Other Comments by hogmeal

12. Comment #394741 by Enlightenme.. on July 9, 2009 at 7:37 am

5. Comment #394701 by black wolf on July 9, 2009

Two more Homeopathic gods please, and can you make them really strong.


"You mean, with a whole drop of Spirit this time? Whoa, easy young man."


No no no, you fool you foool,

A whole drop? Now we have to plunder Triton and Europa for resource, accelerate icecap melting, and process out all Tritium and Deuterium.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

13. Comment #394745 by mismos00 on July 9, 2009 at 7:49 am

More Mitch and Webb... surprised I didn't see this posted on here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xfqht0LEOWQ&feature=related

Other Comments by mismos00

14. Comment #394750 by Lucas on July 9, 2009 at 8:10 am

Mitchell and Webb is rad. Welcome to Number Wang!

This cartoon is pretty crappy: badly drawn, not funny or enlightening in any way, and worst of all, computer lettered. Take a look at these and see what I mean: http://pbfcomics.com/

This happens because we lose sight of the divine whenever we accept as final or complete any conceptual representation of it.

This sounds an awful lot like the first line of the Tao Te Ching, roughly translated as, "The way that can be named/known is not the constant/absolute way." Which is a little weird. I'll have to think about this, because I've always taken that line to mean that any human conception or formulation of religion is false. I've used that line on Christians. Now the same idea is being turned around on us? Can somebody help me here?

Other Comments by Lucas

15. Comment #394752 by liberalartist on July 9, 2009 at 8:21 am

Cartomancer you are a great teacher, I always learn something by reading your responses.

The correct response to "this is a question we will never be able to answer" is then it is a pointless and irrelevant question and we would be much better served thinking about something else.

pointless and irrelevent, indeed.

Other Comments by liberalartist

16. Comment #394754 by Enlightenme.. on July 9, 2009 at 8:34 am

#13, Thanks mismos, I was looking for that the other day when someone mentioned the homeopathic A&E one.

Lol, I reckon the look he played on the reverend's face after he blurts out what he's thinking was probably repeated on arch-bish Williams' face the other day when he realised the implication of what he said! (I'm convinced he's a closet now, but with a paycheck and palace to keep hold of)

Reverend Steven Murray? - barstewards, that's my bloody name, how dare they make me a bleedin' reverend
:o

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

17. Comment #394762 by Kuyper on July 9, 2009 at 9:11 am

If I understand correctly, Karen Armstrong is saying that those who believe in God should literally just STFU. Couln't agree more.

Other Comments by Kuyper

18. Comment #394763 by Crazycharlie on July 9, 2009 at 9:16 am

Apophatic theology..Ah,yes.. The concept of god or the divine, if looked at with common-sense and reason can't be understood because of the fact that you're using common-sense and reason. Liberal theology & postmodernism both share the same ridiculous circular thinking.-- " in a critical negation of all affirmations which one can make about god, followed by an equally critical negation of our negations"... One wonders, do these people really believe this nonsense? Coyne was right on with that quote from Orwell.

Other Comments by Crazycharlie

19. Comment #394783 by Misc on July 9, 2009 at 11:49 am

Might not precisely "fit", but I think it is funny anyway:

http://www.savagechickens.com/2009/07/schadenfreude.html

Other Comments by Misc

20. Comment #394785 by Lucas on July 9, 2009 at 11:56 am

Now THAT'S a good cartoon, Misc. Thanks.

Other Comments by Lucas

21. Comment #394802 by Animavore on July 9, 2009 at 1:32 pm

Either I'm as think as triceratops pat or that makes no sense.

I really hope its the latter.

EDIT: By 'that' I meant apophatic theology.

Other Comments by Animavore

22. Comment #394808 by nalfeshnee on July 9, 2009 at 1:46 pm

While I have been mistakenly reading Karen Armstrong as Karen Carpenter all week (no idea why), I checked the book out on Amazon and fell about laughing at the non-sequitur that opens the review:

"The enormous popularity of books by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and others shows that despite the religious revival that is under way in many parts of the world, there is widespread confusion about the nature of religious truth."

Funny, I would have thought that the enormous popularity of the books by the above-named gentlemen would have cast at least a smidgeon of doubt on the idea that there is indeed any such "religious revival".

Indeed, the popularity of such books seems to indicate that a great many people are flocking to read authors who do not waffle on about so-called religious truth, but who are exposing it for the pack of lies it in fact is.

But then again, I am an aapophaticist. Maybe I just don't get it.

Other Comments by nalfeshnee

23. Comment #394837 by Blind Fith on July 9, 2009 at 4:47 pm

Positive theology, negative theology, if I am correct in thinking that all theologians begin with the premise that 'god exists' what difference does it make which stripe of theology they espouse, there is no evidence to substantiate any of it.

Other Comments by Blind Fith

24. Comment #394847 by jamiso on July 9, 2009 at 5:49 pm

Little bit off topic but

@22. Comment #394808 by nalfeshnee

I was at the Airport in Yogjakarta, Indonesia the other day and needed a good book for the flight to Japan...

Guess what to my surprise was displayed right there o the shelf in the religious books section....

Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion (yep, on the same shelf as the friggen quran no less)

so Richard, You're banned in Turkey, but I hope this makes up for it

Other Comments by jamiso

25. Comment #394864 by Roland_F on July 9, 2009 at 9:46 pm

I was at the Airport in Yogjakarta, Indonesia .... Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion

I saw it even in Manila the capital of the biggest catholic theocracy/cleptocracy in Asia.
But only in the biggest Mall of Asia. On the bottom row under Astrology, New Age etc… TGD.
Very surprising as normally the bookshelf’s in Philippines are only stuffed with religious self help books, and an entire aisle of Bibles in different shapes and versions., but never anything like science books from Richard Dawkins, Brian Greene or so.

Other Comments by Roland_F

26. Comment #394914 by critica on July 10, 2009 at 2:32 am

There are fault lines all through theology as a result of its insistence on the validity of questions such as 'what is the purpose of life' (apart form procreation). This is what separates it from philosophy. The escape clause of 'god is unknowable' is a safety net in argumentation that reduces it to the level of farce. As for negative theology, it occupies the weakest points of theology and calls that its strength - go figure...

Other Comments by critica

27. Comment #394938 by FSMTeapot on July 10, 2009 at 4:31 am

It's wierd how this stuff seems to come in waves.

I've been struggling through the Upanishads this week, including an awful, LONG introduction that doesn't give any information on the social, political, historical or religious background to the hindu writings, but just spends 50 pages in disjointed stream of conciousness claiming that Eastern Mysticism is similar to catholic writers like St Teresa and Francis of Assisi, and the Romantic Poets.

Anyway, like someone mentioned above in relation to the Tao Te Ching, the Upanishads are full of this sort of theology, where they think it's fine to include totally contradictory statements about how Brahman cannot be thought about or known, but he can also be known if you have faith and search your soul without thinking. If you start to think, you lose, apparantly.

Other Comments by FSMTeapot

28. Comment #394954 by locutus7 on July 10, 2009 at 6:48 am

I guess I'm an Apophatic Atheist: my mind's limitations prevent me from describing the absence of deity; therefore, I can only describe what the absence of deity is not: god.

Uh, did I get that right? (@_@)

Other Comments by locutus7

29. Comment #394960 by Santi Tafarella on July 10, 2009 at 7:27 am

Cartomancer:

You called negative theology "empty sophistry." But I actually think that this way of thinking and talking about God is not quite so open to derision and quick dismissal as you and Prof. Coyne (and the other thread posters here) think.

In fact, if God exists (and as an agnostic I don't claim any knowledge about this one way or the other), then negative theology must certainly be an important conceptual piece of the puzzle with regards to God's existence. I offer the following defense:

When we think about our planet, we recognize that for billions of years it consisted of one thing: matter. But about 100,000 years ago, a wildly improbable thing occurred: a world of blind matter started manufacturing self-conscious minds. That's a stunning fact. Mind emerged from matter. Suddenly, this was no longer one world of objects, but two sharply distinct worlds: the world of objects and the world of subjects.

You and I and Prof. Coyne and the other posters at this thread are not just more of the same. We represent a radical and fundamental disjuncture on our planet---and perhaps the universe---from everything that has gone before. Indeed, if you were to try to describe our mental states---that is, the subject world that we humans live in---to a cat (in terms of the old object world of blind material and unconscious forces), you would have to speak in terms of "negative humanology": The experience of full consciousness, Mr. Cat, is not a piece of wood, it is not a moon, it is not the jump of a frog, it is not a ball of string, it is not the wind brushing a leaf.

In other words, every single phenomenon and thing---everything!---in the object world would have to be negated---"It's not this, it's not that, it's not this, it's not that"---until you had literally catalogued the whole object world. And you could set that list against human consciousness and say: What is human freedom, consciousness, and love? They are none of these things. They are not just more of the same; they are a disjuncture from all that has gone before, and cannot even be remotely understood in terms of what has gone before. They completely transcend the object world, not just superficially, but radically. They touch, that is true. They interact. In short, humans are immanent in the object world, but they are not the object world.

You might offer analogies to help Mr. Cat: Being depressed for a human is a bit like looking down into a dark well; passion is like a cow's heart boiling on a stove. But analogous language would always have to be qualified: Depression is not a dark well; passion is not a cow's heart boiling. It's just the best that we could do to explain the transcendent mental world to a creature embedded in the object world.

Now if we simply add a catalogue, not just of the object world, but of the human subject world, to our list, and say---"God is a third category"---a disjuncture like the disjuncture between the human and object world---then we have negative theology. We can no more speak of God in human subject terms than we can speak of humans in material object terms. We can use analogy, we can sing, we can light candles, we can pray, we can reason, but really these gestures are just placeholders on the mystery of the ground of Being. God is like hate, but God is not hate. God is like love, but God isn't love. God is like unfulfilled longing, but God isn't unfulfilled longing. God is that third disjuncture that transcends the subject-object universe (even as we transcend the object world). We can't reach that third disjuncture from where we're at, and our gestures toward it are akin to poetry sent to a distant lover. We've got to keep sending that letter again and again without ever being able to say it all. Think of George Harrison's "My Sweet Lord." That's about it. Gnawing on the same old bone of longing. Repetition and variation. Negative theology suggests that perhaps another good response to such a disjuncture is silence. That, of course, is also Wittgenstein. What we cannot speak, we must pass over in silence.

Now as good rationalists, we must ask: Is there any evidence that such a third disjuncture might exist? It's one thing to posit it; another to make it reasonable. And I think that there are some things that suggest it is a reasonable inference: (1) the curious cosmological constants in physics that have led to a very complex universe of objects and minds; (2) the fact that the object-universe is mathematical and comprehensible to the human mind; (3) the fact that the contingent object universe appears to have had a beginning, and is now thermodynamically unwinding, and so has not always existed.

And perhaps most suggestive of all: Our very real dilemma, as humans, attempting to comprehend our universe's "beginning." There are only three basic possibilities, all dumbfounding and subject to question begging: (1) matter created itself from nothing and, via a blind process over billions of years, itself generated the mental universe you and I inhabit in our heads; (2) matter is eternal and coexistent with nothingness; or (3) an eternal mind or telos of some sort---that third category?---made matter "in the beginning" with the property of evolving minds (akin to itself) over time.

This is the disjuncture to which negative theology addresses itself---the boundary upon which our empiricism cannot reach---nor our minds fully comprehend. We seem to inhabit a universe founded on King Lear's paradox---nothing can come of nothing!---and yet here we are. Trying to get our heads around nothingness and the "viva negativa" is not a form of irrationalism, but a necessary part of understanding. It is a paradox in need of explanation. If God exists, it's somewhere in this puzzle, and in the contemplation of nothingness, and as a third disjuncture as large and difficult to comprehend as the first two (the subject and object worlds).

---Santi

Other Comments by Santi Tafarella

30. Comment #394964 by gr8hands on July 10, 2009 at 7:43 am

No, Santi Tafarella, your (3) is not a valid possibility, basic or otherwise. If it exists, it would have to be part of (2), not separate.

Replace the word "god" with the word "qxurzzle". Now, ask anyone if they believe in qxurzzle or not. It isn't a concept they've ever been exposed to, so naturally they will ask questions about it. Telling them that qxurzzle is unknowable, undetectable, ineffable, whatever, but still exists -- well, you can imagine the response you'd get, but it wouldn't be a belief in qxurzzle.

It is only the meme of the existence of god having been force fed for generations, in spite of no evidence, which has anyone believing in it. Rescued feral children have NEVER spontaneously reported a belief in god until after they'd been exposed to the concept by others.

Oh, and your previous (3) is easily explained by the Cyclic Model: http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/

Your opening paragraphs only are valid for things which actually exist. They fall flat when applied to things which don't exist. Like god.

Other Comments by gr8hands

31. Comment #394965 by bendigeidfran on July 10, 2009 at 7:47 am

Fantastic self-parody there Santi! My cow's heart boileth over!

Other Comments by bendigeidfran

32. Comment #394966 by gr8hands on July 10, 2009 at 7:47 am

Cartomancer is wrong. Negative theology is NOT "empty sophistry." All theology is pure "sophistry".

Other Comments by gr8hands

33. Comment #394967 by severalspeciesof on July 10, 2009 at 7:58 am

6. Comment #394702 by Cartomancer

Marked as 'Excellent'...

But I do want to know what color is the idea of the number three...

Other Comments by severalspeciesof

34. Comment #394970 by severalspeciesof on July 10, 2009 at 8:02 am

29. Comment #394960 by Santi Tafarella

Suddenly, this was no longer one world of objects, but two sharply distinct worlds: the world of objects and the world of subjects.

You forgot the third world...

I'll let you guess what it is...

Other Comments by severalspeciesof

35. Comment #394972 by hungarianelephant on July 10, 2009 at 8:22 am

29. Comment #394960 by Santi Tafarella

If one examines constructivism, one is faced with a choice: either reject modernist discourse or conclude that truth may be used to reinforce outmoded perceptions of art, but only if the premise of postcapitalist capitalism is invalid; if that is not the case, Bataille’s model of constructivism is one of "precapitalist narrative", and therefore fundamentally dead. Sontag suggests the use of dialectic capitalism to attack class divisions. Thus, the characteristic theme of the works of Pynchon is the defining characteristic, and subsequent fatal flaw, of postsemanticist sexual identity.

Reicher implies that we have to choose between constructivism and neocapitalist structural theory. In a sense, the primary theme of Reicher’s critique of cultural feminism is a predialectic reality.

If postcapitalist capitalism holds, we have to choose between Sartreist absurdity and textual theory. Therefore, a number of discourses concerning postcapitalist capitalism exist.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

36. Comment #394973 by severalspeciesof on July 10, 2009 at 8:28 am

35. Comment #394972 by hungarianelephant

Signed, sealed and delivered...

Excellent post...

Other Comments by severalspeciesof

37. Comment #394976 by Santi Tafarella on July 10, 2009 at 8:40 am

Gr8hands:

Okay, then how about saying it this way: Matter made itself from nothing; or matter, nothingness, and that third thing have always existed together; or that third thing existed "first" (as "telos") and made the time/space/physical law/matter continuum?

If you reject this, then help me out here. How would you set out the logical possibilities? And what do you mean by "validity"? It seems to me not logically impossible to posit "telos" before matter at the "beginning"---so how is this an invalid axiomatic starting point (should one choose it)? It question begs, no doubt. But so do materialist explanations. As an agnostic, it just strikes me that there is no good (that is, non-question begging) way to talk about "beginnings" or things that have just "always existed." Matter that has just always existed seems no more or less confounding than positing that telos has just always existed. Both things exist now. Why not then? I know, blind matter needs time to build minds, but this is just a form of question begging. Where did matter get this mind building property? Dumb luck? Dumb. Luck. That's ironic. Why, in short, is there something when there might have been nothing? And not just this, but why is there something so exquisitely mathematical and complex and not just a Jabba-the-Hut blind blob at the beginning of the universe?

Also, I'm not sure why changing the name of whatever you want to call that third "thing" does much.

---Santi

Other Comments by Santi Tafarella

38. Comment #394979 by Enlightenme.. on July 10, 2009 at 9:00 am

"Matter that has just always existed seems no more or less confounding than positing that telos has just always existed."

Rubbish, we know that matter is simple in comparison to intelligence so the second proposition is massively more confounding.

Why do you have such a problem with dumb luck?

Dumb luck governed which sperm from millions was gonna win the race in every coupling of your ancestors for billions of years.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

39. Comment #394980 by gr8hands on July 10, 2009 at 9:01 am

Santi Tafarella, your "third thing" analysis only works if it actually exists. There is no evidence that telos exists now. That's where your discussion fails.

Why the problem with matter having always existed? The matter/energy just moves from state to state, re-combining, re-forming, Big Banging and Big Crunching without end. Not that difficult to grasp. And no need for mystical magical telos to perform miracles of creation.

The point of using the new name qxurzzle, is that it demonstrates that without evidence of the existence of qxurzzle, people today are too sophisticated, too educated, too knowing to just start believing in it. They haven't been force fed from youth to believe in it since the ages of superstition. I thought that was pretty obvious.

It's clear that you didn't follow the link to the Cyclic Model. Pity.

Other Comments by gr8hands

40. Comment #394982 by weesam on July 10, 2009 at 9:10 am

Santi - Why is there something rather than nothing?

Nothing is inherently unstable.

Energy = matter; and the total energy in the universe = 0


Further, you are making an assumption that minds are fundamentally different - in a way "special" - to blind matter.

Minds are a result of the existence of the universe just the same way all matter is. Minds may be spectacularly rare compared to common blind matter (such as hydrogen for example); but they are spectacularly common compared to rare blind matter such as the rarest elements -Astatine for example

Minds may well be extremely common in the universe (at this particular time in the universe's evolution) (though it would be foolish to claim either way)

You are falling into a trap of thinking that your conscious mind must be a special quirk in the universe. A quirk that could/should need a creative force. When of course, it is nothing of the kind, and when you are dead, it will be gone and the universe won't "care".

Other Comments by weesam

41. Comment #394983 by Enlightenme.. on July 10, 2009 at 9:16 am

No he has got a point though gr8hands, even if the cyclic model is the answer, why is there something rather than nothing?

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

42. Comment #394984 by gr8hands on July 10, 2009 at 9:19 am

The best thing someone could hypothesize (and some have) is that god is the emergent phenomenon of the consiousness of the entire universe. As such, it would be ineffable by any mere ultra-super-microscopic subset of itself, like humanity.

However, that ignores the reality that there is no evidence of such an emergent phenomenon, no possible way to gather such evidence by humanity, any more than a single atom in one cell of your body can "comprehend" the existence of your own consciousness.

It was not evidence that started the meme of "god", only fear and ignorance. There is no reason to perpetuate that meme.

Other Comments by gr8hands

43. Comment #394985 by gr8hands on July 10, 2009 at 9:20 am

Enlightenme.., that's a false dichotomy which presumes that there could possibly be another possibility.

[edit2: It's like asking "why does matter have properties?" It only makes sense if there is a possibility that something exists without properties.]

[edit: And I'm not saying the Cyclic Model is the answer, only that it is an answer that appears to answer most, if not all, the available data.]

Other Comments by gr8hands

44. Comment #394987 by Enlightenme.. on July 10, 2009 at 9:31 am

"Nothing is inherently unstable."

I love the sound of it - I just don't understand it!

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

45. Comment #394989 by Vaal on July 10, 2009 at 9:35 am

41. Comment #394983 by Enlightenme..

Why is there God rather than nothing, is what we should really be asking.

Of course, we don't really know why there is something rather than nothing. As Nobel Laureate physicist Frank Wilczek has put it, "The answer to the ancient question 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' would then be that 'nothing' is unstable."

Don't really understand that myself, not being a physicist, and it does seem to defy common sense, but then as Einstein said "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen", so Zeus knows how many prejudices I have acquired by now :-)

Other Comments by Vaal

46. Comment #394990 by weesam on July 10, 2009 at 9:37 am

minds are an output of the function of the universe just like every other damned property of the universe.

just because matter; through the inexorable laws of physics and chemistry, can assemble into patterns that can ask nonsensical questions does not mean that the question is valid; or that any one type of matter holds a "special place" or is a special property in the universe.

why can't people face the fact that we are as relevant - and irrelevant - as every other constituent part of the universe.

Further, just because we can imagine a beginning to all of this, why does it follow that an agent caused this beginning. That is a rather pathetic conclusion, which deserves to be left in the bronze age.

Agnosticism is, in many ways, a fraudulent position. I can invent, on the hoof, countless possibilities that by definition, agnostics must consider somewhat likely. Which is absurd. (I am uncomfortable with Richard Dawkins' 5.9 for this reason)

Other Comments by weesam

47. Comment #394991 by Santi Tafarella on July 10, 2009 at 9:40 am

Hungarian Elephant:

If you were being alert, and not merely dismissive, you would have noticed that I was not setting the issue in postmodern terms but in the terms of the 19th century philosopher (and ally of Darwin's), Herbert Spencer.

For Spencer, beneath all the outward and diverse forms of religion there is a grappling by humans with an Ultimate Mystery that resists explication, and consists of only three possibilities, all of them equally mind-boggling: The universe is self-existent, and has always been here; the universe had a beginning, but it made itself; or something external to the universe made the universe. Religion, however complicated its forms, is a wrestling with this mystery, this truth. Here’s how Spencer puts it (in Part 1 of his First Principles):

"Respecting the origin of the Universe three verbally intelligible suppositions may be made. We may assert that it is self-existent; or that it is self-created; or that it is created by an external agency. Which of these suppositions is most credible it is not needful here to inquire. The deeper question, into which this finally merges, is, whether any one of them is even conceivable in the true sense of the word."

In other words, both science and religion come up against impasses, or "aporias" (if you want to finally get to a postmodern term), when it comes to comprehending certain ultimate things (one of them being the origin of the universe).

In Part 1 of his First Principles, Spenser then discusses other conceptual impasses (or aporias) in turn (such as the relation of matter and consciousness).

It's actually a good read.

---Santi

Other Comments by Santi Tafarella

48. Comment #394992 by Enlightenme.. on July 10, 2009 at 9:43 am

RD normally calls himself 6.5

but it's more like 6. a whole fuckload of nines

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

49. Comment #394993 by severalspeciesof on July 10, 2009 at 9:54 am

why is there something rather than nothing?

In my warped little mind I've come to look at that question with this response:

Reverse the question like this:

Can there be nothing without something?

No... For example... I don't have a coin in my pocket, i.e. 'nothing'...

How do I know that?... because I know 'coin' (a 'something') and I don't have it.

'Coin' becomes meaningless if it is not 'something'...




Did I say my mind is warped?... ;-P

Other Comments by severalspeciesof

50. Comment #394994 by gr8hands on July 10, 2009 at 9:56 am

Santi Tafarella, you and Spencer both fail to grasp that "the universe" is usually defined as "everything that is." So there cannot be "an external agency." It makes no sense to say that something is external to everything that is.

Other Comments by gr8hands