2001. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #123887 by Bonzai on February 7, 2008 at 9:19 pm

I have the feeling that it is not even the desire of most British Muslims to want Sharia. It is just a few "leaders" and a minority of Islamists.

The Arch Bishop shot himself on the foot while creating more unwanted attentions and suspicion for British Muslims, most of whom I think just want to make a living and fit in, The irony is that this is all supposedly for "harmony". It is typical of misguided, overly "sensitive" (usually white) PC types to instigate measures in the name of "inclusiveness" and "diversity" that not only serve no one, but may actually create backlash against the intended beneficiaries.

2002. Math Religion Trouble

Comment #123171 by Bonzai on February 6, 2008 at 2:33 pm

Steve,

To put it bluntly, if the incompleteness phenomenon discovered by Gödel in 1931 is really serious â€" and I believe that Turing's work and my own work suggest that incompleteness is much more serious than people think â€" then perhaps mathematics should be pursued somewhat more in the spirit of experimental science rather than always demanding proofs for everything. Maybe, rather than attempting to prove results such as the celebrated Riemann hypothesis, mathematicians should accept that they may not be provable and simply accept them as an axiom."

Well the problem is how do we know that the Riemann hypothesis is not provable? That requires a proof! For example, we know that Cantor's continuum hypothesis is unprovable within ZFC (Zermelo-Frankel set theory plus the axiom of choice) because Cohen proved that using forcing. So some people indeed take CH as an axiom.

But again, echoing other mathematicians I respect, if a result in math is hinged upon independence results (axiomatics) it is probably not very interesting mathematically anyway. Most interesting mathematics, in my view, are about fairly concrete objects (by mathematicians' standard, of course)

2003. Math Religion Trouble

Comment #123163 by Bonzai on February 6, 2008 at 2:23 pm

Of course these are very specific, and by knowing how to derive theorems and sentences from axioms via inference-rules, and only when you know these specific constrictions, the actual axioms, rules and theorems can you "do" mathematics - only when you know how to construct a system of meaningful grammatical sentences of a certain kind (the constriction on systems of sentences that make them a work of science fiction) do you know how to write science fiction.

It is like saying without knowing how to construct sentences you can't be a writer.

This is kind of trivial and really doesn't tell you much about fiction writing, does it? I know the inferential rules since time immemorial, that has never been a problem. Most mathematicians I know never learn that by reading logic books, let alone formal logic. It is just a more disciplined way of being "logical", there is no straight demarcation from "ordinary" thinking. Yet trying to come up with theorems (and even proving known theorems) is still *very hard*. It takes a lot more than just knowing inferential rules to do math. It is taken for granted, like knowing the alphabets for a writer.

To say that math is just an extension of logic is as I said, completely missing the substance because of the form. As we say in Chinese, who doesn't know your mother is a woman? It is true but trivial to the point of pointlessness.

2004. Math Religion Trouble

Comment #123132 by Bonzai on February 6, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Of course science fiction literature is "just" consists of grammatically correct sentences. What else? Of course mathematics is just axioms, inference rules, theorems and sentences. That its very specific axioms, rules, theorems and sentences with doesn't make it something else. That would be like saying that you can find more in science fiction books..

This is call mistakening forms for substance. While trivially true, it doesn't say much. That is to say, missing the point. If fiction writing is just about stringing together grammatically correct sentences then any English teacher who knows her grammar can be a great fiction writer. Since that is not the case there must be something amiss in your characterization.

EDIT

And btw, do you think that formal logic has no such things as a calculus? I have written exams where I had to construct formal proofs of over 200 steps. The Kalish-Montague calculus for example is extremely powerful and able to model highly complex states of affairs.

I know. That is how they teach symbolic logic in the philosophy departments and in my view they precisely focus on the most uninteresting part of the subject,--again missing the point. No one would waste his time writing up deductions in first order logic in mathematical logic courses taught in the math departments. We know this can be done in principle and move on to more interesting stuffs, like Godel theorem and so on. In mathematics we see formal systems as just models, a caricature amendable to mathematical investigations and see what we can say about them. We prove theorems about these systems using just normal language, we do not try to pretend to be robots working within those systems.

I took two symbolic logic courses in third and forth year with the philosophy department to get my easy electives, I learned a lot more in the first three weeks in an introductory math logic course in my own department.

P.S. I used Kalish-Montague's book for my philosophy courses, what a waste of paper and money. I find for example, Yuri Mannin's book on mathematical logic a lot more interesting and substantial, with only a fraction of the size.

2005. Math Religion Trouble

Comment #123125 by Bonzai on February 6, 2008 at 1:30 pm

It seems that Chaitin's work again shows the limit of formal systems, but since Godel we already know that no single formal system can capture all of mathematics. Regardless of details, Chaitin must have some kind of model for mathematics based on formal rules in order to get his result. His result, if I understand correctly, only shows that the type of systems he constructed are not rich enough to capture all of mathematics.

2006. Math Religion Trouble

Comment #123110 by Bonzai on February 6, 2008 at 1:17 pm

It's structure is logic: Axioms, inference rules, theorems, sentences... that's what logic is - and that's what mathematics is. Logic is (among other things) the science of exactly that - how to correctly derive theorems and sentences from axioms... how to proceed from premises to conclusions, and this is at the core of every conceptual thinking.

That just proves my point that you completely miss the point.

This is like saying fiction writing is about how to construct grammatically correct sentences. Your knowledge about how real mathematics is done is probably as good as my knowledge of Kant, namely, almost nil, except for a few soundbites through nth handed accounts.

P.S. I didn't mention you by name and the claim that mathematics is just logic is not an uncommon one by certain arm chair philosophers, so I wasn't deliberately trying to insult you in particular, you are just too eager to take personal offense.

2007. Math Religion Trouble

Comment #123091 by Bonzai on February 6, 2008 at 12:55 pm

Then we discovered that mathematics was necessarily incomplete (or inconsistent), and then we found that there are mathematical truths are unreachable,

That just shows that mathematics cannot be captured by any single formal system. I think most working mathematicians wouldn't find that very surprising, it just demonstrates the problem of trying to reduce mathematics to logic and formalized deduction. Most working mathematicians seldom think like that anyway.

2008. Math Religion Trouble

Comment #123085 by Bonzai on February 6, 2008 at 12:48 pm

Am I the only one to find that something has been changed in the forum system so that posting and logging in have become kind of awkward? Also, I find the cut and paste function doesn't work sometimes and I have this problem only on this site.

2009. Math Religion Trouble

Comment #123064 by Bonzai on February 6, 2008 at 12:24 pm

Mathematics is not = computation. Computation is only a small part of mathematics.

The study of chaotic systems,-which Steve brought up numerous times,-- for example, is mainly concerned with understanding the topological and other qualitative features of such systems rather than computing approximating trajectories. Mathematically, these features are a lot more interesting than grinding out numbers because they provide theoretical and conceptual understanding of the structures of these systems while number crunching may be important for engineering, it offers little conceptual insight.

In a sense, mathematics is not "just a tool". At least in physics, it is not an exaggeration to say that all our theories and "explanations" are essentially mathematical in nature, there is no other way to describe and "explain" the deep structures of the physical world other than through mathematics. In some sense mathematics is all there is! Physicists and mathematicians cannot escape the feeling that the universe appears to be constructed from a mathematical skeleton (so I find the claim that mathematics = logic is also a very poor caricature, it fails to convey the richness of mathematics and conveys very little of the way real mathematics is done. It is typically the philosopher's way of seeing mathematics,--completely missing the point)

The three body problem again is not about finding numerical approximations, but the study of asymptotic behaviour and stability of such systems, which can only be attacked conceptually. BTW, I was mistaken in saying that the three body problem was solved, but some important break throughs concerning some special cases were made in the 1990s.

2010. Math Religion Trouble

Comment #122793 by Bonzai on February 6, 2008 at 5:05 am

I don't believe it is that successful. We can't even solve the equations of motion for just three particles. Much modeling has to be done through simulation because we can't do the maths

Well I disagree. Math is not just about grinding out numbers and solving equations. The conceptual understanding of complex dynamical systems and chaotic systems is mathematical. While we cannot compute exact solutions we do know a lot about these systems.BTW, the three body problem has been solved.

2011. God the psycho

Comment #122213 by Bonzai on February 4, 2008 at 11:45 pm

Diacanu. I disagree. We need sophistication and eloquence. I rate you far higher than Condell in those area.

Pat is certainly eloquent. I actually think most of his rants are spot on.

2012. Admitting that you have no religion is not politically correct

Comment #122091 by Bonzai on February 4, 2008 at 4:28 pm

Before we get carried away let's note that this was the decision of "student administrators", in other words,ultra politically correct student council types and probably was not reflective of the university's policy. I am willing to bet that if enough noise is made the decision will be reversed.

2013. Islam in Europe

Comment #114512 by Bonzai on January 22, 2008 at 10:49 am

Good job. Unfortunately I don't know if any politician would be listening.

2014. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #113799 by Bonzai on January 20, 2008 at 3:33 pm

Well, yes, but my impression is that the proportion of gay men who make use of such facilities is probably not that large.

That was what I suggested in my last paragraph.

2015. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #113795 by Bonzai on January 20, 2008 at 3:22 pm

Steve,

They do???

I think one has to be careful as to what "average" means. If one chap has 1000 partners that could bias the average, and also people have a habit of exaggerating their sexual history.

I think there are venues for gay men to have sex that are not available for straight people. I am thinking of bath houses. Apparently people can have sex with many partners in one night especially if you count oral sex as well (thereby using a broader definition than Clinton's)

In my statistical consulting job on the side I am currently working with some survey data on bath house encounters among gay people and the reported number of sex partners of some people seem surreal. Not having any first hand experience of the scene I can't say whether these guys are exaggerating or not, I can only take them on their words. According to the people who created the survey and gathered the data the numbers are realistic.

I think it is difficult to extrapolate data such as these to the gay population in general as it is more spread out and hidden than many such surveys reveal. Data are easier to gather on those who are relatively active in the gay scene and one would expect an upward adjustment to variables such as sex partners and frequency of sexual activities.

2016. The New Theology

Comment #113779 by Bonzai on January 20, 2008 at 2:17 pm

Well I have to say my opinion of why people believe in religion differs from many of you here. Many of you seem to say that religion is a kind of poor substitution of science as a way to explain the world. The implication is that it can be eradicated with proper scientific education. My experience is that most religious people (those that I know, that is) couldn't give a rat's ass about explanatory models of the world. To them religion is a clutch that gives them hope, delusional as it may be. It is a kind of wishful thinking that helps them deal with the trials and tribulations of life, whether religion is "true" in the scientific sense is profoundly irrelevant to such people,--and I believe that these people represent a significant number of believers if not the vast majority.

I gave my sister in law TGD as a Christmas gift. I am pretty sure she never bothers to read it because the book was still in its shrink wrap a few weeks later when I visited them. It was sitting quietly on a book shelf swarming with Christian books.

My mother looked up the dictionary for the word "delusion" and then went hysterical and yelled at me. She pretty much said that she didn't care whether Christianity was "true" scientifically, the important thing was that it helped her coped and that I shouldn't have attempted to take it away from her.

2017. Changing my Mind

Comment #108471 by Bonzai on January 7, 2008 at 3:10 am

I think with few exceptions, most people just shop around for whatever treatments that "work" for them. Many people try alternative medicine only after "scientific medicine" fails.

Your scenario of someone stubbornly sticking to some homeopathic "cure" of AIDs while it is clearly not working doesn't seem realistic to me. Not that such people don't exist, I just don't think they are typical.

2018. Changing my Mind

Comment #108470 by Bonzai on January 7, 2008 at 3:06 am

With homeopathy it is not just the patient not understanding things and the wise doctor prescribing a placebo, it is everyone, from the "medicine" manufacter down, thinking that this stuff somehow has active ingredients. And that is potentially dangerous.

Not to be nitpicking but do you think "scientific medicine" always knows the causes of illness? A large part of the pharm industry seems to based on trial and error, double blind testing only indicates better evaluation of effect, not necessarily better understanding of diseases.
(Edit consider for example the medical consensus on cholesterol, it is not really very solid scientifically)

2019. Changing my Mind

Comment #108466 by Bonzai on January 7, 2008 at 2:57 am

Steve

, and to me this is sounding worryingly like "belief in belief". It OK for us rational people to know that homeopaths are selling just water, but the ignorant masses can believe there is something in it.

What is wrong with belief in belief? Placebos work for some ailments because the causes are probably psychosomatic as well. The purpose of medicine is to heal, even if the patients are "irrational".

As I said above I wasn't defending homeopathy per se, all I am saying is that there is more to ailments and healing than drugs and chemicals that only work on average.

EDIT: Also, many people choose "alternative medicine" such as acupuncture not as a first option, they turn to alternatives only when "scientific medicine" basically tell them nothing can be done. Again I think we should give people more credits, not all people who look for alternative treatments are new age junkies and ignoramuses.

2020. Changing my Mind

Comment #108464 by Bonzai on January 7, 2008 at 2:41 am

I think qster and others are using different definitions for homeopathy.

Those who insist that homeopathy is nothing but pure quackery consider only the tangible,--the "medicine" being prescribed, whereas qster seems to use the word in a broader sense to include a wide range of lifestyle change that psychological effects that might or might not be part of the "homeopathic" package depending on the practitioner.

I think there is no necessary contradiction in the two points of view. On the chemical-physiological level homeopathic "medicine" is likely just placebos, on the other hand, depending on the actual program, the homeopathic treatment may provide enough will power and inducement for the patient to undergo the lifestyle change necessary to prevent a lot of diseases and even cure some, there is no conflict with science in that. I may sell you hocus pocus, but if you stop smoking and drinking, eat healthy and exercise as a result of my hocus pocus, it is quite reasonable to expect that your immune system would get a boost and that would enable you to fight off some diseases more effectively.

I am no defender of homeopathy, but I think qster does raise a valid point, which is that sickness and well being can be considered from a higher level than just biology and chemistry.

Why people get sick and who get sick are often deeply entangled with social, economical conditions. The reductionist way of seeing diseases merely in terms of biology and chemistry maybe scientifically valid, but medicine is not just a science for the purpose of understanding physiology and pathogen, it is also the art of healing.

2021. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #108407 by Bonzai on January 6, 2008 at 7:07 pm

Some posters are making the mistake of equating "fitness" with some intrinsic goodness. In biology "fitness" has a very narrow meaning of being most well equipped to survive and reproduce in a specific environment. Civilization, on the other hand, is our way to work around natural selection through altering the environment itself. There is no reason that we must obey nature's imperative.

Having said that, it doesn't follow that one must subscribe to the brave new world of designer babies and other artificial means to "move evolution along". Along what direction? Evolution doesn't have a definite direction of "progress", this is a common fallacy committed by people who try to invoke evolution to sell their pet agendas.

There are much more pertinent social and political issues to consider. Our natural destiny, whatever that means, has little relevance in this discussion. Civilization introduces a new variable that fundamentally changes our relationship with nature and invoking evolution in this kind of discussion is a mix up of context and asking questions at the wrong level.

We also have to address our own short sightedness in deploying technology that might have drastic, irreversible effects on ourselves as a species. Our track record is not good in this regard. The tendency to blindly cheerleading for any breakthrough of the week without due cautions about the possible downsides and side effects, as demonstrated by apparently the majority of posters here, should definitely be avoided.

I have no issue with gene therapy and other ways to treat diseases and lessen suffering. But I draw the line with "artificially selecting" human traits and designer babies, for the reasons that D and Ash have stated.

2022. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #105841 by Bonzai on January 2, 2008 at 12:13 am

Do you think immortality won't sell once it's made available to the public? Of course it will sell, like nothing has ever sold before!

What about those who can't afford it? Would it be like being sentenced to death for lack of cash? If you think that is far fetched life saving medicine is routinely denied to people who can't afford it and they die as a result.

I have no objection to technology perse, but the deployment of technology is not a scientific question, it is a political one.

It is naive to think that things will work out to all our benefits without considering the inequalities that exist in our societies. When you have a technology which is so powerful that it can potentially transform the human race itself, it is important to ask who will be left behind. Should some people be forced to become evolutionary relics and their offsprings assigned to the zoo in some transhuman Utopia simply because they have no power or money?

2023. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #105840 by Bonzai on January 2, 2008 at 12:01 am

I am with Asthon and Diacanu. If we can selectively breed humans, I am quite certain that the criteria of "fitness" would be for a large part decided by powerful vested interests and popular prejudice.

For instance, I am pretty sure that many people would like to find a way to screen out "gay genes" and other attributes deemed undesirable.

While some of us lucky enough to be born in the developed world are speculating on the potential of immortality millions in the third world are dying of starvation and easily preventable diseases everyday. I think there is an air of unreality to discussions like this.

2024. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #105110 by Bonzai on December 30, 2007 at 3:25 pm

Coconut is a Christian troll. He is mocking evolutionary theory.

2025. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #105108 by Bonzai on December 30, 2007 at 3:24 pm

Steve,

To summarise my views:

The brain is this soggy soft thing in our heads. All sorts of things happen in it. They aren't philosophical, they are electrical and chemical. If you want to show that certain things that happen seem to fit Darwinian idea, the best way is to stop talking about it and to start measuring that electricity and chemistry. Until you have done that, speculating is pointless. Its rather like some alien coming across a Windows laptop, powering the thing up, and seeing patterns on the screen and saying "Those rectangular shapes seem to fit the evolutionary theory of Zargon".

Let's get the science out the way first, is my view. I feel uneasy when philosophers use precise scientific terms to describe their vague ideas of what happens in the physical world.

I agree. Excellently put.

2026. Was Muhammad Epileptic?

Comment #102871 by Bonzai on December 23, 2007 at 7:48 pm

A detailed rebuttal of the numerical "miracle" of the Quran. Basically the guy went through a lot of convoluted reasoning to torture the number "19" out of the book including actually changing the verses in the Quran.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/Hikmat10101.htm

2027. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #102833 by Bonzai on December 23, 2007 at 6:02 pm

Hitchens on same sex marriage

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004765

2028. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #102810 by Bonzai on December 23, 2007 at 5:20 pm

Randism is a cult. Ayn Rand shrounded her crackpot ideas in the language of "reason" but deep down it is mythcal based, as is evidented in the hero worship and quasi-morality she expoused. She was witless and a shitty writer to boot. She was no Nietzsche.

2029. Was Muhammad Epileptic?

Comment #102760 by Bonzai on December 23, 2007 at 3:04 pm

Some words occur naturally together in sentences, such as boys and girls, men and women. If you have a book written in a structured style like an epic poem it is not so surprising that certain pairs would appear together and if you count each word in the pair, you get an exact match.

I don't know any Arabic but I have read passages from a translated Quran, it strikes me as very repetitive. In other words, the stylistic variation is probably pretty small comparing to a novel of the same length or the bible and it is structured like a poem to be recited, so it is not that surprising to find sentences and words that fall into patterns.

2030. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102688 by Bonzai on December 23, 2007 at 12:02 pm

Radesq,

However, I think the idea of omnipotence flows naturally from it because it is a "my dad can kick your dad's ass" type of deity.

Yeah, though bragging is quite unbecoming for an omnipotent entity. Yahweh actually sounded a lot like Saddam RIP.

2031. 'Christian God is not to blame'

Comment #102683 by Bonzai on December 23, 2007 at 11:57 am

So there are other Gods to blame?

2032. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102677 by Bonzai on December 23, 2007 at 11:51 am

Actually I don't get the idea the OT God is omnipotent and omniscient. This is probably a theological spin that came much later. The OT God sounded like a tribal God. If he existed he was probably an alien who was only a notch above the bronze age people and he used his relatively advanced technology to terrorize them. He was probably a criminal exile from the alien home world.

As Captain Kirk said, why does God need a spaceship? Why does God need our worship?

2033. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102621 by Bonzai on December 23, 2007 at 9:59 am

Just curious... your name isn't "Damien" is it?

I wish. That would be a cool name. On my baptism (as a baby) I was given the stupid name Bernard and it sticks ever since. My brother pissed in the priest's hands during his baptism. I couldn't beat that.

2034. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102608 by Bonzai on December 23, 2007 at 9:42 am

PK,

I don't know about your religious background, Bonzai - am I right in thinking you've never been a Christian?

I was never a serious Christian though I am nominally Catholic and did attend a Catholic primary school (I grew up in the former British colony of Hong Kong so the system was kind of like the U.K.)

Actually I couldn't remember too much garbage being fed. I remember our religious study class was taught by some Church lady. She told stories about miracles, the weeping virgin and all that in all seriousness and she absolutely believed in the healing power of prayers. Then one day the Church lady was sick and the vice principal, who was an Italian priest who spoke some Cantonese, took over the class. He asked us what we had been taught, we told him about the weeping virgin and all that. I still remembered how the father shook his head in horror and said no, no. Those are only stories and you must not take them literally!

Now in retrospect he was probably a very liberal priest because apparently he didn't believe in many things which Papa Ratzi does seem to subscribe to. But he made a deep impression on me.

I got confirmed by some local bishop at 12. He died later the same day of a heart attack. :-)

2035. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102600 by Bonzai on December 23, 2007 at 9:27 am

Steve,

Second, worship has to be earned

I agree with your general point, but just to nitpick on a small point (because I am bored and need some distractions from work :-))

Actually I don't think 'worship' is appropriate for any free agent. You can respect someone for his/her great intellect, immense knowledge and superior morality. But worship is kind of going too far. Besides, if God is as he claims he is, omnipotent and what not, then what he achieves is not really so remarkable really, actually he should be shot if he screws up with all his super endowment.

On the other hand, only lesser beings with a deep sense of insecurity demand endless "worship" and he can accomplish that with threats and intimidations in the way of Stalin. If God shows up in a jack boot and a whip with eternal hell to back up his demand for worship, I guess most of us would probably succumb but that doesn't make him deserving of worship, no one is, let alone a cosmic Stalin.

2036. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102575 by Bonzai on December 23, 2007 at 8:55 am

I may be wrong but it seems that from a traditional Christian perspective asking for evidence would be tempting God, an act of blasphemy by itself.

So I don't think the truly devout would be bothered by not having evidence. From that perspective we are asking the wrong question in the first place and of course we won't be answered, this is what faith is all about!

2037. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102572 by Bonzai on December 23, 2007 at 8:49 am

PK,

And, let's face it, there are Anglican theologians who don't buy into the notion of the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection, but this is not what's taught in their churches.

Well a Catholic theologian who doesn't believe in the virgin birth and resurrection would be excommunicated. So it does seems that the Anglican Church doesn't have a centralized set of dogmas certified as definitive like the Catholics.

What the theologians believe is frequently quite different from what gets flogged to the masses - as we've discussed many times before.

I would agree with you if we are talking about the sociology and real world impacts of religion. But when we're talking about theological doctrines for the purpose of philosophical discussions (whether God answers prayers) I don't think what the masses believe is particularly relevant. To engage an ideology we have to speak to its official position (if it has one) on the issue at hand, not what the lay believers believe.

2038. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102563 by Bonzai on December 23, 2007 at 8:33 am

PK,

I think you'd still be hard pushed to show me a mainstream Christian church that doesn't do prayers of intercession ...

I think the Calvinists don't. I am not sure about the Anglicans (and Episcopalians) but there are Anglican theologians who don't buy into the notion of prayers for intercession.

To my understanding, the prayer answering God is not a Judaic notion. The OT God is aloof and he doesn't change his plan because of human pleadings. The Book of Job makes the point clear that prayer is a waste of breath if the purpose is to twist God's arm.

For Muslims prayers are ritualistic which have to be performed at regular schedule and with regular frequencies and based on fixed scripts. I don't think they are praying for personal favours unless Allah has office hours to hear complaints. I am sure some Muslims may pray for intercessions, but that is probably a result of mixing up folk beliefs with Islam.

2039. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102557 by Bonzai on December 23, 2007 at 8:14 am

Smithboy,

So I guess I'm not sure what 'evidence for a god could be either'. But I don't think this makes me a fundamentalist. Rather, I think it points up the emptiness of the word 'god'.

My thought exactly. I think an "out there" God for which we cannot say anything definitively about is essentially an empty concept. On the other hand all particular Gods with specific enough attributes (Zeus, Yahweh, Allah)can be falsified and have been many times. Besides these Gods are so fake and so obviously man made that the only reason they were/are taken seriously is cultural conditioning. In a sense it is almost silly to even ask for evidence for these beings.

If there is a God and he is so much beyond our understanding it seems silly that he would care whether we know him, let along worship him.

2040. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102554 by Bonzai on December 23, 2007 at 8:04 am

PK

Or, if we're going to give a nod to the liberals who claim that all religions are routes to the same god and that therefore god answers ALL prayers equally, then systematic, properly controlled research showing that prayer works, full stop.

Um..I don't think it is a universal theistic belief that God answers prayers. I am not sure even if all Christians believe in that(If you are Calvinist there seems to be no point in begging God for favour) The prayer answering God seems to be an idea of a particular infantile strain of Christianity which envisions Jesus as a buddy as well as some animistic cults.

2041. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102287 by Bonzai on December 22, 2007 at 8:45 am

As well as leading to Christmas being called "Winterval," the archbishop said "virulent, almost irrational" attacks on Christianity led to hospitals removing all Christian symbols from their chapels, and schools refusing to allow children to send Christmas cards with a Christian message.

He also said it led to things like "airlines refusing staff the freedom to wear a cross round their necks" in a reference to the row in which British Airways (BA) suspended an employee who insisted on wearing a cross necklace.

Actually I don't think those are atheist initiatives. They are instigated by the so called "multi-cultural" elite,--mostly white "liberals" from the upper middle class,--as an attempt to accommodate the sensibility of religious minorities. These measures sometimes go far beyond what the minorities actually expect and demand. The same people also push for halal meat in school cafeteria, toilets facing away from Mecca in prisons, burkqua like outfits in hospital and other lunacy to cater to Muslims. These are not what one would call typical atheist position.

I think the Bishop is being dishonest. It is good that atheism would provoke such reactions from the clerics. It proves that 'new atheism' is making an impact.

2042. This Week's Flea

Comment #102040 by Bonzai on December 21, 2007 at 12:57 pm

Were pagans moral relativists then depending on which god of the pantheon they followed? I've been told that way leads to nihilism.

I am not an expert so I can't answer your question definitively. However, your question seems to assume that the gods are the source of morality for the pagans. That was probably not the case. The Greeks, for example, seemed to believe there was absolute morality existing outside of and beyond the gods. So in some absolute sense they might say some gods were indeed evil.

I think the idea that God defines morality by fiat is not universal to all religions, in fact it might be a peculiar feature of the Abrahamic faiths,--this is one reason that I never take too seriously the argument that we need God to be good, most people, even theists don't need their gods to know good from bad!

2043. This Week's Flea

Comment #102028 by Bonzai on December 21, 2007 at 12:33 pm

I think the devil is a lame device to get around the problem of an omnipotent, benign God and the existence of evil. In pagan beliefs there were often many gods who embodied good and evil caught in a dialectical cycle of eternal battle. In monotheism the idea of multiple, waring gods is no longer available so God would have to be both good and evil at the same time. The devil is a clumsy way to excuse God of evil deeds.

I was told by a religious Jewish friend that unlike in Christianity, in Judaism the devil is not a rebellious angel, but a loyal employee who does God's dirty work. He is the bad cop working in cahoot with God's good cop in a good cop bad cop act. This is not exactly the way he puts it of course, but that seems to be the main idea. In fact, it does seem that the moral character of God is a lot more ambiguous in the OT than what Jesus supposedly personified in the NT (see the Book of Job, for example.)

2044. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #101978 by Bonzai on December 21, 2007 at 10:37 am

The idea is basically that God is self created by definition

It is as if he can get free lunch by simply by defining thing suitably. Once he gets his "God" from nothing by the magic of definition he then adds all sorts of properties to it as if they follow from his definition. In other words, God is just a smokescreen made up with words though it seems real enough for him.

2045. The Pagan Christ

Comment #101961 by Bonzai on December 21, 2007 at 9:25 am

Watched the doc when it was aired on the CBC. It is not very good in my opinion.

It doesn't really explore any issue in depth. Basically it gives a run down of Harpur's view (with his own voice over), interviews four guys, two for two opposed. The two guys who are for Harpur are actually his source and apparently most important source if not the only source(though that is not mentioned in the documentary). The documentary doesn't mention that these guys are pop religious writers with dubious scholarly credentials. The two guys who are against are theologians. There is no debate, no back and forth, no point by point rebuttal from each side. Each side makes a few assertions on separate interviews and that is that.

It would be a lot more interesting if they have a panel discussion where people with different view points can actually engage each other in debate. Also, ostensibly absence are the voices of solid secular religious scholars who can evaluate Harpur's claims with knowledge and impartiality.

I should note that Harpur's thesis that Jesus didn't exist even as a man is a very fringe opinion among scholars. Even secular scholars such as Bart Ehrman find it unsupported by scholarship.

2046. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #101801 by Bonzai on December 21, 2007 at 1:59 am

TonyA

In fact, what if the universe is in fact his exploded corpse. In other words, suppose he thoroughly and completely died in the process of creating our universe. In this hypothesis, "we are all made of god" and "god is everywhere" becomes true. This is just as possible (indeed it fits the evidence better) than your hypothesis. If this hypothesis were true, would it still lead you inexplicably to Christianity?

Indeed this is one version of the Chinese creation myth. God died of exhaustion as a result of creating the universe. This encompasses big bang and the second law of thermodynamics.

2047. Three wise men just legend: archbishop

Comment #101786 by Bonzai on December 21, 2007 at 1:33 am

This legend meme about the birth of Jesus evolved over almost 2000 years, and was really doing well. But now it faces extinction, because it wasn't really based on fact

Actually it isn't even based on the Bible, never mind fact. That was the Bishop's point.

2048. For the Love of Christ

Comment #101757 by Bonzai on December 20, 2007 at 10:30 pm

He reminds me of the guys you'd sometime see on TV who, with strength from Jesus, would break handcuffs or tear in half telephone books. Very entertaining stuff.

Popeye?

2049. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #101742 by Bonzai on December 20, 2007 at 9:10 pm

I don't think we even have to get into Quantum fluctuations. BJohn wants to invoke God as a serious explanation for the origin of the universe, let him propose a mechanism for creation and a way to verify it.

Even if we know nothing about physics, God is still a non explanation. The ball is in his court, not ours.

2050. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #101737 by Bonzai on December 20, 2007 at 8:58 pm

Bjohn,

We don't know whether nothing comes from nothing (depending on what you mean by a "thing"). We don't know if there are parallel universes, we don't even know for sure if big bang happened. There are many plausible scenarios and physicists are still trying to work it out.

But this is precisely the strength of science. It sets very high standard for acceptable "answers". As a result it is difficult to come up with answers.

Religion doesn't play by the same rule, that's why it appears that it has answers to all problems that science cannot solve, yet. Religion offers cheap answers that doesn't have to meet any standard, so it can churn them out effortlessly.

What kind of answer is it that you propose? Basically "God did it" is just a filler for "we don't know" and nothing more. What exactly do you mean by "outside of space and time"? What is it like to be "outside space and time"? How does a God outside space and time communicate with our universe? It sounds suspiciously like you are making things up as you go along, seeking refuge in obscure, convoluted words that even you yourself have no idea what they mean.It is just a word game.

You can postulate any entity with any property you want,tailored for the question at hand but this is not an existence proof for the said entity and it has absolutely no predictive or explanatory power because it is just ad hoc thinking.

We will take your God proposal more seriously if you can actually describe how he created the universe. "Answers" to "what" and "why" questions that cannot be reduced to "how" are meaningless. Any half decent fiction writer can make up a whole bunch of them.

P.S. Isn't that interesting that God's domain has become smaller and smaller as human knowledge grows? He was everywhere in the Bible, then he was slowly and surely exorcised from all realms where science has shone its light on, now you tell us God is somewhere "outside space and time",--being essentially pushed out of the universe itself. If theists have any intellectual honesty they should just give up the game.