My problems with religion

[Sancho]

Whoops, sorry North Star

I was talking over you. We were parallel posting.

[Ecurb]

Similarly my action doesn't prevent what has already happened, but rather creates an alternate or parallel universe in which it never happened. And this new universe, just one of an infinite number of universes, is the one that El Sancho has just jumped to. And of course the one he will probably die on the gallows in because nobody there will believe his cockamamie story about why he needed to kill baby Hitler.

Uh oh! I smell trouble! I remember endless arguments between YesNo and the departed (from this site) Morpheus Sandman (which I never read) about the "multiverse" theory of time. Morpheus was on your side of the argument.

[Sancho]

Hey, man. I'm just saying - the truth is the truth is the truth and you can't really have an opinion about the truth - know what I'm saying?

Also you can't really argue with pseudoscience, eh?

So here's a question: If El Sancho, like Mighty Mouse, is a superhero who can right horrible wrongs with his superpower, which is time travel, why then did he choose as his point-of-departure a nursery instead of popping in 9 months earlier and c*ck-blocking Hitler's baby-daddy, or just 3 months earlier and driving Hitler's baby-mama down a really bumpy Bavarian road and shaking loose that genetic mutation from her womb?

The answer is, and I never thought I'd say something like this, but there's just more satisfaction involved in choking a baby than in the other two. Could it be, contrary to what a Rabbi or Priest would say, that the most effective weapon against pure evil is a more pure form of evil?

[Ecurb]

To each his own, although I've never desired to burn witches, however many times they may have fornicated with Satan. Nor would I kill a baby, even if I knew what his future would bring. Hatred begets hatred; evil begets evil.

[Sancho]

While I agree with with you in principle, Ecurb, I am also a pragmatic man and believe there are exceptions to every rule, Adolph Hitler being one of them. Gandhi's peaceful resistance worked with the British, but I doubt it would've worked with the Nazis.

As for witches, I'm a little cynical about that situation as well. Were those people that gullible? I doubt it. The legal system back then was such that if you had a beef with your neighbor and wanted to make an accusation, you had to do it publicly - except if you suspected your neighbor of being a witch, in which case you could accuse anonymously lest the accused put the evil eye on you. So, talk about a spineless way of putting the kibosh on your competition, eh?

[Ecurb]

If you're interested in witches, I recommend Oxford historian H.R. Trevor-Roper's book on the European Witch Craze. Between about 1520 and 1650, Trevor-Roper claims that half a million Europeans were executed as witches (other historians think the number was lower, but all admit it was hundreds of thousands). Debate rages as to what caused the craze -- the religious and political upheavals of the Reformation were doubtless involved, and Catholics and Protestants killed about the same number of "witches". One thing that fueled the craze was torture -- when asked to name names by witch hunters (or by Stalinists), many complied under torture. Then those they accused were tortured, and named others.

Persecution and execution of witches is not a uniquely Christian practice, however. It is found in cultures around the world, and another hyphenated Oxford man (E.E, Evans-Pritchard) wrote a very good book about witchcraft beliefs among the Azande (in Africa).

The Inquisition (which peaked in Catholic Spain slightly earlier) involved torturing and executing people for heresy, which we no longer deem a crime. Witch trials (which were generally held in civil courts rather than ecclesiastical ones) involved torturing and executing people for what would have been real crimes, had they actually occurred. In one case, people were "guilty" of something benign, in the other, they were "not guilty" of something wicked. Many, many times more people were executed for witchcraft than for heresy. One reason that Salem witch trials are so notorious is that by 1690 the witch craze had run its course, and the Salem executions were relatively unusual by that time.

[YesNo]

You all should watch this TED Talk about homosexuality, how epigenetic markers from the mother affect the child's sexual orientation - and of the reasons why it happens, and why it appears in so many animals. I can't say I've ever seen any evidence of treating sexual minorities poorly advancing anything positive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Khn_z9FPmU



That the probabilities for each of the possible outcomes are not evenly distributed doesn't in anyway imply that the photons make a choice. You might as well be saying that a coin bent slightly makes a choice since it has a statistically significant tendency to land on one particular side. If the concept of choice was defined so that uneven odds = choice, the whole concept would be meaningless.

Before a human or some other living creature decides on a course of action, they have 'choice potential' and after they have made a choice they have 'choice action'. Humans have consciousness, and a huge amount of information in the form of past experiences, what they've learned from school, Internet, TV, friends or whatever, and what they've observed. It's not possible to remove all these sources of information from our lives, but if we are selective about them, their influence will be more stable and predictable, and so our choices. In the end, I think this 'free will' is just the result of having so much different information that there are infinite ways to interpret it - imagine a dice with an infinite number of sides to land on - a ball. I am reminded of Dijkstra saying that "whether machines can think is about as relevant as the question of whether submarines can swim" - Free will doesn't really exist if we look close enough, just as there is no solid matter since we see a whole lot of emptiness in a diamond with a tunneling electron microscope. That doesn't mean that the concept of free will, solid matter, or of swimming, is useless, though.

Sorry I missed your post.

For choice at the quantum level, both the non-uniform results and the inability to find a deterministic explanation for that non-uniformity leads to the idea of choice. In the case of the bent coin there is just the non-uniformly random observations. There is no guarantee one can't account for that by referencing the bent property of the coin.

The TED talk you mentioned sounds interesting. It would be evidence against a social construction of homosexuality.

[Sancho]

Witch hunting and burning reminds me of the the adage to always beware of the power of a mob.

A couple of years ago I walked through an exhibit on methods and instruments of torture in a museum in San Diego. Although it was fascinating on one level, I remember walking out of the building into the bright So-Cal sunlight and feeling a little sick to my stomach. I also remember being a little concerned that there were a number of biker-looking dudes in the museum who appeared to be taking notes.

I'm going to put Hugh Trevor-Roper on my list. Next time I'm in a good bookstore I'll see what I can turn up. Tips like that, Ecurb, are one of the reasons I visit this website. Thanks. I think I might like his style. This from his wiki page:

Trevor-Roper was famous for his lucid and acerbic writing style. In reviews and essays he could be pitilessly sarcastic, and devastating in his mockery

[fudgetusk]

>>My problems with religion



There is a major problem with with secular humanism because prior hominids, those of which were incapable of speech, and by cause and effect, religion, were still burying their dead and living in groups with each other. Which demonstrates that we are definitely capable of morality and social bonding without religious belief.

>> Name one moral thing that a Christian can do better than an Atheist.

----------

Pascal's wager?

Religion is only useful for comforting people. Science has yet to do this...in fact it seems to worry people. at best we are robots who will die and be dead for ever. I think scientific people who believe this and are fine with it are probably lying to themselves. Or they have not fully appreciated the notion.
Religious wars have killed scores of people. Nukes can kill us all in hours. Never mind take your Prozac.

The truth behind religion is that reality is not what it seems. I have practised this belief all my life. When you do it long enough reality seems to become more fluid. Call me crazy, but mistrust of the façade of the world brings about magical events. I believe our world is a bubble of logic and outside it is madness. Magical madness. No scientist has explained where the world came from. I do not believe they ever will. It is not a logical problem.

[YesNo]

The truth behind religion is that reality is not what it seems.

That is a good way of putting it.

[fudgetusk]

>>That is a good way of putting it.

And isn't science proffering the exact same notion? religion is a form or early philosophical science. as alchemy turned to chemistry.

[YesNo]

I see religion as more than science which is a kind of technology or alchemy or a kind of gnosis. Religion binds people together in a community through rituals, stories and views of reality which might not have anything to do with technology or knowledge. This would go for even the new age spiritualities that often seem like individualistic therapies or techniques to me. When they go beyond the individual, they become a kind of religion no matter what Gods or angels or muses are involved.

[fudgetusk]

Oh of course I was just highlighting one aspect of religion. There is a story telling aspect. But surely god came about when some kid asked his dad..."where did the sun come from?" Which is a scientific question. The answer became religion...if you want to be empirical about it. That is why creation myths are all different. Of course some modern religions claim to be divinely inspired. Who is to say this did not happen for all religions or myths.

>>views of reality which might not have anything to do with technology or knowledge.

Guesswork was the first stage of science.

[YesNo]

I think the experience came first then an attempt to explain it. First you have to experience the sun. Then you talk about it.

The basic experience is neither rational nor the result of socialization. I think that is what research shows about religion and moral foundations. (I am thinking of Jonathan Haidt, "The Righteous Mind", and Justin Barrett, "Born Believers".)

The stories are different as you mention. Words aren't adequate to turn our subjective experiences into an objective medium, that is, we will never dump ourselves into an AI computer. If the texts are taken literally, that would be one kind of idolatry. Perhaps a kind of technology as well.

[fudgetusk]

Are you saying that experiencing something is a religious experience? I would say experiencing something mysterious and powerful looking like the sun would contain awe. All religions foster this I would say. Rely upon it. As does science. And after awe we look for explanation. then the beginnings of organised religion -as opposed to a raw religious experience- sprout.
And science develops in the same way for the same reason. But more accurately.