Athesism as a theism

Hi Bal and other readers,

I couldn't agree more. I have only just found this website and I am appalled by the amount of anti-religion/pro-atheism there is. I am sure there would be a lot more visitors to the site if all the anti-religion was taken off.

What kind of belief you hold does not interrupt any thoughts you may have about Artificial Intelligence/Life. It does not matter which religion you are, you have the right to research AI and potentially come up with some good stuff - without people discrediting you because you are "Christian"/"Jew"/"Muslim" or whatever, even Atheist.

Personally, I am a recently converted Christian. My parents didn't indoctrinate me with any religion when I was little, I came to my belief system through my thoughts about the world. Please don't read this like I am a fundamentalist "theist", because I am not. I am actually quite a mysticist, and one set of my beliefs is actually quite logical:
* Power exists. The electricity that is flowing through my laptop as I type this is power. The Sun has so much power so that it illuminates the Earth and the galaxy.
* Life exists. We are human, we live, we work, we play. There are lots of other living things; animal, plant, etc..
* Love exists. This one is a hard one to explain, because many people don't feel like they are loved. But it is easy to see love; a mother and father caring for their children in a park, wedding ceremonies and also the love that a Scientist has for his/her work.

To me, these three things are God. We perceive life, love and power. I feel that I can find this in Christianity, plus being a Christian is a very social thing - anyway. We can even encode power, life and love into an Intelligent Systems environment for agents to interact with

If somebody I work with disagrees with my beliefs then I am not going to be put off of working with them, and I am really not going to try to convert them either.... they have their beliefs, I have mine - lets work together to make something useful. Lets just not talk about our differences, could the people behind MLU not have so many anti-religion comments?

Many thanks for reading my view, lets just get on with each other.

I must say that I don't understand what all the fuss is about. MLU simply promotes rational thinking and the scientific method, and points out that religions are based on unproven, often supernatural mythologies that do absolutely nothing to advance our knowledge of AI or the human mind. I for one am really tired of religion in general, and think it's the cause of most of the trouble in the world. This website offers a refreshing break from it all. There are plenty of religious websites out there; if you're so upset, why hang around here complaining?

First of all, CindyB, you have no idea about my religious/spiritual views of the world. I haven't made them public, and I won't do so here.

This happens to be one of my favorite websites, and Norm, who runs this site, is a friend of mine. So I don't need to be taking lessons in "where to surf" from you. Indeed, I found out about this site because a long time ago, Norm asked me to participate. I think he welcomes all viewpoints - including the ones that aren't popular here, like (apparently) mine.

The reason for what you call "the fuss" is because this is one of my favorite websites.

Except for the attacks on people who are religious.

Oh - it's done cloaked in oh so neutral sounding language. And it's rarely if ever an attack on a single person (which I consider to the good). But attacks they are - nevertheless. People generally don't enjoy being thought of as unintelligent or irrational. They don't like snobbish put-downs. And that's what I sometimes find here.

And it's so unnecessary! That's the point. It's so unnecessary.

My contention has nothing to do with the claims of religion or science. It has to do with the civility of the discourse that I find here. There seems to be a style - a fad or a fashion - that makes it "cool" and "with it" to put down people who believe in religion.

You want to have discussions about atheism, a subject that Norm apparently considers important enough to list as a major topic on this site? Fine - have at it. I have no problem with such discussions at all.

Just leave out the attacks - that's all.

Personally - I think theists and atheists are peas in a pod. They're true believers in what they believe. They have their "standards" of beliefs, and because these standards aren't the same or agreed upon, these folks talk past each other rather than to each other.

If talking past each other is the goal - well, then there's much success here.

If having a real conversation with people from widely different viewpoints is the goal, then I think the goal is missed by light-years.

Your mileage may vary (and probably does).

Regards,
Bal

Hi Bal,

> The question of the "misguidedness" of those who believe in a religion ... is taken by some as a given. Which is to say, an assumption. An axiom. Something held without proof.

But no, that's not true. The only assumption may be that people who read this site are more aware of the large pool of unspoken logic and arguments than in fact they are. "Unspoken" is not synonymous with "unquestioned". The case against religion, with all its intellectual and pragmatic implications, is well made elsewhere. It sounds to me like you're just not sufficiently aware of that existing body of argument.

Taking something as given for the sake of further discussion does not make it an axiom. An axiom is something held to be self-evidently true, but the "givens" that underlie a lot of the discussion on this site represent a well-formed set of arguments and observations. "Taken as read" would be more accurate than "taken as a given". Read the books on the subject by Dawkins, Dennet and Hitchens, for instance. The books may be seen by some as a bit of a diatribe, but I know two of those authors and they are thoughtful, considerate and kind people - they're just frustrated because of the powerful smokescreen that religion puts up in front of so many people's faces.

> There are many good and very smart religious people. I've known some of them.

Indeed, and so have I. And in my experience it is simply ignorance on their part that handicaps them, not malintent or stupidity. Even the smartest person will make mistakes if they lack key information, and in the case of most of my religious acquaintances it is their upbringing and education (their paradigm) that limits their ability or willingness to see what's in front of their faces.

Goodness doesn't enter into it - you can be good with or without religion. The only difference tends to be that religious people are good because they've been told to be and told how to do it (they follow moral laws or moral codes from on high), while atheists have to think hard for themselves and develop their own moral position. Personally I have much more respect for, and trust in, the latter approach, since there are severe dangers in trying to codify morality in a simple, easily memorable (i.e. glib) way, especially if you expect a coda designed for life in a semi-nomadic ancient culture to make sense today.

"Proof" is too much to ask from either side, but if anyone is acting on unquestioned assumptions it is primarily the religious side; science has done a good deal of honest, rigorous and well-intentioned work to examine the foundations of religion (for instance in regard to cosmology, the evolution of species and the nature of mind). Unfortunately not enough people are aware of it.

Steve

> It does nothing to build or subtract from your argument to make assertions about whether this or that particular religious person was off his rocker or not; was a con man or not.

That's not entirely true. It depends on whether it is an argumentum ad hominem.

You are clearly wary of such things because you preface your entry with stuff about how you don't have any fancy title or great accomplishments and we will just have to "deal with it". But that's a kind of inverse snobbery and an argumentum ad hominem in itself.

I haven't read the article that you're criticising, so I don't know which supposed con-man you're referring to. However, in the case of religion, whether someone is a con-man or not is surely a VERY strong indicator of how much faith you should place in the things they say when they insist that you must take it all on trust.

There are plenty of examples of religious leaders who've not only turned out to be defrauding their congregations but tailoring their preaching specifically in order to do so. What they said in the name of truth was a lie. So when all that they say has to be taken on faith alone, evidence that some of it was false should logically call into question all of it.

Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon religion, was convicted in court of "being an impostor", some years before claiming that he'd translated the Book of Mormon (the original of which nobody was allowed to see) by divine inspiration. He claimed this book was the true witness of the teachings of ancient followers of Christ who lived in North America 2,000 years ago (for whose existence there is no other evidence whatsoever). No proof was given for any of this - people had to take his word. And they did, in their millions. Surely the question of whether Smith was a con-man is extremely relevant for anyone wanting to know whether they should take his "translation" of these mysterious golden plates at face value?

Thank you, Steve. Your comments are clear and concise - without put-down. That is the kind of discourse I seek to encourage at this site.

My comments about my lack of titles or achievements is largely (and perhaps unfairly here) in response to instances in other forums where people have asked me, "So what qualifies you to say what you say?" or other comments like that. I just wanted to make it crystal clear that I wasn't coming off as some kind of expert - as I am not. I am a layman; I recognize my limitations in that. It doesn't mean I put myself or anyone else down. It's just the nature of things as they stand today.

Taking things "as read" instead of "as given" is a very good use of language in my opinion. It takes the emotional loading off of the language. Again - that's the thrust of my argument.

Sure - you're correct: if a person does participate as a con-artist while wearing the frock, that speaks worlds about his or her faith. But it is irrelevant to the questions surrounding atheism and theisms (mono and poly). And that's my main point: the irrelevancy.

The only reason that I can come up with about why atheism is a subject at this site, i.e., why Norm would make it a primary subject, is that it is a subject of major discourse within the field of AI itself. (Please correct me if I've got this wrong.)

But surely, one must differentiate between a question about the existence or not of God(s) and the various cultural artifacts, i.e., religions, mysticisms, and various spiritualisms involving people, and the various rituals in which we/they engage, supposedly in "God(s)'" name(s). And while the former might be a legit question for AI, the latter is probably irrelevant, yes?

Kind Regards,
Bal

---------------
The all-important thing to me are the Questions. Not your answers. But the Questions. And if you have no proof - no evidence, then all you've got are opinions. End of story. (Or is it?) :)

I believe the people that you feel are attacking religion are simply sharing their thoughts with other like-minded individuals, and are doing so in a way that is not at all offensive.

You started your comments by stating that you “…just have gall. Deal with it.” Those two comments alone are not only unbecoming, but both bullying and arrogant (at least to me, they appear to be).

You claim attacks on “all things religion.” Well, you are attacking atheism—and doing so in a manner that I personally find to be offensive.

Moreover, you go on to add: “This is sophistry pure and simple, and I suggest that those who want to promote atheism knock it off.” Once again, the last part of your comment comes off as bullying and being pretentious.

You state that "there seems to be a great prejudice against all things religion on this site," and that you think it is "misguided at best and more likely arrogance of a kind most unbecoming of a scientist." Then you refer to the two postings made by Mano Singham, titled: “Are all religious leaders con men?” and “Taking offense.” I read both entries and felt that he presented his arguments very objectively. I never once felt offended by what he wrote.

Everything that I have read in MLU has come across as intelligent observations presented in a very dignified manner.

You ask, "Why atheism is the subject of this site," and "...would make it a primary subject, is that it is a subject of major discourse within the field of A.I. itself." While I do not speak for anyone else, I do not view this subject as a “discourse” within the field "artificial intelligence"—due to the way our current administration decided to wage a war against anything that fails to conform to its beliefs—without regard to the citizens of this country.

A great example of this is expressed in our president's comment regarding his stem cell research decision:

"My process has been, frankly, unusually deliberative for my administration." –George W. Bush

Religious extremists regard all things related to science with great disdain—whether it has to do with stem cell research, artificial intelligence, birth control, or the environment. They are narrow-minded zealots who pose a very dangerous threat to mankind.

The minute a government becomes a theocracy, and uses its influence to hinder research matters that can greatly improve mankind, then, in my opinion; anti-religious views are welcome within the field of science, (which encompasses artificial intelligence, as well as environmental conservation issues).

An example of just how dangerous some of these religious views can be is illustrated by a quote made by James Watt, the Secretary of the Interior under President Reagan:

"We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand."

Atheists, humanists, rationalists, and agnostics are often vilified by religious believers as immoral, hedonistic, soulless, blasphemous non-entities—unworthy to vote. Nothing expresses this so remarkably as the following quote made by the former vice-president, George Bush Sr. to a reporter on August 27, 1988:

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

Science and religion have clashed throughout history. Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) was considered a heretic due to his heliocentric ideas and was sentenced to house arrest during the latter years of his life. Not everyone embraced Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species, and Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) was burned at the stake due to his ideas on the vastness of space and the possibility of other inhabited systems.

Now, please remind me why the topics involving anti-religion and pro-atheism should be excluded from this Website?

Hi Albedo,

OK - I agree I came off strong. How else to get anyone's attention on a contrary point of view to what is the norm here. (No one has posted comments on my other 2 blog entries - not nearly as strongly stated...) :)

As for my comments being offensive and bullying, if that's offensive and bullying I think you need to lighten up. I don't say it wasn't strongly stated. But bullying? Come o-o-n. Surely you see worse than that every day just watching TV! Granted this isn't TV, but still - I think you should have a thicker skin.

OK - now to my main reply...

My main thrust is that the underlying language of the proponents of atheism on this site has been to imply that those who consider themselves believers of one god or another are nutso. That's rarely explicitly said like that, but the word "irrational" is bandied about all the time around here. If "irrational" means "not of rational origin," I think that many "people of faith" will have no beef with such language. In fact, at least some "people of faith" that I know would be quick to agree that "their transcendental" experience defies rationality and doesn't depend on it. (I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree - just saying that it's so.)

However, most of the time, most people *do not seem* to equate irrationality with transcendental. They *seem* to equate it with crazy, nutso, bats in the belfry, elevator not going all the way to the top, a couple of bottles short of six pack and so on.

THIS is the language that I consider relatively useless and harmful to dialog. I do *not* find it personally offensive. Maybe I haven't been clear on this. My concern isn't that you or anyone else is offending some pet belief I have. My concern is that this kind of language creates antagonism where none is needed. What's the point of sticking a stick in someone's eye on a site like this? I just don't get it.

Stated differently - what does it matter to you or anyone else what my or anyone else's faith is?

I absolutely agree with you - 110% - that some (though not all - not even most) - religionists have been *guilty* of short-sighted, ignorant, intolerant, and bigoted acts, resulting in hurtful insults (not banter) to full-blown wars and torture.

But so have some very prominent non-religionists (like the biggest mass murderer of all time - Mao of Red China - 67,000,000 according to the Guiness Book of World Records). So don't make atheists to be pure as the driven snow.

We're all just folks here, yes?

Again - you have ZERO idea of my personal views on atheism and religion. Zero. And my personal views remain irrelevant to the merits of what I say here. So I ain't tellin'. (Is that more bullying or do you agree that it's relatively harmless banter?)

Now if you want to tell me that all the sleights against those who believe in one god or another are all just playful banter, maybe I need to have another read of what I've read. But I believe that this is not the case.

OK - 'nuf said.

Regards,
Bal

===================
The all-important thing to me are the Questions. Not your answers. But the Questions. And if you have no proof - no evidence, then all you've got are opinions. End of story. (Or is it?) :)

Hi Bal,

I'm glad you thought my response was moderate. I try my best, but sometimes it's hard to keep my cool, for the reasons Albedo mentioned. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of religious websites and other media that promulgate nonsensical ideas with sufficient sophistry and disingenuous reasoning to fool many people who otherwise might be able to understand the world better and make better decisions about their part in it. Religion causes a great deal of damage and much of it seems to be done knowingly or with unforgivable doublethink.

> So don't make atheists to be pure as the driven snow.

It seems to me that you're not comparing like with like. Yes, atheists can be stupid, violent and selfish too, but they don't generally do it *in the name of* atheism.

There are exceptions - Nazi persecution of the Jews and heavy-handed religious suppression in the Soviet Union were deliberately and overtly secular (although Aryanism barely counts as secular). Both outrages still only occurred because of the *existence* of religion, but they weren't necessarily the *fault* of religion (but even that's a moot point).

Meanwhile, innumerable wars, from the Crusades, through Northern Ireland to 9/11 were explicitly waged *in the name of* religion. Add to that the millions of people in Africa who are dying or will die because some guy in the Vatican refuses to permit contraception, due to his interpretation of a heavily edited and censored collection of political essays known as the Bible. What's more, as Albedo's quotes imply, religion is perhaps the greatest threat to humanity currently in existence -- it shapes international policy, destabilises an already tense world, and can be used to justify actions and opinions that without it would be unjustifiable or at least worthy of more rational debate.

Monolithic, political ideologies of all kinds are dangerous -- I don't dispute that many of these are non-religious or even explicitly secular -- but that doesn't alter the fact that many of those political ideologies are religions, and deserve critical examination too.

A late novellist friend used to describe himself as a "militant atheist." He carried out his campaign with wit, intelligence and sensitivity, but with the forcefulness of a meat cleaver. I think there are good reasons for people to feel militant about atheism. I agree with you that we should show decorum and consideration but I think we owe it to our descendants to stand up and be counted before it is too late and we plunge back into a Dark Age. It could happen. Sometimes we have to counter like with like, because religions are not at all shy about using strong language and high emotion in their cause (even the religion that claims to be founded on its prophet's admonition to "turn the other cheek"). until recently it has been athiests who were the "meek and mild" ones; so much so that people thought we had nothing useful to say.

I'm English but now live in the Bible Belt, and believe me, I know whereof I speak. Many people here have never even contemplated the possibility that someone might not believe in (one particular) god. They look at me with stunned amazement.

> But surely, one must differentiate between a question about the existence or not of God(s) and the various cultural artifacts, i.e., religions, mysticisms, and various spiritualisms involving people, and the various rituals in which we/they engage, supposedly in "God(s)'" name(s). And while the former might be a legit question for AI, the latter is probably irrelevant, yes?

The latter may be irrelevant for AI, but AI is not irrelevant for the latter.

AI is one way to gain a window into the mind. It's a monistic, mechanistic window on the soul. It's rather *too* mechanistic and reductionistic for my tastes -- I have plenty of views on what's wrong with AI, as I'm sure you'll be able to find out if you want to. But it gives us another way of looking at ourselves as machines -- hence the name of this website, which Norm (unknowingly, I seem to remember) borrowed from the title of a talk I once gave. "Machines like Us" is a statement about our existence as mechanisms: sublime, complex, fascinating, transcendent mechanisms, but mechanisms nonetheless.

Following from the observation that the human mind is a consequence of physical laws comes a whole bunch of conclusions about the nature of free will and hence morality. Again this is complex and my own views aren't what they might seem from such a bald statement, but they do give me a basis in observable fact and repeatable, defendable logic for my moral stance. I may be wrong (and I know at least one person who has suffered because of my moral choices and hence would probably disagree with me), but I at least have a way to explain myself that doesn't depend on people simply "tolerating my beliefs."

Religions are dualistic, and gain their moral ideals from pretty arbitrary sources (the sayings of Muhammed or Moses, for instance, neither of whom bothered to lay out their arguments for us to examine). People who believe Muhammed think this life is only a stepping stone to the next, and the next (if they act in the "right" ways in this life) will be filled with virgins for their pleasure (what the virgins are supposed to think about this is not considered relevant). They make vitally important decisions about their own and others' lives, based on a self-contradictory set of political expedients and an assumption about an afterlife that, I rather suspect, is not true. This "logic" has a serious impact on the (perhaps one-and-only) lives of other people.

AI is, like several other sciences (some of which are topics of this website) a way of understanding ourselves, or at least examining ourselves, as a valid alternative to a belief in gods, afterlives, breakable physical laws, handed-down morals and undefended beliefs about agency and responsibility. Through science we can (eventually) become better citizens, and AI is one of the ways that we can put up a valuable mirror to ourselves and question some of our assumptions. I think that's why Norm chose this combination of topics.

- Steve

Once again - you reply cogently, forcefully and with respect for the dialog.

What more can I ask for? That's all I ask for.

The particular views don't matter to me *for the purposes of *this* particular conversation.* The style of the dialog matters immensely to me.

The question everyone needs to ask is this: would you rather have discussions about all the things that impinge on traditional views get people thinking that they're in the middle of the old CNN TV show Crossfire, or would you rather have it be more like FRIENDS talking over a cup of coffee at your local Starbucks?

Personally, I prefer the latter.

OK - I think if people will accept this reply as a handshake between me and Steve, I think I've said all that I need to say on the subject here. I'm not God (or even a moderator). I'm just a participant with a viewpoint.

I'm not shying away from this discussion, but I'm ready to move on... Unless, that is, you really *do* need to go another round with me. :)

Regards,
Bal

=========
The all-important thing to me are the Questions. Not your answers. But the Questions. And if you have no proof - no evidence, then all you've got are opinions. End of story. (Or is it?) :)

As the person whose two posts triggered this discussion, I thought I should perhaps contribute. My thoughts here are expanded upon in another post.

First, I must say that I am puzzled when people are offended when told that a belief they hold is irrational or when you say that someone is ignorant about something. Why is that considered an insult and not responded to like any other statement?

We have to bear in mind that the world is not divided into rational and irrational people or between intelligent and stupid people, but between rational and irrational beliefs. After all, none of us is purely rational. All of us are irrational in some areas of our lives, in that we believe things for which there is no convincing evidence. I know that I am irrational about some things and ignorant about vast areas of knowledge.

We are not in a position to provide evidence to justify everything and in most cases this kind of belief is quite harmless. For example, most people will wish someone 'good luck' when they are about to go for a job interview or take an exam or take the field in a sport. Many people have their own personal superstitions, especially concerning sports, like wearing a lucky shirt or waving a towel when their favorite team is playing. Many people try not to say something that will jinx their team. Many read their horoscopes every day and some even take fortune cookies seriously. Others will not walk under a ladder and are uneasy when a black cat crosses their path. A Friday that falls on the 13th day of a month causes them anxiety.

All these things are completely irrational and atheists are perhaps as susceptible to them as anyone else. But when questioned about any of these irrationalities, most people (religious and atheists alike) are sheepishly apologetic and will concede that what they believe and do is just a relatively harmless superstition and will not try to defend the practice as having any kind of real justification. They will readily acknowledge its irrationality.

But there is something about religious beliefs that causes its holders to insist on different standards. Even though religious believers are never able to produce convincing evidence to justify their beliefs, some cannot seem to concede that their beliefs are irrational.

Mano Singham

Hi Mano,

First - you are *one* of several who started me thinking along the lines of this post. You're certainly not the only one who uses the word "irrational" when discussing people - or rather, the ideas that religious people who hold dear.

I think the operative word is *dear." As in close to the heart; as in don't insult my wife, kids, my car (OK - you can insult my car), or other things that I hold dear. Sports nuts have been known to go ballistic when "their" sports team wins, loses, is the victim of a perceived bad call by the ref, etc.

Nationalists go on a rampage when you insult their flags.

So it's not just religionists, yes?

The difficulty atheists face when discussing this is that they DON'T take immense care to make clear that they're not insulting the holder of a religious belief. For example, you tell someone that his wife is ugly and plain, but you mean no offense... How do you do this? It's darn near impossible.

And again - the only reason I can see for taking on this herculean effort is to affect policy decisions in the schools. For the most part, adults are far too set in their ways to be moved one way or another unless a very intense motivation is presented, and even then it's tough. How do you give someone an incentive bigger and better than "the Kingdom of Heaven" or a threat worse than "the pit of Hell?" That's a task far beyond my ability.

And again - I'm now repeating myself - how does this matter at all with respect to the truly major themes on this site - AI, machine intelligence, evolution, and so forth? It doesn't as near as I can tell. And a matter that doesn't make a difference is hardly a matter worth talking about, at least in my view. (Doesn't anyone on the atheist side of the equation see this? Am I really missing the mark so widely?)

I think there are very legitimate questions: what is the ground of being? How did this universe come about? Why? Wouldn't it be simpler and follow occam's razor if there weren't anything at all? If a "god" exists doesn't that simply push the question of origins back a step? What's the difference between saying that the universe always was or that God always was? As Korzybski would have pointed out, the word isn't the thing, and the Universe doesn't care what we say about it.

Thus the question is why bring up something so contentious on a site like this? Far better, methinks it is to simply build and understand the innovative worlds that are hurtling toward us. That's challenge enough for me.

Kind Regards,
Bal

============
The all-important thing to me are the Questions. Not your answers. But the Questions. And if you have no proof - no evidence, then all you've got are opinions. End of story. (Or is it?) :)

Bal,

When you say that we should not use the word irrational when speaking about beliefs that "people hold dear", you are effectively banning the use of the word irrational altogether, unless you distinguish between its use in the private and public spheres.

For example, suppose I think that wearing baseball caps backwards is irrational (since the peak is intended to protect the eyes), shouldn't I feel free to say so as a general statement in a public forum such as a website or a blog or an article? Or should I refrain because some people who do wear caps backwards and might be offended?

In the public sphere, we should not draw boundaries for fear of causing "offense" to some people because almost everything is held dear by some people. Should I not say in the public sphere that believing that that world is 6,000 years old is irrational simply because many people believe it is that young?

In your original post, you also pose a puzzling challenge, saying:

-Why is there a universe in the first place? Would it not have been simpler for there to be nothing at all?

- Does the universe have limits? If so what are they? How do you know? If not, how do you know?

Please note: you can't get at me the way you get at a theist. I am *not* espousing anything. I'm asking questions and suggest civility between combatants.

Can you answer the questions? Yes or no. If you can't, why should I believe your cosmology any more than I might believe or not believe in the cosmology of a tree-worshiper?

The reason that the community of scientists tends to adopt one theory over another is a complex process involving multiple factors. One can always point to some questions and demand that one will not accept the theory unless suitable answers are given for them. This is what those who reject the theory of evolution routinely do. That is of course your (and their) right. If you feel that your only choice is between having those particular questions answered to your satisfaction or agreeing with the tree-worshippers, you should certainly worship trees. But you cannot prevent others from seeing your choice as irrational and saying so.

The scientific community arrives at a quasi-consensus over theories after weighing the cumulative evidence and reasoning, and achieving satisfactory answers to those questions that have emerged as significant, which may not be the same ones that particular individuals think are important. What drives research within the framework of accepted theories is precisely the attempts to address questions that they think have not been adequately answered.

Mano Singham

Hi Mano,

I'm *not* saying you or anyone else shouldn't use the word irrational, even in describing things in the public sphere. What I'm asking for is that sufficient care be taken to minimize the antagonisms that arise with the use of that word. And should someone answer that the religionists don't show the same care, my answer would be that you fancy yourself as better than that. :)

Just recognize that there *are* viewpoints that people hold dear. Have your say; use the words you want; but try to avoid poking people in the eye. If they put their eye in the way of your stick, well that's their lookout.

And if you use language that talks about an irrational viewpoint, try to make sure that it's the viewpoint you're going after - not the person holding it. I believe you try without my saying so. I also believe that it is very easy to write without thinking about it and cause heartache where you did not mean to do so.

Finally - and maybe you (or Norm - since it's your site, my friend) can explain this to me: why exactly is the subject of atheism and religion an important part of "Machines Like Us?"

Kind regards,
Bal

The all-important thing to me are the Questions. Not your answers. But the Questions. And if you have no proof - no evidence, then all you've got are opinions. End of story. (Or is it?) :)

Bal, your question has already been answered by Steve and Mano -- and in numerous other areas on this website -- but I will attempt to give you a succinct answer here.

Religion is all about faith: complete trust or confidence in God or in religious doctrines, based on spiritual apprehension without proof. Asking for proof, in fact, flies in the face of religious devotion.

Science, on the other hand, is the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experimentation. Proofs are always sought; hypothesis are formed and left for others to reinforce or disprove. Nothing is taken on faith.

Machines Like Us proposes that the only way to fully understand the human brain and life's many processes is through a rational, methodical examination of their fundamental mechanics. This leaves no room for conjecture, or faith-based religion. We here did not invent this way of looking at the world; it is a core aspect of science and the scientific method.

When asked whether he believed in God, Carl Sagan once answered: "Belief has nothing to do with it." He could well have spoken for Machines Like Us: belief -- faith -- religion -- has nothing to do with science.

Norm

Hi Norm -

It's been a long time, my friend. :) You've done a wonderful job with this site.

OK - to business.

I don't disagree with what you wrote. Not at all. But your response is wide of the mark of my question. It is *you* who introduced the subjects of religion and atheism on this site. Not the theists. It is you - and those who, for some reason, see a need to debunk that brings my questions to the fore.

If you had not set up a God-cam or introduced an entire section to the questions of religion, would that have detracted from the other facets of this site? I fail to see how.

My question *ISN'T* about the differences between faith and the scientific method. I believe I really don't need lessons in that subject - at least not at this elementary a level. I'd welcome, in fact, different discussions about confounding variables, teasing out factors which are difficult to resolve, questions of strategy in posing hypotheses, looking at the role of anecdotal experience in leading to scientific developments, and so forth.

But NONE of these have anything to do with atheism that I can see. None of it requires debunking someone's view of God, gods, demi-gods, or trees to worship, unless *they* come here and try to impose a religious world view overlay on top of what is developed here.

So again - Why does it matter for the purposes of this site that there be discussions about the existence or not of God and the rationality or not of those who profess to believe in God? How does it add one gram of value to the real thrust of this site, which (correct me if I'm wrong) has to do with science, ai, and evolution? Why is religion even a part of this site?

That's what I don't get. My suggestions for attention to civility on this subject come precisely because people (not just theists, either) tend to get all hot-and-bothered about such discussions. Does the heat really add any value at all?

Best Regards,
Bal

The all-important thing to me are the Questions. Not your answers. But the Questions. And if you have no proof - no evidence, then all you've got are opinions. End of story. (Or is it?) :)

God is understood by many to be meta-physical, so it cannot be proven that a God does not exist. To some extent, nothing can be proven -- the world can be a Matrix-type simulation, reality hidden for all or most people forever.

But there are some specific claims about God -- that it communicates with people. If that is a core property of "being a God", then it's sufficient to examine this. This communication must be two-way. If it would be just people-to-God, we would have no way of knowing; the other way round -- God would be just another random force in the Universe, completely uninterested in people.

The claim that there is a supernatural being, interested in people's actions, wishes and prayers, and intervening (so, not just watching -- it could be just E.T.'s then) in everyday matters, in one to debate! As people understand more and more workings of the world, there is less and less place for God's interventions -- only major areas of human ignorance are left, such as diseases and body functions, areas much less known than astrophysics...

People will continue to believe, as much as they believe in lucky numbers and prophecies. But the belief will be considered as a sort of folklore.

Of course no one can prove that there is any communication with intervening supernatural powers, although many think so, and some researches indicate not: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12082681/
______
"We must be especially careful to keep our judgments unaffected by the demands of theology and unswerved by human hopes and fears." — Richard C. Tolman (1881-1948)

http://www.salon.com/sept97/news/news3970905.html

go to the above, read and then pick a better example.