The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything

Stavros, it just occured to me that you might not be atheist or agnostic like I am. I'm really sorry if I offended you, my friend. I am! For some reason, I just assume you were and I responded just as if it was the case and as if I knew it. Put that on long years of Scotch whisky consumption, would you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by danthepoetman

Stavros, I hope I won’t deform or disfigure what you are saying to me. Don’t over estimate my capacity to understand English. You know it’s not my mother tongue and not my usual language of expression, and I’m not at all on your very educated and eloquent level. If you mean to say that we need to “believe” in general, of course no one can disagree. But we can’t confuse, in my opinion, the common concept of believing with the belief in a supreme being. I think it’s a good example of a concept which has a subtlety of meaning which can create misunderstanding in a conversation. I invoke here the principle of identity, which is always violated in a normal conversation as meanings of the same concepts changes. Banal beliefs, we all have. Belief in a God is something else. Yes, you’re right, the people we call “animists” can not understand that we wouldn’t “believe” in invisible forces. The question here is very complex, but mainly lye on conscience, on the apprehension one has of him/herself. You know that conscience has a history in our culture (and surely others, of course). Conscience is not the same for Homer’s characters, for instance; they believe that “forces” are what animate objects, any objects including they, themselves. What is animated is what has an anima, a force which moves it (inside and out). These forces are independent from their objects. A river, the sky, etc., are so animated. Forces that move us are the same. When Homer refers to love, he sees the immediate action of Aphrodite; when Achilles for instance, at the beginning of the Iliad, has his conflict with Aggamemnon and feel the urge to draw his sword, it’s Athena herself, the voice of reason, who hold his elbow to stop him. And similarly, he doesn’t run fast, it’s his feet that are light, etc. etc. Conscience has since then changed considerably. The internalisation of motives, the sense of a intimacy (self-intimacy) were developed slowly and are at the very foundation of our culture; without them, for instance, no justice as we have is possible, no individual rights, no democracy, no artist as an author, etc. etc. they wouldn’t even make sense –the major turning point for us having been the Renaissance etc. (you know all of that). Now it is always difficult today to evaluate what it has to do with people from other cultures who are still animists. I think for some of them, who share the same sense of self, animism is at a stage of superstition rather than this way of perceiving and sensing the world Achilles had, and therefore no more an absolute “need” for them, no more a way of living.
I do share your idea though, that we are “religious” being. I worked as a research assistant, when I was doing my MA, with a teacher who was working on a philosophical anthropology which was redefining human through religious manifestations and expressions of every kind. It was fascinating. There is no doubt in my mind that religious beliefs are the expression of a phylogenetically acquired mechanism which is useful to the survival of our specie. Of which nature? That would be very difficult to determine, of course. But for us to believe in a God as a supreme being who is watching over us is really silly, it’s really absurd! The very mythology of it, besides the fact that you can easily follow it’s evolution through history, and therefore deconstruct it completely, the very mythology of a father who punishes and reward us, who creates an “us and them” type of world based on the flattering of his ego, and the credibility given to the institutions that are defending such constructs and imposes rites and taboos have to be set aside once and for all before they do more harm that they already have caused, imo.
A type of deist belief could be defended, but here intervenes my Camus quote. On a simple “moral” ground (and I use “moral” in a very broad sense, here), the idea of an interventionist God should render the belief useless. Once again, “either God is all powerful, but then he is responsible for evil, so why give a cult for such a God, or either he is not responsible for it, but is not all mighty, and then why would we even care?
(As I'm rereading myself, I realize once again how poor my expression is. I'm sorry, my friend).

---

There doesn't seem to be much wrong with your English, Dan, so don't worry about that. I think my point was that the way we think and express ourselves is based on shared meanings or we would just be grunting, but it doesn't follow that religion is essential, that we must believe something. There is a view that science has replaced religion for many people- it is logical, reasonable and has practical benefits for life, and as Trish has admitted, science doesn't know everything and cannot explain everything, whereas some religious people believe they can do just that, even if, as once happened to me when the explanation I was given for 9/11 was just two words: 'God's Will'. But just as science has been used to lie, steal, oppress and murder, so some have used religion for those purposes and mostly in violation of what they claim to believe. I think that is what annoys people as much as the debate on whether or not God exists.

I agree that science has been misused to justify all sorts of immoral proposals as well as conclusions that do not follow from the available evidence. It has at times been used to label some individuals as inferior, to swindle some out of money, and to justify greed and selfishness as essential features of human nature. But these are not characteristics that flow directly from the study of the natural world. It is only proof that people will use any vessel available to promote an agenda.

Scientific advancement also brings with it the risk of unintended consequences such as the development of more sophisticated devices to maim and kill, environmental damage, and social alienation. But at least the discipline is based on trying to explain what's going on around us. It can be an honest and rational means of analyzing all available evidence, generating theories about the natural world and testing them.

Religion, on the other hand can be used to pacify people, or variably, to incite the masses. By its essential nature it provides a narrative that is unsupported and unsupportable. If so then it seems to me that its value is not in its ability to explain the world or act as a useful guidepost but to control behavior through manipulation. How can something that is not supported by any evidence be a guide for moral behavior unless someone has decided a priori that a certain set of propositions is correct and that it is acceptable to say things that aren't true to encourage adherence to them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Religion, on the other hand can be used to pacify people, or variably, to incite the masses. By its essential nature it provides a narrative that is unsupported and unsupportable. If so then it seems to me that its value is not in its ability to explain the world or act as a useful guidepost but to control behavior through manipulation. How can something that is not supported by any evidence be a guide for moral behavior unless someone has decided a priori that a certain set of propositions is correct and that it is acceptable to say things that aren't true to encourage adherence to them?

---

I am surprised at your bias, Broncofan -you admit that science has been used to do wrong and that this is an abuse of knowledge; yet you cannot accept something more positive for religion: that people turn to religion for comfort, perhaps for community? People born into a religious community can find it difficult if not impossible to believe in an alternative narrative, and may indeed modify their behaviour in conformity to the rules and expectations of that religion. And yes, some converts can often be more militant about their faith than people born into it; but I think you should allow for people who maybe had some crisis in their lives, and for whom religion has been soothing, comforting and given them a structure that has changed their lives for the better. Same with people who were born into say, Christianity, Judaism etc, but were never particularly religious and then 'return' to the faith later in life.

This will probably seem shocking but to me, the main problem lye in the fact that real ethic thinking occupy a minuscule place in our daily life. And unfortunately, I would go as far as to say that it is largely the same with authentic, deep reasonable thinking, as of course, we think with our whole nervous system, with our whole body; our instincts and our passions occupy an enormous place in the life of our minds, much more than we like to believe –much more in fact, than the whole history of ideas has made us to think. Anyone who’s a little bit honest with himself can easily see this by examining his own behaviour and life a little –I would invoke for instance, the ever so vague notion of identity (through time)… We act mostly through acquired automatisms in our private life and especially in our collective life; we adopt the values and the behaviour of our group and it becomes the essential of our lives. We take some habits in our private life and the use of reason is relatively limited. Moreover, our choices are much more motivated by our feelings than we like to think, once again, and reason often seem to be present only to justify our behaviour after the fact.
We know that there is phylogenitically acquired mechanisms in us to reinforce the sense of gregarity and solidarity which evolution developed long before we were what we are, not to say anything of the others, like territoriality, fear, aggression, etc. Religion, values, morals, whatever form they take, are obvious expressions of these biological inner mechanisms, most of the time and for most people. When you manage to deprive people of religion, or even for most individuals who renounce any, there is always some kind of substitution that occurs, which is often even more dangerous, as it ignore itself. Political substitutions have been lethal –I would define “patriotism” (not national pride) as one other expression of these mechanisms, and the absence of religion often have the effect of reinforcing tremendously such feelings. I had a teacher who used to tell us: “When the flag is up, intelligence is half-mast”; the same can be said of religious objects. I’m not of course denying the importance of intimate, spiritual life, or of the life of the mind in general, but we have to wonder what place exactly it takes in the general practice of religion.

(Broncofan! I'm glad to see you're still around! I've been "back" since last month and I was wondering about you. Happy to "see" you!)

Dan I think that is why for most people who have been raised in a religion there is no questioning of the faith, and if there were to be such reflexive activity it could create some anxiety in believers, or reinforce the beliefs they had. By contrast, a crisis can open up precisely a difficult set of questions: there were some fascinating articles in the Journal of Holocaust Studies -I think in the 1990s- in which Jews who had either survived the European nightmare or whose relatives had survived -or died- had been interviewed, and given expression to the crisis that occurred in their religious beliefs, because of an 'absent God' or even the belief that God wanted it to happen -whichever it was it caused real anxiety for Jews for whom faith had been hugely important, not just as a cultural part of their community. I think crises like this can shake that comfortable inheritance of belief, and it doesn't happen that often, and I think that it is this unquestioning devotion which make some people think believers are like sheep.

I admit it sounds like bias. People I know and care about are religious. But could you imagine asking someone who is religious to admit that what they believe is valuable only because it provides them comfort? That it is more important that they believe it is true than that it actually is true?

If people turned to religion for community or comfort then I agree that these are positive factors.

But could you imagine going up to a Rabbi or Priest and telling him/her that you don't really think the scriptures contain an ounce of truth but that pretending they do makes you feel better? There are so many devoutly religious people who want people to believe their scriptures are a historical account and not merely a way of living. Why do religions proselytize? Maybe they think that if others remain skeptical then their religion provides less comfort.

If you believe that there is a God and a heaven then why should you be receptive to the possibility that there is neither? A religious person's entire way of living depends on it being true. Maybe in some circumstances it does create community and provide comfort, in which case I like it in that limited context whether the beliefs are true or not.

Broncofan I did once have a conversation with a Muslim (an Ahmadi) -I have referred to this before. His position was that if there wasn't a God life would be pointless. He had obviously thought about it, and for him it was not just spiritually comforting, it also made sense intellectually -he is a Mathematician. For people who have had some personal crisis, and are not intellectuals, it is comforting, it provides them with something to believe in, a set of rituals that fill the annual calendar, perhaps a sense of community in a local church. And there are priests who don't believe the literal truth of the Gospels but take them as a 'design for living' -not sure if the last Archbishop of Canterbury took this line, but there was a senior Church of England clergyman (Bishop of Durham) in the 1980s - David Jenkins- who did not believe every aspect of the Christian story told in the Gospels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

I think that it is this unquestioning devotion which make some people think believers are like sheep.

---

Just a little anecdote. I don't know where this fits in. But I remember my mother admitting to me when I was young that she did not want me to see a movie about the life of Jesus Christ because she was afraid I would be seduced by the tale. She wanted me to continue to be a Jew and she was afraid that the somewhat more positive and magical seeming story of the life of Jesus would sweep me away. Afterall, the old testament story of a jealous God who will smite you for masturbating might seem less attractive.

I understand her concerns and I don't think there's anything too unusual about them. I spoke to a kid in college who was converting to Judaism and his Catholic parents were not happy with it.

I just question the broad value of this religious competition when it so obviously competes with free inquiry and dissent. Religions don't mind dissent as long as it's limited to small issues. When it questions the major articles of faith it sounds a lot more like heresy or blasphemy.

P.S it's nice to see you too Dan!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Broncofan I did once have a conversation with a Muslim (an Ahmadi) -I have referred to this before. His position was that if there wasn't a God life would be pointless. He had obviously thought about it, and for him it was not just spiritually comforting, it also made sense intellectually -he is a Mathematician. For people who have had some personal crisis, and are not intellectuals, it is comforting, it provides them with something to believe in, a set of rituals that fill the annual calendar, perhaps a sense of community in a local church. And there are priests who don't believe the literal truth of the Gospels but take them as a 'design for living' -not sure if the last Archbishop of Canterbury took this line, but there was a senior Church of England clergyman (Bishop of Durham) in the 1980s - David Jenkins- who did not believe every aspect of the Christian story told in the Gospels.

---

It's good to know this. In my personal life I am surrounded by believers and I would never live my life thinking that there is something suspect about them for it. On a personal level I have never seen religion present the problems I speculate about. People seem able to segment the different parts of their lives; religious, social, and intellectual, or reconcile them if need be.

I think I am only talking about the very rare fervent fundamentalist that causes a problem.