Spiritual effects of climbing?

Jaren Watson wrote:

I suspect devotees to both religion and atheism would breathe a bit easier if the other side would be willing to relinquish their certainty.

The word "knowledge" is used rather haphazardly by both ends of the spectrum. A little humility would help each recognize that we do not know there is a god, and conversely, we do not know that there isn't.

When I was a professor at one of the BYU universities, I had on my office door a very fine quotation by Voltaire: "Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position, but certainly is an absurd one." 

Of course, the notion of uncertainty is a thorny issue for true believers, so I was ultimately terminated for failing to declare belief in the fundamental faith tenets of the religion that sponsored the school.

But firing an English professor for having questions is relatively harmless compared to the veritable world of wrongs perpetrated by the religiously certain. 

I don't think belief or lack of it is a bad thing, far from it. I am, however, properly frightened when someone tells me that they "know."

Hope is a kinder virtue than knowledge, spirituality speaking. And as far as Christianity is concerned, it's the only one supported by the Biblical text.

Uh, might want to check your spelling in the quote. Changed the meaning a smidge. 

;-) H.

Jaren Watson wrote:

I suspect devotees to both religion and atheism would breathe a bit easier if the other side would be willing to relinquish their certainty.

The word "knowledge" is used rather haphazardly by both ends of the spectrum. A little humility would help each recognize that we do not know there is a god, and conversely, we do not know that there isn't.

"Man is a deterministic device thrown into a probabilistic universe" Kahneman and Tversky as quoted by Lewis

William Thiry wrote:

There is a God; act accordingly.

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."  --Thomas Jefferson

Jaren Watson wrote:

...firing an English professor for having questions is relatively harmless compared to the veritable world of wrongs perpetrated by the religiously certain. 

I don't think belief or lack of it is a bad thing, far from it. I am, however, properly frightened when someone tells me that they "know."

Hope is a kinder virtue than knowledge, spirituality speaking. And as far as Christianity is concerned, it's the only one supported by the Biblical text.

I've always thought it was interesting that most evangelical/fundamentalist churches tend to use the term "I believe," during professions of faith.  The LDS church uses "I know" much more.  

William Thiry wrote:

There is a God; act accordingly.

ROFL.

This is the most comical thing I find about religious types: They believe a Creator of a nearly infinite Universe of countless planets and (likely) beings of incomprehensible complexity and number...really is a petulant teenager that will sentence you to eternal torment for "sins" (like saying his name in a mean way) as if he/she/it is an immature sociopath pulling wings off a fly. Then they call this entity they have faith in a "merciful" god.

Or that you can be absolved of these sins by confessing to a self-appointed representative or being "born again" in some cult.

You ever think that this is some mighty convenient theology holding the keys to your "salvation" like this by those who also happen to want your money? Or that it is an effective means of holding a population in subjugation (like it has been used in the past and present) by those that have figured out this scam as a means of maintaining power?

Sure keeps those parishioners in line and donating to their "church".

There are good and strong reasons for acting altruistically and "doing the right thing" by others that have nothing to do with possible eternal punishment by a Sky Fairy.

s.price wrote:

There is a dog. Clean up accordingly. Makes a lot more sense.

HAHA...

Jaren Watson wrote lots of good stuff:

I suspect devotees to both religion and atheism would breathe a bit easier if the other side would be willing to relinquish their certainty.

[...]

Hope is a kinder virtue than knowledge, spiritually speaking.

Excellent insight, thank you.

King Tut wrote:

ROFL.

This is the most comical thing I find about religious types: They believe a Creator of a nearly infinite Universe of countless planets and (likely) beings of incomprehensible complexity...really is a petulant teenager that will sentence you to eternal torment for "sins" (like saying his name) as if he/she/it is a sociopath pulling wings off a fly. Then they call this entity they have faith in a "merciful" god.

Or that you can be absolved of these sins by confessing to a self-appointed representative or being "born again" in some cult.

You ever think that this is some mighty convenient theology holding the keys to your "salvation" like this by those who also happen to want your money? Or that it is an effective means of holding a population in subjugation (like it has been used in the past and present) by those that have figured out this scam?

Sure keeps those parishioners in line and donating to their "church".

There are good and strong reasons for acting altruistically and "doing the right thing" that have nothing to do with possible eternal punishment by a Sky Fairy.

Well said. 

I'd add this question: Why does someone else NOT believing in God bother some religious people so much?

Both  "sides" keep this pointless argument going. 

wendy weiss wrote:

I'd add this question: Why does someone else NOT believing in God bother some religious people so much?

Both  "sides" keep this pointless argument going. 

Not read much history or had a comparative religions class, or exposure to other cultures, or...

Maybe choosing to flip a question for the fun of it???

:-) H.

Jaren Watson wrote:

I suspect devotees to both religion and atheism would breathe a bit easier if the other side would be willing to relinquish their certainty.

The word "knowledge" is used rather haphazardly by both ends of the spectrum. A little humility would help each recognize that we do not know there is a god, and conversely, we do not know that there isn't.

When I was a professor at one of the BYU universities, I had on my office door a very fine quotation by Voltaire: "Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position, but certainty is an absurd one." 

Of course, the notion of uncertainty is a thorny issue for true believers, so I was ultimately terminated for failing to declare belief in the fundamental faith tenets of the religion that sponsored the school.

But firing an English professor for having questions is relatively harmless compared to the veritable world of wrongs perpetrated by the religiously certain. 

I don't think belief or lack of it is a bad thing, far from it. I am, however, properly frightened when someone tells me that they "know."

Hope is a kinder virtue than knowledge, spiritually speaking. And as far as Christianity is concerned, it's the only one supported by the Biblical text.

I'm sorry to hear that you were fired from BYU because your beliefs did not align with the religion hosting the school.  That is clearly wrong.  I don't think that being LDS is a requirement for admission to the school, so I don't know why it would be a requirement for working at the school.

I think you bring up an important distinction: the one between belief and knowledge.  We all have the capacity to believe, but knowledge is a more interesting notion, and it's not a choice, and I would ask: is it really possible to know anything?!  Our interactions with this world are through our physical senses, which can be deceived.  One has to question the integrity of a person claiming to know anything with absolute certainty.

Let me try to address the reason, in my view, why LDS people are more prone to use the phrase "I know" rather than "I believe."  Unlike other Christian faiths, we believe that the so-called "God head" consists of 3 separate and distinct individuals with different roles: 1) God, the father of our spirits, 2) the Lord, Jesus Christ, and 3) the Holy Ghost.  That last one is probably the strangest-sounding one of the 3, but his role, among other things, as I understand it, (and bear with me here, I'm not making an argument, I'm just explaining the religion), is to provide a witness of truth.  Now what kind of witness am I talking about here?  I can do experiments that demonstrate the wave-like properties of light, and then others that demonstrate the particle-like properties of light.  In each case, you might say that the experimental results provide a witness of both properties of light, each ultimately perceived by our physical senses.  Now, the idea is that the Holy Ghost provides a spiritual witness.  Now if you don't believe in men having spirits or spiritual things, that's fine.  I'm just saying that this is often the basis for people saying "I know" rather than "I believe."  The Holy Ghost can convey a witness to the heart of man greater than anything you could see with your own eyes.  So that's the idea.  I personally believe that such a witness has come to me, on more than one occasion, while reading the Book of Mormon -- specifically, a witness of the truthfulness of that book.

John Barritt wrote:

The answer to that question unfortunately is something you have to find on your own. You'll know when it hits you.

Here's some fun questions, since the pie chart proves nothing will be resolved here and we'll all be angry anyway.

1. Why does someone else believing in God bother atheists so much? 
2. Why do atheists feel the need to force believers to "prove" God is real using science?
3. If there's not a scientific explanation for a belief in God does that actually discredit the notion of God?
4. Do atheists worship science?
5. Why can't scientists cure male pattern baldness if they know so much?
6. If there's no God, no Jesus, no devil (little d on purpose), and the Bible (and all other religion) is all a lie.......Do atheists have a soul? 
7. Are atheists afraid of devil worshipers and Muslims? (I only ask because they seem to only attack Christians)

I don't claim to know everything, regardless of how I may act. I'm imperfect and struggle with that every day. JB  

 

I'll bite

1&2 have essentially the same answer: if public policy is to be dictated by religion, then as a member of society, I have a right to demand that the religious beliefs withstand considerable scrutiny. (Sidebar: it seems like people often conflate "what is illegal" with "what should be discouraged". This is true all the way up to the highest levels. The question is not "can you imagine a scenario where X is unwanted?" but rather "can you imagine a scenario where X is either absolutely necessary, or absolutely must not occur?"). You force god into a science class room, or a court of law, then god had better abide by the rules of the venue.

3 Of course not. Can't prove a negative. We can, however, show completely that various conceptions of god are at odds with how we understand the universe to work. Which in turn leads to sophistry to explain how allowing e.g. The Holocaust was all a part of god's plan.

4 I do not worship science any more than I worship my bicycle. It is a means to an end, nothing more.

5 We know an awful lot, but the size and shape of the things we don't know about the universe is nearly indistinguishable from that of the universe itself. We know some fundamental physical laws, sure, but this is akin to saying you can easily write War And Peace because you learned most of the Latin alphabet yesterday. The distance from the one to the others huge, and so far we've focused on the easy problems (electronics, mostly).

6 I don't know what a soul is, nor do I concede it's necessity.  Moreover, I don't understand the relevance. When you ask "do atheists have a soul?" I can only reply "Does it matter?".

7 Speaking for myself, I am afraid of people who let non-rational arguments drive them to violence. Statistically speaking, I am more likely to be murdered by a Christian extremist than by a Muslim or satanic extremist, so I spend more of my worrying time concerned with that threat. But I spend a lot more time arguing on the internet than I do worrying about Christian extremists, so it's not like I'm paralyzed with fear.

FWIW I am not an Atheist per se, I simply do not believe in any God as popularly defined or found in ancient texts more akin to cavemen trying to explain their world in some kind of "creation fable" that all cultures have.

The evidence for those sorts of Gods and Spirits is extraordinarily weak and is only based on "faith" ie Hocus Pocus.

There is zero verifiable evidence that God has ever "spoken" to any living being, though per chance we see he/she/it's works in the wonder of creation. But it is utterly laughable that this being demands our ignorant offerings of faith and prayers of adulation. Any real God would be beyond such.

The other trick religions use is telling the inducted that they are "special" and we are all his "favorites" and he cares...meanwhile children are dying of Leukemia in torment to teach "sinners" a lesson? 

That is not God, but a Demon demanding blood sacrifice if it were so.

Christians are challenged because they make up a important political force in this country and are continually trying to legislate their beliefs, impose them on others (just like some here) and take tax dollars for their "ministry" scams.

The other religions have little affect on our daily lives, but secularists have to challenge them continually in countries where they are dominant.

The general consensus appears to be that religion is bad for individuals and societies.  Without a doubt there are evil religions in the world (or perhaps just one big evil religion under many different guises), so it's not a big leap to conclude that all religion is bad.  I would just want to point out that not all religions were created under false pretenses, or had bad intentions from the beginning.  For a long time, people have been trying to understand their own existence, and possibly assign some higher purpose to it.  (Like rock climbing, yeah!)

From the purest scientific point of view, if my understanding is correct, life needs no meaning and is merely a consequence of statistics: our planet (and possibly a handful of others among gillions of the big bang) formed in an accretion disk at just the right distance from a suitable star and then two amino acids, out of shear luck, came together to form the first protein in an ancient primordial soup--a puddle of goo I imagine to be surrounded by bubbling lava flows during the earliest years of the planet, even before there was any kind of atmosphere.  No divine intervention; just probability and statistics.  We come from nothingness and return to nothingness.

In stark contrast, a comfort I take in my own religion is that life and family relationships can last beyond the grave, and that progression can continue beyond the grave also.  So in an effort to qualify for that, we're either wasting what little time the universe has given us to live, or we're trying to make the most of a probationary period overseen by a just yet merciful God that gave us our free agency and is bound not to interfere with it.

Paul Deger wrote:

Meaning and purpose do not require the existence of the supernatural or even belief in such. Other primates have demonstrated altruism, at least as operationally defined as fairness and putting tribe before individual.

Yeah, I think you're getting at motivation, and that's a good point.

Spencer Parkin wrote:

The general consensus appears to be that religion is bad for individuals and societies.  Without a doubt there are evil religions in the world (or perhaps just one big evil religion under many different guises), so it's not a big leap to conclude that all religion is bad.  I would just want to point out that not all religions were created under false pretenses, or had bad intentions from the beginning.  For a long time, people have been trying to understand their own existence, and possibly assign some higher purpose to it.  (Like rock climbing, yeah!)

From the purest scientific point of view, if my understanding is correct, life needs no meaning and is merely a consequence of statistics: our planet (and possibly a handful of others among gillions of the big bang) formed in an accretion disk at just the right distance from a suitable star and then two amino acids, out of shear luck, came together to form the first protein in an ancient primordial soup--a puddle of goo I imagine to be surrounded by bubbling lava flows during the earliest years of the planet, even before there was any kind of atmosphere.  No divine intervention; just probability and statistics.  We come from nothingness and return to nothingness.

In stark contrast, a comfort I take in my own religion is that life and family relationships can last beyond the grave, and that progression can continue beyond the grave also.  So in an effort to qualify for that, we're either wasting what little time the universe has given us to live, or we're trying to make the most of a probationary period overseen by a just yet merciful God that gave us our free agency and is bound not to interfere with it.

As a Molecular Biologist I will say that there is quite a bit of randomness that guides evolution but the origin of the first life and molecules is pure conjecture at this point. It may be possible to show that there is an inevitable probability to complex molecule formation, through the random chances of atoms forming bonds over billions of years...but of course, that chance is built into the fabric of the universe and the laws of biological chemistry as they were moments after the Big Bang.

This random chance of the origins of biological molecules and eventually life as we know it does not in any way forbid the existence of God, it just suggests that his hand in our creation is a very light touch (his laws of chemistry) on a virtual infinity of "primordial soups" spread over the Universe. Not the heavy handedness of most organized religion suggesting the making of all the complete birds and fishes in a day ie standard creation myth. It may have seemed a "day" to a God setting the rules that would inevitably lead to life, but all the available evidence suggests it was billions of years of evolution before any living organism arose. 

How Life got truly set in motion is not at all certain to any scientist, other than the basics of the Big Bang (let there be light) which is certainly a great intuitive leap by early scripture writers.

climbing friend,

would your jesus and your prayer lift you lighter and higher, higher and lighter, upward floating feather, during bold flash attempt?

King Tut wrote:

As a Molecular Biologist I will say that there is quite a bit of randomness that guides evolution but the origin of the first life and molecules is pure conjecture at this point. It may be possible to show that there is an inevitable probability to complex molecule formation, through the random chances of atoms forming bonds over billions of years...but of course, that chance is built into the fabric of the universe and the laws of biological chemistry as they were moments after the Big Bang.

This random chance of the origins of biological molecules and eventually life as we know it does not in any way forbid the existence of God, it just suggests that his hand in our creation is a very light touch (his laws of chemistry) on a virtual infinity of "primordial soups" spread over the Universe. Not the heavy handedness of most organized religion suggesting the making of all the birds and fishes in a day ie standard creation myth. It may have seemed a "day" to a God setting the rules that would inevitably lead to life, but all the available evidence suggests it was billions of years of evolution before any living organism arose. 

How Life got truly set in motion is not at all certain to any scientist, other than the basics of the Big Bang (let there be light) which is certainly a great intuitive leap by early scripture writers.

Excellent post John.

This is the kind of stuff that gets people thinking. You make several great points that (for me) help explain and solidify creation (or more aptly intelligent design) as a reality due to a lack of any other explanation.

The term "primordial soup" has come to be accepted as something that actually occurred, yet science can't begin explain how some warm damp chemicals can "evolve" into something as complex as a single celled animal. Or that it could survive more than a few seconds if it did come into existence suddenly. It would need to have all the necessary complex systems in place at once to continue living. The ability to breathe, eat, and continue to do so in the stuff it just jumped out of. It's like trying to explain how a pile of bricks and mortar can evolve into a house given enough time. Even "the laws of chemistry" can't touch this one, there is no logical recipe to get from chemicals to a living organism that evolution or time can explain. And so "God's gentle touch" as you eloquently put it is exactly how I think things came to pass.

I'm not a microbiologist, but the fact that the irreducible complexity of the flagellar motor can't be explained by evolution fascinates me. If an amoeba evolves a tail without the motor it's of no advantage, If you evolve the motor before the tail or any of the parts in the system without the other parts none of it works. And so, by the process of natural selection would be eliminated. The only explanation for the working tail and the motor to exist is that it was made that way all at once.

I think your explanation of creation (or intelligent design) is spot on. A day to God could be a billion years, and making all the birds and fishes in a day would make perfect sense. There would be no better way to describe it considering when the earliest texts were written to describe the events. 

Religion is another subject entirely................. ;)

When I get scared, I sing. Somtimes I sing a song that starts with "take!".

John Barritt wrote:

Excellent post John.

This is the kind of stuff that gets people thinking. You make several great points that (for me) help explain and solidify creation (or more aptly intelligent design) as a reality due to a lack of any other explanation.

The term "primordial soup" has come to be accepted as something that actually occurred, yet science can't begin explain how some warm damp chemicals can "evolve" into something as complex as a single celled animal. Or that it could survive more than a few seconds if it did come into existence suddenly. It would need to have all the necessary complex systems in place at once to continue living. The ability to breathe, eat, and continue to do so in the stuff it just jumped out of. It's like trying to explain how a pile of bricks and mortar can evolve into a house given enough time. Even "the laws of chemistry" can't touch this one, there is no logical recipe to get from chemicals to a living organism that evolution or time can explain. And so "God's gentle touch" as you eloquently put it is exactly how I think things came to pass.

I'm not a microbiologist, but the fact that the irreducible complexity of the flagellar motor can't be explained by evolution fascinates me. If an amoeba evolves a tail without the motor it's of no advantage, If you evolve the motor before the tail or any of the parts in the system without the other parts none of it works. And so, by the process of natural selection would be eliminated. The only explanation for the working tail and the motor to exist is that it was made that way all at once.

I think your explanation of creation (or intelligent design) is spot on. A day to God could be a billion years, and making all the birds and fishes in a day would make perfect sense. There would be no better way to describe it considering when the earliest texts were written to describe the events. 

Religion is another subject entirely................. ;)

I would argue that intelligent design at anything but the initial-conditions level unjustifiably posits a non-measurable theoretical construct. That is, if I'm trying to recreate a Lego structure (which is what science is, from a certain point of view) and I encounter something I don't know how to build, it's not because the original builder waved a magic wand and performed some brick-related feat that no one else is capable of. It's because the order of operations I inferred does not match the order of operations that actually happened.

As to probabilities, I find it informative to think about these reactions in terms of energy cost and most stable state for a given system energy. So-called impossible transitions like the semi-forbidden oxygen III lines occur all the time in nature, it's just that humans lack the means and patience to actually make them happen. [OIII] occurs in clouds of gas that are less dense than the purest vacuums ever achieved in any lab. So even though the gas is pretty hot, collisions happen so rarely that the excited state persists long enough to relax via the forbidden transition. Is it so hard to imagine that over the course of BILLIONS of years, probability got all the conditions right at least once?

Put yet another way, Carl Sagan said "that which is not forbidden is mandatory." Given enough time no resources, all possibilities will eventually occur. This is as true of 6-sided dice and decks of cards as it is of complex organic reactions.