Comments on: Obama's Vatican Ambassador Rejected? No.

By: Caroline Kennedy was not rejected as Vatican ambassador « Dating Jesus

Caroline Kennedy was not rejected as Vatican ambassador « Dating Jesus — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 21:04:28 +0000

[...] to this, the Vatican doesn’t vet its ambassadors — save for their marital status – so [...]

By: nhautamaki

nhautamaki — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 09:56:02 +0000

Dee--I'm pretty sure I understand where you're coming from, but I wonder where you are finding these 'atheists' that are apparently so dogmatic about what is and is not possible. I don't know of any atheists that are so certain that science has already uncovered every single one of the laws of the universe. . Most likely, you are objecting to the atheists who call the specific belief in God irrational. Well unfortunately, unless you subscribe to the theory of rational self delusion (it is rational to delude yourself if it makes you a better, happier person), belief in the specific God that is described in the Bible or the Koran IS pretty irrational. There's a pretty big gap between 'science has not uncovered every single secret of the universe, and there are lots of strange things out there we have yet to discover and understand' and 'God exists, he created the universe, and he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent'. The specific properties ascribed to the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God do not correspond to the universe we can observe. Atheists who point that out may be (and often are) considered rude, smug, offensive, and many other things, but they are still, in fact, right.

By: sacredh

sacredh — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 16:21:58 +0000

I'm not religious myself. It's just not in my nature. I don't know for certain that something isn't out there that science can't explain. I only know what I believe based on my life experiences up to this point. A person's belief is up to the individual. My main problem is with religions that seek to impose their beliefs on everyone. I believe some things myself that I can't back up with evidence that would stand up to any sort of scientific examination. I'm not interested in trying to convince someone that their beliefs can be disproved. Both atheists and believers have faced discrimination and attempts to have the will of others imposed upon them. I'm firmly in Friar Tuck's camp in my belief that politics and religion are a match made in hell.

By: Dee in Columbia MD

Dee in Columbia MD — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 15:16:11 +0000

nhautamaki
.
I agree that this would be irrational. My argument is that all forms of certainty is problematic. It seems to me that leaving oneself open to all possibilities is key to the scientific method. Unfortunately, too often I encounter demands for absolutism from both sides of this question and just as I reject the certainty coming from born-again christian evangelicals, I also reject atheists who call me irrational just because I'm unwilling to subscribe to an absolute belief in the impossibility.

By: nhautamaki

nhautamaki — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 03:49:30 +0000

Dee; in my mind there's a big difference between 'leaving the possibility open' and actively believing in something. Of course there's nothing wrong with leaving possibilities open; anything is possible. But when you choose to actually make decisions based upon irrational beliefs, well, then that's just irrational. If you have a job interview scheduled, but then your horoscope tells you to stay at home so you cancel it, that's just irrational. If you're on the way to the job interview and you suddenly realise you forgot your lucky watch and go home and get it and wind up 20 minutes late, that's just irrational. If you get to the job interview, get the job, and then find out that the interviewer has some opposing religious belief so you refuse the job, well, that's just irrational.

By: jayackroyd

jayackroyd — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 22:26:45 +0000

Dee
.
This is why I frame this as rejecting the supernatural. As you point out, at earlier stages of our understanding of the universe, supernatural claims were often made. The track record of supernatural claims like is quite poor. The supernatural explanation is pretty invariably proven wrong.
.
We do have supernatural arguments being invoked by cosmologists, unverifiable speculation about an indefinitely large number of universes. String theory is pretty iffy physics for the same reason, and you will hear some echo of Einstein's remark in response to the question "But what if theory [of general relativity] is not confirmed by the observation of Mercury?" "So much the worse for God."
.
When scientists say that a theory is so beautiful that it must be true are also invoking a supernatural argument, albeit one with a not so bad track record.
.
Even vaguely spiritual claims are based in stuff that can't be checked. I don't believe in things that are uncheckable.
.
There IS an interesting way that all living things are connected. The basic operating system of the cell joins us. We share DNA with fruit flies that do the same things in us. That in itself is marvelous, but requires no faith to inspire that marvel.
.
I believe stuff to be true in the absence of evidence, like that the inability to tell the same story for gravity vs the other three forces is an indication that there is a problem with one or the other stories. And I happen to think that Einstein may be proved to have the proper intuition when he said God doesn't play dice, and his deterministic approach may prove to be correct. I don't hold that to be established, but it is worth speculating about because it is not uncheckable in principle. Most spiritual claims are inherently uncheckable. The ones that are, like the state of the brain during moments of religious intensity will all tend to provide a natural explanation that belies the ineffable claims.

By: Dee in Columbia MD

Dee in Columbia MD — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 20:27:40 +0000

Frankly, I think that faith is something that is felt rather than show, thus making it a subjective experience that by definition less suitable for scientific exploration. Personally, having a premonition about a specific moment in time and then only hours later have that scenario play visually and auditorily verbatim before ones eyes, might give one a reason to believe one day that kind of phenomenon can be verified and studied. However, until then its wiser to leave the question open and than with certainty dismiss what I cannot explain away.

By: nhautamaki

nhautamaki — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 20:13:07 +0000

Well Dee, Occam's Razor only rules out things that you have no reason to believe in. If you have some reason to believe that all life is connected, some observation that that hypothesis would explain, anything at all, than it isn't entirely unreasonable. Mendel postulated the existence of genes because genes would explain observations he was making regarding his pea plants. Pasteur (I'm pretty sure it was him first anyways) postulated the existence of bacteria because bacteria would explain the observation that illness was strongly correlated with filth.
.
The point is, it's not that people are not allowed to postulate the existence of things that science cannot currently measure or detect or even explain. As you rightly point out, scientists have been doing just that for centuries, often with great results. It's just that such postulations must pass a simple test before they afforded any rational legitimacy: they must be the simplest possible explanation to observable phenomena and they must be necessary to explain that phenomena.
.
Very few paranormal/superstitious/religious beliefs pass that test.

By: Dee in Columbia MD

Dee in Columbia MD — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 19:07:16 +0000

I guess what galls me most is absolute certainty. Whether it originates from theist who believe in a God who created an earth with infinite diversity and yet claim their path is the only path to salvation or the atheist who say that anything other than what we can scientifically prove is rubbish.
.
Unfortunately, Occam's Razor does not explain why I should view proof of the connectedness of all living things as non-existent rather than merely undiscovered. Prior to the discovery of bacteria we attributed illness to demonic possession. With evolution a given, is it possible that the means to access proof of humanity's connectedness lies on an evolutionary path not yet reached? I'm just saying aren't the remaining questions and possibilities enough to dismiss any one preaching certainty?

By: nhautamaki

nhautamaki — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 18:00:50 +0000

Dee--the common thread that links non-atheists is, in terms of physics/science, a denial of the law of cause and effect (in the sense that they attribute immeasurable causes--God, spirits, mystical energy fields, or what-have-you--to measurable effects), and in terms of logic, a denial of the law of unnecessary postulation (also commonly known as Occam's Razor). Of course, as you point out, there are varying degrees of denial at play, but ultimately there are those common threads.
.
BTW, I'd lump 'atheists' who seriously believe in lucky charms/rituals/numbers/etc, mystical energy fields, astrology, or other superstitious stuff in with theists as far as that goes.