No such thing as God.

[iconoclast]

Ruthless Logic, Good argument. I agree that 'the components of information that allow this process to occur can only come from our empirical environment' but i have proposed, here and elsewhere, that the artifact-artificer relation, realized by primitive man, led him to suppose the existence of a creator of the world and himself. It reconciles the concept of God with evolutionary development better than Intelligent Design does, but doesn't make God a reality. susceptability to this line of reason remains - but i don't think it valid for the reasons previously stated. To re-itterate, there cannot be a supernatural, omniscient, omnipresent ect God, because these things are inconsistant with what's known to exist.

This speaks to Didymos's argument. Many of the God's of traditional religions are creator God's, artificer's inferred from the artifact of our existence - so it doesn't really depend on how the Bible, or Koran, Talmud ect are read.

de silentio, i'm sorry,but science has achieved a level of validity that the broad sceme of our understanding will not be fundamentally revised. we DO know!

Aedes, thanks for the straight answer to what's admittedly a complexly nuanced issue. Aguably though, you missed the point again. That said, i've never actually got you to acknowledge that action in the course of religious, political and capitalist economic ideology will result in the extinction of humankind. Rather you say:

So in the grand scheme of the universe, or in the context that the world will some day disappear in a ball of fire from the exploding sun, the lives of every organism on earth are negligible and extinction doesn't matter.

But this was my question:
As a consequence of action in the course of religious, political and economic ideologies inconsistent with the scientific facts of the reality we inhabit, humankind will become extinct. But does it matter?

Because i argue: In scientific terms, of course, there’s no reason why humankind might not live another million years, or more – but in these terms, to what end? Is it enough just to walk in the sunshine?

I'm really asking if there's something about man that requires us to form these ideologies of superlative purpose, even at the cost of our existence - and is it worth the price?

You see, i agree that the bigger picture is meaningless. You can't really think that i'd protest something as immutable as the heat death of the universe, and yet avoid the point that we induce our own extinction, when we might not. i think this was a straight answer - so is it something you can't bring yourself to acknowledge? were it so, it would be perfectly explicable in terms of my philosophy.

[Didymos Thomas]

This speaks to Didymos's argument. Many of the God's of traditional religions are creator God's, artificer's inferred from the artifact of our existence - so it doesn't really depend on how the Bible, or Koran, Talmud ect are read.

How do you go from some A's are X to all As are X? You're right, many conceptions of God are as you say. However, we might have other conceptions, even by reading Biblical literature.

Base on this line of thinking, is not the consideration process of God (or something greater then ourselves) completely biased, and consequently invalid, because of the available components of empirical information are completely ill-suited for this "type" of consideration.

Doesn't this boil down to what notion of God is being considered? If God is supernatural, we certainly cannot expect any empirical evidence to suggest the existence of God. But I do not see why notions of God must be necessarily supernatural.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

Aedes, i've never actually got you to acknowledge that action in the course of religious, political and capitalist economic ideology will result in the extinction of humankind.

Action in the course of anything can result in the extinction of humankind -- why limit it to religious, political, and capitalist ends? Mass international transportation and shipping poses more of a risk for extinction than anything else. Population density also poses a high risk for extinction because any communicable illness is more likely to result in secondary cases after a given primary case. The reason I don't go along with your thesis that it's capitalism and religion that are doing the world in is that the threat of global extinction would exist probably equally in this very moment in time even if we radically altered every single human mind and political system in the world to conform to your ideal.

Furthermore, without rehashing our old debate, we can both accept that one of the major risks we face is the rapid population growth in the developing world as compared to the developed world. Highly developed, industrialized, capitalist societies like Western Europe, Japan, US/Canada, and Australia / NZ are becoming a smaller and smaller fraction of the total world population. But with our high rates of consumption we are completely dependent on raw materials, commerce, and labor with the developing world. And as they become a greater and greater reservoir of human disease with poorer, sicker, larger populations, it poses a greater threat of imported epidemic disease. After all, the world's major reservoirs for tuberculosis remain Africa and Asia, and we've already imported HIV, West Nile virus, SARS, and other lesser known diseases from the developing world. We're constantly importing malaria and dengue (over 1000 cases of the former imported into the US every year), and with growing public skepticism about vaccines we've now had three measles epidemics in the US in the last year imported from outside.

That's the problem. And I just don't think it boils down to one system or another, because the way of the world is that wealth always flows from the poor to the rich in ANY system, and disease and overpopulation always accumulate in the poor in ANY system. The least regulated, most despotic systems, like Myanmar, are places where disasters and disease-ridden aftermaths occur on scales that would never happen here. We have had storms that size. We have had earthquakes the size of the one that killed tens of thousands in Bam, Iran a few years ago. But we have a stable population and a stable infrastructure that allows us to get through a catastrophe like Hurricane Katrina with 1000 dead instead of 100,000 dead.

But this was my question:

As a consequence of action in the course of religious, political and economic ideologies inconsistent with the scientific facts of the reality we inhabit, humankind will become extinct. But does it matter?

Well, that wasn't your question as phrased. But at any rate it is an extremely presumptuous question, because it excludes the possibility that we can become extinct for other reasons, including misappropriation of science (look at Chernobyl, or look at nuclear warfare, which are the other edge of the science sword). Your question is self-consciously leading and biased because it is incomplete, and therefore strikes me as dishonest. Or if not dishonest at least polemical and rhetorical rather than philosophical.

You also have fundamentally disagreed with me in the past that health care interventions prevent population growth. Well, that is science and it's thoroughly documented in the scientific literature, so you can't be selective about which science you dislike just because of your own politics. And absent data you're not presenting any kind of scientific argument of your own. You have some kind of 'world order' in mind. But we don't need to look to deeply at history to see what happens when we force a world order where it doesn't naturally fit.

I'm really asking if there's something about man that requires us to form these ideologies of superlative purpose, even at the cost of our existence - and is it worth the price?

I'm not sure you prove that the price we're paying is due to that -- and you certainly haven't presented a solution with any specifics.

[boagie]

Iconoclast,

"Is it enough to walk in the sun?" Good question, it is problematic only to the living. Extinction might be said to be perfection, life is problematic, only death/extinction is no trouble.

[iconoclast]

Boagie,

I think I can support an apparent inductive inference in this case as I’ve identified the origin of the concept of God in the history of human conceptual development. Even if, presently, not all ideas of God are creator Gods, by arguing that the concept of God originates with primitive man’s recognition of the artifact-artificer relationship, the concept can be re-conceived any number of ways – but any re-conceptualization remains a subset of A.
On your other point, I don’t know of any idea of God that’s not supernaturally characterized – and thus incompatible with a consistent reality we know to exist. Please provide examples.
That said, even if you do provide examples, because evolutionary development can be shown to have occurred with reference to human remains and artifacts, it must be that at some point man began to ask ‘how does all this come to be here?’ and ‘how do I come to be here?’ and imagined an omnipotent artificer.
It’s this argument that convinces me there’s no such thing. After all, if we asked those same questions today, of an impartial judge, given the available evidence, he wouldn’t arrive at the omnipotent creator hypothesis, but at bang theory instead. And this leads into how bad ideas get entrenched in human culture – translated in pseudo-realities we act upon, in contradiction of actual realities.

Aedes,

I question your assertion that disease – carried by international travel and shipping poses a threat of human extinction. Certainly, there’s a threat of spreading disease, and even a pandemic – the spread of which might be aided by transportation of goods and people around the world, but extinction from disease is highly unlikely.
Here in Europe, we’ve had two main pandemics – one in 1666, of bubonic plague, and one in 1916 – of influenza. In the first pandemic, half the population of Europe died – and the other killed somewhere between 10 and 15 million people. Fleas carried by rats, from ships returning from foreign parts spread the former, and the latter followed troops to the western frount and back – so I take your point about mass transportation. However, such outbreaks are therefore, thankfully quite rare, and at their worst don’t seem to pose a threat of extinction.
Furthermore, I refute your assertion that I disputed the relation between healthcare and addressing over-population. If you remember correctly, while putting forward specific, scientifically conceived measures to address the real threats of extinction we face, I merely stated that it would be necessary to implement sustainable energy technology world-wide before tackling poverty – including inequalities of health, despite population pressures.
I’m aware of the theory that suggests there’s a correlation between standards of living, (including healthcare outcomes) and family size – but it’s not scientific fact. It’s true that most population growth has, and is set to occur in developing countries with a lower than average per capita GDP – but correlation is not causation. It’s also true that fertility is declining in most nations with a higher than average per capita GDP. It also seems reasonable to me that women will choose to have less children if, (A) contraception is available, and (B), if their children are likely to survive the first 5 years of life, rather than unlikely to survive – but if you look at figures for European population growth from the beginning of the industrial revolution – you’ll see that fertility takes almost a century to tail off to replacement levels.
I’ve looked at this quite closely as it bears upon the assumptions made by the UNDP in predicting that population will level off at 9.5 billion around the middle of the century. This mid-level prediction not only depends upon this theory – but also on the assumption that fulfilling the MDG’s will rationalize reduced family size. But the MDG’s haven’t nearly been met.
Development continues apace in China, India, and South America, but it’s not sustainable development – and in the course of a capitalist rationale – the distribution of wealth is highly asymmetric. Take Brazil as an example. According to Wikipedia: ‘Brazil is today South America's largest economy, the world's ninth largest economy, and fifth most populous nation.’ Clearly, exploiting natural resources has generated a great deal of wealth, however, the article continues:
‘Brazil's most severe problem is arguably its highly unequal distribution of wealth and income. By the 1990s, more than one out of four Brazilians continued to survive on less than one dollar a day.’
From Encarta we note: ‘In 1950 Brazil had 51,944,000 inhabitants, and by 1980 the population had more than doubled, rising to 119,002,700. The most recent census, in 2000, recorded a population of 169,799,170. A 2005 estimate placed the population at 186,112,794.’
Thus, Brazil’s population has more than tripled in the past 55 years, and while massive exploitation of the natural environment has generated huge wealth for the few, the benefits of economic development have failed to reach the poorest 25% of the population.
Which is to say there are still 50,000,000 people in Brazil without access to education, healthcare and so forth, that might, one day lend itself to reduced family size.
But even if the product of development were not so unevenly distributed, the Earth simply cannot withstand 5 billion people developing such standards of living over the course of the next century, unless such development is founded on a sustainable energy basis. No, the actual threats we face are quite specific – and the result of action in the course of religious, political and capitalist economic ideology. For the record they are: the energy crisis, climate change, over-population (insofar as it exacerbates the others) and environmental degradation. This nest of issues is caused, and cannot be addressed by action in these terms. The only context in which this is rational, and seems possible is in the context of a scientific conception of reality.
i don't see this as a: 'radically altered every single human mind and political system in the world to conform to your ideal' - but acceptance of sound reason and established fact.
You say 'Your question is self-consciously leading and biased because it is incomplete, and therefore strikes me as dishonest. Or if not dishonest at least polemical and rhetorical rather than philosophical.'
My arguments are leading in the sense that i wish to demonstrate an epistemological argument - but they're not misleading and therefore not dishonest. I don't know what polemical means - but you have some cheek accusing me of rhetoric!!! By stubborn argument - you could convince the sun that day is night. But not me - i know what i'm talking about, why i'm talking about it and that it's important.

[Didymos Thomas]

I think I can support an apparent inductive inference in this case as I’ve identified the origin of the concept of God in the history of human conceptual development. Even if, presently, not all ideas of God are creator Gods, by arguing that the concept of God originates with primitive man’s recognition of the artifact-artificer relationship, the concept can be re-conceived any number of ways – but any re-conceptualization remains a subset of A.

That you can identify the origin of notions of God is of no help to your case. Notions of God change over time, therefore, characteristics of the original God-notions are not necessarily characteristics of all God-notions.

You cannot be expected to prove that all notions of God are 'artificer's inferred from the artifact of our existence', but if examples can be shown of God notions that your description mischaracterizes the result is clear.

I think part of the problem is the label - God. You say that despite the changes, all notions of God remain a 'subset of A', A being notions of God. But this is not very convincing. If we were speaking of motors, I could buy the argument as motors all do the same thing. But Gods do not always do the same thing, and notions of god are not always rooted in the belief that because we exist we must have been created by some greater power.

Sufism is a great example. God as a creator language is used, but God is not thought to be some craftsman creating some thing. You might be interested in reading up on their views of God.

On your other point, I don’t know of any idea of God that’s not supernaturally characterized – and thus incompatible with a consistent reality we know to exist. Please provide examples.

It's one thing for religious literature to use figurative language and allegory to express values and another thing for the material to be taken literally. While each tradition has allegory, the existence of instructional material does not demand that the God be thought of as literally violating the laws of nature.

That said, even if you do provide examples, because evolutionary development can be shown to have occurred with reference to human remains and artifacts, it must be that at some point man began to ask ‘how does all this come to be here?’ and ‘how do I come to be here?’ and imagined an omnipotent artificer.
It’s this argument that convinces me there’s no such thing. After all, if we asked those same questions today, of an impartial judge, given the available evidence, he wouldn’t arrive at the omnipotent creator hypothesis, but at bang theory instead. And this leads into how bad ideas get entrenched in human culture – translated in pseudo-realities we act upon, in contradiction of actual realities.

And we should always ask those questions of an impartial jury. Science and religion serve two different purposes. If religion demands something of science, the religion has gone too far.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

I question your assertion that disease – carried by international travel and shipping poses a threat of human extinction. Certainly, there’s a threat of spreading disease, and even a pandemic – the spread of which might be aided by transportation of goods and people around the world, but extinction from disease is highly unlikely.

Yes, I agree that it's exceptionally unlikely. But not impossible. Europe has had far more than those two pandemics, by the way. The bubonic plague of 1347-1349 was the biggest one. But it's hypothesized that the Roman Empire's final decline was due to an epidemic (probably plague) in the 4th century.

Point is, aside from the moon crashing into the earth or some huge natural calamity, how is it that humans can go extinct? Well, either something kills us directly (like disease) or the living conditions become untenable (like massive pollution or radiation or something).

But consider this -- if we're severely depopulated by an epidemic, humans MIGHT go extinct because our remaining population size and fertility might be insufficient to maintain populations, especially under the remaining conditions in the world.

I merely stated that it would be necessary to implement sustainable energy technology world-wide before tackling poverty – including inequalities of health, despite population pressures.

Well I think we can agree then with one another that this is a multifactorial problem that requires a multidisciplinary solution.

I’m aware of the theory that suggests there’s a correlation between standards of living, (including healthcare outcomes) and family size – but it’s not scientific fact.

Well, the demographic literature is very very strong in this regard. But it's not simply family size, it's fertility rates that are the main predictor (number of children per mother for maternal fertility, number of children per father for paternal fertility).

It also seems reasonable to me that women will choose to have less children if, (A) contraception is available, and (B), if their children are likely to survive the first 5 years of life, rather than unlikely to survive – but if you look at figures for European population growth from the beginning of the industrial revolution – you’ll see that fertility takes almost a century to tail off to replacement levels.

I 100% agree with you here.

I’ve looked at this quite closely as it bears upon the assumptions made by the UNDP in predicting that population will level off at 9.5 billion around the middle of the century. This mid-level prediction not only depends upon this theory – but also on the assumption that fulfilling the MDG’s will rationalize reduced family size. But the MDG’s haven’t nearly been met.

Nor will they any time soon. These estimates need to be constantly revised and the demographics need to be constantly studied. At the same time, we need to make good use of the resources and knowledge base we have now to move in the right direction, which is difficult when we're trying to implement sustained programs that cost a great deal of money.

But even if the product of development were not so unevenly distributed, the Earth simply cannot withstand 5 billion people developing such standards of living over the course of the next century

I agree -- but to have everyone live equally is an unrealistic goal. To have at least basic human needs met, however, IS possible and WILL decrease the rate of population growth if health standards and contraception are part of it (but not actually decrease population size as you mention).

No, the actual threats we face are quite specific – and the result of action in the course of religious, political and capitalist economic ideology... The only context in which this is rational, and seems possible is in the context of a scientific conception of reality.

Iconoclast, it amazes me that I can agree with so much of what you've said, and then get lost in this giant leap of yours to impuning global scale ideologies. You fail to show how it's ideology that's the problem. And you fail to show what the solution REALLY is. If by a scientific conception of reality you simply mean a system in which wealth and resources are distributed more uniformly, that's barely even scientific -- it's just common sense. But what that requires is a level of regulation that is probably impossible without war.

My arguments are leading in the sense that i wish to demonstrate an epistemological argument - but they're not misleading and therefore not dishonest.

Fair enough. But why wouldn't you start with an open-ended argument first, rather than with your presumptions already in hand? Have you considered that we're as likely to cause massive harm with science? Have you considered that the ideologies are not what really matter but rather a provincial, self-serving, wealth-accumulating instinct in humans at the individual level?

[iconoclast]

Ah, Boagie, No, I have my reasons for stating that all notions of God are rooted in the Creator hypothesis. They are evolution, archeology and reason.
You say: But Gods do not always do the same thing, and notions of god are not always rooted in the belief that because we exist we must have been created by some greater power.
This is simple contradiction - a statement without evidential support. I do accept assertion as truth.
Further, it's clear from this statement: 'And we should always ask those questions of an impartial jury. Science and religion serve two different purposes. If religion demands something of science, the religion has gone too far.' that you don't understand the context of my argument.
The context is human conceptual development - ideas passed on from one generation to the next, built upon, changing, but not evolving as such for lack of a effective culling mechanism.
Rather, cultural mechanisms work to protect fond memes - memes that serve our emotional purposes, ie God, but also memes that serve political and economic ends - irrespective of thier truth value.
In this context, by distinguishing between believers and non-believers, religion divides humankind into groups - in denial of the fact that we're a single species. On the basis of this division, nations states came into existence - in denail of the fact that Earth is a single planetary environment.
These are huge claims about the natuyre of reality that are refuted by scientific understanding. I agree they go too far - but i don't think that was what you had in mind when making that statement.

Aedes,

Mine is essentially an epistemological argument that contrast science and ideology. In epistemology knowledge is defined as true belief - but this definition is insufficient when dealing with ideology. For example, if i were to say that 'Jesus was the Son of God' - 'France borders Germany,' or 'this computer is worth 100 pounds' - the truth value of these statements is based on convention. We might qualify these statements, for instance, 'In Christian religious tradition - Jesus was the Son of God' but if we qualifiy it one way we might qualify it another. 'In Muslim religious tradition - Jesus was the son of God' is not a true statement.
In contrast scientific truths are not conventional, but can be shown to be true or false with reference to an existing reality. If i say 'the earth orbits the sun' - 'the atmosphere is 21% oxygen' or 'e=mc2' - these are not opinion based truths subject to change.
I argue that basing our beahviours on the former - in denial of the latter is the root cause of the energy crisis, climate change, over-population and environmental degradation - threats of extinction that, at the very least we cannot address in these ideological terms, for the ability, and rational tendency of human groups thus defined, to take contrary opinions.
Science on the other hand is the same for you and me. An ideology based on science would allow to agree, cooperate, align our interests that we might address these issues. I know you think this is unlikely, but if we don't accept and act in relation to valid knowledge of reality then we'll become extinct. Because reality has definite characteristics, it's a deterministic equation. Devoid of polemic or rhetoric, stating my position rather than leading you to these conclusions - i hope the giant leap is shown to be, in fact a simple step, outside ideological conceptualisation, into the light of true belief.

[Didymos Thomas]

Ah, Boagie, No, I have my reasons for stating that all notions of God are rooted in the Creator hypothesis. They are evolution, archeology and reason.
You say: But Gods do not always do the same thing, and notions of god are not always rooted in the belief that because we exist we must have been created by some greater power.
This is simple contradiction - a statement without evidential support. I do accept assertion as truth.

You quote me, yet say boagie. Whatever.

In any case, there is no contradiction. You may disagree, but that's not a contradiction in my claims. As for lack of support, I assumed you were reasonably well educated about religion. I suppose I was wrong.

You want evidential support? I provided such, despite your claims. Again, do some research. Compare the God of Sufism to the gods of the Greek pantheon.

Further, it's clear from this statement: 'And we should always ask those questions of an impartial jury. Science and religion serve two different purposes. If religion demands something of science, the religion has gone too far.' that you don't understand the context of my argument.

You tried to connect religion to mistaken notions of reality, and your justification was that religion tries to influence science. No mistake of context here.

But just for fun, I'll take note of your reaffirmation of context:

In this context, by distinguishing between believers and non-believers, religion divides humankind into groups - in denial of the fact that we're a single species. On the basis of this division, nations states came into existence - in denail of the fact that Earth is a single planetary environment.

That some humans believe and some do not is a denial of the fact that we are a single species? Try again. Believers and non believers are not assumed to be two different species, they are of the same species, humans, they just happen to disagree. We can disagree over which team is better, Patriots or Packers, and somehow not deny the fact that we are both humans. Similarly, we can disagree about God and not deny that we are both humans.

The notion that states arise because we some believe and others do not is completely divorced from reality. Though I do agree that nation states are misguided institutions.

These are huge claims about the natuyre of reality that are refuted by scientific understanding. I agree they go too far - but i don't think that was what you had in mind when making that statement.

Again, religion and science serve two different purposes. Any claim of religion that contradicts science has gone too far.

[iconoclast]

Didymos Thomas, I apologize for calling you Boagie - you took up his argument. No offence intended - but as you say, whatever!

You say: That some humans believe and some do not is a denial of the fact that we are a single species? Try again.

I will 'try again' to help you to understand what i'm actually saying. It's the inclusive/exclusive dynamic of religious belief that divides humankind into distinct and isolated groups. Believers are included - non-believers, and believers in other religions are excluded. There's no real or factual basis for this division - it is false to reality, a baseless denial of the fact we're a single species.

Further, religious disagreement is fundamentally different in consequence from a disagreement about which football(?) team is better - Patriots or Packers. Religion not merely excludes, but morally condemns and even demonizes the excluded. Thus, while a patriots fan might marry and have children with a packers fan, religious division is translated into an evolutionary pseudo-reality, again, not premised upon any actual reality, fact, truth or sound reason.

Religious divisions are the basis of nation states - religious identity forming the basis of a distinct ethnicity, language and culture practiced within a disputed geographical area. The machinery of the nation state came into being to defend this identity and geographical area - originally, in Europe, after a century of religious wars between Catholics and Protestants. And to this day, France is largely Catholic, and Germany is largely Protestant.

The claims made about the nature of reality are made by the way we live. They are tacit claims, rather than explicit cliams, but we would not behave this way if we honoured a valid understanding of reality. We would not be divided by falsity but united by a common relation to the actual nature of the reality we inhabit, common needs and wants, and a common interest in the continued existence of the species.