Ableton Forum

TomTom wrote:Just curious...anyone here ever read any of Lee Strobel's books:

The Case for a Creator
The Case for Christ
The Case for Faith

thoughts?

I've read the Case for Christ...and have the Case for Faith (but haven't yet read it).

edge100 wrote:If a cancer patient (I'm a cancer researcher) feels that prayer helps them deal with their treatments, and provides them solace so they don't have a nervous breakdown when facing death, then so be it. I think that's as critically important as having ones family there to provide help in the rough times. Whether there is a physiological mechanism behind all of this (there surely is) is really beside the point; if it makes YOU feel better, then that's what counts.

Fine. But there are other folks who pray to a personal God who believe that their prayer's are being answered...though not always, if ever, in the format that they desire. The "crutch" allowance is a derivative of utilitarian, dare I say Protestant, outlook of many non-believers. None of my religious friends view their relationship with God as a "crutch for hard times". Rather, everything from urinating to eating bread...all of it is a miracle of sorts. Not every minute of everyday, but it's something to shoot for.

edge100 wrote: In this sense, I understand the power of prayer; the feeling of peace it brings may elicit real, literal physical changes. Of course, randomized controlled trials tell us that...

Dear Lord...all those "random controlled studies/trials" have produced the havoc in which I work. Perhaps in the world of DNA and Cancer (though I'd have to double check this with my fiance and/or her pals - all doctor/science types...and religious Jews I might add), there's such conclusive proof that matter trumps soul...spirit, what have you. In my world (psychiatry/mental health), it's often a sham...and at times, borders on an unhealthy/unethical reliance on "science" to explain human suffering.

Of course, a religious person, though suffering with cancer, understands the cancer...or the sneeze...or the zit...comes from God. Just like everything else. So regardless of cure, or death, it's Gods will. Still, you see the doctor, take the medicine, and understand that that too comes from God. Upon graduation from residency, an anesthesiologist friend of ours told an audience at our synagogue that he prays before each operation. Not as a crutch, but for divine assistance. He claims that so much can, and does, go wrong during complex operations, that his training and knowledge only take him so far. And without any irony or humor, stated that God helps with rest.

edge100 wrote: Seriously. Why has god NEVER (EVER) healed even a single amputee? Surely at least one amputee at some point in history has prayed to god to have their severed arm or leg back, and has deserved it (pious life, devotion to god, acceptance of Jesus as saviour, etc). Jesus is quite specific on the topic of prayer (I'm copying from the above linked site, which goes into FAR more detail, if you'd like):

As a Jew, I can't speak for why Jesus did or didn't do anything. As a Jew, I understand my forefathers and mothers struggling to understand the will of God. And had the humility and wisdom to know that an omnipotent being has their own time table for what constitutes "healing". But let's not get so esoteric...many folks claim talking therapy doesn't work. Why? Because they're struggle are still present after 10 sessions of therapy. But family system therapists tell us that it takes generations to heal trauma. So the work you do in your lifetime, according to family system clinicians, may not bear fruit for another 2-3 generations. Jews understand that to judge the suffering of a single individual on Feb 09, 2007, is both short sighted and completely at odds with how God is portrayed in the Bible.

edge100 wrote:If prayer does work, it seems to work only in very specific cases

So now I ask you, what does "work" mean? Does it mean: "Give me whatever I want God. Chocolate, cars, Ableton 7..." Or does it mean, as the Rolling Stones wisely stated: "You can't always get what you want....but if you try sometimes, you get what you need".

In therapy, we know our clients WANT their symptoms to disappear. But it's those very symptoms that create energy for true growth to take place.

joshuajames wrote: D] so much for keeping away from ad hominem arguments from atheists

An excellent article:
http://www.aish.com/spirituality/philos ... heists.asp

Tone Deft wrote:Intelligent design is sort of the middle ground where religious people give a nod to Darwin.

"Creationism in a cheap tuxedo"

ID hinges on the notion that the universe (and specifically the Earth, which is, by definition, god's central concern) is too complex to have arisen by "chance". Dawkins' agrees (although I don't, necessarily. This is one of a very few places I actually differ from Dawkins'), and then correctly points out that chance is not the only alternative of ID; natural selection is NOT chance.

There are two central problems with ID:

1) ID simply begs the question. If the complex things never arise from less complex things, then this complex world must have been created by a more complex thing, which we call god. Of course, if that is the case, then god must have been created by something even more complex, and so on. In this sense, ID is no solution at all.

2) ID assumes that the world (and specifically life) is so complex as to make it impossible for it to have arisen by chance. Dawkins' rebuttal is one angle to take. The other is based on my previous statement: how do we know we are complex? Relative to what? Perhaps we are hopelessly backward on the scale of "absolute complexity". How would we know? And even if we accept that we are complex (I don't, necessarily), if the universe was started at some point, there HAD TO be an eventual consequence (taking any particular point in time as 'eventual'). We are that consequence. That may be highly unlikely, a priori, but so is any other single possibility. Please refer to my argument about flipping a coin 10 times, dropping red dye into a tank of water, or winning the lottery. Humans are VERY good at detecting patterns, but are also VERY easily fooled by them (and by what appears to be "chance").

Want proof? Answer this question:

What is the smallest number of people you need to have in a room at any time to ensure that the probability of any two people having the same birthday as each other is greater than 50%?

jb61264 wrote:There is a book called "The Science of God" by Gerald L. Schoroeder that shows the parallels between religious teachings and scientific findings and argues that the latest science and a close reading of the Bible are not just compatible but interdependent.

Ha...my Shabbat (Jewish Sabbath) book club choose this our next book. Not surprised though, as the club is made up of doctors and scientists (which I keep repeating for those who claim that Collins et al are rare breeds.)

shtreimel wrote:
So now I ask you, what does "work" mean? Does it mean: "Give me whatever I want God. Chocolate, cars, Ableton 7..." Or does it mean, as the Rolling Stones wisely stated: "You can't always get what you want....but if you try sometimes, you get what you need".

In therapy, we know our clients WANT their symptoms to disappear. But it's those very symptoms that create energy for true growth to take place.

I wont respond to the bulk of your post, because I agree with much of it, and have already responded to much of it elsewhere, except to say that, as I'm sure you'll agree, your mention that your medicine/science friends and family are Jewish is all well and good, but proves nothing about the literal existence of god.

In the sense I was referring to, "work" means "getting precisely what you asked for", which is clearly what Jesus was offering in the NT. I won't hold you to Jesus' words, of course, since you don't offer them as literal truth. I will ask, however, why you reject Jesus, or Islam, or the Olympian gods, etc. It would seem, as I've argued, that each is founded on identical levels of evidence, and each is equally likely to be right. Again, I'm interested in what makes someone choose one over the other. I've been quite forthcoming as to why I "choose" to believe in the scientific method. I've even called it faith, though not in the same sense as you might use that word.

edge100, full respect to you for being the most challenging, incisive, thoughtful, and sensitive atheist thinker I have had the pleasure of personally chatting with. My hat goes off to you.

edge100 wrote:In order to me to accept the literal truth of something (or least that the probability of something being literally true is extremely high), I need to see evidence for it.
...
Therefore, the decision to choose one religion over another comes down to what evidence is available that supports the literal truth of one over another. If no such evidence exists, then my choice is clear: ALL of them are highly likely to be literally false. I'm not looking for the "least bad" evidence; is it more improbable that Jesus was born of a virgin, or that Mohammed ascended to heaven on a winged horse, or that a teapot orbits the sun between Mars and Jupiter?

It's pointless to get into questions about virgin births and flying into the sky if you don't agree with the more fundamental claims of any worldview, just as it would be pointless to try to convince someone of the theories of relativity who did not believe in science. Therefore, setting aside specific claims by any particular theistic religion, we can break down the general theistic claims about the origin of the universe and compare with what we have learned through the scientific method.
It is important to note, at this point, that there are 2 branches of science...operational science (empirical) and origin science (forensic). Operational science deals with present regularities, while origin science deals with past singularities. The crucial difference between origin and operation scince is that in operation science there is a recurring pattern of events against which a theory can be tested. In origin scince, there is no recurring pattern in the present, since it deals with a past singularity. Thus, the principles of each are different - operation science deals with repetition and observation; origin science deals with causality and analogy. The principle of causality is that every event has a cause, and the priniciple of analogy is that past events have causes similar to causes of like present events.

Since we are dealing with the origin of the universe, we will be using the priniciples of origin science to evaluate the claims of theistic religion. Theistic religion claims that the universe has a beginning point in time, was created ex nihilo, and was brought into being by an uncaused, eternal, personal creator who sustains and can act within it in a super-natural way.
That the universe has a beginning in time is supported by evidence providied by modern science and mathematics - 2nd law of thermodynamics, expanding universe, general relativity, and the principle that anything that has spatio-temporal extent has a beginning and cause.
So if everything that we know to exist has a beginning, how did something come from nothing? What caused the big bang? We have no evidence to show that something can come from nothing without a cause. Science has shown us that the universe has a beginning, but cannot account for how it came into being. Of course, science continues to expand our rational understanding of the universe, but we are dealing with the present state of understanding, not our imagination of what may come.
Long before science came to its present understanding of the origin of the universe, theistic religion made claims about the universe that are in many ways in accord with modern scientific thought. Science mostly agrees that the universe had a beginning, but has not yet successfully postulated a cause. Whatver that cause may be, it must not have been itself caused, which means it must not have spatial or temporal extent, ie eternal. If this cause itself has no cause, then it must be pure actuality, since potentiality is a requisite for being caused, and thus pure simplicity, since it would have no possibility for division. It must also be immutable, transcendent of space and time, and unlimited in any qualities it might posess, since any limitation would imply potentiality, and thus negate its pure actuality. This is simply what the laws of logic and science tell us, but is also in accord with what theistic religion tells us, or hypothesizes, if you will.
If you are looking for evidence of there being a god, you have to look in the right direction....there's not going to be a "god" gene, or a "god" particle, or any way to "test" the existence of god in any sense that would satisfy science. At the same time, there are certain questions which science has gotten us no nearer to an explanation of. What caused the universe? What caused life? Evolution can somewhat explain how life evloved from life, but does not explain - in a way that has been proven - how life evolved from non-life.

edge100 wrote:"At no time in the past has a real gap in our knowledge been filled by god. In this respect, science is undefeated"

And this is what I'm getting at....it is impossible for us to gather any evidence from before the big bang, which is a serious gap in our knowledge. Using the rules of logic, we can postulate ideas about what caused the universe, and those ideas add up to something that looks an awful lot like God.

To me the claims of theism make a lot sense from a rational viewpoint, and thus I cannot discredit the idea of the universe having a creator when that is a question science will probably never have an answer to. As stated before, the apples continue to fall while the matter is being decided.

shtreimel wrote:

jb61264 wrote:There is a book called "The Science of God" by Gerald L. Schoroeder that shows the parallels between religious teachings and scientific findings and argues that the latest science and a close reading of the Bible are not just compatible but interdependent.

Ha...my Shabbat (Jewish Sabbath) book club choose this our next book. Not surprised though, as the club is made up of doctors and scientists (which I keep repeating for those who claim that Collins et al are rare breeds.)

They ARE rare breeds.

Dawkins' provides ample data in his book; surveys of the Royal Society and the National Academy of Sciences. The inverse correlation between education and religiosity is well documented.

This is just misleading, however, because even if Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and I were the only three scientists who didn't believe in Yahweh, there still wouldn't be any more proof supporting his existence.

Tone Deft wrote:At this point we're more about medicating than treatment (there's no money in the treatment, but that's another thread.)

So true, so true.

ethios4 wrote:edge100, full respect to you for being the most challenging, incisive, thoughtful, and sensitive atheist thinker I have had the pleasure of personally chatting with. My hat goes off to you.

Likewise. I appreciate it. I used to be far more militant about this (in the Sam Harris style). I've come to recognize that this debate can be had without that kind of thing. That doesn't change my core beliefs, just that an open discussion can give us all food for thought.

ethios4 wrote:And this is what I'm getting at....it is impossible for us to gather any evidence from before the big bang, which is a serious gap in our knowledge. Using the rules of logic, we can postulate ideas about what caused the universe, and those ideas add up to something that looks an awful lot like God.

To be fair to the religious folks in the crowd, science also breaks down at the big bang. The Big Bang theory postulates that space and time BEGAN at the big bang singularity; there quite literally was NO before. Even if there were a "before", it would have no bearing on what came afterward, because its events are truly outside the light-cone of our existence. This is akin to turning a light on at any given moment and asking how that affects an object more than 186,000 miles away in the next second; the answer is, it doesn't affect it at all, because light can only travel 186,000 miles/second. That object is at point in space-time that is outside of the light-cone of my flashlight.

So the folks who believe that god created the universe and those who believe in the big bang are really saying the same thing (and their suppositions are equally valid), since we cannot predict what happened before the big bang, because, quite literally, there was NOTHING before it.

NOTE: I'm not ignoring the rest of your great post. I'm simply trying to get a little more work done today. You raise some great points about the origin of life, many of which are begging for a more complete discussion.

edge100 wrote: as I'm sure you'll agree, your mention that your medicine/science friends and family are Jewish is all well and good, but proves nothing about the literal existence of god.

True.

edge100 wrote: why you reject Jesus, or Islam, or the Olympian gods, etc. It would seem, as I've argued, that each is founded on identical levels of evidence, and each is equally likely to be right. Again, I'm interested in what makes someone choose one over the other. I've been quite forthcoming as to why I "choose" to believe in the scientific method. I've even called it faith, though not in the same sense as you might use that word.

Suffice to say, I was born a Jew. I didn't "choose" Judaism. However, my ancestors, and quite a few converts from Christianity to Judaism, do have excellent reasons why they rejected this 'ism or that for Judaism. A quick Google search will pop up a plethora of info.

edge100 wrote:

shtreimel wrote:

jb61264 wrote:There is a book called "The Science of God" by Gerald L. Schoroeder that shows the parallels between religious teachings and scientific findings and argues that the latest science and a close reading of the Bible are not just compatible but interdependent.

Ha...my Shabbat (Jewish Sabbath) book club choose this our next book. Not surprised though, as the club is made up of doctors and scientists (which I keep repeating for those who claim that Collins et al are rare breeds.)

They ARE rare breeds.

Dawkins' provides ample data in his book; surveys of the Royal Society and the National Academy of Sciences. The inverse correlation between education and religiosity is well documented.

This is just misleading, however, because even if Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and I were the only three scientists who didn't believe in Yahweh, there still wouldn't be any more proof supporting his existence.

Are you just as willing to state that there isn't any more proof supporting that he doesn't exist as there is supporting his existence?

shtreimel wrote:

edge100 wrote: as I'm sure you'll agree, your mention that your medicine/science friends and family are Jewish is all well and good, but proves nothing about the literal existence of god.

True.

edge100 wrote: why you reject Jesus, or Islam, or the Olympian gods, etc. It would seem, as I've argued, that each is founded on identical levels of evidence, and each is equally likely to be right. Again, I'm interested in what makes someone choose one over the other. I've been quite forthcoming as to why I "choose" to believe in the scientific method. I've even called it faith, though not in the same sense as you might use that word.

Suffice to say, I was born a Jew. I didn't "choose" Judaism. However, my ancestors, and quite a few converts from Christianity to Judaism, do have excellent reasons why they rejected this 'ism or that for Judaism. A quick Google search will pop up a plethora of info.

Great. That's what I was looking for. I would wager that the vast, vast majority of people fit this mold (born into it).

I'm also sure that many have no even ventured as far as Google to defend their position. This is particularly odd given that religion is so central to many people's lives. You'd think they'd want to get it right.

jb61264 wrote:

edge100 wrote:

shtreimel wrote: Ha...my Shabbat (Jewish Sabbath) book club choose this our next book. Not surprised though, as the club is made up of doctors and scientists (which I keep repeating for those who claim that Collins et al are rare breeds.)

They ARE rare breeds.

Dawkins' provides ample data in his book; surveys of the Royal Society and the National Academy of Sciences. The inverse correlation between education and religiosity is well documented.

This is just misleading, however, because even if Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and I were the only three scientists who didn't believe in Yahweh, there still wouldn't be any more proof supporting his existence.

Are you just as willing to state that there isn't any more proof supporting that he doesn't exist as there is supporting his existence?

We're taking this thread back about 4 pages. I've addressed this. It has to do with burden of proof.

What is less unlikely, Jesus' being born of a virgin and ascending into heaven on the third day, or Mohammed ascending to heaven on a winged horse (sorry to use the same examples again and again), Zeus sitting atop Mt. Olympus with his lightning bolt, or a celestial teapot orbiting the sun? And even if there is an answer to this, is this REALLY the standard by which we make EVERY OTHER choice?

As I said before, lack of evidence against something doesn't provide a scrap of evidence FOR something. One hopes you never sit on a jury and employ this type of reasoning:

"Well, there's no evidence that he DIDN'T kill the guy, so he must be guilty!"

edge100 wrote:

jb61264 wrote:

edge100 wrote: They ARE rare breeds.

Dawkins' provides ample data in his book; surveys of the Royal Society and the National Academy of Sciences. The inverse correlation between education and religiosity is well documented.

This is just misleading, however, because even if Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and I were the only three scientists who didn't believe in Yahweh, there still wouldn't be any more proof supporting his existence.

Are you just as willing to state that there isn't any more proof supporting that he doesn't exist as there is supporting his existence?

We're taking this thread back about 4 pages. I've addressed this. It has to do with burden of proof.

What is less unlikely, Jesus' being born of a virgin and ascending into heaven on the third day, or Mohammed ascending to heaven on a winged horse (sorry to use the same examples again and again), Zeus sitting atop Mt. Olympus with his lightning bolt, or a celestial teapot orbiting the sun? And even if there is an answer to this, is this REALLY the standard by which we make EVERY OTHER choice?

As I said before, lack of evidence against something doesn't provide a scrap of evidence FOR something. One hopes you never sit on a jury and employ this type of reasoning:

"Well, there's no evidence that he DIDN'T kill the guy, so he must be guilty!"

So you're using basic legal principles to explain some of the unanswered questions about our existence? Do you not subscribe to the fact that there are things that happen that have no explanation as far as we can understand them? (sort of an X-files phenomena thing) or are you of the belief that humans are capable of understanding and measuring everything?...do you believe in ghosts?