I wanna see Dick Cheney wearing a dolphin costume.

And I love this post. Well written, Julianne.

However, the alternative is not necessarily harmless either.

In the guise of communism, atheistic ideology killed some 35 million in Soviet Russia, ~ 1 million in Cambodia, and tens of millions in Mao Zedong’s China.

These were peacetime deaths.

Religion is often blamed for wars that were primarily economic or political in nature.

On the other hand there are terrible cases of religious ideological murder, as with atheistic communist ideology.

Both atheistic and religious ideology are not harmless, it would be dangerously naive to be ignorant about the dangers of either.

Garth

If you aren’t paying attention, it’s easy to ignore how religion seems harmless. But it isn’t.

Crusades. Endless battles over ‘holy land’ that find peaces measured in days. Jihad. Kosovo. Hate crimes. Bigotry (the bible is still sexist and racist because it hasn’t changed), Hitler shaking hands with the Pope. And more.

Hope you consider my post.

Letting people believe in what makes them happy sounds harmless enough - but when their “Holy Book” has chapters like the Christian New Testament “Apocalypse” which talks about the end of the world, things get more problematic. Especially if you know that the Reagon administration did not fear a nuclear war because the (christian) advisors were of the opinion that then this would be the biblical Armageddon. And at this moment US Congressmen hold similar ideas (luckily only a minority).

Religion was acceptable in a world of swords and lances - but it is _not_ acceptable in a world of nuclear bombs, where irrationalist thought can extinguish civilization.

One more distinction may be of important: personal religions can be tolerated if they are simply spiritual/mystical beliefs. East Asian religions like buddhism or taoism are well suited for these purposes.

But every rational person has the duty to oppose monotheistic religions with books of revelation. They are so inherently intolerant that their potential for harm is simply too great a risk in modern society.

Regards,
Peter

Hey, I do have a sense of humor about all this. Your theory is clever, and when I think of how f***ed up this joint can get, I find much sympathy for the old Gnostic heresy of the evil or incompetent demiurge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge

In any case, Happy New Year to everyone, and have a terrific Allmess too!
(That is the new holiday I made up that is every other holiday, including whatever you want to make up, all mixed together! By definition, you can celebrate it any time, anywhere, in any manner you want!)

Maybe you are right, about yourselves (scientists etc.) as well. I get the impression, from the simplistic and often fallacious (or at least inadequate) attempts at philosophical treatment here by skeptics of “conditional” concepts of the universe’s existence, that scientists literally aren’t happy thinking about questions of ultimate meaning and purpose (for the universe itself.) It certainly isn’t because “rational thought” actually supports such a loose-end universe that just happens to be here (all of the “physical theories” which purport to do so just take the laws of physics or some equivalent as background to effect that outcome, without giving ultimate explanation to them.) I have brought up many arguments about this, but right or wrong or unknowable as they may be, few here even bother to engage.

Sure, maybe or maybe not there’s some uncaused being behind all this, I don’t call any of the pro arguments “proof” any more than the anti arguments. However, no honest rational person would at just “blow off” the peculiarly fine-tuned nature of our physical laws as something easy to dismiss. They certainly wouldn’t go around blithely tossing off concepts of “other worlds” that we can’t (in opposition to their own old tradition of scientific empiricism) even observe, yet at least, in attempt to avoid facing up to that. (And why must they try so hard to evade such notions?) There is a difference between just passing on something that seems unprovable, which is OK by me, and a directly anti-transcendent orientation. There is really no excuse for the latter.

I’m a Ph.D. in physics but (wanted to) believe in Santa Claus till I was eleven. My sister and I made a “mistake” of wishing a kitten for Christmas (who of course was constantly meowing in my parents’ room the day before…).

In society it is just very hard to make everyone happy, because of the conflicts of interests. I think the most depressing human nature is that nobody is really free from someone else’s will imposed within particular cultures during nurturing process. Looking around, you really cannot deny that the science types tend to come from intellectually-oriented environment, whereas religious types come from theirs. People don’t become human beings as we know, unless nurtured by specific environments.

Having had to deal with people from very different backgrounds (jeez Americans are too religious and materialistic for my taste!!), I learned to tolerate people for who they are; otherwise, you keep feeling your belief is challenged. As long as others do not violate my sense of security, I should not invade theirs. A mature society has the mechanism to keep that process in check (such as the separation of state and religion).

We scientists, however, have an obligation to “share” the knowledge that we discover, and need to make sure that the knowledge is easily accessible to those who desire. If science really makes the vast majority of people on Earth happy in the end, people will naturally have confidence in it, as many already are. I at least hope that is the case.

“As self-aware beings we should be very gratified by the idea that we are able to abstract knowledge..mathematical(logical) truths, and create models of the universe around us that are detailed enough (in modern theory) to border on philosophical debates while making verifiable predictions.”

Almost good enough. We are able to abstract knowledge and logical truths and assumptions, and go beyond simply creating models of the universe “around us.” We can think in even more abstract terms (see my posts upthread) about other possible universes, about concepts of existence and what it even might mean (see regarding “modal realism”) and think about things like necessary and contingent existence. Such thoughts are philosophical debates in the best sense, they don’t just border on them. Most of you here have posited a level of intelligent thought, called “science” and then put “religion” (as sentiment/tradition etc.) below it, but there is “philosophy” above them both. Whether one comes to a yes or a no answer is not how to define where one is operating with that. BTW, anyone who talks about what science and religion are, what can be done or not with science and philosophy, is doing philosophy (e.g. “of science”) and so can’t beg off that he or she isn’t really playing too, but just critiquing those who do. You can only fight metaphysics with other metaphysics, sorry (but don’t take it hard, instead just roll with the punches and maybe you’ll expand your horizons about all this without having to believe in any hand-me-down sacred text or ancient tradition.)

What happens is, if you *don’t* bring an umbrella, then it will rain. This is a genuine and distinct phenomenon. Common-place, even.

Yes too many theoretical physicists here. This is a well understood phenomena seen by experimentalists in all fields of science. It’s a corollary of Murphy’s Law sometimes also known as Sod’s Law

Religious feelings - the need for the deity - evolved to help us deal with reality. One cannot address those feelings and resulting belief systems without addressing that harsh reality, and the role of the sentient being in it. You would be fighting against human emotion, and like Julianne implied, it’s not a battle worth fighting. What’s the point?

I personally found the fact that I can “do science”, to be enough of a motivation in life. As self-aware beings we should be very gratified by the idea that we are able to abstract knowledge..mathematical(logical) truths, and create models of the universe around us that are detailed enough (in modern theory) to border on philosophical debates while making verifiable predictions. That is a wonderful thing, an amazing thing, because we are aware of the entire process. No other known entity can do this. Those of us who are lucky enough to understand can live to celebrate it. And those who are not should be gently smiled at, and left to their deities.

Not having any kids, I didn’t realize until just now why it is that parents don’t tell their children where babies come from. Now I understand completely.

12/22/2007
The psychedelic secrets of Santa Claus
Posted by john coulthart
[taken from]
The psychedelic secrets of Santa Claus
by Dana Larsen, Cannabis Culture Magazine (18 Dec, 2003)

Most of the major elements of the modern Christmas celebration, such as Santa Claus, Christmas trees, magical reindeer and the giving of gifts, are originally based upon the traditions surrounding the harvest and consumption of these most sacred mushrooms.
…

Yes, take enough of those mushrooms and you will have no trouble appreciating concepts like “modal realism” or infinite stacks of turtles! BTW, since the active ingredient is excreted as is in urine, imbibing the emanations as it were of an Enlightened One will take you right to Mr. Super Turtle him/herself. (Maybe that’s “trickle down ecstanomics.”)

What’s really funny to me is, despite misgivings that arguments such as given by MRers are sophistry, it really isn’t logically possible to define material existence - it is a mystical concept. And, we really do know how eclipses occur, and it’s simple to model, but the foundation of the universe is a complete mystery and mess, as anyone arguing or watching same about string theory knows.

PS - Just remembered — the dragon eats the sun during an eclipse. Days get shorter in the winter because the sun is shy about the all weight it’s put on during the ’shroom festivals …

There exists considerable research (and more coming forth all the time) that this Santa character is an amalgamation of various semioticities from cultures around the globe living above the 50ºN Parallel. One of the most singular of common elements in these historical and contemporary cultures is the use of Amanita muscaria, the fly agaric fungus. Collected prior to the great snows and freezes of winter, the frozen mushroom makes its way into midwinter (actually winter solstice) ritual meals, particularly those of shamen (et al), to provide a variety of wonderful visual splendors and intuitive gifts. As most of these rituals (and cultures) predate that one Mesopotamian/Eastern Mediterranean/Pallas religion, one could safely infer that our winter Santas are more about shrooms, than xMas is about some god or another being born. Amanita muscaria is also a known favorite of Lapland reindeer, Inuit caribou, and Siberian tribal muskox. Gotta love that red & white and hints of gold.

Second — Allmess (Allmas?) is a wonderful concept. I’m a proponent of mid-winter celebrations and while acknowledging the solstice is a good start it’s always struck me as a bit cold-sounding. Didn’t quite capture the preceeding fear and subsequent joy societies must have felt as the days got shorter and they eventually received confirmation that the sun was, in fact, coming back.

Now to the issues at hand. You are correct about the argument from complexity; I was engaged in some hand-waving when I wrote, “strikes me” in my original comment. I apologize if some of my arguments were and will be a bit truncated and over-simplified. A consequence of attempting to engage in a sophisticated discussion while seemingly doing work.

I don’t agree with MR. I’m, at heart, an Occam’s razor kind of guy. I do find it absolutely fascinating that human language and models of “reality” can allow us to ponder concepts such as MR. But MR strikes me (those words again) as an elaborate analog to writing something like, “Everything I say is true. Everything I say is a lie.” The ability to frame a non-solvable statement or non-refutable mental model is not the equivalent of the thing’s existence or validity.

I will readily acknowledge my non-belief in “God” leaves certain questions unanswered. Right now, I’m willing to admit to huge amounts of ignorance about the detailed workings of the universe. But I like to think answers to those questions, like the answer to why days get shorter in winter, will come in time. In other words, my *something* which is necessary and uncontingent is the universe itself as it is currently being described by modern science in its many cosmological, physical, chemical, geological, and even mathematical ways.

In the meantime, resorting to a belief in God to explain existence is like saying that a dragon is devouring the sun just to have an explaination for the dark days of winter.

Of course, that’s IMIO (in my ignorant opinion).