6 ms·

Or lazy. Coming late to this game, I'm still surprised by this attitude in CS circles. To me, an atheist has refused to see the problem in defining one simple

by robg 18y ago

Or lazy. Coming late to this game, I'm still surprised by this attitude in CS circles. To me, an atheist has refused to see the problem in defining one simple term: "God". Rejecting one definition (after a half-hearted explication) doesn't solve anything except by ignoring further inquiry. As a neuroscientist, I know that finite matter gives rise to visions of the infinite. To me, that itself is an awe-inspiring moment for which I have no rational basis. Call it what you will (even delusion) but the challenge is to explain it away when no explanation seems adequate. Of course, solving for "God" need not be tied to a particular faith. On it's own, it's a personal undertaking where rejecting an understanding in being atheist is certainly one's right. But replace the loaded term "God" with something else, say "Nature" or "Infinite" or "Universe" or even "Matter", and I can't see how one doesn't tumble back to a more humble position.

dfranke 18y ago
All Sagan's books touch the nerve-endings of transcendent wonder that religion monopolized in past centuries. My own books have the same aspiration. Consequently I hear myself often described as a deeply religious man. An American student wrote to me that she had asked her professor whether he had a view about me. 'Sure,' he replied. 'He's positive science is incompatible with religion, but he waxes ecstatic about nature and the universe. To me, that is religion!' But is 'religion' the right word? I don't think so. The Nobel Prize-winning physicist (and atheist) Steven Weinberg made the point as well as anybody, in Dreams of a Final Theory: Some people have views of God that are so broad and flexible that it is inevitable that they will find God wherever they look for him. One hears it said that 'God is the ultimate' or 'God is our better nature' or 'God is the universe.' Of course, like any other word, the word 'God' can be given any meaning we like. If you want to say that 'God is energy,' then you can find God in a lump of coal. Weinberg is surely right that, if the word God is not to become completely useless, it should be used in the way people have generally understood it: to denote a supernatural creator that is 'appropriate for us to worship'. --Dawkins
- robg 18y ago
  Pantheists do find God in a lump of coal. So too do coal miners and energy conglomerates. :) Aquinas called God "Pure substance through pure act". It's very hard not to see a definition of matter and energy there and given by a "Saint". Dawkins here is insisting on a definition for which his professional training gives no special insight. So why should he be recognized as some "expert"?
  - dfranke 18y ago
    So why should he be recognized as some "expert"? He doesn't have to be. The argument stands on its own: you can define "God" to be whatever you want, but the definition that you advance approaches tautology.
    - robg 18y ago
      And who stands outside time and space to define the tautology? Dawkins is substituting one definition for all definitions. Problem is, his definition is neither necessary nor sufficient. Furthermore, the traditional problem with organized religion is the same: specific, and sometimes powerful, people failing to see that outcome with their own definitions. Sure, "God" could be whatever you want it to be. But that's exactly the point. It's a personal relationship (or lack thereof) defined by you. And no amount of science can take that away. If anything, the failures of modern physics (and soon neuroscience too) deepens my appreciation for the religious perspective.
      - 0x44 18y ago
        And who stands outside time and space to define the tautology? That statement has no meaning. There is no fundamental understanding regarding the concept of "outside time and space", because our knowledge of them both derives from experience. To have some understanding of 'outside', you would have to have received that information a priori. That would mean that everyone had received that information, however. Since, we can readily determine that the difference between believers and non-believers is a matter of experience. The difference between the two has nothing to do with "outside" either time and space, because that "outside" is not experiencable (at this point in time).
- IsaacSchlueter 18y ago
  This reminds me of a conversation I heard once in college that stuck with me. A: I believe that when you die, your energy goes back out into the world, and becomes a part of everything. P: Yeah, that's why you get cold. Entropy. The problem is, when non-geeks talk about energy, they almost never really mean energy. Which is a shame, because real energy is a lot cooler and more magical than the ghosty chi-stuff they're talking about.
DougBTX 18y ago
Understanding "God" as a "Personal God" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_god http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_god) is by no means limited to CS circles, I'd say it is the default position in much of the western world. Beyond that, yes, you're probably right: a broader definition of god would probably lead to less people calling themselves atheist. I'm not sure how you would go about expanding the definition, it seems like any religion which says "this is what god is" will have a natural advantage over one which says "god is whatever you like", since people are better at coming together over things which they share, rather than things they agree not to share.
- robg 18y ago
  But if anything, I'd expect programmers to be willing and interested in writing their own definition. The problem only comes in when one assumes that's the only definition. Still, programmers seem more, not less, amenable to re-write when something isn't right.
  - randallsquared 18y ago
    Why bother with redefining someone else's term for your own use? It seems more straightforward to come up with your own term, if the concept doesn't match in the first place.
    - robg 18y ago
      That, I think, is a fine question. The emergence of "spirituality" is seemingly one approach to get around the term. For me, I'm okay with struggling with the term because it leads to good discussions with folks of differing persuasions.
    - DougBTX 18y ago
      Why bother with redefining someone else's term for your own use? If you think that someone stole your term, or at least your term's historical meaning, then it's fair enough to fight to take it back. You'll have problems communicating with people who don't remember the less-common meaning until you remind them of it, but that might be a price worth paying.
pg 18y ago
Or lazy. No, the lazy choice is to have the visions of the infinite you mention and instead of trying to understand them, simply to describe them in terms of whatever traditional concepts are floating around in your culture-- which in this case are at best 99% anthropomorphizing fable, and often consciously designed to enslave you.
- robg 18y ago
  That's a very strict definition that I mostly agree with to understand the past. But it still leaves the leading question unaddressed. The solution to rejecting something isn't replacing it with nothing. By "understand them", I think that can operate on many levels simultaneously. The key for me is either giving up traditional concepts or reinterpreting them in contemporary terms.
- jsrn 18y ago
  No, the lazy choice is to have the visions of the infinite you mention and instead of trying to understand them, simply to describe them in terms of whatever traditional concepts are floating around in your culture. maybe it's not an either-or choice. E.g., Don Knuth manages to be a (non-lazy) scientist who has thought a lot about infinity and a Christian at the same time.
- DanielBMarkham 18y ago
  Perhaps some of us have grown out of our traditional concepts designed to enslave us and have managed not to have visions of the infinite (study of infinities is a fairly mature science, btw) but still understand the need for a taxonomy of the unknowable? The lazy is on you, it seems, for making all kinds of straw man arguments here. Surely 99% of belief in God is based on culture and anthropology, but 99% is not 100%. You do the topic a disservice to say that it is. Personally? I find it funny when people say they're an atheist. "How do you know what not to believe in?" is my first question, and usually that shuts them down. You see, atheism is a response to those traditional cultural ideas of religion (and the history of how they have evolved), not to the real concept of a God. To the atheist, God, santa clause, the christian church, the easter bunny, etc -- it's all the same thing. Stuff you can't prove. They haven't grown to understand where the definitional fault lines are. That's lazy.
aswanson 18y ago
While I welcome the debate, I don't think this is the forum for it. All we will end up doing is insulting one another leaving opinions unchanged. It's been proven time and again that this type of stuff only results in flamewars. !HN
- maw 18y ago
  Only somebody with beliefs so different from my correct beliefs would say something so stupid.
  - aswanson 18y ago
    :)
as 18y ago
"As a neuroscientist, I know that finite matter gives rise to visions of the infinite." I'm pretty sure this doesn't mean anything.
- robg 18y ago
  "finite matter" = the ~3.5lbs of squishy grey stuff between your ears and all the material stuff that leaves an impression upon it "visions of the infintite" = can mean many things that approach that limit = Pi = recursion of indefinite length = time "before" matter = the number of possible synaptic connections ... What makes them interesting "visions" - to me - is our intellect can just about get our fingers those concepts and then...indeed, I know not the bounds of this inquiry And studying semantic memory in the brain, I have no idea where a concept like "infinity" comes from. Sure it might come from the brain? It must! Right? Right!? :)
  - as 18y ago
    I don't see a coherent argument here, which further suggests that it doesn't mean anything. Our having a concept of infinity has no metaphysical significance. All our definitions are phrased negatively, by what it's not: Infinite: That which has no limit. From the Latin 'infinitas', meaning 'unboundedness'. Try and see if you can define infinity by what it is rather than what it isn't.
    - robg 18y ago
      What, exactly, do you think I'm trying to argue? To me the question is exactly whether having a concept of infinity has metaphysical significance. I think no good answer is humanly possible. Your definition is just as tautological as anything offered in the positive. That's exactly the problem.
      - as 18y ago
        That's the problem, it's hard to tell what you're saying.
IsaacSchlueter 18y ago
Rejecting one definition (after a half-hearted explication) doesn't solve anything except by ignoring further inquiry. But replace the loaded term "God" with something else, say "Nature" or "Infinite" or "Universe" or even "Matter", and I can't see how one doesn't tumble back to a more humble position. Well, obviously I believe in "nature" and "universe" and "matter". But praying to these things is silly, because they don't have minds and can't hear you. That's not what "God" means. What "God" means, to the majority of english speakers at least, is some form of magical super-fairy who created the universe and loves you. And no, I don't believe in magic or super-fairies, and I am not convinced that the universe's has a creator, and if it does, I'm further not convinced that said creator would necessarily be loving, or even have emotions as you and I conceive them. The slippery definition is a common tactic. You can't just redefine the term until it's something we all agree on, and then pretend that you're still talking about the same thing that we were disagreeing with. Either God is a magical ghost, or it's nature. If it's nature, then let's stop pretending that this is about deities and theism, and admit that we're just using poetic terms to talk about physics, declare that praying accomplishes no more than any other kind of meditative activity, and stop treating "religion" as any more special than sports or soap operas. I'd be ok with that.
- robg 18y ago
  Honestly it's not a "tactic" for me. I've come up with a workable definition that I'm very comfortable with. Luckily my wife and I mostly agree - and she's Indian. That's good enough for us - my definition doesn't have to work for you. And prayer, for me, is simply finding a stillness in my mind. You're insisting on a set of concepts that never worked for me. So I gave them up. It's still weird for me that this thread is filled with this common response, among folks very comfortable writing their own definitions on a daily basis, but this subject area provokes resistance but not reformation. By "Nature", where does that end for you? This planet? Or the solar system? The universe? Or the "metaverse"? There have been Christian theologians who can be read as naturalistic pantheists. See Charles Hartshorne. Good luck ascribing classical concepts to him, for instance.
  - IsaacSchlueter 18y ago
helveticaman 18y ago
Or lazy. It's easier to understand creationism than physics.
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]

by robg 18y ago

dfranke 18y ago

All Sagan's books touch the nerve-endings of transcendent wonder that religion monopolized in past centuries. My own books have the same aspiration. Consequently I hear myself often described as a deeply religious man. An American student wrote to me that she had asked her professor whether he had a view about me. 'Sure,' he replied. 'He's positive science is incompatible with religion, but he waxes ecstatic about nature and the universe. To me, that is religion!' But is 'religion' the right word? I don't think so. The Nobel Prize-winning physicist (and atheist) Steven Weinberg made the point as well as anybody, in Dreams of a Final Theory: Some people have views of God that are so broad and flexible that it is inevitable that they will find God wherever they look for him. One hears it said that 'God is the ultimate' or 'God is our better nature' or 'God is the universe.' Of course, like any other word, the word 'God' can be given any meaning we like. If you want to say that 'God is energy,' then you can find God in a lump of coal. Weinberg is surely right that, if the word God is not to become completely useless, it should be used in the way people have generally understood it: to denote a supernatural creator that is 'appropriate for us to worship'. --Dawkins

robg 18y ago
Pantheists do find God in a lump of coal. So too do coal miners and energy conglomerates. :) Aquinas called God "Pure substance through pure act". It's very hard not to see a definition of matter and energy there and given by a "Saint". Dawkins here is insisting on a definition for which his professional training gives no special insight. So why should he be recognized as some "expert"?
- dfranke 18y ago
  So why should he be recognized as some "expert"? He doesn't have to be. The argument stands on its own: you can define "God" to be whatever you want, but the definition that you advance approaches tautology.
  - robg 18y ago
    And who stands outside time and space to define the tautology? Dawkins is substituting one definition for all definitions. Problem is, his definition is neither necessary nor sufficient. Furthermore, the traditional problem with organized religion is the same: specific, and sometimes powerful, people failing to see that outcome with their own definitions. Sure, "God" could be whatever you want it to be. But that's exactly the point. It's a personal relationship (or lack thereof) defined by you. And no amount of science can take that away. If anything, the failures of modern physics (and soon neuroscience too) deepens my appreciation for the religious perspective.
    - 0x44 18y ago
      And who stands outside time and space to define the tautology? That statement has no meaning. There is no fundamental understanding regarding the concept of "outside time and space", because our knowledge of them both derives from experience. To have some understanding of 'outside', you would have to have received that information a priori. That would mean that everyone had received that information, however. Since, we can readily determine that the difference between believers and non-believers is a matter of experience. The difference between the two has nothing to do with "outside" either time and space, because that "outside" is not experiencable (at this point in time).
IsaacSchlueter 18y ago
This reminds me of a conversation I heard once in college that stuck with me. A: I believe that when you die, your energy goes back out into the world, and becomes a part of everything. P: Yeah, that's why you get cold. Entropy. The problem is, when non-geeks talk about energy, they almost never really mean energy. Which is a shame, because real energy is a lot cooler and more magical than the ghosty chi-stuff they're talking about.

DougBTX 18y ago

Understanding "God" as a "Personal God" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_god http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_god) is by no means limited to CS circles, I'd say it is the default position in much of the western world. Beyond that, yes, you're probably right: a broader definition of god would probably lead to less people calling themselves atheist. I'm not sure how you would go about expanding the definition, it seems like any religion which says "this is what god is" will have a natural advantage over one which says "god is whatever you like", since people are better at coming together over things which they share, rather than things they agree not to share.

robg 18y ago
But if anything, I'd expect programmers to be willing and interested in writing their own definition. The problem only comes in when one assumes that's the only definition. Still, programmers seem more, not less, amenable to re-write when something isn't right.
- randallsquared 18y ago
  Why bother with redefining someone else's term for your own use? It seems more straightforward to come up with your own term, if the concept doesn't match in the first place.
  - robg 18y ago
    That, I think, is a fine question. The emergence of "spirituality" is seemingly one approach to get around the term. For me, I'm okay with struggling with the term because it leads to good discussions with folks of differing persuasions.
  - DougBTX 18y ago
    Why bother with redefining someone else's term for your own use? If you think that someone stole your term, or at least your term's historical meaning, then it's fair enough to fight to take it back. You'll have problems communicating with people who don't remember the less-common meaning until you remind them of it, but that might be a price worth paying.

pg 18y ago

Or lazy. No, the lazy choice is to have the visions of the infinite you mention and instead of trying to understand them, simply to describe them in terms of whatever traditional concepts are floating around in your culture-- which in this case are at best 99% anthropomorphizing fable, and often consciously designed to enslave you.

robg 18y ago
That's a very strict definition that I mostly agree with to understand the past. But it still leaves the leading question unaddressed. The solution to rejecting something isn't replacing it with nothing. By "understand them", I think that can operate on many levels simultaneously. The key for me is either giving up traditional concepts or reinterpreting them in contemporary terms.
jsrn 18y ago
No, the lazy choice is to have the visions of the infinite you mention and instead of trying to understand them, simply to describe them in terms of whatever traditional concepts are floating around in your culture. maybe it's not an either-or choice. E.g., Don Knuth manages to be a (non-lazy) scientist who has thought a lot about infinity and a Christian at the same time.
DanielBMarkham 18y ago
Perhaps some of us have grown out of our traditional concepts designed to enslave us and have managed not to have visions of the infinite (study of infinities is a fairly mature science, btw) but still understand the need for a taxonomy of the unknowable? The lazy is on you, it seems, for making all kinds of straw man arguments here. Surely 99% of belief in God is based on culture and anthropology, but 99% is not 100%. You do the topic a disservice to say that it is. Personally? I find it funny when people say they're an atheist. "How do you know what not to believe in?" is my first question, and usually that shuts them down. You see, atheism is a response to those traditional cultural ideas of religion (and the history of how they have evolved), not to the real concept of a God. To the atheist, God, santa clause, the christian church, the easter bunny, etc -- it's all the same thing. Stuff you can't prove. They haven't grown to understand where the definitional fault lines are. That's lazy.

aswanson 18y ago

While I welcome the debate, I don't think this is the forum for it. All we will end up doing is insulting one another leaving opinions unchanged. It's been proven time and again that this type of stuff only results in flamewars. !HN

maw 18y ago
Only somebody with beliefs so different from my correct beliefs would say something so stupid.
- aswanson 18y ago
  :)

as 18y ago

"As a neuroscientist, I know that finite matter gives rise to visions of the infinite." I'm pretty sure this doesn't mean anything.

robg 18y ago
"finite matter" = the ~3.5lbs of squishy grey stuff between your ears and all the material stuff that leaves an impression upon it "visions of the infintite" = can mean many things that approach that limit = Pi = recursion of indefinite length = time "before" matter = the number of possible synaptic connections ... What makes them interesting "visions" - to me - is our intellect can just about get our fingers those concepts and then...indeed, I know not the bounds of this inquiry And studying semantic memory in the brain, I have no idea where a concept like "infinity" comes from. Sure it might come from the brain? It must! Right? Right!? :)
- as 18y ago
  I don't see a coherent argument here, which further suggests that it doesn't mean anything. Our having a concept of infinity has no metaphysical significance. All our definitions are phrased negatively, by what it's not: Infinite: That which has no limit. From the Latin 'infinitas', meaning 'unboundedness'. Try and see if you can define infinity by what it is rather than what it isn't.
  - robg 18y ago
    What, exactly, do you think I'm trying to argue? To me the question is exactly whether having a concept of infinity has metaphysical significance. I think no good answer is humanly possible. Your definition is just as tautological as anything offered in the positive. That's exactly the problem.
    - as 18y ago
      That's the problem, it's hard to tell what you're saying.

IsaacSchlueter 18y ago

Rejecting one definition (after a half-hearted explication) doesn't solve anything except by ignoring further inquiry. But replace the loaded term "God" with something else, say "Nature" or "Infinite" or "Universe" or even "Matter", and I can't see how one doesn't tumble back to a more humble position. Well, obviously I believe in "nature" and "universe" and "matter". But praying to these things is silly, because they don't have minds and can't hear you. That's not what "God" means. What "God" means, to the majority of english speakers at least, is some form of magical super-fairy who created the universe and loves you. And no, I don't believe in magic or super-fairies, and I am not convinced that the universe's has a creator, and if it does, I'm further not convinced that said creator would necessarily be loving, or even have emotions as you and I conceive them. The slippery definition is a common tactic. You can't just redefine the term until it's something we all agree on, and then pretend that you're still talking about the same thing that we were disagreeing with. Either God is a magical ghost, or it's nature. If it's nature, then let's stop pretending that this is about deities and theism, and admit that we're just using poetic terms to talk about physics, declare that praying accomplishes no more than any other kind of meditative activity, and stop treating "religion" as any more special than sports or soap operas. I'd be ok with that.

robg 18y ago
Honestly it's not a "tactic" for me. I've come up with a workable definition that I'm very comfortable with. Luckily my wife and I mostly agree - and she's Indian. That's good enough for us - my definition doesn't have to work for you. And prayer, for me, is simply finding a stillness in my mind. You're insisting on a set of concepts that never worked for me. So I gave them up. It's still weird for me that this thread is filled with this common response, among folks very comfortable writing their own definitions on a daily basis, but this subject area provokes resistance but not reformation. By "Nature", where does that end for you? This planet? Or the solar system? The universe? Or the "metaverse"? There have been Christian theologians who can be read as naturalistic pantheists. See Charles Hartshorne. Good luck ascribing classical concepts to him, for instance.
- IsaacSchlueter 18y ago

helveticaman 18y ago

Or lazy. It's easier to understand creationism than physics.

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]