ricadelide:

I'm not the one detracting from the issues at hand, you are. The issue at hand is the validity of Pascal's wager, not the evolution-creation debate. Calling evolution (or rather evolutionary theory) a belief system is hogwash. It most definitely is science. You may not like it's philosophical implications, you may think the evidence isn't sufficient, but it meets all the criteria of proper science. That cannot in a million years be said about 'creation' no mater how hard you try to equivocate the two on epistemological grounds.

let me show you what i mean; read my initial post; i said 'that is not the ideal situation', i don't live by Pascal's wager because i have evidence of the God i believe in. i was just making a cautionary statement to Mayor.

The origiinal poster was putting forward a (rather clumsy) version of Pascal's wager. You were the one sidetracking the issue by steering the attention to the evolution-creation debate. Pascal's wager remains a very weak and rather self-defeating argument in favor of Christianity. And the fact that you defended it here in this thread is a bit puzzling.

ricadelide:

So, disregarding Pascal's wager, we're back to where we started; did everything create itself; or did someone create everything. those are the only two plausible philosphical approaches. the other one, that we are not really here and we are just imaginary, can be disregarded.

The fact that you only see these two philosophical approaches (why [i]philosophical [/i]approaches, by the way?), shows that you are a bit myopic on this issue. What if time is circular or bidirectional? If that were the case, it would undermine your two approaches from the onset. By saying that everything that exists needs a creator, you are only defining a problem into existence. Reality must not, in any way, subject itself to human cognitive limitations.

ricadelide:

Now coming to evolution being science; i totally disagree; science is basically the study of what can be observed. there is no peculiar evidence for evolution; every asserted evidence is always disproved later on.

So, by your own definition, cosmology is not science, geology is not science and we can throw the whole of social sciences on the garbage heap of 'failed' science, because it does not include direct observation. Your view on science is very limited indeed and very much in contradiction with what is considered science by the majority of scientists and philosophers of science.
The Theory of Evolution is scientific because it is (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem):
* Consistent. Generates no obvious logical contradictions, and 'saves the phenomena', being consistent with observation.
* Parsimonious. Economical in the number of assumptions and hypothetical entities.
* Pertinent. Describes and explains observed phenomena.
* Falsifiable and testable. See Falsifiability and Testability.
* Reproducible. Makes predictions that can be tested by any observer, with trials extending indefinitely into the future.
* Correctable and dynamic. Subject to modification as new observations are made.
* Integrative, robust, and corrigible. Subsumes previous theories as approximations, and allows possible subsumption by future theories. ("Robust", here, refers to stability in the statistical sense, i.e., not very sensitive to occasional outlying data points.) See Correspondence principle
* Provisional or tentative. Does not assert the absolute certainty of the theory.
Creationism fails on most of these criteria.

ricadelide:

Neither is it observed, so tell me why that should be science.

See above. Observation isn't the only way of reproducing results.

ricadelide:

Creation as well is NOT science, but it is scientific.

Where does it meet any of the criteria mentioned above?

ricadelide:

what ultimately happens is two people are presented with the same evidence and they make two different conclusions.

Male bovine excrement. The TOE is a scientific theory, Creationism is wishful thinking whereby the evidence is interpreted in the light of of it's presuppositions. It's not because the evidence can (barely) be made consistent with the idea of creation is anywhere contingent upon the evidence. That's not science or scientific, it is anti-scientific.

ricadelide:

by and large, if one wanted to be fair, the evidence for the latter interpretation is much more overwhelming than the former.

You really must have a vivid imagination. Anything can be made consistent with creation because of it's ineffable plasticity.

ricadelide:

Most scientists have a naturalist worldview, and as such there is an ab initio rejection of a creator, that's why evolution is still around, because they don't have any substitute, on the other hand, all peculiar evidence for a creation is rejected because it is not mainstream.

1. What is [i]peculiar [/i]evidence?
2. obviously scientists have by large a naturalist worldview. Science is a methodologically naturalist enterprise, it couldn't be anything else.

ricadelide:

Explain the logic you apply then to arrive at that conclusion. I'm curious how you can possibly get there on logical grounds.

its a basically simple question; if evolution is true, what will the evidence be? if a creation is true, what will the evidence be? ie if someone created things as they are, what evidence would he have left in what has been created?

You should first define your terms precisely. What is 'creation' exactly and what is the Theory of Creation? How does it meet the standards for being a scientific theory?
If this is established, then we can evaluate whether or not Creation Theory or the TOE explains the evidence better.
You still didn't answer my question: How do you arrive at the TOE being ludicrous and creation to be true on logical grounds?

ricadelide:

1. Why can there be only one creator?
2. Why is there a need for a creator?
3. Assuming (1) and (2), why does that make Pascal's wager valid?

why can there only be one creator? what does that mean? if there is more than one creator then they'd be working together, so it still doesn't make any difference.
why is there need for a creator? if you see a building do you ask why there is need for a builder? if you see a painting, do you ask why there is need for a painter? the question is 'what are you seeing'? I see a creation, so it makes perfect sense to say there is a creator. the question then is, again, if there has been a creation, what will the evidence be?

In the cases you mentioned you can infer a builder and painter based on prior observations. Nothing of that sort is the case for the natural world. Your naive view that there is a creator is just an expression fo your personal incredulity and your refusal to really consider the evidence for the TOE.

ricadelide:

coming to Pascal's wager - again, i don't live by it, so i don't say it is valid, however there is no denying that it is plausible and beneficial.

I have to assume here that you really didn't read my reply. In view of your credentials, I refuse to consider the other possible explanation.

ricadelide:

How do you determine the probability of yours being right? What gives you a more valid claim to truth than the followers of all these other religions?

first, its not a probability - i know you have to use that word, becuase you can never be sure of mental knowledge. and herein lies your assumption, our minds UNDERSTAND, they can never KNOW for certain, so everything has to be about probabilities; because, ultimately, how do we know that our minds are not imaginary and we are deluding ourselves. you assume that the same things apply to the spiritual - not so.

Great. Now you define the spiritual in such a manner that it becomes impervious to examination. Something is so because I say it is?

ricadelide:

that's the difference with spiritual things; the spirit is the seat of true and certain knowledge, so its not about probabilities its about certainties; i'm not arguing to gain knowledge, i'm arguing from knowledge. that's why i'm a believer - i'm SURE of what i hope for, and CERTAIN of what i don't see physically (ie the spiritual). that doesnt mean i know everything - it only means, i don't argue about things am not definite or sure about.
the goal of spirituality is to know God and i'm certain i know him and have evidence for him all around and within me.

Do you have any idea how silly all of this sounds?

ricadelide:

Your point?

my point is just the above; there is no CERTAINTY in organised religion.

And there is certainty in un-organised religion?

ricadelide:

Actually, I would not make the same statement based on identical premisses. What you do is using what needs to be proven as a premisse in your argument. That formally makes your argument logically invalid. An invalid argument remains invalid, regardless of the premisses.

it has been proven to me, it hasn't been proven to you. we are back to square one. 'what needs to be proven' applies to you, not to me.

No, you're just using invalid logic. It may very well have been proven, but that's inconsequential to your faulty argument.

ricadelide:

As you know it is - in the absence of omniscience - impossible to prove a universal negative. Therefore the onus is on you, the one making a positive claim about the existence of soul and spirit, to bring sufficient and conclusive evidence for that claim.

what kind of evidence do you seek? laboratory evidence? what?

As if laboratory evidence is the only evidence. Before I accept your claim, I first need to see something that properly validates your claim.

ricadelide:

Explain to me why the assumption of soul and spirit is the most parsimonious explanation for your observations.

its not an assumption for me. i said 'if you assume a soul and a spirit, you'd make the same statement i made.' did you even give it a little try?

So you're basically refusing to substantiate your claim. It is valid because you declare it to be valid

ricadelide:

That's patently false. I don't have any assumptions, I just want evidence for your assumptions before I accept them as valid, a perfectly reasonable position.

no, it is not false. you assume everything is physical but you are wrong.

No I don't make that assumption. I just don't accept your assumption on face value

ricadelide:

You are conscious of yourself and of your mind; you are conscious of logic and of the possibility of something being true or false; the soul is the seat of self-consciousness. you have evidence for your pocessing a soul. You probably do not have evidence for your pocessing a spirit, but we can go into that later.

You just define something into existence. That's not very convincing.

ricadelide:

That's really not the issue. Your reasoning was just logically faulty and, even under the assumption of the validity of your premisses, your argument didn't hold any water.

Naah, my reasoning was not faulty and you never did consider the validity of my premises, you didnt even try.

Assuming the consequent is the formal logical phalacy you have committed. You cannot ever use what needs to be proven as premisse in your argumentation.

I-man:

@nferyn

Do you think the world will be a better place if they was no religion?

Yes I do, but I don't feel like arguing about it now, especially not on this thread. It has gone too much off topic already

ricadelide:

Lots of nominal Catholics. They only go to church on special occasions like communions, burials, etc. Anyway, most of the believers have a generally secular attitude as well. Religion is considered as something private.

ok. just like i thought; the churches must be really empty except on those 'special' church-worthy days, lol
By your second statement you mean people don't try to discuss religion publicly and convert people? or that they are into secular humanism as well?

they hardly ever discuss religion publicly and there is hardly any proselytism (except for the occasional Jehova's witness). It's only a small minority that's into secular humanism. Most people don't find religious questions all that important. many believe in 'something', but that's about it.

ricadelide:

No, not at all. She takes them to church and I don't object. Children should be exposed to as many viewpoints as possible. The only thing I don't accept is indoctrination and badmouthing of free thought, but she would never do that anyway.

wow, that's very fair of you. you must be a 'holy' atheist, LOL. I also do not subscribe to indoctrination; and a lot of it is going on these days on both sides. at least i'm aware of the indoctrination of kids in american schools.

The US is a very different place from Europe.

ricadelide:

What I'm referring to is someone that comes from an environment where he or she isn't immersed in supernatural beliefs, there is very little chance that person will become a theist. If you don't grow up with some belief in the supernatural, the God concept, whether Muslim or Christian doesn't make sense at all.

very little chance; OK. Impossible, No. I'm sure there are people with such an experience. Immersion is supernatural beliefs can go either way; lead you to GOd or lead you away from Him.

I'm not saying there aren't any cases at all. Most of those so called conversions to theism (the ones loudly proclaiming 'I used to be an atheist') actually crumble under close scrutiny.
What I find peculiar is that many of the staunchest atheists were once true believers and they live their atheism with a strong almost missionary zeal. I'm not like that at all, atheism is just the 'natural' condition for me, also because I'm very skeptical by nature. The main reason why I debate these issues here on nairaland is because many Nigerians have an extremely intolerant attitude towards atheist and for that reason many atheist stay in the closet as a matter of speech. At least some have come out here on the board, I just wonder if they would do that in real life.

ricadelide:

i believe that there is an internal witness in every person of something outside of this world; regardless of what environment they grew up in. the only difference is with those who grew up in an environment where they are exposed to the supernatural; they can quickly confirm their inner longings and find answers; but with the other, they can easily suppress it. but you're still left with looking for a suitable worldview to explaining those things we don't understand, and some resort to atheism.

That's another way of looking at it. It looks like a clever form of rationalisation to me though.

ricadelide:

remember; its nature + nurture = phenotype, the former is always there; the latter isn't necessarily so. and by nature, i don't mean genes; there are other things.

Unfortunately, the nurture part regularly takes the form of fear based indoctrination. I don't know how many times I've seen 'fear of God' being described as a virtue.

ricadelide:

That's the reason why I don't have any problem at all with exposing my children to religion, it can only enlighten them

unfortunately, if what they are being exposed to is catholicsm, your goal would probably be acheived. they'd question it and get out.

My wife takes them to a pentecostal church, so it's not Catholicism they're being exposed to. I really don't have a goal here anyway.

ricadelide:

Ricadeline, just in case, don't forget to say your daily prayers to Wotan, Isis and Zeus as well. You know, just in case Grin
Do you have some time left to actually live after you've worshipped those thousands of gods?

LOL, don't detract from the issues at hand, first; there are two possible mechanisms for life as it is on earth; either things created themselves (abiogenesis, evolution etc) or someone created them. its very simple; and they are BOTH belief systems, neither of them is science.

I'm not the one detracting from the issues at hand, you are. The issue at hand is the validity of Pascal's wager, not the evolution-creation debate. Calling evolution (or rather evolutionary theory) a belief system is hogwash. It most definitely is science. You may not like it's philosophical implications, you may think the evidence isn't sufficient, but it meets all the criteria of proper science. That cannot in a million years be said about 'creation' no mater how hard you try to equivocate the two on epistemological grounds.

ricadelide:

Based on logic, i regard the latter as true, and the former as ludicrous.

Explain the logic you apply then to arrive at that conclusion. I'm curious how you can possibly get there on logical grounds.

ricadelide:

So, no matter what the number of religions or gods out there, there can only be One creator; the only question then is, which One is it.

1. Why can there be only one creator?
2. Why is there a need for a creator?
3. Assuming (1) and (2), why does that make Pascal's wager valid?

ricadelide:

So don't bring in any false anologies that are baseless into the issue; there can only be One creator

So you say. I'm not so sure

ricadelide:

I've said before that spiritual claims can be tested; and i believe i've tested a lot of the claims out there and found one to be true. Its a common gimmick to try to class all religions as one, or say since they can not all be right, then they are all wrong. that makes no sense.

How do you determine the probability of yours being right? What gives you a more valid claim to truth than the followers of all these other religions?

ricadelide:

What you need to know is that, alongside many other facets of human endeavour, organised religion is designed to lead people away from the true God, not to Him. Organised religion is confused, that's why they can't seem to agree on anything. Eventually, they'd all come together under the banner of ecumenism and unification.

Your point?

ricadelide:

How do they call that logical phalacy again? Ah, yes, assuming the consequent it must be and you can throw in a non sequitur as well.

for you, its assuming the consequent; for me, it isnt. I've said it before, i have premises that you do not have. If you had the same premises you'd make the same statement.

Actually, I would not [/b]make the same statement based on identical premisses. What you do is using what needs to be proven as a premisse in your argument. That formally makes your argument logically invalid. An invalid argument remains invalid, regardless of the premisses.

ricadelide:

Let me explain; you [b]assume man does not have a soul and a spirit; if i had that same veiwpoint of course this kind of statement would seem ludicrous - from what we can observe you don't really have a basis to make that assumption.

As you know it is - in the absence of omniscience - impossible to prove a universal negative. Therefore the onus is on you, the one making a positive claim about the existence of soul and spirit, to bring sufficient and conclusive evidence for that claim.

ricadelide:

But in my case i assume man has a soul and spirit and he is eternal; and i have a basis from what is observed to assume that.

Explain to me why the assumption of soul and spirit is the most parsimonious explanation for your observations.

ricadelide:

if you had that same premise; the statement above would make perfect sense.

I don't reason from insufficiently evidenced premisses.

ricadelide:

we both have different assumptions built in; its just a question of 'which assumption is right'?

That's patently false. I don't have any assumptions, I just want evidence for your assumptions before I accept them as valid, a perfectly reasonable position.

ricadelide:

you see, before making categorical statements like the above; try to imagine or think about the premises the other person may have that led him to such statements - you just, then, might understand why they say what they say. Cheers.

That's really not the issue. Your reasoning was just logically faulty and, even under the assumption of the validity of your premisses, your argument didn't hold any water.

davidylan:

I am yet to see the first person that converted to theism that wasn't immersed (indoctrinated if you will) in theism during early childhood.

wrong! i've seen a lot of people who converted to christianity with very little or no exposure during their younger years.

I'm not really talking about converting to Christianity. What I'm referring to is someone that comes from an environment where he or she isn't immersed in supernatural beliefs, there is very little chance that person will become a theist. If you don't grow up with some belief in the supernatural, the God concept, whether Muslim or Christian doesn't make sense at all.
That's the reason why I don't have any problem at all with exposing my children to religion, it can only enlighten them

davidylan:

I predict that in a few hundred years - if we haven't destroyed our planet and civilisation by then - we will all look at our world religions as a vestige of humanity's adolescent growing pains. Wink Grin

You think we'll last that long?

I surely hope so

davidylan:

PS: actually, what you're proposing isn't that strange at all. Tom has got the uncanning ability to frame problems in such a way that it makes his point of view look very reasonable, even though it usually isn't. A quality that's very much part and parcel of a pastor's arsenal.

There we go! We're already have way through the indoctrination process. Hurray to pastor Tom.

What you don't know though is what he will use that ability for he might use it to become a satanic evangelist (although there's an even slimmer chance for that)

ricadelide:

the onus is on YOU to be sure, rather than the opposite. the odds are seriously against you, and except you are REALLY SURE there is no God, which every logical person will tell you is impossible (you'd have to be omniscient to say that), then it makes perfect sense to prepare just in case there is One - although that is not the ideal situation.

Ricadeline, just in case, don't forget to say your daily prayers to Wotan, Isis and Zeus as well. You know, just in case
Do you have some time left to actually live after you've worshipped those thousands of gods?

ricadelide:

SO. i don't think it is folly if one makes preparation for eternity. its perfectly sensible to prepare for journeys that last mere days. what about the journey of eternity,,,, why can't people see how valuable their souls are?
Oh well.

How do they call that logical phalacy again? Ah, yes, assuming the consequent it must be and you can throw in a [i]non sequitur [/i]as well.

davidylan:

nferyn can i have a week or two with tom? I bet you he'd be a bible carrying evangelist by the time i'm through. He'd make a handsome pastor.

If you would come to Belgium, I wouldn't mind at all. It would be an interesting experiment. I just think you have a little too much faith in your abilities to 'convert'. I am yet to see the first person that converted to theism that wasn't immersed (indoctrinated if you will) in theism during early childhood.

I predict that in a few hundred years - if we haven't destroyed our planet and civilisation by then - we will all look at our world religions as a vestige of humanity's adolescent growing pains.

PS: actually, what you're proposing isn't that strange at all. Tom has got the uncanning ability to frame problems in such a way that it makes his point of view look very reasonable, even though it usually isn't. A quality that's very much part and parcel of a pastor's arsenal.

spoilt:

@nferyn
do you and your wife ever butt heads on what the kids should be taught? does she make them pray behind your back?

No, not at all. She takes them to church and I don't object. Children should be exposed to as many viewpoints as possible. The only thing I don't accept is indoctrination and badmouthing of free thought, but she would never do that anyway.

spoilt:

by the way nferyn what's belgium's economy like? what's the main language spoken there? are they kind to immigrants? ive had it with america! maybe its time to pack up.(again! ) and keep pursuing the elusive golden fleece.

Belgium's economy s pretty strong, especially the northern Flemish part (without the south it would rank top of Europe in about all economic indicators). There are 2 main languages in Belgium, Dutch and French. French is mainly spoken in the southern parts and in the capital, Brussels. Dutch is spoken in the north of the country. Belgium has got a superb education system (over 50% of the Flemish budget goes to education) and an excellent health care system (lots of Brits coming over for surgery they can't get in the UK)

I wouldn't advise any blacks to immigrate just yet (unless they have secured themselves a job beforehand). Immigration is a recent phenomenon in Belgium and even though the acceptance of immigrants is increasing, many Belgians still have pretty racist attitudes. Although the racism is of a very primal nature and once you get to know the people, you'll get socially accepted, it is still a hurdle far bigger than in e.g. the UK or the US. Moreover, the main ticket to social acceptance in Flanders (due to our peculiar history) is mastering our language. Without fluency in Dutch you won't get much social and employment opportunities.

ricadelide:

@nferyn,
really beautiful family you've got there; didn't know you were married to a nigerian.
very nice pics.

Thanks

ricadelide:

i also didn't know that belgium has lots of catholics - i thought most people are secular, like the rest of western europe. or is it just a nominal thing?
cheers.

Lots of nominal Catholics. They only go to church on special occasions like communions, burials, etc. Anyway, most of the believers have a generally secular attitude as well. Religion is considered as something private.

omoge:

nferyn, i have a questn for u

communion and confirmation same time??

No, that's not what I mean, I just meant to say that secular humanist have similar ceremonies. You have to understand that Belgium is in majority Catholic and that the Catholic church had historically a lot of power in Belgium (comparable to the situation in Ireland or Poland), secular humanism was histrically a counter movement that fought against the strong grip the church had on society. That's the main reason why those ceremonies mimic some of the properties of communion and confirmation

omoge:

i did my communion first (lots of cathesm classes, passed the test in which alot of catholic question were asked (actually it's what they teach in the class) and then selected for 1st holy communion) i think at a certain age of awareness.

That would be at age 6 in Belgium

omoge:

confirmation came much later. lots of classes where you learn more about Catholic church. then passed the class and then confirmed. (that's like 15years above i think)

In Belgium, that's when the children are 12 years old

omoge:

is this how u guys do it there? I asked because I grew up in a catholic church where my dad was a lay priest. I'd like to learn about your country's catholic

I think it's very similar around the world

omoge:

in Nigeria, confirmation are not done to children but when they are at the age of reasoning where they can learn more about R Catholic. how about your country,

I think the catechism is universal in the Catholic Church, so as far as rituals etc it will be more or less the same

omoge:

your kids look cute

Thanks

Great pictures, beautiful kids
I see our example is being followed. keep them coming

Aicha came back all painted from school today

spoilt:

by the way are you bringing up your kids as humanists? just curious.

Depends on what you mean by bringing them up as humanists. The most important thing for me is teaching them to have an open mind and a spirit of inquiry as well as respect for other people's feelings. I believe that from these basic attitudes all the rest will naturally follow.
I have absolutely no problem with them being exposed to all kinds of world views, e.g. my wife takes them along to her church quite regularly and I think it's for the better.
To be quite honest, my wife really thinks they are going to take up her religion, but I'm nearly certain they won't. I know no people that pick up a religion if they were not indoctrinated in it and indoctrination is the one thing I'm not going to accept.

spoilt:

by the way what's lenteefest?

It's a secular humanist celebration marking the first steps into independence of the child. I think it's something peculiar to the Belgian situation. Belgium is in majority Catholic and the children of Catholic parents celebrate their communion and confirmation. To give the children something similar from a secular perspective, the humanist organisations ain Belgium came up with the lentefeest. It has no special significance among humanist, but it's more something that is organised to ensure that the children don't feel excluded and that they too have a big party among family members with lots of presents, just like their Catholic classmates.

and another one

Aicha and friend

Tom and his teacher on his 'lentefeest'

tom on his 'lentefeest'

Tom listening to music

Tom and skateboard

enolase:

It's all about couples deciding ahead of time how they will live and the necessary adjustments they will make in the interest of their family unit.

Indeed, but that investment is just as much the man's as the woman's to make. If the woman has better career prospects, it's the man that should adapt.