Star-signs!

[tlclark]

Regards the fellow challenging Sagan to prove he loved his wife I suspect Sagan answered and didn't let the fellow get away thinking he had the last word.

Oh Sagan answered alright, but his answer was unsatisfying both to the other astronomer and to himself. He even used this in his fictional works as a demonstration of the limits of human rational experience. Ultimately what we are talking about here is transcendence. Some atheists ARE believers in transcendence and I think Sagan was among them. Others are simply reductionists.

The question is an old one, are we greater than the sum of our parts? Even most of the atheists I know what to answer "yes", but none of them can't justify an explanation for that. Reductionists will say that we are programmed to think that way, that it gives the human race drive or optimism needed to survive, but we could have just have easily been successful without it.

I admire the integrity of such people, but most people I know just don't "feel" that way. They desperately WANT to believe in something higher, even those that don't believe in God.

Sagan felt that our intelligence, our abilities would one day allow us to reach this kind of transcendence. You find similar ideas by the futurist Ray Kurzweil, but (and this really is my point) this is utterly arbitrary.

As to what you say, you are right, we are a lot closer than we may appear. I don't disagree with much of what you say. I did like this part.

That does not mean that I can explain emotions studying biochemistry alone, bottom up. Need other categories, higher-up concepts to understand complex social behavior and what feedback there is with the biochemistry of the brain, which is not a closed system but interacts with the environment, etc etc. [/quote}

But I don't think that higher models and better physics will ever answer the question, there will always be some variable that makes this an open question.

We can get more precise, but more precision doesn't change the question. Are we more than the sum of our parts?

At some point in the future I imagine that we will have some advanced race with near god like knowledge of all of the factors you mentioned, and I doubt this question will go away with the infusion of fresh data, but I could be wrong. :wink:

Love, emotions are worthy of study or are they not? If you say yes, they are worthy of study (you acknowledge them interesting topics), then our positions are close. If you say no they shouldn't be studied because science cannot do them justice, then we very distant.
Now suppose you say "OK, love, emotions are worthy of study, but religion? GOD? No science cannot do justice to Religion. Certainly science cannot be sufficient to study GOD". [/qoute]

Quite the contrary. Now this is a bit of theology emanating from Kant and Thomas Aquinas. If we have free will, then we have to assume God gave us the rational capacities to make those choices. Rational capacity means not only that we can ask questions, but that we MUST ask questions.

Just to make it really weird, most atheists don't believe in God because they believe in evolution. I believe in evolution because I believe in God!
While its true that some evolutionists are bigoted towards religions and have overstated the evidence, the VAST majority are simply honestly looking at the evidence and saying what they honestly think based on the evidence. By denying the evidence, the creationists are denying what it might have to tell them about God.

God made the universe, if the universe doesn't reflect him than he is either a very capricious or an untrustworthy diety. This is what infuriates me about some Creationists. By suggesting that we can't possibly figure out how the universe works they are suggesting that God didn't give us sufficient free will to be moral beings. Others suggest that the universe was staged to make us believe in evolution, but that it is ludicrous from a theological view. This puts God in the position of betting against himself!! The universe is a product of the Creator. If creation doesn't reveal the Creator, than the creator is engaged in a shell game, which is inconsistent with a benevolent God who grants us free will. If God didn't want us to ask questions he should have made us lap dogs.

For me, there are no questions off the table, even the existence of God, but I have my answer to that.

I acknowledge that a personal belief can be very strong and make a person behave this way or that, but to say the act of believing is enough to justify the belief (it own existence) is circular.

I would agree, but I didn't say that. Believe me, I would rather believe that there ISN'T a god. It would make my life so much simpler. I believe we should wait for evidence. I have that evidence. I just can't transfer it to you. That's why I don't agree with this tautology you suggest.

If a person prefers not to reason that is also fine with me and to be frank that is precisely what religion is all about. Faith is not "beyond" reason, it is actually something completely different, something else, it is incompatible with reason. It all boils down to abandoning-oneself to an act of faith, without further question. When you believe you stop asking questions. Those that ask questions are not, in that moment, believing.

Forgive me, but that is circular as well. One could only make that statement if you were in possession of all the data. You are not, no one is. "Proof" as you said is depends on what you mean. Science never claims an all-encompassing world view. It rests on the premise that you don't base knowledge on things you don't know. You can only reach slightly beyond the facts to theories that must then be tested against those facts. I have a fact. My fact is peculiar in that it simply can't be transfered. I know that for you you could never accept my fact as a fact. To be honest intellectually, I would have to accept that, but to deny that fact from my perspective would be irrational.

let's go back to your purple rhinos. Let's say I was the guy who originally saw it. Let's say I REALLY did see it, but everything else proceded as you suggested. You're are right that everyone else would be mad to believe in the Rhino. But what about the person that saw it? What about him? he has his memory, but he can't transfer it. So for him, he either has to deny it, or believe he was delusional, or trust to his own eyes. A lot of people do lie to themselves. I can't. I saw that damned purple rhino and it's been haunting me ever since. That's the position of believers. It's not that we don't have evidence, we do, it's just not transferable, but denying it would be as hard as that guy would be for him to deny that rhino, because he knows he really saw it.

No value judgment here, just an attempt to say things clearly. There are no compromises or possible synthesis possible other than the fact that both these incompatible behaviors can be found in a single person.

Forgive me again, but it is a judgement call. You are free to make it, but suddenly, all those that believe as I do are "unreasonable"? and that's not a value judgement? But that's ok. Making value judgments is perfectly fine. It's only PC nonjudgmentalness that would suggest otherwise. I make value judgments against you, you make judgments against me. It's cool, as long as we are civil and share some important meta-values, like my values don't require me to kill you for your values, which is unfortunately not shared by all non-believers and believers this day.

Human are fortunately full of contradictions and it is difficult to find someone that does not how doubts one way or the other. The basic drama of human existence is having to live out our lives and face death. We all cope one way or another and all of us will probably invoke a God in the last moments as we feel our consciousness slip away.

There is a great story. A famous atheist is on the outskirts of heaven. Some of the greatest minds of the past are gathered around him to try and convince him to come to the Heavenly city, but he refuses. He is convinced that this is all a delusion in the last moments of life working on a damaged and dying brain, at any moment he will either wake up or cease to exist and he will not be convinced.

Thanks for the conversation, a pleasure as always.