Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists

[Ultimate Paragon]

It's funny that you are using the God Gene as an argument for God but ignoring the hypothesis behind it which is:

" The major arguments of the hypothesis are: (1) spirituality can be quantified by psychometric measurements; (2) the underlying tendency to spirituality is partially heritable; (3) part of this heritability can be attributed to the gene VMAT2;[1] (4) this gene acts by altering monoamine levels; and (5) spiritual individuals are favored by natural selection because they are provided with an innate sense of optimism, the latter producing positive effects at either a physical or psychological level. (Stolen from Wikipedia)"

You seem to have ignored the 5th part of the hypothesis. In particular you must have overlooked it when you said " I can't think of anything else which would account for the hardwiring other than the existence of a higher power" - Because the 5th part of the hypothesis explains it without reference to a higher power.

It's entirely possible for a theory to be right in principle, but wrong in the particulars.  Just look at Lamarck.  Where I'm skeptical of the hypothesis is the fifth point.  We know that religion makes modern humans more optimistic, but who's to say the same was true of Cro-Magnons?  Like I said earlier, they had bigger brains, so I don't think we should assume faith had the same effects on them as it does on us. 

I'm sorry I wasn't clear earlier, Dave.  What I meant was "I can't think of anything else that doesn't rely on assumptions."

Now, I'm completely willing to entertain the possibility that I'm wrong.  Maybe the optimism part is actually right.  Or maybe the whole theory is bunk.  I can acknowledge that either one is a distinct possibility.

Also, my God isn't the same as the unmoved mover.  There are a number of key differences.  I was merely using the term I thought fit best for the abstract concept of God.

[Ghoti]

So, wait, you're arguing for the existence of a completely different (concept of) god in order to support your own position that believing in your capital-G God is the most logical position because something something Cro-Magnons?

Do you hear yourself sometimes? Like, when you speak?

[davedan]

It's funny that you are using the God Gene as an argument for God but ignoring the hypothesis behind it which is:

" The major arguments of the hypothesis are: (1) spirituality can be quantified by psychometric measurements; (2) the underlying tendency to spirituality is partially heritable; (3) part of this heritability can be attributed to the gene VMAT2;[1] (4) this gene acts by altering monoamine levels; and (5) spiritual individuals are favored by natural selection because they are provided with an innate sense of optimism, the latter producing positive effects at either a physical or psychological level. (Stolen from Wikipedia)"

You seem to have ignored the 5th part of the hypothesis. In particular you must have overlooked it when you said " I can't think of anything else which would account for the hardwiring other than the existence of a higher power" - Because the 5th part of the hypothesis explains it without reference to a higher power.

It's entirely possible for a theory to be right in principle, but wrong in the particulars.  Just look at Lamarck.  Where I'm skeptical of the hypothesis is the fifth point.  We know that religion makes modern humans more optimistic, but who's to say the same was true of Cro-Magnons?  Like I said earlier, they had bigger brains, so I don't think we should assume faith had the same effects on them as it does on us. 

I'm sorry I wasn't clear earlier, Dave.  What I meant was "I can't think of anything else that doesn't rely on assumptions."

Now, I'm completely willing to entertain the possibility that I'm wrong.  Maybe the optimism part is actually right.  Or maybe the whole theory is bunk.  I can acknowledge that either one is a distinct possibility.

Also, my God isn't the same as the unmoved mover.  There are a number of key differences.  I was merely using the term I thought fit best for the abstract concept of God.

So what are the difference between your conception and the 'unmoved mover' - I listed 8 or so variables which could be used to flesh it out.

As for whether you can't think of anything else that doesn't rely on assumptions. Isn't it a (pretty large - of well fucking huge) assumption to make that it is because of God. You also haven't addressed why that's unlikely for the reasons that Sigma stated.

One of the difficulties in discussing theology is if you fail to clearly mark out your views before commencing the discussion.

Why not start with the characteristics of your concept of god (your modified unmoved mover)?

Then list what you consider to be evidence of the existence of that unmoved mover?

Now if you don't have any rational evidence how can you assert that you can use rationality to argue about the existence of your concept of god?

If your god is ineffable, how can you say anything about it at all?

[Ultimate Paragon]

So, wait, you're arguing for the existence of a completely different (concept of) god in order to support your own position that believing in your capital-G God is the most logical position because something something Cro-Magnons?

Do you hear yourself sometimes? Like, when you speak?

That's what happens when you try to debate several people at once.  Your thoughts sometimes come out disjointed.

[pyro]

We know that religion makes modern humans more optimistic, but who's to say the same was true of Cro-Magnons?  Like I said earlier, they had bigger brains, so I don't think we should assume faith had the same effects on them as it does on us. 

We suspect that VMAT2 contributes to religiosity in modern humans, but who's to say the same was true of Cro-Magnons?  Like you said earlier, they had bigger brains, so I don't think we should assume that protein had the same effects on them as it does on us. 

[Canadian Mojo]

So, wait, you're arguing for the existence of a completely different (concept of) god in order to support your own position that believing in your capital-G God is the most logical position because something something Cro-Magnons?

Do you hear yourself sometimes? Like, when you speak?

Color me surprised.

[Ironchew]

There are scientific arguments for God's existence.

UP, a scientific argument has to be falsifiable. It has to lay out a series of specific, testable predictions which, if any one of them is contradicted by observation or experimental evidence, renders the whole argument false. Your apologetics are nothing of the sort.

Science doesn't rely on this much misdirection and special pleading to explain its body of knowledge. You're desperately trying to co-opt science's prestige for your theology without understanding why it has that prestige.

[Ultimate Paragon]

There are scientific arguments for God's existence.

UP, a scientific argument has to be falsifiable. It has to lay out a series of specific, testable predictions which, if any one of them is contradicted by observation or experimental evidence, renders the whole argument false. Your apologetics are nothing of the sort.

Science doesn't rely on this much misdirection and special pleading to explain its body of knowledge. You're desperately trying to co-opt science's prestige for your theology without understanding why it has that prestige.

Are you sure?  Because there are some scientific arguments that don't meet those criteria.

[mellenORL]

Well, gee, then what are they, UP? And please don't reiterate your previous posts unless you have found some very significant data to back them up.

[Ultimate Paragon]

Well, gee, then what are they, UP? And please don't reiterate your previous posts unless you have found some very significant data to back them up.

The multiverse hypothesis, for example.

[Ironchew]

Well, gee, then what are they, UP? And please don't reiterate your previous posts unless you have found some very significant data to back them up.

The multiverse hypothesis, for example.

Something which, as far as I have seen in the literature, hasn't risen beyond speculation.

My favorite example of falsifiability is the Phlogiston theory. It made testable predictions and scientists in the eighteenth century found evidence that contradicted the fundamentals of the theory, so it had to be discarded. Is it false and obsolete in our present knowledge? Sure, but it was scientific.

Your apologetics cannot be tested. They aren't even wrong.

[mellenORL]

M Dimensional Theory in physics. Okayyy... Yet another example of citing the relative incomprehensibility to untrained people of aspects of working theories as = Hey-It's-a-Me! God! Sorry, nope, we've covered this ground early in thread. It's fun to imagine the (remote) possibility that god is there somewhere betwixt and between the fibers of reality, but that does not qualify as an argument for it, logically or scientifically.

('Chew just ninja-ed me, basically, but yeah.)

[ironbite]

Forget what I said about moving goalposts.  UP is kicking at a different goalpost in a different stadium, in a different world every time.

[Ghoti]

Well, gee, then what are they, UP? And please don't reiterate your previous posts unless you have found some very significant data to back them up.

The multiverse hypothesis, for example.

You mean the same multiverse theory used to justify Bioshock Infinite and twelve year olds who are (on all levels except physical) anime characters?

[Svata]

Well, gee, then what are they, UP? And please don't reiterate your previous posts unless you have found some very significant data to back them up.

The multiverse hypothesis, for example.

First of all, hypothesis. Second of all, which version? Third of all, who is actually using it as a serious argument?