Dear Banjo,

I am sorry, but I cannot express more clearly - or simply, if you like - my critical comments on your description of the concept of religion (a couple of posts ago) than I did.

Dear Oliver,

>>I would feel such an analyical process should be systematic<<
I know already that this is your approach, and I have been trying to convince you, that the outcome of your “analytical process” to find out whether faith (a state of mind hinging on, but not reducible to, belief in God) is not simply Yes or No.

Recently I came across an article by a psychologist that you might find relevant: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-j-rossano/why-religion-is-emnotem-d_b_611148.html .

Let my try another angle: a person who cannot swim (ride a bike, ski etc) can study the physical laws that enable others to swim and he/she can acquire some external, analytical if you like, knowledge of these skills but not the skill itself. I know, this is not a very good analogy - it is much easier to acquire the skill of swimming than that of religious insights, for many reasons, (e.g. because the latter depend on the subject’s psychological and cultural background of which there are many). So I prefer the analogy with sense (“a faculty by which the body perceives an external stimulus”, where “body” is replaced by “mind”).

I did not understand your part on phenomena quantum physics tries to explain, however I think the proper understanding, whatever it is, must be independent of your a priori outlook - theist, atheist, sceptic if you like - unless you want to reintroduce the infamous concept of “God of the gaps” and form your argument along that concept, as - I think - some theists as well as atheists still do. One can try to INTERPRET accepted physical theories from one’s own a priori world-view presuppositions, but one cannot use them to RESOLVE the ambiguities, enigmas, connected with that theory.

I might agree with your view of runner, however there are also a number of his mirror images in the atheist camp (including on this OLO; I am not going to name them).

All-in-all, I am repeating myself, and, as so many times before, we are going in circles.

.

Dear George,

.

That's OK. I was just concerned you may not understand what I was trying to say.

As far as possible conversions of opinion are concerned, I guess nobody postures as Billy Graham here, so there is little chance of that, whatever our convictions ( or "world-view presuppositions") may be.

.

Dear Rusty,
I don't think those fundies are fading away into irrelevance just yet; I'd suggest fundamentalism of one kind or another, that is dealing in "facts", is on the rise.
Did you catch the last ten minutes of the Science Show yesterday http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/ , on the apparent "monadology" of human biology. Consciousness (whatever that is) and our experience of the world is, it seems, some kind of miraculous (I use the word advisedly) process of synthesising a cacophany. Indeed the whole Show was about how humans impose, or "presuppose" patterns of recognition on phenomena. Empiricism remains a highly dubious foundation upon which to base our conclusions. Furthermore, those conclusions are perceived and described in terms of language, itself inherently ambiguous and unstable, as theorised by Saussure, late Wittgenstein et al.
This is not to defend fundamentalist beliefs, but to suggest a) that mystical scepticism is a legitimate response to the 'aporia' of human reality (which can manifest as blind clinging to a belief system that offers fundamental truths), and b) that dogmatic scientism is a similar beast if it does not acknowledge, indeed embrace, the aporia of human cognition as a means and object of investigation. It is not enough, however, just to describe and measure, especially if the instruments cannot be properly calibrated.
Moreover, scientific method cannot be embraced as a world-view because its faux-objectivity is also nihilistic without some human/ethical/aspirational rationale to reign in its omniscientific, directionless dialectical progression.
I would suggest that it is perfectly reasonable to go on searching for, or even creating, "meaning" in the universe. If we can coherently synthesise the "noise" of the human biota (not that "we" do it, it seems to be spontaneous) I don't see why we can't do so at the level of culture.
I realise these musings are just that; they amount, however, to "genuine" scepticism.

Dear George,
Thanks for the article. Does the fact that you direct me towards it mean that it roughly reflects your view or that you endorse it in some way?

I see that it comes from the Huffington Post, which also supports other articles from Zimmerman which have been reprinted this year on OLO. Does the HuffPost ever print articles from the other side of the debate?

Bugsy,
If you say that no biologist wrote that sentence, are you supposing that no biologist believes it to be true? If so, ought this not negate the sentence? If so, let’s declare the statement in its negative form –

‘Darwinian evolution coming to be accepted by the public as wholeheartedly as it has accepted the spherical earth and the sun-centred solar system is not inevitable.’

How many times did Jesus turn water into wine? Once, I believe. Who else could do it? No one, I suspect. St John described it as a ‘miraculous sign’, and the reason Jesus’ disciples put their faith in him.

May I ask you, how many times did the non-living chemicals combine to form the self replicating cell, which in turn became the evolutionary ancestor of other life?

How many times did a gigantic meteor crash into the earth causing the extinction of the dinosaurs?

How many times did Azaria Chamberlain allegedly disappear from her camp bed?

I am wondering about singular events in history. If in fact they are singular or very rare, perhaps unrepeatable, is this why you say that they are untouchable by science?

Dear George,

In my 26 June post, I was trying to demonstrate that I am am willing to to apply the same methodology to some aspects of QM, as I do religion. Herein, I a try to be consistent.

The notion of faith as a practised skill is interesting and does fit in with the Huntington Post article to some degree. If one does belie someting that if false in a time when folk generally know no better than I would not call that a delusion. One the other hand, remaining circumscribed might increase the likeihood of confronting reinforcement schedules embedding non-facts.

Perhaps, it is drawing a long bow, but, the willingness to stay put, in one's home, and not trek the marketplace, does have micmic agoraphobia, to the degree believer does not go "outside". Albeit, generally, I would be disinclined to categorise religionists under the DSM IV.

I do reflect on what you cite in leiu of the systematic case. Thanks. However, it would seem logical to consider the existence of God "before" adopting a specific god.

Regarding Bohr's cited statement on the Copenhagen interpretation; on "phenomena", McFadden adds:

"Phenomena are the interaction between quantum objects and measuring devices. No independent relity is attributed to indepenedent quantum objects. There is no such thing as an electron or photon in the absence of measurement - they do not exist. The fundamental units of our existence are not atoms, electrons or photons but phenomena."

As with (alleged) heaven and earth, there is a need to see a demarcation between the real and quasi-real realms.

In my 26 June post, I was trying to demonstrate that I am am willing to to apply the same methodology to some aspects of QM, as I do religion. Herein, I a try to be consistent.