AJP, I'm sorry for not responding to your rather lengthy contributions. I'll do so now, albeit only rather selectively. As I said, I'm not interested in a debate, but I'd like to have a discussion. The difference goes to your question about my use of the term "productive" in an earlier comment. In a discussion, we are both, in good faith, seeking to understand the point of view of the other and to pass on our own view so that it may be properly understood. We are not trying to "change the mind" of the other, nor are we trying to score points as in a debate. The first is a useful endeavour, the second is a rather pointless recreation.

On religious experience, it seems there isn't much to discuss, since your a priori view that it has no value tends to make the whole topic pointless. This is the same problem that I discussed vis a vis Dawkins et al.

On "faith", I was referring to the very common exhortation in religious writings that it is necessary for a person to have such faith to become a believer. This has much in common with the way in which QM places the observer in the role of interacting with the action observed. It also has some congruities with my use of the term "good faith" in referring to interactions between people: if it is absent, then understanding is impossible, because a priori scepticism prevents proper critical thinking.

The standard of proof that atheists require of theists is simply higher than required. I'm not an agnostic, I'm an atheist, it simply doesn't fit your own version of atheistic normativism that an atheist may be able to accept theists as honestly seeking to explain a human experience in any way other than your own.

Religion and science ARE about exactly the same thing. You don't understand either well enough if you don't understand that.

I think that is about all. If you'd like to have a longer discussion, by all means start one.

Hi Luciferase, I agree that the religious approach has largely run its course as a means of enhancing understanding of the physical world. however, you're quite wrong to limit the credence of any POV to its predictive power. Explanation of currently available observations is the primary test of credence.

The point of the QM analogy is that the many different hypotheses that have been created to explain the observations which have been made all have their quite passionate adherents and yet they are all to a large extent mutually incompatible.

It is assumed that at some point the "truth" will be found, but there is no guarantee that this will be possible, given the nature of quantum behaviour. Any reasonably honest physicist will happily acknowledge this. I say "happily", because physics is all about the mystery of the world and exploring that mystery. Does that sound at all like what a religious person might say? Furthermore, if a the "truth" is found, then one or none of the current explanations will be wrong and the adherents to those models will have been merely "believers" who have to adjust their belief structure to accommodate new evidence. Once again, religion has done this throughout history.

In the meantime, both religion and physics continue, despite not having a "truth", because they provide a framework for people to think with.

There is more to the world that we live in than the physical sciences are able to explain at this time. Perhaps there ultimately is not, but until that day is reached, we need to accommodate those other things, just as cosmologists need to accommodate Dark Matter.

[Deleted for abuse.]

Craig Minns,

I am quite happy to have a discussion too. However, if I see an error on your part, then I will still want to correct it; and if I see a claim that needs supporting before there is any point in proceeding, then I will request a justification for it.

<<The difference goes to your question about my use of the term "productive" in an earlier comment.>>

All I did was ask for a clarification while explaining why what you had said was vague. If that’s not in good faith and an attempt to understand your point of view, then I don’t know what is.

<<On religious experience, it seems there isn't much to discuss, since your a priori view that it has no value tends to make the whole topic pointless.>>

No, that’s not my a priori view. A priori views are formed independently of experience and I was a devout, Bible-thumping Christian for over 20 years.

But whether or not I think religious experience has no value would depend on what exactly you’re referring to. Are you just talking about the experience of being religious in general? Are you just talking about brain activity that occurs when someone has an actual ‘religious experience’? Are you referring to a revelation that is actually divinely inspired?

I don’t think you could assume this of Dawkins et al. either until you’ve clarified the above with them.

<<On "faith", I was referring to the very common exhortation in religious writings that it is necessary for a person to have such faith to become a believer.>>

This still doesn’t explain much unfortunately. Not even believers can agree on that. Essentially, the Bible tends to refer to faith as a state of gullibility, and supports the definition of ‘belief without evidence’ to varying degrees in Hebrews 11:1, Proverbs 3:5-6 and 2 Corinthians 5:7. So in that sense, yes faith is necessary for religious belief, but not for scientists like Krauss, as you claimed earlier.

Either way, I don’t know how you then come to this…

Continued…

...Continued

<<This has much in common with the way in which QM places the observer in the role of interacting with the action observed.>>

I think you are more referring to religious experiences here (which is what you were actually comparing QM to before), but could only be doing so if your assumption is that they really are divinely inspired. But then you say you’re not a believer. So what do you think it is that theists are interacting with?

And even if faith or religious experiences do share traits with QM, so what? I share many traits with my computer but I don’t draw anything from that. You still haven’t linked this back to your criticism of Dawkins et al.

<<The standard of proof that atheists require of theists is simply higher than required.>>

That’s a bit of a blanket statement. Personally, I don’t know what it would take to convince me that a god existed. It would be arrogant for me to assume that I knew. But if a god did exist, then it certainly would know; so either it doesn’t exist, or it’s not willing to reveal itself to me in a way that is reliable, and as I explained earlier, religious experiences are not reliable.

How do you know how much evidence would be required, anyway, when we have nothing else to compare a god to?

<<... it simply doesn't fit your own version of atheistic normativism that an atheist may be able to accept theists as honestly seeking to explain a human experience in any way other than your own.>>

This is slander. I have said nothing to indicate either of your claims here and would challenge you to present anything that I’ve said that does.

<<Religion and science ARE about exactly the same thing.>>

As I explained yesterday, only sometimes. And even then, only from a sociological and evolutionary perspective. Any significance of the parallels you have drawn between QM and religion beyond that, and how they render what Dawkins’ et al. do “pointless,” are yet to be explained.

AJP, I'm happy to accept your good faith in the discussion, but with all due respect, we're talking at cross purposes.

I have no stake or in trying to "prove" that the religious explanation is "correct", therefore asking me to do so is pointless and non-constructive. All I am saying is that it is defensible as a response to some kinds of human experience, whether those types of experience are able to be explained some other way or not, just as the various "explanations" of quantum behaviour are to some extent defensible, despite none of them presuming to be comprehensive.

The point is that some experiences that may be "revelatory" may be assumed to be divine manifestations or to be the emergence of a new idea from the interaction of the mind with experience of the world, or any number of other things, depending on the context of the observer. One obvious one is Kekule's linking of his dream of circling snakes swallowing each other's tails to the structure of benzene; it would be easy for a devout person to think of this as divinely inspired and if they did, would it make the "revelation" less interesting? I say not and there are innumerable other examples that could be given.

You have raised an interesting topic though, which is that of your own experience. You say you were a devout Christian for some years and have now recanted that view. Would you mind asking a couple of questions about that? What drove you to be devout and what drove you to recant?