Jagger pinched the idea for that song from Mikhail Bulgakov's novel, "The Master and the Margarita". Pretentious so-and-so.

That "whoo whoo" that starts half way through the track is dreadful - sounds like the Stones are playing with a model railway set (which they could well have been).

Unlike ferval I don't enjoy (any more) arguments much, but I would have thought if there wasn't the perversion of logic of religious argument to justify war and fighting, there would be (and is) other justifications. It seems to me that, at the basis of almost all war, is a desire for land and liberty as a county/area/people. Whether that is cloaked in religious hatred or not is basically irrelevant. Japan, which doesn't seem to have strong religious factions, still has not been backward at war and conflict. Take away Israel's religion and you would still have Palestinians wanting the area.

Ordinary religious people like ordinary people everywhere like to get on with their lives in peace.

Surely it takes a fair amount of faith to assume an atheistic view of life too. In fact that's why I never refer to myself as atheist but just as non-religious - atheists often seem almost evangelical in their disbeliefs.

There’s some mighty funny things flash through your mind when you think you’ve not got a lot of time left… I have never had a lot of time for religion, too many encounters with religious bigots, but I too have never professed to being a down and outright atheist… just like you Caro, i'm non religious… however, saying that, it has always given me food for thought the amount of comfort some people do get from a faith… but be assured, when the deck of a ship is disappearing beneath your feet, there are very few confirmed atheist aboard.

I think it's a misjudgement to think of the notion of reincarnation purely in religious terms, though it is true that there are several religions which will provide a series of so-called "explanations" for the belief which help to reinforce and validate it for those who subscribe to it.

To me it is more an attempt to apply a structure and sense to a deep psychological need on the part of people who, for various reasons, cannot or will not contemplate the notion of finitude or oblivion with respect to their existence, and struggle anyway to contemplate existence in any sense except one directly linked to their own person. It is an extremely egocentric view, and I do not mean that in its derogatory sense, as indeed are most views concerning "life after death" which religion fosters but does not originate.

For many years now my problem is in understanding the meaning of the word 'belief.'

From formal creed to that awful song, 'I believe,' the word seems to mean something along the lines of 'I don't know but I'm hedging my bets in hope.'

And just when I know something for certain then along comes a proven fact that erodes some of that certainty. Where belief in whatever is a crutch for many, it is posssible to hobble through life without. Hope is another matter. I have been in several situations where the end seemed nigh... including a sinking boat a sea when I was 16. 'Ah, so this is it. I hope it's not but it looks like it,' is all I recall thinking each time.

In the programme, Sacks repeats the oft stated mantra “Science seeks to find ‘how’ while religion asks ‘why’". This seems to me to express the difference between the two approaches but not at all in the way he intended.
Science understands that ‘how’ and ‘why’ are in fact the same. By uncovering how the thundercloud forms or the planet orbits the sun, science has also shown why and it is now tackling the ‘hows’ and thus the ‘whys’ of topics formerly felt to be in the purview of religion: consciousness, altruism and the fundamental questions of existence.
Religion however holds that there is a further, fundamental ‘why’, one which is super or supra natural and not accessible to rational explanation or empirical proof.
Can these two views co exist? Some seem to be able to subscribe to both and scientists of faith have made many huge contributions to understanding but I cannot see how a scientific approach can live with a belief that there is an ultimate point beyond which it cannot go: that there is something which is, and always must be, finally inexplicable and not because of complexity or even the limitations of the human brain but because of its intrinsic nature.

I found this a useful commentary on the ontological argument.


http://www.iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/

And I like this :



http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2008/sep/15/william.black.mock.on.poem.of.the.week

Quote :

The impulse to perceive and understand includes the creative imagination, of which religious myth-making is inevitably part. This is uncomfortable for scientists, yet it is fundamental to a science of human cognition.

I imagine Blake countering today's Voltaires with a scepticism based not on scorn for science but on his sense that there is a hard-wired propensity to see through, as well as with, the eye, and that this, too, is part of the irreducible, insatiable, magnificent particle collider that is human intelligence

Isn't there something self contradictory in this? If something is "fundamental to a science of human cognition" and a "hard-wired propensity" then it is accessible to rational and empirical analysis and can elucidate "the why of our origins, as well as the how". When we know the 'how', then we will surely know the 'why'.

ferval wrote:

Quote :

The impulse to perceive and understand includes the creative imagination, of which religious myth-making is inevitably part. This is uncomfortable for scientists, yet it is fundamental to a science of human cognition.

I imagine Blake countering today's Voltaires with a scepticism based not on scorn for science but on his sense that there is a hard-wired propensity to see through, as well as with, the eye, and that this, too, is part of the irreducible, insatiable, magnificent particle collider that is human intelligence

Isn't there something self contradictory in this? If something is "fundamental to a science of human cognition" and a "hard-wired propensity" then it is accessible to rational and empirical analysis and can elucidate "the why of our origins, as well as the how". When we know the 'how', then we will surely know the 'why'.

I expect so, ferval, but it's really no good going on discussing this. It's just "different ways, different ways" and we'll never agree. But that doesn't matter.

Quote :

I expect so, ferval, but it's really no good going on discussing this. It's just "different ways, different ways" and we'll never agree. But that doesn't matter.

It does matter. In a conflict of views in any society between the explicitly rational and the implicitly irrational then a plea on the part of either to "agree to differ" creates or further maintains a dichotomous attitude towards what constitutes knowledge which preserves communal ignorance as the resultant buffer zone between the two, a gap which is immediately filled by the irrational, not the rational, simply because it requires less time to convincingly invent than to demonstrably prove convincingly. The debate between the two is therefore vital, if not to produce agreement necessarily then simply to avoid the space in between being occupied by opportunistic irrationality.

Well, the problem I have with all this is deciding who are the rational ones and who the irrational. Who on earth is to say? The difference between us is that you believe you have the answer(s), and I know that I do not. With the greatest respect to you all, you and ferval are best arguing about God/faith with Tim, not the likes of me.

But the thread is about reincarnation, not religion!

I thought your point about some people plumping for reincarnation because they are unable to face the idea of complete oblivion or annihilation is a very interesting one. But could it be that there are also some people who, because of "deep psychological need", cannot face the thought that something - the soul, or whatever the Greek, Hebrew or English word should be - separates from the physical body at the moment of death? The thought of a *possible* continued existence is indeed, for some people, the ultimate nightmare - and one that has to be denied at all cost.

It's not so much the person who is either rational or irrational but the thought process they might apply to analysing a phenomenon, be it reincarnation, the nature of a soul or deity. And I most definitely do not think I have "all the answers" - but I do sincerely hope I am at least asking the right questions to elicit them.

By the way - congrats on posting Post Number 7000!!!!!

You sound just like my father. I am suitably crushed.

Not really.

Bring back the moggy thread!

No logic or rational analysis needed there!

Temperance wrote:

Bring back the moggy thread!

Done.

I certainly don't have the answers Temp. Many years ago, when I was starting teacher training, an experienced teacher said that I was at the stage when I thought I knew all the answers but knew none of the questions. With these topics, I'm still trying to work out the questions. I'm not even convinced that there isn't a little part of me that still hopes that there is more to existence than the material and my sometimes aggressive atheism isn't trying to drown that out.

Moggy's back. My inner cat is happy.

Hmmmm. Well I exist at the moment and I can think of no valid reason why I should not exist again in the future [ or indeed have existed previously]

Quote :

a gap which is immediately filled by the irrational, not the rational, simply because it requires less time to convincingly invent than to demonstrably prove convincingly. The debate between the two is therefore vital, if not to produce agreement necessarily then simply to avoid the space in between being occupied by opportunistic irrationality

.

Would you really want to live in a world of complete logic and no irrationality, though, Nordmann? Do you really want rid of religion, astrology, homeopathy, and all those entertaining things that are inexplicable and probably non-existent? I would quite like people to be more logical and analytical re crime rates, education theories, wealth distribution etc, but it doesn't happen. (And the people here who seem illogical to me are not necessarily those who believe in the more obvious irrational subjects. But it seems just as irrational to me.)

If you've existed previously, Triceratops, and don't remember it, it seems a bit pointless, though, doesn't it? You wouldn't be able to put what you've previously learnt into practice. It somewhat begs the question of what 'you' is, doesn't it?

At the time sophists were called 'star gazers' by detrators yet to my mind Protagoras was the most grounded of men. He is famed for two quotations and this one still probably sums up many people's outlook.

'As to the gods, I have no possibilityof knowing that the are or that they are not, nor what the are like in appearance. Many are the obstacles to that knowledge, their invisibility no less than the shortness of human life.'

That seems to be an agnostic's acceptance of inevitable ignorance of the finite mind trying to understand unobtainable knowledge.

Quote :

Would you really want to live in a world of complete logic and no irrationality, though, Nordmann? Do you really want rid of religion, astrology, homeopathy, and all those entertaining things that are inexplicable and probably non-existent?

Yes. "Complete" logic in itself is a probably an unattainable goal for animals like us who rely so much on intuition and instinct, however its pursuit provides much more meaningful intellectual entertainment and stimulus than the intellectual blind alleys you cite above can ever do. Unless of course you class as "entertainment" laughing at others' ignorance, of which I can say in my own case that this particular joke wore thin a long time ago.

Quote :

to my mind Protagoras was the most grounded of men

And no dope either. Centuries later Cicero summed Protagoras and the other Sophists up quite well. The Sophists were criticised for their modus operandum when it came to teaching, namely that they did it for money and if there was no payment forthcoming in one place then they stayed shtum and moved on to another. They were also criticised for their extreme agnosticism, not just in matters of religion but in all branches of knowledge where supposition was operating in the absence of scientific proof. To Cicero this amounted to someone whose wisdom could only be extracted from them at a price, and when the price was paid the wisdom amounted to one sentence "I don't know". He thought this was very funny, and in a way he's right.

Well, I don't know, but I should have thought that in any discussion of God/reincarnation, being an agnostic is really the only honest position to take.

Here's a list of fifty Nobel Laureates and other great scientists who (with the odd wobble now and again) think or have thought that the existence of a higher power is a possibility.

http://www.adherents.com/people/100_Nobel.html

And here is a list who think the whole idea is silly:

http://www.michaelnugent.com/best/famous-atheists

Richard Branson and Bjork! I'm convinced!

Ah, but how many Nobel Laureates does it take to change a lightbulb?

What you describe as an "odd wobble" on that list from adherents.com is interesting - both in your deliberate choice of understatement and in the sheer mendacity of the compiler in including people who were of a christian or other denomination by virtue of being raised in that faith regardless of what they subsequently "adhered to".

The atheist list is also dubious and seems to concentrate more on people in the media spotlight than laureates (hence Bjork etc), but it does also include Tom Lehrer and Mark Twain, so it's not all silly.

Agnosticism, if it is genuinely held as a philosophical basis for what one believes, cannot then be restricted to one esoteric subject. If you are an "honest" agnostic then your own existence must be approached in the same manner as you approach all other questions of being. The Sophists, for all their mercenary failings, at least got that one right.

I often doubt that I exist.

I don't know anything about the Sophists - will have a little read about them later.

Just seen this - I love it!

If you doubt the existence of something, even yourself, then you are not an agnostic since you have applied criteria for existence which you have then used qualitively to assess your own. You are a sceptic maybe, but not an agnostic.

Taking just the first name on the first list "Great Scientists who believed in God" - it is a bit rich to claim Albert Einstein believed in God... when pushed he always admitted to agnostism although he toyed with the ideas of spinozism. That is a long way from "believing in a God".

I suspect the claims that many of the other listed figures were deists are equally exaggerated if not completly false.

nordmann wrote:

If you doubt the existence of something, even yourself, then you are not an agnostic since you have applied criteria for existence which you have then used qualitively to assess your own. You are a sceptic maybe, but not an agnostic.

Yes, I accept that.

Is it true to say that the people on the list at one time *entertained* the notion of a higher power?

PS Please note that in the post where I gave the link to the list, *I* did not use the word God.

I said "higher power".

Quote :

I suspect the claims that many of the other listed figures were deists are equally exaggerated if not completly false.

I agree, MM. It's a really pathetic attempt to strengthen an assertion through dubious association with equally dubious data. Moreover it exhibits a strong tendency towards apophenia on the part of its author, a condition which facilitates religious belief as much as it encourages employment of what they now call the "Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy" to construct a biased assertion, or even an entire belief. Which leads me to believe that its compiler himself is a religious man - just a hunch.

Quote :

Is it true to say that the people on the list at one time *entertained* the notion of a higher power?

Could well be true, Temp. It's something we're all doing in this thread to a greater or lesser extent. But whether that merits their inclusion as adherents to a particular decision based on such perusal is an extremely moot point. My own respect for intellectual honesty would force me to desist from doing anything of the sort. But others have more fluid ideas of what honesty consists of - obviously.

Yes Temp, you did indeed say "higher power", it was the site itself that called the list "50 Nobel Laureates and Other Great Scientists Who Believe in God", but then it is a religious site.

But equally I'm sure most people have at some time "entertained" the notion of a higher power. We are none of us born atheist or deist, and entertaining the idea is surely just a part of personal enquiry and the formation of our ideas/beliefs, no?

I'm also a little hesitant about the designation 'Jewish' without clarification as to whether the person considered himself a cultural, ethnic or, for want of a better word, religious Jew.

Meles meles wrote:

Yes Temp, you did indeed say "higher power"...

The idea of "higher power" of course comes from the AA literature (*not* the Automobile Association, before anyone makes that little joke ) - the 12 Step Programme which, incidentally, was based on the work of Jung. I read this recently in Dr. Tim Cantopher's little book, "Dying For a Drink". It did make me laugh:

"Many people have heard that it (AA) is religious and are put off going because of this. In my view this is not a valid reason for avoiding something that has helped so many people who are not "religious". They do indeed introduce the concept of a higher power that you need to turn to for strength, but I would suggest that even the most atheist among us recognises that if a concept works in practice, it is worth running with it. AA works. The concept of God also appears in several of the steps, but what is mentioned is "God, as we understood him", which allows a great deal of scope for personal interpretation. Some in AA who don't go for things spiritual refer to GOD as an acronym for 'Group of Drunks'."

Priscilla a few posts back referred to a crutch and how it is possible to "limp" through life without such a support. *Is* religion, then, no more than a crutch for the weak, the vulnerable, the needy - and the obstinately stupid?

The weakness with the AA use of the concept of a god is that due to the cellularly independent nature of their members' meetings there is too much scope for a simplistic theology being imposed by a majority within one group on the others, which can create unwelcome tensions within the group which in turn works against its inclusiveness, its effectiveness and its whole point in being there - at least for members who would not necessarily agree with it. In Norway self-help groups tackling alcoholism base their ethos more on the "Save Our Selves" movement which shies completely away from fuzzy theology in its basic philosophy. I believe they are also becoming more popular elsewhere too.

Of course religion is a crutch, and for many more reasons and many more people than your list suggests. But then, so is alcohol.

nordmann wrote:

Of course religion is a crutch, and for many more reasons and many more people than your list suggests. But then, so is alcohol.

What about yoga?

The following passage is an extract from this site:

http://www.anandaseva.org/yoga/sites/default/files/pdfs/alcoholism_stevi_woolworth.pdf

Ishvara Pranidhana means devotion to God. It involves knowing that there is something greater
than what we see ourselves to be, and trusting in the existence of that power to
guide us through any given circumstance. That power can be something that you view outside
yourself or something that exists within you, but knowing the truth of that power
is essential. This is not something to be taken as blind faith, but discovered firsthand through
meditation and other spiritual practices. The AA twelve step equivalent for Ishvara Pranidhana is
seen in steps 2, 3, 6, and 11, which all involve complete trust in a higher power as a source for
strength and guidance.

I suppose you'll say this is a load of nonsense too. But surely, as crutches go, Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer and a bit of yoga are pretty harmless?

I see the subject has been moved to the Religion and Superstition section, no matter, thought about posting here at the start.

If we can all hang on for a few more years we may be able to download into a computer, a sort of silicon immortality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_uploading

although our reality may itself be a computer simulation, various papers on attached link;

http://www.simulation-argument.com/

The topic veered in that direction and away from the specific case with which it started. No other reason.

Quote :

What about yoga?

What about football?

This from Maradonna after illegally punching the ball over a bemused Peter Shilton and into the English goal in their 1986 World Cup encounter -

"When I am on the field of football I give myself over to that force which is greater than all of us, greater than me. I am its servant. You can call it God or you can call it a higher power. I do not care, it controls me because I give myself to it without question. People say I am a great footballer because of my skill. I am great because He is great. All I know was the ball ended up in the goal. If it was a hand that sent it on its way it was the Hand of God."

Nonsense comes in a myriad forms, especially when it embraces fantastical concepts and presents them as "fact". Once you throw out the requirement to remain factual and sensible (or indeed honest, as Maradonna demonstrates) then the sky's the limit.

Now that's very slippery of you, Nordmann.

I think any counsellor or therapy group would have found Maradonna a bit of a challenge. He suffered from multiple addictions, didn't he: cocaine, alcohol and food? That famous "Hand of God" quotation would indicate that, although he may have attempted a 12-Step programme, he had got stuck at around Step Two/Three and had perhaps not quite grasped the idea of what *submission* to a higher power really means.

But it must have been very difficult for him. Wasn't Maradonna actually regarded as a kind of god himself in Argentina (in some parts of Scotland too, I think - the Tartan Army revered him for humiliating the English)? There is a Church of Maradonna in Argentina, I believe, and shrines (the one shown here is actually in Naples) are to be found everywhere.

Maradonna's mum should have stepped in and, like the very sensible Mandy, the Mother of Brian, she should have told Maradonna and everyone else that her son's hand was *not* the Hand of God at all, but the hand of a very naughty boy.

I thought the yoga stuff might have been of a bit more relevance to the thread: lot of Buddhist philosophy there and a mention of the impact of past lives on present lives. Which, to be honest, I find a bit perplexing. I have a Buddhist friend and she says that Buddhists do *not* believe in reincarnation.

Will go and stand on one leg now and salute the sun.

Re football, Cristiano Ronaldo made the comment that " he had been sent by God"; to which Lionel Messi retorted, "I don't remember sending him"

Quote :

Now that's very slippery of you, Nordmann.

No it's not. My point is that you can ascribe anything you want to a "higher power" - its attributes, its character, your own character, your own behaviour, the reason for life the universe and everything, the price of milk ...

It is a fallacy of circularity and gets one no nearer any truth, if by truth one means anything which can be said to be known on the basis that it has been or can be deduced logically from empirically tested evidence. Once you ditch that definition of truth then you open the door to any sort of woo woo philosophy and even to woo woo definitions of evidence and testing (as your yoga example indicates), though I notice from my own observations that people tend towards the first definition of truth in things which really matter (breathing, eating, checking their bank accounts etc) and reserve the woo woo stuff for those areas where truth obviously doesn't really matter a toss (romance, religion, writing Curricula Vitæ etc).

Triceratops wrote:

Re football, Cristiano Ronaldo made the comment that " he had been sent by God"; to which Lionel Messi retorted, "I don't remember sending him"

Excellent Trike!

The two big stars of Spanish football, and neither are Spanish .

Unless mentioned in an earlier post here, I suppose we ought consider Pythagoras' view. He was a strict vegetarian because he believed in reincarnation of living souls having a rerun - possibly depending on their performance as a human. He claimed that he recognised the yapping of two fighting dogs as being reborn men he once knew.

He banned beans however, for himself and his followers. He thought they were embryonic unborn humans - he must have got wind of this notion somehow!

He might have bee able to square his hypotenuse but he also had such quirky thoughts otherwise that his followers had to live in secrecy - with a death sentence if found out.

Pythagoras was a bit of a nutter. Brilliant at triangles but pretty clueless about anything else. A lot of these guys seem to have been the same, brilliant in their speciality subject on Mastermind but real stinkers when it came to the second round.

Priscilla wrote:

He banned beans however, for himself and his followers. He thought they were embryonic unborn humans - he must have got wind of this notion somehow!

I thought "abstain from beans" meant don't vote - don't get involved in politics. Or was that some other Greek?

nordmann wrote:

Pythagoras was a bit of a nutter. Brilliant at triangles but pretty clueless about anything else. A lot of these guys seem to have been the same, brilliant in their speciality subject on Mastermind but real stinkers when it came to the second round.

Pretty much my view of relying on Nobel laureates (or any sort of "celebrity") as an authority outside their specialisation.

Gilgamesh of Uruk wrote:

Pretty much my view of relying on Nobel laureates (or any sort of "celebrity") as an authority outside their specialisation.

And sometimes it seems you can't rely on them about their specialisation either. There's always someone who'll come along and dispute the findings, evidence or no evidence.

It is all extremely confusing.

Is anyone an "authority" on the great mysteries? I don't think so, although we all - Nobel laureates, recovering drunks, educated derelicts, footballers or whatever - like to fancy we are. We all have our own tale to tell and our ha'pennorth to add.

I still think Socrates was right when he said the only thing he knew was that he knew nothing. Although authorities on Plato apparently now say that was never really attributed to him at all. But I got this off Wiki:

τούτου μὲν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐγὼ σοφώτερός εἰμι· κινδυνεύει μὲν γὰρ ἡμῶν οὐδέτερος οὐδὲν καλὸν κἀγαθὸν εἰδέναι, ἀλλ' οὗτος μὲν οἴεται τι εἰδέναι οὐκ εἰδώς, ἐγὼ δέ, ὥσπερ οὖν οὐκ οἶδα, οὐδὲ οὄιμαι· ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μή οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰδέναι

Where the translation is roughly:

I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know.

I think he was talking about Meno or somebody.

Er - someone jump in and correct me if wrong but I thought Socrates never wrote anything - Plato and playwrights and such gave testament in Dialogues and plays - such as The Cloud. I have not looked it up so perhaps I have made a wikkied error.

Priscilla wrote:

Er - someone jump in and correct me if wrong but I thought Socrates never wrote anything - Plato and playwrights and such gave testament in Dialogues and plays - such as The Cloud. I have not looked it up so perhaps I have made a wikkied error.

That's why I said authorities on *Plato* now say that all the stuff about Socrates knowing nowt is possibly all garbage anyway. And copying great chunks of Greek "off Wiki" was a dig at my own ignorance!

But point noted about "jumping in" with corrections. Sorry. That's always the sign of an irritating old bore in any company. Ways will be amended.

Here's a nice bit of tripe from the Daily Mail. The man's credentials are impressive, but all the fluffy pink clouds and butterflies stuff is too much even for me:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2214836/It-place-clouds-big-puffy-pink-white-The-prominent-neurosurgeon-convinced-theres-heaven-body-experience.html

And a very lucrative journey that was, and his book isn't even out yet.

"Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #7 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
#2 in Books > Medical Books
#2 in Books > Religion & Spirituality > Religious Studies > Science & Religion
#2 in Books > Professional & Technical"

Will he out sell this one though, it's the no 4 bestseller.

Yes, that has crossed my mind too! Lots and lots of money to be made from all this searching for the truth business, which ever side you're on - or say you're on.

Sign of the times, I suppose.

It's the mind numbingly tedious predictability of all these experiences that gets me and would convince me of their unreliability were I to even hesitantly consider their reality. It's always such a nice, anglo saxon heaven they go to, a kind of celestial Teletubby land that appeals to the perceived audience.

Did you see the Creationist Roadtrip programme? Scary.

I'm watching it now while I eat my Oatibix.

These nutters drive me crazy - it's why I can't call myself a "Christian" anymore - people always assume you are one of this lot which I am *NOT*. There doesn't seem to be any nice, sane, tolerant middle ground anymore - but then perhaps there never was.

I don't want an Anglo-Saxon heaven - cherubs would look silly in horned helmets.