What if your wrong?

[BlaineTog]

People believe god is the law giver. It is what they believe god wants what theybelieve they are following.

No, God is the lawgiver, whether he exists or not. It’s part of the definition of “God,” at least the Christian conception of God.

Theists really get there values the same way the rest of us do.

And the theist wouldn’t totally disagree with you. We just have the Bible and the Church to turn to for guidance as well.

Really what would happen, is that you continue to follow the laws of your community, the general sense of fairness people evolved with, the customs that you have been trained to observe, and your imaginings of how the world should work. The same rules that believers are following without realizing it. But that’s okay, most atheists don’t realize that’s what they are following either.

You misunderstand what I mean by “with every fiber of your being.” I’m talking about a totally self-conscious, self-willed actualization of the Dostoyevskian “If God does not exist, then all things are permissible” principle. If you’re following your conscience at all, you’re not totally adhering to it. And following the laws of your community is similar insofar as you do it to adhere to some phantom “spirit of fairness.”

People who feel that only their rules matter are called sociopaths. They make up about 2% of the general population, and don’t fall neatly into any one belief system.

They fall squarely in the extremely end of pride. Atheists at least try to adhere to the truth, which is why the radical atheism I described earlier is difficult for them to get to: it requires you to no longer care about truth, when it was only radical adherence to the truth as you know it that allows you to get as radical as you got. It’s kinda like Buddhism, in that respect.

That’s what theists believe is going on.

No, that’s what really is going on, insofar as the concept of “God” can be generalized to “lawgiver.” If you believe in right and wrong outside of your own preferences, you have a tiny kernel of faith in God, if not “God.”

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I hear this question asked of many athiests and agnostics. So I’m intrested to hear your reposonse the the question.

God is Infinitely Real - creation is what I find difficult to believe has a real existence.​

An amoeba might have serious doubts as to whether man exists. If there is no God, you are non-existent; as am I: & we are not having this discussion This amoeba knows God is

 

[fhansen]

Maturity and humility demand that one allows for at least the possibility that one is wrong no matter how much faith they think they have or how powerful ones experiences of God may be, no matter if He came and infused them with direct knowledge of Himself, simultaneously revealing that He, Himself, was giving it so that they knew that they possessed knowledge not attainable by ordinary human means. Even after rejecting faith as a young person and then checking out a variety of religions and then finding faith after all and building it step by step, testing the waters along the way and experiencing miracles small and large and then even coming to find, after years, that they agree with the Catholic Church on an increasing number of things so that they thought she had learned a lot while they were gone-even then, a person needs to consider their human frailty in all things. But they’re going to be pretty darn sure of their beliefs.

 

[mathematician]

I hear this question asked of many athiests and agnostics. So I’m intrested to hear your reposonse the the question.

If I am wrong, then when I die I will be dead, and I won’t know about it. But that’s alright, because I’m not wrong of course.

 

[magisterfaust]

“what if you are wrong” isn’t really an argument.

Next time you are in math class and your teacher tells you that the Pythagorean theorem is A squared+B squared=C squared, raise your hand and ask him “what if you are wrong?”

It’s a stupid question. As humans, the best we have is our ability to reason. This is all we should go by.

There was a time when the church held the belief, (in the face of scientific evidence, that in recent times has beem utterly and overwhemingly confirmed), that the earth was flat and the centre of the universe. They were wrong then, and as the question asks…what if the catholic church is wrong again?

 

[mathematician]

There was a time when the church held the belief, (in the face of scientific evidence, that in recent times has beem utterly and overwhemingly confirmed), that the earth was flat and the centre of the universe. They were wrong then, and as the question asks…what if the catholic church is wrong again?

So far as I know the Church has never dogmatised about the shape of the earth. There was a time when both the Church and the consensus of scientific opinion held that the sun orbited the earth. In the absence of evidence to the contrary it was a perfectly reasonable thing to believe; it seemed to be what their eyes were telling them. As it happens, they were both wrong. Admiitedly the Church was slower in owning up to that fact than might have been desired.

What if science is wrong about the big bang theory (say)? Given that every theory before it has eventually succumbed to some inconvenient data or other, it seems entirely likely that the big bang theory will eventually follow suit. If science can allow itself the luxury of being wrong, there is no obvious reason why the Church shouldn’t do likewise. Trouble might arise, of course, if it digs its heels in and says, “No, we’re infallible, we can’t be wrong.”

 

[magisterfaust]

Maybe science is also wrong. I will have to look up all the theories that have been torn asunder. Even the great Einstein has had his experiments and theories dissected by many of the scientists of the modern era. My own belief is “undecided”, which is rather frustrating.

 

[crowonsnow]

So far as I know the Church has never dogmatised about the shape of the earth. There was a time when both the Church and the consensus of scientific opinion held that the sun orbited the earth. In the absence of evidence to the contrary it was a perfectly reasonable thing to believe; it seemed to be what their eyes were telling them. As it happens, they were both wrong. Admiitedly the Church was slower in owning up to that fact than might have been desired.

What if science is wrong about the big bang theory (say)? Given that every theory before it has eventually succumbed to some inconvenient data or other, it seems entirely likely that the big bang theory will eventually follow suit. If science can allow itself the luxury of being wrong, there is no obvious reason why the Church shouldn’t do likewise. Trouble might arise, of course, if it digs its heels in and says, “No, we’re infallible, we can’t be wrong.”

Some scientists are definitely dogmatic. The various scientific fields are all and always open to the possibility that one of their theories could be wrong or at least certainly need tweaking.

Do you think religion and religionists are basically in the same boat or do you see religion and religionists as being more dogmatic?

 

[Sideline]

No, God is the lawgiver, whether he exists or not. It’s part of the definition of “God,” at least the Christian conception of God.

If the lawgiver doesn’t exist it can not “give the law”.

But as I pointed out in the last thread, there is no reason to assume the presence of a lawgiver. Which means, this is a belief.

And the theist wouldn’t totally disagree with you. We just have the Bible and the Church to turn to for guidance as well.

This is included in the idea of the customs of your society.

You misunderstand what I mean by “with every fiber of your being.” I’m talking about a totally self-conscious, self-willed actualization of the Dostoyevskian “If God does not exist, then all things are permissible” principle.

I see. By “reject god” you meant something entirely different.

You have equated god with a sense of right and wrong. I am not advocating for total narcissism, so I must believe in some sort of god. In that case, god is what lives in the heads of the higher animals. God evolved through time because he helped with group harmonics.

If this is what god is, your rituals to it are very, very strange.

And following the laws of your community is similar insofar as you do it to adhere to some phantom “spirit of fairness.”

I said the “general sense of fairness people evolved with”. The word *evolved *should have been an indication that I don’t think of this as a spiritual being at all. It is an inbuilt feature that humans and other primates have demonstrated to maintain social harmony. It is process that happens in our brain and endocrine system when we percieve what we think of as justice or injustice. It does not operate in any way like a law, because it isn’t the slightest bit consistent.

Again, if this process is god, then why on earth would people think that going to church would please it?

No, that’s what really is going on, insofar as the concept of “God” can be generalized to “lawgiver.” If you believe in right and wrong outside of your own preferences, you have a tiny kernel of faith in God, if not “God.”

Telling yourself that your beliefs are indesputable facts might help your faith in them, but does nothing to covince anyone else. Why bother with a technique that is doomed to failure?

 

[mathematician]

Some scientists are definitely dogmatic. The various scientific fields are all and always open to the possibility that one of their theories could be wrong or at least certainly need tweaking.

Do you think religion and religionists are basically in the same boat or do you see religion and religionists as being more dogmatic?

That all depends upon the religionist. Some are, some aren’t.

 

[Sideline]

There was a time when both the Church and the consensus of scientific opinion held that the sun orbited the earth. In the absence of evidence to the contrary it was a perfectly reasonable thing to believe; it seemed to be what their eyes were telling them.

You are right. It wasn’t until the evidence began to show that it was wrong that it made sense to abandon this belief.

As it happens, they were both wrong. Admiitedly the Church was slower in owning up to that fact than might have been desired.

Unfortunately, the church did a little more than just lag behind scientific thinking on the subject. They threatened to torture Galileo if he didn’t recant. They forbade it from being taught, and they certainly did not encourage further open study.

What if science is wrong about the big bang theory (say)?

This is entirely possible.

Given that every theory before it has eventually succumbed to some inconvenient data or other, it seems entirely likely that the big bang theory will eventually follow suit.

No, that doesn’t follow. You’ve misunderstood a crucial way in how science works. It ***is possible *** that we are wrong about the big bang, but there is ***no ***correlation between the success of other theories and the strength of that one. A lot of people use this kind of thinking to conclude that evolution is just going to fall away any day now, which is a near impossibility.

Here’s what I mean: Imagine you are doing an enormous jigsaw puzzle without a picture on the box.

At first you don’t know what the picture is at all, but by chance, you manage to fit some pieces together. You figure out that you are making a flower. But a few pieces later, and it doesn’t look like a single flower at all. You realize it’s a bouquet, but soon, that doesn’t fit either. It’s a tree.

Several revelations later and you have a picture of woman, wearing a paisley dress, having a picnic under a tree. There are still a great number of holes at this point, but it is really unlikely that you are going to find a better theory. You reach a point where every piece you pick up starts to confirm your theory rather than confound it.

You were wrong about the bouquet. There are no flowers at all, but the fact that you were wrong about them doesn’t change the fact that you are right about the woman wearing a dress.

The theory might need some modification from time to time; you might have a branch in the wrong place, or realize what you thought was part of the blanket was really a serviette, but the general structure of the picture has been firmly established.

In the case of the big bang, a new theory would have to explain why it appears the universe is expanding. We have learned a lot since that theory was first introduce, and a new theory would have to account for those add pieces as well. It certainly doesn’t follow that all theories are as likely to fall.

Sorry about the length of the post.

 

[mathematician]

You are right. It wasn’t until the evidence began to show that it was wrong that it made sense to abandon this belief.

Unfortunately, the church did a little more than just lag behind scientific thinking on the subject. They threatened to torture Galileo if he didn’t recant. They forbade it from being taught, and they certainly did not encourage further open study.

This is entirely possible.

No, that doesn’t follow. You’ve misunderstood a crucial way in how science works. It ***is possible *** that we are wrong about the big bang, but there is ***no ***correlation between the success of other theories and the strength of that one. A lot of people use this kind of thinking to conclude that evolution is just going to fall away any day now, which is a near impossibility.

If there was ever a scientific theory where, at the time, could reasonably be described as a “near impossibility” that it would fall away, it was Newtonian Mechanics. Every experiment carried out seemed to verify it. (Nearly) every bridge or building put up using it failed to fall down. And yet by the early twentieth century it was known to be wrong in more ways than one.

The most that can be said of any scientific theory is that, given the available data, it seems to model the universe accurately (and you have got Stephen Hawking on that). Even in the unlikely event that we one day hit upon a theory that seemed to model the physical universe to perfection:

a.) There is no way we could know that we had hit upon it, and
b.) Even if we could know that, a model of the universe still wouldn’t be identical with the universe, any more than a picture of a landscape is identical with the landscape.

Given our ambitious plans to have a theory of everything, it might be well to remember just how limited our sensory apparatus is. We have got two organs in the front of our head which are capable of detecting a narrow band of electro-magnetic radiation, and we have got two organs on the side of our heads capable of detecting minute variations in air pressure.

How many physical processes which might be going on, about which that apparatus can give us not a clue, is anybody’s guess.
b.)

 

[Sideline]

If there was ever a scientific theory where, at the time, could reasonably be described as a “near impossibility” that it would fall away, it was Newtonian Mechanics. Every experiment carried out seemed to verify it. (Nearly) every bridge or building put up using it failed to fall down. And yet by the early twentieth century it was known to be wrong in more ways than one.

Which makes it an unusual and remarkable story indeed. Yet, you seem to think that this suggests a rule rather than an exception.

The other thing that you seem to be missing is that in many ways the calculations continue to be correct. We don’t use relativity to build bridges.

We are never going to have a perfect picture of the universe, but your belief that every theory is bound to fall away is simply not correct.

 

[fhansen]

There was a time when the church held the belief, (in the face of scientific evidence, that in recent times has beem utterly and overwhemingly confirmed), that the earth was flat and the centre of the universe. They were wrong then, and as the question asks…what if the catholic church is wrong again?

The Catholic Churchs’ own teaching is that she is “right”, or infallible, only on matters of faith and morals.

 

[crowonsnow]

That all depends upon the religionist. Some are, some aren’t.

What about religion itself? Is it syncretistic? Pick one or talk generally.

 

[crowonsnow]

The Catholic Churchs’ own teaching is that she is “right”, or infallible, only on matters of faith and morals.

I’ve always been curious. How does one ascertain whether a teaching is “official” or not? And within that which is “official," how does one know whether it relates specifically to f/m?

I’m guessing something catechetical or an encyclical is official. Also, is the entire catechism and are all encyclicals relating to f/m?

</minor digression>

 

[crowonsnow]

Given that every theory before it has eventually succumbed to some inconvenient data or other, it seems entirely likely that the big bang theory will eventually follow suit. If science can allow itself the luxury of being wrong, there is no obvious reason why the Church shouldn’t do likewise.

That strikes me as missing the forest for the trees. How do we know one theory is better than another unless we are actually doing science?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Maturity and humility demand that one allows for at least the possibility that one is wrong no matter how much faith they think they have or how powerful ones experiences of God may be, no matter if He came and infused them with direct knowledge of Himself, simultaneously revealing that He, Himself, was giving it so that they knew that they possessed knowledge not attainable by ordinary human means. Even after rejecting faith as a young person and then checking out a variety of religions and then finding faith after all and building it step by step, testing the waters along the way and experiencing miracles small and large and then even coming to find, after years, that they agree with the Catholic Church on an increasing number of things so that they thought she had learned a lot while they were gone-even then, a person needs to consider their human frailty in all things. But they’re going to be pretty darn sure of their beliefs.

I don’t see any humility in doubting God. It’s not humble to doubt what one knows.​

The Church can give no certainty of God whatever - it’s a creature, so it is useless for that. All the miracles in the universe would be utterly worthless, because to be profitable they require the faith that God alone can give. All those things are trash & filth & rubbish without faith. Nothing could be mote insane or meaningless than to depend on creatures for what only God can give; one might as well worship stocks & stones otherwise, & bow down to useless, dumb, & blind & helpless “gods” of one’s own creation.

 

[fhansen]

I don’t see any humility in doubting God. It’s not humble to doubt what one knows.​

The Church can give no certainty of God whatever - it’s a creature, so it is useless for that. All the miracles in the universe would be utterly worthless, because to be profitable they require the faith that God alone can give. All those things are trash & filth & rubbish without faith. Nothing could be mote insane or meaningless than to depend on creatures for what only God can give; one might as well worship stocks & stones otherwise, & bow down to useless, dumb, & blind & helpless “gods” of one’s own creation.

I don’t know if you misunderstood me or I’m misunderstanding you. I’ve had the above-mentioned experiences and have been given the gift of faith and I’m as sure as a human can be that the God of Catholicism is true and yet I acknowledge that, because I’m not God, I have to retain the humility that I can error and the charity to allow others to as well, even if they don’t pay me the same kindness.

 

[magisterfaust]

The Catholic Churchs’ own teaching is that she is “right”, or infallible, only on matters of faith and morals.

Was the Catholic Church correct on the moral issue of the inquisition and the cathars.