Science and Religion - Page 11 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-16-2013, 12:36 PM   #151
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 08:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cobl04 View Post
Saw the Krauss vs William Craig debate tonight, the topic was 'is it reasonable to believe there is a God?'

JT warned me about Craig when I first bought it up, but honestly I thought he did pretty well - I'm an atheist so there were plenty of things he said that didn't click with me (in particular the 'historical facts' of Jesus' resurrection and his thoughts on the veracity of scripture) but I thought he debated pretty well.

Obviously I agree with Krauss and a lot of what he said (though there was plenty that went over my head). There was one quite interesting debate between the two about morality... once they took God out of the equation it seemed that they agreed on a lot of the subtleties and smaller things, though ultimately Craig believes it's a god-driven thing where as Krauss does not ("if Dr Craig suddenly stopped believing in God I don't think he'd go and kill his neighbour all of a sudden").

Dr Craig seemed reasonable to me, and personally I think it is 'reasonable' (in a more loose, less scientific sense of the word) to believe in God, many good people I know do. But I really couldn't connect at all with the two things I mentioned above - the "historical facts" about Jesus' resurrection in particular was just absolutely ridiculous, as were the stuff about scripture... when Krauss rightly said scripture is falsifiable because it is based on writings that may have been mistranslated after being passed on by word, and they were written after the fact... and Dr Craig's only argument in return was that the scholars at the time had a good record and wouldn't lie.
Thanks for the assessment. I agree that the morality argument is more fascinating and possibly holds more weight than the historicity of Scripture (although I do have "faith" that it has been fairly well preserved, but I know I can't reasonably prove that with artifacts).

I do like Dr. Craig and I think he holds his own in these debates. If anything, his ability to debate at least demonstrates that not every Christian is an idiot.

I still think Chris Hitchens is probably the best debater in this arena. I obviously don't come to all of his conclusions, but I just LOVE watching him.
__________________

__________________
AEON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2013, 12:41 PM   #152
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 08:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
Perhaps my understanding of what a quantum computer is might be wrong, but is it not essentially the same as a modern computer, only each bit is able to store more probable information than just the binary off or on? In that way, they have exponentially more memory than a classic computer per bit and can access a given amount much quicker? Also, theoretically, two identical entangled quantum computers could share information instantly at faster than light speed.

Quote:

Today's computers, like a Turing machine, work by manipulating bits that exist in one of two states: a 0 or a 1. Quantum computers aren't limited to two states; they encode information as quantum bits, or qubits, which can exist in superposition. Qubits represent atoms, ions, photons or electrons and their respective control devices that are working together to act as computer memory and a processor. Because a quantum computer can contain these multiple states simultaneously, it has the potential to be millions of times more powerful than today's most powerful supercomputers.
Source:
__________________

__________________
AEON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2013, 08:26 PM   #153
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 10:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cobl04 View Post
Saw the Krauss vs William Craig debate tonight, the topic was 'is it reasonable to believe there is a God?'

JT warned me about Craig when I first bought it up, but honestly I thought he did pretty well - I'm an atheist so there were plenty of things he said that didn't click with me (in particular the 'historical facts' of Jesus' resurrection and his thoughts on the veracity of scripture) but I thought he debated pretty well.

Obviously I agree with Krauss and a lot of what he said (though there was plenty that went over my head). There was one quite interesting debate between the two about morality... once they took God out of the equation it seemed that they agreed on a lot of the subtleties and smaller things, though ultimately Craig believes it's a god-driven thing where as Krauss does not ("if Dr Craig suddenly stopped believing in God I don't think he'd go and kill his neighbour all of a sudden").

Dr Craig seemed reasonable to me, and personally I think it is 'reasonable' (in a more loose, less scientific sense of the word) to believe in God, many good people I know do. But I really couldn't connect at all with the two things I mentioned above - the "historical facts" about Jesus' resurrection in particular was just absolutely ridiculous, as were the stuff about scripture... when Krauss rightly said scripture is falsifiable because it is based on writings that may have been mistranslated after being passed on by word, and they were written after the fact... and Dr Craig's only argument in return was that the scholars at the time had a good record and wouldn't lie.
Lucky for you Cobbo. I saw Kraus tweet that he was going to that, but forgot it was the one you were seeing. Glad you enjoyed it. I think I just find Craig's style to be smarmy. And the way he cock-suredly tries to shoot down science with... well nothing of substance, really, rubs me the wrong way. In a sense, I know he must know that he's being intellectually dishonest and I really don't like that. But anywho
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2013, 08:27 PM   #154
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 10:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
So I more or less had it right. I think I just misread what you were trying to say, but I see now
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2013, 08:59 PM   #155
45:33
 
cobl04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: East Point to Shaolin
Posts: 55,042
Local Time: 02:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post

Lucky for you Cobbo. I saw Kraus tweet that he was going to that, but forgot it was the one you were seeing. Glad you enjoyed it. I think I just find Craig's style to be smarmy. And the way he cock-suredly tries to shoot down science with... well nothing of substance, really, rubs me the wrong way. In a sense, I know he must know that he's being intellectually dishonest and I really don't like that. But anywho
Krauss himself said how frustrated he was that Craig kept bringing up the same points in their debates despite being proven wrong.
__________________
cobl04 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2013, 10:11 PM   #156
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 08:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
So I more or less had it right. I think I just misread what you were trying to say, but I see now
Yeah - you had it right. I think the "processing" power of these beasts will allow us to run million or billions of scenarios for everything - from small things like baseball lineups to global supply chains. And of course, quantum mechanics...
__________________
AEON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2013, 10:16 PM   #157
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 08:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cobl04 View Post
Krauss himself said how frustrated he was that Craig kept bringing up the same points in their debates despite being proven wrong.
Yeah - that can be annoying. But I don't ever see anyone in these debates openly concede and say, "well - you got me there!" It would be cool if someone did. I would probably declare them the winner just for saying that.

Krauss does have one major flaw (IMHO) in his assumption that something can come from nothing. He refers to the creation moment, the Big Bang, as a quantum fluctuation of pre-existent energy. Well - how is it that the energy is not in existence? Why does he not count that as "something"? I wish I could ask him...
__________________
AEON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2013, 10:24 PM   #158
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 08:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
Lucky for you Cobbo.
That's right - you were actually there. Good for you.

How was the environment? What was the crowd like?
__________________
AEON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2013, 07:37 AM   #159
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 10:32 AM
New study relevant to our previous discussion.
Meta analysis of intelligence vs religiosity

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/...nce-and-faith/
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2013, 03:44 PM   #160
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 08:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
New study relevant to our previous discussion.
Meta analysis of intelligence vs religiosity

New meta-analysis checks the correlation between intelligence and faith | Ars Technica
I think the problem here is that "belief in some sort of God" attracts people from the whole spectrum of intelligence, and atheist (which a small fraction of the total population) does attract brighter minds.

The same is also probably true within the Church - the most fundamentalist and dogmatic followers probably have the lower IQs, while those that "buck the trend" and bring new "insights" probably have the higher IQs.

However - I've known dim witted atheists (usually those that are just in simple rebellion of all things) and brilliant Church-going professionals and clergy.

All-in-all, I would concede that the average IQ of the atheist is probably higher than the average IQ of a "believer". But that doesn't seem to really prove much. The same could probably said of serial killers or dictators and computer hackers (that they have a higher IQ than most church goers).
__________________
AEON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2013, 04:49 PM   #161
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 11:32 AM
I'm at work, so I want to quickly comment before I can give a more in-depth response later.

I think the less intelligent religious people are those who follow blindly and don't question, either out of fear, brainwashing or other reasons. I think it is possible to believe there is a God and be intelligent. In that case, I would say those people have a more mature relationship with God, as in they know while He may be the boss, they are fully aware that they can't be passive in life and sometimes God wants them to think for themselves so they can grow. I also think they can tell the difference between God's voice and their ego or subconscious.
__________________
Pearl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2013, 09:38 PM   #162
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 10:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
I think the problem here is that "belief in some sort of God" attracts people from the whole spectrum of intelligence, and atheist (which a small fraction of the total population) does attract brighter minds.
This is a very good and relevant point
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2013, 09:40 PM   #163
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 10:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pearl View Post
I think it is possible to believe there is a God and be intelligent.


I wouldn't doubt that for a second. You need only look at the posts in this very thread
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2013, 09:44 PM   #164
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 10:32 AM
I only posted that article because I felt it was relevant to what we were discussing earlier. I agree with you both that it doesn't really prove anything. I find the increasingly negative correlation between religiosity and level of accomplishment in sciences (ie, a better understanding of how things work) to be more telling.
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2013, 12:31 AM   #165
War Child
 
Dfit00's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 893
Local Time: 11:32 AM
You do not have to be hardcore religious in order to be a good person.
__________________

__________________
Dfit00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com