lisper comments on Is Spirituality Irrational? - Less Wrong

5 Post author: lisper 09 February 2016 01:42AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (429)
Tags: spirituality rationality

Comments (429)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: lisper 19 February 2016 05:38:19PM 2 points [-]

It's a really good analogy, and I like it very much.

Thank you! You just made my day.

Parting the Red Sea and dropping it on Pharoah's army was hardly a subtle miracle.

Yeah, but those good old days are apparently behind us. It's a shame that God didn't think to make a video. Now that would have been cool!

it's also possible, given current behaviour, that God will simply refuse to cooperate with any experiment intended to prove Her existence beyond doubt...

One of the things that I've often heard Christians say is, "God could do X and Y and Z (because He (they never refer to God as She) is omnipotent) but He chooses not to." The idea of an omnipotent deity whose behavior is reliably predictable by mere mortals has always struck me as logically incoherent. But what do I know? ;-)

Comment author: CCC 22 February 2016 08:36:14AM 0 points [-]

Yeah, but those good old days are apparently behind us. It's a shame that God didn't think to make a video. Now that would have been cool!

It would have, yes!

...probably wouldn't have survived long enough to be usable in modern video players, though. I don't think there's many physical media that can manage a few thousand years in the desert, short of a miracle.

One of the things that I've often heard Christians say is, "God could do X and Y and Z (because He (they never refer to God as She) is omnipotent) but He chooses not to." The idea of an omnipotent deity whose behavior is reliably predictable by mere mortals has always struck me as logically incoherent. But what do I know? ;-)

Well, the argument goes that "God could do X and Y and Z, and no other force could prevent God from doing X and Y and Z, because omnipotence. Yet I observe that X and Y and Z are not, in fact, done. Assuming that my observations are not in error, this means that X and Y and Z were not done; I know that the only reason why God might not do X and Y and Z is by choosing not to, since no force can stop God. Therefore, God must have chosen not to do X and Y and Z."

So it's not really prediction as much as it is observation (and fitting those observations into existing ideas about reality).

Comment author: lisper 22 February 2016 03:51:23PM 3 points [-]

I don't think there's many physical media that can manage a few thousand years in the desert, short of a miracle.

The desert is actually quite good at preserving all manner of things. But this is neither here nor there. If God had wanted a video of the parting of the Red Sea so survive to modern times He could surely have arranged it because, well, that's kind of what it means to be omnipotent.

So it's not really prediction

No, it really is prediction: God will never again reveal Himself unambiguously the way he once did. He will forever be the god of the gaps, hiding in the fringes of statistical distributions and the private subjective experiences of believers.

Comment author: Lumifer 22 February 2016 03:56:44PM 2 points [-]

God will never again reveal Himself unambiguously the way he once did. He will forever be the god of the gaps

For a mere mortal you seem to be very sure of what God will or will not ever do.

Comment author: lisper 22 February 2016 10:48:31PM 0 points [-]

I am indeed quite confident in my prediction that God will never again make the sun stand still. I'm a little surprised that anyone here on LW would find this remarkable.

Comment author: Lumifer 23 February 2016 02:37:42AM 2 points [-]

I am indeed quite confident in my prediction that God will never again make the sun stand still.

On the basis of what? (no, I'm not asking you to quote me the appropriate chapter and verse)

There is an old theological debate about constraints on God. Is He really omnipotent, literally, or there are things He is unable to do? I don't think this debate has a satisfactory resolution.

Why are you surprised about finding this attitude on LW?

Comment author: lisper 23 February 2016 02:59:13AM 1 point [-]

On the basis of what?

Um... physics?

I don't think this debate has a satisfactory resolution.

Really? If you are willing to seriously entertain the possibility that the answer could be "no", why is that not a satisfactory resolution? It seems to me to be consistent with all the data.

Why are you surprised about finding this attitude on LW?

I guess I'm surprised to find religious people here. Pleasantly surprised, but surprised nonetheless. I've never understood how anyone can maintain faith in the face of rational scrutiny. Maybe someone here will be able explain it to me.

Comment author: Lumifer 23 February 2016 03:12:15AM *  0 points [-]

Um... physics?

God is not constrained by physics, is He?

consistent with all the data

Which data?

I guess I'm surprised to find religious people here.

I am not religious.

how anyone can maintain faith in the face of rational scrutiny.

One obvious answer is reliance on personal experience.

Comment author: lisper 23 February 2016 06:44:53AM 2 points [-]

God is not constrained by physics, is He?

I'm pretty sure He is.

Which data?

Oh my goodness, where to begin? How about here.

I am not religious.

I didn't say you were.

One obvious answer is reliance on personal experience.

That's usually a mistake.

Comment author: gjm 23 February 2016 06:11:08PM 1 point [-]

I didn't say you [sc. Lumifer] were [sc. religious].

Hmm. I don't see how else to make sense of the exchange you and Lumifer have just had. Let me follow the steps backward, and you can tell me what I've got wrong. (Unless all you mean is that you only implied Lumifer is religious by saying things that don't make sense on other assumptions, and didn't explicitly say he is. In which case I agree but I'm not sure why it's relevant: Lumifer's denial of religiosity is just as relevant if you merely implied its contrary as if you explicitly stated it.)

  • You said "I guess I'm surprised to find religious people here".
  • That was in response to Lumifer's question "Why are you surprised about finding this attitude on LW?".
  • I infer that you were surprised about finding "this attitude" here because doing so amounts to finding religious people.
  • I infer that you consider that "this attitude" indicates that its holder is a religious person.
  • OK, so what's "this attitude"? Lumifer asked that question in response to your saying "I'm a little surprised that anyone here on LW would find this remarkable." (That wasn't the whole content of your comment, but I don't think any other part of it can reasonably be thought to be what Lumifer was referring to.)
  • So "this attitude" is evidently "find[ing] this remarkable". What's "this"?
  • You said that in response to Lumifer's statement "For a mere mortal you seem to be very sure of what God will or will not ever do."
  • I don't see how to take all this other than as saying that (1) you (reasonably) interpret that remark of Lumifer's as finding your confidence about what God will do remarkable, and (2) consider that attitude -- i.e., finding your confidence remarkable -- to indicate that its holder -- i.e., Lumifer -- is a religious person.
  • It could, I guess, be that "this attitude" was expressed by someone else other than Lumifer and you were commenting on them rather than Lumifer. But no one other than Lumifer replied to your comment about what God would not ever do.

I can't figure out any explanation of the conversation you and Lumifer have just had that doesn't involve you (mis)identifying Lumifer as a religious person.

What am I missing?

Comment author: gjm 23 February 2016 05:58:37PM 0 points [-]

That's usually a mistake.

"But it's not true!"

Comment author: CCC 23 February 2016 07:42:34AM 0 points [-]

God is not constrained by physics, is He?

I'm pretty sure He is.

That would run contrary to omnipotence.

Comment author: Lumifer 23 February 2016 06:11:03PM 0 points [-]

I'm pretty sure He is.

When you say "God is constrainted by physics", what do you mean by the word "God"? The God of Abraham, being omnipotent, doesn't seem to be.

Not sure, what a link to Wikipedia on theodicy is doing here.

As to not relying on personal experience, well, it calls to mind "Who are you going to believe, me or your own lying eyes?" X-)

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit