Can we also insist that the wearing of veils should be compulsory for some ladies?

You say, 'There is no such thing as "different kinds of truth". A thing is either true, or it isn't.' Fascinating! So you're not a relativist; you acknowledge the concept of Truth, you just dismiss the Christian claims on it. Do I have that right?

Yes, David, I do. A thing is either True, or it isn't. Whether we can be *sure* of it is another matter. So, Neo-Darwinist Evolution is True, Newton's Theory and Relativity aren't (but are both close). String Theory *might* be True, but we don't know. Perhaps we never will.

Global Warming is True. God isn't.

Of couser, we might be *wrong* about some of this stuff, but that's about our imperfect knowledge. These things are still True, or not.

Of course, there are areas where the notion of absolute truth doesn't apply. It's true that tea is better than coffee, but it isn't True. It's just my opinion, which is valid, as are other people's different opinions.

I like the distinction that you make between matters of personal taste and Truth. Neo-Darwinist Evolution is True if the evidence for it puts it beyond reasonable doubt (and I believe that it does). Should the claim that Jesus came alive after his death be evaluated by the same criteria?

Did Jesus came alive after his death? For me, again, either he did, or he didn't. It's not a matter for some other domain of truth. It happened, or it didn't.

Of course, it's not something that we can know for sure - a long time ago, no reliable evidence, and so on. But I consider Jesus' resurrection to be about as likely as the tooth fairy.

Two things first: a) I hope that I am not overstaying my welcome; and b) I'm not even sure that I'm a Christian - but I want to know what is True.

Yesterday, I saw the Tooth Fairy; she said that I would be with her in paradise if only I would believe in her, and acknowledge my dependence on her.

Why a rational person might not believe me:
1. My evidence is not corroborated by others
2. I'm not prepared to die in defence of my assertion
3. My life is not radically changed
4. I am a software developer: we are infamous for telling fibs... I mean estimates.

Points 1-3 are not true of the people who are witnesses to Jesus and his coming-back-to-life thing.

It's commendable that you believe in real truth, so many people these days don't! You wrote

Global Warming is True. God isn't.

I'm aware of the evidence for Global Warming, and find it fairly convincing.

What is the evidence that "God isn't true"?

Craig: The onus isn't on me to prove that there's isn't a God. As Bertrand Russell pointed out, there's no evidence that there isn't a teapot in orbit about Mars, is there, but that doesn't mean we should believe there *is* one.

Dave: Or 5, they have been indoctrinated to believe in the tooth fairy since they were children.

Oh, and you are certainly *not* overstaying your welcome! ;-)

"Craig: The onus isn't on me to prove that there's isn't a God."

I fully agree. However, you made a positive assertion about God not being true. "Global Warming is True. God isn't."

Saying "I've seen no evidence for God" is a very different thing to saying "God is not true". Wouldn't you agree?

I'm saying that I've seen no evidence for God, that God is a remarkably unlikely proposition, and that this leads me to believe that there is no God, to much the same level of confidence with which I can say that there is no teapot in orbit around Mars, and no Tooth Fary.

This is quite different to saying "I don't know if there is a God" or even "I don't care if there is a God."

You provide two reasons -

a. You've seen no evidence for God

b. God is a remarkably unlikely proposition

Lets leave aside (a) for the time being.

I'm interested in (b) as I don't think I've heard this expressed quite like this before. How have you come to the conclusion that God is "remarkably unlikely"?

Oh come on - a magical being of unlimited power, with no origin, who created a universe, then creates life, eradicates all evidence of his handiwork, allows that life to suffer and then gets narked if we see no reason to believe in him?

I couldn't begin to believe in such a thing.

I may believe because I was indoctrinated to believe since I was a child. I am struggling to determine if that's true. But what about the guys who claim to have actually seen Jesus after he was dead? they had no such indoctrination, and they suffered in defence of their assertions.

> a magical being

What do you mean by "magical"? A better term would be "transcendant"...

> of unlimited power

Why is this unlikely?

> with no origin

True - but why is this unlikely? I assume you believe that the universe had no origin (in terms of a necessary cause) - so why is it so unlikely to claim the same about God?

> who created a universe

Is that more unlikely than the universe "just happening"?

> then creates life

Again, why is this unlikely?

> eradicates all evidence of his handiwork,

What do you mean by this?

> allows that life to suffer

Why do you think it is unlikely that God would allow life to suffer?

> and then gets narked if we see no reason to believe in him?

He gets narked when we violate His Law. The same way the local authorities get narked when we violate their law.

David,
I don't know, misunderstanding of odd mental states, drugs, madness, whatever. Do you really think that *everyone* who claims to have seen God really has? Been abducted by UFOs? Seen ghosts? Faries and werewolves? Seen *other* Gods? You must think that *almost* all of them are wrong. I just think that it's *actually* all of them.

Craig,
I added attributions to your comment, to make it easier to read. That OK with you?

> What do you mean by "magical"? A better term would be "transcendant"...

Magical seems to sum it up quite well to me. You want to say transcendent, you go ahead. That doesn't make it any more believable.

>> with no origin

> True - but why is this unlikely? I assume you believe that the universe had no origin (in terms of a necessary cause) - so why is it so unlikely to claim the same about God?

The origins of the universe are still mysterious - but it's essentially a *simple* entity. The complex phenomena that we are are a result of emergent complexity. (Any software developer knows in his or her bones that a bunch of simple thincs can make up a complex thing!)

God, OTOH, is *very* complex thing - transcendent, imbued with "nous", omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent.

The existence without cause of a simple thing is mind bending, but the spontaneous existence of something as complex as God is beyond belief.

>> then creates life

> Again, why is this unlikely?

Err, if he existed, I suppose, it wouldn't be. I'll give you that one.

> Why do you think it is unlikely that God would allow life to suffer?

Again, you are right.

> He gets narked when we violate His Law. The same way the local authorities get narked when we violate their law.

He's never shown me his existence, let alone told me what his laws are. Why should they mean anything to me?

No, I (generally) behave ethically, as I see it, 'cos it make life better for everyone, including me, my family, and everyone else. If a different set of ethics lead to the greater good, I like to think I'd behave that way instead.

Thinking about what's right seems to me far better than accepting some set of rules without thinking about them.

Simon, I appreciate this discussion and I think you make some excellent points. You obviously share my interests in cosmology and physics, which certainly makes communication easier!

"The origins of the universe are still mysterious - but it's essentially a *simple* entity."

I can't really agree - even the atom is remarkably complex when you think about it (chemistry certainly gave me enough problems at school!)

But consider the "natural laws" of the universe. Think about items such as the Strong and Weak nuclear force constants, the electron/proton mass ratio, the expansion rate of the universe and a heap of other items. These all underpin our universe.

Is quantum mechanics essentially simple? Relativity? I don't believe so - the universe is a remarkably complex engine.

"God, OTOH, is very complex thing - transcendent, imbued with "nous", omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent."

I guess it comes down to definitions. An all-powerful, infinite being seems simpler to me than our strange, messy universe. Kind of like a large sheet of blank white paper is "simpler" than a small crumpled up note with scribbles all over it.

"The existence without cause of a simple thing is mind bending, but the spontaneous existence of something as complex as God is beyond belief."

I guess this is just a value judgement on the part of both of us. I really find it difficult to believe that this universe "just is" - without cause, without explanation, without reason.

Thanks, Craig - I'm enjoying it too!

Yes, the atom and chemistry are complex, but they are several levels above the more fundamental level, where there are only a handful of particles, forces, and constants. (Whether the properties of these can be derived from an even simpler theory, or have to be assumed a priori is something that the great minds of Physics are grappling with, so I'll forbear to comment.)

Relativity and quantum physics *are* hard to understand, but that's not the same as being complex. The equations are simple, it's their implications that are not. And if history is any guide, whatever replaces them will be simpler still, and harder to see the implications of.

And for me, intelligence is the most complex thing there is. The sheet of paper is a nice simile, though. ;-)

I think you are right here - we have just about reached the end of this (unusually civilised) discussion, because we've reached the point where we can see the different premises that we are arguing from. For me, the Universe is simpler than God. For you, the opposite.

Simon,
It's much easier if you define Truth as "scientific evidence".

There is still no scientific evidence for an all-powerful entity dictating to us moral obligations, and that's why Craig politely brushed this little fact aside. 5000 years of philosophers (including the Chinese stuff, of course) tried to come up with proof, and it's still not there. Obviously, once you dismiss evidence as a prerequisite, I can probably demonstrate that Tony Blair is a dutch spy.

Don't tell me - it's the clogs. ;-)

> It's much easier if you define Truth as "scientific evidence".

To confine Truth to "scientific evidence" is very reductionistic, and makes "Truth" a very poor thing indeed.

Show me "scientific evidence" that love is better than hate, that peace is better than war. Show me "scientific evidence" that the strong should protect the weak, that justice should be upheld and injustice resisted.

Show me "scientific evidence" that Shakespeare wrote plays of remarkable wit and beauty. Show me "scientific evidence" that I should treat my opponents with respect rather than abuse.

The man who claims to live only by "scientific evidence" is being dishonest - probably to himself first of all. This is not problematic for him though - because it is impossible to produce "scientific evidence" to show that an honest life is better than a dishonest life. Indeed, the whole idea of right and wrong have no place whatsoever in the universe of "scientific evidence".

Simon, if you have the patience I'd like to shift the debate a little. Who do you think Jesus of Nazareth was?

When you start talking about love and hate, justice and injustice, wit, and beauty, you are into the realm of the subjective - truth, not Truth. I might agree with you - almost certainly I do. But I recognise that there's nothing absolute about the concepts.

Jesus of Nazareth? A very charismatic religious leader with some radical ideas, I'd imagine, but from this historical distance, it's difficult to know for sure.

I think I'd like to expand on that last comment. While I do think that the things Craig mentions are subjective, I *don't* think that the things that we agree on - peace better than war and so on - are *arbitrary*. We agree on them, because of what we have in common - humanity.

They are subjective in the sense that in a universal sense, they don't always apply. Is killing bad when a predator kills its prey? No. Is it evil when a person is killed by a tornado? No, those concepts only apply to people.

But as people, we have so much in common - far more than people might think. It's not arbitrary that we don't like to be hungry or in pain, or that we do like to be with people we love - or that we have the capacity to love. It's our nature, how we are. It's how we evolved as a species. We are essentially all the same.

And the mind isn't a blank slate. We don't *learn* to love, or to want to be warm and well fed. We are born that way. C.f. Stephen Pinker. So, via evolutionary psychology, science *does* have something to say about love. It can tell us about ourselves, our natures, both the good and the bad.

Thanks for your comments Simon. My point was that truth can't be reduced to what is empiraclly verifiable - truth is broader than that. I think we agree on that point.

Regarding Jesus, have you ever read any of the gospels? These are the early records of his life.

You can read the shortest gospel (Mark) here -

http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Mark+1

I'd be fascinated to hear your gut reaction to it, if you can find time to glance through it.

Craig,
Sorry, no, I *do* think that truth is empirically verifiable - in theory. There are often practical impediments to that verification, but in principle, if it's true, it cam be proven to be true.

I've read the Bible in my youth, but I had another look at the link you posted. Sorry - it just doesn't speak to me.

> if it's true, it cam be proven to be true.

How can you prove empirically (say) that we should treat people with respect?

This is a response to Simon's earlier - much earlier because I've been away for a few days - post, in which he suggested alternative reasons why various people claimed to have seen Jesus alive after his death: "I don't know, misunderstanding of odd mental states, drugs, madness, whatever."

It takes more faith than I can muster to believe that scores of otherwise rational people witnessed Jesus alive after his death, and went on to suffer in defense of their claims.

It sounds like you start from the supposition that supernatural causes are impossible; if logic points to the existance of a supernatural force, then, in your view, the logic is necessarily wrong. Is that a fair assessment of your position?

Craig,
Good question. Very difficult. Science *can* show that people are happier if treated with respect - and given out essential similarity, that if we all to treat people with respect, we would all be happier. I can't remember who it was who asserted that ethical behavior is that which, if undertaken by everyone, would result in greater happiness for all.

But you are right - I can't *prove* that I should treat other people with respect. It's just that I know that *I* want to be treated with respect, have reason to believe that other people are the same in that respect, and enough empathy to wish for that to come about.

But I can't *prove* it. Perhaps everyone else really wants to be miserable, and I'm constantly trying to thwart them. I don't believe it, but I can't prove that it isn't so.

David,
What about all those people who have seen Allah, or Buddha, or Krishna? Or for that matter ghosts or UFOs? Why is it the people who have seen Jesus who deserve to be believed, and no one else?

Oh, and I start from the position that if something exists, if something is possible, it's not supernatural. The whole transcendence thing makes no sense to me. Nature is all that there is, AFAIC.

> It's just that I know that *I* want to be treated with respect, have reason to believe that other people are the same in that respect, and enough empathy to with for that to come about.

Thanks Simon. This is why I maintain that there is important truth that is not empirically verifiable, but is real truth anyway.

Is there a book or essay that has been a major influence in the shaping of your ethical outlook? I would be interested to read it.

Craig,
Anything by Stephen Pinker (especially The Blank Slate), Richard Dawkins (The Devil's Chaplain) and Matt Ridley are good.

I've read a lot of Dawkins, though nothing that has addressed ethics. I'll check out Pinker...

Hmm, I'm not all that familiar with Islam, or Buddhism, or Krishna-ness; did Mohammed, Buddha, or Krishna perform miracles? were they witnessed by people who stood by their claims despite persecution? I shall have to find out. I suppose that, if Christianity is True, then the other religions, including (with respect) yours, are wrong. The Jesus witnesses seem to have a strong case; if you know of more reliable witnesses to other miraculous signs, please let me know.

I'm no theologian, but I think that Islam and Hinduism both involve beliefs in miracles, and like Christianity, Islam is based on a personal relationship with God.

I'm not sure about Buddhism - Mum?

Certainly, the major religions are incompatible unless you are *very* flexible. Even if *some* people are right in their beliefs, most are certainly wrong. Even if I *wanted* to believe in a God, which one to pick? I'd always be dismissing the beliefs of the majority. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups for a breakdown.) I see no reason to place more faith in those who believe in one religion over those who believe in another.

Craig (if you're still around),

Dawkins' new book "The God Delusion" covers (amongst other things) how morals and ethics (and even religion) can be given a Darwinian explaination.

I've not got that yet, Dave - but I'm not sure if I can wait for the paperback!

(I usually wait for paperbacks, not because I'm cheap - err, OK, not *just* because I'm cheap - but also because they are easier to carry. If you've seen the amount of crap that I carry with me in my Crumpler, you'll know what I mean.)

I'm usually the same about hardbacks. But this was so tempting. And it was only a tenner from Amazon. I just had to have it.

Sometimes it's good to give in to temptation...

I've been living in Singapore a while and there are modern day missionaries running around converting people to American style "you are fucked if you dont believe" christianity. I was five month in dating a girl and suddenly she starts jabbering on about different kinds of Ox being yoked together and if i dont convert and abandon 2 billion years of evolution ("but dear i like having a spine") thats it we are all over. Sadly bestiality not being my thing we are all over. It turned out it wasn't so much an Ox she wanted to be yoked to as an investment banker.

I dont think i ever discussed religion dating a girl in England but so far its a muslim, a catholic, and two scary american god brands of protestant that have made converting a requirement of marrying them.

Also can you imagine seeing this in your local estate agent ?
http://www.noteapot.com/?p=33

002024.. Amazing :)

002024.. Reposted it :)