These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Intergalactic Summit

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Experiments in Theology
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nicoletta Mithra
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#61 - 2013-01-15 19:36:17 UTC
Stitcher wrote:
Proving a negative is not possible. I cannot prove the non-existence of anything. God, sentient melon people, dragons, unappetizing bacon, good pre-teen pop music... Doesn't matter. It's not possible to prove that something does not exist.

This is just plain wrong. Of course one can prove a negative. All one has to do is e.g. show is that the corresponding positive is impossible. To give an example:

Claim: There are no circular squares.

P1: Having the property of being square precludes from having the property of circularity.
P2: Nothing can have a property it's precluded from having.
P3: If something is a circular square, it has a property it's precluded from having.
---
Conclusion: Circular squares don't exist.

The move of claiming the impossibility of proving a negative is really a cheap move to shift the burden of proof if one is claiming the nonexistence of God.

Quote:
The existence of something, however, is provable.

Some things are provable, some things aren't. It's a misconception to assume that if it's a true, positive claim that it has to be provable.

Quote:
When somebody makes a positive claim, the burden of proving their claim falls upon them. [...] "God exists" goes the claim. "Prove it", I say. "You can't prove that he doesn't" comes the reply, followed by a routine of increasingly convoluted epistemological gymnastics. Again, I feel justified in expressing skepticism.

That's a gross misrepresentation of the argument I made. You claimed that faith in the divine is irrational. That is a claim - a positive claim on top - that you made and you showed that you are incapable of providing any proof or justification for it when challenged to provide it . I never claimed in that argument that God exists and actually it is quite irrelevant for the matter if he does or not. The fact that your claim leads to paradoxes is simply dismissed by hand waving and discrediting a reasoned, philosophical treatment of the problems you encounter because you cling to your claim. Ignoring the problems or just describing them as "epistemological gymnastics" doesn't make them go away, though.

A good evening,
N. Mithra
Lyn Farel
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#62 - 2013-01-15 21:20:40 UTC
Saede Riordan wrote:
Lyn Farel wrote:

What is your scientific argument to prove the non existence of God again ?



I don't know how many times I have to say this, but here we go. Again.

Atheism is not a declarative statement of fact about the universe.

I'll pause for a moment, just in case, after this, the nth time we go over it it might sink it.

I don't have to prove God doesn't exist at all. 'God Exists' is not the default upon which a non-belief must be added. Atheism is not something you add to the universe that was not already present. By claiming to be an atheist one merely makes the statement "I have not seen sufficient evidence to support the hypothesis of God." That is all. I don't believe in the nonexistence of God at all. To me, there is not sufficient evidence of God to adjust my probability tables and that is all there is to it. Belief never factors in. "Why don't you believe in God?" Why Should I?

Want me to change my mind? Break out the miracles, show me the space-magic. Develop some technology or some scientific theory that requires God to function in an independently repeatable and verifiable way. Give me some reason to see your God as anything more then hearsay.

We don't have to play your game. God is not the default, the minmatar don't believe in the Amarr God, they believe in spirits, the Caldari believe in their ancestors and the winds. Atheism doesn't have to prove itself, atheism is a statement, that statement is 'insufficient data' it is not a religion. It is not a belief.

When you say 'prove that God doesn't exist' you're asking me to disprove your unfalsifiable hypothesis. My response to that is quite simple: No. You prove that God exists. God is a declarative statement. God adds something to the universe that would otherwise not be present.

Allow me to make a similar argument:
"Prove scientifically that somewhere in the universe there isn't a star that burns cold, and if you can't then they obviously exist'
That's just it though, science doesn't have to prove anything. Science doesn't make statements of certainty, some data could always come along that changes perspective. Is there a Cold Star out there somewhere? Maybe. But until I see evidence of it. I see no reason to believe in it. My lack of belief in God is precisely the same.

You want me to believe in your God? Show me.
Quite frankly, put up, or shut up.


Firstly, I want to point out that you do the exact same mistake that Hakatain-haan often do : you speak about God and religion without even trying to define it before. It becomes then highly subjective and very, very lacking of rigor.

The only thing I read is "your God", or "the Amarr God". This can mean an infinity of things. Here I assume that we are speaking about the supernatural power or being commonly in use ?

Now then to the point, I am not sure to understand what you are trying to prove or what is your point by starting to mention atheism in the first place. Considering the fair amount of different types of atheism currently in existence, again, we might want to define of which one we are speaking about and basing our discussion on before continuing. Are we speaking about agnosticism ? Strong atheism ? Another one ?

I am not here to make you change your mind or anything. There seems to be a misunderstanding on my beliefs. Since they do not seem to be clear, it might be better to say that I have often been branded an apostate and that I consider myself as an agnostic (weak atheism), and I do not believe in any theistic concept. I also happen to believe that the Amarrian God is not necessarily a theistic concept as well, which is, I have to admit, not a very spreaded interpretation.

You ask me to prove that God exist, but to begin with I never, ever, stated such a thing, or at least, not about the God we seem to be refering to here. Why should I prove such a thing ?

Also, your statement on how atheism doesn't have to prove itself is quite untrue. Again it depends on the kind of atheism we are speaking about. A strong atheism, actually has to prove itself. Stating that theistic entities do not exist, as you said yourself, is currently impossible, due to "insufficient data".

Again, if as you say, Science does not have to prove anything, then I do not know what it is, but it is certainly not science.
Lyn Farel
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#63 - 2013-01-15 21:37:32 UTC
Stitcher wrote:
Lyn Farel wrote:
What is your scientific argument to prove the non existence of God again ?


Proving a negative is not possible. I cannot prove the non-existence of anything. God, sentient melon people, dragons, unappetizing bacon, good pre-teen pop music... Doesn't matter. It's not possible to prove that something does not exist.

The existence of something, however, is provable. If somebody says "God exists" or "sentient melon people control CONCORD from their Fruity Fortress of Doom" or "Jitsun Ribeeb songs are good and you will enjoy them" then they are making what is known as a positive claim.

When somebody makes a positive claim, the burden of proving their claim falls upon them. If I were to make the claim; "I own thirty Tempests" then you might reasonably demand proof, which I would then be expected to provide if I wished to be taken seriously. If my response was to say "you can't prove that I don't" and then resort to a routine of increasingly convoluted philosophical acrobatics regarding the nature of ownership, you would be entirely justified in expressing skepticism.

"God exists" goes the claim. "Prove it", I say. "You can't prove that he doesn't" comes the reply, followed by a routine of increasingly convoluted epistemological gymnastics. Again, I feel justified in expressing skepticism.

This has been going on for so long across the entirety of known human civilisation, that by now the skepticism has mounted up to the point where I consider the existence of the Amarr deity to be about as likely as the existence of the melon conspiracy. The Empire has historically upped the ante by having skeptical "apostates" executed, but whether or not somebody is dead is about as relevant to the factual accuracy of any statements or claims they may have made as is the order in which they put on their socks.

I assume you don't believe in some conspiracy of abnormally intelligent Machiavellian fruit? Or is that you believe that there IS no melon conspiracy? The two statements are not equivalent. "I do not believe in..." is not the same thing as "I believe there is no..."

If you said "I believe there is no melon conspiracy", then I would be justified in demanding that you produce your scientific evidence to prove the non existence of the Melon Overlords and their Fruity Fortress. Why? Because you have now made a positive claim. If you said "I don't believe in the Melon Controllers", then all you're doing is expressing your opinion that whoever introduced you to their unique Cucumis Sapiens-based conspiracy theory has failed to meet their burden of proof. If indeed there are no meddling melons, then said burden will simply never be met.

As I've already said - I want to be right all the time. I want to believe only in things that are true. My approach to this desire is to only start accepting somebody's version of events if, when challenged with the words "prove it", their response is to gladly produce the asked-for proof, rather than get all offended and evasive. And even that is just a good starting point - you have to be alert for scams, after all, and alert to your own shortcomings and ignorance. Somebody could produce wonderful proof to puncture your doubts, only for you to later learn that you only accepted its validity due to your own ignorance of the subject.

If I use strong, certain language when describing the Amarr religion as a myth, then that's a function of how little I anticipate there being any change in their ability to prove their claims. Feel free to translate such statements into a more passive form.

If I use strong, certain language when describing the Amarr Empire as a long-term existential threat to the State, as backwards and barbaric, as slaves to their superstitions and arrogant to boot, then that's because those are positive claims that I relish the chance to present my supporting evidence for.



Proving a negative is mathematically possible. But since Ms Mthra explained why before I have the occasion to do it, I do not feel the necessity to repeat the exact same thing. Please refer to her message.

However if you truly believe that proving a negative is not possible, and if we take that as true for demonstratory purposes, then it renders a good part of the rational arguments stating that God does not exist fundamentally flawed, since it is not possible to prove it. There is a clear dichotomy in that assertion, which only contributes to demonstrates the absurdity of such a claim.

That aside, I feel justified in expressing the same amount of skepticism on the God you are thinking about.

Also, you are refering to the same thing I expressed above regarding Ms Riordan's message, only with a weird melon analogy. The negative that can not be proved according to you is not a proper negation of a concept, but a statement about your own absence of belief. To be more clear, where stating that a melon conspiracy does not exist (or stating that God does not exist) is a clear negation of a concept/assertion, stating that you do not believe in that conspiracy (or in the existence of God) states absolutely nothing on the validity of the concept, but actually states something about your own opinion, here an absence of belief.

And of course, I agree with that view, but that is only a matter of semantics.
Lyn Farel
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#64 - 2013-01-15 21:54:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Lyn Farel
Stitcher wrote:


Amarr, on the other hand, claims that the people who can trace their ethnic origin to one tribe among dozens on a single continent on one unremarkable temperate planet among the thousands of unremarkable temperate planets in the sky were specifically chosen by the creator of the universe to go out and spread the word about how much he loves them, and that some people are inherently superior to and more important than other people.

Because apparently an omnipotent, omniscient, universe-forging entity needs to spread its (unconvincing) message of love and guardianship via a catastrophically flawed mortal proxy rather than just, say, spreading the message itself using an immeasurably tiny fraction of its infinite power.


That is not what the Scriptures tell. That is only yor interpretation of them, and, I grant you that, the interpretation of a lot of Amarrian citizens as well. But it is what it is : a personnal interpretation, and that is not mine.

This is why I continue to tell you that you keep using subjective and highly biaised concepts as true, as axioms, or as premises, which is rather bad form rationaly speaking.


Stitcher wrote:
Amarr on the other hand is all about the Reclaiming. It's the central tenet of the Imperial orthodoxy that the Empire's divine mandate is to convert us "heathens". That means that, whether through conquest and slavery, or through proselytising and diplomacy, they intend to supplant the way of life I hold dear and to bend my people to their will. Allying with them hasn't struck us off their list, merely moved us closer to the bottom.


The first part of your statement only shows that you know very little of the Amarr. The Reclaiming has never been a central tenet of the Scriptures (since it is only one book amongst many), only, maybe, as you say, of some of the Imperial orthodoxy dogmas that have prospered here and there.

For the rest, maybe, maybe not. I do not disagree or agree with your statement.

Saede Riordan wrote:
Their ideas are backwards


That is only your opinion, and I do not understand how you can make that a fact. You could, maybe, if as I understand it you refer to their ideas about the Reclaiming through arms, even if that itself could be debated. From my opinion though, I happen to agree that a conventionnal Reclaiming is somehow backwards, I concede you that.

The main issue is that you as a lot of other people continue to speak about Amarr in broad terms involving a good deal of - conscious or not - blanket statements.

Their ideas.

What is the core idea behind the Scriptures, and what are they already ? Is the gathering of knowledge, probably the first tenet ever that drove the Amarr religion to what it is today, backwards ? Is one of the biggest and oldest encyclopedias of all times something that can be called backwards ?

I know that you are not denying Knowledge itself, but out of ignorance, you sound like you do.

You can blame the dogma and religious doctrines that sprouted from there all you like, it does not change the fact that what you just did is a wide blanket statement.
Saede Riordan
Alexylva Paradox
#65 - 2013-01-15 22:03:11 UTC
Lyn Farel wrote:


Firstly, I want to point out that you do the exact same mistake that Hakatain-haan often do : you speak about God and religion without even trying to define it before. It becomes then highly subjective and very, very lacking of rigor.

The only thing I read is "your God", or "the Amarr God". This can mean an infinity of things. Here I assume that we are speaking about the supernatural power or being commonly in use ?

Now then to the point, I am not sure to understand what you are trying to prove or what is your point by starting to mention atheism in the first place. Considering the fair amount of different types of atheism currently in existence, again, we might want to define of which one we are speaking about and basing our discussion on before continuing. Are we speaking about agnosticism ? Strong atheism ? Another one ?

I am not here to make you change your mind or anything. There seems to be a misunderstanding on my beliefs. Since they do not seem to be clear, it might be better to say that I have often been branded an apostate and that I consider myself as an agnostic (weak atheism), and I do not believe in any theistic concept. I also happen to believe that the Amarrian God is not necessarily a theistic concept as well, which is, I have to admit, not a very spreaded interpretation.

You ask me to prove that God exist, but to begin with I never, ever, stated such a thing, or at least, not about the God we seem to be refering to here. Why should I prove such a thing ?

Also, your statement on how atheism doesn't have to prove itself is quite untrue. Again it depends on the kind of atheism we are speaking about. A strong atheism, actually has to prove itself. Stating that theistic entities do not exist, as you said yourself, is currently impossible, due to "insufficient data".

Again, if as you say, Science does not have to prove anything, then I do not know what it is, but it is certainly not science.


Ahh, I see. Perhaps I spoke unclearly then. Yes yes, defining your terms is important.

I suppose the most accurate statement to replace atheist with in the above, at least in how I contextually view things, is skeptic. Which, to define that: I see no reason to add extraneous beliefs to my worldmap without evidence justifying their presence. Is there a small probability that some manner of higher power, call it spirits, deity, whatever, exists? Yes. But there is no supporting evidence for 'God Theory' and its largely just a conjecture. Its extraneous to the system and therefore my probability tables mark it as not worth considering until further data supporting it is provided.

So when you ask 'disprove the Amarrian God' I can't. Nor am I required to. I have no seen evidence that such a thing exists, and therefore my probability tables rate the likelihood of the Amarr God existing as orders of magnitude more unlikely then likely, and thus I summarily don't believe it. My 'evidence against' the Amarr God is the fact that there is no evidence for the Amarr God. According to rationality, and the law of parsimony, belief in said God is therefore irrational. Now of course, you can do what Mithra did in the other thread and pull out the problem of induction to prove that rationality doesn't matter, and while that's possible, it doesn't actual move the conversation past its impasse.

Rationality works for me and for a great many other scientists, and allows me to better understand the world and make more accurate predictions about the future. And according to Rationality, the Amarr God is an irrational belief and no amount of philosophical hoops will change that fact. If that is where the conversation must end, then so be it. I am not willing to do away with things like the law of parsimony, because its the best tools we have at our disposal. And if a believer is not willing to do away with the belief in God, then we end up circling through the same set of contorted manoeuvres.

Fear and Loathing in Internet Spaceships
Nicoletta Mithra
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#66 - 2013-01-15 23:14:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicoletta Mithra
Saede Riordan wrote:
So when you ask 'disprove the Amarrian God' I can't. Nor am I required to. I have no seen evidence that such a thing exists, and therefore my probability tables rate the likelihood of the Amarr God existing as orders of magnitude more unlikely then likely, and thus I summarily don't believe it. My 'evidence against' the Amarr God is the fact that there is no evidence for the Amarr God. According to rationality, and the law of parsimony, belief in said God is therefore irrational. Now of course, you can do what Mithra did in the other thread and pull out the problem of induction to prove that rationality doesn't matter, and while that's possible, it doesn't actual move the conversation past its impasse.

I didn't 'pull out the problem of induction' to prove that rationality does not matter: I used it to show that if you require rational justification for base axioms then you run into the paradox that you can't justify that requirement, nor rationality. It doesn't show that rationality doesn't matter, but that it should be reserved for those problems it's appropriate for.
Also, the law of parsimony isn't to be understood as a law in science but as a heuristic principle. It should be used like that. And then there is the fact that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. It's a core principle of science and statistics that it is not and one can't use it as such. It's an argument from ignorance. You should at least stick to the rules of science if you have nothing else.

Quote:
Rationality works for me and for a great many other scientists, and allows me to better understand the world and make more accurate predictions about the future. And according to Rationality, the Amarr God is an irrational belief and no amount of philosophical hoops will change that fact.

It seems you have neither an idea what rationality is, nor philosophy or science. If one can show that a position is epistemologically inconsistent or self-defeating, it is irrational to stick to it.

Quote:
If that is where the conversation must end, then so be it. I am not willing to do away with things like the law of parsimony, because its the best tools we have at our disposal. And if a believer is not willing to do away with the belief in God, then we end up circling through the same set of contorted manoeuvres.

No one is asking you to do away with the lex parsimoniae, I'd suggest you apply it correctly, though. Especially if you think it's so important.
Valerie Valate
Church of The Crimson Saviour
#67 - 2013-01-15 23:26:08 UTC
Nicoletta Mithra wrote:

It seems you have neither an idea what rationality is, nor philosophy or science.


Course she doesn't have an idea what science is. She was lobotomising people, looking for "how consciousness works", and other laughable things.

No clue at all.

Doctor V. Valate, Professor of Archaeology at Kaztropolis Imperial University.
Scherezad
Revenent Defence Corperation
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#68 - 2013-01-16 00:02:39 UTC
I apologize for only interjecting once in awhile; I'm having a hard time really knowing where to apply myself. I'm terrible with philosophy, and it seems like your positions are so fundamentally based upon them that there's no common ground on which to discuss. Still, I will comment where I can.

Nicoletta Mithra wrote:
. And then there is the fact that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. It's a core principle of science and statistics that it is not and one can't use it as such. It's an argument from ignorance. You should at least stick to the rules of science if you have nothing else.


I have heard this multiple times and have no idea where it comes from. It seems to be a popular meme amongst a subset. However, I can assure you that it is not the case. According to bayesian probability, any time the phenomenon could occur with a given prior, and doesn't, that occurrence reduces the likelihood of the phenomenon. This is as pure a form of "absence of evidence being evidence of absence" as there can be.

Nicoletta Mithra wrote:
It seems you have neither an idea what rationality is, nor philosophy or science. If one can show that a position is epistemologically inconsistent or self-defeating, it is irrational to stick to it.

No one is asking you to do away with the lex parsimoniae, I'd suggest you apply it correctly, though. Especially if you think it's so important.


I'm unsure where you think she's applied the law of parsimony incorrectly. Nor do I see where she has been inconsistent. Can you do so concisely? It would help me a great deal in understanding what's going on.
Nicoletta Mithra
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#69 - 2013-01-16 01:36:05 UTC
Well, that a phenomenon doesn't occur when it could occur with a given probability isn't absence of evidence. So, sure if you can allocate a probability with which a certain phenomenon should be able to be observed as a result of x existing and you don't see that phenomenon happening, then this is evidence of absence of x. But it's not general absence of evidence at all to begin with, it's just absence of evidence for the existence of x and presence of evidence against the existence of x. (And it's only evidence against the existence of x depending on the correctness of the assumed probability.)

In the case of the divine there is no scientific evidence for the existence of the divine. But is there evidence for it's absence? Only if you take up the claim that if the divine exists, there should be scientific evidence available that it does exist. Put another way, you need to specify phenomena that should be scientifically observable with a certain probability if God exists. Now it's not quite clear which phenomena these should be, what their probability is, and if there should be any scientifically observable phenomena if the divine exists to begin with.

Thus, the idea that 'absence of evidence for God' is 'evidence of absence of God' is based on the idea that 'there should be scientific evidence for everything that exists'. Ms. Riordan's probability tables obviously work based on that proposition. This kind of epistemological preferential treatment leads to just the paradoxes I already pointed out, as there is no scientific evidence that there should be scientific evidence for everything that exists. It is thus an inconsistent and self-defeating position. But not only this: Science is by definition searching for naturalistic explanations of natural phenomena. Science follows the principle of methodological naturalism. If one requires science to give naturalistic explanations for the supernatural one is inconsistent with this methodological decision and thus the practice of science.

As for the law of parsimony: It states that among competing hypotheses the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected. It's not asking for simplicity, but simplicity in explanation as measured by number of assumptions. Now, let us take a look at the competing hypotheses: "God exists" and "God does not exist". Both make exactly one assumption. They are equally parsimonious. If one would claim that 'the nonexistence of something' or 'nothing' is somehow 'simpler' than the existence of something one would have the problem of comparing nonexistence to existence. And there is no quantifiable way of comparing the simplicity of 'nothing' to the simplicity of something, as one can't measure 'nothing', nor it's simplicity. Also, the law of parsimony isn't exactly a law: There is no guarantee that the most parsimonious theory is the most accurate. The lex parsimoniae is therefore to be used as a heuristic to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter of the type that Ms. Riordan uses it as.

And don't apologize for interjecting and asking: There is nothing to lose by posing a question, but everything to win. I'm sorry if I failed to be as concise as one would wish for, but I tried to keep it as short as possible, while at the same time conveying all the important points.
Stitcher
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#70 - 2013-01-16 02:08:22 UTC
A square circle is a contradiction in terms. If something is circular it is, by definition, not square. As such, the statement "there is no such thing as a square circle" is not a negative claim - it is a tautology.

However, if I were to claim "there are no square pink long-limbs" then you'd never be able to prove it. You might examine as many long-limbs as you can find, but you can never know with 100% certainty that you have examined every long-limb because, no matter how thoroughly you search, there is always the finite possibility of you having missed one. Find even a single square pink one and you've falsified my claim, but the best you will ever accomplish if you try to PROVE my claim would be "Of the X long-limbs surveyed, 0 were found to be pink and square."

X might be a staggeringly huge number, and this would validly lead to the positive (and provable) claim that the overwhelming majority of long-limbs are neither pink nor square. It could validly lead to the statement "I consider the existence of any square pink long-limbs to be highly improbable". It could not, however, validly lead to the assertion that no Long-Limbs are pink and square because, as I said, there's always the possibility, however remote, that you failed to turn over the one rotten log that concealed the only pink, square long-limb in existence that would prove you wrong.

Similarly, I can't validly claim "there is no God" because the possibility exists that I've simply been misinterpreting the data all my life, or have failed to ask the right questions in the right way. I deem this possibility to be vanishingly small, but it must nevertheless be retained out of intellectual honesty. I could, however say as Saede does, that my probability tables weight God as being extremely unlikely to exist.

Quote:
It's a misconception to assume that if it's a true, positive claim [then] it has to be provable.


"It is a misconception to assume that factually accurate positive claims can be proven"?

If it's true, how can it not be provable? More to the point, if it's not provable, why should I consider it to be true? What reason do I have for believing anything that anybody tells me if they can't provide evidence? By what criteria may it be considered true if it's not provable? If something is in accordance with reality - which is the definition of "true" that I'm using - then reality will reflect it. Meaning that if it's true, it's demonstrably true. If it's not demonstrable then reality doesn't reflect it. If reality doesn't reflect it then it's not in accordance with reality, and if it's not in accordance with reality then it's not true. Ergo true = provable, and not provable = not true.

If you honestly believe that a thing can be both true and impossible to prove then our impasse just got so wide you couldn't warp across it in a century. The only reason I even bothered to address it at all was damage control, to prevent the remote possibility that somebody might actually be convinced by that drivel.

In a similar vein...


Quote:
As for the law of parsimony: It states that among competing hypotheses the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected. It's not asking for simplicity, but simplicity in explanation as measured by number of assumptions. Now, let us take a look at the competing hypotheses: "God exists" and "God does not exist". Both make exactly one assumption.


God Exists = 1 assumption
God does not exist = 0 assumptions.

If "god exists" is an assumption, then "God does not exist" is the absence of that assumption. Removing an assumption is not in itself an assumption. To put it another way, we could express the competing hypotheses as follows:

1: The universe exists = 1 assumption
2: The universe exists, and god exists = 2 assumptions.

According to the law of parsimony, the god hypothesis requires more assumptions, and should therefore not be selected.

AKA Hambone

Author of The Deathworlders
Stitcher
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#71 - 2013-01-16 02:15:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Stitcher
Lyn:

I don't appear to have uttered the word "scriptures" at all prior to this point in the conversation. Why? because I wasn't talking about them. My statements were confined exclusively to the Imperial orthodoxy as laid down by the Theology Council and by many - most, even - of the Emperors.

If you want to claim that the Theology Council's focus and the official message of core Imperial dogma is contrary to Scripture, then go right ahead. For my part, I think I'll take their word on it over yours. They are, after all, supposed to be the authority on the subject.

You're welcome to claim that the Scriptures are all about the gathering of knowledge, but given that the bulk of what it records seems to be parable, fable, allegory and outright mythology, with the actual scientific literature comprising only the tiniest fraction of its bulk (and even then, largely couched in religious terminology, largely immune from peer review, largely dominated by theistic bias and largely wrong for the most part until such time as a later revision took precedence...) I am less than inclined to take that claim seriously.

The overwhelming bulk of it most certainly IS backwards. Eclipses and earthquakes are characterized as divine intervention. Slavery is described (and usually actively endorsed) throughout. Whatever few bits of it can be considered modern are the exception and NONE of it is progressive.

The Scriptures might be an archive of divine inspiration, or an archive of unfolding human awareness. "Both" is just the former with a fake mustache on. If they are the former, then why does their technical content map so perfectly to the secular growth of Amarrian scientific progress? Why not grant some ancient desert prophet the schematics for warp drive and the formula for quantum FTL communications and have him record them in a moment of fevered inspiration, even if he didn't understand what he was writing down? It wouldn't have held the process back any - quite the reverse, it would have massively accelerated it. Amarr science would have progressed unbelievably more quickly if they had been able to treat it as an unfolding instruction manual of arcane wisdom, with each paragraph building the foundation for the next. Instead, they figured it out at - or even slower than - the same pace everyone else managed. Hell, the warp drive and fluid router were both Federation inventions, arrived at long after the Empire's best minds had given up.

If they are the latter, what justification is there for deriving any conclusions about god from them?

Instead of the instruction manual to return to technological supremacy ASAP, we have the collected ramblings of people who mistook schizophrenia for demonic possession, felt that a powerful body odour was the best means to ward off the tormenting spectre of disease, and who considered the ability to best a man in single combat to be proof of divine favour rather than, say, being proof of superior skill, tactics and equipment. The fact that such primitive ideas were overruled by later discoveries would only be relevant if they had ever actually been deleted. As it is what we get is primarily centuries-old "wisdom" that is generally anything but wise, spiced with just enough recent intelligence to necessitate my having to write this at all.

AKA Hambone

Author of The Deathworlders
Valerie Valate
Church of The Crimson Saviour
#72 - 2013-01-16 08:22:19 UTC
Stitcher wrote:
we have the collected ramblings of people who mistook schizophrenia for demonic possession, felt that a powerful body odour was the best means to ward off the tormenting spectre of disease,


Provide citations for these statements.

Doctor V. Valate, Professor of Archaeology at Kaztropolis Imperial University.
Stitcher
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#73 - 2013-01-16 08:51:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Stitcher
They're YOUR frakking scriptures! What, haven't you ever read them? Start from the beginning and learn all about the charming manner in which, if the early Athrans still had their way, your face would be a magnet for fist-sized rocks as is deemed the appropriate punishment for the heinous crime of being repeatedly female in a public place.

AKA Hambone

Author of The Deathworlders
Valerie Valate
Church of The Crimson Saviour
#74 - 2013-01-16 09:37:32 UTC
Stitcher wrote:
They're YOUR frakking scriptures! What, haven't you ever read them? Start from the beginning and learn all about the charming manner in which, if the early Athrans still had their way, your face would be a magnet for fist-sized rocks as is deemed the appropriate punishment for the heinous crime of being repeatedly female in a public place.


Oh, is this how it is? This the game you want to play?

Make things up, then accuse the other person of not having read them?

Doctor V. Valate, Professor of Archaeology at Kaztropolis Imperial University.
Karmilla Strife
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#75 - 2013-01-16 10:00:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Karmilla Strife
Mr. Stitcher, I think you're reaching a bit far. Please stick to your pleasantly intellectually stimulating points, and refrain from absurd abstractions. If being female was a punishment why would one run be allowed by the theology council to run our culture and throw fabulous amounts of currency to the Caldari State?

As for all this demonic possession and body odor nonsense, really? The bulk of Scripture is rooted in history, but these days the primary changes to said scripture come from scientific and technological progress (yes even the Amarr have that) and legal interpretation of pre-existing law.
Uraniae Fehrnah
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#76 - 2013-01-16 10:38:42 UTC
I'm not sure if this bit of argument is going to be valid or is motivated simply by sleep deprivation, so consider yourselves warned.

Now then, I can think of three instances where I can demonstrate circular squares.

The first would be a matter of measurement and observation and imprecise determination. Take a circle, mark one point along the circumference. Now mark the point directly opposite that. Now mark a point equidistant along the circumference between the first two, and then mark that point's opposite. Should now have 4 points along the circumference marked, each pair of points bisecting the circle. I'm sure I don't have to explain the simple geometry involved here to make it obvious that those four points can make a square while also being part of that circle. That could be a circular square.

The second is once again a matter of observation. Take a square, mark it's center point and spin it around that center point. Spin it faster and faster, really any speed short of surpassing the speed of light should do. Now, you know it's a square, you started with it after all, but spinning it at a decent speed and observing that spin at a handful of moments during any full rotation should, to augmented human eyes, yield the appearance of a circle. That could be a circular square.

The third is a matter of identification or tradition and a bit of wordplay. One of the uses of the word square is to describe a plaza or park within a city. I think it's reasonable to assume we've all been through a town square planetside or comparable location stationside. Not all squares of this nature are square, in fact the shapes can vary wildly, but certainly there are circular town squares. This could be a circular square.

Now I'm sure some of you are wondering just where I am going with this, and if I'm entirely honest, I'm curious about that myself. But if I had to make an educated guess, which, considering I know myself pretty well I feel I am able to do so, I would say that exercises to prove or disprove the existence of god, any god, rely on variable observation and imprecise determination. The observation is variable because we cannot observe everything at all times, and our friends knowledgeable in quantum mechanics will probably also point out that we're changing things through our observation. The determination is imprecise for the same reasons, we lack all the data and we're far too impatient to wait for it. So, for people trying to prove or disprove the existence of god in the past, present, or future, go ahead and observe all of creation for all time. I will wait for you to collect the data.
Stitcher
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#77 - 2013-01-16 10:59:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Stitcher
Quote:
If being female was a punishment why would one run be allowed by the theology council to run our culture


I explicitly said that the sections I was referencing are the ancient, backwards and barbaric ones. They've never been redacted, however. The Theology Council just... ignores them, I guess. Demonstrates itself to be rather more enlightened than the documentation that it exists to interpret.

Quote:
Oh, is this how it is? This the game you want to play?

Make things up, then accuse the other person of not having read them?


I am not inventing anything here. It's all there. The unglamorous, less-quoted half of the Book of Reclaiming is full of exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about here. Then there's The Code of Demeanor in book 1. There's that popular GalNet portal full of the most glamorous and beloved quotes from the Scriptures, and out of the entire Code of Demeanor - which, I should note, runs to a book as thick as my arm in its own right - they picked out ONE phrase, five lines long.

The overwhelming majority of it is given over to trivialities about how your hair and beard should be trimmed, which animals are "unclean", how to prepare the few that are deemed sufficiently not-unclean to eat after careful ritual purification, about how no man with a scar or deformity should be permitted to set foot on sacred ground as his deformity is a sign of god's displeasure, how the lord abhors mixed fabrics, forbids women from "usurping the divine authority of the Male", describes anybody who prefers the romantic company of their own gender as being "destined for the eternal fire", that sort of thing.

Read it. Go on. I'll GLADLY wait for you to do so. I'd list chapter and verse if we had room, but by the time I finished I'd have listed a full third of the Scriptures.

I'll just leave this nugget here. this is one of the quotable, popular ones.

Quote:
And the Lord spoke, and said, Lo, my people,
Witness, for I have made the worlds of Heaven;
And these worlds I give to you, My Chosen,
So Amarr shall rule the worlds of the Heavens.

None shall stand higher than you save the Sefrim,
Who serve Me as others shall serve you,
For all things under Me serve one higher;
So Amarr shall rule the worlds of the Heavens.

As Garrulor rules the skies; as Frisceas rules the sea;
As Emperor rules Holder; as Holder rules Serf;
Yet all under Heaven serve Me;
So shall Amarr rule the worlds of the Heavens.
- The Scriptures, Book of Reclaiming 3.19 - 3.2


Now, Lyn's outraged squawk of "but that's just one book among many" or whatever is lurking in the wings, so let me address that.

Is it the Scripture? Is it holy? Is it true? If the answer to those three questions is "yes" then I don't CARE that it's just one book among many. It's still a command and creed by which the Amarr faithful are supposed to live, and directly endangers the rest of us. It has formed the heart of Amarrian foreign policy in the past, and does to this day.

THAT is why I have a problem with Amarr. It is a creed of the ultimate hubris that denies to the rest of us not only our right to live by the code and morality we choose, but furthermore demands that we bow to a hierarchy that is neither evident nor just.

There's no merit in this view of the world. According to Scripture you're born in your place, you stay in your place, and to even think of aspiring to a higher station is to blaspheme against the divine order. This is utterly, repugnantly contrary to the meritocracic ideals that I believe in.

Don't get all offended by what I'm saying. All I'm doing is accurately reciting what the religion itself is telling people to believe. I'm shining a harsh light on it and taking in everything about it, good and bad, warts and all. If that offends the delicate sensibilities of somebody who has spent their life picking off the ripest and juiciest fruit from the tree of Amarr, then I would suggest that the problem is not me, the problem is that Amarr has had some extremely good spin doctors over the centuries.

AKA Hambone

Author of The Deathworlders
Valerie Valate
Church of The Crimson Saviour
#78 - 2013-01-16 11:44:42 UTC
Stitcher wrote:

Quote:
Oh, is this how it is? This the game you want to play?
Make things up, then accuse the other person of not having read them?


I am not inventing anything here. It's all there.

The overwhelming majority of it is given over to trivialities about how your hair and beard should be trimmed, which animals are "unclean", how to prepare the few that are deemed sufficiently not-unclean to eat after careful ritual purification, about how no man with a scar or deformity should be permitted to set foot on sacred ground as his deformity is a sign of god's displeasure, how the lord abhors mixed fabrics, forbids women from "usurping the divine authority of the Male", describes anybody who prefers the romantic company of their own gender as being "destined for the eternal fire", that sort of thing.

Read it. Go on. I'll GLADLY wait for you to do so. I'd list chapter and verse.


Nope.

Doctor V. Valate, Professor of Archaeology at Kaztropolis Imperial University.
Stitcher
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#79 - 2013-01-16 11:53:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Stitcher
Typical. Challenge a religious person to read their own holy book and they say "no". Sounds about right, to be perfectly honest. Most do treat their own literature as being a lot like a legal agreement - they don't read it, they just scroll to the bottom and click "I accept".

AKA Hambone

Author of The Deathworlders
Valerie Valate
Church of The Crimson Saviour
#80 - 2013-01-16 11:55:57 UTC
Stitcher wrote:
Typical. Challenge a religious person to read their own holy book and they say "no". Sounds about right, to be perfectly honest. Most do treat their own literature as being a lot like a legal agreement - they don't read it, they just scroll to the bottom and click "I accept".


Nope.

Doctor V. Valate, Professor of Archaeology at Kaztropolis Imperial University.