PLaClair - 23 July 2008 07:30 PM

What value does the question have? In what ways is the very asking of the question counter-productive, if any?

It seems to me that to a greater or lesser extent they are. I’m interested in other viewpoints.

While this isn’t a topic particularly interesting to me, it seems that it is to a number of posters, so rather than trying to shut down discussion, I agree with AVOS that it’s worth soliciting other viewpoints.

Occam

I would’ve worded it differently, but I think it’s an interesting idea.

StephenLawrence - 23 July 2008 03:28 PM

traveler - 23 July 2008 03:15 PM

Sure, but it’s all about probabilities. Dawkins says he’s 99.9999999999999% sure there is no god, but even he admits it’s all about probabilities.

What kind of probability is he talking about?

I know of only one kind.

Do we live in a universe were it’s possible that we could have been created by God and possible that we could exist without being created by God?

You are confusing statistics with outcome. Do we live in a universe where a single toss of a die can result in a 2 AND a 3? No, but we live in a world where a die can be tossed with varying results. There may be a god, there may not be. Probabilities are all we have, but at 99.9999999% probabilities are powerful indicators.

I doubt it, I think either we must be created by God or we must not be created by God but we don’t know for sure which is true. Therefore the probability being talked about is only epistemic.

What is it with the word “epistemic” around this forum? It’s not a complicated word, but whenever someone wants to sound intelligent, they dismiss a thing as epistemic.

I have to say, I agree with PLaClair. Of what value is this question of cargo cults?

traveler - 24 July 2008 04:49 AM

… I have to say, I agree with PLaClair. Of what value is this question of cargo cults?

What is the nature of religions?

A Voice of Sanity - 24 July 2008 08:55 AM

traveler - 24 July 2008 04:49 AM

… I have to say, I agree with PLaClair. Of what value is this question of cargo cults?

What is the nature of religions?

But that’s a different and much more general question that begs overgeneralization of the word ‘religion.’

traveler - 24 July 2008 09:11 AM

A Voice of Sanity - 24 July 2008 08:55 AM

traveler - 24 July 2008 04:49 AM

… I have to say, I agree with PLaClair. Of what value is this question of cargo cults?

What is the nature of religions?

But that’s a different and much more general question that begs overgeneralization of the word ‘religion.’

Yes it is, and yes it does. We do a lot of this in Humanist/secularist/"rationalist" circles: we seek ownership of words.

I am a deeply religious person. In fact, I live and breathe my religion. I am never separated from it. I am a born-again Humanist.

For those of you who know me, does that fit into any of the stereotypical classifications? I don’t think so.

Some secularists consider themselves to be religious. Some recoil at the mere mention of the word. Mainly, they’re talking about different things.

So instead of labeling, let’s stick with what we mean.

PLaClair - 24 July 2008 10:53 AM

Yes it is, and yes it does. We do a lot of this in Humanist/secularist/"rationalist" circles: we seek ownership of words.

I am a deeply religious person. In fact, I live and breathe my religion. I am never separated from it. I am a born-again Humanist.

For those of you who know me, does that fit into any of the stereotypical classifications? I don’t think so.

Some secularists consider themselves to be religious. Some recoil at the mere mention of the word. Mainly, they’re talking about different things.

So instead of labeling, let’s stick with what we mean.

My question here was based on a flash of connection that I assign, possibly incorrectly, to a Zen Buddhist philosophy of leaving one’s mind open to such leaps.

A Voice of Sanity - 24 July 2008 12:01 PM

My question here was based on a flash of connection that I assign, possibly incorrectly, to a Zen Buddhist philosophy of leaving one’s mind open to such leaps.

I don’t understand. What leaps?

traveler - 23 July 2008 03:15 PM

Sure, but it’s all about probabilities. Dawkins says he’s 99.9999999999999% sure there is no god, but even he admits it’s all about probabilities. If Jesus was an alien, I think he would have returned by now to let us all in on the joke. Speaking of jokes, GW provides a stronger probability of alienship.

Why? What if he returns to let us all in on the joke in 13 1/2 years?  Why “by now”?

fmiddel - 24 July 2008 02:32 PM

traveler - 23 July 2008 03:15 PM

Sure, but it’s all about probabilities. Dawkins says he’s 99.9999999999999% sure there is no god, but even he admits it’s all about probabilities. If Jesus was an alien, I think he would have returned by now to let us all in on the joke. Speaking of jokes, GW provides a stronger probability of alienship.

Why? What if he returns to let us all in on the joke in 13 1/2 years?  Why “by now”?

Well, 13 1/2 years is fine by me, but why should I be expecting anyone ever???

A Voice of Sanity - 24 July 2008 12:01 PM

My question here was based on a flash of connection that I assign, possibly incorrectly, to a Zen Buddhist philosophy of leaving one’s mind open to such leaps.

PLaClair - 24 July 2008 12:41 PM

I don’t understand. What leaps?

Flash versus Blink: An Introduction to Strategic Intuition (Chapter 1 from “Strategic Intuition")

It’s an open secret that good ideas come to you as flashes of insight, often when you don’t expect them. It’s probably happened to you—in the shower, or stepping onto a train, or stuck in traffic, falling asleep, swimming, or brushing your teeth in the morning.

Suddenly it hits you. It all comes together in your mind. You connect the dots. It can be one big “Aha!” or a series of smaller ones that together show you the way ahead. The fog clears and you see what to do. It seems so obvious. A moment before you had no idea. Now you do.

If this kind of flash of insight has ever happened to you, you’re in very good company. It is the key element in some of the greatest achievements in human history: how Bill Gates founded Microsoft, how Picasso found his style, how the civil rights movement finally succeeded, how the Google guys conquered the Internet, how Napoleon conquered Europe, and so on through the ages. It’s how innovators get their innovations, how artists get their creative ideas, how visionaries get their vision, how scientists make their discoveries, and how good ideas of every kind arise in the human mind.
...
The term strategic intuition distinguishes this discipline from other forms of intuition and also places it firmly in the field of strategy. Classical texts on strategy from Asia give us our first rough sketches of how flashes of insight work, especially the Bhagavad Gita from India (400 B.C.), Sun Tzu’s The Art of War from China (450 B.C.), and Miyamoto Musashi’s Book of Five Rings from Japan (1645). These works apply Hindu, Tao, and Zen Buddhist philosophy to the problem of military strategy. The formal science of strategy begins with classical European military texts, especially On War by Carl von Clausewitz (1832), and here too flashes of insight reign.