God and the Audiophiles

[mdsn]

Theism - Belief in the existence of a God or gods.

 

Atheism - Rejection of theist god claims. Not convinced by theistic claims/assertions/arguments.

 

Agnosticism - God claims are unknown and/or unknowable.

 

If you identify as anything other than theist you are atheist. There is no middle. Agnosticism is a knowledge claim. Technically, theists are agnostic. They don't know, they just pretend to know. What theists do is add this word faith and call it knowledge and virtue. Faith is pretending to know things you do not know. Theists go around asserting that they know God exists, without ever actually demonstrating it, and use faith as a justification rather than actual reason and evidence.

 

The problem with religion/cable analogies is that religions claim supernatural (not subject to the laws of physics) divinity, existing outside space/time (indistinguishable from non-existence); whereas, subjectivists might say cable differences likely exist that don't violate the laws of physics, but measurements have yet to catch up. Those who use this flawed religion/cable analogy are only trolling for a reaction, or just looking for attention, or is the result of sloppy thinking, IMO.

 

Religion is just one great big argument from ignorance fallacy. Here's a perfect example (sorry to use you as an example, Paul):

 

"It never ends. Ever. Infinite. God."

 

Here, you simply assert that the universe is infinite. You label that infinite universe God without any justification at all. Then, you make an enormous leap from there to, it's a thinking agent Christian God. Then, another leap to the belief that it's a specific Christian denomination out of the thousands that exist. And it all likely happens to be the one you grew up in. Rather convenient and very fortunate, I'd say. What are the odds? It's more likely that fear of not knowing and/or childhood indoctrination is the reason for adopting and accepting unjustified belief.

[mdsn]

Which makes me more secular than not. And yet the history of humanity is bursting with religion and god (or gods), so to dismiss that out of hand seems short-sighted.

 

This is an argument from majority/popularity. The only thing this demonstrates is that a lot of people can believe things for bad reasons. Being that all religious beliefs are based on logical fallacies and flawed thinking, then why is it not more reasonable to accept that there is a flaw at the foundation, which has been passed down generation to generation?

[mdsn]

Some incredibly wise people believe that God created the universe.

Joel

 

You are right. But the Church of the Jovian Hot-Pink Rabbit would be lonely. Throughout history, there have been a few more believers in a higher power (billions). Of course, it's not an election, but quite a few reasonably intelligent people have believed (Einstein, Newton, Schrödinger, Decartes.... among others) and may not find the claim quite as extraordinary as a silly pink rabbit. Also, they weren't DBTs, but there are many anecdotal bits of evidence.

*I* don't find this compelling enough to believe, but I have no *need* to dismiss the billions as delusional.

 

Appeal to popularity and appeals to authority. First, Einstein did not believe, and the others I don't know about, but it doesn't matter. What matters is why one believes it. What is Newton known for? Did his religious beliefs contribute anything at all to the world? All that can be said is that he believed it. So what. That just demonstrates that even intelligent people are not immune.

 

Take a look at Francis Collins. He's incredibly intelligent and believes. But why does he believe it? That's what matters. Who cares what one believes, what matters is why one believes it. Turns out he believes for really bad reasons. His intelligence level and belief say nothing to the truth of the proposition, but it does suggest something psychological is going on. His belief seems to stem from a fear, and a "need to know", and likely a history of childhood indoctrination.

 

"Lewis was right. I had to make a choice. A full year had passed since I decided to believe in some sort of God, and now I was being called to account. On a beautiful fall day, as I was hiking in the Cascade Mountains during my first trip west of the Mississippi, the majesty and beauty of God’s creation overwhelmed my resistance. As I rounded a corner and saw a beautiful and unexpected frozen waterfall, hundreds of feet high, I knew the search was over. The next morning, I knelt in the dewy grass as the sun rose and surrendered to Jesus Christ." -Francis Collins

 

 

The Strange Case of Francis Collins : : Sam Harris

[SoundAndMotion]

Theism - Belief in the existence of a God or gods.

 

Atheism - Rejection of theist god claims. Not convinced by theistic claims/assertions/arguments.

 

Agnosticism - God claims are unknown and/or unknowable.

 

If you identify as anything other than theist you are atheist. There is no middle. Agnosticism is a knowledge claim. Technically, theists are agnostic.

This is an argument from majority/popularity.

Appeal to popularity and appeals to authority. First, Einstein did not believe, and the others I don't know about, but it doesn't matter. What matters is why one believes it. What is Newton known for? Did his religious beliefs contribute anything at all to the world? All that can be said is that he believed it. So what. That just demonstrates that even intelligent people are not immune.

Hi mdsn,

Welcome Newbie. I just changed from Newbie to Freshman. It sounds like you had a course or read a book on logic or argument fallacies. I’ve been looking for a book, listing the common fallacies, with examples of valid and invalid argument. Can you recommend one?

 

So, Merriam-Webster (book and app), American Heritage (book) and Dictionary.com (app) all say atheism is a *belief* there is no god or higher power. Oxford (online) says a “disbelief” in god. Looked up disbelief and this usage was there “to disbelieve is as much an act of faith as belief”.

 

I adhere to the common usage and find there is a middle ground of lacking belief (agnostic = unknowable). Theists are not agnostic. They find the question knowable, and without proof resort to faith (like atheists).

 

Einstein referred to God when explaining his discomfort with quantum mechanics, among other instances. He considered himself variably a pantheist or agnostic. You are right that he criticised belief in a personal god. He stays in my list. My list was neither an appeal to popularity nor authority regarding belief in God. Rather, I state (but should have said speculate) that they would find belief in God less *extraordinary* than belief in a big pink rabbit orbiting Jupiter. Also Newton is in the list (a must longer list, I might add) for the same reason. Nothing to do with any contribution it had to the world. Except perhaps, contributing to the idea of tolerance of others’ beliefs, and neither judging their works by their beliefs nor needing to convince them that you find them wrong.

[livelistenlearn]

mdsn,

 

very illuminating.

while on the lectern, could you pls also articulate your arguments on:

 

1. ufos, area 51 and the bermuda triangle

2. bigfoot

3. protoplasmic apparitions

4. infrasonics and ultrasonics re: music repro

5. offline and online software upsampling

6. the audible advantages and disadvantages of dsp in addressing in-room deficiencies.

 

tq.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

mdsn,

 

very illuminating.

while on the lectern, could you pls also articulate your arguments on:

 

1. ufos, area 51 and the bermuda triangle

2. bigfoot

3. protoplasmic apparitions

4. infrasonics and ultrasonics re: music repro

5. offline and online software upsampling

6. the audible advantages and disadvantages of dsp in addressing in-room deficiencies.

 

tq.

 

6 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f23-dsp-room-correction-and-multi-channel-audio/drc-digital-room-correction-it-poor-relation-room-treatments-21239/

[SoundAndMotion]

Hi S & M

Well I did wonder about your "self serving" motivations in relation to your initials, perhaps involving whips and chains or something ;-)

Thanks for the clarification :-)

David

LOL. *snap*

mmerrill99 has abbreviated "my initials" as S&M too. ;-) I've tried to correct a couple of times using SAM. Call me whatever you want. ;-D

Cheers.

[mmerrill99]

LOL. *snap*

mmerrill99 has abbreviated "my initials" as S&M too. ;-) I've tried to correct a couple of times using SAM. Call me whatever you want.

Cheers.

I was going to call myself "teach me how to learn" but thought better of using this nickname

[SoundAndMotion]

I was going to call myself "teach me how to learn" but thought better of using this nickname

Forgive me... I can be really slow and dense. What does TMHTL mean? I must need to use some of the vowels in the middle...

[PeterSt]

msdn, great stuff.

 

"It never ends. Ever. Infinite. God."

 

I wanted to say the same as you did about his, but it's impossible with my English (not) skills. However, to express about it as you did is not the most important I think. What could be crucial though is :

 

Would it be possible to say what you said when being a Christian yourself ?

 

In the end this thread is just about that ...

[mmerrill99]

Forgive me... I can be really slow and dense. What does TMHTL mean? I must need to use some of the vowels in the middle...

Its a call sign on S&M forums (allegedly ) - I guess it shows which side of the fence you are on - S or M

[PeterSt]

"Lewis was right. I had to make a choice. A full year had passed since I decided to believe in some sort of God, and now I was being called to account. On a beautiful fall day, as I was hiking in the Cascade Mountains during my first trip west of the Mississippi, the majesty and beauty of God’s creation overwhelmed my resistance. As I rounded a corner and saw a beautiful and unexpected frozen waterfall, hundreds of feet high, I knew the search was over. The next morning, I knelt in the dewy grass as the sun rose and surrendered to Jesus Christ." -Francis Collins

 

What a super example;

Maybe it's because this is a known story (I did not know it) but 7 years ago me and the family where guided on to this very same track by American friends, with the proposition of "and now you will see !!". The day was as beautiful and at the famous place to stop (I presume) it indeed looked as promised. Air was sniffed for over 30 minutes and photos were made.

When back in the car, following our friends in their car, we all said the same : beautiful but nothing special to us;

No ultimate joy as how our friends appreciated it, who where there for the xth time. Of course we tried to fake some, but that was only to please them.

[mdsn]

Hi S&M,

 

I adhere to the common usage and find there is a middle ground of lacking belief (agnostic = unknowable). Theists are not agnostic. They find the question knowable, and without proof resort to faith (like atheists).

 

Atheism vs Agnosticism - What's the Difference?

 

Atheist vs. agnostic - Iron Chariots Wiki

 

The word faith is so misunderstood. I'll PM a few links.

 

Einstein referred to God when explaining his discomfort with quantum mechanics, among other instances. He considered himself variably a pantheist or agnostic.

 

I don't know why this is causing such trouble. Read a bit more about it and see what you come up with. Even extremist creationists websites list this as an argument creationists should not use.

 

My list was neither an appeal to popularity nor authority regarding belief in God.

 

I have never seen a more perfect example of an appeal to authority than what you posted. You simply asserted (incorrectly) that these authorities believed, but you didn't say why they believed.

 

Rather, I state (but should have said speculate) that they would find belief in God less *extraordinary* than belief in a big pink rabbit orbiting Jupiter.

 

Why? At least rabbits exists, and a big pink rabbit is possible, and Jupiter really exists. God is defined as supernatural and outside of space/time which is by definition an impossibility.

[mdsn]

mdsn,

 

very illuminating.

while on the lectern, could you pls also articulate your arguments on:

 

1. ufos, area 51 and the bermuda triangle

2. bigfoot

3. protoplasmic apparitions

4. infrasonics and ultrasonics re: music repro

5. offline and online software upsampling

6. the audible advantages and disadvantages of dsp in addressing in-room deficiencies.

 

tq.

 

Sure. UFO's are real and all anecdotal claims of alien abductions are true. Bigfoot is real. DSP is bad, address the room.

[mdsn]

msdn, great stuff.

 

 

 

I wanted to say the same as you did about his, but it's impossible with my English (not) skills. However, to express about it as you did is not the most important I think. What could be crucial though is :

 

Would it be possible to say what you said when being a Christian yourself ?

 

In the end this thread is just about that ...

 

Thanks for compliment Peter.

 

Whoah, I did this wrong. The way you replied it looks like a quote from me, but this was an earlier quote from Paul R.

 

It never ends. Ever. Infinite. God.

[SoundAndMotion]

Atheism vs Agnosticism - What's the Difference?

 

Atheist vs. agnostic - Iron Chariots Wiki

 

The word faith is so misunderstood. I'll PM a few links.

Thanks for the links, but definitions of terms beyond what the dictionary states is too "sophisticated" for me. I won't trust definitions from agenda-driven websites to understand the english language over my well worn Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.

I don't know why this is causing such trouble. Read a bit more about it and see what you come up with. Even extremist creationists websites list this as an argument creationists should not use.

It doesn't cause me any trouble ;-) I'm not a creationist, so I'll just make my own arguments, thank you. They may be flawed, but without consulting websites that offer me nothing, I'm happy with them.

I have never seen a more perfect example of an appeal to authority than what you posted. You simply asserted (incorrectly) that these authorities believed, but you didn't say why they believed.

 

Why? At least rabbits exists, and a big pink rabbit is possible, and Jupiter really exists. God is defined as supernatural and outside of space/time which is by definition an impossibility.

*sigh* For the third time.... I don't appeal to their authority to validate a belief in god (not incorrect, by he way). I appeal to their ability to make such belief not "extraordinary". Look it up in a dictionary, whose intent is to make sure we all use the same, or at least similar, definitions of words.... a requirement for communication. Don't send me to an atheist website that defines "extraordinary" for *your* needs. That you ask "why?", tells me you want to play word games that don't interest me. Belief in a big pink rabbit orbiting Jupiter is "extraordinary"; belief in god(s) spans all societies since the first and is quite "ordinary". That doesn't make it correct, but I *never* said it did!

[PeterSt]

Originally Posted by Paul R

It never ends. Ever. Infinite. God.

 

 

Whoah, I did this wrong. The way you replied it looks like a quote from me, but this was an earlier quote from Paul R.

 

No no, not at all. But I should have quoted your comment to that. So *that* (comment) I am not able to express and so I didn't even attempt. Question remains :

 

Would it be possible to say what you said when being a Christian yourself ?

 

Would "we" be able to respond as how you did (and I wanted to) to that text of Paul when being a Christian. My suggestion of course is "not" (because it requires a sort of illegal imagination). Small part of your response :

 

Here, you simply assert that the universe is infinite. You label that infinite universe God without any justification at all.

 

Strong text of course, but/and easy to say for someone like me (haha).

[Hiro]

I believe that for some audiophile sceptics, agreeing that something unmeasurable can still be experienced would be a big step in the direction of acknowledging that an invisible and unmeasurable God could exist, miracles could take place, or that religions can be credible institutions.

 

I don't buy this argument. It's similar to the following canard: because scientists don't know everything, therefore magic.

[Paul R]

Theism - Belief in the existence of a God or gods.

 

Atheism - Rejection of theist god claims. Not convinced by theistic claims/assertions/arguments.

 

Agnosticism - God claims are unknown and/or unknowable.

 

If you identify as anything other than theist you are atheist. There is no middle. Agnosticism is a knowledge claim. Technically, theists are agnostic. They don't know, they just pretend to know. What theists do is add this word faith and call it knowledge and virtue. Faith is pretending to know things you do not know. Theists go around asserting that they know God exists, without ever actually demonstrating it, and use faith as a justification rather than actual reason and evidence.

 

The problem with religion/cable analogies is that religions claim supernatural (not subject to the laws of physics) divinity, existing outside space/time (indistinguishable from non-existence); whereas, subjectivists might say cable differences likely exist that don't violate the laws of physics, but measurements have yet to catch up. Those who use this flawed religion/cable analogy are only trolling for a reaction, or just looking for attention, or is the result of sloppy thinking, IMO.

 

Religion is just one great big argument from ignorance fallacy. Here's a perfect example (sorry to use you as an example, Paul):

 

"It never ends. Ever. Infinite. God."

 

Here, you simply assert that the universe is infinite. You label that infinite universe God withouot any justification at all. Then, you make an enormous leap from there to, it's a thinking agent Christian God. Then, another leap to the belief that it's a specific Christian denomination out of the thousands that exist. And it all likely happens to be the one you grew up in. Rather convenient and very fortunate, I'd say. What are the odds? It's more likely that fear of not knowing and/or childhood indoctrination is the reason for adopting and accepting unjustified belief.

 

Mmm- please do not take this as insulting, and please remember, I belive utterly that you have the right to believe what you choose to believe, and have to make up your own mind, by yourself, without coercion. And please do not apologize to me for thinking for yourself.

 

Having said that, these are what we woud call "baby Christian questions." Everyone with a brain asks themselves these same questions and more. And has to find answers for themselves. And yes, those questions are often driven by fear.

 

What you are doing, intentionally or not, is equating anyone who is part of a religion as being stupid. That is simply an error. Nor is faith claiming you know something that can not be proved. More often, faith is knowing you do not know something, but living with it anyhow.

 

My answers may not be yours, they may not even be right. Faith is not just tied to religion though, it is part of the human makeup. I would have said soul there, but did not want to sound preachy.

 

As to how I believe music / audiophile / faith / religion ties together? Ok. I will go out on a limb here. It is a good thing I have a fat rear end, as it will without doubt be a target. (*sigh*)

 

The part of us that music touches is the same part of us that needs faith, love, art, and so on. I would call it our soul.

 

How we got it, well that is a matter of faith. Certainly we evolved it. Was that planned and by whom? And just as certainly, other species here share some of that same spark with us. Answers to that? Again, I do not have those answers, and may never learn them before I die. That is the core of faith I think, and is anything but incompatible with scientific reasoning. YMMV!

 

P.S. No religious wars would ever start if the people agitating them had faith. I agree with you that fear is the core. People do not get agry uess they are afraid of something. Even something as silly as looking foolish.

 

And that is the basis of many many audiophile disputes. CA is pretty much a place were people do not have to feel they are silly, if they do not agree with people intent on changing their minds.

[Paul R]

Originally Posted by Paul R

It never ends. Ever. Infinite. God.

 

 

 

 

No no, not at all. But I should have quoted your comment to that. So *that* (comment) I am not able to express and so I didn't even attempt. Question remains :

 

Would it be possible to say what you said when being a Christian yourself ?

 

Would "we" be able to respond as how you did (and I wanted to) to that text of Paul when being a Christian. My suggestion of course is "not" (because it requires a sort of illegal imagination). Small part of your response :

 

 

 

Strong text of course, but/and easy to say for someone like me (haha).

 

Hi Peter- you can and will believe what you will. Many rivers can flow from one source.

[wakibaki]

Einstein referred to God when explaining his discomfort with quantum mechanics, among other instances.

 

This would be the famous instance where he said something like "God does not play dice", and was subsequently shown to be diametrically incorrect.

 

It was Einstein's inability to entirely cast off theism, typical of his generation, that limited his insight. Feynmann, of course, suffered from no such limitation. He simply advised against thinking too much about imponderables, lest one risk one's mental health.

[Tony Lauck]

If you know anything about the software that Chris uses on this forum, you know that what you type into the Quick Reply box appears when the system auto saves... BEFORE you press the Post Quick Reply button. This is why people who are quick on the draw often post responses containing quotes that differ from what is actually posted. It is quite possible that what you think you saw was something Bill wrote and then deleted before he pressed the Reply button. It doesn't mean he edited it out, it just means he had second thoughts before posting.

 

I hope I misunderstood you. The software would viloate the privacy of users by allowing information that was never posted to leak out. This information should never leave the originator's computer, let alone become publicly visible, unless or until the poster clocks the "Post Quick Reply" button or the "Submit Reply" button. I would hope that the forum software is not Orwellian or funded by NSA.

[Tony Lauck]

Well the first post I read was by Alan Shaw & I quote:

 

Which really is ironic & just shows the type of mechanistic thinking that is stereotypical of those who think they are being oh, so scientific & the rest of us are cave-men. It's really hilarious how much self-delusion (who is the child & who is the adult) is in evidence in this one quote but not untypical

 

Aha! Now I see where your "100 years" comes from.

[SoundAndMotion]

This would be the famous instance where he said something like "God does not play dice", and was subsequently shown to be diametrically incorrect.

Indeed, it's what he said to indicate he did not agree with the Copenhagen Interpretation of particle-wave duality, which was accepted by most of his colleagues in physics at the time and during most of the 20th century. It was not "shown to be ... incorrect". The CI has always been recognised as an interpretation. de Broglie's Pilot Wave Theory which in the 90's Hardy and Bell separately found to include the possibility of "empty waves" (waves that propagate without energy, momentum or an associated particle) is the same concept as Einstein's "ghost waves". The very recent work of Couder's group in France has supported the decline of favor for CI, renewed interest in PWT and shown that this is far from settled, as you want to say. It is highly controversial these days... and I don't have any idea, but Einstein was not "shown incorrect".

[Paul R]

This would be the famous instance where he said something like "God does not play dice", and was subsequently shown to be diametrically incorrect.

 

It was Einstein's inability to entirely cast off theism, typical of his generation, that limited his insight. Feynmann, of course, suffered from no such limitation. He simply advised against thinking too much about imponderables, lest one risk one's mental health.

 

 

Einstein's insight limited, because he believed in God, in comparison to your everyday atheist? (grin) A bit of tunnel vision there?

 

I get what you mean, just not sure anyone alive today is qualified to make that judgement and thus more or less disagree.