One doesn’t allow for progress in science, which is against the whole idea of science.
The other just disallows believing in things that are against your common sense and known science."

First, on a nit-picking scale, science sometimes goes against ones common sense. Much of the "discoveries" in psychology were shocking because they went against common sense. For example, it is common sense that you would not expect someone to electricute another person to the point of hearing them scream in pain just because a scientist told him/her to. However, apparently people are sheep, and a solid majority of the people in that experiment "shocked" the recipient to "death" just because they were pressured by the scientist.

Also, humans are not perfect. And science is a mere contruct of humans. As refined as we can get it to explain our world, chances are high that we will miss something, and never realize it. If we have missed a major factor that would change our beginning assumptions when studying the sciences, then all we have "achieved" in explaining would be moot at best.

Another major point you haven't covered are religions that allow a wide variety of interpretations. The only religion that would go under the category of unquestioning belief would be catholicism. (well, the only "major" religion at least) All other religions split off precisely because people do not agree on the implications of their beliefs.

"For a long time – approximately since I discovered the term – I have called myself an agnostic. But the last couple of years, I have increasingly felt that agnostic is mostly a term that I used to avoid thinking it through and picking sides." This is rather offensive. Perhaps you were using the term, "agnostic" in that sense. however, many of us agnostics do not use it in that sense. The basis of agnosticism are (from your favorite source, wiki) :
"Agnostics claim either that it is not possible
to have absolute or certain knowledge of God
or gods; or, alternatively, that while
individual certainty may be possible, they
personally have no knowledge."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

You did not even begin to comprehend the principle of agnosticism if you felt you were using it to avoid taking sides. In fact, anosticism is "another" side that has been totally ignored by the major two contending sides.
Agnosticism comes from pure human logic. Humans are fallible. Therefore, while I can be pretty sure that the chair I'm sitting on exists, I can never be 100% sure that even I exist, as it may just be a delusion. While descartes' argument that one does exists(his "I think, therefore I am") is pretty convincing, it is, again, human, therefore fallible. Just by saying "If we want to be logical…", you are canceling out the point your argument, since if we are logical, we can never be sure of anything, for humans are fallible. For more explaination on the argument for and against the possibility of true human knowledge, read some of descartes's "meditations". Without bypassing this, you cannot use "logic" as an excuse for bypassing the beliefs of others.

Okay, now you have me a little scared :)
I feel that way because what you say is so rational and reasonable, and of course, it could be exactly as you say and my understanding of the universe is as fragile as you might expect for one who does not have the army of scientists backing him up!

I don't feel that anyone backing me up is what makes me have the strength of my convictions, but rather that I can look at the world and get to my conclusions without having to conjure up improbable beings or events anywhere along the line. And others that seem to have the same stance towards not kidding themselves seem to come to the same conclusions as me.

I don’t doubt for one minute that your world is equally full of wonder as my own, but I cannot help but suspect that it is a little less bright and welcoming.

Well, I guess it's that age old philosophical condundrum: Do we see blue the same way. I can't really know, but I find the world plenty bright and welcoming, and cannot help but suspect that the world is clearer to me :)

I do often wonder in the midst of these discussion where we will end up.

I rarely do. It usually ends up with people still disagreeing, and someone bowing out of the discussion.
What I usually wonder, is whether my effort made even a little bit of difference. I sometimes think it does.

It seems that the questions that science seeks to answer become increasingly fundamental and so we think we have ‘solved’ everything and we don’t need to wonder so much anymore. It’s a shame in my view, and none of it makes me wonder any the less.

Science has not solved everything by a long shot. Any person claiming it has is as irrational as a religious person.
There are still many things to wonder about.

That said, I can't understand this tendency to revel in mystery to such a degree that you willfully want to avoid investigating them. I really don't.
Why is it a pity if we really solve all the fundamental mysteries?
Why do people think, that because the cause of something is known, it is somehow less magnificent?
When I watch Penn and Teller pull of some awesome trick, I know it's fake, but that doesn't make me enjoy it less.
That I love my girlfriend feels no less significant or bleaker because I know it's a bunch of neurochemical reactions.

In the words of Douglas Adams:
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?

When the sun shines on my face, I understand why it feels the way it does, I understand about the waveforms and so forth, but I know that it has nothing to do with the physics that makes it feel so good to me, it’s because I am connected with it.

Again, I can't help but wonder why you feel the need to impose some supernatural meaning on the sun shining on your face to justify it feeling good?
Isn't it enough that it does?

Now then, I want to take issue with your explanation about love, because what you are talking about are the observable physiological effects of love on the human organism. You are not remotely ‘measuring love’ when you observe these phenomena, you cannot tell from those measurements how deep that love is, how profound or how long it has been in evidence.

No, because that is entirely subjective. You might be able to get an idea of how overpowering that feeling is from the amount of neurological activity, though.

And whether or not you believe you are measuring love is a question of whether you believe that there is some kind of "soul" or similar non-physical entity causing these neurological reactions, or if they are all there is.
I believe the neurological activity is causing the feeling, while a theist would attribute this to some otherworldly entity.

I find it interesting that and orgasm or happiness can be triggered through chemicals or electrical impulses, if things such as ecstasy (the feeling, not the drug) and happiness are really caused by an supernatural entity.

Similarly, if you were to take the same measurements from someone in a state of religious ecstasy, you could not ‘measure faith’ either, but by your (irrefutable) logic, this same quantification actually proves faith, if your measurements can ‘prove’ love. In fact, I might go so far to say that I rest my case because you have just proved faith for me ;)

The question has never been whether faith exists. I see hard proof of that every day. I am in absolutely no doubt of the existence of faith. If I was, it would be absurd to claim it is harmful to the world.

I am not sure there is – or ever will be – a right answer to this discussion because ultimately it is all about choice, and choice is informed by experience, our experiences lead us to different conclusions is all.

I, of course, think there is a right answer, or I wouldn't declare myself an antitheist :)
I think that intellectual honesty, logic and rigorous thought is somewhat universal. Plenty of philosophers throughout the ages have come to this conclusion.

I find that the people who believe in fairies are usually the people who don't choose to filter their input through their common sense. They are people who revel in mysteries, because they feel they need that mystery to think that the world is not a bleak place.

I can't begin to claim that I understand that mindset. To me, filtering things through common sense and looking at them sceptically is not really a choice. I can't choose to believe something I do not truly believe.

Finally, I think the one area in which we do disagree almost wholly is in the idea of morality. I believe that it is innate and it serves a function beyond the simple expedience of societical integration; I think it is our one true spiritual sense, unlike touch or sight which is almost wholly material.

Then how do you explain that this same "god-given" moralistic behavior can be found in animals?
Or do you think that monkeys also possess spirituality?

The reason I believe in morality so deeply is because we have a term for those people in whom it is broken: we call them psychopaths (or sociopaths in the US). For everyone who isn’t “broken” it is innate, but ultimately in a material sense those people who listen to it less are often likely to experience success more readily; whereas those who listen to it more often have material difficulty and spiritual wholeness (in my experience). This is why it is a spiritual sense primarily.

I think the biggest flaw with this reasoning is that you define success materialistically, which is very typical for people of the western world.
Sociopaths might be wealthy, but if you take your definition of success and replace it with a broader and more biologically minded definition, you will find that these broken people have a very big lack of success: They do not have a flock that want to watch their backs, they likely do not have a mate that is happy and want to procreate with them, and they will likely die miserable and alone.

I cannot quantify it of course, but I am convinced that at some level you will agree?

I am sorry, but absolutely will not :)
I have still never heard a convincing argument that morals should come from anything but a need for survival as a species.
I also think that the observation of many of the traits we define as moralistic are documented in other non-human species, blows that argument out of the water.

No, I don’t think so, I don’t really understand that whole argument. The idea of synchronicity (which isn’t my idea at all) has to happen to be considered synchronous, thus if the books weren’t there then of course there would be nothing synchronous to remark on.

That's my point, like planets lining up other then it doesn't happen often (relative in human terms) its notable because it happens, but it just happens.

Morality now there is a topic, you say people who do not conform are broken or psychopaths. I'm not sure this is the same concept. Morality is an accepted set of rules or standards of behaviour as I understand it. Now my point here is "accepted". In history whilst cultures explored further a field they were confronted with social behaviour that was considered against their accepted moral standards however these cultures behaviours where perfectly accepted by the cultures adhering to them, hence the conflicting views, given the situation who is right and who is wrong?

We tend to be very judgemental and self righteous in our views on morality and social behaviour I wonder what civilizations thought when they were being invaded and having external law, religion and moral practices imposed on them by force practices that may well have been unthinkable to those cultures.

Robert

I don't doubt for one minute that your world is equally full of wonder as my own, but I cannot help but suspect that it is a little less bright and welcoming. I do often wonder in the midst of these discussion where we will end up. It seems that the questions that science seeks to answer become increasingly fundamental and so we think we have 'solved' everything and we don't need to wonder so much anymore. It's a shame in my view, and none of it makes me wonder any the less. When the sun shines on my face, I understand why it feels the way it does, I understand about the waveforms and so forth, but I know that it has nothing to do with the physics that makes it feel so good to me, it's because I am connected with it.

Now then, I want to take issue with your explanation about love, because what you are talking about are the observable physiological effects of love on the human organism. You are not remotely 'measuring love' when you observe these phenomena, you cannot tell from those measurements how deep that love is, how profound or how long it has been in evidence. Similarly, if you were to take the same measurements from someone in a state of religious ecstasy, you could not 'measure faith' either, but by your (irrefutable) logic, this same quantification actually proves faith, if your measurements can 'prove' love. In fact, I might go so far to say that I rest my case because you have just proved faith for me ;)

I wasn't brought up in a religious household, indeed my stepfather is a reknowned and eminent evolutionist, one of the top men in his field in the world and he believes in God too, I have argued against the concept with him in the past too and he seemed to give my thoughts little weight overall, although he understood and respected my views. I find myself understanding exactly his stance now, but I also was convinced of my own position before. I am not sure there is – or ever will be – a right answer to this discussionbecause ultimately it is all about choice, and choice is informed by experience, our experiences lead us to different conclusions is all.

Finally, I think the one area in which we do disagree almost wholly is in the idea of morality. I believe that it is innate and it serves a function beyond the simple expedience of societical integration; I think it is our one true spiritual sense, unlike touch or sight which is almost wholly material.

The reason I believe in morality so deeply is because we have a term for those people in whom it is broken: we call them psychopaths (or sociopaths in the US). For everyone who isn't "broken" it is innate, but ultimately in a material sense those people who listen to it less are often likely to experience success more readily; whereas those who listen to it more often have material difficulty and spiritual wholeness (in my experience). This is why it is a spiritual sense primarily.

I cannot quantify it of course, but I am convinced that at some level you will agree?

I think one of the strongest impressions that comes out of our discussion is that you are a much more rigorous thinker than I and more stringent too. Personally, I trust my feelings much more than I trust my thoughts (or I try to), my thoughts are maybe a little neglected :)

Thank you.
I think philosophy and later science is the attempt to get beyond the limitations of methods of thought that are less rigorous and (for science) formalized.
I don't think it's an inherent trait in people to think rigorously, so it takes some practice – I find that debate is a good way to get that practice.

At that point, the donkey brayed in the barn. His neighbor, believing he has caught him in a lie, says, “Then what is that I hear in the barn?” And Nasradim replies, “Friend, are you going to believe me or a donkey?”
I like this story because it cuts both ways. What it tells us is that there is a tendency to believe the ideas about things instead of the direct experience.

I get the opposite meaning from that story: The guy tells him the donkey isn't there (the idea) but he hears the donkey braying (direct experience), and then he doubts the idea.

This is what science is about – if someone tells you something and you find contradictory evidence, then maybe what you are told is wrong; investigate further.

Now you tell me that you have extrapolated from ’self-evident truths’ that God does not exist. Which truths are these? There is no evidence for a God? No tangible, measurable thing that can prove him?

I have not extrapolated proof that god does not exist. I have simply extrapolated other explanations that are much less far fetched. I have observed there is a complete lack of evidence for his existence.
Since there is no evidence for his existence, and since I can very easily conjure up an explanation for why people arrived at the idea of a god in the first place, and why it's being perpetuated – all in terms of science and observable tendencies in human nature and human cognitive processes – I simply choose to believe the much more likely explanation, which is the non-existence.

What about love? By your logic, love is also impossible to prove. It is not measurable or evident: like God it is just an idea, and from that you can extrapolate the idea that acts of love (as with acts of faith) are essentially meaningless in that they are only perpetrated by believers.

Actually, love is measurable and directly observable.
When in love, your body produces high levels of dopamine and there is unique observable neurological activity in the brain.
Check out Wikipedia as a starting point, if you are interested.

Apart from that, it's also very easy to observe when you are in love. The fact that I believe in it is because I have experienced in, as has most other people.
The feeling is there, and it's name is "love". I am experiencing the emotion, and I am using the label for it.
There is no mysticism in that. It's a psychological and physical phenomenon, like many other emotions.

There's also the fact that I am experiencing it directly. It's not something I believe because I heard someone tell of it, who had the story from his friend who heard that a guy felt it 2000 years ago.

My own experience has taught me something about this. I loved Dawkins when I read watchmaker at university because he validated my non-belief.

Were you raised by religious parents, since your non belief needed validation?
Do you live in the states?

It all began to fit together very neatly for me, the biology of evolution, the non-wasteful, streamlined beauty of it, suddenly the idea of God seemed faintly ludicrous. Why was it necessary? Everything worked fine without it.

Sounds like you had it right. Except for the word "faintly".

But maybe, we are just not seeing beyond the remit of our own experience. I pretty much closed off from any idea of God – even that sounds grand – I simply began to reconcile myself to the sense that all of life was that which I could see, touch, and understand.

Can you see, touch and understand gravity? Electromagnetic force? Quantum physics?

I am quite reconciled with the fact that there are a lot of things my brain can not directly understand, because it evolved without a direct and constant presence of the abstract knowledge of these things.

[synchronicity]
At best I would note the occasional mild coincidence which I could then explain as the minds tendency to seek order, so I would just ‘notice’ correlations and parallels from time to time. But nothing more.

That true. You had it right. It's what a brain does; finds patterns.

Now synchronicity is almost an affliction in my life. Here is one example. One of my favourite stories is Bernard Cornwell’s Arthurian trilogy.
[rest of story]

I think that is interesting, because it tells me a lot more about human cognitive function that it does about how science closed you off from synchronicity.

To me, your example is exactly like the age old (danish?) adage about how you never notice mailboxes until you are looking for them.
(In Denmark they are bright red and mounted in torso height all over the place, so it's quite remarkable).

When you start focusing on something, it becomes clearer and other things fade away.
It's also the exact thing that allows people to fool themselves when they are at a psychic – they notice all the good guesses and ignore the bad guesses.

I think it's for reasons like this that people have sought to create objective ways of evaluating things like this – like statistics.
The human mind is simply to susceptible to trick itself into believing whatever it wants to believe.

Even scientists who are aware of it have had the problem to such a degree that they developed double blind testing.

Now I believe that the universe is a mechanism, it is supremely intricate and we are interacting with it all the time, maybe in ways we do not even perceive.

I agree with this sentiment.

I know that synchronicity is the waymarkers of the path within the universe, and when we take heed of those markers, they appear ever more frequently.

Here you lost me – you believe there is a "path within the universe"?
As for the "take heed" ... "more frequently", that is the exact effect I was describing earlier.

I have, for example, noticed that I have a tendency to look at the clock at exactly 13:37 or 13:38 almost every day.
It has happened to me hundreds of times, but I can easily think of explanations that do not involve supreme beings or a higher meaning.

I believe in it, because it has happened to me. I love my wife also and that is how I know that love exists too. The understanding is not dissimilar.

I totally disagree.
The fact that you know love exists, is because it is an emotion you have directly experienced, and there is absolutely no need for interpretation on what it means or is. It's just a label you put on a certain emotion.
Synchronicity, however, is not something you have experienced directly – rather you have experienced a number of different experiences you have had, and then gleaned from them, some higher organizing principle.
There is a world of difference. One is direct experience, the other is interpretation with other possible explanations.

It doesn’t matter that you call this wonderful and unproveable mechanism God, or Allah, or Odin, or Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, all are talking about the same thing, their destination is the same. Actually, your grasp of the mechanism is irrelevant; once you have experienced it you will know it is there, and you will feel it, like love, in your heart.

I have a wonderful feeling in my head – it's intellectual honesty, and an understanding of logic and the scientific method. It's also a bit of knowledge about how the brain and human thought processes works.

Now I know that in the absence of that direct experience, this discussion is just an abstraction and that you probably think I am a nut :)

No, I don't think you are a nut. Honestly, I think that either from the society you live in or your parents or both, you have been imposed with the idea that there is a hole in you, that only some kind of belief in "something bigger" can fill.

What I don't understand is how you could from really understanding science, to having some kind of non-rational faith again, unless you had faith to begin with, or was taught that it was a virtue when you grew up.

I must say, though, that what you explain to me is exceptionally close to not conflicting with my view of the world, except for the "path within the universe" but, which sounds like an idea of a higher purpose to me.

I believe in the underlying, underpinning and overarching magic of the mechanism, the one that ensures that our moral and spiritual evolution as a species, as an entity and as an individual is the only issue of relevance in all of creation.

I am somewhat with you there, except I would never call that "god". I would call that "fundamental natural forces".
I also wouldn't call it magic :)

We can only strive to become what we are, there is no ideal; but I do think that our innate morality is one of the more obvious parts of our constitution that resonates most easily with the higher vibration (if you like) of the mechanism.

This is were we part ways, I think. I don't think we have an innate morality in any way that does not ultimately stem from our need to survive and be comfortable.
You seem to think there is a "higher ideal" or something like that, and I don't believe that.

By listening to our conscience, we become more in tune with the Universe.

Sounds very new agey, I think.

I think you are ultimately kind of a spinozaist, and that is reasonably compatible with my world view, except it uses a different terminology and is somewhat less rigorous and formalized than the one I subscribe to.

Thank you for your comment.

I think this is similar to saying 'would it still be considered blue if it were some other colour?' I would suggest that you read the preceding discussion because I think I already stated the difference with coincidence. Maybe not, shall I expand on that?

Brian, I am looking forward to your thoughts :)

Ben, thank you, I am delighted to have company in the land of the mad people ;P

I didn't mention it before but I thought that this line:
"If I believed that there is an interstellar army right behind the sun, which is just waiting for the trillionth cheeseburger to be eaten before they attack the earth, I would probably be medicated."
Was unutterably superb and it really had me institches. What a perfectly expressed supposition, really brilliant.