Out of body religious experiences [Archive]

TomOfSweden

08-26-2007, 03:58 AM

The came up with a model that explains it. Nobody else has ever done that before, so I'm going to go with this theory.

I have very personal beliefs but still many doubts. I do NOT believe in organized religion because I think it leads to the fundamentalism that destroys and kills and hates.

I don't agree at all. I think and believe that the "organised" part of "organised religion" is what's good about religion. It gives people structure, traditions and rules to organise their life around. We all need them and we all need to be part of a greater whole.

The bad part of "organised religion" is when the ethics and philosophy of a religion leaks into the scientific part. Where people take an age old moral system and keep the obsolete scientific theories that used to go with it. People who just can't accept that the Jewish/Babylonian theories in Christianity about creation and post-death where wrong. They didn't have the fine tools to measure before. Now they do.

But there's plenty of very large religions that don't make any scientific claims at all. Zoroastrianism for example. They're huge in Iran. They're organised and do a lot of good. Buddhism is another one, (unless you live in Tibet).

I think there is an atheistic fundamentalism as well, that is just as dangerous as religious fundamentalism.

I think you're wrong here to. I've recently read up a lot about atheism in USA and I haven't seen any examples of fundamentalist atheism anywhere. Apart from crater-faced 17 year olds who are against everything.

The fundamental bits in the atheist movement is that they are militant about having critical discussions. Which considering the number of religious in USA, is not a big thing over there. I can understand why they might get frustrated.

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/

These are great. It's an atheism spreading network for USA. They've got a podcast and have plenty of interesting scientists and scientific journalists talking about various subjects.

Here's Karen Armstrongs theory, which I fully support. She's a catholic nun and have written plenty of great books on religion: Fundamentalism occurs when there's a disjunction between your faith and what you know. People become fundamentalist when they know they are wrong and the external conflict are just about them trying to convince themselves.

I have had experiences that I cannot explain (My grandmother visited me before she died, I am convinced of this. And I have had other "visitations" as well. AM i deluded, I don't think so. Can I explain it, NO, but I am convinced it happened.)

I've got lots of experiences I can't explain. I like to leave the explaining to people with the education to do it rather than having a go at stupid ass guesswork which isn't ever likely to make any sense. We all know we can't trust out senses, but it's all we've got. Sucks.

John56{vg}

08-26-2007, 05:43 AM

I don't agree at all. I think and believe that the "organised" part of "organised religion" is what's good about religion. It gives people structure, traditions and rules to organise their life around. We all need them and we all need to be part of a greater whole.

Organizing Religion into political (The pope, Divine Right of Kings, the Ayatollahs, etc) forces gives one man or a group of men the right to tell me what I must believe and not allowing me to believe what I want to. If you have one man or woman believing that I must kill you because you don't belive what I do, mean you have 1 or 2 fanatics. But one or woamn telling me to believe that thing, means I have a whole society telling me that you are an enemy fornot believing what I do.

Organizing religion is what has set religion against science. Again, if I am one person I have the right to look at evolution as a gift from my God. But if I am told by one stupid individual who wants power that It is a sin to believe in something that has so much proof behind it, then I have organized stupidity into science.

So I disagree totally that organization has made religion into a force for good, quite the contrary.

I think you're wrong here to. I've recently read up a lot about atheism in USA and I haven't seen any examples of fundamentalist atheism anywhere. Apart from crater-faced 17 year olds who are against everything.

Dawkins is just as much a fundamentalist (and to me, just as much an idiot) as Pat Robertson or that Falwell was. He is fanatical about claiming that there is no God, as those claiming there is only one way to look at God.

O'Hare was the same way. Wanting to make atheism as much a State sponsored "religion" as the fundamentalistic CHristians want to make born-again CHristianity. And they are again, people who want to make their way the only way.

If I am allowed to look at the evidence, look at what we have learned and filter it through my own experiences I can have a view that fits for me and I can allow for what fits for you. I have the personal belief that God speaks to us in the way we are best able to hear the message (The bible, the Koran, Meditation, Nature, movies, good books). Now that works for me.

It may not work for you, you like a liitle more structure or organization, fine. But that doesn't mean I am wrong, nor does it mean you are wrong. But we both can find the common ground of what we have learned to be true to us and we can be friends.

At least that is what I believe. And you can believe I am wrong, but it does NOT mean that you (and I am talking to all-encompassing you here) can get enough people together to tell me I am wrong and kill me for what I believe.

I've got lots of experiences I can't explain. I like to leave the explaining to people with the education to do it rather than having a go at stupid ass guesswork which isn't ever likely to make any sense. We all know we can't trust out senses, but it's all we've got. Sucks.

Stupid-Ass guesswork (as you call it) is what got us that knowledge in the first place. A lot of our chemical concoctions came from Alchemist trying to turn lead into gold. Boy, that was a stupid-ass theory. But out of it came a lot of great knowledge about chemistry.

Aristotle (Still a very brilliant man) had the stupid-ass belief that maggot spontaneously generated from rotten meat. But he experiementd and came up with a foundation for science and our methods of belief.

So I wouldn't be so quick to eliminate "stupid-ass guess work," It is the foundation for what we have discovered. And do you think we know everything we could possibly know? Certainly not, but we act as if we do. Fundamentalist Christians think we knew everything we needed to know 2000 years ago.

Fundamentalist MUslims believe we knew everything we are allowed to know, what, a thousand some odd years ago. And I think the one of the problems with today's people. A lot of us, and I think our edicational system teaches that we KNOW what is impossible and what is not.

And the great discoveries were made at a time when NOTHING was impossible.

Again, my humble opinion only, but it works for me.

Guest 91108

08-26-2007, 06:16 AM

Kudos John .

tessa

08-26-2007, 06:43 AM

~walks through, flashing my quote~

"Treat the other man's truth gently; it is all he has to believe with. His mind was created for his own thoughts, not yours or mine." ~Henry S. Haskins

I saw an article about this elsewhere and found it fascinating. It's a bit more fascinating here. Lots more, in fact.

:wave:

TomOfSweden

08-26-2007, 10:24 AM

Organizing Religion into political (The pope, Divine Right of Kings, the Ayatollahs, etc) forces gives one man or a group of men the right to tell me what I must believe and not allowing me to believe what I want to. If you have one man or woman believing that I must kill you because you don't belive what I do, mean you have 1 or 2 fanatics. But one or woamn telling me to believe that thing, means I have a whole society telling me that you are an enemy fornot believing what I do.

Organizing religion is what has set religion against science. Again, if I am one person I have the right to look at evolution as a gift from my God. But if I am told by one stupid individual who wants power that It is a sin to believe in something that has so much proof behind it, then I have organized stupidity into science.

So I disagree totally that organization has made religion into a force for good, quite the contrary.

So by taking a couple of very extreme and abnormal examples of what organised religion can be you discount all of it. I personally think that we have most of our modern world to thank for scientific work made possible by religious institutions. In the olden days having time to do anything but survive was highly unusual.

Dawkins is just as much a fundamentalist (and to me, just as much an idiot) as Pat Robertson or that Falwell was. He is fanatical about claiming that there is no God, as those claiming there is only one way to look at God.

This proves to me that you haven't bothered listening to the man. So there's not much more for me to say. Fundamentalism to me means some sort of faith in spite of evidence.

O'hare I hadn't heard of and couldn't find anything on. Beside these I can't think of a single example of an atheist "fundamentalist".

Stupid-Ass guesswork (as you call it) is what got us that knowledge in the first place. A lot of our chemical concoctions came from Alchemist trying to turn lead into gold. Boy, that was a stupid-ass theory. But out of it came a lot of great knowledge about chemistry.

Either I misread you or you're confusing theory with faith.

It's a big difference going out on a limb if you're a scientist and it's within your field or if you're just a random dude. The last time a person who hadn't dedicated his entire life to science had a major break through was more than a 200 years ago. I can't think of a single specific example actually. The age of the gentleman scientist is definitely over.

The philosopher Thomas Kuhn dedicated his life to exploring this. Worth a read. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn

Ozme52

08-26-2007, 10:56 AM

Another theological conversation...

I think I'm experiencing an OBE right now. :rolleyes:

Rhabbi

08-26-2007, 01:36 PM

Tom, you seem to be falling into what, for lack of a better term, I would call Atheistic Fundamentalism. I am not sure that this is the same thing that John is speaking of, but it does exist.

Let us define fundamentalism. According to Merriam Webster the definition is.
a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles

An atheistic fundamentalism would be a movement would be an adherence to the basic principle that any religious theory is automatically wrong. This rather simple basic principle allows people to lump Christianity and Wicca into the same boat and not appreciate the differences between them. Here is an example of something an Atheistic Fundamentalist would say.
The difference between science and religion is the difference between a willingness to dispassionately consider new evidence and new arguments, and a passionate unwillingness to do so….The difference between science and religion is the difference between a genuine openness to fruits of human inquiry in the 21st century, and a premature closure to such inquiry as a matter of principle.

This attitude ignores the great Scientific advances of history were brought about through a religious study of creation. At one time this was from the Muslim world, from which we have the root of our arithmetic, astronomy, and medical science. And at a later date from the Christian world, which gave us our current understanding of astronomy and physics. trying to tell me that my believing in God precludes me looking at His creation with any ability to understand it ignores the history of science and religion. Plus, it shows that the person speaking has no real idea of who I am or what I am capable of.

Yes, Atheistic Fundamentalism exist, and maybe the reason you cannot see it is because you are standing inside of it looking out.

John56{vg}

08-26-2007, 02:02 PM

My friend Rhabbi,

I agree wholeheartedly with everything you are saying and you put it VERY well, thank you for your insights.

Tom,

Madelynn Murray O'Hare was THE evangelist for political atheism in this country. IMHO, she wanted to make Atheism the official religion of this country, just like Robertson, andFalwell, and their ilk want to make fundamentalist Christianity the official religion of the U.S.

Fundamentalists of any stripe seem to me to show extreme doubt in their own beliefs. They don't seem to be able to justify their own beliefs unless everybody in the world believes exactly as they do.

And in regards to Dawkins, he is as much an evangelist as Falwell and Robertson. I read a debate between him and an evangelical Scientist (Gosh I wish I could remember this guys name, I respected him so much). Dawkins sounded like the nutcase and this scientist was very calm and made his points with debatable points and not with dogma.

Rhabbi is right, until the fundamentalists took over the muslim world, the muslims were the premier thinkers and techers and scientists of the world. The Christians were in the dark ages and somewhat becasue of organized religious thinking. The monks though kept the knowledge alive during this time.

The truth is there is not ONE way of thinking or believing. Science needs faith and faith need science. IT is when one or the to other forgets this that we get into trouble, I think.

I AM some random dude, but random dudes have created a lot of great thought and discoveries. And saying that yourgreat learned scientists know the answers, is JUST like saying the Pope is infallible, and that the Bible, or the Koran or The Secret is the only book to show you the way.

John56{vg}

08-26-2007, 02:08 PM

Kudos John .

Sorry Wolf, I didn't see this before now.

Thank you I appreciate it, :)

John

Alex Bragi

08-26-2007, 07:31 PM

Or maybe you know what you believe. You just aren't sure if it's the truth, right?

I don't know, that sounds kind of paradoxical to me, Tom. I mean, if I knew what "the truth" was then I wouldn't believe it because I would know it rather than believe that it actually was "the truth". ;)

I know (not just believe) that a lot of atheists view agnostics in the same way as gays view bisexuals--"bi today gay tomorrow". That is, agnostics are actually atheist that just haven't quite come to the conclusion for themselves yet, but I don't see myself that way at all.

And, Tom, check out Internet Infidels debate site some time, you will love it! :)

And in regards to Dawkins, he is as much an evangelist as Falwell and Robertson. I read a debate between him and an evangelical Scientist (Gosh I wish I could remember this guys name, I respected him so much). Dawkins sounded like the nutcase and this scientist was very calm and made his points with debatable points and not with dogma.

I think the evangelical scientist you're thinking of is, Doctor Robert Winston. He's also one of my favourite people to read or listen to, along with Richard Dawkins who I've always found to be very openminded and respectful of other people beliefs--most congenial, actually. Unlike the likes of the loud and obnoxious Madelynn Murray O'Hair who, I believe, (know?) did more harm than good for the atheist movement.

John56{vg}

08-26-2007, 08:05 PM

Alex,

Thank you for the info about Robert Wilson, he is fascinating. I am always happy to learn of such people. However, this scientist I am speaking of was an American. I feel so stupid when I cna't remember these things, LOL.

Also, I haven;t read a LOT of Dawkins, but in this interview he was just as rancorous as O'Hair (I spelled the name wrong above). He was not listening to any other point of view and sounded JUST like Falwell or Robertson did about their beliefs. I will have to read more of him I guess, but i was completely turned off from his views when I read this interview.

I am certainly willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, LOL.

Alex Bragi

08-26-2007, 11:39 PM

...

Also, I haven;t read a LOT of Dawkins, but in this interview he was just as rancorous as O'Hair (I spelled the name wrong above). He was not listening to any other point of view and sounded JUST like Falwell or Robertson did about their beliefs. I will have to read more of him I guess, but i was completely turned off from his views when I read this interview.

I am certainly willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, LOL.

Well, certainly, I understand how his views could be miscontrued in the written word but in, for instance, television interviews he come across as much less arrogant. And Madelynn Murray O'Hair--I've often seen her name spelt O'Hare, which is course is how most people would spell it. Yep, she was a odd woman with an odd way of spelling her name. *ss*

Sir_G

08-27-2007, 05:30 PM

Science seems to be the new religion of the new millennium. Even late last century is was getting that way. If you didn't/don't believe what science says or are either an ignorant fool, uneducated moron and so the list goes on.

I think there are fanatics on both sides of the fence. Me? I live somewhere in the middle. Live and let live, respect all beliefs no matter what you believe. Too many wars, inquisitions, purges etc etc have been carried out in the name of something, is science next on the list.

May the guys in the white lab coats not carry out biological warfare research, the saffron robed priests feel like they don't have to burst into flames, the collared priests not feel so deprived that they molest young children, the tv ministers so fulfilled they don't commit adultery and the list goes on and on.

The world is in enough trouble when all it would take is a little love and understanding to get over our differences and find things we agree on rather than finding things we differ on, "imagine all the people living life in peace yoohoo....you may say I'm a dreamer but I'm not the only one, I hope some day you'll join us and the world will be as one."

I'm not having a poke at anyone just stating my preference is for tolerance. Everyone has their version of the "TRUTH", often that is absolute. So respect it, even facts depend on your point of view.

Peace, Love and Mung Beans.

TomOfSweden

08-28-2007, 10:59 PM

I apologise dearly for stirring up this and then not returning until now. I work too much right now so I'm not going to have time to log in for a while.

1) We've never ever had any reason to believe in anything supernatural. No proof has bothered to show up. Nothing measurable of verifiable. This isn't fundamentalism, it's about how we draw conclusions. Every person has seen something supernatural....We've all done it. But it's so easy to explain away, because our senses are wonky. Anybody who made it through primary school should understand that if we can't measure it in a lab, (what ever it is) we shouldn't bank on it. Just look at how often witnesses of crimes get it completely wrong. We see things we want to see. All the time. That's how humans work.

What Dawkins does is treats the scientific theories in religions as any other scientific theory. That's taboo in today's world since we seem to like to give special status to religion. We don't want to poke and prod at it. My conclusion is that the religious knows they are living a lie but like this fantasy world they've created and don't want anybody standing up in the boat.

I think the reason for this has to do with two fundamental functions that religion and especially organised religion fills.

1) It gives a purpose to life.

2) It gives a framework of rules to make life easier for everybody.

I think these two need to be replaced before anybody will even listen to reason.

I hear a lot that if everybody would follow the Bible the world would be a better place. If we only would live an honest and kind life bla bla bla. All religions and communities in the entire world have come up with the same basic rules to live by so we really don't need to care about the commandments. It'll sort itself out naturally.

These are the only unique Christian Commandments. They're a bit different depending on sect, but...
Thou shalt have no other gods before me
Thou shalt not make for thyself an idol
Thou shalt not make wrongful use of the name of thy God

All the other ones are the human commandments. We really don't need to remind ourselves to be honest. Most people are. People only break them in extreme situations but we like to remind ourselves about other peoples short comings, to make ourselves feel special. I think the world can live without these commandments without perishing.

And as far as common traditions to follow. It's just traditions. They're not intrinsically linked to the supernatural.

Next is the purpose of life. That's a trickier one. I grew up in a secular society where everybody was expected to find their own purpose. Even though my parents where religious I was told to find my own way in life. I can't really imagine living in a world where authority figures tell me that if I'm good I'll go to heaven. But I do think that people need to find a real purpose in life before taking the leap.

These two points is where Dawkins fucks it up. He's a die hard scientist and finding out stuff is his purpose in life. I think he's missed the social bit.

I've got nothing against religions or organised religion. I think it's good for the world and I think they have done and do a lot of good. But I'm against belief in the supernatural. It's retarding our world and is mideival superstition. And no, that isn't down to faith. Just the fact that evolution is at all still a debate in USA is extremely serious and proves my point.

edit: Sorry, I'm an idiot. Stressed out of my mind at the moment. My whole point was that we can be religious without being super-naturalists. With listening to reason, meant just this.

John56{vg}

08-29-2007, 01:23 AM

moptop

08-29-2007, 01:42 AM

Doctor Robert Winston - just to put a totally side-tracking comment in to this wonderful debate - once said, whilst looking at a scan of my insides,

"Technically, it's a mess in there."

My claim to fame, lol. Done hijacking.

Sir_G

08-29-2007, 02:08 AM

Thanks John for your kind words they are very much appreciated.

Tom, have you read a book called the Tao of Physics by a fellow called Capra and is touted as an Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism. In it he says "Physicists do not need mysticism, and mystics do not need physics, but humanity needs both. – (epilogue)"

He in turn had conversations with a chappy called Heisenburg who came up with the uncertainty principle after chatting with Capra. The book grew out of an inspirational moment Capra had while under the influence of psychedelics. Capra later discussed his ideas with Werner Heisenberg in 1972, as he mentioned in the following interview excerpt:

I had several discussions with Heisenberg. I lived in England then [circa 1972], and I visited him several times in Munich and showed him the whole manuscript chapter by chapter. He was very interested and very open, and he told me something that I think is not known publicly because he never published it. He said that he was well aware of these parallels. While he was working on quantum theory he went to India to lecture and was a guest of Tagore. He talked a lot with Tagore about Indian philosophy. Heisenberg told me that these talks had helped him a lot with his work in physics, because they showed him that all these new ideas in quantum physics were in fact not all that crazy. He realized there was, in fact, a whole culture that subscribed to very similar ideas. Heisenberg said that this was a great help for him. Niels Bohr had a similar experience when he went to China. – Fritjof Capra, interviewed by Renee Weber in the book The Holographic Paradigm (page 217–218)

As a result of those influences, Bohr adopted the yin yang symbol as part of his family coat of arms when he was knighted in 1947.

The Tao of Physics was followed by other books of the same genre like The Hidden Connection, The Turning Point and The Web of Life in which Capra extended the argument of how Eastern mysticism and todays scientific findings relate, and how Eastern mysticism might also have answers to some of the biggest scientific challenges of today.

All very interesting but still just another persons truth from their point of view.

(sections of this post are direct quotes from wikipedia, I'm honestly not that smart. *grin*)

Mung Beans

G

PS Just saw your post moptop and laughed my arse off. Cheeky thing!

thrall

08-29-2007, 02:35 AM

Isn't a wonderful thing to be able to have, and express your, own opinion.

TomOfSweden

08-29-2007, 07:21 AM

I feel a bit guilty for not being able to read this through properly. I'll do it when I have a chance.

Atheism is a huge family of faiths. My particular faith is called "apethiesm" which is a branch of atheism leaving it pretty much open. I don't call myself agnostic because they give credibility to today's religions. I don't. None of their supernatural theories have any evidence to back them up and their distribution on the planet seem to be pretty much random. These are the two main reasons I think they're all bogus. All the big ones are so old that people back then didn't have the tools to make a coherent case so it's not much we have to corroborate them. I think that all the ancient, (and even modern) theories of the nature of the supernatural is wrong, simply based on the fact that they have nothing to draw conclusions from. They have basically been guessing, which is nothing I will use as a basis for my faith.

The follow up question is off-course if science is better at explaining it. The answer is "no". The mathematicians Banach and Tarski found some pretty nasty holes in it.

If by supernatural we mean a force that is different than the forces we know of today I believe in the supernatural. If we call this force god I even believe in god.

To re-iterate. I don't have anything against religions. I think we need religions, (or similar constructs) to function as human beings. We need to be part of something greater to feel that we have a place in the world. I think that this need has caused us to draw unfounded conclusions. There's plenty of science that proves that atheists are more miserable than theists. They're doing something right.

I don't for a second doubt that there are people who speak to "god" and get meaningful answers. It doesn't prove that there exists god or anything supernatural, only that doing that is good for our mental well being. It proves that we don't need anybody else to feel love. And we all need love. Science can prove that humans need religion to be truly happy. At least it's a start.

I don't have problems with people saying that the idea of the Christian god is a novel one and keeping it as one of their possible theories. But as soon as an educated person says that they are convinced that it's the only one, then they've reduced themselves to the level below that which I'd thought possible for a thinking adult.

TomOfSweden

08-29-2007, 07:57 AM

Science seems to be the new religion of the new millennium. Even late last century is was getting that way. If you didn't/don't believe what science says or are either an ignorant fool, uneducated moron and so the list goes on.

I think there are fanatics on both sides of the fence. Me? I live somewhere in the middle. Live and let live, respect all beliefs no matter what you believe. Too many wars, inquisitions, purges etc etc have been carried out in the name of something, is science next on the list.

I think you've misunderstood a very fundamental part of what is being compared. Calling science a religion is comparing apples to oranges. Science is not a faith and will never be.

Science isn't a religion. It's not even a faith. It's a method for finding truth. We all use various methods for finding the truth. "Common sense" is another very popular system for finding the truth. Which options "feels" right is another one. The nice thing with science is that it's pretty well defined so it becomes a bit easier to understand which steps other people took to reach their truth using science. It makes communication easier.

The holocaust and the communist "experiments" have all been done in the name of science. So in numbers of people killed I don't think religion is even close, even though they've had plenty more time to do it. But that's not an argument for religion. It doesn't add to its credibility. All it means is that we shouldn't draw too strong conclusions if we don't have enough material to back our theories up with. That goes for any theory. Religious and secular alike. If we do the right thing for the wrong reason, we aren't less deluded.

Rhabbi

08-29-2007, 08:13 AM

Tom, just a quick question, how is saying I don't know giving crediblity to anything?

This is the main problem that atheist have, they are sure that there is no god, so they close their minds to the possiblity. Agnostics merely acknowledge that there is no proof on either side of the debate, and refuse to make up their minds without proof.

TomOfSweden

08-29-2007, 09:18 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madalyn_Murray_O'Hair

"O'Hair" was the correct spelling of her name. And silly me completely forgetting about communism. Not that I'd heard of her before. And off-course just because I can't think of any fundamentalist atheists. Doesn't mean there aren't any.

TomOfSweden

08-29-2007, 09:54 AM

Tom, just a quick question, how is saying I don't know giving crediblity to anything?

At least it's honest, which none of the other theories are. They are if you will a leap of faith. A leap of faith right out into the dark. It's deeply deluded and very very sad.

This is the main problem that atheist have, they are sure that there is no god, so they close their minds to the possiblity. Agnostics merely acknowledge that there is no proof on either side of the debate, and refuse to make up their minds without proof.

You'll probably be able to find an atheist who can identify with that description if you look hard enough. I've never met one. Most, if not all atheists I've spoken to have based their choice of faith on available evidence. Super-naturalists don't have any. It's at best hearsay and "experiences" completely impossible for anybody or anything else to verify. I think most atheists simply reject that kind of evidence. They want something more tangible to take the "leap".

The only reason why I don't identify with agnostics is because it in common usage takes away any platform to attack the deists. Strictly speaking I am agnostic. The problem of the term is that it imagines a world where theism is on one side, atheism is on the other and agnostics are on both sides. As if the theists have a point worth taking into consideration. I reject that model of the world completely. I deny that we even know which side we're on. I think it's a stupid debate because we have so little information. It's like going to a small village in Congo and drawing conclusions about all Africans...In the tenth dimension. Why?!? What could we possibly think we can figure out? We're still on the fact finding stage still. We don't have enough information to even start working out anything.

Do you have an open mind about gravity? Do you worry about flying off into space one day? Do you worry about molecular cohesion seizing so that you sink into the pavement one day? Off-course not. Because you believe in science.

For some reason you've kept an open mind about this one little tiny detail of science because you want to cling to an ancient scientific theory of the nature of the world. That's fine. Nothing wrong with that. But be honest about it! Be honest about the fact that you have no idea if it's true or not. This is what you think is right. Fine. You'd like to go to heaven....but you have no idea! It's like going to the races and betting on a horse. If it wins, great. If it loses....well...that's.....great to. The important thing is that you understand that it's betting on a horse. It's just that with the scientific knowledge we have today, your odds really really really suck. If you tell people that you know god exists. It makes you a liar. If you don't understand it, it makes you an idiot.

Here's a serious question. I've made an assumption of people who go to Church. I've made an assumption that they reject other religions. I've made an assumption that Christians deny that the Satanists may be right. Is that the case?

Flaming_Redhead

08-29-2007, 10:33 AM

Be honest about the fact that you have no idea if it's true or not. This is what you think is right. Fine. You'd like to go to heaven....but you have no idea! It's like going to the races and betting on a horse. If it wins, great. If it loses....well...that's.....great to. The important thing is that you understand that it's betting on a horse. It's just that with the scientific knowledge we have today, your odds really really really suck. If you tell people that you know god exists. It makes you a liar. If you don't understand it, it makes you an idiot.

Here's a serious question. I've made an assumption of people who go to Church. I've made an assumption that they reject other religions. I've made an assumption that Christians deny that the Satanists may be right. Is that the case?

I have no idea if it's true or not. Happy? If I'd rather believe that I was created out of love by a divine being rather than the theory that I am descended from apes, that's my perogative. I understand perfectly that I'm betting on a horse. However, I'd rather take my chances betting for than against.

Tom, you know what happens when you assume....ass...u...me. *smiles* I go to church occasionally. I don't hold with religion on principal because I think all are missing some key element, like Jesus, or adding something they shouldn't, like legalism. That's another debate. I don't reject other religions because they all contain, as you pointed out, the same basic commandments as Christianity. Just because they have a different name for God than I do doesn't mean that's not his name.

Right about what? I don't know what Satanists say, but if they prefer to bet on a horse that's already lost....I suppose that's their perogative.

TomOfSweden

08-29-2007, 10:59 AM

[COLOR="Red"]I have no idea if it's true or not. Happy? If I'd rather believe that I was created out of love by a divine being rather than the theory that I am descended from apes, that's my perogative. I understand perfectly that I'm betting on a horse. However, I'd rather take my chances betting for than against.

The prerogative here is whether you want to lie to yourself of go with 99,999% of all scientists think. Since I'm not a scientist I'll go with the majority of what they think. I don't have the required education to make my own scientific theory. I have a degree in logic, but that doesn't really help me in the evolutionary science debate. I strongly believe that knowing when to shut up and listen when one is out of ones depth is a virtue.

I believe that if suicide bombers aren't sure whether they'll get the 72 virgins or not might have helped keeping the New York skyline as it was.

Rhabbi

08-29-2007, 11:04 AM

Atheist

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Agnostic

1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

As you can see, there is a slight difference between them. Labeling your self as an atheist makes you dishonest, like all atheists. At least people who believe in god are honest about their views. I know of a few agnostics who challenge the views of theists, and their challenges are usually more informed and better thought out than those of atheists, because they are at least open to taking then seriously. Outright rejection of a viewpoint is a bias that is hard to overcome in a debate, something I know from experience the few times I have attempted to debate someone whose views were so skewed that I could not accept them.

As for your question, that would depend entirely on which Christian you asked. I know of quite a few Christians with a liberal viewpoint that would have no serious problem with that premise. If you do not believe me, just go look at those who want to point out all the similarities between all the worlds religions. The ones who would tell you that just because Jesus said that no one comes to the Father except through him, that does not mean that people who believe in Muhhommad will not get to heaven. After all, they worship the same God.

Rhabbi

08-29-2007, 11:10 AM

The prerogative here is whether you want to lie to yourself of go with 99,999% of all scientists think.

And exactly where did you get that statistic? I can cite numerous scientists who believe in God, either as Christians or Muslims. and I am sure thaere a few who are Hindus also, not to mention the other religions.

I believe that if suicide bombers aren't sure whether they'll get the 72 virgins or not might have helped keeping the New York skyline as it was.

Would it have Tom? If they actually believed that, why didn't they believe the rest of what the Koran teaches? They did not crash those jets into the WTC because of a belief in an afterlife, they did it because they oppose the freedoms we have in the United States. Yet they spent a few months here enjoying the benifits of those freedoms, which they could not get where they were from.

It was not religon that cause 9/11, it was economics and suppression. They resented what we have, and tried to take it away from us. The saddest part is that they have succedded to an extent. We are a country now that is willing to exchange freedom for a sense of security. Makes me want to move to out, but there is no where else to go.

Flaming_Redhead

08-29-2007, 11:20 AM

The prerogative here is whether you want to lie to yourself of go with 99,999% of all scientists think. Since I'm not a scientist I'll go with the majority of what they think. I don't have the required education to make my own scientific theory. I have a degree in logic, but that doesn't really help me in the evolutionary science debate. I strongly believe that knowing when to shut up and listen when one is out of ones depth is a virtue.

How do you know I'm lying to myself? You sound like one of those commercials...4 out of 5 dentists recommend Dentyne sugarless gum....lol Scientists are not infallible. They're constantly changing their theories. They tell us something is bad for us and that we should avoid it. A few years later, they tell us that is isn't as bad as they first thought, and, in fact, there really was no danger. How foolish did everyone feel who had believed the earth is flat only to discover that it's round? I think people are drawn to religion because in a changing world their Bible, Koran, etc., remains the same.

TomOfSweden

08-29-2007, 11:28 AM

Would it have Tom? If they actually believed that, why didn't they believe the rest of what the Koran teaches? They did not crash those jets into the WTC because of a belief in an afterlife, they did it because they oppose the freedoms we have in the United States. Yet they spent a few months here enjoying the benifits of those freedoms, which they could not get where they were from.

It was not religon that cause 9/11, it was economics and suppression. They resented what we have, and tried to take it away from us. The saddest part is that they have succedded to an extent. We are a country now that is willing to exchange freedom for a sense of security. Makes me want to move to out, but there is no where else to go.

erm...That's a theory. Considering that Osama Bin Laden held a speech where he addressed just this and denied it. I think it's safe to say that it was an erroneous conclusion of the Bush administration and they where wrong to voice the theory.

According to Osama they attacked USA because they wanted USA and the CIA to stop meddling in the middle-east. This is what he said. It wasn't because they hated US freedom. Osama said that if they hated freedom they would have attacked Sweden. Which to me makes sense. When it comes to laws USA has a lot less freedom than we do. So much for that theory. Why would Al-Qaeda have a problem with US freedom? I don't get it? Have you given this any thought at all?

But that wasn't the issue. The issue was whether or not the suicide bombers thought that the sacrifice was worth it. I would assume that sacrificing yourself for anything becomes a lot less attractive if there's no after-life.

TomOfSweden

08-29-2007, 11:30 AM

How do you know I'm lying to myself? You sound like one of those commercials...4 out of 5 dentists recommend Dentyne sugarless gum....lol Scientists are not infallible. They're constantly changing their theories. They tell us something is bad for us and that we should avoid it. A few years later, they tell us that is isn't as bad as they first thought, and, in fact, there really was no danger. How foolish did everyone feel who had believed the earth is flat only to discover that it's round? I think people are drawn to religion because in a changing world their Bible, Koran, etc., remains the same.

WHAT?!?!? The fact that scientists change their theories all the time should add to their credibility, not retract from it. The fact that the world in the religious texts doesn't change, doesn't that indicate that they aren't open to new information and updates?

Off-course scientists aren't infallible. anybody claiming they are should be avoided like the plauge, (like the pope for instance hint hint)

Rhabbi

08-29-2007, 11:45 AM

According to Osama they attacked USA because they wanted USA and the CIA to stop meddling in the middle-east. This is what he said. It wasn't because they hated US freedom. Osama said that if they hated freedom they would have attacked Sweden. Which to me makes sense. When it comes to laws USA has a lot less freedom than we do. So much for that theory. Why would Al-Qaeda have a problem with US freedom? I don't get it? Have you given this any thought at all?

Why would they attack Sweden? If they attacked Sweden would they have gotten the public support in the middle east that they did? Of course not. And it is our freedoms that allows us to "interfere" in the Middle East.

On that question, exactly what interference is he talking about? The time we went into the Saudi Arabia at the invitation of his family? And then stayed there at the continued request to monitor the satus of Saddam Hussein? And defend them against the threat that he posed?

Flaming_Redhead

08-29-2007, 12:50 PM

tessa

08-29-2007, 01:27 PM

Here's a serious question. I've made an assumption of people who go to Church. I've made an assumption that they reject other religions. I've made an assumption that Christians deny that the Satanists may be right. Is that the case?

You can make any assumptions you want about people who go to church. But how about instead, you make a hypothesis about them, and then do the research necessary to prove to yourself whether it's true or not? Leave the assumptions to the lesser folks. You're better than that, Tom. That's my researched-based hypothesis being put to good use, hmm? :)

I don't know if all people who go to church reject other religions. I'm sure there are some who do, just like I'm sure there are some who don't. I am a "people who go to Church" person and I fall into the latter category- the non-rejecting kind (just saying in case you didn't care to look up a couple lines of text there).

If Christians deny that Satanists may be right, I'd have to ask which Satanists they've been talking to as there are as many "denominations" of Satanism as they're are in Christianity. Seems as if even the Dark-siders can't figure out what's true and what's not. But I will say this. I've witnessed for myself pure, unaffected evil. It's real and it's among us. I'm a Christian and while I won't say whether some Satanist is right or wrong, I know that evil is. But I also know that good is, too.

Yin and yang- the unity of opposites.

And I'm with Red (again). While the Pope may be a nice guy and all, I don't happen to ascribe to the notion that he has any more in-road to God than any of us do. No offense to any who believe differently, just as I hope no one wishes to offend me for my differences.

We get to believe as we believe. Sometimes, it's just that simple.

:wave:

Guest 91108

08-29-2007, 01:35 PM

gagged_Louise

08-29-2007, 01:36 PM

If Christians deny that Satanists may be right, I'd have to ask which Satanists they've been talking to as there are as many "denominations" of Satanism as they're are in Christianity. Seems as if even the Dark-siders can't figure out what's true and what's not

"Some /other Satanist groups/ are into burning down churches and the like, but that's something I regard as highly unsatanistic activities."

-said by the leader of a Norwegian Satanist cult, interviewed on radio about his beliefs and other Satanists and pseudo-Satanists.

Well spoken, Tessa!

John56{vg}

08-29-2007, 04:46 PM

Sir_G

08-29-2007, 05:47 PM

WHAT?!?!? The fact that scientists change their theories all the time should add to their credibility, not retract from it. The fact that the world in the religious texts doesn't change, doesn't that indicate that they aren't open to new information and updates?

Off-course scientists aren't infallible. anybody claiming they are should be avoided like the plauge, (like the pope for instance hint hint)

This is an interesting point you raise Tom, however, if I had a dollar for every time I've heard someone advocating science as their basis for life, and what they believe in I'd be a very rich man. They claim science is the answer to all the worlds problems. Some are very dogmatic, others almost fanatical about their belief in the science "GOD".

Here's a brief definition of religion:

Religion has been defined in a wide variety of ways. Most definitions attempt to find a balance somewhere between overly sharp definition and meaningless generalities. Some sources have tried to use formalistic, doctrinal definitions while others have emphasized experiential, emotive, intuitive, valuational and ethical factors.

Sociologists and anthropologists tend to see religion as an abstract set of ideas, values, or experiences developed as part of a cultural matrix. For example, in Lindbeck's Nature of Doctrine, religion does not refer to belief in "God" or a transcendent Absolute. Instead, Lindbeck defines religion as, "a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought… it is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments.”[4] According to this definition, religion refers to one's primary worldview and how this dictates one's thoughts and actions. (Tom I note you have a Degree in Logic. Could it be that your primary world view is based on logic ie. it's your religion? And therefore you struggle with the idea of Faith etc. I know you are a Star Trek fan. Even the Vulcan's grudgingly accept that humans whilst highly illogical do have something going for them with their passions, beliefs, and emotions.)

There is no difference in believing that science has the answers than believing in, as you put it, some supernatural force. Scientists are just as fanatical as the next person. I've seen them turning blue in the face over a THEORY. A proven theory - no, just a theory. Einstein's theory of relativity is still that, a theory. We accept it as fact though today because string theory hasn't got enough disciples yet. No doubt the person who can give the most convincing argument there will become the new scientific messiah of this millenium. Religious texts may not change but they way they are interpreted certainly does.

(My Scientific God has just been shattered I just read that Einsteins theory of relativity is obsolete.) A lot of what science comes up with these days are THEORIES but we blindly say "OK I'll go along with that..." because they are scientists. Yet I can come up with a theory and be laughed out of my own house. What's the difference. Do numbers, degrees, and fellowships make them anymore or less credible than Saint Maria Francis Qui Gon Kenobi?

I think the bottom line is that we live in a changing world. Both science and religious beliefs will change and evolve whether we like it or not. One of my favourite quotes comes from the Matrix where Morpheus is on the mat before Commander Loch over his religious beliefs:

Loch: Dammit Morpheus not everyone believes what you do!

Morpheus: My beliefs do not require them to.

My goodness I'm talking around in circles I think I just disappeared up my own bum. It's ok though the string theory is hanging out I'll just pull on that and I'll be right.

Mung beans mortals!

G

Rhabbi

08-29-2007, 05:57 PM

Wolfscout and tessa, such wonderful points, thank you.

Tom,

I am sorry to jump on the bandwagon here but it sounds like the scientist is making the same assumptions and jumping to conclusions that SOME of the Christian right is. I know many religious people who are intelligent and tolerant of all beliefs. And they do not condemn me for mine.

And how is it different to say "Evolution does not exist because it isn't in the Bible." as to say, "How can Supernatural events take place when it is not in this Chemistry book, or physics Book, or whatever"

Faith is important to everybody. And I would say tolerance is important to the world and universe as a whole.

Well said John.

Tom, the problem you have is not that religion is talking about God and the supernatural, but that these views conflict with your faith. (I am using the second most common definition of faith here, ie. Belief in something not based on proof.) If you did not believe in the supernatural being non existent without a shred of proof to back up this belief, it would be a lot easier for you to let people who do believe in it walk in their ignorance.

I personally do not believe in ghosts, and have watched documentaries that claim to offer proof. If someone actually asks me for my opinion, I will tell them that ghosts have always been proved to be something explainable when investigated by a group of scientists and magicians, yet I do not feel a need to shove this view down peoples throat, because I can also acknowledge the possibility that I am wrong.

This is the true scientific approach to a problem. I am willing to investigate what I believe and what I do not believe, and am willing to admit I do not have all the answers. There are things I know also.

Earlier you used the example of gravity in trying to poke holes in someones argument about having an open mind. I ignored this because I was sure that you knew that your argument was not a valid one. Gravity is a demonstrated fact, not a theory or a hypothesis. There are laws that govern the interaction of gravity on everything in the universe, including the totally massless photon.

Yet on a quantum level, the laws that we live by break down. Conservation of matter and energy do not apply. Gravity does not apply. Even the speed of light is no longer an effective barrier.

Can you tell me that God, if such a being exists, is not capable of interacting with the universe on a quantum level, thus producing things which appear to us to be supernatural? Just a little thought experiment, like Schroedinger's cat. Who is to say that that cat is not both dead and alive until we observe it? Current quantum theory tells us that that subatomic particle actually waits for us to open the box to check on the cat before it decides wehter or not to kill the cat. If anything smacks of the supernatural to me, it is the idea that a subatomic particle makes a decision based on what I do, yet scientific theory backs this up.

Who are we to say that the supernatural does not exist when we do not fully understand the natural?

TomOfSweden

08-29-2007, 10:21 PM

People want something to believe in, and they don't want that something to be constantly changing. People like going to church and singing the same old hymns because it's familiar. It's a type of sanctuary from their hectic lives. They want God to be the same no matter what else is going on.

*smiles* The pope? Is he somebody special?

*wanders off muttering something about the whore of Babylon*

This is two separate issues. One is that we want ever constant traditions and recognisable social patterns. I agree here. The other is just wishful thinking. We all know that the world is rarely the way we want it. Assuming it is because of lack of evidence either way is....children's logic.

TomOfSweden

08-29-2007, 10:30 PM

Why would they attack Sweden? If they attacked Sweden would they have gotten the public support in the middle east that they did? Of course not. And it is our freedoms that allows us to "interfere" in the Middle East.

On that question, exactly what interference is he talking about? The time we went into the Saudi Arabia at the invitation of his family? And then stayed there at the continued request to monitor the satus of Saddam Hussein? And defend them against the threat that he posed?

I suggest you read up on US foreign policy history. I don't think that what Al Qaeda is in any way justified, but I have no problems understanding their motivations. Muslims have no problem with the American way of life, wealth or their freedom. Why should they? It makes no sense.

There's a radio show on the BBC that you can download called "Death to America". It deals with all this. Whether or not US intervention in international politics has been good or bad I think we need another thread for, but the fact that they have intervened is undeniable. People always get pissed off when others intervene. Just human nature.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/documentary_archive/6588603.stm

TomOfSweden

08-29-2007, 10:35 PM

You can make any assumptions you want about people who go to church. But how about instead, you make a hypothesis about them, and then do the research necessary to prove to yourself whether it's true or not? Leave the assumptions to the lesser folks. You're better than that, Tom. That's my researched-based hypothesis being put to good use, hmm? :)

I don't know if all people who go to church reject other religions. I'm sure there are some who do, just like I'm sure there are some who don't. I am a "people who go to Church" person and I fall into the latter category- the non-rejecting kind (just saying in case you didn't care to look up a couple lines of text there).

So basically you call yourself belonging to a religion without denying that it could all be bullshit?

I know there's plenty of practising atheist Jews, so it doesn't seem contradictory to me.

TomOfSweden

08-29-2007, 10:40 PM

This is an interesting point you raise Tom, however, if I had a dollar for every time I've heard someone advocating science as their basis for life, and what they believe in I'd be a very rich man. They claim science is the answer to all the worlds problems. Some are very dogmatic, others almost fanatical about their belief in the science "GOD".

Einstein was proved wrong a long time ago. Actually, he tried to work around the problems of his theories even before he'd published them.

I don't equate being religious with believing in anything supernatural at all. To me it's just a common set of rituals and values. Nothing wrong with that. I think it's very healthy. People who believe in the "super-natural" I call "super-naturalists".

TomOfSweden

08-29-2007, 10:47 PM

As you can see, there is a slight difference between them. Labeling your self as an atheist makes you dishonest, like all atheists. At least people who believe in god are honest about their views. I know of a few agnostics who challenge the views of theists, and their challenges are usually more informed and better thought out than those of atheists, because they are at least open to taking then seriously. Outright rejection of a viewpoint is a bias that is hard to overcome in a debate, something I know from experience the few times I have attempted to debate someone whose views were so skewed that I could not accept them.

As for your question, that would depend entirely on which Christian you asked. I know of quite a few Christians with a liberal viewpoint that would have no serious problem with that premise. If you do not believe me, just go look at those who want to point out all the similarities between all the worlds religions. The ones who would tell you that just because Jesus said that no one comes to the Father except through him, that does not mean that people who believe in Muhhommad will not get to heaven. After all, they worship the same God.

Ok, so my assumption was wrong. That's good. I explained the reason why I don't chose to call myself agnostic even though I don't deny the supernatural. The definitions of atheist and agnostic goes a lot deeper than that and they're both huge families of various faiths. And they also float in and out of each other. Just like there's huge families of various Christian faiths and their view on the super-natural apparently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic

Sir_G

08-29-2007, 10:58 PM

Yet on a quantum level, the laws that we live by break down. Conservation of matter and energy do not apply. Gravity does not apply. Even the speed of light is no longer an effective barrier.

Can you tell me that God, if such a being exists, is not capable of interacting with the universe on a quantum level, thus producing things which appear to us to be supernatural? Just a little thought experiment, like Schroedinger's cat. Who is to say that that cat is not both dead and alive until we observe it? Current quantum theory tells us that that subatomic particle actually waits for us to open the box to check on the cat before it decides wehter or not to kill the cat. If anything smacks of the supernatural to me, it is the idea that a subatomic particle makes a decision based on what I do, yet scientific theory backs this up.

Who are we to say that the supernatural does not exist when we do not fully understand the natural?

This is fascinating stuff Rhabbi and from what little I know about the Heisenburg principle it sounds very much like it.

From memory he says that as you say subatomic particles can only act in one of two ways and will react the way the observer expects them to act. The same particle will then act in the other way when observed again with the second expectation of the observer.

The other slightly supernatural thing that Heisenburg principle espouses is that if you are looking for results at a subatomic level you will find them where you expect to. Some one else on the other hand may find them else where.

I have to admit I find the area where science and the supernatural meet fascinating and from my point of view the two are not mutually exclusive but go hand in hand and prove the existence of each other.

Books that people may be interested in reading are "Supernature" by Lyall Watson, "The Romeo Error" by the same author. And of course the "Tao of Physics" by Capra.

TomOfSweden

08-29-2007, 10:58 PM

Rhabbi

08-30-2007, 08:15 AM

For those who have trouble believing that men of faith can be scientists. I received this from a Christian Group I am a member of.

DID YOU hear about the religious fundamentalist who wanted to teach physics at Cambridge University? This would-be instructor wasn't simply a Christian; he was so preoccupied with biblical prophecy that he wrote a book titled "Observations on the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John." Based on his reading of Daniel, in fact, he forecast the date of the Apocalypse: no earlier than 2060. He also calculated the year the world was created. When Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning," he determined, it means 3988 BC.

Not many modern universities are prepared to employ a science professor who espouses not merely "intelligent design" but out-and-out divine creation. This applicant's writings on astronomy, for example, include these thoughts on the solar system: "This most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and domination of an intelligent and powerful Being . . . He governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done."

Hire somebody with such views to teach physics? At a Baptist junior college deep in the Bible Belt, maybe, but the faculty would erupt if you tried it just about anywhere else. Many of them would echo Oxford's Richard Dawkins, the prominent evolutionary biologist, who writes in "The God Delusion" that he is "hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise. . . . It subverts science and saps the intellect."

Equally blunt is Sam Harris, a PhD candidate in neuroscience and another unsparing foe of religion. "The conflict between religion and science is inherent and (very nearly) zero-sum," he has written. "The success of science often comes at the expense of religious dogma; the maintenance of religious dogma always comes at the expense of science." Less elegant but more influential, the National Science Education Standards issued by the National Academy of Sciences in 1995 classified religion with "myths," "mystical inspiration," and "superstition" -- all of them quite incompatible with scientific study. Michael Dini, a biologist at Texas Tech University in Lubbock, made headlines in 2003 over his policy of denying letters of recommendation for any graduate student who could not "truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer" to the question of mankind's origin. Science and religion, he said in an interview at the time, "shouldn't overlap."

But such considerations didn't keep Cambridge from hiring the theology- and Bible-drenched individual described above. Indeed, it named him to the prestigious Lucasian Chair of Mathematics -- in 1668. A good thing too, since Isaac Newton -- notwithstanding his religious fervor and intense interest in Biblical interpretation -- went on to become the most renowned scientist of his age, and arguably the most influential in history.

Newton's consuming interest in theology, eschatology, and the secrets of the Bible is the subject of a new exhibit at Hebrew University in Jerusalem (online at jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/mss/Newton). His vast religious output -- an estimated 3 million words -- ranged from the dimensions of Solomon's Temple to a method of reckoning the date of Easter to the elucidation of Biblical symbols. "Newton was one of the last great Renaissance men," the curators observe, "a thinker who worked in mathematics, physics, optics, alchemy, history, theology, and the interpretation of prophecy and saw connections between them all." The 21st-century prejudice that religion invariably "subverts science" is refuted by the extraordinary figure who managed to discover the composition of light, deduce the laws of motion, invent calculus, compute the speed of sound, and define universal gravitation, all while believing deeply in the "domination of an intelligent and powerful Being." Far from subverting his scientific integrity, the exhibition notes, "Newton's piety served as one of his inspirations to study nature and what we today call science."

For Newton, it was axiomatic that religious inquiry and scientific investigation complemented each other. There were truths to be found in both of the "books" authored by God, the Book of Scripture and the Book of Nature -- or as Francis Bacon called them, the "book of God's word" and the "book of God's works." To study the world empirically did not mean abandoning religious faith. On the contrary: The more deeply the workings of Creation were understood, the closer one might come to the Creator. In the language of the 19th Psalm, "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork."

To be sure, religious dogma can be a blindfold, blocking truths from those who refuse to see them. Scientific dogma can have the same effect. Neither faith nor reason can answer every question. As Newton knew, the surer path to wisdom is the one that has room for both.

By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | July 22, 2007
http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/07/22/a_teacher_with_faith_and_reason?mode=PF

Isn't it interesting that the same people who would point to the conflict between faith and science would hold Newton up as a great scientist?

Rhabbi

08-30-2007, 08:18 AM

Ok, so my assumption was wrong. That's good. I explained the reason why I don't chose to call myself agnostic even though I don't deny the supernatural. The definitions of atheist and agnostic goes a lot deeper than that and they're both huge families of various faiths. And they also float in and out of each other. Just like there's huge families of various Christian faiths and their view on the super-natural apparently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic

The only overlap between an atheist and an agnostic comes because the atheist does not believe what he says. I have often said that I never met an honest atheist, and I still hold to that. There is no way you can prove there is no God, because it is impossible to prove a negative. If you are honest you have to call yourself agnostic.

TomOfSweden

08-30-2007, 08:28 AM

For those who have trouble believing that men of faith can be scientists. I received this from a Christian Group I am a member of.

By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | July 22, 2007
http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/07/22/a_teacher_with_faith_and_reason?mode=PF

Isn't it interesting that the same people who would point to the conflict between faith and science would hold Newton up as a great scientist?

1) Physics is not a very controversial subject any longer. The pope bent over and took it in the ass a looooong time ago.

2) Maybe he is a great teacher and has understood to keep his personal convictions separate from actually doing his job.

3) When Newton was alive the evolution of science was at a radically different place. It was way before Shopenhaur, Nietzsche and Thomas Khun. In the age of Newton a supernatural god was still the scientifically best way to explain the nature of the world. Science evolves.

4) Maybe it's not true. It sounds a bit strange that a guy with those kinds of beliefs could be hired to a position like that. Being a fundamentalist of any sort should discount him from any kind of scholarly position anywhere. I'm guessing the journalist had a go at creativity.

Rhabbi

08-30-2007, 08:29 AM

This is fascinating stuff Rhabbi and from what little I know about the Heisenburg principle it sounds very much like it.

From memory he says that as you say subatomic particles can only act in one of two ways and will react the way the observer expects them to act. The same particle will then act in the other way when observed again with the second expectation of the observer.

The other slightly supernatural thing that Heisenburg principle espouses is that if you are looking for results at a subatomic level you will find them where you expect to. Some one else on the other hand may find them else where.

I have to admit I find the area where science and the supernatural meet fascinating and from my point of view the two are not mutually exclusive but go hand in hand and prove the existence of each other.

Books that people may be interested in reading are "Supernature" by Lyall Watson, "The Romeo Error" by the same author. And of course the "Tao of Physics" by Capra.

Yes, not only does the observer affect the experiment, he actually determines the outcome of it.

The theory is that a single photon will actually pass through two holes in a paper, thus producing an interference pattern with it self when passing through a prism. Although this sounds totally impossible to us who have learned to think in the macro physicists are actively pursuing ways to make this happen. The biggest problem is that if anyone actually observes the experiment the photon will always choose to go through one hole or the other. This means that the physicists actually have to determine how to observe this phenomenon without actually observing it, thus circumventing Heisenberg and his uncertainty principle.

Rhabbi

08-30-2007, 08:44 AM

1) Physics is not a very controversial subject any longer. The pope bent over and took it in the ass a looooong time ago.

Physics not controversial? You must look at different science magazines than I do. Quantum physics is so far fetched that even Hawking does not understand it all.

2) Maybe he is a great teacher and has understood to keep his personal convictions separate from actually doing his job.

Or maybe he did not see the conflict. to a man of faith a study of creation in all its complexity only strengthens that faith.

3) When Newton was alive the evolution of science was at a radically different place. It was way before Shopenhaur, Nietzsche and Thomas Khun. In the age of Newton a supernatural god was still the scientifically best way to explain the nature of the world. Science evolves.

True, and perhaps it will again swing to the understanding that God is the best explanation.

4) Maybe it's not true. It sounds a bit strange that a guy with those kinds of beliefs could be hired to a position like that. Being a fundamentalist of any sort should discount him from any kind of scholarly position anywhere. I'm guessing the journalist had a go at creativity.

Actually Newton's theological writings are widely available to anyone who cares to look for them. But maybe they were all planted to try to discredit him by rival scientists. :)

Here is an exerpt from Newton's biography from the Oxford Encyclopedia of the Enlightenment (2002)

Theology

The need for a thorough reformation in Christianity was also an abiding feature of Newton’s thought. That Newton looked forward to a reformation instead of back to that of Protestantism signals his distance from the majority of his religious contemporaries. But for a man who saw the Trinity—and much else besides—as a blight on the Church, the view was a natural one. The more than half century Newton devoted to the study of theology was motivated by a desire to recover primitive Christianity from such corruptions. This project formed part of his commitment to the tradition of the prisca sapientia, the Renaissance idea that the ancients had possessed true knowledge about God and the world. In order to retrieve pure doctrine, Newton carried out an immense historical survey of Jewish and Christian theology. His research traced the rise of idolatry and monkery, along with the doctrinal damage done by Athanasius and his followers. A massive 425-page ecclesiastical history entitled “Of the Church” was but one product of these efforts. Surviving extensive notes and ink sketches show that he also sifted through biblical and Talmudic sources in order to reconstruct the plan of the Jerusalem Temple. Not only did he believe that the Temple and its ritual provided a backdrop to the visions of Revelation, but he also saw it, along with certain other ancient temples, as a model of the heliocentric solar system—knowledge of which the ancients had subsequently lost.

Newton discovered in the Scriptures that the Father alone is the One True God of Israel. Jesus Christ, preexistent and miraculously born, was God’s literal Son but not “very God of very God” in the Trinitarian sense. Although Newton’s Christ is not to be worshipped directly or invoked in prayer, he still occupies an elevated position, both through the atonement wrought by his shed blood and his powerful apocalyptic role at the end of time. Newton had nothing but disdain for the monks and Trinitarian “homoousians”who corrupted this pure doctrine with metaphysics and doctrinally novel terms. These same agents of false doctrine introduced the unbiblical notion of the immortality of the soul to unpin Catholic saint worship. Eternal life, Newton believed, is granted only after resurrection. Even the orthodox teaching on the Devil and demons did not stand before Newton’s reformation. Evil spirits came to represent distempers of the mind and the Devil a symbol for human lust. These latter ideas do not derive from some putative incipient rationalism, but likely from the logic of his belief in a God of dominion Whose sovereignty does not allow the existence of lesser deities, and possibly from his reading of analogous ideas in ancient rabbinic thought and contemporary accounts of idolatry.

All of these researches were carried out in private. Quite apart from the attendant social stigmatization, denial of the Trinity was a punishable offence throughout Newton’s lifetime. Newton in any case believed that the higher truths of religion were not fit for the masses. Theological knowledge was divided into “milk for babes” and “meat for elders”, and he put in the latter class an elite remnant class who alone were able to understand the deeper meanings of faith. And thus he revealed his heresy only to an inner circle of similarly-minded friends. One such adept was John Locke, himself a biblical scholar, with whom Newton discussed matters of theology through the 1690s and to whom he sent a treatise of antitrinitarian textual criticism to be published anonymously on the Continent (Newton suppressed it at the last minute for fear of exposure). Powerfully impressed by Newton’s theological acumen, Locke described him as “a very valuable man not onely for his wonderful skill in Mathematicks but in divinity too and his great knowledg in the Scriptures where in I know few his equals.” Newton’s religious outlook resembled contemporary Non-Conformity and shows strong doctrinal analogies with Judaism, pre-Nicene Christianity and contemporary biblicist antitrinitarian movements such as the Socinians.

Prophetic beliefs

Newton wrote his first large prophetic treatises in the 1670s and continued to study biblical prophecy until the end of his days. He sought to uncover the meaning of the various symbols of the Books of Daniel and Revelation, along with their fulfilments in history past and future. His hermeneutics tended to the literal and his eschatology was strongly premillenarian. He believed in the return of Christ, the restoration of the Jews to Israel, the rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple and the coming Kingdom of God on earth—for which Newton believed one should pray every day. Such was the passion of his prophetic faith that any attempts to portray Newton as some sort of proto-deist are doomed to failure. For Newton the exact accomplishment of prophecy formed one of the most powerful arguments for a deity. On the other hand, Newton was unhappy with those who set prophetic dates and thereby brought discredit on Christianity when they failed. This did not stop Newton himself from making prophetic calculations, from which his own dates can be extrapolated. These show that he put the parousia off well beyond his own lifetime to the nineteenth or twentieth centuries at the earliest. Newton also believed that the final reformation of Christianity would not happen until around this time, a realization that likely reinforced his Nicodemism. Newton saw in prophetic hermeneutics one of the greatest intellectual challenges. For him, the interpretation of prophecy and the correct identification of the seducing power of Antichrist was seen as “no idle speculation, no matter of indifferency but a duty of the greatest moment.”

As you can see, not exactly a friend of the Roman Catholic Church or the Protestant Reformation.

TomOfSweden

08-30-2007, 09:03 AM

The only overlap between an atheist and an agnostic comes because the atheist does not believe what he says. I have often said that I never met an honest atheist, and I still hold to that. There is no way you can prove there is no God, because it is impossible to prove a negative. If you are honest you have to call yourself agnostic.

Well that's your opinion. In logic that's actually called argument from ignorance. It's a logical fallacy and I'd be happy to prove it for you if you don't believe me.

The whole problem with the philosophies regarding religion is that they all spring from a basis where they define their position in relation to existing religious beliefs. It quickly becomes polarised. Polarisation can only occur if there are two sides. I deny this is the case.

Apatheism, which I sort myself under, does strictly speaking count as both atheism and agnosticism. It's also known as practical atheism/agnosticism. It's the belief that we should work with what evidence we've got.

Since no supernatural religion has any verifiable proof to relate to, we're still at square one. We can only talk about the merits of the Christian theory of supernatural if we somehow can distinguish it from the Greek Pantheon, Norse myths or any other fantasy theory I just made up now. If we can't, then what's the point? Based on what we have to work with we still have no reason to treat the Christian view of the world as anything but fantasy.

That's why I call myself Atheist. I don't deny that the Christians could be right, but we haven't reached a point where we've got reason to even consider any of it, have we?

The Christian says, "I believe I'll go to heaven"
The Atheist says, "...and this belief is based on what?"
...and so it goes.

If we're to have a theological discussion, we need something to work with, don't we? Something we know is true. A starting point. Since its inception Christian theology is still only at a "what-if" stage. It's a pretty futile project. What if my cock really is a rocket and will go into space when I die? The reaction from anybody is at best a smile. But nobody will take it seriously until they see it happen, will they? Just like with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. This is still where Christianity is at today.

I understand that a Christian community can be a great and supportive and give lots of comfort and fill many social needs. It can provide a great framework for living ones life. The commandments include all the basic human values we share. Those are great to stick to. Why not just keep it at that? Why cling to ancient theories we should have moved on from long ago? What possible good can it do?

TomOfSweden

08-30-2007, 09:15 AM

Actually Newton's theological writings are widely available to anyone who cares to look for them. But maybe they were all planted to try to discredit him by rival scientists. :)

Here is an exerpt from Newton's biography from the Oxford Encyclopedia of the Enlightenment (2002)

I don't deny that Newton was both Christian and a great scientist. I'm not sure what it is you're misunderstanding. If there's two doors to chose from, I'll do all the research I can before picking one. But if there really is a third door that I didn't see because science hadn't reached that point yet, then I don't include it in my research, even though all scientists after it will.

We had a similar discussion about Darwin in the Creationism debate. When Darwin wrote his theory it was still just a theory and very badly supported by evidence. When Einstein wrote his theory of relativity it was completely and utterly devoid of any proof. But later, both these theories where corroborated by experiments.

Newton made loads of research into the Bible. Numerology if I remember correctly. None of that has yet to be corroborated. I don't doubt for a second it was serious research. His religious theories haven't reached a point where there's any point in taking them seriously. Maybe at some point in the future we'll see some. But until then there's no point in believing in the Christian god is there?

TomOfSweden

08-30-2007, 09:31 AM

Aw....shit. For somebody who'd badly over worked and with no time what so ever to spare. I frequent this site a lot. Stressssssss.

I'm trying to keep myself away from this place but it's very very hard.

tessa

08-30-2007, 10:07 AM

My goodness I'm talking around in circles I think I just disappeared up my own bum. It's ok though the string theory is hanging out I'll just pull on that and I'll be right.

Mung beans mortals!

G

I appreciated all of your post, Sir G, but this part- priceless.

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden
Here's a serious question. I've made an assumption of people who go to Church. I've made an assumption that they reject other religions. I've made an assumption that Christians deny that the Satanists may be right. Is that the case?
You seriously asked and I seriously answered. Then you replied with...

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden
So basically you call yourself belonging to a religion without denying that it could all be bullshit?
Due to the phrasing, I'm not sure I correctly comprehend what you are asking here, so I will refrain from answering this question from you. However, I do know that I wouldn't include in my reply the comparison of anything with "bullshit", as I'm pretty sure it would be going against Forum rules to do so.

Originally by TomOfSweden
If we're to have a theological discussion, we need something to work with, don't we? Something we know is true.
What is true? How do we know it's true? Because it's been proven in a scientific manner? Anything can be "proven" scientifically given the right (wrong?) conditions. Because we see it with our own two eyes? Seeing is most definitively not believing. Ask the eye-witnesses to a crime what the bad guy was wearing and you'll get as many different answers as there are colors in the rainbow. Because our faith allows us to believe in it? Well, that's not one you particularly care to ponder, so I move on. Because it's what we perceive as true? Self-peception of what's true is as close as we mortals will get to it, in my opinion.

Or perhaps what's "true" is spoken as such because someone with too many letters after their name calls it a "proven theory"- what an oxymoron. Again, in my opinion. :)

Speaking of those type morons (will she, won't she?...will she, won't she?), here's another one for you from Tennyson's Idylls of the King:

"And faith unfaithful kept him falsely true."

It's a thought.

Rhabbi

08-30-2007, 10:07 AM

Apatheism, which I sort myself under, does strictly speaking count as both atheism and agnosticism. It's also known as practical atheism/agnosticism. It's the belief that we should work with what evidence we've got.

Tom, if you were truly an apatheist, we would not be having this discussion, because you would not care what I believed.

an apatheist is someone who considers the question of the existence of God as neither meaningful nor relevant to human affairs.

If this was truly your belief system you would simply let me believe what ever I wanted, and refuse to discuss it because it is totally irrelevant. I feel this way about some things, and I let people talk about them without any input from me.

All those people who believe in a massive conspiracy behind the JFK assassination are totally free to believe whatever they want. I do not even discuss it with them because I know their views have absolutely no impact on my life or society in general. That is the approach you would take if you truly believed what you claimed to believe, but because my faith actually conflicts with yours, whatever it actually is, you feel the need to argue your point of view. Just something to think about.

tessa

08-30-2007, 10:13 AM

I'm trying to keep myself away from this place but it's very very hard.

What's hard? Oh, please be what I'm thinking! If so, got any pictures of that???

:icon176:

I jest. ~looks at Red laughing at me~ Seriously, I do!

Sorry you're overworked. Better than being underworked, right?

:wave:

TomOfSweden

08-30-2007, 10:20 AM

Tom, if you were truly an apatheist, we would not be having this discussion, because you would not care what I believed.

If this was truly your belief system you would simply let me believe what ever I wanted, and refuse to discuss it because it is totally irrelevant. I feel this way about some things, and I let people talk about them without any input from me.

All those people who believe in a massive conspiracy behind the JFK assassination are totally free to believe whatever they want. I do not even discuss it with them because I know their views have absolutely no impact on my life or society in general. That is the approach you would take if you truly believed what you claimed to believe, but because my faith actually conflicts with yours, whatever it actually is, you feel the need to argue your point of view. Just something to think about.

There's plenty of sub categories of Apatheism. Aparently I care enough to have this discussion, don't I? As I said, these definitions have all evolved in relation to Christianity and that's why they have the wording they do.

My interpretation is that I don't give any credibility to theories which are indistinguishable from fantasy. I don't care about them if you will. If a Christian says that they'll go to heaven when they die but refuse to show any evidence for it that I can in any way corroborate....well...then there's not much to have a discussion about. The Christian in this case has based a decision on faulty reasoning derived from incomplete evidence.

Rhabbi

08-30-2007, 10:36 AM

There's plenty of sub categories of Apatheism. Aparently I care enough to have this discussion, don't I? As I said, these definitions have all evolved in relation to Christianity and that's why they have the wording they do.

My interpretation is that I don't give any credibility to theories which are indistinguishable from fantasy. I don't care about them if you will. If a Christian says that they'll go to heaven when they die but refuse to show any evidence for it that I can in any way corroborate....well...then there's not much to have a discussion about. The Christian in this case has based a decision on faulty reasoning derived from incomplete evidence.

The thing is Tom, not all Christians claim they will go to heaven. I personally have no idea who, if anyone, will go to heaven. that is not my decision. I am not in management, just customer service.

You really know very little about the beliefs of Christians, or you would not have made some of the comments you have made. What you keep focusing on are the opinions of a few of the radical right wing of the Christian groups, those who are willing to compromise their stated beliefs to support anyone who pays lip service to their hot button issues. Why you would think that I would base my faith on the thoughts of a bunch of hypocrites is beyond me.

Sir_G

08-30-2007, 07:18 PM

This thread has kept me entertained and thanks to Rhabbi much more enlightened on physics that school ever did. I'm outa my depth now so I'll just tread water and watch for more developments.

Treading water and laughing is more difficult than I *blub* thought. Thank the floating theory in the sky I had that string cause I know I cant breath through my arse.

Flaming_Redhead

08-30-2007, 07:36 PM

What's hard? Oh, please be what I'm thinking! If so, got any pictures of that???

:icon176:

I jest. ~looks at Red laughing at me~ Seriously, I do!

Uh-huh. *nods knowingly* I believe you.

*whispers* How did you know I was hanging around to see it, too?

John56{vg}

08-30-2007, 08:27 PM

You really know very little about the beliefs of Christians, or you would not have made some of the comments you have made. What you keep focusing on are the opinions of a few of the radical right wing of the Christian groups, those who are willing to compromise their stated beliefs to support anyone who pays lip service to their hot button issues. Why you would think that I would base my faith on the thoughts of a bunch of hypocrites is beyond me.

Good point Rhabbi.

I think there are just as many ignorant atheists and scientists as there are ignorant fundamentalist CHristians.

Ignorance is what the root word says, ignoring the senses and discoveries. I belive wholeheartedly in the Theory of evolution, becasue it makes sense and we can see it in operation all around us. And it doesn not preclude the operation of a supreme being, IMHO. It is still magical and amzing and wondrous as a lot of things in nature and the universe.

Atheists and some scientists ignore the operation of this magical force. The chemistry of attraction, The miracle and magic of birth, the prayer that is intuition. And I have had several events in my life that I cannot explain. I choose to belive they are messages from a supernatural force. But just like the Fundamentalist Christian closes his or her eyes to the meesages that say evoluytion is very real, the atheist closes his or her eyes to the very real possibility theat there are forces greater than we are, that are Super-natural.

Again, my humble opinion.

TomOfSweden

08-30-2007, 10:03 PM

The thing is Tom, not all Christians claim they will go to heaven. I personally have no idea who, if anyone, will go to heaven. that is not my decision. I am not in management, just customer service.

You really know very little about the beliefs of Christians, or you would not have made some of the comments you have made. What you keep focusing on are the opinions of a few of the radical right wing of the Christian groups, those who are willing to compromise their stated beliefs to support anyone who pays lip service to their hot button issues. Why you would think that I would base my faith on the thoughts of a bunch of hypocrites is beyond me.

Well, that shut me up. As usual most people react to and base our opinions on the most extreme cases. As do I aparently, no matter how much I think I don't. Touche. But I've had discussions earlier where Christians here, that have said that they do believe they will go to heaven when they die, so I don't think it's confined to the extreme right wing. But you've made it aparent that it doesn't aply to you. Soooo.....erm...yeah. You win.

It's wonderful to have one of these moments where the world is a little bit more beautiful than you had imagined just a moment ago. Even though Rabbit isn't with us any longer.

Rhabbi

08-31-2007, 08:45 AM

Well, that shut me up. As usual most people react to and base our opinions on the most extreme cases. As do I aparently, no matter how much I think I don't. Touche. But I've had discussions earlier where Christians here, that have said that they do believe they will go to heaven when they die, so I don't think it's confined to the extreme right wing. But you've made it aparent that it doesn't aply to you. Soooo.....erm...yeah. You win.

It's wonderful to have one of these moments where the world is a little bit more beautiful than you had imagined just a moment ago. Even though Rabbit isn't with us any longer.

Tom, I bow to your graciousness here. The world is a marvelous place if we go out and look at it, even the parts that we think we do not like. And, like you, I wish Rabbit was here to share this wonder with us.

As for Christians believing they will go to heaven, most believe that because that is what they have been taught, not because that is what the Bible says. If asked they will be unable to site verses that support their belief because most of them tend to only believe what they here from the pulpit, and not study the bible enough to know what it really says.

thrall

08-31-2007, 03:20 PM

It took you both long enough to hash this all out!!!!!..........lol

Please refer back to post #29 in this thread..............*wink*

hugs and kisses all round........

TomOfSweden

09-01-2007, 12:16 AM

It took you both long enough to hash this all out!!!!!..........lol

Please refer back to post #29 in this thread..............*wink*

hugs and kisses all round........

Yeah, but don't you think there's a value in having that opinion challenged and tested? I for one have become all the wiser from this thread because of it.

TomOfSweden

09-01-2007, 02:38 AM

What is true? How do we know it's true? Because it's been proven in a scientific manner? Anything can be "proven" scientifically given the right (wrong?) conditions. Because we see it with our own two eyes? Seeing is most definitively not believing. Ask the eye-witnesses to a crime what the bad guy was wearing and you'll get as many different answers as there are colors in the rainbow. Because our faith allows us to believe in it? Well, that's not one you particularly care to ponder, so I move on. Because it's what we perceive as true? Self-peception of what's true is as close as we mortals will get to it, in my opinion.

Or perhaps what's "true" is spoken as such because someone with too many letters after their name calls it a "proven theory"- what an oxymoron. Again, in my opinion. :)

Speaking of those type morons (will she, won't she?...will she, won't she?), here's another one for you from Tennyson's Idylls of the King:

"And faith unfaithful kept him falsely true."

It's a thought.

So I finally had a quite moment to sit and ponder this thread. I'm sorry my answers have been a bit rushed here. I really shouldn't have even tried coming here earlier this week, but the library is such a addictive place.

Ok, truth. All methods of finding the truth aren't equally as good. When people say that science can't find all the answers and that just because nobody can fit god into a beaker doesn't invalidate it.

A major problem in science is that you often don't know what you're looking for until you've allready found it. People seldom find what they hoped they would. And often they think they find it and then 150 years later somebody turns the model the right way up. As they did with the now extinct creature Hallicinogensis.

Isn't the plain and painful truth is that we have no better method than science? We can't trust our senses or common sense. We can't trust our feelings either.

A problem that religious research faces is off-course that it's impossible for anybody to verify. So the Bible says that god and the angels communicates with to people. What is that based on? How do we know that the people who had these visions weren't just plain crazy or hallucinated? What I don't understand is under these circumstances anybody can take the leap of faith? I can understand if somebody wonders about freaky shit they've seen and can't explain. But that's all it is. Things that can't be explained. To extrapolate from this the extremely complex system of belief that Christianity is, is extremely far fetched.

I understand that we like seeing meaning in things happening. We all have the compulsion to create narratives for everything happening around us. So we like to be able to explain things. But that doesn't mean we really can.

If I hear my now dead grandmothers voice calling out to me in my head and telling me stuff I can from that draw very little conclusions This has actually happened to me.

It may indicate that somehow her spirit survived and is floating around and is trying to tell me things. Maybe. It may also be that she's become an angel and is communicating with me from heaven. Maybe. It may also be that she was reincarnated as a fly on the wall and because of our close connection she can somehow communicate with me. Maybe. She may have entered a dimensional rift and can speak to me through a rip in the space time continuum. Maybe. It may not be a supernatural occurrence at all. Maybe.

There really is no point for me to try to come up with my own scientific theory for how this happend since I'm not half as good at neuro science or psychology to come up with an explanation. I haven't asked any religious authority figure about it, but I doubt they could say anything convincing. How did they come to their insights? How do they know that what they're saying is the truth? My point is that I don't see any fault in admitting that I don't know. And I'm also totally open to the fact that it could be a third possibility, and whole paradigm of thought that hasn't sprung into existence yet.

The major problem with all the religions is that there's really no reason to believe any of their theories. And if there's no reason to adapt a theory then why do it? If it's only guesswork then why? Why have faith in something when it is blind faith?

Guest 91108

09-01-2007, 03:23 AM

TomOfSweden

09-01-2007, 03:56 AM

Christianity has so many flaws, I won't touch that part. However.. step outside the concept of organised religion and go into true individual spirituality and you will know what the truth is..
Stop being so concerned with what can be proven. and think from within.

science is like the media.. it gets it's own spin conjured up for it's own reasons. Just ask the pharmacuetical companies.

I don't get it. Why would we reach a better understanding of truth by turning to our own individual spirituality? I wouldn't for a second assume that I have the knowledge required to evaluate all the freaky and unexplained stuff appearing in my head and happening around me. I think that's pretty arrogant.

I don't think for a second that you think that evidence isn't necessary. We don't believe anything without proof. The question is where we put the bar for when the evidence is enough and how we draw conclusions. If I hear the voice of my dead grandmother. That is proof to me that I hear the voice. Whether or not you take that as evidence of a specific supernatural entity is another matter.

If you hear the voice of god in your head and you believe it really was god, then that is sufficient proof for you. The problem arises that if we would explain it with you hallucinating, which is backed up by the same amount of evidence then the evidence is 1-1, which shouldn't be enough to draw any conclusion. And that's just using one other explanation. If we start mixing in other religions or other forms of sound mix ups, (like it was a voice from the TV) it quickly becomes messy.

Just the fact that a thought/feeling pops up in our head is evidence that the thought exists, has relevance and we will evaluate it, whether or not you chose to use that terminology. If you go into a room and "vibe it in" you are doing research and you are comparing and evaluating evidence. It's just not scientific research. Even though I don't disregard research done in this fashion I don't value it as highly as methodical research. Do you?

I don't dispute for a second that science has a tendency to get carried away with its findings and over dramatize projected results. Global warming anyone? But that still isn't a case against science. As I've said earlier, just because science can't explain something doesn't give any added credibility to any other form of explanation.

Guest 91108

09-01-2007, 05:14 AM

ToS, .. the fact that you don't get it is exactly why you keep these discussions going.

and Yes, Turning inward and using intuitive knowledge is enough for me to decide truth on. And it's not that it can just be used with spiritality.. that's just what I posted in first post.
Intuitively feeling a person from their words and so forth and going from there has proven to be correct as well in deciding things on others.

TomOfSweden

09-01-2007, 05:38 AM

ToS, .. the fact that you don't get it is exactly why you keep these discussions going.

and Yes, Turning inward and using intuitive knowledge is enough for me to decide truth on.

Just to avoid confusion. I'm still only talking about supernatural explanations to phenomena. I'm not discussing ethics or emotional states.

I think it's the other way around. By turning inward and going with intuition you're making complex issues simple, which gets you further away from the truth. It may look like truth on the surface but isn't once you go digging.

The limit is always our own understanding. We'll never enter in theories that we've never heard of and theories we don't understand. I think it's impossible to leave intuition completely out of the decision making processes, but I do think it should be kept to a absolute minimum.

By turning inward in the way you suggest, I think your real goal is to find an answer that quells the searching your soul is doing. It has nothing to do with finding truth. If you've reached an answer that you are happy with, it only means just that. That you are happy.

Just like Red was saying. People might turn to the Bible because it is a constant in an ever changing world. It is constant because it is a gross simplification. It makes claims and assumptions it has no basis for doing. The fact that it is easy to understand doesn't add to the correctness. Even though it has plenty of answers I'm very doubtful any of them is the "truth".

Alex Bragi

09-01-2007, 05:40 AM

TomOfSweden

09-01-2007, 06:07 AM

A legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
- Albert Einstein

"Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish…We need each other to be what we must be, what we are called to be."
- Pope John Paul II

Isn't interesting that the greats of science and religion should think so alike?

Considering all the other stuff Wojtyla said and did during his reign, I wouldn't call him a big fan of science. He's probably the most scientifically inclined pope we've had yet, but I'm not taking him off my list of religious loons just yet.

....and what Einstein meant by that is up for interpretation. I'm not so sure myself. He wasn't especially religious himself.

tessa

09-01-2007, 06:54 AM

How do they know that what they're saying is the truth?
They don't. It's called faith. And you have it just like I do, Tom. It's why you got married. Faith, hope and love...

My point is that I don't see any fault in admitting that I don't know. And I'm also totally open to the fact that it could be a third possibility, and whole paradigm of thought that hasn't sprung into existence yet.
And this is why I read what you have to say and learn something from it. And it's why I respect you a pretty good little bit, Mr. Tom. :)

Christianity has so many flaws, I won't touch that part.
Add the word "organized" in front of that (as Wolfscout did), and I'm in complete agreement. But one's own personal spirituality, yeah, that's where one needs to look for truth. Way to say that, Wolfie. :)

Isn't interesting that the greats of science and religion should think so alike?
Alex Bragi is brilliant!...she said for the umpteenth time. I should just make a sign...walk around with it and flash it as necessary.

Fabulous discussion/debate, people. Thanks for the learning!

tessa :wave:

ps. Still laughing over Sir G's "string theory". :D

thrall

09-01-2007, 08:12 AM

Yeah, but don't you think there's a value in having that opinion challenged and tested? I for one have become all the wiser from this thread because of it.

Hi Tom

I agree with you that the ability to have a civilized debate is a wonderful thing. It is how humanity will survive. To be able to have a conversation about things controversial is essential to understanding the world at large.

But you must understand that on some subjects, there will be no resolution only personal opinion. Religion and or spirituality is one of those topics. People believe what they believe. There is no right or wrong answer, there is no one way, there is however……… only personal opinion.

Religion, spirituality, or lack there of, is a matter of what people believe. Right or wrong, evidence or lack there of, means nothing…………it is about personal beliefs.

Think about this……religion/spirituality are like emotions. There is no hard evidence of emotions, but they exist for each of us as individuals. I feel what I feel, but cannot feel what someone else is experiencing……….LOL

In debates such as this, where the conversation continues in a circle……the answer to the conundrum is…………to agree to disagree.

For what it's worth, Tom, I am a hard science girl myself and always have been. I want the answers in my hand with scientific evidence to back it all up.

That being said…….I still wrote Clusters and believe in it……….LOL……….

In debates such as this you must be able to state your own opinion and also be willing to except that there may be another opinion/explanation other that your own. You must be wiling to share you values and respect those of others.

Bravo to all those that have contributed in this thread….that is exactly what everyone is doing.

Thrall

Rhabbi

09-01-2007, 09:24 AM

Ok, truth. All methods of finding the truth aren't equally as good. When people say that science can't find all the answers and that just because nobody can fit god into a beaker doesn't invalidate it.

I have to agree with you here Tom. Science has been working on the holy grail of a unified field theory for a long time, yet are further away from it now than when they started because our understanding of the universe is more complex.

A major problem in science is that you often don't know what you're looking for until you've allready found it. People seldom find what they hoped they would. And often they think they find it and then 150 years later somebody turns the model the right way up. As they did with the now extinct creature Hallicinogensis.

That is one of the amazing things about science, so much progress is made through accidental discoveries.

Isn't the plain and painful truth is that we have no better method than science? We can't trust our senses or common sense. We can't trust our feelings either.

Why can"t we?

A problem that religious research faces is off-course that it's impossible for anybody to verify. So the Bible says that god and the angels communicates with to people. What is that based on? How do we know that the people who had these visions weren't just plain crazy or hallucinated? What I don't understand is under these circumstances anybody can take the leap of faith? I can understand if somebody wonders about freaky shit they've seen and can't explain. But that's all it is. Things that can't be explained. To extrapolate from this the extremely complex system of belief that Christianity is, is extremely far fetched.

I understand that we like seeing meaning in things happening. We all have the compulsion to create narratives for everything happening around us. So we like to be able to explain things. But that doesn't mean we really can.

If I hear my now dead grandmothers voice calling out to me in my head and telling me stuff I can from that draw very little conclusions This has actually happened to me.

It may indicate that somehow her spirit survived and is floating around and is trying to tell me things. Maybe. It may also be that she's become an angel and is communicating with me from heaven. Maybe. It may also be that she was reincarnated as a fly on the wall and because of our close connection she can somehow communicate with me. Maybe. She may have entered a dimensional rift and can speak to me through a rip in the space time continuum. Maybe. It may not be a supernatural occurrence at all. Maybe.

There really is no point for me to try to come up with my own scientific theory for how this happend since I'm not half as good at neuro science or psychology to come up with an explanation. I haven't asked any religious authority figure about it, but I doubt they could say anything convincing. How did they come to their insights? How do they know that what they're saying is the truth? My point is that I don't see any fault in admitting that I don't know. And I'm also totally open to the fact that it could be a third possibility, and whole paradigm of thought that hasn't sprung into existence yet.

The major problem with all the religions is that there's really no reason to believe any of their theories. And if there's no reason to adapt a theory then why do it? If it's only guesswork then why? Why have faith in something when it is blind faith?

Here is where you are making a mistake Tom. You are focusing on objective truth. You admit that you are unable to explain that you heard your dead grandmother's voice, and I admit that I cannot. But I do not try to convince you that it did not happen. This is because I recognize that there is subjective truth also.

Just because I would do everything in my power to prove that any manifestation of a ghost is an absolute hoax does not mean that I do not recognize that, for some people, they are real. You call this blind faith.

Let me explain the difference to you between blind faith and faith.

Blind faith is what you do use every time you eat food that you did not see prepared, or it was not prepared by someone you trust implicitly. You trust that everyone who had contact with that food followed all the proper procedures for handling food, that they are healthy, and that they do not have any reason whatsoever to do you harm. this would include just being pissed off at the world in general and not deciding to take it out on some random customer, or just not liking the way you look. That is blind faith.

My faith is based on study and questioning everything that I come across. I believe in God not because someone told me too, but because after years of study and research I determined to my satisfaction that He exists. This does not mean that I claim to have the answers, because I do not. My faith is not blind.

I will admit that most people who believe in God did not go through the process I did, but I can show you a number of people through history that did. Blind faith is out there, but not all faith is blind faith.

Isn't interesting that the greats of science and religion should think so alike?

Amen Alex!

Guest 91108

09-01-2007, 10:55 AM

...
Think about this……religion/spirituality is like emotions. There is no hard evidence of emotions, but they exist for each of us as individuals. I feel what I feel, but cannot feel what someone else is experiencing……….LOL
...
Bravo to all those that have contributed in this thread….that is exactly what everyone is doing.

Thrall

Very nice Thrall .. thank you for inputting..

TomOfSweden

09-01-2007, 11:16 PM

They don't. It's called faith. And you have it just like I do, Tom. It's why you got married. Faith, hope and love...

Isn't that just sweeping the problem under the carpet. How can it make any sense to build a case for and against something. Weigh them together. Not being able to reach a conclusion, (who can?) and then pick one based on faith? That's not faith, that's willful self delusion.

TomOfSweden

09-01-2007, 11:48 PM

Hi Tom

I agree with you that the ability to have a civilized debate is a wonderful thing. It is how humanity will survive. To be able to have a conversation about things controversial is essential to understanding the world at large.

But you must understand that on some subjects, there will be no resolution only personal opinion. Religion and or spirituality is one of those topics. People believe what they believe. There is no right or wrong answer, there is no one way, there is however……… only personal opinion.

Religion, spirituality, or lack there of, is a matter of what people believe. Right or wrong, evidence or lack there of, means nothing…………it is about personal beliefs.

Think about this……religion/spirituality are like emotions. There is no hard evidence of emotions, but they exist for each of us as individuals. I feel what I feel, but cannot feel what someone else is experiencing……….LOL

In debates such as this, where the conversation continues in a circle……the answer to the conundrum is…………to agree to disagree.

For what it's worth, Tom, I am a hard science girl myself and always have been. I want the answers in my hand with scientific evidence to back it all up.

That being said…….I still wrote Clusters and believe in it……….LOL……….

In debates such as this you must be able to state your own opinion and also be willing to except that there may be another opinion/explanation other that your own. You must be wiling to share you values and respect those of others.

Bravo to all those that have contributed in this thread….that is exactly what everyone is doing.

Thrall

Unsurprisingly I don't agree. The problem with the religion debate is the lack of evidence for and against. But we have the wonderful tool of logic. We can work stuff out because of the lack of evidence. Argument from ignorance doesn't work. In other words saying that god cannot be disproven has never been a valid argument. It's simple to show it because it always opens the infinate. The burden of evidence is always on the one making the claim. Whether it is to one self or others is of no consequence. Ignoring this is simply trying hard to fool one self.

The discussion on religion has to be about which evidence there are and then evaluate them. There's no way we can reason about an entity we know nothing about.

These are all pretty basic things. So religious faith is not only about opinion, but structured reasoning and logic.

Another important factor in logic is to have a good enough set of evidence to draw conclusions from. If we have one piece of acceptable for us evidence of the existence of something supernatural. Let's say that my granny spoke to me. Let's for sake of argument assume that there was no way that could have happened naturaly. What assumptions can we draw from that? Rhabbi is a big fan of Ockams razor. So let's aply it. And this brings us nowhere closer to any particular faith. Even if we accept all the miracles in the Bible...they offer no support for the particular model of the universe the Bible presents. It could all be coinidence. It could all be missunderstanding.

Just like Mohammed in the Koran missunderstood Gabriel a few times and was corrected later. I actually love this feature in the Koran. That the later Suras over ride the earlier do to Gabriels corrections.

My point being that even if there was a god. Even if the miracles in the Bible where real. Even if god speaks to us. And even if god can effect our world. Even then, we know nothing about the nature of god. Just read Thomas Aquinas! He dedicated his entire life to reasoning about the nature of god. He thought he reached a conclusion with some creative thinking. But instead he managed to prove that we know nothing.

Thomas Aquinas is also a good example of how pressure of our peers can adulterate our thinking. The ancient Greeks hammered out all the nooks and crannies in logic. We have no reason to think the system of logic is at flaw. Aquinas was no idiot. He was without a doubt one of the absolut top geniuses that have ever lived. It took all the hundreds of years to Shoppenhaur before somebody joined Aquinas dots.

We are all logical beings. We all use logic to reason about everything around us. Conscious or not. And very often we are lazy and take short cuts. Nothing wrong with that. I always knock the cents off when counting money. It's more practical. But when logic is used to willfully fool oneself in such a big decision in life as with religious faith....it makes me sad...and frustrated.

It's not only down to faith and personal opinion. I firmly believe belief in the supernatural can be reasoned, discussed and I do believe shared conclusions can be reached. Being lazy and unconfrontational with one self is not a reason to cling to a faith.

TomOfSweden

09-02-2007, 12:20 AM

I have to agree with you here Tom. Science has been working on the holy grail of a unified field theory for a long time, yet are further away from it now than when they started because our understanding of the universe is more complex.

I wouldn't say further away. Knowing something doesn't work is also knowledge and therefore a step forward. But any solution does seem to still be pretty far off.

Why can"t we?

Can you? I can't. I get upset about stuff that I later found out I'd missunderstood. I'd say that the fact that I'm sad isn't proof for anything at all outside our bodies.

Here is where you are making a mistake Tom. You are focusing on objective truth. You admit that you are unable to explain that you heard your dead grandmother's voice, and I admit that I cannot. But I do not try to convince you that it did not happen. This is because I recognize that there is subjective truth also.

Just because I would do everything in my power to prove that any manifestation of a ghost is an absolute hoax does not mean that I do not recognize that, for some people, they are real. You call this blind faith.

Let me explain the difference to you between blind faith and faith.

Blind faith is what you do use every time you eat food that you did not see prepared, or it was not prepared by someone you trust implicitly. You trust that everyone who had contact with that food followed all the proper procedures for handling food, that they are healthy, and that they do not have any reason whatsoever to do you harm. this would include just being pissed off at the world in general and not deciding to take it out on some random customer, or just not liking the way you look. That is blind faith.

My faith is based on study and questioning everything that I come across. I believe in God not because someone told me too, but because after years of study and research I determined to my satisfaction that He exists. This does not mean that I claim to have the answers, because I do not. My faith is not blind.

I will admit that most people who believe in God did not go through the process I did, but I can show you a number of people through history that did. Blind faith is out there, but not all faith is blind faith.

When we're discussing objectivity and relativity in truth it quickly gets hairy. I think you'll have to explain what you mean by subjective/objective truth. If truth is subjective in every case we all live in seperate dimensions. I think that's highly unlikely. I do believe that outside the world our minds create there is a reality. It may be adulterated by our opinions and filtered through our senses. But I do believe it is there. Which denies that truth can be subjective.

Truth can be different between people if we have different interpretations of the subject matter. But that doesn't actually change the level of objective truth, does it? "Truth" is another one of my many philosophical obsessions.

It's very interesting now with the post modernist school often trying to make all truth relative to cultural interpretation. But I doubt we'll get much further than Nietzsche. You'll need to make a pretty solid case for subjective truth in such a concrete issue as whether or not the voice of my granny is of supernatural origin.

I'll admit that when I heard my grannies voice my first leap of faith was, "that was cool I wonder why I heard her voice". In other words, I assumed it was of non-supernatural origin and left it at that. I had no basis for making this leap of faith other than that I'd never at any other time seen anything supernatural. But that doesn't discount this as a supernatural occurence. But where can I take it from here? Now I know that I have a case of possible supernatural occurence. Can I draw any conclusions of the nature of this possible supernatural force?

We live in a world of very few answers.

I understand that you have questioned your faith, but you do agree that the act of questioning your faith alone doesn't necesarily add to it's level of truth? How we do this questioning is just as important. I have yet to see any valid line of reasoning that would bring anybody to the christian faith. Even if we accept the existence of the supernatural and miracles, we still have nothing to work with.

Guest 91108

09-02-2007, 01:35 AM

just keep feeding them ToS ... round and round we go.

TomOfSweden

09-02-2007, 02:22 AM

just keep feeding them ToS ... round and round we go.

Has everything really been said and discussed here?

thrall

09-02-2007, 09:49 AM

The problem with the religion debate is the lack of evidence for and against. But we have the wonderful tool of logic.

Exactly Tom. You CAN NOT argue logic without evidence. Otherwise anything you may conclude, is determined with false logic either for or against. So, again.....the bottom line is only opinion.

And opinion is just that........an opinion. Opinion is neither right or wrong, it is only personal opinion.

QUOTE.....The discussion on religion has to be about which evidence there are and then evaluate them. There's no way we can reason about an entity we know nothing about.

Again ..my point exactly

There is no evidence.....for or against. So again, the bottom line is only opinion.

QUOTE.....These are all pretty basic things. So religious faith is not only about opinion, but structured reasoning and logic.

Your contradicting yourself here, Tom. How can you have structured reasoning and logic......without evidence?

The thing your not getting Tom, is that I'm playing Devils advocate for both sides.......LOL

I love you Tom..........kisses and hugs

Thrall

tessa

09-02-2007, 12:05 PM

Isn't that just sweeping the problem under the carpet. How can it make any sense to build a case for and against something. Weigh them together. Not being able to reach a conclusion, (who can?) and then pick one based on faith? That's not faith, that's willful self delusion.

Po-TA-to = Po-TAH-to. :)

Has everything really been said and discussed here?
Nope. I don't think so. Could it ever?

:wave:

Rhabbi

09-02-2007, 01:07 PM

Although you made some good points Tom, and I do want to address them, I also want to take some time to make sure my answers are well though out. I am therfore going to limit my answer here to one thing you said.

I understand that you have questioned your faith, but you do agree that the act of questioning your faith alone doesn't necesarily add to it's level of truth? How we do this questioning is just as important. I have yet to see any valid line of reasoning that would bring anybody to the christian faith. Even if we accept the existence of the supernatural and miracles, we still have nothing to work with.

I am curious, since you have read Aquinas, have you read anyone else who talks about they journey of faith? Aquinas was more of a philosopher than anything, and trying to use philosophy to prove religion is worse than trying to use science to do it.

There are a few people who set down to prove that god does not exist and ended up believing. One of them is Lew Wallace, the author of Ben Hur. Another is the British author C. S. Lewis. These men were well educated atheists who wanted to disprove God's ver existance, yet ended up serving Him.

Perhaps their lines of reasoning are not valid for you, but they were for them.

TomOfSweden

09-02-2007, 10:11 PM

Exactly Tom. You CAN NOT argue logic without evidence. Otherwise anything you may conclude, is determined with false logic either for or against. So, again.....the bottom line is only opinion.

And opinion is just that........an opinion. Opinion is neither right or wrong, it is only personal opinion.

QUOTE.....The discussion on religion has to be about which evidence there are and then evaluate them. There's no way we can reason about an entity we know nothing about.

Again ..my point exactly

There is no evidence.....for or against. So again, the bottom line is only opinion.

QUOTE.....These are all pretty basic things. So religious faith is not only about opinion, but structured reasoning and logic.

Your contradicting yourself here, Tom. How can you have structured reasoning and logic......without evidence?

The thing your not getting Tom, is that I'm playing Devils advocate for both sides.......LOL

I love you Tom..........kisses and hugs

Thrall

Sorry for being unclear. We can use structured logic even though we have nothing to work with. The fact that we have no evidence is also evidence.

Christianity is formulated in such a way as to make it impossible to both verify and reject. How does this add to its credibility?

...and I've got this thing about always questioning myself. Even my own conclusions he he. Schizofrenic, who me....nah....:rolleyes: But I don't think I did so here.

TomOfSweden

09-02-2007, 10:24 PM

I am curious, since you have read Aquinas, have you read anyone else who talks about they journey of faith? Aquinas was more of a philosopher than anything, and trying to use philosophy to prove religion is worse than trying to use science to do it.

There are a few people who set down to prove that god does not exist and ended up believing. One of them is Lew Wallace, the author of Ben Hur. Another is the British author C. S. Lewis. These men were well educated atheists who wanted to disprove God's ver existance, yet ended up serving Him.

Perhaps their lines of reasoning are not valid for you, but they were for them.

I'll quote Zizek here. "Philosophy isn't about finding answers. It's about finding questions". Philosophy helps us question what we know and what we think. That's why I think it is very very important to take it very very seriously. I'm pretty sure Aquinas was first and foremost a servant of god. He certainly seemed to need to say it in every second sentance. But maybe that was just to cover his ass :)

Ok, so smart guys converted to Christianity. I won't argue that. The interesting thing is, how did their line of reasoning go? The fact that they were famous for being smart and educated doesn't add any credibility to the religion does it? I've read Kirkegaard and his journey into faith. Wouldn't you say that he summed it up pretty well?

TomOfSweden

09-02-2007, 10:37 PM

I'm on the same porn sharing network as a lecturer of philosophy at the university of Cambridge. He had earlier mentioned in another discussion that he was atheist so I asked him about his line of reasoning. He is a smart lad and I wasn't disapointed. Above all he is very well trained at arguing his case.

For Americans this guy is a professor at a grad school. I've never really understood the American inflation of academic titles. What do you call your professors?

"The problem here isn't a lack of logic. The problem here is what, for want of a better term, you might call a shortfall of logic itself. Our logic is unable to prove a generalisable absence; the total lack of something. You and a friend could be discussing the most outlandish thing either of you can imagine - something you can be pretty sure doesn't exist, as the pair of you made it up only moments before - and our logic will be unable to prove that it doesn't, hasn't, couldn't or will not exist somewhere at sometime.

I say 'our logic' because the shortfall is not in logic, but rather in us. Logic is a process rather than an end result; you put garbage in, you get garbage out, and it's not the fault of logic. If we had complete knowledge of everything, logic as a process could be used to prove the absence of something. We don't, so we can't use it to disprove the existence of God. Our knowledge is less than full and complete, so the information we feed in has to be less than complete. Logically, then, the conclusion we get will be less than conclusive.

Does atheism thus require 'a leap of faith'? Well...yes. But I would hesitate to liken the size of the leap to the one required in theism.

We believe in lots of things we've never seen. I've never been to Kuala Lumpur, but I believe it exists. We also don't believe in lots of things we've seen; all of us here know what a unicorn looks like, but none of us believe in them.

I agree that atheism is not a position which can be fully logically supported. But it can be rationally supported, using a balance of probabilities based on known science, sociology and history. The 'leap of faith' I make to believe that Kuala Lumpur exists without personal experience of it is tiny; the leap I make to believe that unicorns don't exist is miniscule, and of the order of the one I make not to believe in God.

Logically, therefore, we imperfect beings cannot disprove the existence of God. Sensibly, however, probability and rationale dictate that we are more likely to be correct in atheism than theism - at least by the terms defined in Christian theology. A true position would be agnosticism, but not 50/50, sitting on the fence, vacillating agnosticism. Informed agnosticism says we can't know for sure...but it's doubtful..."

I thought you'd like this.

edit: I looked the professor thing up. It's called lecturer in America to. They just have a nasty habit of being sloppy with the term and using it as an honorary title even though it is in fact wrong.

thrall

09-02-2007, 11:35 PM

Sorry for being unclear. We can use structured logic even though we have nothing to work with. The fact that we have no evidence is also evidence.

Christianity is formulated in such a way as to make it impossible to both verify and reject. How does this add to its credibility?

......Precisely.....

Evidence of non-evidence. So apply logic.......you can not prove or disprove.......anything.

Any and all conclusions you may make, logically, will only be opinion.........personal opinion.

All religions........not just Christianity......are set up with this conundrum built into them. That is why they are not a science, Tom.

They are however..........based on blind faith.

Credibility has nothing to do with anything in any Religion, because there is nothing to prove. Religon is about believing blindly in something bigger than yourself.

love you Tom
hugs and kisses

Thrall

TomOfSweden

09-03-2007, 10:33 PM

......Precisely.....

Evidence of non-evidence. So apply logic.......you can not prove or disprove.......anything.

Any and all conclusions you may make, logically, will only be opinion.........personal opinion.

All religions........not just Christianity......are set up with this conundrum built into them. That is why they are not a science, Tom.

They are however..........based on blind faith.

Credibility has nothing to do with anything in any Religion, because there is nothing to prove. Religon is about believing blindly in something bigger than yourself.

love you Tom
hugs and kisses

Thrall

I'll buy that but it's when the religious makes claims as if it was a choice made by rational evaluation of available evidence that I get pissed off. If somebodies best case for something is the impossibility of proving it's non-existence. It's still making an inference from nothing at all, which shouldn't allow us to make any statements about it what so ever, let alone a whole library of religious texts we have in the world today. They are all inferences from thin air. Or rather they are inferences from phenomena which we today judge as insanity. If Moses would come today he'd be locked up or just laughed at. Just like we're doing to Raëlians today.

I heard an interview yesterday with a scholar studying religion yesterday called Barry Kosmin. He is responsible for USA's two largest religious surveys. One in 1990 and one in 2001. They where both pretty comprehensive regarding what people believe in detail. Where he did manage to show that belief in the supernatural was increasing. This was the basis for a shock of fear that went through the secular community a while back. The assumption has always been that the atheist faith would be increasing. But what Kosmin said in the interview was that even though religious faith is increasing the rejection of religious authorities and texts is also increasing at an ever growing pace. So it's not the old religions that are growing but the numbers of peoples own private interpretations growing. Which is to me a sign of health. People thinking more and more and questioning old truths more and more is always good. This was only in the USA though. But I think the trend is pretty international and equally true for the middle-east albeit a bit later in the start.

This effectively ended my crusade against god. I don't mind people being deluded, as long as they don't make it a hassle for me boarding aeroplanes or worse. My only problem with religion is that it can be dangerous. But so can pretty much anything so I'll bury my hatchet now.

thrall

09-04-2007, 04:59 AM

So we finally agree..........LOL........*smiles*

love you Tom........

Thrall

Rhabbi

09-04-2007, 08:18 AM

When we're discussing objectivity and relativity in truth it quickly gets hairy. I think you'll have to explain what you mean by subjective/objective truth. If truth is subjective in every case we all live in seperate dimensions. I think that's highly unlikely. I do believe that outside the world our minds create there is a reality. It may be adulterated by our opinions and filtered through our senses. But I do believe it is there. Which denies that truth can be subjective.

Truth can be different between people if we have different interpretations of the subject matter. But that doesn't actually change the level of objective truth, does it? "Truth" is another one of my many philosophical obsessions.

What is truth?

Truth tells me that two people traveling at different velocities relative to the same photon will both measure that photon as traveling at 299,792.458 km/sec. (186,282.397 m/sec.) How does this make sense if we try to define truth as objective?

Taking that same photon again, if I chose to treat it like a particle, it will be a particle. If someone else takes it and chooses to treat it like a wave, it will be a wave.

Truth on a quantum scale depends on the observer, something that actually s***** over into our universe when we observe things that happen as a result of quantum interactions, like light.

Maybe we all do live in different dimensions and choose to interact in a common dimension that we created between us so that we could.

Objective truth only exists because everyone agrees that things are universal. In the realm of philosophy and religion many things are defined as being objective that may actually be subjective, and vise versa. Not having the answers to these questions only means that I am honest with myself.

Rhabbi

09-04-2007, 08:32 AM

Logically, therefore, we imperfect beings cannot disprove the existence of God. Sensibly, however, probability and rationale dictate that we are more likely to be correct in atheism than theism - at least by the terms defined in Christian theology. A true position would be agnosticism, but not 50/50, sitting on the fence, vacillating agnosticism. Informed agnosticism says we can't know for sure...but it's doubtful..."

My question here is, why is it doubtful? Because it is easier for him not to believe than to believe? Or does he have some sort of evidence to back this claim? The way he has worded his argument my guess is that he subscribes to the latter position.

To this I would say that I have enough evidence that God exists to be satisfied with my position. Being honest I also know that I cannot prove my position using logic or reason. That, however, does not make me wrong, it just makes me honest.

The thing I have come to accept over the years, is it is not my job to prove that God exists. I am responsible to give a reason for the faith and hope I have if asked, but I do not have to prove God's existence, that is His job.

Even if I was able to turn water into wine, heal the sick, raise the dead, and perform all the miracles ever mentioned in the Bible, this would not prove that God exists. All it would prove is that I can somehow manipulate the accepted laws of nature and do things that are normally considered to be impossible. All anyone else would have is my word on how I could do these things, and attributing them to God does not prove His existence.

I know I cannot prove God is real if you do not want to believe in Him. But, to me, it makes more sense to believe in Him than not, so I choose to believe. In spite of the assurances of a professor at Cambridge who thinks I am wrong.

tessa

09-04-2007, 11:48 AM

*whispers* How did you know I was hanging around to see it, too?

Well duh! :p

~giggles outrageously~

Who knows ya, baby? ;)

:wave:

TomOfSweden

09-04-2007, 10:31 PM

What is truth?

Truth tells me that two people traveling at different velocities relative to the same photon will both measure that photon as traveling at 299,792.458 km/sec. (186,282.397 m/sec.) How does this make sense if we try to define truth as objective?

Taking that same photon again, if I chose to treat it like a particle, it will be a particle. If someone else takes it and chooses to treat it like a wave, it will be a wave.

Truth on a quantum scale depends on the observer, something that actually s***** over into our universe when we observe things that happen as a result of quantum interactions, like light.

Maybe we all do live in different dimensions and choose to interact in a common dimension that we created between us so that we could.

Objective truth only exists because everyone agrees that things are universal. In the realm of philosophy and religion many things are defined as being objective that may actually be subjective, and vise versa. Not having the answers to these questions only means that I am honest with myself.

Well, yeah. Maybe. This effectively makes you an agnostic and not a Christian at all, doesn't it? Truth on the quantum scale hinges a lot on knowing which is the ass end of the stick. When it comes to quantum theory we have an ass load of theories but a shortage on methods for testing them. So far it's been a bit like poking a broken stick through what we think is a haystack and from this making inferences. All we know is that we have no fucking clue. All we seem to be good at is dismissing the few plausible theories we had. Which I admit is definitely progress albeit to a crawl.

TomOfSweden

09-04-2007, 10:35 PM

My question here is, why is it doubtful? Because it is easier for him not to believe than to believe? Or does he have some sort of evidence to back this claim? The way he has worded his argument my guess is that he subscribes to the latter position.

To this I would say that I have enough evidence that God exists to be satisfied with my position. Being honest I also know that I cannot prove my position using logic or reason. That, however, does not make me wrong, it just makes me honest.

The thing I have come to accept over the years, is it is not my job to prove that God exists. I am responsible to give a reason for the faith and hope I have if asked, but I do not have to prove God's existence, that is His job.

Even if I was able to turn water into wine, heal the sick, raise the dead, and perform all the miracles ever mentioned in the Bible, this would not prove that God exists. All it would prove is that I can somehow manipulate the accepted laws of nature and do things that are normally considered to be impossible. All anyone else would have is my word on how I could do these things, and attributing them to God does not prove His existence.

I know I cannot prove God is real if you do not want to believe in Him. But, to me, it makes more sense to believe in Him than not, so I choose to believe. In spite of the assurances of a professor at Cambridge who thinks I am wrong.

"Being honest I also know that I cannot prove my position using logic or reason."

See what you're doing? First stating that you're an agnostic and from that making a leap of faith which you earlier stated you weren't sure about. The leap of faith can only be done once you are convinced. But you're obviously not. You're not really a Christian, are you?

Guest 91108

09-04-2007, 11:19 PM

Edited by self .................

Rhabbi

09-05-2007, 08:09 AM

"Being honest I also know that I cannot prove my position using logic or reason."

See what you're doing? First stating that you're an agnostic and from that making a leap of faith which you earlier stated you weren't sure about. The leap of faith can only be done once you are convinced. But you're obviously not. You're not really a Christian, are you?

Being a Christian does not mean that I cannot admit my doubts. There are some great treatises written by Christians through the years as they struggle with doubt and questions. The writings of Mother Theresa reveal her struggle with faith.

Being a Christian is about persevering through doubt. I began my life as an agnostic, and my journey led me to belief in YHWH. I never doubt that He exists, but I sometimes find that what I believe about Him is wrong. A scientist may question a theory without questioning the laws that underlie that theory.

I am a Christian, just not one of those that thinks he knows everything because he believes in God.

My faith does come from a line of reasoning that will not stand up to a logical analysis. This does not make my faith less real, or even invalid. That also does not mean I am not willing to present a basis for my faith through argument. It just means that I acknowledge a inability to prove my faith through logic.

Does the fault lie in my faith? My ability to use logic? Or perhaps in logic itself? My belief is that it is the latter, because in order to make a logical argument proving the existence of God we would first have to agree on a definition of god, something that is impossible under logic.

TomOfSweden

09-05-2007, 09:49 AM

Being a Christian does not mean that I cannot admit my doubts. There are some great treatises written by Christians through the years as they struggle with doubt and questions. The writings of Mother Theresa reveal her struggle with faith.

Being a Christian is about persevering through doubt. I began my life as an agnostic, and my journey led me to belief in YHWH. I never doubt that He exists, but I sometimes find that what I believe about Him is wrong. A scientist may question a theory without questioning the laws that underlie that theory.

I am a Christian, just not one of those that thinks he knows everything because he believes in God.

My faith does come from a line of reasoning that will not stand up to a logical analysis. This does not make my faith less real, or even invalid. That also does not mean I am not willing to present a basis for my faith through argument. It just means that I acknowledge a inability to prove my faith through logic.

Does the fault lie in my faith? My ability to use logic? Or perhaps in logic itself? My belief is that it is the latter, because in order to make a logical argument proving the existence of God we would first have to agree on a definition of god, something that is impossible under logic.

One of my heroes, Kirkegaard agrees with you. He said something like, a Christian, (ie follower of any faith) who doesn't question their faith can't call themselves Christian, (or what ever) because they don't know why they are Christian, (or the followers of any faith). So I'm all with you there.

But I wonder about this; do you really mean "persevering through doubt"? Doesn't that imply that you are trying to cling to your faith when it is tested? Isn't that just another way of saying that you want to affirm your belief rather than to seek the truth? Or am I missing something?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but can a person really call themselves followers of the Christian faith if they keep a door open for atheism? Not to mention all the other myriad of versions on the supernatural theory we've had through history? The Christian theory is extremely specific, isn't it?

I actually think you are wrong when you are saying that your faith isn't a rational decision. I'm sure that you must think that it is on some level rational or you wouldn't be honest to yourself. Again, it is all about which kind of evidence you accept. If you accept that voices in your head may be god talking to you then it is a fully rational choice by you to be Christian. And the inference from this that it is the deity as described in the Bible. Others can question the validity of your quite rational choices. But I don't for a second believe it was a whimsical choice you made, which is what you get when your choice isn't based on reason. Right?

Just because logic can't be used to prove the non-existence of god, it surely can be used to prove it's existence?

Rhabbi

09-06-2007, 08:43 AM

One of my heroes, Kirkegaard agrees with you. He said something like, a Christian, (ie follower of any faith) who doesn't question their faith can't call themselves Christian, (or what ever) because they don't know why they are Christian, (or the followers of any faith). So I'm all with you there.

But I wonder about this; do you really mean "persevering through doubt"? Doesn't that imply that you are trying to cling to your faith when it is tested? Isn't that just another way of saying that you want to affirm your belief rather than to seek the truth? Or am I missing something?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but can a person really call themselves followers of the Christian faith if they keep a door open for atheism? Not to mention all the other myriad of versions on the supernatural theory we've had through history? The Christian theory is extremely specific, isn't it?

I think you are Tom. Many people teach that doubt is the opposite of faith, while I tend to think that it affirms it. This is hard to explain but let me give it a shot.

We all have faith that the Sun will rise in the east in the morning. This faith is based on years of observation and a belief that science would be able to tell us if something was seriously wrong with the Sun. Yet, if our understanding of physics is off by a bit, and something unforeseen happens to the sun that upsets the balance between gravity and fission, the Sun could explode during the night. Then the sun would not rise.

My faith that the Sun will rise is not shaken by me asking these questions as I then learn more about the dynamics of the balance between gravity and fission, and exactly what type of event would be necessary to upset that balance. I thus learn exactly how unlikely that will be to occur.

In the same way, when I question the foundations of my faith it grows stronger. I may learn more about God, or I may learn more about what I am questioning and learn that I am wrong there. I occasionally have to reevaluate my faith based on what I learn, but my faith always grows as a result.

I have come across people that try to tell me I should not read about Muslims, or Catholics, or even other sects of Christianity. What I have always learned about these people is no that they are correct in warning me away from others, but that they are afraid that if I compare their teachings to those of others I will find theirs lacking. Growth cannot occur in a vacuum. Whenever someone wants to keep me from learning something, it is because they want to keep me from growing.

Persevering through doubt is about growing, not clinging. There are plenty of close minded people who cling to what they were taught rather than going out and learning the truth. I refuse to join their ranks.

Yes, Christianity is specific, and as a result I am often seen as intolerant when I tell people that their beliefs are wrong. But I can also tell them why they are wrong, point to the internal conflicts in their teachings, and those of Christianity, and tell them that although I do not have all the answers, I do know who has.

I do not always win converts when I talk to people, but the fact that I am willing to listen to them, and be honest about my struggles, plants a seed so that God is able to work in their hearts and reach out to them. And, if you are right and I am wasting my time doing this, then I am at least enjoying my life and feel that it has a purpose.

I actually think you are wrong when you are saying that your faith isn't a rational decision. I'm sure that you must think that it is on some level rational or you wouldn't be honest to yourself. Again, it is all about which kind of evidence you accept. If you accept that voices in your head may be god talking to you then it is a fully rational choice by you to be Christian. And the inference from this that it is the deity as described in the Bible. Others can question the validity of your quite rational choices. But I don't for a second believe it was a whimsical choice you made, which is what you get when your choice isn't based on reason. Right?

Just because logic can't be used to prove the non-existence of god, it surely can be used to prove it's existence?

I never said my faith is not a rational decision, or at least I never intended to. If I gave you that impression I wish to apologize. What I tried to say is that I do not know how to argue my faith using logic. But it is far from whimsical, as you just pointed out to me.

As far as logic being able to prove the existence of God, I am sure it is possible. But, to the best of my knowledge, there exists no deductive argument that would do so. I know of a few inductive ones, and would gladly point you to some if you like, but an inductive argument is flawed because it is not conclusive.

As an example let us look at the most famous literary proponent of inductive reasoning. Sherlock Holmes carried inductive argument to a science, but all of his logic was not proof. He just made the alternative seem so far fetched that everyone believed him.

Nevertheless, inductive arguments are not proof. Just because I can make an inductive argument that it will not snow on July 4th 2008 in San Antonio TX does not mean I can prove it by logic. Thus, it is also impossible to prove God exists using logic.

What premises can I use that would be accepted? This is where making an argument about the existence of God fails. If you refuse to believe in anything but what you can touch and/or measure then no premise I propose will work to make a true conclusion, even if the argument is valid.

The problem with logic as a tool of proof is that I can use true premises and reach a false, but valid, conclusion.

TomOfSweden

09-06-2007, 10:12 AM

I think you are Tom. Many people teach that doubt is the opposite of faith, while I tend to think that it affirms it. This is hard to explain but let me give it a shot.

We all have faith that the Sun will rise in the east in the morning. This faith is based on years of observation and a belief that science would be able to tell us if something was seriously wrong with the Sun. Yet, if our understanding of physics is off by a bit, and something unforeseen happens to the sun that upsets the balance between gravity and fission, the Sun could explode during the night. Then the sun would not rise.

My faith that the Sun will rise is not shaken by me asking these questions as I then learn more about the dynamics of the balance between gravity and fission, and exactly what type of event would be necessary to upset that balance. I thus learn exactly how unlikely that will be to occur.

In the same way, when I question the foundations of my faith it grows stronger. I may learn more about God, or I may learn more about what I am questioning and learn that I am wrong there. I occasionally have to reevaluate my faith based on what I learn, but my faith always grows as a result.

I'm not sure what you mean with learn more about god? How is it possible to learn anything about such an elusive creature?

I have come across people that try to tell me I should not read about Muslims, or Catholics, or even other sects of Christianity. What I have always learned about these people is no that they are correct in warning me away from others, but that they are afraid that if I compare their teachings to those of others I will find theirs lacking. Growth cannot occur in a vacuum. Whenever someone wants to keep me from learning something, it is because they want to keep me from growing.

There's a name for people who are against certain knowledges. They are commonly known as "idiots". Especially those who have opinions on what others should learn. I think you'd be doing the world a favour if you'd as soon as you meet anybody like that, to stone them to death in an instant. For the sake of genetic cleanliness. Just my not so serious humble opinion.

Persevering through doubt is about growing, not clinging. There are plenty of close minded people who cling to what they were taught rather than going out and learning the truth. I refuse to join their ranks.

ok, this is going to be interesting.

Yes, Christianity is specific, and as a result I am often seen as intolerant when I tell people that their beliefs are wrong. But I can also tell them why they are wrong, point to the internal conflicts in their teachings, and those of Christianity, and tell them that although I do not have all the answers, I do know who has.

Could this by chance be gobeldigook to confuse me? You just said you don't have the answers. How's that not a contradiction. If you don't, then how can you know that god does? How do you know god has any answers at all? How do you corroborate the snippets of information god gives you if you don't have answers? How isn't it 100% pure assumption? Even assuming there is a god, let alone the supernatural is a pretty big assumption for a person claiming not to have any answers.

I never said my faith is not a rational decision, or at least I never intended to. If I gave you that impression I wish to apologize. What I tried to say is that I do not know how to argue my faith using logic. But it is far from whimsical, as you just pointed out to me.

As far as logic being able to prove the existence of God, I am sure it is possible. But, to the best of my knowledge, there exists no deductive argument that would do so. I know of a few inductive ones, and would gladly point you to some if you like, but an inductive argument is flawed because it is not conclusive.

As an example let us look at the most famous literary proponent of inductive reasoning. Sherlock Holmes carried inductive argument to a science, but all of his logic was not proof. He just made the alternative seem so far fetched that everyone believed him.

Nevertheless, inductive arguments are not proof. Just because I can make an inductive argument that it will not snow on July 4th 2008 in San Antonio TX does not mean I can prove it by logic. Thus, it is also impossible to prove God exists using logic.

What premises can I use that would be accepted? This is where making an argument about the existence of God fails. If you refuse to believe in anything but what you can touch and/or measure then no premise I propose will work to make a true conclusion, even if the argument is valid.

The problem with logic as a tool of proof is that I can use true premises and reach a false, but valid, conclusion.

I think you're making it sound harder than it really is. The goal of formalised logic is only to detect logical flaws but any moron can put together a solid and fully rational case for god.

1) You hear a voice in your head that told you stuff.
2) You make a list of every possible and relevant source of this voice.
3) You make a case for every source on the list.
4) You sort them in probability
5) The leap of faith.

If you're not sure after this then you at least have narrowed it down to a few options.

We always do this instantly whenever anything ever happens to us. Depending on mental agility and laziness we are more or less thorough.

This BTW is deductive reasoning. It's where faith comes in. At stage five we always need to make the leap of faith no matter if we're secular or not. At one point we have to stop thinking and either start believing or sort it into the inconclusive box.

I don't think inductive reasoning can be used when discussing god. It's hard enough when we're talking common stuff we know. It needs a pretty narrow scope to give us any valuable information.

Rhabbi

09-07-2007, 06:57 AM

I'm not sure what you mean with learn more about god? How is it possible to learn anything about such an elusive creature?

How is it possible to learn more about anyone? You do so by studying His works and listening to the people who know Him. Of course, this takes the leap of faith of believing in Him first, but He is not as ellusive as all that if you search diligently.

There's a name for people who are against certain knowledges. They are commonly known as "idiots". Especially those who have opinions on what others should learn. I think you'd be doing the world a favour if you'd as soon as you meet anybody like that, to stone them to death in an instant. For the sake of genetic cleanliness. Just my not so serious humble opinion.

Amen

Could this by chance be gobeldigook to confuse me? You just said you don't have the answers. How's that not a contradiction. If you don't, then how can you know that god does? How do you know god has any answers at all? How do you corroborate the snippets of information god gives you if you don't have answers? How isn't it 100% pure assumption? Even assuming there is a god, let alone the supernatural is a pretty big assumption for a person claiming not to have any answers.

I do have answers, but waht I do not have is all the answers. I also admit I could be wrong, as any good scientist should. I do not be one of those idiots that should be stoned because I think I know it all.

I think you're making it sound harder than it really is. The goal of formalised logic is only to detect logical flaws but any moron can put together a solid and fully rational case for god.

1) You hear a voice in your head that told you stuff.
2) You make a list of every possible and relevant source of this voice.
3) You make a case for every source on the list.
4) You sort them in probability
5) The leap of faith.

If you're not sure after this then you at least have narrowed it down to a few options.

We always do this instantly whenever anything ever happens to us. Depending on mental agility and laziness we are more or less thorough.

This BTW is deductive reasoning. It's where faith comes in. At stage five we always need to make the leap of faith no matter if we're secular or not. At one point we have to stop thinking and either start believing or sort it into the inconclusive box.

I don't think inductive reasoning can be used when discussing god. It's hard enough when we're talking common stuff we know. It needs a pretty narrow scope to give us any valuable information.

The major problem is that logic still falls short. A lot of people look at logic as more than it is. What it actually does is provide a struicture for argumanets, but I cannot prove anything using logic alone. I could mak a logical argument for the existence of God, and assuming all my premises were true then the conclusion that God exist would be true. The problem would lie in proving the premises. Using logic alone I would have a hard time proving that the universe exists because someone could always make the argument that we live in a Matrix generated inside a computer somewhere.

TomOfSweden

09-08-2007, 02:36 AM

How is it possible to learn more about anyone? You do so by studying His works and listening to the people who know Him. Of course, this takes the leap of faith of believing in Him first, but He is not as ellusive as all that if you search diligently.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this circular argumentation?

The major problem is that logic still falls short. A lot of people look at logic as more than it is. What it actually does is provide a struicture for argumanets, but I cannot prove anything using logic alone. I could mak a logical argument for the existence of God, and assuming all my premises were true then the conclusion that God exist would be true. The problem would lie in proving the premises. Using logic alone I would have a hard time proving that the universe exists because someone could always make the argument that we live in a Matrix generated inside a computer somewhere.

Nah, you're making simple things complicated again. Making a case for gods existence isn't so hard. Whenever you witness, measure, feel or what ever Christians do, the presence of God, you can if you judge it so, use it as proof of gods existence. Like my Cambridge friend points out. Logic is just a tool. If you put garbage in you get garbage out. But if you have taken the leap of faith that your evidence you put into the logical formula is irrefutable then it isn't garbage and your logical conclusion for the existence of god is solid.

Here's an example of perfectly valid science using solid logic. In today's scientific climate it doesn't have the critical stance required to be called "good science", but it is real science none the less.

1. Observe some aspect of the universe. (Water Boils when heated to 100 degrees C)
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed. (Water boils when heated because God wished it so.)
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions. (Water will Boil when I heat it, God will cause it to Boil.)
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results. (I heated water, God Willed it to Boil)
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation. (God made my water Boil Every time except for once, the devil put out my flame)

The big question is: have you witnessed God or a manifestation of god? When you witnessed this god force: how did you go about identifying it as a god? How did you tie that manifestation to the deity as explained in the Vulgate Bible? How did you tie that deity to the moral values explained in the Vulgate Bible? As you no doubt realise, we can go a lot further than this in our scepticism and question if and how the various parts of the Bible is connected to the God you witnessed.

So even if you have enough proof to convince yourself of the existence of, not only the supernatural but also a "God", you still have a long road to travel before you end up at Christianity. And you made such a strong case for agnosticism that I'm wondering how it is possible for a person as open minded as you to pigeon-hole yourself as holding such a spe******ed form of theism? It's not only the Christian god but a very specific form of Christianity.

As my Cambridge friend pointed out. Without the required support, any faith is a massive leap of faith right out into the dark. Others can attack your faith, but as long as you've taken the necessary steps to support your religion rationally you've got no reason to waver in your faith. Me personally, I'm very sceptical if that is even possible to support theism in this way and I'd love it if you'd show me the steps you took to support your faith.

edit: You could admittedly take what figures of authority say as evidence to, (like a friend you trust for example). But that makes you a sucker. Especially considering the case for the existence of anything supernatural isn't particularly solid yet. And you can't take incomplete or unconvincing evidence and judge it by sheer numbers. That is probably the most common error in logic. Each case of evidence has to be separately judged.

Rhabbi

09-08-2007, 09:12 AM

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this circular argumentation?

Actually, I believe it is an accepted field of study. There are those who specialize in learning about authors and artists by studying their published works and personal papers and propounding theories about why they said things in a certain way, or why they used a certain technique in their art. Not my field of study, but in essence this is what theology is.

Nah, you're making simple things complicated again. Making a case for gods existence isn't so hard. Whenever you witness, measure, feel or what ever Christians do, the presence of God, you can if you judge it so, use it as proof of gods existence. Like my Cambridge friend points out. Logic is just a tool. If you put garbage in you get garbage out. But if you have taken the leap of faith that your evidence you put into the logical formula is irrefutable then it isn't garbage and your logical conclusion for the existence of god is solid.

Here's an example of perfectly valid science using solid logic. In today's scientific climate it doesn't have the critical stance required to be called "good science", but it is real science none the less.

1. Observe some aspect of the universe. (Water Boils when heated to 100 degrees C)
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed. (Water boils when heated because God wished it so.)
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions. (Water will Boil when I heat it, God will cause it to Boil.)
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results. (I heated water, God Willed it to Boil)
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation. (God made my water Boil Every time except for once, the devil put out my flame)

The big question is: have you witnessed God or a manifestation of god? When you witnessed this god force: how did you go about identifying it as a god? How did you tie that manifestation to the deity as explained in the Vulgate Bible? How did you tie that deity to the moral values explained in the Vulgate Bible? As you no doubt realise, we can go a lot further than this in our scepticism and question if and how the various parts of the Bible is connected to the God you witnessed.

So even if you have enough proof to convince yourself of the existence of, not only the supernatural but also a "God", you still have a long road to travel before you end up at Christianity. And you made such a strong case for agnosticism that I'm wondering how it is possible for a person as open minded as you to pigeon-hole yourself as holding such a spe******ed form of theism? It's not only the Christian god but a very specific form of Christianity.

As my Cambridge friend pointed out. Without the required support, any faith is a massive leap of faith right out into the dark. Others can attack your faith, but as long as you've taken the necessary steps to support your religion rationally you've got no reason to waver in your faith. Me personally, I'm very sceptical if that is even possible to support theism in this way and I'd love it if you'd show me the steps you took to support your faith.

edit: You could admittedly take what figures of authority say as evidence to, (like a friend you trust for example). But that makes you a sucker. Especially considering the case for the existence of anything supernatural isn't particularly solid yet. And you can't take incomplete or unconvincing evidence and judge it by sheer numbers. That is probably the most common error in logic. Each case of evidence has to be separately judged.

I could make a logical argument for God's existence. Doing so would leave me with a two part question, is it valid and is it true?

To be valid would be rather simple, if the premises are true then the conclusion is true. Let us use your example of boiling water.

God designed the universe so that water would boil at 100 C at sea level.
God controls every aspect of the universe continually
Water will not boil if God does not actively watch and make sure it happens.
Every time water is heated it boils at 100 C at sea level.

Conclusion: God exists.

Tis is a perfectly valid argument. If the 4 premises are true then the conclusion is true. But does that make the argument true? No, it is fallacious.

As I stated earlier, it would be impossible to use logic to prove anything in the real world because we have to use inductive logic, and all inductive arguments are fallacies. Here is an example of a inductive argument that is valid, that everyone would agree with, yet is still a fallacy using the definitions of logic.

Every day to date the law of gravity has held.
Therefore
The law of gravity will hold tomorrow.

Every person I know believes this line of logic, in fact I would go so far as to say that every person alive has total faith in this logic. Nonetheless it is still not true, it is a fallacy. this is why logic has the terms strong and weak to also define arguments. the argument above is a strong one, mostly because it has a premise that everyone agrees is true, even though there is no proof of it. How do we know that the Law of Gravity and the Gravitational Constant has always held steady?

To make an argument for the existence of God using logic the best case I could make would be a weak inductive argument. this is because I cannot offer premises that are facts, or even that are generally accepted. You talk about a leap of faith being necessary at the end of the argument, but the truth is it would be necessary throughout the argument. If we cannot agree on observable phenomena that indicates the presence of god, then how can I make an argument for his existence?

Let us engage in a thought experiment.

We are both in a little town of Bethany approximately 2000 years ago. We are in a quantum bubble to research the account of the resurecction of a certain man called Lazurus.

He died approximately four days ago and was buried according to the customs of the time and culture. We witnessed the preparation of his body for burial with special herbs and as it was wrapped in linen. We were unable to use advanced methods to test whether he was dead, or simply in a coma so deep that the people were unable to detect signs of life. this has something to do with the limitations of time travel and the universe protecting itself from paradoxes.

Tis day the man that would one day be known as Jesus Christ arrives, and after a bit of conversation with the family and friends he asks that the stone that closes off the tomb where Lazarus was buried is rolled aside by a few bystanders.

Jesus then offers up a short prayer and calls Lazarus out of the grave. We then watch as Lazarus does indeed walk out of the tomb, and when his friends finish unwrapping the linen that bound him for burial he appears healthy to us.

We both having witnessed this event still have to draw conclusions from it. I look it as an affirmation of my faith and proof of God's existence. You point out that there is no real evidence to support my conclusion.

How do we know he was dead? There are many stories from history that tell of people who were thought to be dead who later awoke. They used to sell coffins based on the fear that people were often mistakenly buried alive.

Even today there are occasional cases of people being so deep in a coma that trained professionals occasionally think they are dead when they are not. This might be unlikely, but it is not impossible.

I hope you can see now why I say it is impossible to make a logical argument to prove that God exists. There have been a few that have tried to do this, but I recognize the limitations of logic to make this argument, as does your Cambridge friend. the difference between him and I is that I do not take the limitations of logic to be proof against the existence of God. If he was being consistent in his beliefs he would also have to deny the existence of everything that logic cannot prove.

TomOfSweden

09-09-2007, 12:34 AM

Actually, I believe it is an accepted field of study. There are those who specialize in learning about authors and artists by studying their published works and personal papers and propounding theories about why they said things in a certain way, or why they used a certain technique in their art. Not my field of study, but in essence this is what theology is.

Staying on the art comparison; how do you know which is original work by the artist and which are fakes?

We both having witnessed this event still have to draw conclusions from it. I look it as an affirmation of my faith and proof of God's existence. You point out that there is no real evidence to support my conclusion.

How do we know he was dead? There are many stories from history that tell of people who were thought to be dead who later awoke. They used to sell coffins based on the fear that people were often mistakenly buried alive.

Even today there are occasional cases of people being so deep in a coma that trained professionals occasionally think they are dead when they are not. This might be unlikely, but it is not impossible.

I hope you can see now why I say it is impossible to make a logical argument to prove that God exists. There have been a few that have tried to do this, but I recognize the limitations of logic to make this argument, as does your Cambridge friend. the difference between him and I is that I do not take the limitations of logic to be proof against the existence of God. If he was being consistent in his beliefs he would also have to deny the existence of everything that logic cannot prove.

What you're basically saying is that the number of dots you need to connect between you witnessing anything supernatural and the following the morality as taught by the Bible is so staggering that there's no point to even bother? At every leap of faith the nodes that connect the reasoning have an almost infinite number of connections both to and from it? or what? How does that strengthen any case for the supernatural? You're basically saying that because we can't use logic we shouldn't, and just take the leap of faith anyway, right?

What I don't understand is why this seemingly compulsive need to connect the belief in an omnipotent god with the moral rules of the Bible. Why not treat them as two different entities? Why not judge the moral system as one unit on it's own merits and the supernatural claims as a separate unit? Are they in any way connected? Is the only reason to follow the commandments of the Bible really only the fear of punishment in the after-life?

edit: hmm....after some pondering I'll have another go. I think that the logical error you are doing is that you seem to assume that you have to have a faith. It's not like there's insulated areas of faithlessness between theories. There isn't. It's possible to use your approach if Christianity is a cohesive logical system that is connected, and if you remove parts of it the whole theoretical structure collapses. In instances like that finding enough evidence to support part of it can be used to support all of it. But there's nothing cohesive about Christianity. Each and every part is a separate statement only supported by itself. An example is the creation. The Bible said that god created the universe. Ok fine. This can be correct and the rest of the Bible wrong. Or the rest of the Bible can be correct and that could be wrong. Rejecting part of the Bible doesn't mean you have to reject all of it. In the same way. Just because you accept a part of the Bible doesn't mean you have to accept the rest of it. We all know that the Bible is quite a compilation and has been heavily edited through the ages. It's not like the Koran which origins we know.

Why not keep Christianity as one of your favourite theories? You where the one putting all that effort into agnosticism. As you so vigorously defended, picking one specific faith is not only a huge leap of faith but defies logic. Why not have a few favourites? Why not pick the parts that you think make the most sense to you and drop the parts that you find are ify?

Rhabbi

09-09-2007, 01:07 PM

Staying on the art comparison; how do you know which is original work by the artist and which are fakes?

Again. not my field, but there is apparently some debate about that. I know there are paintings that were thought to have been done by Rembrandt that are now classed as 'school of' Rembrandt. I would imagine it has something to do with technique and brush strokes, but I would be guessing.

What you're basically saying is that the number of dots you need to connect between you witnessing anything supernatural and the following the morality as taught by the Bible is so staggering that there's no point to even bother? At every leap of faith the nodes that connect the reasoning have an almost infinite number of connections both to and from it? or what? How does that strengthen any case for the supernatural? You're basically saying that because we can't use logic we shouldn't, and just take the leap of faith anyway, right?

What I don't understand is why this seemingly compulsive need to connect the belief in an omnipotent god with the moral rules of the Bible. Why not treat them as two different entities? Why not judge the moral system as one unit on it's own merits and the supernatural claims as a separate unit? Are they in any way connected? Is the only reason to follow the commandments of the Bible really only the fear of punishment in the after-life?

edit: hmm....after some pondering I'll have another go. I think that the logical error you are doing is that you seem to assume that you have to have a faith. It's not like there's insulated areas of faithlessness between theories. There isn't. It's possible to use your approach if Christianity is a cohesive logical system that is connected, and if you remove parts of it the whole theoretical structure collapses. In instances like that finding enough evidence to support part of it can be used to support all of it. But there's nothing cohesive about Christianity. Each and every part is a separate statement only supported by itself. An example is the creation. The Bible said that god created the universe. Ok fine. This can be correct and the rest of the Bible wrong. Or the rest of the Bible can be correct and that could be wrong. Rejecting part of the Bible doesn't mean you have to reject all of it. In the same way. Just because you accept a part of the Bible doesn't mean you have to accept the rest of it. We all know that the Bible is quite a compilation and has been heavily edited through the ages. It's not like the Koran which origins we know.

Why not keep Christianity as one of your favourite theories? You where the one putting all that effort into agnosticism. As you so vigorously defended, picking one specific faith is not only a huge leap of faith but defies logic. Why not have a few favourites? Why not pick the parts that you think make the most sense to you and drop the parts that you find are ify?

I studied many religions, comparative religion has always been a hobby of mine, one I still indulge in.

The basic choices come down to two types of religion, monotheistic and polytheism. (I am including pantheism under polytheism here though there are significant differences.)

Polytheism has numerous Gods, none of whom seem to claim responsibility for creation. Quite often the Earth was a byproduct of something they did, or even waste product. This did not appeal to me for obvious reasons, if I was going to actually believe in a God I wanted one that at least cared about people.

This leaves monotheism. There are three basic monotheistic religions in the world, listed in the order of appearance they are Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Doing a comparison of these three we see that they all claim the same roots, Judaism. I studied Judaism and found it quite interesting, perhaps the most intellectual of the three. The average rabbi knows more about the history of religion and the various debates surrounding it than all but the most scholarly of Christian preachers.

Then I looked at Christianity, which center around the claims of Jesus to be the Son of God.

Looking at Islam, it focuses mostly on Mohammad as being the last of the prophets, and trying to bring the teachings back inline with what the earlier prophets taught before the Bible was corrupted by man. According to Islamic scholars, the Bible was rewritten by Christians to support the claims that Jesus was God, and even the Old Testament was rewritten to support this. Interestingly enough, Islam still revers Jesus as a prophet.

Studying the words of Jesus leads you to one of four inescapable conclusions. Either this man was a liar, insane, a demon from the pits of Hell, or he was who he claimed to be, the Son of God. Looking further at his life, a reasonable man would rule out that he was insane or a demon because the impact of his life was spectacularly on the side of good. I suppose he could have been a demon, but that seems unlikely also.

Also, a thorough study of the texts of the Bible that survive, some dating to before Jesus, show that the changes that Islam claim as necessary to their faith are impossible to support. This leads a thinking man to reject Islam as based on a falsehood. It also leads a thinking man to look more closely at Christianity.

In a lot of ways Judaism is more of a set of rules to live by then anything else. You could look at it as the first rules that a parent gives a child. don't touch this, don't go there, etc. These rules do not change when that child reach adulthood, they just become unnecessary. The adult sees that the rules were there to protect the child from unknown dangers.

Christianity is about living those rules as an adult. It does not replace the rules, it fulfills them because we, as adults, now know enough not to do those things. This is why I settled on Christianity as what I believed. It was not a blind leap from going to not believing, then choosing Christianity at random after I had an epiphany and realized God existed. Before I believed in God I knew that Christianity made more sense than any other religion out there.

This does not mean the Christianity that you find today, it means the Christianity of the early church. I guess this does mean that I pick and choose, because I have to try and figure out what that is for myself.

TomOfSweden

09-10-2007, 11:23 AM

I studied many religions, comparative religion has always been a hobby of mine, one I still indulge in.

The basic choices come down to two types of religion, monotheistic and polytheism. (I am including pantheism under polytheism here though there are significant differences.)

Polytheism has numerous Gods, none of whom seem to claim responsibility for creation. Quite often the Earth was a byproduct of something they did, or even waste product. This did not appeal to me for obvious reasons, if I was going to actually believe in a God I wanted one that at least cared about people.

This leaves monotheism. There are three basic monotheistic religions in the world, listed in the order of appearance they are Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Doing a comparison of these three we see that they all claim the same roots, Judaism. I studied Judaism and found it quite interesting, perhaps the most intellectual of the three. The average rabbi knows more about the history of religion and the various debates surrounding it than all but the most scholarly of Christian preachers.

Then I looked at Christianity, which center around the claims of Jesus to be the Son of God.

Looking at Islam, it focuses mostly on Mohammad as being the last of the prophets, and trying to bring the teachings back inline with what the earlier prophets taught before the Bible was corrupted by man. According to Islamic scholars, the Bible was rewritten by Christians to support the claims that Jesus was God, and even the Old Testament was rewritten to support this. Interestingly enough, Islam still revers Jesus as a prophet.

Studying the words of Jesus leads you to one of four inescapable conclusions. Either this man was a liar, insane, a demon from the pits of Hell, or he was who he claimed to be, the Son of God. Looking further at his life, a reasonable man would rule out that he was insane or a demon because the impact of his life was spectacularly on the side of good. I suppose he could have been a demon, but that seems unlikely also.

Also, a thorough study of the texts of the Bible that survive, some dating to before Jesus, show that the changes that Islam claim as necessary to their faith are impossible to support. This leads a thinking man to reject Islam as based on a falsehood. It also leads a thinking man to look more closely at Christianity.

In a lot of ways Judaism is more of a set of rules to live by then anything else. You could look at it as the first rules that a parent gives a child. don't touch this, don't go there, etc. These rules do not change when that child reach adulthood, they just become unnecessary. The adult sees that the rules were there to protect the child from unknown dangers.

Christianity is about living those rules as an adult. It does not replace the rules, it fulfills them because we, as adults, now know enough not to do those things. This is why I settled on Christianity as what I believed. It was not a blind leap from going to not believing, then choosing Christianity at random after I had an epiphany and realized God existed. Before I believed in God I knew that Christianity made more sense than any other religion out there.

This does not mean the Christianity that you find today, it means the Christianity of the early church. I guess this does mean that I pick and choose, because I have to try and figure out what that is for myself.

I'd say you've done all the cardinal sins of religious contemplation.

Your first mistake is in your groupings. The error is in assuming we have covered all possible versions of deities already. Even if we have reached the conclusion that there exists a lone intelligent omnipotent being, all today's religions could still all be wrong. You can't line up Islam and Christianity and compare them and from this draw the conclusion that because one doesn't seem to work for you the other does by default.

Second fault is that you assume that if god is good then....well...erm... How could you possibly reason about how a being more intelligent judges and values on moral issues? Let alone a omnipotent. You didn't think that an omnipotent being might have thought of stuff you haven't, did you? It's as if humans is god's pet project and he can empathise with us. Can you empathise with a spider? It's too dumb for us even to try. You don't think that an omnipotents concept of good and evil might be different from ours?

...and then this compulsion to connect this all powerful omnipotent god with the Bible or any religious text! Why even try? What possible evidence could you or anybody come up with to make it even meaningful? What makes you think that anybody in any way have got it even almost right. Let's say for sake of argument that there really exists an all powerful and good omnipotent god, and it speaks to people. Let's also for sake of argument assume that some of those people that know the truth of god have put pen to paper to write about it. They're humans!!!! Humans fuck up and interpret things in ways that aren't true just to fit their world view. Not out of spite or evil, but just out of being human. You also missed the option that Jesus might have been only partly right.

I'd say that the Bible itself proves how people misinterpret. As we all know Jesus didn't write the Bible. The Aryan Bible, Ebionite Bible, Koptic Bible, Donatist Bible and Tawahedo Bible are all major Christian Bibles that all pre-date the Vulgate Bible and all have more in common with each other than with the Versio Vulgata. The Vulgate Bible was quite a radical edit. They're all Christian Bibles, all are the word of god but they're also all different. The Aryan one kept all the angel wars parts which creates a radically different world than the vulgate.

We have the problem of context. In the time around the birth of Christ it was common practice to create myths about kings and emperors which were identical to that of the birth of Jesus. When Julius Caesar was born it was said that a star appeared above his villa and foreign astronomers visited. There's accounts of all the old kings and emperors performing miracles. Witnesses of it was extremely common. This practice even included famous athletes. Nobody believes today that the Mediterranean was any more full of miracle healers than any other period in history. As far as I know all historians agree on that Julius Caesar was just a normal person, even though he was considered a god during his lifetime.

The context tells me that the point of writing in the Bible that Jesus did all the miracles and how he was born, wasn't to say that he had supernatural powers, but simply to emphasize that he really was the new king of the Jews and that he had a normal birth as expected of a king. Which one of the two theories is in your opinion requires the smallest leap of faith? It's also quite possible that Jesus was only a narrative trick. A mythical figure in order to frame a story around. A story with profound implications which may very well have conveyed the truth in an effective way, but none the less a story.

It's quite possible to argue that all the various religions of today are all the result of this omnipotent being talking to people but because of humans doing what humans do best, misinterpret, we've got a plethora of religions of which all are utterly and completely wrong.

Also you must never forget that any action of any beings more powerful than us will always be interpreted by us as actions of an omnipotent being. We don't know better. But just because we can't see that beings limits doesn't mean they aren't there.

Even if your epiphany was genuine and you really did see the real and existing god you made it perfectly clear that alternatives you allowed yourself to chose between were pretty far from a complete list of possible variations on monotheism.

You really don't think that you chose Christianity because of social or emotional reasons? It was all detached logical reasoning?

TomOfSweden

09-10-2007, 11:40 AM

BTW C.S Lewis faith hinges a lot on morality, (ie Moral Law) being universal. Since it isn't then CS Lewis faith is based on an erroneous conclusion. So much for that. I find it annoying with people who behave like they're masters on a subject in which they're amatures and ignore what all the people doing serious research into it is saying.

Rhabbi

09-11-2007, 09:05 AM

I'd say you've done all the cardinal sins of religious contemplation.

Your first mistake is in your groupings. The error is in assuming we have covered all possible versions of deities already. Even if we have reached the conclusion that there exists a lone intelligent omnipotent being, all today's religions could still all be wrong. You can't line up Islam and Christianity and compare them and from this draw the conclusion that because one doesn't seem to work for you the other does by default.

I admit that my groupings are simplified, and even biased. For one thing pantheism is not the same as polytheism.

To be honest with you monotheism is not even the grouping that appealed the most to me emotionally or intellectually. I preferred a form of solipsism that Robert Heinlein proposed in Stranger in a Strange Land and The Number of the Beast. Multi-person solipsism basically says that the universe is a big joke that we all agreed to play on ourselves.

Not sure how this would fit into the other classifications, but it is the one I was most comfortable with. Trying to keep up with all the ramifications of this theory is always a challenge, and actually ends up with Christianity as a subset thereof.

Second fault is that you assume that if god is good then....well...erm... How could you possibly reason about how a being more intelligent judges and values on moral issues? Let alone a omnipotent. You didn't think that an omnipotent being might have thought of stuff you haven't, did you? It's as if humans is god's pet project and he can empathise with us. Can you empathise with a spider? It's too dumb for us even to try. You don't think that an omnipotents concept of good and evil might be different from ours?

What makes you think I don't accept that? This is a challenge I always present to others, in Christendom we call it putting God in a box. I do not attempt to define what is indefinable by my standards, this is one reason I can accept suffering as part of a larger plan, one that I do not fully understand.

...and then this compulsion to connect this all powerful omnipotent god with the Bible or any religious text! Why even try? What possible evidence could you or anybody come up with to make it even meaningful? What makes you think that anybody in any way have got it even almost right. Let's say for sake of argument that there really exists an all powerful and good omnipotent god, and it speaks to people. Let's also for sake of argument assume that some of those people that know the truth of god have put pen to paper to write about it. They're humans!!!! Humans fuck up and interpret things in ways that aren't true just to fit their world view. Not out of spite or evil, but just out of being human. You also missed the option that Jesus might have been only partly right.

I'd say that the Bible itself proves how people misinterpret. As we all know Jesus didn't write the Bible. The Aryan Bible, Ebionite Bible, Koptic Bible, Donatist Bible and Tawahedo Bible are all major Christian Bibles that all pre-date the Vulgate Bible and all have more in common with each other than with the Versio Vulgata. The Vulgate Bible was quite a radical edit. They're all Christian Bibles, all are the word of god but they're also all different. The Aryan one kept all the angel wars parts which creates a radically different world than the vulgate.

We have the problem of context. In the time around the birth of Christ it was common practice to create myths about kings and emperors which were identical to that of the birth of Jesus. When Julius Caesar was born it was said that a star appeared above his villa and foreign astronomers visited. There's accounts of all the old kings and emperors performing miracles. Witnesses of it was extremely common. This practice even included famous athletes. Nobody believes today that the Mediterranean was any more full of miracle healers than any other period in history. As far as I know all historians agree on that Julius Caesar was just a normal person, even though he was considered a god during his lifetime.

The context tells me that the point of writing in the Bible that Jesus did all the miracles and how he was born, wasn't to say that he had supernatural powers, but simply to emphasize that he really was the new king of the Jews and that he had a normal birth as expected of a king. Which one of the two theories is in your opinion requires the smallest leap of faith? It's also quite possible that Jesus was only a narrative trick. A mythical figure in order to frame a story around. A story with profound implications which may very well have conveyed the truth in an effective way, but none the less a story.

It's quite possible to argue that all the various religions of today are all the result of this omnipotent being talking to people but because of humans doing what humans do best, misinterpret, we've got a plethora of religions of which all are utterly and completely wrong.

Also you must never forget that any action of any beings more powerful than us will always be interpreted by us as actions of an omnipotent being. We don't know better. But just because we can't see that beings limits doesn't mean they aren't there.

I am going on the admittedly biased assumption that if God exists He wants us to know it. I do not think He wants or needs our worship, but unless we were a school project that got tossed into the back of His closet, He did have a reason for creating us. I just assume he wants to communicate that reason. And, yes, I know this is anthropomorphizing, but I am human, and that is what we do.

It is nice to run into someone that knows enough about the various ancient bibles to at least discuss them. I am not trying to defend the Vulgate here though, mostly because I agree that Jerome was biased in his translation, and I consider a lot of what he did to be indefensible.

Clarke's Third Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

This is a thought I grew up with, so yes I have considered it. This still does not rule out the existence of God.

Even if your epiphany was genuine and you really did see the real and existing god you made it perfectly clear that alternatives you allowed yourself to chose between were pretty far from a complete list of possible variations on monotheism.

You really don't think that you chose Christianity because of social or emotional reasons? It was all detached logical reasoning?

Never said it wasn't. We are all products of our culture, something that anthropologist contend with every time they study another culture. the only way to really learn about a culture is to grow up in it, but then all the conditioning becomes so ingrained that we tend to think of it as instinct. I admit to my bias, and am always willing to look at any argument to examine my position and learn.

BTW C.S Lewis faith hinges a lot on morality, (ie Moral Law) being universal. Since it isn't then CS Lewis faith is based on an erroneous conclusion. So much for that. I find it annoying with people who behave like they're masters on a subject in which they're amatures and ignore what all the people doing serious research into it is saying.

I agree with this, which is another reason that I declined to offer a logical proof of God's existence. Lewis made what He thought of as a strong argument for God's existence, but his underlying assumptions are currently being challenged. Nonetheless Lewis's journey from atheism to belief is not contingent on this argument being true, it is simply one of his attempts to try to define the indefinable.

TomOfSweden

09-11-2007, 10:34 AM

I admit that my groupings are simplified, and even biased. For one thing pantheism is not the same as polytheism.

To be honest with you monotheism is not even the grouping that appealed the most to me emotionally or intellectually. I preferred a form of solipsism that Robert Heinlein proposed in Stranger in a Strange Land and The Number of the Beast. Multi-person solipsism basically says that the universe is a big joke that we all agreed to play on ourselves.

Not sure how this would fit into the other classifications, but it is the one I was most comfortable with. Trying to keep up with all the ramifications of this theory is always a challenge, and actually ends up with Christianity as a subset thereof.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here but Descartes was not a proponent of Solipsism. It was just a thought experiment about validity of proof. To date there's no philosopher, (or scientist or psychologist) who has seriously floated the idea that the Solipsism is even worth considering. I'd say it's a gross simplification of what Descartes was trying to say and is purely in the realm of science fiction. Schrödinger wasn't a proponent of Solipsism either in spite of his cat.

What makes you think I don't accept that? This is a challenge I always present to others, in Christendom we call it putting God in a box. I do not attempt to define what is indefinable by my standards, this is one reason I can accept suffering as part of a larger plan, one that I do not fully understand.

So how do you know god is omnipotent? It's a pretty basic part of Christianity isn't it?

I am going on the admittedly biased assumption that if God exists He wants us to know it. I do not think He wants or needs our worship, but unless we were a school project that got tossed into the back of His closet, He did have a reason for creating us. I just assume he wants to communicate that reason. And, yes, I know this is anthropomorphizing, but I am human, and that is what we do.

erm...but with this insight then you know you can't know if god had a reason for creating us, can you? Seriously, god does not want us to know jack shit. If god wanted us to know anything about anything it would make an effort. Right now it feels more like it's trying it's damndest to make it as confusing as possible. A little bit like it would be if god never said or did anything and all we're doing is guessing. Sometimes when things are mysterious, they're mysterious because there's nothing to find. You know, like a cigar might just be a cigar.

It is nice to run into someone that knows enough about the various ancient bibles to at least discuss them. I am not trying to defend the Vulgate here though, mostly because I agree that Jerome was biased in his translation, and I consider a lot of what he did to be indefensible.

Clarke's Third Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

This is a thought I grew up with, so yes I have considered it. This still does not rule out the existence of God.

You're not exactly putting up a fight here. It's as if you've accepted that your faith is arbitrary. I'd have expected a little bit more here.

Never said it wasn't. We are all products of our culture, something that anthropologist contend with every time they study another culture. the only way to really learn about a culture is to grow up in it, but then all the conditioning becomes so ingrained that we tend to think of it as instinct. I admit to my bias, and am always willing to look at any argument to examine my position and learn.

But isn't the fact that you are Christian in spite of your insights, proof that your aren't willing to look at arguments and learn?

I agree with this, which is another reason that I declined to offer a logical proof of God's existence. Lewis made what He thought of as a strong argument for God's existence, but his underlying assumptions are currently being challenged. Nonetheless Lewis's journey from atheism to belief is not contingent on this argument being true, it is simply one of his attempts to try to define the indefinable.

Again. You agree that we can't know but still make a leap of faith. But you deny it is a blind leap of faith. Ermmm.... does this make sense to anybody or am I just a bit slow.

edit: My problem with Christianity is that it is four distinct faiths.

1) The belief in the supernatural.
2) The belief in a personal omnipotent god which judges you when you die.
3) The stories in the Bible and the claims they make.
4) The moral and ethical guidelines and rules.

None of these are in any way connected and there's no reason to believe in one just because you believe in the other. If you believe in the omnipotent being, there's no way of knowing what it wants, is there? I mean, besides making baseless assumptions

thrall

09-11-2007, 10:39 AM

I'm with you Tom...........

thrall

09-11-2007, 10:49 AM

Rhabbi

09-11-2007, 11:23 AM

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here but Descartes was not a proponent of Solipsism. It was just a thought experiment about validity of proof. To date there's no philosopher, (or scientist or psychologist) who has seriously floated the idea that the Solipsism is even worth considering. I'd say it's a gross simplification of what Descartes was trying to say and is purely in the realm of science fiction. Schrödinger wasn't a proponent of Solipsism either in spite of his cat.

Not sure where you are going with this. I was just pointing out a part of my journey that I thought pretty enjoyable. Multiperson solipsism is a bit different than solipsism in that everyone has an equal chance to be god.

So how do you know god is omnipotent? It's a pretty basic part of Christianity isn't it?

It is, but does that make it part of my personal belief? I happen to believe in free will, which negates omnipotence. If God knows what I am going to do then there is no free will. This debate has actually raged in Christendom for centuries, and is based on only a few Scriptures that ignore a lot of Scriptures that counter it.

erm...but with this insight then you know you can't know if god had a reason for creating us, can you? Seriously, god does not want us to know jack shit. If god wanted us to know anything about anything it would make an effort. Right now it feels more like it's trying it's damndest to make it as confusing as possible. A little bit like it would be if god never said or did anything and all we're doing is guessing. Sometimes when things are mysterious, they're mysterious because there's nothing to find. You know, like a cigar might just be a cigar.

Maybe we are the effort. Being that He is inherently beyond my understanding I accept that I cannot understand Him or His motives.

You're not exactly putting up a fight here. It's as if you've accepted that your faith is arbitrary. I'd have expected a little bit more here.

I think that what I accept is that my faith appears to be arbitrary to an outside observer. Going back to your experience with your grandmothers voice, if she started giving you advice on what would be happening in the future, and you started following it, it might appear to me that your actions were arbitrary. That does not make them so.

Some of the process I used to arrive at my reasoning has to be internal and cultural. I do not deny this. Does this make it arbitrary?

But isn't the fact that you are Christian in spite of your insights, proof that your aren't willing to look at arguments and learn?

How? My insights have evolved my faith from believing what is taught in the pulpits of American churches to what I now believe. If I have more insights, then I will revise my beliefs. If someone ever manages to prove to me that I am wrong I will listen to them also.

Again. You agree that we can't know but still make a leap of faith. But you deny it is a blind leap of faith. Ermmm.... does this make sense to anybody or am I just a bit slow.

edit: My problem with Christianity is that it is four distinct faiths.

1) The belief in the supernatural.
2) The belief in a personal omnipotent god which judges you when you die.
3) The stories in the Bible and the claims they make.
4) The moral and ethical guidelines and rules.

None of these are in any way connected and there's no reason to believe in one just because you believe in the other. If you believe in the omnipotent being, there's no way of knowing what it wants, is there? I mean, besides making baseless assumptions

I agree, at least in principle. In fact, I would challenge anyone to prove to me that number 2 is supported in the Bible.

One of the things that I have found to be unique about the Bible as a history is that it records the foibles and defeats of the kings as well as their triumphs. Never were the kings of Israel portrayed as being godlike in power and ability, and they lost battles and wars more than once.

Can you point out the problem with the moral and ethical guidelines and rules? It is the basis of most western laws after all. I prefer it to the strict Islamic interpretation of the Koran myself.

Rhabbi

09-11-2007, 01:17 PM

OK...............I have a question boys????

During the throw's of passion, when all I can seem to muster to say is "Oh God....Oh God!!!..........oooooooooohhhhhhhhh GGGGGGOOOOODDDD!!!!!

Does that count as out of body religious??????

LMAO

It probably does not as you are pretty anchored to your body then, but it sure puts the challenge to your claim to be an atheist. I would ask why you call out to someone/thing you do not believe in at the most passionate moments of your life.

tessa

09-11-2007, 07:08 PM

TomOfSweden

09-13-2007, 06:41 AM

Took a while to come up with an answer to this. Sorry for that.

It is, but does that make it part of my personal belief? I happen to believe in free will, which negates omnipotence. If God knows what I am going to do then there is no free will. This debate has actually raged in Christendom for centuries, and is based on only a few Scriptures that ignore a lot of Scriptures that counter it.

Well, I'm impressed now. I could argue against humanities free will but I think we might need another thread for it.

I think that what I accept is that my faith appears to be arbitrary to an outside observer. Going back to your experience with your grandmothers voice, if she started giving you advice on what would be happening in the future, and you started following it, it might appear to me that your actions were arbitrary. That does not make them so.

That's a fair point. So how does this relate to you? What happened to you that makes your faith less than arbitrary? If I may ask?

Just to be perfectly clear here, we could imagine talking to my grandmother in my head and getting very valid advice. My Id could be in conflict with my Super ego represented by my grandmother. How do I know the voice of my grandmother isn't just my Super Ego reminding me about cultural constraints my Id would rather ignore? We have quite a collection of beings in our brains. Hearing voices in our heads is not particularly strange or supernatural. Neither is getting good advice in our heads. I could very well imagine that a person who is Christian will dress up their Super Ego as "god". I've given my ordinary appearance of Super Ego a physical look and sound, so I'm very aware of the capacities of our mind. It's just that my Super Ego looks like a smaller and usually miffed copy of me, with a whiny voice....but that's a side note.

My experience with my grandmothers voice was just wonky though. I heard a reply she usually said, but in a silent room without context. I always get this warm fuzzy feeling when I think of her. I still love her so much and she'll be with me always. But I still think she's pushing up daisies, even though she was both very Christian and hard core redder than red communist. I like the Voodoo belief in the afterlife. A person is still alive as a spirit as long as we keep their memory alive and tell stories about them. Rabbit, Rabbit, Rabbit….

How? My insights have evolved my faith from believing what is taught in the pulpits of American churches to what I now believe. If I have more insights, then I will revise my beliefs. If someone ever manages to prove to me that I am wrong I will listen to them also.

I’d say you’re doing the same error here as any fundamentalist. You put the burden of proof on your opponents but formulate the test in such a way as to make it impossible for anybody to prove you wrong. But the problem is off-course that the same test which makes it impossible to prove you wrong also permits you from making a rational/logical leap of faith.

But I wouldn’t call you a fundamentalist by any stretch. To me it sounds more like you have a very modern and enlightened view of the world and you just chose to call that Christianity. I’m guessing because it was your starting point. Nothing wrong with that. Labels are useful for understanding anything. But you seem to mix in arcane Christian concepts which doesn’t really seem to fit into your world view. Like, god created the universe for a reason and then you point out that we don’t know this?!? Your faith seems a bit unclear to me.

The fact that you use the, (to god) completely unrelated Bible and chose to use that as a base for your morals I’m guessing is also based on your upbringing. Am I missing something? Is there a link between the Christian notion of god and the Bible?

It actually sounds like we’re saying similar things but using different languages. My language is based on what I learned in philosophy class and your language seems to be based on what you’ve picked up through religious literature. To quote Lenin, “everything is connected to everything else”. Off-course the modern paradigm of thought spreads and is accepted even by those who oppose it.

I agree, at least in principle. In fact, I would challenge anyone to prove to me that number 2 is supported in the Bible.
.

He he Touche. You got me there. Yeah, it’s hard not to mix up Christians with Christianity and the Bible. Not to mention the Pope. Guilty as charged.

One of the things that I have found to be unique about the Bible as a history is that it records the foibles and defeats of the kings as well as their triumphs. Never were the kings of Israel portrayed as being godlike in power and ability, and they lost battles and wars more than once.

Can you point out the problem with the moral and ethical guidelines and rules? It is the basis of most western laws after all. I prefer it to the strict Islamic interpretation of the Koran myself.

Well, I’d rather not. I don’t like the Bible as a moral and ethical guide because it is old. It uses arcane language aimed at a, (to us) alien culture and has a tendency to be a bit vague in a bad way. When it comes to ethical and moral treatises I think it’s good if who ever is writing it, tries to aim for clarity.

I’m well aware of situations where the writer is being very careful about hammering in for the time uncomfortable “truths” and therefore being vague about certain aspects. Which I certainly am aware might have been wise for the Bible and probably did Christianity a lot of good at its inception. But now we’re so far removed from the context of the Bible that for us it becomes nothing but a problem.

We could have endless debates about what the authors meant with almost every aspect. I read somewhere that in the USA alone there’s at least one new book every day being published which relates to interpreting or discussing the Bible. Since the context has changed so much you can’t read the Bible today and understand how it was the foundation of our legal system, or anything else in our culture today. I’d say you’re better off studying the history of ideas.

The fact that it is written as a story I have no problems with. Fictional or not. Often it is easier to understand moral issues when they’re put in a context and poetically embellished.

Thus Spoke Zarathustra is written in a similar style to the Bible but doesn’t even have nearly as many people trying to interpret it. Even though Nietzsche is a tad bit more contemporary and I would have though would be a smidgeon more relevant for people today.

My whole point is that it is hard to discuss a books moral and ethical message if it isn’t clear. Apart from that I have no problems with the Bible, whatever it is trying to say.

thrall

09-13-2007, 04:00 PM

It probably does not as you are pretty anchored to your body then, but it sure puts the challenge to your claim to be an atheist. I would ask why you call out to someone/thing you do not believe in at the most passionate moments of your life.

alright.......

so what if the names are also interchangeable with the person you are with?? Does that make them a God???? Or is it just and excepted phrase???

TomOfSweden

09-13-2007, 11:58 PM

It probably does not as you are pretty anchored to your body then, but it sure puts the challenge to your claim to be an atheist. I would ask why you call out to someone/thing you do not believe in at the most passionate moments of your life.

I think the concept of god and Christian thinking is very well anchored in our consciousness. So it's not a proof of the existence of god. It's only proof of how spread Christian faith is. Which if you apply the theories of group-think could be used as evidence against the existence of god.

Rhabbi

09-14-2007, 08:59 AM

Took a while to come up with an answer to this. Sorry for that.

Well, I'm impressed now. I could argue against humanities free will but I think we might need another thread for it.

So could I, I am just pointing out the obvious discrepency between free will and omniscience. Though I can redefine omniscience in such a way that free will exists if I want to play Devil's Advocate.

That's a fair point. So how does this relate to you? What happened to you that makes your faith less than arbitrary? If I may ask?

Just to be perfectly clear here, we could imagine talking to my grandmother in my head and getting very valid advice. My Id could be in conflict with my Super ego represented by my grandmother. How do I know the voice of my grandmother isn't just my Super Ego reminding me about cultural constraints my Id would rather ignore? We have quite a collection of beings in our brains. Hearing voices in our heads is not particularly strange or supernatural. Neither is getting good advice in our heads. I could very well imagine that a person who is Christian will dress up their Super Ego as "god". I've given my ordinary appearance of Super Ego a physical look and sound, so I'm very aware of the capacities of our mind. It's just that my Super Ego looks like a smaller and usually miffed copy of me, with a whiny voice....but that's a side note.

My experience with my grandmothers voice was just wonky though. I heard a reply she usually said, but in a silent room without context. I always get this warm fuzzy feeling when I think of her. I still love her so much and she'll be with me always. But I still think she's pushing up daisies, even though she was both very Christian and hard core redder than red communist. I like the Voodoo belief in the afterlife. A person is still alive as a spirit as long as we keep their memory alive and tell stories about them. Rabbit, Rabbit, Rabbit….

My faith is intensly personal, mostly because I was not looking for it. One of the reasons I like to point to C. S. Lewis is that his journey to faith was similar to mine. He described God as "The Hound of Heaven," and said that God loved Him enough to drag him "Kicking and screaming through the gates of heaven."

His journey and mine were similar because I had given up finding God, even though I had decided that Christianity was the faith that made the most sense, I was unable to make the leap of faith to believe. Then my life hit a low point, and I tried bargaining with God. Surprisingly enough, that did not work. I say surprisingly because there are a lot of testimonies about how God helps people out of jams like an indulgent father.

My life went from bad to worse, yet I struggled on. Then one day, God reached down and got my attention. He basically told me that He does not make deals to get people to follow Him, they either do it in the midst of trouble, or they do not. That is their choice, and mine. He drug me into His house, made me believe, than let me choose. Very personal thing, but not the sort of testimony that inspires others to believe, yet I do.

I’d say you’re doing the same error here as any fundamentalist. You put the burden of proof on your opponents but formulate the test in such a way as to make it impossible for anybody to prove you wrong. But the problem is off-course that the same test which makes it impossible to prove you wrong also permits you from making a rational/logical leap of faith.

But I wouldn’t call you a fundamentalist by any stretch. To me it sounds more like you have a very modern and enlightened view of the world and you just chose to call that Christianity. I’m guessing because it was your starting point. Nothing wrong with that. Labels are useful for understanding anything. But you seem to mix in arcane Christian concepts which doesn’t really seem to fit into your world view. Like, god created the universe for a reason and then you point out that we don’t know this?!? Your faith seems a bit unclear to me.

You are not the only one that has trouble getting my faith. I do not trust anyone to define it for me, thus it confuses all those who want to tell me what to believe. I try to follow the Bible because, to me, that is the book through which God most cleraly reveals Himself. You are talking about a being that I have as much trouble understanding as an ant would have understanding me.

The problem with fundamentalists, imo, is that they think they have the answers to all the questions. I know I do not, and that makes my faith even harder to define. I believe in God because of a personal experience I had, but he does not always answer my questions.

The fact that you use the, (to god) completely unrelated Bible and chose to use that as a base for your morals I’m guessing is also based on your upbringing. Am I missing something? Is there a link between the Christian notion of god and the Bible?

It actually sounds like we’re saying similar things but using different languages. My language is based on what I learned in philosophy class and your language seems to be based on what you’ve picked up through religious literature. To quote Lenin, “everything is connected to everything else”. Off-course the modern paradigm of thought spreads and is accepted even by those who oppose it.

We are, the language is different is all. I am not defending Christianity as much as I am promoting the existence of God. Most of the accepted tenets of Christianity are not supported in the Bible.

My interpretation of God is based on my understanding of the Bible, and of nature itself. I find myself in conflict with a lot of people who want to paint God in a different light than I see Him. I try not to accept something just because everyone lese does. This makes me quite a few enemies along the way.

He he Touche. You got me there. Yeah, it’s hard not to mix up Christians with Christianity and the Bible. Not to mention the Pope. Guilty as charged.

You also tend to lump me in with what you think of as Christians, at least you used to as I know you do not think of me that way now.

Well, I’d rather not. I don’t like the Bible as a moral and ethical guide because it is old. It uses arcane language aimed at a, (to us) alien culture and has a tendency to be a bit vague in a bad way. When it comes to ethical and moral treatises I think it’s good if who ever is writing it, tries to aim for clarity.

I’m well aware of situations where the writer is being very careful about hammering in for the time uncomfortable “truths” and therefore being vague about certain aspects. Which I certainly am aware might have been wise for the Bible and probably did Christianity a lot of good at its inception. But now we’re so far removed from the context of the Bible that for us it becomes nothing but a problem.

We could have endless debates about what the authors meant with almost every aspect. I read somewhere that in the USA alone there’s at least one new book every day being published which relates to interpreting or discussing the Bible. Since the context has changed so much you can’t read the Bible today and understand how it was the foundation of our legal system, or anything else in our culture today. I’d say you’re better off studying the history of ideas.

The fact that it is written as a story I have no problems with. Fictional or not. Often it is easier to understand moral issues when they’re put in a context and poetically embellished.

Thus Spoke Zarathustra is written in a similar style to the Bible but doesn’t even have nearly as many people trying to interpret it. Even though Nietzsche is a tad bit more contemporary and I would have though would be a smidgeon more relevant for people today.

My whole point is that it is hard to discuss a books moral and ethical message if it isn’t clear. Apart from that I have no problems with the Bible, whatever it is trying to say.

Maybe it is confusing because we try to read it the wrong way. There really are only a few "rules" in it, most of it is about our reaction to those rules.

I think the concept of god and Christian thinking is very well anchored in our consciousness. So it's not a proof of the existence of god. It's only proof of how spread Christian faith is. Which if you apply the theories of group-think could be used as evidence against the existence of god.

Applying the theories of group-think usually ends up with me trying to swallow my tail.

My answer to thrall was based more on the observation that despite her oppostition to God's very existence she still calls out to him. I recognize this as cultural conditioning more than an argument for God's existence. It just goes to show that cultural conditioning is one of the strongest forces at play in alll our lives, and serves as an example of how difficult it is to overcome bias when making a judgement.

We read the Bible through our cultural conditioning, and impose that on our interpretation of it, and thus try to fit God into what is comfortable for us. I strive, with what I hope is a bit of success, not to do this.

Rhabbi

09-14-2007, 09:01 AM

alright.......

so what if the names are also interchangeable with the person you are with?? Does that make them a God???? Or is it just and excepted phrase???

Would that make me God if I was with you when you do this?

As I told Tom, I think it is cultural conditioning, and a marvelous example thereof.

TomOfSweden

09-17-2007, 05:28 AM

My faith is intensly personal, mostly because I was not looking for it. One of the reasons I like to point to C. S. Lewis is that his journey to faith was similar to mine. He described God as "The Hound of Heaven," and said that God loved Him enough to drag him "Kicking and screaming through the gates of heaven."

His journey and mine were similar because I had given up finding God, even though I had decided that Christianity was the faith that made the most sense, I was unable to make the leap of faith to believe. Then my life hit a low point, and I tried bargaining with God. Surprisingly enough, that did not work. I say surprisingly because there are a lot of testimonies about how God helps people out of jams like an indulgent father.

My life went from bad to worse, yet I struggled on. Then one day, God reached down and got my attention. He basically told me that He does not make deals to get people to follow Him, they either do it in the midst of trouble, or they do not. That is their choice, and mine. He drug me into His house, made me believe, than let me choose. Very personal thing, but not the sort of testimony that inspires others to believe, yet I do.

You seem reluctant to share with us your “intensely personal” reasons that permitted you to make a rational leap of faith, so I won’t push it. I’ve so far never seen or heard an explanation for belief in God that is in any way supported by anything rational. I always get this “secret club” vibe, where the key isn’t to understand anything, because there’s nothing to understand, only to convince oneself that one does, without testing it as much as you really would need to. Somebody saying that “you’ll understand it when it happens to you”, doesn’t fly with me. In this case, it to me implies that there’s nothing there.

We are, the language is different is all. I am not defending Christianity as much as I am promoting the existence of God. Most of the accepted tenets of Christianity are not supported in the Bible.

My interpretation of God is based on my understanding of the Bible, and of nature itself. I find myself in conflict with a lot of people who want to paint God in a different light than I see Him. I try not to accept something just because everyone lese does. This makes me quite a few enemies along the way.

Sorry, I don’t think I was clear enough. I was wondering about the link between God and the Bible. What phenomena or religious experiences have caused you to give any validity to the Bible? People have all through out history had religious experiences and only in recent times in geographically limited areas have they drawn the conclusion that it must be the being described in the Bible. This I would have thought would make it a lot more difficult to accept that any supernatural phenomena be linked to the Bible. It would need a very strong connection. So where is this connection? When God appears, does it refer to passages or something? What makes you so sure that your experiences can be linked to a specific book? Couldn’t the God be another religions God? Or as in the case of Buddhism, can’t the God be you?

You also tend to lump me in with what you think of as Christians, at least you used to as I know you do not think of me that way now.

Our discussions have taught me a lot about Christians and Christian perceptions of the world. But it has admittedly caused me to understand Christians less, because I still don’t see how somebody as enlightened as you manage to draw the conclusions you do. I still have a fair bit to go I think.

Rhabbi

09-18-2007, 08:26 AM

You seem reluctant to share with us your “intensely personal” reasons that permitted you to make a rational leap of faith, so I won’t push it. I’ve so far never seen or heard an explanation for belief in God that is in any way supported by anything rational. I always get this “secret club” vibe, where the key isn’t to understand anything, because there’s nothing to understand, only to convince oneself that one does, without testing it as much as you really would need to. Somebody saying that “you’ll understand it when it happens to you”, doesn’t fly with me. In this case, it to me implies that there’s nothing there.

I guess I was not clear enough here. I described the event that caused me to believe in the existence of God despite my doubts. This event is the part that is personal, not the chain of reasoning. I am willing to lay it out for you, though not to debate it because I will admit that I cannot prove God's existence. I just learned a bit about a few different scientific disciplines and decided that "Random Chance" has no more validity as an explanation than anything else. This is what opened the way for God to step in and prove his existence to me in a personal manner.

Sorry, I don’t think I was clear enough. I was wondering about the link between God and the Bible. What phenomena or religious experiences have caused you to give any validity to the Bible? People have all through out history had religious experiences and only in recent times in geographically limited areas have they drawn the conclusion that it must be the being described in the Bible. This I would have thought would make it a lot more difficult to accept that any supernatural phenomena be linked to the Bible. It would need a very strong connection. So where is this connection? When God appears, does it refer to passages or something? What makes you so sure that your experiences can be linked to a specific book? Couldn’t the God be another religions God? Or as in the case of Buddhism, can’t the God be you?

This is a bit shakier to explain. I know that when I read the Bible I get closer to God. does this mean that this is the only way for God to interact with man? No. I never made that claim, and never will. God is capable of doing whatever he wants as far as talking to His creation. I believe a lot of His communication comes from the very foundations of creation. The Bible actually talks about this process in a few places, and this is why I make the connection between God and the Bible, not between God and the "Christian" interpretation of the Bible.

Our discussions have taught me a lot about Christians and Christian perceptions of the world. But it has admittedly caused me to understand Christians less, because I still don’t see how somebody as enlightened as you manage to draw the conclusions you do. I still have a fair bit to go I think.

We all do. going from my education and reading to a belief in God was not an easy one. First I had to learn that science did not have the answers. The more I studied the details of creation, even of a simple cell, the less that I was able to believe in the concept that the long string of improbable chances could occur. Having blind faith in science is as silly as having blind faith in anything else. This did not immediately lead me to believe in God, but it opened the door to the possibility of something else.

TomOfSweden

09-18-2007, 09:47 AM

I guess I was not clear enough here. I described the event that caused me to believe in the existence of God despite my doubts. This event is the part that is personal, not the chain of reasoning. I am willing to lay it out for you, though not to debate it because I will admit that I cannot prove God's existence. I just learned a bit about a few different scientific disciplines and decided that "Random Chance" has no more validity as an explanation than anything else. This is what opened the way for God to step in and prove his existence to me in a personal manner.

You obviously think you can prove god's existence. Since you believe it. I think that what you mean is that you don't know of how to translate that experience in a way so will make it as convincing to others as it was to you? "Proof" only means something which can be used to prove a case, for yourself or others. Without proof, we will believe nothing. Religious or not. Because without proof we will never have even thought the thought from which to take the leap of faith. There's other types of proof than scientific proof. The handy thing with scientific proof is off-course that the rules for how to judge it are a lot less vague.

But still. You're not saying much.

This is a bit shakier to explain. I know that when I read the Bible I get closer to God. does this mean that this is the only way for God to interact with man? No. I never made that claim, and never will. God is capable of doing whatever he wants as far as talking to His creation. I believe a lot of His communication comes from the very foundations of creation. The Bible actually talks about this process in a few places, and this is why I make the connection between God and the Bible, not between God and the "Christian" interpretation of the Bible.

Yeah, but what's the link? How does it work? What makes you believe the Christian Bible got it any more right than the Bhagavad Ghita? If liberally interpreted they're the same text. Since all gods are reincarnations of Brahma, they have exactly the same myth of creation.

We all do. going from my education and reading to a belief in God was not an easy one. First I had to learn that science did not have the answers. The more I studied the details of creation, even of a simple cell, the less that I was able to believe in the concept that the long string of improbable chances could occur. Having blind faith in science is as silly as having blind faith in anything else. This did not immediately lead me to believe in God, but it opened the door to the possibility of something else.

I'm disappointed. Now your pulling this down to a kindergarten level again.

Yeah.....but that's not much of an argument for anything. Saying that science doesn't have the answers, doesn't really strengthen the case for theism does it? We've been over this before. You're treating it like there's a finite number of choices of faith. There isn't. And just because science doesn't have the answer now, doesn't mean it'll never have the answer.

...and it's also pretty arrogant to say that just because you can't understand a theory, that it doesn't have merit. Evolution isn't random and anybody saying it hasn't a clue. We had you eat your words before here on the Library.

I think your logical error is that you equate life on earth with this life. A bit like rolling a million sixes in a row on a dice. Sure, that's highly unlikely. But if anywhere along the line you would have rolled something else, we still would have life. It would just have looked different. There's no scientific reason to assume life springing up on earth is a particularly unlikely event.

Gravity effects matter on the molecular and atomic level differently than on the macro level. That's why you think that the function of cells are so improbable. We can't really apply common sense because we can't really understand it. [Insert quantum mechanic quote of your choice]. Since our last talk here I chatted some more with my micro biologist friend. There's nothing amazing or unlikely about it. It's just extremely hard to grasp if you don't have a degree in maths. A lot of it is admittedly still blank holes. We don't have a complete picture. But that isn't in the least a case for god and certainly not the Bible.

Rhabbi

09-19-2007, 08:53 AM

You obviously think you can prove god's existence. Since you believe it. I think that what you mean is that you don't know of how to translate that experience in a way so will make it as convincing to others as it was to you? "Proof" only means something which can be used to prove a case, for yourself or others. Without proof, we will believe nothing. Religious or not. Because without proof we will never have even thought the thought from which to take the leap of faith. There's other types of proof than scientific proof. The handy thing with scientific proof is off-course that the rules for how to judge it are a lot less vague.

But still. You're not saying much.

I often point to quantum physics as evidence that the universe has a sense of humor, and that it is playing a joke on everybody in it. Proof of God's existence is a bit hard to pin down, but evidence is another matter. Your idol Dawkins makes a convincing argument for the possibility of miracles, though he seems to think that understanding the universe is beyond our evolutionary ability. His arguments also lacked a fundamental understanding of the nature of the interaction between matter and energy on a quantum level. That is a fundamental problem with specialization of knowledge, and although I do not understand all the math and physics, I at least know enough to find some of his speculation a bit far fetched.

Yeah, but what's the link? How does it work? What makes you believe the Christian Bible got it any more right than the Bhagavad Ghita? If liberally interpreted they're the same text. Since all gods are reincarnations of Brahma, they have exactly the same myth of creation.

Maybe the reason they all are the same is because they are all holdovers from our original ancestors after creation. If the story started as truth, then all the variations could easily be attributed to human differences. Did you ever play that game where on person whispers something to another, and then to another? the more people in that chain, the more different the final outcome is, and this is with something simple.

On to your question, I would have to say that the reason I chose the Bible is mostly cultural. The Bible is where I first looked for God, and when I started to get serious about Him it is where I searched deeper. One of the things that separates the Bible from other holy books is the internal consistency and claims. Does the Bhagavad Ghita make the claim to divine inspiration? Is there a god in it that actually claims to have created everything? If these are there, I must have missed them.

I'm disappointed. Now your pulling this down to a kindergarten level again.

Yeah.....but that's not much of an argument for anything. Saying that science doesn't have the answers, doesn't really strengthen the case for theism does it? We've been over this before. You're treating it like there's a finite number of choices of faith. There isn't. And just because science doesn't have the answer now, doesn't mean it'll never have the answer.

...and it's also pretty arrogant to say that just because you can't understand a theory, that it doesn't have merit. Evolution isn't random and anybody saying it hasn't a clue. We had you eat your words before here on the Library.

I think your logical error is that you equate life on earth with this life. A bit like rolling a million sixes in a row on a dice. Sure, that's highly unlikely. But if anywhere along the line you would have rolled something else, we still would have life. It would just have looked different. There's no scientific reason to assume life springing up on earth is a particularly unlikely event.

Gravity effects matter on the molecular and atomic level differently than on the macro level. That's why you think that the function of cells are so improbable. We can't really apply common sense because we can't really understand it. [Insert quantum mechanic quote of your choice]. Since our last talk here I chatted some more with my micro biologist friend. There's nothing amazing or unlikely about it. It's just extremely hard to grasp if you don't have a degree in maths. A lot of it is admittedly still blank holes. We don't have a complete picture. But that isn't in the least a case for god and certainly not the Bible.

I am aware enough about math to understand the arguments that some scientists use to support that molecular biology is not as improbable as some suggest. I agree that certain chemicals can only combine in certain ways, but they ignore the fact that long chains of improbable events have to occur to make all of this work. Inside the cell we have chemical interactions that cannot proceed independent of each other that are individually improbable, and these scientists want me to accept that they occur by chance. The odds are against it. Sure, it is possible if we postulate certain improbable conditions, and make the argument that conditions were different then. Not impossible, but then they turn around and argue for the consistency of conditions to prove other portions of their theories, a bit confusing to me.

As for your argument that life is something that was all but inevitable no matter what random events occur, where is the proof of that? That is asking me to totally through out the Laws of Thermodynamics and believe that entropy will always reverse to create life. You want me to believe that the laws of physics can be suspended, but not in a God that actually suspends them. Which of us is taking the larger leap of faith?

Tell your microbiologist friend to stop being so arrogant and take a look at the real world. there is a guy with no formal training that the United States Navy, as well as most other ocean going powers, to track and predict waves at sea. Most astronomical discoveries are made by amateurs without the training of the professionals. Mathematical advances are made everyday by people who do not have degrees. An education does not give him a better understanding of the way the universe works, despite what he was taught by his close minded professors who want to throw out other possibilities simply because the person advancing them does not have a degree in microbiology.

Soprry, sort of a soap box ther. I can actually walk into JPL in Pasadena and discuss the advances of quantum physics and astrophysics with PhD's that do not look down on me because I do not have a degree because they are smart enough to know that degrees are do not indicate intelligence, but a microbiologists wants to try and tell me that I cannot possibly understand simple statistics because I do not have a degree. I just tend to get my fur up when I run into that attitude, and it is not you I am upset about. I do not know what you know about math, but statistics are pretty straightforward and simple. You take all the variables, and all the possibilities, and you chrunch a few numbers, and the results come out.

TomOfSweden

09-20-2007, 04:37 AM

I often point to quantum physics as evidence that the universe has a sense of humor, and that it is playing a joke on everybody in it. Proof of God's existence is a bit hard to pin down, but evidence is another matter. Your idol Dawkins makes a convincing argument for the possibility of miracles, though he seems to think that understanding the universe is beyond our evolutionary ability. His arguments also lacked a fundamental understanding of the nature of the interaction between matter and energy on a quantum level. That is a fundamental problem with specialization of knowledge, and although I do not understand all the math and physics, I at least know enough to find some of his speculation a bit far fetched.

But your idol Jesus has poopy ..... just kidding.

Dawkins arguments for a lack an understanding of quantum mechanics is that we all do. None of us have a clue. Just because you say that there is a creator and it knows, doesn't really add to your case does it? You have no way of verifying it with the diety, do you?

Maybe the reason they all are the same is because they are all holdovers from our original ancestors after creation. If the story started as truth, then all the variations could easily be attributed to human differences. Did you ever play that game where on person whispers something to another, and then to another? the more people in that chain, the more different the final outcome is, and this is with something simple.

On to your question, I would have to say that the reason I chose the Bible is mostly cultural. The Bible is where I first looked for God, and when I started to get serious about Him it is where I searched deeper. One of the things that separates the Bible from other holy books is the internal consistency and claims. Does the Bhagavad Ghita make the claim to divine inspiration? Is there a god in it that actually claims to have created everything? If these are there, I must have missed them.

To me at least, you're now starting to make sense. But you at a stroke insert a massive dose of uncertainty into the Bible. How can we use religious texts to understand god better? If the Bible is later in the whispering chain, how does that increase the case for the Bible.

I don't think anybody knows the origins of the Bhagavad Ghita. It references wars about 3000 BC around Hampi. I think it's in Karnataka, India.That's about it. I think it's really cool that some of the buildings referenced are still standing and can still be visited today. They are very old. Since it explains the supernatural and dieties, I'd say it can be assumed that who ever wrote it, thought they did it on divine inspiration. I can't think of any religious text that wouldn't be considered as such. Don't forget that at the time all kings and anybody very famous for anything was considered a god of sorts. That goes for Europe to. So it needs plenty of critical reading.

A central theme in Hinduism is that everything is part of and a reincarnation of Brahman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

So Brahman isn't just the creator of the universe, but also the universe itself and we are part of it. We are god. Brahman created itself BTW. Take that Escher. I personally find that their model that makes a whole lot more sense, than god being an external entity, but hey, that's me.

I am aware enough about math to understand the arguments that some scientists use to support that molecular biology is not as improbable as some suggest. I agree that certain chemicals can only combine in certain ways, but they ignore the fact that long chains of improbable events have to occur to make all of this work. Inside the cell we have chemical interactions that cannot proceed independent of each other that are individually improbable, and these scientists want me to accept that they occur by chance. The odds are against it. Sure, it is possible if we postulate certain improbable conditions, and make the argument that conditions were different then. Not impossible, but then they turn around and argue for the consistency of conditions to prove other portions of their theories, a bit confusing to me.

As for your argument that life is something that was all but inevitable no matter what random events occur, where is the proof of that? That is asking me to totally through out the Laws of Thermodynamics and believe that entropy will always reverse to create life. You want me to believe that the laws of physics can be suspended, but not in a God that actually suspends them. Which of us is taking the larger leap of faith?

Tell your microbiologist friend to stop being so arrogant and take a look at the real world. there is a guy with no formal training that the United States Navy, as well as most other ocean going powers, to track and predict waves at sea. Most astronomical discoveries are made by amateurs without the training of the professionals. Mathematical advances are made everyday by people who do not have degrees. An education does not give him a better understanding of the way the universe works, despite what he was taught by his close minded professors who want to throw out other possibilities simply because the person advancing them does not have a degree in microbiology.

Soprry, sort of a soap box ther. I can actually walk into JPL in Pasadena and discuss the advances of quantum physics and astrophysics with PhD's that do not look down on me because I do not have a degree because they are smart enough to know that degrees are do not indicate intelligence, but a microbiologists wants to try and tell me that I cannot possibly understand simple statistics because I do not have a degree. I just tend to get my fur up when I run into that attitude, and it is not you I am upset about. I do not know what you know about math, but statistics are pretty straightforward and simple. You take all the variables, and all the possibilities, and you chrunch a few numbers, and the results come out.

The truth is that we don't know how unlikely it is that life occurs. Our statistical population is one and it gives us a positive for life at every reading. Statistically we can't say much. And in none of the models except the creationist model is the laws of thermodynamics broken. As far as I know, nobody has said that life is inevitable, as Mars and the Moon has proven.

"Inside the cell we have chemical interactions that cannot proceed independent of each other that are individually improbable, and these scientists want me to accept that they occur by chance. The odds are against it."

This is just wrong. It's just creationist propaganda. I'm no molecular biologist but pretty much the whole scientific community doesn't seem to feel the need to insert god anywhere here. The problem is that the people who have the training to understand this can't explain it to us without the training, because it's far too counter intuitive.

To me it made no sense at all. I saw some research on some muscle in mouse lungs in it might as well have been in Greek. it it was pretty electron microscope pictures. The thing is that I have taken the leap of faith that scientists aren't wilfully trying to trick me and when they make statements that go completely unchallenged by a world of lab coats, that it's as close to truth as I believe I'll personally get. The leap of faith required to believe in scientific theories isn't particularly great is it?

I find it strange that an enlightened person like you feel the need to question them. You don't even believe in a literal reading of the Bible, so I don't get the conflict? What's wrong with believing that God created the conditions for life to assemble through random occurrences? Alistar mcGrath, Dawkins biggest critic, a Christian and a molecular biologist sees no conflict between evolution and the Bible. Why do you?

Always when private people discover stuff their academic background researching the stuff in question always pops up. Like Einstein for example. But recently it's completely unheard of. Beside that pastor in the Australian outback who's discovered a shit load of stars, who is there? And his discoveries dropped off to near zero after Hubble was launched.

Rhabbi

09-22-2007, 09:50 AM

But your idol Jesus has poopy ..... just kidding.

I can take a joke Tom, np.

Dawkins arguments for a lack an understanding of quantum mechanics is that we all do. None of us have a clue. Just because you say that there is a creator and it knows, doesn't really add to your case does it? You have no way of verifying it with the diety, do you?

Nope, but the fact that he argues for the existence of miracles in one breath, and then against the few instances that we have of them being recorded from history is a bit wishy washy, imo.

To me at least, you're now starting to make sense. But you at a stroke insert a massive dose of uncertainty into the Bible. How can we use religious texts to understand god better? If the Bible is later in the whispering chain, how does that increase the case for the Bible.

I don't think anybody knows the origins of the Bhagavad Ghita. It references wars about 3000 BC around Hampi. I think it's in Karnataka, India.That's about it. I think it's really cool that some of the buildings referenced are still standing and can still be visited today. They are very old. Since it explains the supernatural and dieties, I'd say it can be assumed that who ever wrote it, thought they did it on divine inspiration. I can't think of any religious text that wouldn't be considered as such. Don't forget that at the time all kings and anybody very famous for anything was considered a god of sorts. That goes for Europe to. So it needs plenty of critical reading.

A central theme in Hinduism is that everything is part of and a reincarnation of Brahman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

So Brahman isn't just the creator of the universe, but also the universe itself and we are part of it. We are god. Brahman created itself BTW. Take that Escher. I personally find that their model that makes a whole lot more sense, than god being an external entity, but hey, that's me.

In a way I agree with you. Which is one reason I kind of like the idea that the universe is a joke we cooked up among ourselves, and the biggest part of the joke is that we forgot.

My understanding of Scripture causes me to believe something similar. we are all part of God.

The truth is that we don't know how unlikely it is that life occurs. Our statistical population is one and it gives us a positive for life at every reading. Statistically we can't say much. And in none of the models except the creationist model is the laws of thermodynamics broken. As far as I know, nobody has said that life is inevitable, as Mars and the Moon has proven.

"Inside the cell we have chemical interactions that cannot proceed independent of each other that are individually improbable, and these scientists want me to accept that they occur by chance. The odds are against it."

This is just wrong. It's just creationist propaganda. I'm no molecular biologist but pretty much the whole scientific community doesn't seem to feel the need to insert god anywhere here. The problem is that the people who have the training to understand this can't explain it to us without the training, because it's far too counter intuitive.

To me it made no sense at all. I saw some research on some muscle in mouse lungs in it might as well have been in Greek. it it was pretty electron microscope pictures. The thing is that I have taken the leap of faith that scientists aren't wilfully trying to trick me and when they make statements that go completely unchallenged by a world of lab coats, that it's as close to truth as I believe I'll personally get. The leap of faith required to believe in scientific theories isn't particularly great is it?

I do believe in scientific theories, I just do not know whose argument to believe. My point is that people who do have the training to understand these supposed arguments are making these counter claims. Why do their opponents then try to make the argument that I cannot understand because I do not have the training to comprehend the argument. I know from experience that I can learn the basics of even complex math rather quickly. someone trying to tell me their is no way I can understand is actually telling me that he is not as sure of his arguments as he claims, or that he does not want to take the time to make me understand.

I am watching the reformation of theories about how solar systems form based on new findings from the Hubble. We are learning that most of the theories we had based on looking at our system are wrong, and that it is getting a little harder to explain why this system formed the way it did. Scientist hoped to find Super Jupiters, but we have been stumbling over them at such an astounding rate that we are learning that the ideas we had are wrong. I am not saying that the solar system we live in is inexplicable, just a bit more unlikely then we thought.

If we were wrong about that, what else can we be wrong about?

I find it strange that an enlightened person like you feel the need to question them. You don't even believe in a literal reading of the Bible, so I don't get the conflict? What's wrong with believing that God created the conditions for life to assemble through random occurrences? Alistar mcGrath, Dawkins biggest critic, a Christian and a molecular biologist sees no conflict between evolution and the Bible. Why do you?

Who says I do? The conflict I have is with the teaching of evolution as a totally proven theory. The scientific community can be just as blind as anyone else when their beliefs are challenged, and they need to acknowledge that the answers are not as cut and dried as they are being presented. But that is actually another discussion, and we can take it up again later.

Always when private people discover stuff their academic background researching the stuff in question always pops up. Like Einstein for example. But recently it's completely unheard of. Beside that pastor in the Australian outback who's discovered a shit load of stars, who is there? And his discoveries dropped off to near zero after Hubble was launched.

The interesting thing about the new discoveries being made by amateurs is that they far out pace those of the professionals. There was a comment in one of the TED videos I watched (btw, thanks so much for that link, I love it) about a part time comet hunter that downloads data from the Hubble and uses it to look for comets. He has discovered 150 comets this way, more than people who have sophisticated search programs and are actually paid to do this.

The fact is that a person without formal education is just as capable, and sometimes more likely, to make a discovery because he does not have to justify his ideas to someone else.

TomOfSweden

09-23-2007, 03:32 AM

Nope, but the fact that he argues for the existence of miracles in one breath, and then against the few instances that we have of them being recorded from history is a bit wishy washy, imo.

I think he argues against our understanding of whether it is miracles or not. A bit like, even if a miracle would shoot up and bite us in the ass, we might not register it as such. In the same way. If we see something mundane but in a way we're not prepared for we might register it falsely as a miracle.

I do believe in scientific theories, I just do not know whose argument to believe. My point is that people who do have the training to understand these supposed arguments are making these counter claims. Why do their opponents then try to make the argument that I cannot understand because I do not have the training to comprehend the argument. I know from experience that I can learn the basics of even complex math rather quickly. someone trying to tell me their is no way I can understand is actually telling me that he is not as sure of his arguments as he claims, or that he does not want to take the time to make me understand.

What I said was that I didn't understand it. I wasn't talking about you. But I do very strongly doubt that without serious studies, it's possible to understand.

I am watching the reformation of theories about how solar systems form based on new findings from the Hubble. We are learning that most of the theories we had based on looking at our system are wrong, and that it is getting a little harder to explain why this system formed the way it did. Scientist hoped to find Super Jupiters, but we have been stumbling over them at such an astounding rate that we are learning that the ideas we had are wrong. I am not saying that the solar system we live in is inexplicable, just a bit more unlikely then we thought.

If we were wrong about that, what else can we be wrong about?

um...yeah. and we still have the Banach Tarski paradox to deal with. I think you're mixing up positive and negative attributes to arguments. The more uncertaintly you insert to a premise means just that. It doesn't add to any specific theory no matter how wide it's domain is.

Sure, the "god theory" has the handy attribute of fitting into any situation due to it's nature. It is supremely intelligent, has no mass, gives no energy readings, is invisible and at the same time all powerful. Me personally, I'd say that if that doesn't make you laugh, then I don't know what's wrong with you. As far as a scientific theory is concerned it's a bit like walking around with a bazooka and calling it "a key that fits any door".

So, the fact remains that there is still no reason to insert an omnipotent, or even mildly powerful ethereal being anywhere in any theory today. So you inserting doubt in now defunct old popular scientific theories doesn't really do much for Christianity I'm afraid. If it does to you, then that is proof that you're just seeing things you want to see.

The plain fact is that the more uncertainty you insert the harder it is for anybody to make a leap of faith. If you do anyway then .... well ... I'll refrain from making insults here.

Who says I do? The conflict I have is with the teaching of evolution as a totally proven theory. The scientific community can be just as blind as anyone else when their beliefs are challenged, and they need to acknowledge that the answers are not as cut and dried as they are being presented. But that is actually another discussion, and we can take it up again later.

No it isn't as blind as anyone else when their beliefs are challenged. That's what so nice about science. It is very important that scientists do come up with wonky theories which break from today's paradigm. But they are scientists. They are systematic and above all make sure they don't break any of the things we can prove. I'd say that you need to be a part of the scientific community to make sure you aren't forgetting any previous critical research. If nothing else you need to be attached to a university just to have access to their databases to be able to search earlier research. It's extremely valuable to know that nobody before you took your idea, ran with it and failed.

There is more than just knowing or not knowing. There are known unknowns and there are things that you may not know that you don't know.

The interesting thing about the new discoveries being made by amateurs is that they far out pace those of the professionals. There was a comment in one of the TED videos I watched (btw, thanks so much for that link, I love it) about a part time comet hunter that downloads data from the Hubble and uses it to look for comets. He has discovered 150 comets this way, more than people who have sophisticated search programs and are actually paid to do this.

The fact is that a person without formal education is just as capable, and sometimes more likely, to make a discovery because he does not have to justify his ideas to someone else.

But without the scientific work that tells him what to look for he wouldn't have a clue. The discovery isn't the comets, but the method on how to find it. It's all about how you look at it.

Rhabbi

09-25-2007, 08:13 AM

I think he argues against our understanding of whether it is miracles or not. A bit like, even if a miracle would shoot up and bite us in the ass, we might not register it as such. In the same way. If we see something mundane but in a way we're not prepared for we might register it falsely as a miracle.

I can see that, and it goes along with another favorite quote of mine; "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C Clarke. My point is that for years science has argued that miracles as they are described in the bible are impossible. we are just now beginning to understand that they are actually possible.

What I said was that I didn't understand it. I wasn't talking about you. But I do very strongly doubt that without serious studies, it's possible to understand.

And where is that serious study? Science already thinks it has the answers, so it is not looking.

um...yeah. and we still have the Banach Tarski paradox to deal with. I think you're mixing up positive and negative attributes to arguments. The more uncertaintly you insert to a premise means just that. It doesn't add to any specific theory no matter how wide it's domain is.

Sure, the "god theory" has the handy attribute of fitting into any situation due to it's nature. It is supremely intelligent, has no mass, gives no energy readings, is invisible and at the same time all powerful. Me personally, I'd say that if that doesn't make you laugh, then I don't know what's wrong with you. As far as a scientific theory is concerned it's a bit like walking around with a bazooka and calling it "a key that fits any door".

So, the fact remains that there is still no reason to insert an omnipotent, or even mildly powerful ethereal being anywhere in any theory today. So you inserting doubt in now defunct old popular scientific theories doesn't really do much for Christianity I'm afraid. If it does to you, then that is proof that you're just seeing things you want to see.

The plain fact is that the more uncertainty you insert the harder it is for anybody to make a leap of faith. If you do anyway then .... well ... I'll refrain from making insults here.

As a scientific theory it does make me laugh. I always want to brain the people who try to make the theory fit their beliefs, even if it is as natural as breathing. I am not trying to argue that God is the answer here, just that that explanation makes a bit more sense to me than random chance. Scientists reject it as a theory only because they do not want to believe in God, which shows their prejudice, not mine.

Sure, this opens new questions, but since science is about exploring questions, why not explore them? Can we find answers? I do not know, but I do know that there is no way we will if we do not look.

No it isn't as blind as anyone else when their beliefs are challenged. That's what so nice about science. It is very important that scientists do come up with wonky theories which break from today's paradigm. But they are scientists. They are systematic and above all make sure they don't break any of the things we can prove. I'd say that you need to be a part of the scientific community to make sure you aren't forgetting any previous critical research. If nothing else you need to be attached to a university just to have access to their databases to be able to search earlier research. It's extremely valuable to know that nobody before you took your idea, ran with it and failed.

There is more than just knowing or not knowing. There are known unknowns and there are things that you may not know that you don't know.

Now you are the one confusing things here. I said the scientific community can be just as blind as anyone else, and you rebut that science is about questioning. The thing that I know is that scientists are humans. I can go back through history, even recent history, that shows how scientist resist new ideas. This is only human, but it should raise a flag whenever it occurs. I personally have found that the more violently I react to a new idea, the more likely it is to be correct.

But without the scientific work that tells him what to look for he wouldn't have a clue. The discovery isn't the comets, but the method on how to find it. It's all about how you look at it.

True, but amateurs have access to all the same information that scientists do. They can subscribe to all the scientific journals, read all the articles online, and everything that a regular scientists does. In this day and age information is readily available to anyone who looks for it. This enables even someone without a degree to understand everything that a PhD does.

This is why I always take exception to people who try to tell me I cannot understand something without years of university training. Schools do not teach us how to think. In fact, they actually do the opposite, they teach us what to think. At least that is what happens here in the US, it might be different in Sweden.