Science, Religion, God – Let’s just be honest

quote:

---

As modernists we like straight forward clear cut answers to questions. As a result some Christians, instead of focusing their faith on Jesus focus it on the Bible, and look for answers by finding a couple of verses, (usually ones that give them the answer that they agrees with what they want to hear), and they are done.

---

Do you really blame a lot of Christians though from (supposedly) finding their answers in the Scriptures and for believing that the Bible is the Word of God? I mean, after all, isn't that where the whole concept of Christianity comes from to begin with? Why would God have a bunch of men write about Him inaccurately if the Bible was really the only way in which He makes his "identity" known to us? Put yourself in their perspective here: "Would God intentionally deceive us"? You can't possibly expect Christians who are trying to find ground in their ideas to just make up their own teachings based on characters and perceived concepts from the Bible but not from the Bible itself?

quote:

---

I contend the Bible is a narrative of the story of God reaching out through the hearts, minds and imaginations of His very imperfect people with it culminating in the life, death, resurrection and ascension of the imperfect embodiment of His Word in Jesus. The epistles then go on to flesh out Jesus' message and what God was doing and is doing through Jesus Christ.

---

I understand that it's your contention, but how is it justified. By what authority is this so? How do you establish that the Bible in general is a narrative? From Scripture itself or from the fact that God has told you this? How is your contention justified, in other words?How would someone totally without your persuasion be able to understand that this is the "true" way to be interpreting God's "purpose" or the "understanding" what He truly wants us to have?

quote:

---

The Bible should be read through the lens of the message of Christ with the faith that God is good, wants goodness for us and wants us to reflect His goodness into the world. It is still done with faith however and not absolute knowledge.

---

And where do you get this "should" idea from? Is this a divine revelation that was made known to you personally? The Bible does not only communicate the "goodness" of God, it communicates all sorts of behaviors from commanding the Israelites to slaughter other nations to regulating slavery etc etc. Is it your contention people reading the Bible should only focus on certain verses and then decide that only those are the ones God meant for us to understand as being representative of His character?You have to realize that none of this is new to me, I've been in the Bible camp, I know how "we" think. I've been everywhere from a more or less literalist interpretation of Scripture all the way to "well, I'm a Christian but I still can't know 100% for sure". We want to somehow justify ideas that we have wrapped up in these little heads of ours instead of just admitting "okay, alright, I actually don't even know if this idea of my God even exists". Remember, "we" HAVE to make these notions work somehow because that's what "we" WANT to believe. I mean, it just HAS to be that way!Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.

Tempe, I can't address all of this because a lot of it is just a rehash.

quote:

---

Claiming that metaphysical explanations cannot exist alongside honest to god scientific discoveries is another mistake you are making because this is a belief that stands outside of science's applicability.

---

I didn't say that they can't co-exist, I said that the principles of the two things are just not compatible, even if someone imagines that they can make them work. It's all the difference in the world between someone informing you that they have an as-of-yet unheard of disease and one person saying "I have the answer, it's Jesus!" and the other person saying "we need to figure out how to find a cure for your disease because we don't know". I don't need some long philosophical explanation from you to try to make the two things fit.

quote:

---

Yes, Science can make a belief ludicrous to continue to hold onto, such as a flat Earth.

---

I originally misread this. People just assumed the earth to be flat based on sight, but also mostly on the basis of religion, before anyone questioned it. Science made no such belief. And even if it did, science is always willing to revise itself, a religion is not (at some point or another).

quote:

---

The spiritual/metaphysical/supernatural world it does not need to bow to science on because science does not and cannot say anything about this idea.

---

The "spiritual/metaphysical/supernatural" doesn't exist as a possibility unless we find evidence for it. Your statement is no different than me saying "the tooth fairy, flying spaghetti monster and santa claus do not need to bow to science because science does not and cannot say anything about those creatures." And you're right, so if it can't be "knowable", it's not even worth considering. "I believe that there is a moon outside of the universe that is made up of cotton candy". Okay, lovely, now moving on...

quote:

---

However, this simply explains why a religion can exist alongside science with the required flexibility within the natural world.

---

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you are saying here, there are a host of religions that deal with ideas relevant to the natural world. The whole concept of Jesus coming down to earth to die, for instance, deals with something involving the natural world. Islam has a host of precepts involving the natural world. Religions that try to forge their own realities completely in the metaphysical with no relation to the real world are almost nonexistent. If a religion asserting a metaphysical nature makes itself "known" to the real world, then it's automatically in the way of science rendering it implausible, especially if it has a holy book dealing with precepts for human beings and the world and universe.

quote:

---

but you are placing science as the ultimate arbiter, when even science itself states that it cannot investigate outside of the natural world.

---

Science is the only mechanism that has produced real answers in the form of electricity, medicine, airplanes etc, I didn't say it's the ultimate arbiter. No other process has shown effective YET. Science does NOT "itself state that it cannot investigate outside of the natural world". Science is just the mere exploration of truth on a number of different fronts dealing with what we can possibly know and test and challenge and deduce with high or low probability, that's it. It assumes nothing and makes no parameters of "this is attainable and that isn't". That's in your head.

quote:

---

I'm not sure what religion you were raised in, but being raised Catholic, I was definitely told to question my faith, not "it is this way and just deal with it".

---

I'm sure the Pope told you to question whether or not he's the Vicar of Christ, and also whether or not Peter was the first Pope!And yes, I think almost ANY religion talks about how you should "question",...otherwise it makes them look unreasonable, and they all want to LOOK reasonable.

quote:

---

You keep seeing this because there is an enormous gap between fundamentalists and those who question their faith, help others, and find the answers that lead to a better life for themselves and those around them. I'm not exactly sure how you do not see the difference between one group that refuses to listen to things outside of a Holy Book and a congregation and a group of individuals who are willing to accept the discoveries of the modern world and learn how they can fit within the framework they already have from religion, including occasionally removing portions they had originally agreed with in their faith.

---

Because there's no difference between someone who imagines what their deity wants outside a holy book or within a crazy range of interpretations within a holy book. How do you think the holy books started? It started with people imagining what they wanted to be true and started writing it down for others to believe. People forging religious belief will always be a contemporary to the knowledge around them. Back in Bible times the people who invented Christianity thought the earth was flat because everyone said so, and that was part of their reality in the Bible and so they made it fit. Now we know the earth is round so people today make that compatible with their current teaching, whether they have to somehow make it fit with the Bible or make it fit with an abstract version of their religious reality outside of a holy book.Despite the fact that one can hold religious beliefs and still embrace a lot of realities in the real world and scientific ideas, the notion of religion clashes with the principle of scientific advancement. Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.

Suffice it to say that when a person says they are "religious" or "very religious", it nearly invariably means that they don't accept a possibility that they are wrong in what they believe. It really just goes with the territory. Ask any person who puts a great deal of time into upholding their particular religious strain. If you want to find a loophole, that's fine, but let's not kid ourselves about what it usually means to be "religious". Scientists on the other hand go into believing something realizing that there is a high possibility they are wrong if their particular idea isn't supported with evidence. Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.

quote:

---

In a manner of speaking yes. Read the "Sermon on the Mount". Even just using those three chapters in Matthew, in which Jesus continuously quotes what we call the Old Testament we can understand what was of God as opposed to what came from human desires to try and conform God to their image and purposes.

---

I'm glad you know the instances in which it is appropriate to seek the Bible as an authority on Christianity, such as the passages concerning the sermon on the mount.It would be interesting watching you debate with other Christians regarding the TRUE way in which Christianity should be understood and represented.

quote:

---

Does a God who tells you to love your enemy also tell you to commit genocide?

---

Yaweh certainly did. Would you like the verses?

quote:

---

Your posts don't support that claim.

---

I've been an ardent Christian for most of my life and that's why it's amusing seeing your arguments. They seem to make so much sense when you aren't outside of the box looking at them. It was only when I decided to be honest with myself that I realized the error of my ways and my arrogance and my self-delusion. It actually wasn't easy because naturally we want to really think our "faith" makes sense, it gives hope and a supposed purpose to our lives -- but of course, it's not humility.

quote:

---

Interestingly enough people like Dawkins and Hitchens have agreed that they want to believe that there is no god as they find the idea very small and trivial, or words to that effect. You may not accept this but my beliefs are part of an ongoing search for truth as I can best understand it.

---

Why do you need to look for truth though when you already have the answer? Yet it's funny that you also admit you are still searching for truth which is an admission that you really don't know and that itself undermines your whole "faith". So why not just come clean and dispense with clinging on to a phantom Christianity that you already question to begin with?As far as Dawkins and Hitchens, they are human beings who acknowledge their ignorance rather than basing their lives on something for which there is absolutely no evidence.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.

quote:

---

In the end everyone's worldview is based on their faith in something even if it is just in themselves.

---

Yep. Keep fooling yourself.

quote:

---

In looking at it through the lens of what we have from Jesus it is clear that Yaweh would not have told His people to commit genocide which leaves us with two choices.

---

This is only clear to you because you want to believe in your version of Yaweh. You're already on the premise that it's true so you do what you need to do mentally to make it fit.

quote:

---

If I KNEW, it would no longer be faith. As a Christian I'm prepared to question everything I believe, in much the same way that scientists question their knowledge.

---

You can try to make yourself feel better by thinking this, but it doesn't change reality. One is a willingness to revise our understanding based on emerging evidence, the other (your faith) is no different than believing that the flying spaghetti monster has a plan for our lives or that santa claus is real. Since it never took evidence for you to believe in your religion to begin with, why would you try to sell me the idea that you're willing to question your religion based on future emerging evidence? Ever stopped to think about that one?

quote:

---

You seem to be the only one with absolute knowledge. I have read and listened to both Dawkins and Hitchens fairly extensively and they are the first to admit that they don't KNOW that what they believe is correct.

---

The difference between us is that I'm already under the admission that I don't have a knowledge of things for which there is no evidence. You already believe in something without any evidence and you've convinced yourself that it is less silly than believing in the tooth fairy. Absolute knowledge is nonexistent, and then there is knowledge based on plausibility and probability.We both "know" that the tooth fairy doesn't exist based on plausibility and probability (not absolute knowledge). I also know that your religion isn't real based on the same understanding you share with me on the tooth fairy. Got it?Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.

Modulous, but don't you understand, none of that genocide is described in the Bible, we are just "imposing our understanding" of the Bible on others. Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.

GDR,It's obvious that you take some verses of the Bible as literal truth, such as the resurrection, for instance. By what criteria do you determine which verses are just a story written to convey some sort of "lesson" and which are to be understood as having really happened?

I'm not sure how your CS Lewis quote answered my question, but, moving on to some other comments you made...

quote:

---

I'm not sure that I would say that I read the various accounts of the resurrected Jesus as being literally true because there are obvious contradictions in the details. However, just as witnessess to a traffic accident will differ in the details they all agree that the accident happened.

---

So who are all of these first hand witnesses besides what we read in the Bible?Isn't it true that you seem to use Bible verses when it seems appropriate in your mind but then when it comes to defining your criteria for understanding which verses are to be used as relevant and which are to be discarded you don't really give an answer?

quote:

---

On the assumption that I am correct in that fundamental belief we can then look at what others have recorded of the words and life of Jesus, knowing that the writers of the NT all believed that Jesus had been resurrected giving them strong motivation to accurately preserve what Jesus taught. Through that lens we can then form our beliefs about the Bible, as well as what others have written or said, realizing that the narrative of God and His creation didn't come to an end 2000 years ago but is still ongoing and will continue into the future.

---

Except, assumption is the mother of all lies. Your "lense" actually has no clarity whatsoever and it is very confusing to anyone who isn't trapped in your precise way of thinking. Again, how do we know which portions of the Bible are "truth" and which aren't?

quote:

---

The whole Christian story makes considerable sense of the world that I live in and even more so of my own life.

---

How does it make sense of all of the random oddities going on in the world and Universe that don't have any salvational purpose whatsoever? I mean, do you think that all of the animals in this world are going to be saved through Jesus as well? What is their purpose? Why are asteroids flying into planets and stars exploding billions of light years away? When you look at the whole thing it really does look like an accident that we are here. But you really have to open up your mind to see that, like about two months ago when I stopped tricking myself into thinking that I had answers to all of these as-of-yet unknown questions.

quote:

---

I think we would all agree that we yearn for things like purpose, justice, and hope in our lives. It seems to me likely that as these yearnings seem to be a basic part of our nature that there is an ultimate answer. Atheism means that ultimately the sun will burn out, (or whatever else finishes life off prior to that), and there is no ultimate purpose. Atheism means that when someone who has lived enjoying the suffering of others and then dies have never faced justice, and will enjoy the same fate as someone who has live a life that found joy in the joy of others. Atheism means that there is no hope that there is life after our current existence that will provide purpose and justice for all.

---

Totally wrong. I used to think that was atheism too until I realized that I was already an atheist when it came to most religions and gods that people believe in. In fact, you're an atheist too on so many levels. Atheists, however, decide they aren't willing to make up an answer to those questions that you want answered, instead they are willing to LEARN the answers to those questions rather than assuming them as you are willing to do.If we had to come up with a world defining ourselves as "not believing in fairies" it would be ridiculous, right? Let's call it an "afairiest". Not believing in fairies or Santa Clause or the flying spaghetti monster is simply the logically default position, a position that you share with all atheists. Being an atheist should be the DEFAULT position on the narrowly described definition of "god" put forth by humans. The default position should also be (for everyone) "there is no spaghetti monster". It's just that religion is so prominent that the few who appeal to reason have been labeled "atheists", as though their unbelief defines them when it absolutely doesn't.

quote:

---

Atheism means that when someone who has lived enjoying the suffering of others and then dies have never faced justice, and will enjoy the same fate as someone who has live a life that found joy in the joy of others. Atheism means that there is no hope that there is life after our current existence that will provide purpose and justice for all.

---

Atheism means you don't have to reconcile an all-loving and powerful god who also sits there watching all of the atrocities that you speak of unfold without stopping it. IF your god does exist, he's not a good god at all but a very very wicked being.

quote:

---

Christianity provides an answer to those yearnings. Of course it doesn't matter at all if it isn't true. If there is no god then it is totally irrelevant. I am only suggesting that the fact that we have these yearnings as part of our nature, then it seems reasonable to expect that there is an ultimate answer for them. It is my belief that Jesus Christ shows us what the answers are.

---

No, Christianity DOESN'T provide an answer to those yearnings, it only complicates the already complicated world we live in because it is bursting with contradictions and unanswered questions. Why do children get cancer and die horrible deaths if God really cares? Why did God need to take human form and die for us in the first place? Why did that HAVE to be the "only" answer" in "saving" us? When you think about it, it doesn't even make sense. The trinity is the most ridiculous thing ever, it's basically polytheism that still somehow manages to call itself monotheism. Jesus was talking to "God the Father" in heaven while on the cross, so right there you have two beings and really not one. And then you have the Holy Spirit somehow... But rest assured, all three are really one and Jesus was just talking to himself looking down at himself in heaven when he said "father forgive them". Or are they separate beings? DaaaaaaI have been a professed "Christian" up until about two months ago when I just consciously stopped fooling myself that it all could somehow make sense no matter how nonsensical it really is. Let's live in reality and LOOK for those answers you are yearning for instead of being content with believing in something that you already know subconsciously "probably" isn't true. My "coming out" experience may sound like a giant cliche but it really is a red pill, blue pill moment when you face up to it. Remember, being an atheist doesn't mean "I know there's no god and no meaning for life", it simply means: "I'm not believing in a tooth fairy until there's evidence for one". It's the same position you currently have with a host of mythical things and other religions that you don't accept.Just the sheer evidence of how the god "Yaweh" was created as a derivative of other gods of Canaan (specifically from the god "El") is enough to invalidate the whole thing. All you have to do is open up your eyes to the evidence because it's all around you.BTW, speaking of Paul... What about the verse where Paul says women should be silent and shamefaced in church? Does that one somehow get thrown out the window?Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.