Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The evolution of an atheist.
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 151 of 280 (575329)
08-19-2010 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by GDR
08-19-2010 3:20 AM


If you are wrong and there is a god or gods then the end result of perfect theology is just as true as is perfect science, and certainly worthwhile studying.
If there is a god or gods, then proving that there is should be the first and only priority of theologians until that proof is completed. But no theologians are apparently even working on that. Indeed the theological position is that such proof is impossible.
Isn't it nonsense to open an entire field of study on a subject and then just skip over the part where you prove your subject actually exists? Imagine how absurd it would be if I opened the School for Unicorn Science, devoted to the study of the ecology, behavior, and applications of equine monohorns, and then immediately declared the question of the actual existence of unicorns so beneath concern as to be off-limits to study.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by GDR, posted 08-19-2010 3:20 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Bikerman, posted 08-19-2010 3:51 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 164 by GDR, posted 08-19-2010 7:18 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 152 of 280 (575331)
08-19-2010 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Bikerman
08-19-2010 3:22 AM


Sure about that are you?
Just mostly and provisionally sure. Certainly the reverse makes a lot less sense - thinking is what minds do, minds are what brains do. The notion that thinking creates minds which create brains is precisely backwards to what we observe.
What do you mean by 'world' and 'real'? Is a virtual photon 'real'?
I can't imagine anything less interesting than talking about what words mean, and to the extent that this is the primary focus of modern philosophy, that merely confirms my impression that philosophy has become a dumpster for questions not interesting enough to be picked up by fields that can generate real knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Bikerman, posted 08-19-2010 3:22 AM Bikerman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Bikerman, posted 08-19-2010 3:56 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 153 of 280 (575333)
08-19-2010 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by crashfrog
08-19-2010 3:36 PM


The problem is actually built-in. Although we call the 'discipline' Theology, that is simply a result of our chauvanism. There is no such thing in practice. There is Christian Theology, Jewish Theology etc. Few if any people are general theologians, all have a primary focus.
I actually feel quite strongly that 'theologian' should not be granted the respect it currently is - we frequently have theologians or clerics called in whenever there is an ethical issue in the news. Why? They have no special expertise and the notion that their studies of their scriptures in some way qualifies them as general experts on matters of ethics is entirely bogus IMHO.
They are experts in nothing other than a particular scriptural source and its interpretations - and I would question even that.
I also do not like the fact that we are willing to grant Doctorates and Masters degrees in the 'subject' which allows theologians to consider themselves academic colleagues of real academics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by crashfrog, posted 08-19-2010 3:36 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


(1)
Message 154 of 280 (575335)
08-19-2010 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by crashfrog
08-19-2010 3:45 PM


quote:
I can't imagine anything less interesting than talking about what words mean,
I think you are very wrong on this. It isn't a semantic issue, it is an ontological issue. It is the very question you say is most important - what is 'real'? What you perceive as real is not real. You know that on an intellectual level but then what actually IS real? Science can give you some facts about electron cloud distributions and quantum superposition, but what does that actually mean to you? If you want to understand what is actual, real, objective (and just as importantly - whether such a thing exists, which is highly debatable) then you cannot avoid philosophy. If you don't care and you are content to work on the illusion presented by the senses and the machines which feed them data, then I would say that talking about 'reality' is something you cannot do.
Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by crashfrog, posted 08-19-2010 3:45 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by crashfrog, posted 08-19-2010 4:06 PM Bikerman has replied
 Message 158 by Stile, posted 08-19-2010 4:19 PM Bikerman has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 155 of 280 (575336)
08-19-2010 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by GDR
08-19-2010 2:06 PM


General Comments
(The following comments are not so much a reply to GDR as they are a general reply in the "evolution of an atheist" sense... I don't mean to comment specifically on GDR's current conversation with Bikerman so much as to comment more generally on the topic of "Evolution of an Atheist")
So when you say that there is no way to tell whether a particular theology is better than another one I suggest that this is a good place to start. Which religion has the premise that best promotes an altruistic life style and to what degree.
If "promoting an altruistic life style to the highest degree" is the goal, shouldn't we consider doing away with all theologies? After all, it would seem that man has learnt that the best way to "promote an altruistic life style to the highest degree" is to form a free, democratic-infused government that is specifically separated from theology. That shouldn't be something we ignore.
In my case I found that after I became a Christian over the years things happened that I subjectively believe only happened because I seemed to have a connection with God that I didnt have before.
Right, and I would agree that you are on the right path. It is best to know yourself and be happy with your own decisions before trying to mold yourself into following other's advice on how to live. Finally understanding yourself and making decisions in light of that understanding is a seemingly-magical source of personal happiness and confidence.
Similarly with myself, I subjectively believe so many things have only "happened" in my life after I stopped worrying about following Christianity and God in any way. You may attribute such an elevation in personal happiness to God, whereas I attribute such a thing to an internal alignment with knowing one's own personality and staying true to such... in which case avoiding many, many "inner turmoils" of fighting against one's own personality (whatever that may be).
The benefit of my stance is that I can accept your life as being "equal" and "the right path for you" as much as this is the right path for me.
Can you say the same from your perspective on my stance? Or is there anything that requires you to believe (or simply think) than my path is lesser or perhaps even just "slightly mis-aligned"... even though there's absolutely no difference in any of our subjective abilities to "be unfathomably happy" or "draw unlimited strength" or even experience a phenomenal connection with something we feel is greater than ourselves?
(Again, GDR, these questions are not meant to be specifically directed at you. Feel free to answer if you wish, but my intent here is more to ask general questions to those religiously inclined with perhaps a "stronger, negative conviction" towards those outside their congregation. I don't mean to imply that you yourself have these negative thoughts of those who don't believe exactly the same... you don't seem to come off that way).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by GDR, posted 08-19-2010 2:06 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by GDR, posted 08-20-2010 3:32 AM Stile has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 156 of 280 (575340)
08-19-2010 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Bikerman
08-19-2010 3:56 PM


. It is the very question you say is most important - what is 'real'?
This.
If you want to understand what is actual, real, objective (and just as importantly - whether such a thing exists, which is highly debatable) then you cannot avoid philosophy.
Sure I can. I'm doing it now.
This, ultimately, is the greatest fiction promulgated by the philosophers - their arrogant and self-serving notion that they're crucial to all human knowledge, that their indolent masturbation somehow makes science possible. In the world of science, though, I've met only a handful of scientists who could even name a philosopher of science; philosophical issues simply aren't on the radar of real scientists because they're completely and utterly irrelevant to the project of finding out more about the world around us.
Philosophy of science is just an attempt to take all the credit for other people's work. It's like Michaelangelo's pigment grinder taking credit for the Sistine chapel.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Bikerman, posted 08-19-2010 3:56 PM Bikerman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Bikerman, posted 08-19-2010 4:18 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 159 by nwr, posted 08-19-2010 4:44 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


(1)
Message 157 of 280 (575342)
08-19-2010 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by crashfrog
08-19-2010 4:06 PM


Again I could not agree less.
Let's talk cases:
a) Hume realised long ago that the whole basis of science was dodgy. It depended on induction. A has happened 99 times therefore A will happen next time. Very dodgy. It took a philosopher to sort it out and to give a PRACTICAL method of solving the problem. Don't prove, refute. If Popper had not done his thing, then scientists might well be still trying to prove their theories right, and by so doing making fundamental errors.
b) Quantum physics. You cannot even begin to talk sense about quantum physics without immediately getting into philosophy. What is the nature of the wavefunction collapse? Is it real? Are the Copenhagen crew right or is the Many Worlds interpretation right, or is there a hidden variable solution - all these are philosophy, not science, which is why we call the various standpoints interpretations not theories - the science is what the science is for all of them, but what that means is different for each and will determin what you should next be prodding away at. If you are a Copenhaganist then you will not be prodding away trying to find some underlying mechanism to the collapse, because there isn't one. If you are a realist like Penrose then there must be something 'bigger' than the collapse so you must look for that - he looks for it in quantum gravity.
That is just to consider two cases. I could develop this further in many directions and show how philosophy is inerlinked with science right through and through.
I think you are pissed-off with the relativists and the philosophers who devote careers to extremely esoteric branches of the subject. All I am saying is that philosophy is not defined by those, it has a real, functional and crucial role which sits alongside science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by crashfrog, posted 08-19-2010 4:06 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by nwr, posted 08-19-2010 5:16 PM Bikerman has replied
 Message 168 by crashfrog, posted 08-19-2010 8:12 PM Bikerman has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 158 of 280 (575343)
08-19-2010 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Bikerman
08-19-2010 3:56 PM


What, specifically, is preventing "known reality"?
Bikerman writes:
I think you are very wrong on this. It isn't a semantic issue, it is an ontological issue. It is the very question you say is most important - what is 'real'? What you perceive as real is not real. You know that on an intellectual level but then what actually IS real? Science can give you some facts about electron cloud distributions and quantum superposition, but what does that actually mean to you? If you want to understand what is actual, real, objective (and just as importantly - whether such a thing exists, which is highly debatable) then you cannot avoid philosophy. If you don't care and you are content to work on the illusion presented by the senses and the machines which feed them data, then I would say that talking about 'reality' is something you cannot do.
Seriously? What are you talking about?
Why can I not avoid philosophy to come to an agreement with anyone that a table is real in an actual, objective sense?
I don't need to talk electrons or even science.
Perhaps the table isn't "totally, 100% solid", maybe it's nothing more than fields interacting with each other, maybe it's God's will holding it together... maybe so, but who cares? This is all irrelevant in determining if the table is real in an actual, objective sense. The table's existance could depend on one of these, all of these, or some combination... that has no effect on the fact that the table exists independantly of the observer.
In order to determine if the table is real in an actual, object sense... all that is required is to have all other rational, reasonable people agree that it exists. Most likely because they can see it and bump their hips into it as easily as I can.
Bringing theoretical possibilities into the picture such as "universe-wide mass hallucinations/illusions" is irrelevant.
If such things occur on the scale of the universe then they're still actually, objectively real for as long as we remain within this universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Bikerman, posted 08-19-2010 3:56 PM Bikerman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Bikerman, posted 08-19-2010 4:53 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 159 of 280 (575346)
08-19-2010 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by crashfrog
08-19-2010 4:06 PM


crashfrog writes:
This, ultimately, is the greatest fiction promulgated by the philosophers - their arrogant and self-serving notion that they're crucial to all human knowledge, that their indolent masturbation somehow makes science possible. In the world of science, though, I've met only a handful of scientists who could even name a philosopher of science; philosophical issues simply aren't on the radar of real scientists because they're completely and utterly irrelevant to the project of finding out more about the world around us.
This is mostly correct.
crashfrog writes:
Philosophy of science is just an attempt to take all the credit for other people's work.
I'm not so sure about that, though. I think it is more a matter that if philosophy cannot account for science, then philosophy obviously fails. So they need philosophy of science to protect them from embarrassment, even though the account of science it provides is mostly bogus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by crashfrog, posted 08-19-2010 4:06 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 160 of 280 (575350)
08-19-2010 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Stile
08-19-2010 4:19 PM


Re: What, specifically, is preventing "known reality"?
quote:
Seriously? What are you talking about?
Why can I not avoid philosophy to come to an agreement with anyone that a table is real in an actual, objective sense?
You can, in just the same way that you can agree that God is in his heaven and all is right with the world.
So then when I ask you whether this piece of wood I have is a table, do you have another quick meeting and all agree that yes, it is a table, or no, it is a ruler? No, of course not. You formulate general ideas of what a table is and is not. Immediately you are into philosophy. The science of the wood concerned is the same...and you can use the physics to make your decision, but the decision itself is not a scientific one.
quote:
I don't need to talk electrons or even science.
Perhaps the table isn't "totally, 100% solid", maybe it's nothing more than fields interacting with each other, maybe it's God's will holding it together... maybe so, but who cares? This is all irrelevant in determining if the table is real in an actual, objective sense. The table's existance could depend on one of these, all of these, or some combination... that has no effect on the fact that the table exists independantly of the observer.
It might have a very big impact on whether the table can perform as a table. It also has an impact on whether it IS a table - because, as you have previously said this 'fact' is actually a matter of consensus, not physicality. What happens when there is no consensus...some say it is a workbench, others a sculpture, others a table...what now? Is it a table or not?
You say 'observable sense' - what then of the atom. Is that real?
Do you believe what you observe is real? It is not some dopey question designed to fool people - it is a real practical question. Because if you do then you end up convicting people on eye-witness testimony which is real to the testifier, but completely unreal in any objective sense that we can define. And that is what we did for years and years, until we realised .. oops..we are actually crap at observing things and even worse when it comes to recalling them. We constantly fool ourselves that we have seen something which we haven't, heard something which we didn't.
You might find this vid entertaining and I hope it also gives a hint of what my point is:
http://bikerman.co.uk/media/beliefs-sherman.isx
quote:
In order to determine if the table is real in an actual, object sense... all that is required is to have all other rational, reasonable people agree that it exists. Most likely because they can see it and bump their hips into it as easily as I can.]
But that is a terrible basis for deciding on what is real. Millions of rational reasonable people think God is absolutely real.
quote:
Bringing theoretical possibilities into the picture such as "universe-wide mass hallucinations/illusions" is irrelevant.
If such things occur on the scale of the universe then they're still actually, objectively real for as long as we remain within this universe.
So does the photon exist? Does everyone agree on that? Does it exist in the same place and time for all observers? Can everyone look at see a photon at position x,y,z and time t? Nope. What you see is not what I see.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Stile, posted 08-19-2010 4:19 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 161 of 280 (575356)
08-19-2010 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Bikerman
08-19-2010 4:18 PM


Bikerman writes:
Hume realised long ago that the whole basis of science was dodgy.
If Hume "realized" that, then Hume was mistaken. What was dodgy, was the account of knowledge given by philosophy.
Bikerman writes:
It depended on induction.
That was another Hume mistake. Science does not depend on the kind of induction that Hume criticized.
Bikerman writes:
A has happened 99 times therefore A will happen next time. Very dodgy.
Can you actually document any cases in science that have depended on such induction?
Bikerman writes:
If Popper had not done his thing, then scientists might well be still trying to prove their theories right, and by so doing making fundamental errors.
If Popper had not "done his thing", scientists would have just found another philosopher whom they have never read (much as they have never read Popper), but who is reputed to have made a pithy statement that they could quote when trying to debunk pseudo-science.
Bikerman writes:
You cannot even begin to talk sense about quantum physics without immediately getting into philosophy.
Most quantum physicists just press on regardless, without worrying about whether philosophers can make sense of it all.
Bikerman writes:
What is the nature of the wavefunction collapse? Is it real?
What does "real" even mean? What matters is that quantum physics makes good and useful predictions. If you don't think it is real, you can always go with the kind of anti-realism adopted by Bas van Fraassen.
Bikerman writes:
Are the Copenhagen crew right or is the Many Worlds interpretation right, or is there a hidden variable solution
Honestly, it doesn't matter. Those all work. Science is a pragmatic enterprise, not a truth seeking enterprise.
Bikerman writes:
If you are a realist like Penrose then there must be something 'bigger' than the collapse so you must look for that - he looks for it in quantum gravity.
Penrose allowed himself to be "carried away" by philosophy, and he came out with nonsense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Bikerman, posted 08-19-2010 4:18 PM Bikerman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Bikerman, posted 08-19-2010 6:43 PM nwr has replied

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 162 of 280 (575378)
08-19-2010 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by nwr
08-19-2010 5:16 PM


History is filled with scientists affirming the consequent.
Take the great Galilleo:
quote:
a large vessel of water placed in an elevated position; to the bottom of this vessel was soldered a pipe of small diameter giving a thin jet of water, which we collected in a small glass during the time of each descent, whether for the whole length of the channel or for a part of its length; the water thus collected was weighed, after each descent, on a very accurate balance; the differences and ratios of these weights gave us the differences and ratios of the times, and this with such accuracy that although the operation was repeated many, many times, there was no appreciable discrepancy in the results.
One of the greats, but falls straight into the trap of affirming the consequent rather than trying to refute.
Even as late as last century we see it - General Relativity was widely considered proven after Eddington's observations of the eclipse.
Or take the obvious example - one of Popper's targets - Freud. Freudian analysis was widely considered scientific in the 19th century despite the fact that it only ever affirmed the consequent.
I understand that most scientists are pragmatists and don't give a monkey's about philosophy but they come up against philosophical questions all the time whether they like it or not. The root axioms of science are philosophic - the assumption that there is some reality to be discovered, the notion that things will work the same pretty much everywhere (aside from specific local variables).
How does the Head of Physics or the awarding body decide where to focus his researchers in the department? Philosophy comes in - should grants be given to researching the hidden-variables hypothesis. No, say most, because there are non.
Don't forget the work of Steven Gould - everyone knows his scientific work on evolutionary theory, but his philosophical work was important in underpinning it.
This view of science: Stephen Jay Gould as historian of science and scientific historian, popular scientist and scientific popularizer - PubMed
As for Penrose - I actually agree. I think he got entranced by the notion of quantum consciousness and sucked-into formulating an hypothesis in search of a problem. He then defines the problem as non-computability al la Godel, which any computer scientists will tell you is naive in the extreme, considering that neural networks have been around for some time and don't use an algorithmic method....
But I don't think you can criticise his work on quantum gravity - which is also motivated largely by philosophical considerations (in that he doesn't accept the standard idea of the objective reality of the wavefunction collapse. In fact research into quantum physics is heavily dependent on philosophical considerations - probably more so than any other field of science I can think of. OK the scientist at the bench/cyclatron/LHC is concerned with his/her bit of the latest proton smash and entirely focussed on tracing the particles on the printout - I talk regularly with a couple of them on my home forum, but what are they expecting to find? Some of that is pure science but others - the possibility of support for extra-dimensions for example- arises from conjectures and hypotheses which are as much philosophy as science - like supersymmetric string/m-theory.
Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.
Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by nwr, posted 08-19-2010 5:16 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by nwr, posted 08-19-2010 8:05 PM Bikerman has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 163 of 280 (575385)
08-19-2010 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Bikerman
08-19-2010 2:48 PM


Bikerman writes:
I thought we had established that the laws of physics account quite nicely for the earth, and the 'laws' of biology in the form of evolution account for us. Is that now not your view?
I have no problem with that. I should say that I don't know enough to argue for or against evolution but I'm prepared to accept it as the majority of biologists are in agreement in principle. I agree that there is a naturalistic argument to be made for what exists. I do believe that the laws of physics and biology account for how the earth evolved and how it continues but whether that is due to an external intelligence or not is the question. I believe that it is.
Bikerman writes:
But this is all explicable using the basic evolutionary paradigm - there is no need to complicate the picture with extra entities. Occam and his razor are the friends of the thinking man, don't be afraid to use them.
The naturalistic explanation for the scientifically determined fine tuning of the universe seems to be the anthropic principle. There seem to be various ways of dealing with this including a multi-verse theory. These are all theories and may or may not at some point be proven. However, if you want to follow Occam's razor it seems to me that this simplest explanation is that God did it. It would simply answer all the questions instead of theorizing the idea of many, if not infinite parallel universes exist, and we just happen to be in the right one. (That is my understanding so if I have it wrong I have a hunch you'll feel free to correct me. )
Bikerman writes:
That is a terrible way to decide. No religion is followed to the letter by people for the simple reason that ALL religion is ambiguous. If religion were a set of rigorous statements about how to live an ethical life then it would be empirically testable and we wouldn't have any debate. No religion even gets close to that.
Why should it be empirical testable. We're talking of something spiritual not something material. We have the ability to make moral choices. If everything was as cut and dry as you would like, there wouldn't be much of a choice to be made. I believe that faith is an important choice. However, I see the NT as being clear that what we are to have faith in is the message of love, forgiveness, justice, truth etc. Obviously you would know the story of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25. There is nothing in there about the righteous being the ones that have all the correct theology. The righteous are those that feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the prisoners etc. Also look at Matthew 7 where He says that it is those that do what he says that are part of the kingdom of heaven. He then goes on to say that there will be those who say that they are performing various deeds in His name and He will tell them to leave and that He never knew them.
Bikerman writes:
The nearest would, IMHO, be Buddhism. Christianity is MILES away.
I remember when I read the Book of Buddah it struck me as to just how close the message with that espoused by Jesus. Love your enemy was something that was common to both and something that was uncommon in other world views that I know of. I'm quite prepared to accept that the original Buddha was a prophet of God.
Bikerman writes:
Look honestly at the OT. You see a vicious, sadistic, narcissistic monster of a God. That is part of the heritage of the religion, so you are on a looser right there, since you then have to do some quick sidestepping or reinterpretations to put that to one side and say that the real message is in the NT. Hence we get the 'new covenant' (when in fact Jesus is quite clear that not one letter of the 'law' (OT) shall be put aside).
I've addressed my views on this a number of times on this forum so I apologise to those who have heard it all before. C S Lewis wrote this.
quote:
Just as, on the factual side, a long preparation culminates in God’s becoming incarnate as Man, so, on the documentary side, the truth first appears in mythical form and then by a long process of condensing or focusing finally becomes incarnate as History. This involves the belief that Myth is ... a real though unfocused gleam of divine truth falling on human imagination. The Hebrews, like other peoples, had mythology: but as they were the chosen people so their mythology was the chosen mythology — the mythology chosen by God to be the vehicle of the earliest sacred truths, the first step in that process which ends in the New Testament where truth has become completely historical.
Miracles Ch 15 CS Lewis
The command to love your neighbour as yourself came from the OT. The point there is that not all of the OT is filled with the kind of thing you are talking about. My view is that huge chunks of the OT are about the history of the Jews as told from their perspective. I believe that when it says that God told them to go down and kill every man woman and child that one of two things was going on. Either they believed it and completely misunderstood what they were being told, or the more likely idea that they misused God as a way to justify their atrocities.
Jesus said love God and love your neighbour. I believe that we love God by loving what I believe are his attributes as expressed through the ministry of Jesus.
As far as not setting aside one letter of the law I believe that what Jesus would be referring to was this statement that he made in Matthew 22: "37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[a] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbour as yourself.'[b] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
We also know that he refuted many of the laws around food and Sabbath.
Bikerman writes:
Finally we have the empirical test - are Christians more altruistic, more ethical/moral than non-Christians? The only fair answer to that is - not on your life matey.
Some are - some aren't. Probably the only reasonable test would be to compare them before and after but even that wouldn't be conclusive. I have always been able in my mind to separate in my mind the people in the church from God. I only have to look inside myself to know that.
Bikerman writes:
If you want a simple, fairly unambiguous maxim/creed/doctrine then I'll give you one.
1) Causing welcome good to others is always a moral/ethical act.
2) Causing unwelcome harm to others is always an imoral/unethical act.
3) All else is amoral/neither ethical nor unethical.
(Basically you have just rephrased the golden rule.) I agree completely but the question is why we believe that to be true. It makes a lot more sense to believe that if there is some greater purpose to our existence than if all that exists is what is apparent to us. (That of course is just my opinion.)
Bikerman writes:
PS - I reckognise quite a bit of Polkinghorne in what you say, so I would have guessed that you had read him. Personally I find him very unpersuasive - he simply argues that atheism leads to an impovrished view of the world (subjective and wrong IMHO) therefore lets have religion. Everything else follows from that and is a classic case of post-hoc reasoning and begging the question, rather than scientific enquiry. He is quite honest about some things, but I find he is incredibly (or deliberately) 'naive' (to be generous) on his understanding of morality, ethics and aesthetics.
Finally I find his use of the reverse argument from ignorance troubling (ie the fact that we can understand much about the universe means that there has to be a designer, because otherwise our simian brains could not be expected to have grasped quantum physics, relativity etc). That is a very dodgy argument for anyone to attempt, let alone a scientist, and it demonstrates some profound misconceptions IMHO.
I have read 4 of Polkinghorne's books and went to a series of 5 lectures he gave at the University of Victoria a couple of years ago. I have to admit I do find him persuasive.
One way in which he profoundly changed my thinking was about how he sees God relates to us in time. He believes, as now do I, that God, by either necessity or choice, created a world of what he calls becoming. That is, that God doesn't know what I am going to have for lunch tomorrow. I guess the best metaphor would be our own raising of kids. We know about them now and in the past but we don't know what their future holds. We relate to them in the now. Polkinghorne has convinced me that this is also true for God's relationship with us. Gerald Schroeder also views it this way as near as I can understand but from a Jewish perspective.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Bikerman, posted 08-19-2010 2:48 PM Bikerman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by hooah212002, posted 08-19-2010 7:20 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 166 by Bikerman, posted 08-19-2010 7:46 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 169 by Bikerman, posted 08-19-2010 8:42 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 164 of 280 (575387)
08-19-2010 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by crashfrog
08-19-2010 3:36 PM


crashfrog writes:
If there is a god or gods, then proving that there is should be the first and only priority of theologians until that proof is completed. But no theologians are apparently even working on that. Indeed the theological position is that such proof is impossible.
Isn't it nonsense to open an entire field of study on a subject and then just skip over the part where you prove your subject actually exists? Imagine how absurd it would be if I opened the School for Unicorn Science, devoted to the study of the ecology, behavior, and applications of equine monohorns, and then immediately declared the question of the actual existence of unicorns so beneath concern as to be off-limits to study.
My understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, is that the only evidence thatyou view as admissable is empirical evidence. I view the fact that we exist as evidence. I view the Bible as evidence. It isn't evidence that I can prove but it is a place to start. I think that there are different layers of knowing. I know we disagree, on what constitutes evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by crashfrog, posted 08-19-2010 3:36 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 165 of 280 (575388)
08-19-2010 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by GDR
08-19-2010 7:08 PM


It would simply answer all the questions instead of theorizing the idea of many, if not infinite parallel universes exist, and we just happen to be in the right one.
No, we just happen to be in one of them. It is no more "right" than the ocean vent is "right" for the microbes that live there, or the tree is "right" for he sloth that lives there. This is just where we are and when we are.
The naturalistic explanation for the scientifically determined fine tuning of the universe seems to be the anthropic principle. There seem to be various ways of dealing with this including a multi-verse theory. These are all theories and may or may not at some point be proven. However, if you want to follow Occam's razor it seems to me that this simplest explanation is that God did it.
How is throwing in a being capable of creating this universe NOT more complicated? If anything, a designer of of this universe is just as complicated as a multi-verse or branes. I fear you only say that because a deity is easier to swallow given your faith. As a secularist, Occam's Razor leads me the other way and tells me that a being of infinite power is the most complicated.

Your god believes in Unicorns

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by GDR, posted 08-19-2010 7:08 PM GDR has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024