Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-20-2019 1:14 AM
25 online now:
DrJones*, PaulK, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat), xongsmith (4 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 857,116 Year: 12,152/19,786 Month: 1,933/2,641 Week: 442/708 Day: 1/135 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Faith vs Science
GDR
Member
Posts: 4911
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 59 of 186 (788542)
08-01-2016 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Tangle
08-01-2016 5:17 AM


Re: Topic Remix
Phat writes:

So in other words, you have faith in evidence?

Tangle writes:

Why, why, why do believers always need make this damned silly equivalence? It's seems so deeply embedded in their make-up - I'm continually having to correct GDR who brings it up every 6 months or so as if for the first time.

Well, I wasn't going to say anything in this thread but seeing as how my name has been gently besmirched I'll add something. I am not saying that you have "faith in evidence". I am saying that we look at the same evidence and form our own different conclusions.

The point I make is that science tells us that there was a point at which T=0. As I understand the entire universe quickly became a mass of mindless and likely dimensionless particles, or something like that. (Cut me some slack as I'm no scientist. ) Fast forward to today and we have sentient, emotional beings, with an understanding of morality, who are able to discern physical and mathematical patterns in the universe.

I look at that and conclude and have faith in the idea that there is something more that is the reason that things are the way they are, and that the "something more" is intelligent and rational. You disagree and conclude and have faith in the idea that there is nothing more, and that we are simply the result of the processes that made us what we are.

I frankly don't understand why atheists have a problem with that.

Actually many of us do also take science on faith. I have read some things about the evolutionary process. However, in the end I am highly ignorant about biology and it's processes but I believe in the evolutionary process on faith as the vast majority of scientists who are experts on the subject believe it to be the how things are the way they are. Again though, whether there is an intelligent designer, (not to be confused with the political movement who have corrupted another good term for their own purposes), or not is a matter of belief.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Tangle, posted 08-01-2016 5:17 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Tangle, posted 08-02-2016 3:13 AM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4911
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 65 of 186 (788568)
08-02-2016 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Tangle
08-02-2016 3:13 AM


Re: Topic Remix
Tangle writes:

It's rediculous for Phat and yourself to draw an equivalence between your faith in an interventionist Christian God that cares for us and my 'faith' in science and evidence. One is independently testable and evidenced, the other is a pure belief with not a shred of supporting evidence.

You continuously misrepresent what I am saying. I am not comparing your faith in science and evidence to Christianity. I am comparing your faith in atheism to my theism.

Antony Flew became a theist, (not a Christian although he didn't dismiss Christianity either), came to this conclusion.

quote:
“I now believe there is a God...I now think it [the evidence] does point to a creative Intelligence almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together.”

I am simply looking at the world as we know it, including science, and come to a theistic conclusion. You have come to an atheistic conclusion. Those are our beliefs. My Christian faith is another discussion completely.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Tangle, posted 08-02-2016 3:13 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Stile, posted 08-02-2016 11:13 AM GDR has responded
 Message 70 by Tangle, posted 08-02-2016 11:36 AM GDR has not yet responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4911
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 69 of 186 (788576)
08-02-2016 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Stile
08-02-2016 11:13 AM


Re: Topic Remix
Stile writes:

However, currently, without any evidence that God does exist, and much evidence that God does not exist... it does not take belief to come to an atheistic conclusion about the world as we know it.

What is the evidence that shows that there is not an intelligence that is ultimately responsible for the fact that we exist?


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Stile, posted 08-02-2016 11:13 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Stile, posted 08-02-2016 1:14 PM GDR has responded
 Message 74 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2016 2:08 PM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4911
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 95 of 186 (788730)
08-04-2016 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Stile
08-02-2016 1:14 PM


Re: Topic Remix
Stile writes:

The fact that every time we look for evidence of an intelligence that is ultimately responsible for our existence we do not find any.

Being unable to find evidence of an-intelligence-that-is-ultimately-responsible-for-the-fact-that-we-exist is itself evidence that an intelligence is not ultimately responsible for the fact that we exist.

Find some evidence leading to your belief, and it would then, necessarily, take a belief to lead to an atheistic conclusion.
Without that evidence, it is not a necessity for one to have faith to reach an atheistic conclusion. One can follow the evidence.

There is all sorts of evidence. Paley wasn’t completely wrong. Life exists. You exist. You are able to reason. You are able to make moral decisions. Science has found order in our existence. However the best that science can do is to understand the processes that have resulted in things being the way they are. They don’t tell us why they processes came into existence, but through human intelligence we have been able to understand those processes. It is reasonable to conclude then that there was an intelligence that is ultimately responsible for them.
You discount the evidence and draw another conclusion.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Stile, posted 08-02-2016 1:14 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Stile, posted 08-04-2016 11:36 AM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4911
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 96 of 186 (788735)
08-04-2016 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by New Cat's Eye
08-02-2016 2:08 PM


Re: Topic Remix
Cat Sci writes:

Every instance of intelligence that we are aware of stems from a brain. As far as we know, there were no brains before they evolved on Earth. Ergo, an intelligence cannot be responsible for the fact that we exist.
If God is responsible, then what we refer to as "intelligence" can't be what he's got.


So your basic assumption is that if you aren’t aware of something it can’t exist. Have you ever seen a thought? You can see the result of thought but you can’t see the thought itself even though it exists so you can’t possibly postulate that thought didn’t exist before brains. A thought itself isn’t physical.

All you can say is that brains are able to produce thought and exhibit intelligence, but you can’t possibly know that thought can’t come from elsewhere as well.
For that matter, what is a brain made of? As I understand things a brain is ultimately made up of mindless and likely dimensionless particles that have somehow combined to be able to produce intelligence and yet you conclude that it all happened by chance without any intelligent input. Personally I can’t muster up that degree of faith.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2016 2:08 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-04-2016 11:45 AM GDR has not yet responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4911
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 100 of 186 (788758)
08-04-2016 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Stile
08-04-2016 11:36 AM


Re: Topic Remix
Stile writes:

These are facts.
This is not evidence-that-an-intelligence-is-behind-the-universe.
This is not evidence-that-no-intelligence-is-behind-the-universe.

These are simply facts that are compatible with both conclusions.
They are also compatible with the conclusion that we were all created yesterday, or that we're brains in jars, or that a non-intelligent unicorn is ultimately responsible for our existence.


If you had awoken after being asleep for 1000 years and saw something as complex as an airplane going by you might think that there were aliens involved or come to some other conclusion but you would think it likely took some form of intelligence to put it there.
I suppose you could also conclude that somehow the airplane was just the result of a chance combination of particles. Life is far more complex than that airplane so although we are unable to perceive the designer with our 5 senses it is not unreasonable to come to the conclusion that life is the result of intelligence. Our existence of our universe as we perceive it is evidence in the same way that the airplane is evidence.

Stile writes:

It is not reasonable to conclude an intelligence is ultimately responsible based on the facts you've listed.
It just sounds like something you are personally hoping for.
Human intelligence has been able to understand many, many processes and never found any hint that there is some other-intelligence behind any of it. They simply find more processes. Even when the ones looking are hoping for any sign of intelligence.

Yes, there may be an intelligence at the end-of-the-line. But there's no evidence to suggest such a thing. And the more processes we understand, with no sign of any other-intelligence... is more evidence that no other-intelligence exists.

A man is dead.
A gun is found.
This is evidence that a man was shot to death.

This is not evidence that Jim shot the man.
This is not evidence that any person shot the man.
This is not evidence that any intelligence shot the man.

You are jumping to "an intelligence did it" without evidence.
Maybe Jim did do it... but the evidence (as listed here) does not say such a thing. You need more information.
Maybe some other intelligence did it... but the evidence (as listed here) does not say such a thing. You need more information.

At least in my example we know that Jim's exist. We know that other people exist and can shoot guns. In your argument... we do not know that intelligences-outside-the-universe can exist. We do not know that even upon existing they are capable of being ultimately responsible for universes.

You are not only jumping the gun, you are jumping a lot of guns.

I am not making an argument for the idea that Jim, Frank, Bill or any specific deity created the universe. I am simply arguing for the idea that what we do know points towards there being an intelligence that is responsible for it.

The evidence is not conclusive but I contend that it is highly suggestive.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Stile, posted 08-04-2016 11:36 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Tangle, posted 08-04-2016 12:29 PM GDR has responded
 Message 104 by Stile, posted 08-04-2016 3:18 PM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4911
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(2)
Message 102 of 186 (788766)
08-04-2016 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Tangle
08-04-2016 12:29 PM


Re: Topic Remix
Tangle writes:

My young nephew just showed me a brand new, shiny £1 coin.
His tooth fell out, so he put it under his pillow and the next morning the tooth was gone and a £1 coin was there instead. His mother told him that it was the tooth fairy. It was his third tooth.

So what are we to make of this?

We have stacks of physical evidence - teeth, coins and a repeated test generating the same outcome.

We have a strong hypothesis in the story his mother gave him. What's more, if he compares notes with his friends and any other adult, he gets told the same thing. It's very "highly suggestive" of a correct conclusion. And yet it's 100% wrong.

The thing that's missing is the total absence of any evidence at all for the tooth fairy herself.

Got it?

That doesn't address the point at all. The coin appeared there as a result of an intelligence, namely Mom. Atheism is in effect arguing for the idea that the coin just appeared as a result of particles rearranging themselves into the coin by random chance.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Tangle, posted 08-04-2016 12:29 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Tangle, posted 08-04-2016 1:58 PM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4911
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 105 of 186 (788794)
08-04-2016 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Tangle
08-04-2016 1:58 PM


Re: Topic Remix
Tangle writes:

It does address the point - you just missed it.

If you wish to conclude an agent, you must have evidence of the agent.

The agent may be your Christian god or Zeus. It may be aliens or it may be a natural process. You have no evidence for your particular choice.

I am only arguing here for the existence of any intelligent agent and not a specific one. I do believe that there is evidence for the validity of the Christian faith but that isn't the argument I'm making.

Tangle writes:

We go further and say that the evidence that we do have does not support the existence of any agent. Ergo, the agent most probably doesn't exist. It's not a faith or a belief in anything, it's a conclusion from evidence and from lack of evidence.

What is the evidence that you talk about. You can come up with numerous processes such as evolution to explain how life arose but if there is anything that smacks of intelligence it is the evolutionary process.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Tangle, posted 08-04-2016 1:58 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Tangle, posted 08-05-2016 3:11 AM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4911
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 106 of 186 (788795)
08-04-2016 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Stile
08-04-2016 3:18 PM


Re: Topic Remix
Stile writes:

If we remove a bunch of our knowledge, and a bunch of the information that we have, and restrict our information to a few things... then that information can reasonably lead us to think that an intelligence is involved. That would be based on the evidence.

But we do have that knowledge, and we do have that information.

Based on the knowledge and information that we do have... it is not "based on the evidence" to conclude that an intelligence is ultimately behind the universe.

That is your conclusion. My conclusion is that with the knowledge that we have it is more than reasonable to conclude that we are the result of an intelligent agent or agents.

Stile writes:

But those two are not connected.

I agree that life is far more complex than an airplane.
However, we know that complexity does not have to come from intelligent sources.

We have identified (and created ourselves) many, many non-intelligent sources that create things that are much more complex than airplanes.

Snowflakes are created non-intelligently, they are complex (I would say, not-as-complex-as-an-airplane, but still complex).
Crystals are created non-intelligently, they are complex.
Comets, planets and stars are created non-intelligently, they are complex (much more complex than an airplane).
We have programmed non-intelligent software models that create solutions to problems so complex that we can't even figure out how they work! But they work...

So, we know of many complex things that we understand took intelligence to design them.
We also know of many complex things that we understand did not take intelligence to design them.

I agree that if we ignore the information about knowing how non-intelligent processes can create complex things... than it would be reasonable to conclude that an intelligence is behind the complex creation of our universe and existence.

However, if we look at all the information we have, then it is very UNreasonable to conclude that intelligent-agents are behind the creation of our universe when we know for a fact that non-intelligent processes are quite capable of creating complex things all the time.

Therefore, the fact that life is complex is not evidence that an intelligent being is involved.

Otherwise, the fact that I parked at the mall would be evidence that I am, indeed, going to get a haircut. Are you sure you want to call that "reasonable?"

But you keep making the same mistake. Yes you can explain, at least to a large degree, how everything from snow flakes to life came into existence. That isn't the point. Understanding the process does not explain the existence of the process itself. It is the equivalent of you understanding how a car is assembled on an assembly line and then using that for an argument that a car is simply the result of a chance combination of particles.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Stile, posted 08-04-2016 3:18 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by NosyNed, posted 08-04-2016 8:08 PM GDR has not yet responded
 Message 109 by Stile, posted 08-05-2016 8:54 AM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4911
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 110 of 186 (788888)
08-06-2016 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Tangle
08-05-2016 3:11 AM


Re: Topic Remix
Tangle writes:

Yes, you've switched the argument from the original one of there being an exact equivalence between faith in your god and 'faith' in science, to the existence or otherwise of an unspecified intelligence. I assume you'll now abandon that original claim.


No I haven’t. Yes I believe in God as found in the Christian faith but my argument in this thread has been about faith that there is an intelligence that is responsible for our existence as opposed to non-intelligent causes for our existence.

Tangle writes:

But GDR, we can watch evolution happening naturally in, for example, viruses and we can track all its componants in, for example, the peppered moth. We know that the process requires no godly intervention. You have been given other examples of complexity not requiring intelligent intervention, crystals, snowflakes, planets - whole galaxies. It's been raised before that people like Stephen Hawkings claim that the mathematics behind the universe demonstrte that it could pouf itself into existence without any intervention.

As you say, Hawking says that “mathematics behind the universe COULD pour itself into the universe without any intervention”. It is his belief and yours. My contention is that it didn’t happen that way and as we both know this is disputed within the scientific community to about the same degree as anywhere else.

The problem is that except for fundamentalists that insist on understanding the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God there is no conflict between science and religion. I agree that science should be used to help to understand how God has done what He has done but religion should only inform science to the degree that science has long accepted, and that is that there is order to the universe.
However, if you turn science into a pseudo-religion and say that because we have determined facts about that order, there is nothing more, then that is no better than letting religion inform science. Certainly, science has made huge progress in understanding the workings of the universe. However, when it steps beyond science and starts saying that because we can see that the processes happen without apparent intervention there is no need for an intelligent agent being responsible for those processes then they have stepped beyond science and into philosophy or religion.

Tangle writes:

On top of that, your personal belief has nothing to do with these arguments, you don't believe in a generalised, non-interested, theistic God. You believe in a specific interventionist God who you wouldn't believe in if you'd been born in a village in the Atlas mountains. You're cherry picking and rationalising.


In order for me to adhere to the beliefs of a specific religion I had to conclude that there is an intelligent agent responsible for my existence so it has everything to do with these arguments. You were in a country with a Judeo-Christian heritage and you’re neither Christian or Jewish. Certainly our cultural environment is a huge factor in determining our beliefs, but so what.
Tangle writes:

You simply have a faith and that faith is the exact opposite of a 'faith' in science.


I’m glad that you have finally agreed that your beliefs are a faith.

Edited by GDR, : No reason given.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Tangle, posted 08-05-2016 3:11 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by kjsimons, posted 08-06-2016 10:04 PM GDR has not yet responded
 Message 113 by Tangle, posted 08-07-2016 5:19 AM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4911
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 112 of 186 (788893)
08-07-2016 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Stile
08-05-2016 8:54 AM


Re: Topic Remix
Stile writes:

What makes you think the existence of the process itself can be anything other than it is?
Answer that with some evidence leading towards an intelligence... and you'll have a point.
Without being able to answer that, the "current evidence" is still such that no intelligence is required and no signs of any intelligence is found... therefore no intelligence exists.

Processes such as an automobile assembly lie or evolution are indicative of intelligence. Antony Flew rejected his long adherence to atheism but what he considered to be evidence. He said this:

quote:
“I now believe there is a God...I now think it [the evidence] does point to a creative Intelligence almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together.”

I'm sorry that I can't respond to more of your post but I just don't have the time to keep up with so many responders.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Stile, posted 08-05-2016 8:54 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Stile, posted 08-07-2016 2:37 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4911
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 117 of 186 (788911)
08-07-2016 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Tangle
08-07-2016 5:19 AM


Re: Topic Remix
Tangle writes:

To confirm, the scientific 'faith' in evidence based answers to questions is based on KNOWLEDGE not belief. We KNOW things to be facts, we do not have faith in them. I have given you V=I*R as an example of something we know based on evidence and the entire world relies on that knowledge to make everything electrical that we own work. You have not challenged that so let's just accept that as non-controversial should we?

I suppose some people believe in the Loch Ness Monster. I believe that they are wrong. I believe in God. You believe I'm wrong. Neither of us can know that we are right. They are simply our beliefs.

Tangle writes:

You obviously disagree with that analysis but it doesn't matter because It still leaves the backstop of an ultimate cause - the final problem - that you now rely on to justify your own superstition.

If it makes you feel good to refer to my beliefs as superstition then great. I just don't feel that it strengthens your argument.

Tangle writes:

There's lots of problems to sort out with it. My personal big one is the way this supposed intelligence has deliberately fucked us up. Inorder to survive on this world that this intelligence has created, everything has to kill and eat everything else. This competition for survival and the short, painful lives of disease and tribulation that comes with it, accuses this so called 'intelligence' of being evil. This is a problem that no religion has solved.

This is certainly the most difficult question for any theist to answer. My belief is that ultimately this is creation is going somewhere and that the suffering that is experienced in this life, including death, will no longer exist. The other thing is that as a Christian I am called to do whatever I can to help alleviate suffering either institutionally or individually.

Tangle writes:

This is where your confusion arises between your faith in something supernatural and my lack of faith in it. it's that way around, I lack your faith, I do not have a faith that everything is natural. I have evidence that everything we've found so far is natural. I expect that to continue. It's a hypothesis, not a belief. "I don't know yet" is quite different from "I believe". Please stop trying to make your belief equivalent to my lack of it.

Yes everything we have found is natural. It is comprehensible by intelligent minds. Doesn't this in itself point to a rational intelligent cause? I can also say that I don't know yet whether God as I understand Him exists. It is my belief.

Tangle writes:

Childish. If you wish to delete that silly comment I wouldn't object.


Sorry. It was an attempt at humour which was obviously to subtle. I'll go back and put a smily face on it to make it less so.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Tangle, posted 08-07-2016 5:19 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Tangle, posted 08-07-2016 12:36 PM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4911
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 120 of 186 (788924)
08-07-2016 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Tangle
08-07-2016 12:36 PM


Faith in common.
I’d like to make an attempt at making a general response that might find some common ground. The Bible and Christians talk a lot about faith. In many ways I think that there is an overlap in my faith and yours.

Fundamentally I have faith in the idea that as humans we are called to follow the golden rule. My contention is within the context of the Bible that is what we are called to, but I also agree that atheists or people of any religion can also agree with that faith, whether they get it from culture, teaching, family or any other source. I think either Taq, Style, Ringo or Tangle would hold that faith. I think that there are those, (and I’m certainly not thinking of any member of this forum), that reject this ideal, but not because they don’t think that it isn’t fundamentally true, but because they can’t move beyond the idea of looking out for number one at any cost to others. In the end all of us live our lives somewhere between these two extremes.

That is where my faith lies, but beyond that I have my beliefs. Yes, I believe that it is because we have a God that wants us to live our life based on that model of unselfish love. I go further than that as a Christian, and I have outlined my position numerous times previously. You on the other hand believe that the idea of living by the golden rule has evolved naturally and that there has been no input from a source outside of our perceived universe.

I’m suggesting that it isn’t in our faith that we differ but in our beliefs. I think that in this we can find common ground. It would be nice to come to a place of agreement as a starting point.

Is this helpful?


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Tangle, posted 08-07-2016 12:36 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Tangle, posted 08-08-2016 3:45 AM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4911
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 122 of 186 (788957)
08-08-2016 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Tangle
08-08-2016 3:45 AM


Re: Faith in common.
Tangle writes:

Where we do have common ground is that we both know that people are capable of enormous good as well as enormous harm and if there's a useful purpose to what we as individuals do here, it's to encourage the good and discourage the bad in order to build better societies for our children to benefit from. We just have different reasons for feeling that way.

Well, that was the point I was making. I used the word faith in an attempt to draw it back to the topic of Faith vs Science. I have a problem with the topic anyway as I don't see a conflict. I simply view science as a natural theology.

Tangle writes:

The point of these reductionist explanations is not to give away our humanity, it's to show you that I do not think about our life here the same way as you do, and to encourage you to stop trying to making an equivalence.

Well ya but we do have a point where are minds meet as you point out in the first paragraph I quoted. We just disagree completely about the reasons for why it is that we feel that way about good and harm.

Tangle writes:

The bible and Christians do indeed talk a lot about faith - I never use the word outside these fora. Try to understand that this thing you feel is vitally important to you and you Christian friends, that you bang on about day and night and live your life by, has no part in my life. To the extent that it's of any consequence to me, it's a concern, it bothers me that so many people are so deluded. In your case the belief seems benign, you appear to have a liberal, even benevalent belief, in others the belief is harmless and in others it's extremely dangerous. But the core of all faith systems are nonsense - a belief in invented, random systems for no reason other than birth origin is long past it's usefulness to us, no matter how benign.

People have done terrible things in the name of one religion or another but they have also done terrible things for non-religious reasons. In the end whether the reasons are religious or secular, (disregarding mental illness), the reasons are really about pride and power.

As far as being deluded is concerned I feel the same way about atheistic beliefs. I just don't think that calling other people's beliefs deluded is helpful to any discussion.

Maybe another way to look at it is that our beliefs form our world view. Yes my Christianity has been a large part of forming my world view and it is your beliefs and influences that have largely formed your world view. In many ways, again going back to the first quote I used in this post, our world views do overlap.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Tangle, posted 08-08-2016 3:45 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Tangle, posted 08-08-2016 3:43 PM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4911
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 124 of 186 (788967)
08-08-2016 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Tangle
08-08-2016 3:43 PM


Re: Faith in common.
Tangle writes:

I DO NOT HAVE A FAITH OR A BELIEF.
Why can you not just accept that? Explain.


Then you go on to say
Tangle writes:

Our world views differ entirely, our real lives overlap perfectly because we're made of the same biological stuff and have been brought up by similar societies with similar values.


Do you believe that or don’t you?

What I meant about having similar world views is that we do have similar values. We do disagree about the basis for our similar world views.

Yes, I get it that you reject all religions as false, though you accept that there might possibly be a prime mover, but you think that is highly unlikely as you see no evidence for such an entity. Does that work for you?

Just wondering if when you say that we, “have been brought up by similar societies with similar values”, if you can acknowledge that Christianity has played a part in the fact that we have similar societies and values?

Tangle writes:

It's the entire reason for your belief. If you were born elsewhere you simply couldn't and wouldn't have it. That is utterly undeniable.

There are people that grow up around me who hold all kinds of religious beliefs, and Christians can be found in pretty much any place on the planet. People convert from one thing to another. You rejected Christianity for atheism. Actually I have always lived in Canada, but my specific Christian beliefs have been largely formed by my studying the work of 3 Brits, namely N. T. Wright, John Polkinghorne and initially C S Lewis.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Tangle, posted 08-08-2016 3:43 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Tangle, posted 08-08-2016 5:26 PM GDR has responded

    
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019