Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Question About the Universe
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1492
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 144 of 373 (740322)
11-03-2014 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Percy
11-03-2014 1:35 PM


Hello Percy, I'm baaaak!
Science has not dismissed spirituality.
But atheists dismiss spirituality. If science doesn't dismiss it, then it's only logical there would be some things, however few, that science would study, or would not study , that would be upsetting to atheists. Can you name any? I can't. If they don't exist, wouldn't that be evidence that the scientific community really has dismissed spirituality?
I know the standard answer, "if science can't study it, it doesn't automatically mean it dismisses it". That could be true, but if it doesn't dismiss it, it would be respectful of it enough to not drive by it and try to find naturalistic replacements for it. Naturalistic replacements that are sometimes not testable, and not falsifiable.
As one example, I'd expect the "spiritually neutral" scientific community to react differently than atheists do when archaeological evidences are discovered that correspond exactly with some of the historical events recorded in the Bible. With maybe at least some interest in taking the Bible much more seriously than atheists would to maybe help guide them to more scientific discoveries.
Doesn't seem to be happening at all - a lack of evidence for your assertion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Percy, posted 11-03-2014 1:35 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by NoNukes, posted 11-03-2014 11:47 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 146 by nwr, posted 11-03-2014 11:56 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 147 by Pressie, posted 11-04-2014 12:21 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 148 by Tangle, posted 11-04-2014 2:28 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 149 by Theodoric, posted 11-04-2014 8:40 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 151 by Coragyps, posted 11-04-2014 8:57 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 158 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-05-2014 11:45 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1492
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 150 of 373 (740426)
11-04-2014 8:26 PM


(Theodoric) That is probably true, I have no way of knowing how people on this board would define terms - I've spent most all of my 60 years interacting with the mainstream general public, a far cry from just about everyone on this board.
We'll do atheist first, from dictionary.com
quote:
a person who does not believe in God or gods
now for spirituality
quote:
the state or quality of being dedicated to God, religion, or spiritual things or values, esp as contrasted with material or temporal ones
AS CONTRASTED. So if a person doesn't believe in God, I just went straight to a conclusion that he/she wouldn't have any state or quality of being dedicated to God. I didn't consider any of the more secondary definitions - "spiritual things", like maybe some sort of trance that connects them to Darwin or anything like that, because that sort of spirituality wasn't what was being discussed in this thread between Percy and Colbard. (messages 137 & 138) They were discussing "studying the natural world", and the "absence and denial of spiritual or moral laws." In message 138, Percy said;
quote:
Science doesn't deny "spiritual or moral laws." As Wittgenstein said, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." If science has no evidence of "spiritual or moral laws," then there's nothing it can say about them.
If (those who control) science didn't deny them, it would respect them. By not ignoring them, and pushing beyond them, to try to find naturalistic theories about reality that conflict with them. That was my main point of entering this particular fray.
nwr writes:
If that's "only logical", can you provide the logic. Because I don't think that follows, unless you only mean "some atheists."
To go further than I already have, I'd have to have you provide me with some examples of just how atheists get spiritual. Does their spirituality get anywhere near the study of how the natural world works, in a way that conflicts with the purposeless, happenstances of naturalism?
Pressie writes:
I'm an atheist and I don't dismiss spirituality. Maybe you should check with the people you are talking about first before making sweeping statements about what you believe other people dismiss or don't dismiss. In this case your beliefs about other people don't reflect reality.
I've gotten them from reading at forums like this for years, and from a pretty thorough look at the opinions of scientific/atheist leaders, like Dawkins, Harris, Stenger, Provine, many others. All I see from all of it is nothing but naturalism, when it comes to the study of the natural world, and how societies should behave. No spirituality whatsoever.
Tangle writes:
marc9000 writes:
But atheists dismiss spirituality.
No I don't. Neither do those atheist devils Dawkins and Harris. In fact Harris is always banging on about buddist meditation.
You need to re-position.
Whatever spirituality they have, the evidence seems clear that it takes a back seat to naturalism in studies of how the natural world works. In other words, their spirituality is secondary. And largely meaningless.

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by nwr, posted 11-04-2014 11:49 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 153 by PaulK, posted 11-05-2014 2:16 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 154 by Tangle, posted 11-05-2014 5:51 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 156 by Percy, posted 11-05-2014 7:23 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 157 by NoNukes, posted 11-05-2014 10:47 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1492
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 167 of 373 (740697)
11-06-2014 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Coragyps
11-04-2014 8:57 PM


This might need a different thread, but could you give an example or two of archaeological discoveries that correspond...etc.? Atheist little me thought it was fairly cool when C13 dating on the Tunnel of Siloam matched up with historical dating. Do you have any more examples?
In what ways have the discoveries of ARCHEOLOGY verified the reliability of the Bible? - ChristianAnswers.Net
There's a lot out there, though I'm not sure how much of it is contested by the scientific community. I agree that it's probably another thread, so I'd rather not say anymore about it here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Coragyps, posted 11-04-2014 8:57 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1492
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 168 of 373 (740699)
11-06-2014 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by nwr
11-04-2014 11:49 PM


I guess I should take that as an admission that no, you cannot provide the logic.
You cannot demand that I fill supply what's missing, because it was your claim.
You and I just have different definitions of what's logical, I guess. My time is limited, I can't go off on tangents that I'm not really interested in, especially when I"m (as usual) facing a gang.
There have been a number of people who have said that they are spiritual but not religious. I'm not at all sure what that is supposed to mean.
Neither am I, I've never been directly confronted by "spiritual atheism", or "spiritual science" in the many hundreds of opponents I've had in discussions like these over the years. I'm not sure if it's a new talking point among atheists/scientists or not - could be open for some big new discussions!
I think, for some people, "spiritual" refers to the human spirit. So people who are not economic materialists, who value friendships and relations, might claim that they are spiritual.
I've always thought of "spiritual" as referring to some form of the supernatural, completely disconnected from testability and proveability and all of that, but the word may be more slippery than I thought - I may stand correction on it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by nwr, posted 11-04-2014 11:49 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1492
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 169 of 373 (740701)
11-06-2014 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by PaulK
11-05-2014 2:16 AM


In other words, to you, the germ theory of disease was an example of science "dismissing spirituality".
By your standards, Pre-Columbian archaeology "dismisses spirituality" by daring to contradict the Book of Mormon.
Well no, I never mentioned germ theory, and I don't even believe in the Book of Mormon. I was just referring to the general way that the scientific community has always gone after Christianity, particularly the book of Genesis.
Of course in reality it is entirely possible to be spiritual while disagreeing with other people's "spiritual" views - although I have to wonder just how "spiritual" they really are if they're largely about the material world.
I agree, I wonder if the word "spiritual" is the proper word to describe humanistic meditations and other secular philosophies.
Do you, for instance, refuse to take a position on the age of the universe to avoid contradicting the spiritual beliefs of Hindu ?
I care nothing about Hindu - I refuse to take a position on the age of the earth because I'm not interested in that subject. My position on it doesn't affect my life, and the word of God doesn't address it.
Or do you "dismiss spirituality" by refusing to "respect" those beliefs ?
If I take no firm position on it (no position on it can be proven) then I'm not disrespecting anyone's beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by PaulK, posted 11-05-2014 2:16 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by PaulK, posted 11-07-2014 12:24 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 182 by Percy, posted 11-07-2014 7:12 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1492
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 171 of 373 (740703)
11-06-2014 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Tangle
11-05-2014 5:51 AM


You've got it from what's inside your head. For instance, Sam Harris has been writing about spiritualism and morality for years - he meditates and has studies Buddhism. He's also just published this book:
quote:
I have been waiting for more than a decade to write Waking Up.
As I said, I've never been confronted with atheistic or scientific spirituality. Harris "has been waiting for more than a decade" - did he initiate the spirituality thing among secularists? Is this a new thing for Harris and Dawkins followers? As far as I know Harris specialty is more atheism than science, did he start this and the scientific community quickly jump on board? That wouldn't surprise me, the scientific community seems to quickly pick up on what atheists do, and vice-versa. Again, this could spawn all sorts of new topic proposals, but my time is limited these days.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Tangle, posted 11-05-2014 5:51 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Tangle, posted 11-07-2014 3:38 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1492
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 172 of 373 (740704)
11-06-2014 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Percy
11-05-2014 7:23 AM


Spirituality is not synonymous with belief in God.
But I'm still not convinced that "spirituality" is the proper word for anything that can be falsified or tested.
Yeah, right. There's as much a body that controls science as one that controls religion.
I can't go along with that - there's no "national academy of religion", that has peer review or anything like it. (in the U.S. at least) science is a subject that can be "established", as one example, taught as fact in public schools. There are organizations that largely control what is taught. One religion can't haul another religion into court and legally shout it down, like the scientific community did with Intelligent design.
Why don't you get on plumber's and electrician manuals for not showing respect for "spiritual or moral laws." It would make as much sense.
There are no best selling books out called "Plumbings Dangerous Idea", or "How Electircal Current Shows That God Does Not Exist", though I should probably be careful, Sam Harris might get some ideas, take a crash course in those subjects, and try to write books with those titles. The problem is, they wouldn't become best sellers, because those subjects aren't taught with an atheist bent like todays' science is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Percy, posted 11-05-2014 7:23 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Percy, posted 11-07-2014 7:42 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1492
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 173 of 373 (740705)
11-06-2014 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by NoNukes
11-05-2014 10:47 AM


It is instead religious dogma, held by a minority of the people on earth, that creates the fairly laughable position you exhibit here and in any number of other threads.
I just enjoy watching the dances, the way the scientific followers snap back and fourth between being a "disinterested pursuit of knowledge", to "weakening the hold of religion", and trying to distance themselves from one or the other, depending on the argument. Quite laughable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by NoNukes, posted 11-05-2014 10:47 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by PaulK, posted 11-07-2014 12:27 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 180 by NoNukes, posted 11-07-2014 5:12 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1492
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 206 of 373 (740983)
11-08-2014 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by PaulK
11-07-2014 12:24 AM


PaulK writes:
marc9000 writes:
Well no, I never mentioned germ theory, and I don't even believe in the Book of Mormon. I was just referring to the general way that the scientific community has always gone after Christianity, particularly the book of Genesis.
In other words "respecting spirituality" only refers to respecting YOUR beliefs.
I'm not the only one who believes in the book of Genesis.
Science has not especially gone after Christianity. A branch of Christianity (to use a loose definition of Christianity) is going after science because it objects to the discoveries science has made.
So it's your belief, that the following popular books for example, are all defensive in nature?
quote:
Darwin’s Dangerous Idea / Daniel Dennett - 1995
The End of Faith/ Sam Harris - 2004
The God Delusion/ Richard Dawkins - 2006
Letter to a Christian Nation/ Sam Harris - 2006
The Atheist Universe / David Mills - 2006
Breaking the Spell/ Daniel Dennett - 2006
Everything you know about God is wrong/ Russ Kick - 2007
The Quotable Atheist / Jack Huberman - 2007
The Atheist Bible / Joan Konner - 2007
Nothing - Something to Believe / Lalli Nica - 2007
The Portable Atheist / Christopher Hitchens - 2007
God is Not Great / Christopher Hitchens - 2007
God - the failed hypothesis - How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist / Victor Stenger - 2007
50 Reasons People Give For Believing in God/ Guy Harrison — 2008
Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists / Barker/Dawkins — 2008
Let's have a look at just one, Harris' "Letter to a Christian Nation"; (from wikipedia)
quote:
The book is written in the form of an open letter to a Christian in the United States. Harris states that his aim is "to demolish the intellectual and moral pretensions of Christianity in its most committed forms."
No implication there in any way that the book is a response to any recent activity by Christian organizations.
quote:
Harris addresses his arguments to members of the conservative Christian Right in America. In answer to their appeal to the Bible on questions of morality, he points to selected items from the Old Testament Mosaic law, (death for adultery, homosexuality, disobedience to parents etc.), and contrasts this with, for example, the complete non-violence of Jainism. Harris argues that the reliance on dogma can create a false morality, which is divorced from the reality of human suffering and the efforts to alleviate it; thus religious objections stand in the way of condom use, stem cell research, abortion, and the use of a new vaccine for the human papilloma virus.
That's all offence towards all of what Christianity has always been. Christianity has always been consistent in what it's views are on morality. The recent changes in the conflicts between Christianity and the scientific community have come as a result of changes in philosophy on the part of science - condom use, stem cell research, cloning, gay marriage, global warming etc.
Claims that the scientific community is only defensively reacting to changes in Christianity is easily refuted.
I think we can say that the idea that if scientists did not "dismiss spirituality" they would give special respect to YOUR views is so obviously false that even you can see it.
There's a difference between "special respect" and the OFFENSIVE attacks on Genesis, that are obviously put fourth in all the books above, and countless "scientific" websites like talkorigins.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by PaulK, posted 11-07-2014 12:24 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Coyote, posted 11-08-2014 8:53 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 211 by jar, posted 11-08-2014 9:17 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1492
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 207 of 373 (740984)
11-08-2014 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Percy
11-07-2014 7:12 AM


The scientific community has not "gone after" Christianity, or any other religion. If you think it has then cite a few scientific papers that "go after" Christianity.
The scientific community doesn't go after it with scientific papers, it goes after it in the public realm, in education, it seeks to "weaken the hold of religion" among the general public, because morality interferes with so much it wants to do, to increase its political power.
The truth is that Christian fundamentalists have "gone after" and are still going after science education with claims that Genesis is a scientifically accurate version of events and with demands that it should be taught in public school science classrooms. In the face of these claims and demands, explaining how Genesis is not a scientifically accurate version of events is not "going after" Christianity.
In just about any conflict, both sides will claim that the other side "started it". If you want to claim that it's all religions fault that science is trying to "weaken the hold of religion", that's fine, but the evidence isn't on your side. The scientific community's enthusiasm in trying to invalidate the book of Genesis harmonizes with all the very recent immoral and big government promoting things it seeks to increase its own power and financial interests.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Percy, posted 11-07-2014 7:12 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Percy, posted 11-09-2014 11:33 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1492
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 209 of 373 (740990)
11-08-2014 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Percy
11-07-2014 7:42 AM


marc9000 writes:
But I'm still not convinced that "spirituality" is the proper word for anything that can be falsified or tested.
This make no sense as a response to what I actually said, most of which you left out. I followed that sentence with, "For atheists and agnostics I imagine spiritual things would be love, friendship, trust, awe and so forth." I didn't say anything about spirituality involving falsification or testing, nor did I mention any qualities that involve falsification or testing. No one has claimed or is claiming that spirituality is a scientifically verifiable quality, and it would be dishonest to imply that anyone has. What would be honest would be a response to what was actually said.
I have 9 opponents in this thread so far. If I was on trial, sitting on the witness stand, I suppose I'd be required to make precise responses to each question asked, but I doubt if there'd be nine or more hammers. But I'm not on trial, I'm trying to make points that are something different than extreme left political talking points of the scientific community. If all I did was answer questions that often require long, drawn out answers that go down endless rabbit trails, I wouldn't be able to make those points. Often I'll respond to you in a blend of what you and someone else (or several others) have said. If you want to call that dishonest, that's almost as funny as claiming that the scientific community's attacks on Christianity is all defensive in nature.
My reason for saying that "I'm not convinced spirituality is the proper word for anything that can be falsified or tested" is a way to cut through all the rabbit trails and get to my point so that I can....maybe finish up! That should make you happy.
Books like these are responses to fundamentalist Christian attacks on science and science education. When Christian fundamentalism ceases these attacks the responses will also cease.
Sure, then science becomes god! Global warming and abortion are the new morality. As you probably noticed from the last election, it's going to take a while.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Percy, posted 11-07-2014 7:42 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Percy, posted 11-09-2014 11:54 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1492
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 210 of 373 (740993)
11-08-2014 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Coyote
11-08-2014 8:53 PM


If it is wrong it is wrong, and no amount of belief can change that.
How about the "spirituality" of atheists and the scientific community, that I've just been introduced to in this thread? Does their spirituality have a more authoritative position on determining what is right?
And if it is demonstrably wrong, there is no need for respect, special or otherwise.
Immorality is often demonstrable wrong, big government is often demonstrably wrong. Why should Christianity respect brand new scientific attempts to justify increasing their own power and influence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Coyote, posted 11-08-2014 8:53 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Coyote, posted 11-08-2014 9:53 PM marc9000 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