Originally posted by LeRoc:
Can't we create a special forum where people can go to say "You don't have scientific proof for the existence of God!" and then we set up a rota where we take turns of going into that forum and reply "We know!"
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
quote:Through alienation from God, from the Creator.
Originally posted by Martin60:
How?
quote:Easy peasy.
Originally posted by Martin60:
How?
quote:How?
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:Through alienation from God, from the Creator.
Originally posted by Martin60:
How?
quote:Ruined, marred, broken, fallen--choose your metaphor. But certainly not beyond repair or better, resurrection--God's on it already.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I wouldn't say "ruined." That implies that creation is damaged beyond repair—or redemption. "Marred" or "broken," perhaps. Or, of course, "fallen."
quote:Umm, all of nature is in competition, some species more than others. There are species of birds that murderously push their nestmates out in order to get all the feeding. Animal mothers routinely bump of the weakest in the litter...
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:Ruined, marred, broken, fallen--choose your metaphor. But certainly not beyond repair or better, resurrection--God's on it already.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I wouldn't say "ruined." That implies that creation is damaged beyond repair—or redemption. "Marred" or "broken," perhaps. Or, of course, "fallen."
What I'm referring to is a persistent sense of wrongness that winds through the current creation, which human beings express as "it shouldn't be this way." The kinds of things that fuel discussions of how God can be good and yet X happens in this world.
The most obvious case is that we have a whole species of creature (humanity) which recognizes a code of behavior seemingly inborn and expressed with minor variations in all cultures--and yet, to a man (or woman, or child) we fail to live up to it. Now that's just freaky. Birds have their birdy codes--they sing, build nests, lay eggs, and such--but they don't appear from the outside to have near the amount of trouble we have in living up to our own codes of humanity. You may find the odd murderous sparrow somewhere--a cannibalistic duck, or a greedy parrot that hoards resources in a major way--but they are odd enough that they wind up on social media under "Didja hear about this?".
Creatures that fail to follow the standards of their species are the exception, not the rule. But with us, heck, if you look at nothing but behavior, you'd never know we had a code/standard/law that was so different from our behavior. The code an alien would deduce from simple observation would be vastly different than the one that our mothers and and grandmothers taught us when we were knee high.
quote:A lot of the old (?Reformed) theologians spoke of the Creation being "totally depraved". However a lot of people misunderstood their meaning.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:Ruined, marred, broken, fallen--choose your metaphor. But certainly not beyond repair or better, resurrection--God's on it already.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I wouldn't say "ruined." That implies that creation is damaged beyond repair—or redemption. "Marred" or "broken," perhaps. Or, of course, "fallen."
quote:I was not attempting to show humanity as somehow worse than the rest of creation. All parts of creation have problems.
Originally posted by footwasher:
Umm, all of nature is in competition, some species more than others. There are species of birds that murderously push their nestmates out in order to get all the feeding. Animal mothers routinely bump of the weakest in the litter...
Man is the only creature that values the image of God in a fellow human being, in some societies more than others. Special care for the weakest and the most disadvantaged, affirmative action, these are marks of progressive societies.
quote:You do realise that there is a clear correlation between the most caring societies and those which are least religious don't you?
Originally posted by footwasher:
Special care for the weakest and the most disadvantaged, affirmative action, these are marks of progressive societies.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:Yup, just love the punnology! Adam stalled the completion of creation by not subduing his body, put to death it's capricious-ness through the Holy Spirit.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Like.
So, footwasher, creation is broken because it's not broken. Riiiiight. Who was Adam?
Lamb Chopped. None of those metaphors work.
The origin and spread of the evil and sin within our lives is a result of the exponential increase in complexity caused by the evolution of sapience.
quote:I think this is deeply true.
Originally posted by Martin60:
The origin and spread of the evil and sin within our lives is a result of the exponential increase in complexity caused by the evolution of sapience.
quote:Who, what is Adam?
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:Yup, just love the punnology! Adam stalled the completion of creation by not subduing his body, put to death it's capricious-ness through the Holy Spirit.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Like.
So, footwasher, creation is broken because it's not broken. Riiiiight. Who was Adam?
Lamb Chopped. None of those metaphors work.
The origin and spread of the evil and sin within our lives is a result of the exponential increase in complexity caused by the evolution of sapience.
Seriously, the whole of creation waits in eager expectation for the full revelation of the sons of God (Romans 8:19).
quote:Adam is the one who is inseparable from humanity. For any given reason, where Adam goes, humanity must go. Maybe he is the only one who can sign documents. Maybe he needs his family close by. You choose.
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:Who, what is Adam?
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:Yup, just love the punnology! Adam stalled the completion of creation by not subduing his body, put to death it's capricious-ness through the Holy Spirit.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Like.
So, footwasher, creation is broken because it's not broken. Riiiiight. Who was Adam?
Lamb Chopped. None of those metaphors work.
The origin and spread of the evil and sin within our lives is a result of the exponential increase in complexity caused by the evolution of sapience.
Seriously, the whole of creation waits in eager expectation for the full revelation of the sons of God (Romans 8:19).
quote:When?
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:Adam is the one who is inseparable from humanity. For any given reason, where Adam goes, humanity must go. Maybe he is the only one who can sign documents. Maybe he needs his family close by. You choose.
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:Who, what is Adam?
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:Yup, just love the punnology! Adam stalled the completion of creation by not subduing his body, put to death it's capricious-ness through the Holy Spirit.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Like.
So, footwasher, creation is broken because it's not broken. Riiiiight. Who was Adam?
Lamb Chopped. None of those metaphors work.
The origin and spread of the evil and sin within our lives is a result of the exponential increase in complexity caused by the evolution of sapience.
Seriously, the whole of creation waits in eager expectation for the full revelation of the sons of God (Romans 8:19).
A good way to understand Adam is to imagine he is your father. Imagine also you are working in Monaco. The latter, as all are aware, is a tax free zone, as far as incomes are concerned.
Suppose your father committed a crime. This led to his deportation back to Blighty. Remember, where he goes you have to go. As a result of his crime, therefore, the full family must return home.
Now see what develops. Now, now, you must pay tax on your income. Not paying tax is an infraction, you are non compliant if you don't pay tax.
What has happened is that where you could formerly do something, not pay tax and be NOT in infraction, now, not paying tax makes you a transgressor.
You have moved from a zone which is free from the jurisdiction of law to a zone which is under the jurisdiction of law.
Well, that's who Adam is.
The guy who got you turfed out of a law free zone into a law infested zone!
quote:When Adam chose to have immediate access to knowledge of good and evil.
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:When?
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:Adam is the one who is inseparable from humanity. For any given reason, where Adam goes, humanity must go. Maybe he is the only one who can sign documents. Maybe he needs his family close by. You choose.
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:Who, what is Adam?
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:Yup, just love the punnology! Adam stalled the completion of creation by not subduing his body, put to death it's capricious-ness through the Holy Spirit.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Like.
So, footwasher, creation is broken because it's not broken. Riiiiight. Who was Adam?
Lamb Chopped. None of those metaphors work.
The origin and spread of the evil and sin within our lives is a result of the exponential increase in complexity caused by the evolution of sapience.
Seriously, the whole of creation waits in eager expectation for the full revelation of the sons of God (Romans 8:19).
A good way to understand Adam is to imagine he is your father. Imagine also you are working in Monaco. The latter, as all are aware, is a tax free zone, as far as incomes are concerned.
Suppose your father committed a crime. This led to his deportation back to Blighty. Remember, where he goes you have to go. As a result of his crime, therefore, the full family must return home.
Now see what develops. Now, now, you must pay tax on your income. Not paying tax is an infraction, you are non compliant if you don't pay tax.
What has happened is that where you could formerly do something, not pay tax and be NOT in infraction, now, not paying tax makes you a transgressor.
You have moved from a zone which is free from the jurisdiction of law to a zone which is under the jurisdiction of law.
Well, that's who Adam is.
The guy who got you turfed out of a law free zone into a law infested zone!
quote:A thousand apologies! I shall dust of my 10 pound laptop and apply it to the task. I actually have Quark Xpress loaded on it and believe you me, I know how to use it!
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Is it really necessary to SHOUT in capitals with each other? Do you think you can learn to code and quote posts properly, please, footwasher?
Your posts would be a lot easier to comprehend if you used italics or bold to highlight things you think are particularly important - and used the quotation code functions listed below the box where you type your posts.
quote:Good one. When I think about 'sin' and dealing with sin, rising above our evolutional constraints is a good way of looking at it. It's not all there is to sin, and it is a bit more complex than that (not all our evolutional instincts are bad), but it is an interesting viewpoint to be looking at sin.
Boogie: I think we all have the choice - give in to the 'Chimp' or rise above it. This choice is exercised all day, every day, minute by minute.
quote:The choice is not animal or moral creature. It was noble spirit/noble body configuration or noble spirit/ignoble body (unrestrained, untamed, unsubdued body) configuration.
Originally posted by Boogie:
So.
We had ancestors, who were all animal. A common ancestor with chimpanzees. Slowly, over millions of years, we evolved to become human with immediate access to knowledge of good and evil.
One of these humans was in a position to choose human behaviour (kindness to neighbours/strangers) over animal behaviour? (rip their face off and eat their babies). This was Adam?
In what way did he - poor man! - cause things to be evil for the rest of us?
I think we all have the choice - give in to the 'Chimp' or rise above it. This choice is exercised all day, every day, minute by minute.
quote:The analogy does nothing for me.
footwasher: A useful way to look at it is as humanity had an opportunity to finish college, but partied, and dropped out.
quote:At what point in our evolution did we/Adam have a noble spirit/noble body configuration? And, if we did, how did we survive considering we/Adam would have had our faces ripped off if we didn't fight back?
Originally posted by footwasher:
The choice is not animal or moral creature. It was noble spirit/noble body configuration or noble spirit/ignoble body (unrestrained, untamed, unsubdued body) configuration.
quote:It was the desired result, not a completed possession passed from God to Adam. The project was a partnering between them, rather like a father and son embarking on completing an assembly kit.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:At what point in our evolution did we/Adam have a noble spirit/noble body configuration? And, if we did, how did we survive considering we/Adam would have had our faces ripped off if we didn't fight back?
Originally posted by footwasher:
The choice is not animal or moral creature. It was noble spirit/noble body configuration or noble spirit/ignoble body (unrestrained, untamed, unsubdued body) configuration.
quote:Nothing wrong with partying.My children see me do it. It's the intent. I do it to enjoy company, be entertained by the creativity, insight and mostly spontaneity of the human mind. My children do it wrong when they do it instead of attending to training, and intending to be autonomous when they are not ready. It's a rebellious intent.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:The analogy does nothing for me.
footwasher: A useful way to look at it is as humanity had an opportunity to finish college, but partied, and dropped out.
quote:It's a manifestation of conditioned reflex. Tigers and lions adopt different social structures because one lives in the plains, the other in thick jungle...
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
And giving in to the chimp is also useful for humans. OK, we learn to use violence in controlled ways, and in socially adapted ways, but the state is often said to have a monopoly of violence, except in extreme situations, as in Syria.
For someone like myself, living in a place such as London, violence is rarely called for, but I do rely on the state, and its 'bodies of armed men'.
But other animals also moderate violence; they don't go around ripping each other's throats out. They also use submission and other means as a way of avoiding it, see your local wolf pack.
Doesn't evolution deal with all this?
quote:Mwah. I'm familiar with the parable of the talents of course and yes, it is good to use our potential. But your comparison makes God look like this guy, and I don't like him very much.
footwasher: Nothing wrong with partying.My children see me do it. It's the intent. I do it to enjoy company, be entertained by the creativity, insight and mostly spontaneity of the human mind. My children do it wrong when they do it instead of attending to training, and intending to be autonomous when they are not ready. It's a rebellious intent.
quote:Hmm, I'm not sure about conditioned reflex, that sounds rather glib.
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:It's a manifestation of conditioned reflex. Tigers and lions adopt different social structures because one lives in the plains, the other in thick jungle...
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
And giving in to the chimp is also useful for humans. OK, we learn to use violence in controlled ways, and in socially adapted ways, but the state is often said to have a monopoly of violence, except in extreme situations, as in Syria.
For someone like myself, living in a place such as London, violence is rarely called for, but I do rely on the state, and its 'bodies of armed men'.
But other animals also moderate violence; they don't go around ripping each other's throats out. They also use submission and other means as a way of avoiding it, see your local wolf pack.
Doesn't evolution deal with all this?
quote:The text tells us that juveniles are not responsible because their perception of right and wrong are not fully developed, "before the child can tell sweet from sour", "ask him if he was blind or not, he is of age"...
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Mwah. I'm familiar with the parable of the talents of course and yes, it is good to use our potential. But your comparison makes God look like this guy, and I don't like him very much.
footwasher: Nothing wrong with partying.My children see me do it. It's the intent. I do it to enjoy company, be entertained by the creativity, insight and mostly spontaneity of the human mind. My children do it wrong when they do it instead of attending to training, and intending to be autonomous when they are not ready. It's a rebellious intent.
For example, there needs to be a reason why we should attend training instead of partying.
quote:Interesting case of herds of deer near the former East German border which avoided electric fences after herd members were killed. Today, after all the original herds died out, current herd members still avoid the location, even though the fence no longer exists...
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:Hmm, I'm not sure about conditioned reflex, that sounds rather glib.
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:It's a manifestation of conditioned reflex. Tigers and lions adopt different social structures because one lives in the plains, the other in thick jungle...
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
And giving in to the chimp is also useful for humans. OK, we learn to use violence in controlled ways, and in socially adapted ways, but the state is often said to have a monopoly of violence, except in extreme situations, as in Syria.
For someone like myself, living in a place such as London, violence is rarely called for, but I do rely on the state, and its 'bodies of armed men'.
But other animals also moderate violence; they don't go around ripping each other's throats out. They also use submission and other means as a way of avoiding it, see your local wolf pack.
Doesn't evolution deal with all this?
We know that some animals show cooperation, a sense of fairness, methods of punishment, of course, in a less complex way than humans. But maybe there is a lineage here. It doesn't seem all that mysterious.
quote:Nonsense - I know nothing of the sort. This, I suspect, is an assumption which you choose to believe based on the necessity of your dogma rather than evidence.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
The good in us, the kindness we might show to a complete stranger, the self-giving love that leads to actions against our own interests, has its origin in God. We know that instinctively. We must put words to it and distort it if we want to claim it as our own.
quote:Except that you have no evidence for God and it is clear that the imagined God is not only good but also evil - otherwise why delay his return until many billions are to be punished for their ignorance.
Or we might pretend, for our own self-interests, which leads us back to sin - the origin of which is deception, a denial of God's goodness.
quote:To the contrary, it is based on experience rather than dogma. Evidence is seen in a small child whose smile illustrates his recognition of goodness, and whose body language gives him away when he tells lies.
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:Nonsense - I know nothing of the sort. This, I suspect, is an assumption which you choose to believe based on the necessity of your dogma rather than evidence.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
The good in us, the kindness we might show to a complete stranger, the self-giving love that leads to actions against our own interests, has its origin in God. We know that instinctively. We must put words to it and distort it if we want to claim it as our own.
quote:If I had no evidence for God's existence I would not believe it to be the truth that God is real. Goodness, kindness and love are of God. Those of us who want there to be a perfect world where nobody will harm themselves or anybody else might recognise it as the kingdom of God, and know that we don't all currently live within that kingdom - by our own free will choice. We must live side by side with those who make choices which differ from our own, and suffer the consequences of everyone's gift of free will.
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Except that you have no evidence for God and it is clear that the imagined God is not only good but also evil - otherwise why delay his return until many billions are to be punished for their ignorance.
It is not deceptive to state simply that one is unable to believe in something which, at its simplest, is downright silly, whether that be a flat earth, foreseeing the future or the existence of God(s) and demi-gods.
As for what is deception - those who claim certainty where it cannot exist are deceptive, those who promise rewards and punishment they cannot evidence are deceptive, and those who seek out the vulnerable - children, the poor, the aged, the gullible and the infirm - in order to enrich themselves at the expense of their victims are deceptive - but it's all OK if it's in the service of their unevidenced soul?
I'll get my coat.
quote:Yes but.. many Christian will say that original sin restricts our choices for 'there is no health in us.'
Originally posted by Boogie:
Evil is a choice. We choose to rise above the animal 'raw in tooth and claw' minute by minute in all our reactions to others, in all our thoughts and deeds - or not.
This is not a Christian thing, except in that Jesus was the best ever example of it and the best ever teacher of it imo.
quote:As ever, this is a matter of interpretation. If we are all capable of sin (and if we are able to decide between right and wrong then we must be), and if we have all actually done something wrong (after all, which one of us is perfect?) then we might assume that we have inherited the genes which give us this lack of perfection - or health - from the first man and woman.
Originally posted by leo:
Yes but.. many Christian will say that original sin restricts our choices for 'there is no health in us.'
quote:Who was Adam?
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:When Adam chose to have immediate access to knowledge of good and evil.
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:When?
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:Adam is the one who is inseparable from humanity. For any given reason, where Adam goes, humanity must go. Maybe he is the only one who can sign documents. Maybe he needs his family close by. You choose.
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:Who, what is Adam?
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:Yup, just love the punnology! Adam stalled the completion of creation by not subduing his body, put to death it's capricious-ness through the Holy Spirit.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Like.
So, footwasher, creation is broken because it's not broken. Riiiiight. Who was Adam?
Lamb Chopped. None of those metaphors work.
The origin and spread of the evil and sin within our lives is a result of the exponential increase in complexity caused by the evolution of sapience.
Seriously, the whole of creation waits in eager expectation for the full revelation of the sons of God (Romans 8:19).
A good way to understand Adam is to imagine he is your father. Imagine also you are working in Monaco. The latter, as all are aware, is a tax free zone, as far as incomes are concerned.
Suppose your father committed a crime. This led to his deportation back to Blighty. Remember, where he goes you have to go. As a result of his crime, therefore, the full family must return home.
Now see what develops. Now, now, you must pay tax on your income. Not paying tax is an infraction, you are non compliant if you don't pay tax.
What has happened is that where you could formerly do something, not pay tax and be NOT in infraction, now, not paying tax makes you a transgressor.
You have moved from a zone which is free from the jurisdiction of law to a zone which is under the jurisdiction of law.
Well, that's who Adam is.
The guy who got you turfed out of a law free zone into a law infested zone!
How?
First, let's see where the explanation of how sin made its first appearance, by Augustine, went wrong and how THAT happened.
Augustine made a mistake with his use of a wrong Latin translation of Romans 5:12 which used a preposition which is considered to be the most disastrous preposition in history.
QUOTE
But Augustine did not devise the concept of original sin. It was his use of specific New Testament scriptures to justify the doctrine that was new. The concept itself had been shaped from the late second century onward by certain church fathers, including Irenaeus, Origen and Tertullian. Irenaeus did not use the Scriptures at all for his definition; Origen reinterpreted the Genesis account of Adam and Eve in terms of a Platonic allegory and saw sin deriving solely from free will; and Tertullian’s version was borrowed from Stoic philosophy.
http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/article.aspx?id=227
Instead of understanding it as "because", Augustine understood it as "in whom":
Quote
Augustine took Paul’s phrase “ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον” following the Vulgate “in quo omnes peccaverunt” to be “in whom [Adam] all sinned”.
(The Greek can be transliterated ef’ ho pantes hemarton.) Well, Augustine didn’t actually use the Vulgate, which was being translated during his lifetime, but the sometimes not very accurate Old Latin translations. But his Latin version seems to have been similar to the Vulgate here. Doug continues:
the Augustinian interpretation of Paul’s “ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον” as meaning “in whom all sinned” makes it the most disastrous preposition in history. All modern translations agree that its proper meaning is “because.”
More precisely, “the most disastrous preposition” is ἐφ᾽ ef’, a contracted form ofepi meaning “on”. The Greek phrase ἐφ᾽ ᾧ ef’ ho literally means “on which”, or possibly “on whom”, but is commonly used to mean “because”, or perhaps “in that”. The problem is that the Latin rendering of ἐφ᾽ ᾧ, in quo, is ambiguous between “in which” and “in whom” (I’m not sure if it can also mean simply “because” or “in that”), and Augustine understood it as meaning “in whom”, i.e. “in Adam”.
So, according to Augustine all sinned “in Adam”, which he understood as meaning that because Adam sinned every other human being, each of his descendants, is counted as a sinner. This is his doctrine of “original sin”, that every human is born a sinner and deserves death because of it. He may have taken up this idea because it agreed with his former Manichaean theology. This teaching is fundamental to most Protestant as well as Roman Catholic teaching today. For example, it underlies the Protestant (not just Calvinist) teaching of total depravity, that the unsaved person can do nothing good, a teaching for which there is little biblical basis apart from Augustine’s misunderstanding which was followed by Calvin.
http://www.gentlewisdom.org/246/augustines-mistake-about-sin/
That's right folks, it's:
because Adam sinned that sin entered the world,
NET Bible
So then, just as sin entered the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all people because all sinned--
NOT:
it's because we all have sinned in Adam that sin entered the world,
Douay-Rheims Bible
Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.
quote:Good question, especially meaningful for a Christian to ask.
Who was Adam?
quote:IOW, the Eastern Orthodox church teaches that death causes sin :
Quote
Not only is it absurd that Jerome made ἐφ’ into “in,” but he connected the ᾧ pronoun in the ἐφ’ ᾧ clause back to Adam instead of “death,” which is what makes the most sense syntactically. If the ἐφ’ ᾧ is connected to death instead, then “death spread to all by which all have sinned,” which would make death the spiritual reality that is the source of sin instead of the punishment for sin (which is how the Eastern Orthodox interpret this passage).
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mercynotsacrifice/2012/12/12/original-sin-part-one-romans-512-21/
quote:This, then, is the situation
Quote
Yes, perhaps one could say that in a certain sense death itself is the "stain" of original sin. Because of the certainty of physical death, we try to evade the inevitable. This leads us to try and cheat death, which results in sin. We store more food than we need (gluttony), we horde wealth and resources (avarice), we use our reproductive potential wantonly (lechery), etc... In the quest to cheat death we distort natural God-given gifts. Thus, death causes us to sin.
quote:The Jewish sages teach that if Adam had waited till the Sabbath, God would have given him knowledge of God and evil, a good thing but at the proper time, when he had tamed his body.
Originally posted by Martin60:
So who was Adam?
quote:Serious scholars recognise he is both: a real person as well as archetypal of humanity after the fall.
Originally posted by Martin60:
So he's a real person or not?
quote:You are misinterpreting the child's body language.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
To the contrary, it is based on experience rather than dogma. Evidence is seen in a small child whose smile illustrates his recognition of goodness, and whose body language gives him away when he tells lies.
quote:Funny, that could be as true a statement from a militant atheist or a fundamentalist Muslim as well as a fundamentalist Christian.
Nor is it right to keep the truth about the existence of God's goodness and love from anybody, child or adult.
quote:I accept that you think you have evidence - we probably disagree about what it takes for evidence to be valid rather than illusory.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
If I had no evidence for God's existence I would not believe it to be the truth that God is real.
quote:That is your belief – it cannot be demonstrated to be true and it is not the only possible reason why human beings should develop such behaviours to enable them to survive within groupings larger than the family - (I recently threw "Mere Christianity" at the wall - I got to page 48 - because CSL was unable to accept, partly due to the general ignorance of the early 1940s, the irrationality of the assumption he based the whole series of lectures upon.)
Goodness, kindness and love are of God.
quote:are you suggesting that those who do not believe in your God do not want such a world?
Those of us who want there to be a perfect world where nobody will harm themselves or anybody else might recognise it as the kingdom of God,
quote:The experimental evidence is so overwhelming that almost no neuroscience researchers accept the possibility of “free will” as generally assumed. We act the way we do because of our unique mix of genetic inheritance (nature) and our lifetime experience (nurture). Decisions are made in our subconscious mind and (under ƒMRI and other scanning systems) we can see that the course of action is set in motion prior to the conscious mind kidding itself that it is exercising “free will”.
and know that we don't all currently live within that kingdom - by our own free will choice. We must live side by side with those who make choices which differ from our own, and suffer the consequences of everyone's gift of free will.
quote:We can change our ways because of changes to the subconscious “balance” through additional nurture imports. No element of conscious choice exists.
We might learn by experience and repent, ie change our ways, or we might decide that we don't care, we can't be bothered, or we rather like our harmful ways. Our choice, our responsibility. Every instinct and emotion has a good purpose, but it may be corrupted into a harmful tendency.
quote:Questionable but not central - If I use force enough to bruise and stop someone from doing something to permanently harm themselves its wrong? If I prevent them spending a lifetime regretting an action which must lead to their long-term incarceration?
It is never right to harm others, however much we convince ourselves that it is for their benefit.
quote:I would agree if it were possible to demonstrate that what is taught as truth is so. A conviction, however genuinely held, has no relevance to the validity it holds.
Nor is it right to keep the truth about the existence of God's goodness and love from anybody, child or adult.
quote:Here, as with most of our areas of disagreement, I point to where observation by experience ends and where conjecture begins. Each of us might point to the other as having picked up conjecture rather than having validated observed experience. There is nowhere to go, other than to agree that we disagree as to where the truth lies.
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:I accept that you think you have evidence - we probably disagree about what it takes for evidence to be valid rather than illusory.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
If I had no evidence for God's existence I would not believe it to be the truth that God is real.
quote:What gives you that impression?
are you suggesting that those who do not believe in your God do not want such a world?
quote:We might go into all kinds of scenario's - is it right to cut someone's arm off if it is caught in a machine, with no other way of extricating him before he will die? It isn't right to harm ourselves or other people, but it is right to do good to each other.
Questionable but not central - If I use force enough to bruise and stop someone from doing something to permanently harm themselves its wrong? If I prevent them spending a lifetime regretting an action which must lead to their long-term incarceration?
quote:We had a neuroscience researcher on the Ship until recently (IngoB) and he did believe in free will. Perhaps not Cartesian free will, if that's what you mean by 'as generally assumed'.
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
The experimental evidence is so overwhelming that almost no neuroscience researchers accept the possibility of “free will” as generally assumed. We act the way we do because of our unique mix of genetic inheritance (nature) and our lifetime experience (nurture). Decisions are made in our subconscious mind and (under ƒMRI and other scanning systems) we can see that the course of action is set in motion prior to the conscious mind kidding itself that it is exercising “free will”.
quote:The thing is, I'm not convinced you really believe this, even if you've convinced yourself you do.
We can change our ways because of changes to the subconscious “balance” through additional nurture imports. No element of conscious choice exists.
quote:And you replied:
The good in us, the kindness we might show to a complete stranger, the self-giving love that leads to actions against our own interests, has its origin in God. We know that instinctively.
quote:Now, your position about the conscious mind being simply an illusion that kids itself commits you to the view that we may subconsciously/ instinctively know things that we consciously think we don't know or even deny. So the strongest response you're consistently entitled to would have been: 'I have no evidence that I know anything of the sort'. But that's not what you said, and the rest of your post implied a reaction only justified by the stronger position you actually said.
Nonsense - I know nothing of the sort.
quote:Wright quotes from him:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Which serious scholars?
quote:
Quote
In my view, Adam and Eve are historical figures—real people in a real past. Nevertheless, I am persuaded that the biblical text is more interested in them as archetypal figures who represent all of humanity. This is particularly true in the account in Genesis 2 about their formation. I contend that the formation accounts are not addressing their material formation as biological specimens, but are addressing the forming of all of humanity: we are all formed from dust, and we are all gendered halves. If this is true, Genesis 2 is not making claims about biological origins of humanity, and therefore the Bible should not be viewed as offering competing claims against science about human origins. If this is true, Adam and Eve also may or may not be the first humans or the parents of the entire human race. Such an archetypal focus is theologically viable and is well-represented in the ancient Near East (p. 89). - See more at: http://biologos.org/blogs/jim-stump-faith-and-science-seeking-understanding/interpreting-adam-an-interview-with-john-walton#s thash.UcoEH80U.dpuf
quote:We don't have to believe your interpretation, or any interpretation, of the Adam and Eve story. Stories are there to help us as we think about our relationship with God, not to hinder us. It is possible that the people who originally passed the stories on had no such thoughts in their minds as those some theologians have thought up and handed down since, and yet they were God's people.
Originally posted by Boogie:
So, somewhere, once upon a very long time ago there were two perfect humans who were innocent about sin, pure.
Animals?
They then disobeyed God's warning and received the knowledge of good and evil before they were ready.
Became human?
Then, 2000 years ago another human/god came along and sorted it all out?
All we have to do is believe this and we can share in the sorting out and leave evil behind.
If we don't/can't believe it then tough shit.
Meanwhile people who don't believe it go on living ordinary lives, most of them good lives. They make mistakes but, by and large, are kind to each other and their neighbours. Yet, somehow, they are not considered part of this 'kingdom'?
quote:Serious? You must be joking. I have never read any that do.
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:Serious scholars recognise he is both: a real person as well as archetypal of humanity after the fall.
Originally posted by Martin60:
So he's a real person or not?
quote:As for point marked*
Originally posted by Boogie:
So, somewhere, once upon a very long time ago there were two perfect humans who were innocent about sin, pure.
Animals?
They then disobeyed God's warning and received the knowledge of good and evil before they were ready.
Became human?
Then, 2000 years ago another human/god came along and sorted it all out?
*All we have to do is believe this and we can share in the sorting out and leave evil behind.
If we don't/can't believe it then tough shit.
**Meanwhile people who don't believe it go on living ordinary lives, most of them good lives. They make mistakes but, by and large, are kind to each other and their neighbours. Yet, somehow, they are not considered part of this 'kingdom'?
quote:I’ve been there when it was done – A “well-regarded Youth Evangelist” said “Faith is easy, you have it every time you turn on a tap” That’s lying about what faith is – when I turn on a tap I have a reasonable expectation based on thousands of past experiences. It’s an old tradition, some say going back to Eusebius or even earlier. Martin Luther is reported as saying ”What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church ... a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them". It is the attitude which permits belief to be presented to the vulnerable as though it were demonstrable fact.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I don't know why you think that anyone would think it necessary to tell lies 'in pursuit of a soul's salvation.'
quote:Hearts are easy to pin down, they’re the pump that causes our blood to circulate. Souls on the other hand cannot be pinned down – and the most reasonable explanation as to why is that they don’t exist.
There is only one living God, the God that is never buried under words, thoughts, deceptions or disbelief, the God who always surfaces again and is revealed to people. The truth is always with us, and we do know it in our 'hearts and souls' - those aspects of us so elusive, so impossible to pin down. .
quote:And I’m sure you believe this to be true -it’s just that you cannot demonstrate that it is. Just because you do not doubt it doesn’t make it true. I accept that you do not need evidence – I do, and there seems to none available.
God is not the answer as much as the question. God is not someone who fills gaps in our knowledge, but someone who opens up more of them.
quote:Teaching and crucifixion as, IMO, inconsistently presented in a rather dodgy collection of many years past the event marketing literature. If it is not possible to demonstrate the existence of God it is also impossible to demonstrate that he has a will – if such a will cannot be demonstrated we end up with the God who reflects our own wishes, desires and self-justifications - which may go some way to explaining why so many people are content to hijack the concept for their own wicked purposes.
Your examples of where people have and do use man-made rules they have incorporated into organised religions to do what is against God's good will is all the more reason to share the teaching of Jesus, who was so condemning of such behaviour that they crucified him.
quote:I think your assumption is incorrect.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:We had a neuroscience researcher on the Ship until recently (IngoB) and he did believe in free will. Perhaps not Cartesian free will, if that's what you mean by 'as generally assumed'.
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
The experimental evidence is so overwhelming that almost no neuroscience researchers accept the possibility of “free will” as generally assumed. We act the way we do because of our unique mix of genetic inheritance (nature) and our lifetime experience (nurture). Decisions are made in our subconscious mind and (under ƒMRI and other scanning systems) we can see that the course of action is set in motion prior to the conscious mind kidding itself that it is exercising “free will”.
There are problems with generalising from the kinds of decision - when to press a button - that can be measured and predicted when scanned to decisions in general life. Most notably, the claim that the conscious mind plays no role in decision making and only kids itself that it does does not explain why we have evolved a conscious mind that kids itself. Assuming the conscious mind is an inaccurate model of the subconscious which is doing all the work, then we must run the model at some cost in energy. For the conscious mind to evolve the cost must pay off in some way. The leading hypotheses of how it pays off of which I'm aware - for example, that the conscious mind monitors decisions and evaluates or second guesses them - require that actually the conscious mind is able to step in and alter decisions.
quote:The thing is, I'm not convinced you really believe this, even if you've convinced yourself you do.
We can change our ways because of changes to the subconscious “balance” through additional nurture imports. No element of conscious choice exists.
quote:And you replied:
The good in us, the kindness we might show to a complete stranger, the self-giving love that leads to actions against our own interests, has its origin in God. We know that instinctively.
quote:Now, your position about the conscious mind being simply an illusion I don't think I suggested the conscious mind is an illusion did I?. that kids itself commits you to the view that we may subconsciously/ instinctively know things that we consciously think we don't know or even deny. So the strongest response you're consistently entitled to would have been: 'I have no evidence that I know anything of the sort'. But that's not what you said, and the rest of your post implied a reaction only justified by the stronger position you actually said. It is, in fact, exactly what I said. I know nothing of the sort, where "know" means I am conscious of it as a provable truth. Could it be true but unknown, yes, as could the whole supernatural caboodle, but in the absence of both evidence and need the rational response is to ignore the unknowable possibility.
Nonsense - I know nothing of the sort.
quote:It wouldn't be difficult to rig up a program to scan for key phrases and automatically post a reply. It could even join the ship as a member. Would we notice?
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Can't we create a special forum where people can go to say "You don't have scientific proof for the existence of God!" and then we set up a rota where we take turns of going into that forum and reply "We know!"
quote:Most people think of evil as the very worst actions, like murder or rape, while sin covers every little harmful thing we do, or good thing we neglect to do.
Originally posted by Boogie:
But this thread isn't about God - it's about evil.
Yes, we've had a lot of 'God is the answer to evil' posts, fair enough. She may be.
But, if evil isn't us giving in to animal desires without thought for others - then what causes it?
Even if there were an original, first, Adam who was aware of evil and chose to do it anyway - that means nothing really. The genes he passed on wouldn't cause every descendant to behave as he did. Human behaviour is far, far more complicated than that.
I don't think many people are evil. We make mistakes, we learn. By and large we do our best to care for others, both people known and unknown to us. We get on amazingly well, even in very large groups.
Some (sociopaths, psychopaths) have, one way or another, gone badly wrong and now have no empathy. But - although the damage they cause is terrible - they are very much in the minority.
quote:Why do you think it is incorrect?
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:I think your assumption is incorrect.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Most notably, the claim that the conscious mind plays no role in decision making and only kids itself that it does does not explain why we have evolved a conscious mind that kids itself. Assuming the conscious mind is an inaccurate model of the subconscious which is doing all the work, then we must run the model at some cost in energy. For the conscious mind to evolve the cost must pay off in some way. The leading hypotheses of how it pays off of which I'm aware - for example, that the conscious mind monitors decisions and evaluates or second guesses them - require that actually the conscious mind is able to step in and alter decisions.
quote:That's not what 'know' means. I know lots of things of which I am not presently conscious.
quote:It is, in fact, exactly what I said. I know nothing of the sort, where "know" means I am conscious of it as a provable truth.
[qb] Now, your position about the conscious mind being simply an illusion that kids itself commits you to the view that we may subconsciously/ instinctively know things that we consciously think we don't know or even deny. So the strongest response you're consistently entitled to would have been: 'I have no evidence that I know anything of the sort'. But that's not what you said, and the rest of your post implied a reaction only justified by the stronger position you actually said. [qb]
quote:Firstly, I've read a fair amount of New Scientist and also a fair amount of philosophical discussion of these experiments, stroke victims, change blindness, etc. Therefore, I have what I consider a justifiable belief that the probability of me learning enough that I don't know already and that significantly affects my understanding of these matters is low compared to the time I would have to spend on it.
If you can do so I recommend that you watch the television series “The Brain with David Eagleman”. The first two shows are available on the BBC iPlayer - BBC4.
quote:Very nice, Martin. It reminds me of Simone Weil's famous remark, atheism is the purification of religion.
Originally posted by Martin60:
I'm extremely grateful for HWR's contributions, as they are close to my other side of the same coin: Rigorous atheism with Christ.
quote:Then we need a bot-thread, so that when people say, 'we know X comes from God', or 'we know X does not come from God', it will automatically reply, no, we don't.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Can't we create a special forum where people can go to say "You don't have scientific proof for the existence of God!" and then we set up a rota where we take turns of going into that forum and reply "We know!"
quote:Amen mate.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Christ radiates God, Martin: the goodness and love, peace and light of God.
There is no place for evil or sin, for deception or denial, in the presence of Christ.
quote:Coo q! I'll buy that fer a dollar! ME!! The sloppy man's Weil.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:Very nice, Martin. It reminds me of Simone Weil's famous remark, atheism is the purification of religion.
Originally posted by Martin60:
I'm extremely grateful for HWR's contributions, as they are close to my other side of the same coin: Rigorous atheism with Christ.
I quite like sloppy Christianity with a dash of sloppy atheism.
quote:What causes evil?
Originally posted by Boogie:
But this thread isn't about God - it's about evil.
Yes, we've had a lot of 'God is the answer to evil' posts, fair enough. She may be.
But, if evil isn't us giving in to animal desires without thought for others - then what causes it?
Even if there were an original, first, Adam who was aware of evil and chose to do it anyway - that means nothing really. The genes he passed on wouldn't cause every descendant to behave as he did. Human behaviour is far, far more complicated than that.
I don't think many people are evil. We make mistakes, we learn. By and large we do our best to care for others, both people known and unknown to us. We get on amazingly well, even in very large groups.
Some (sociopaths, psychopaths) have, one way or another, gone badly wrong and now have no empathy. But - although the damage they cause is terrible - they are very much in the minority.
quote:You are joking? It may be a passing thought - with me it wouldn't be a lobster but spying a gorgeous car. But that's all it is - a passing 'if only' - not something which eats away or causes any kind of problem!
Originally posted by footwasher:
You are sitting in a restaurant, quietly eating your meat and potatoes, when the waiter sails past you with the lobster that arrives on the table next to you. What a beautiful dish! If only you had the means to dine that way!
quote:Matthew 5: 21“You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’ 22“But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:You are joking? It may be a passing thought - with me it wouldn't be a lobster but spying a gorgeous car. But that's all it is - a passing 'if only' - not something which eats away or causes any kind of problem!
Originally posted by footwasher:
You are sitting in a restaurant, quietly eating your meat and potatoes, when the waiter sails past you with the lobster that arrives on the table next to you. What a beautiful dish! If only you had the means to dine that way!
quote:Anger is crime enough to do time. You can't be a little pregnant.
Originally posted by Boogie:
Everybody gets angry from time to time - it's how you deal with the anger that matters, the feeling itself isn't evil.
But you didn't answer my point about envy/jealousy. It's usually a fleeing, passing and harmless 'if only'. Like buying a lottery ticket so that you can dream for a moment.
quote:A lie is an intentional falsehood. Using a bad analogy is not a lie if you don't think it's a bad analogy. The youth evangelist was only lying if he shared your opinion as to how bad the analogy was. It seems unlikely.
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:I’ve been there when it was done – A “well-regarded Youth Evangelist” said “Faith is easy, you have it every time you turn on a tap” That’s lying about what faith is – when I turn on a tap I have a reasonable expectation based on thousands of past experiences.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I don't know why you think that anyone would think it necessary to tell lies 'in pursuit of a soul's salvation.'
quote:And would these 'some' be reliable sources?
It’s an old tradition, some say going back to Eusebius or even earlier.
quote:Nonsense. Perhaps in a heaven of your construction anger might be absent, but it is grievous poppycock to suggest that you can reconstruct this turdly world into that heaven. In the various heavens of others' construction, there is a wrathful god taking his anger out on all sorts of people, including nameless Canaanite children slaughtered per his orders and Noah kids' playmates.
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:Anger is crime enough to do time. You can't be a little pregnant.
Originally posted by Boogie:
Everybody gets angry from time to time - it's how you deal with the anger that matters, the feeling itself isn't evil.
But you didn't answer my point about envy/jealousy. It's usually a fleeing, passing and harmless 'if only'. Like buying a lottery ticket so that you can dream for a moment.
quote:The anger condemned by the text is the anger of Cain, resentful anger, clarified in the examples I provided. No one suggested only one use of the word, or posited that ALL anger is wrong, so you can put that strawman back in storage, to use on an actual hayseed.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Nonsense. Perhaps in a heaven of your construction anger might be absent, but it is grievous poppycock to suggest that you can reconstruct this turdly world into that heaven. In the various heavens of others' construction, there is a wrathful god taking his anger out on all sorts of people, including nameless Canaanite children slaughtered per his orders and Noah kids' playmates.
And yes you can be a little pregnant. Just like you can be slightly drunk. There are two uses, at least, of prego and tipsy, and at least two for anger, one of which might be righteous anger. To suggest one use of a word is the only usage possible is not correct.
quote:Adam Ant?
Originally posted by Martin60:
Adam who?
quote:And resentful anger is rare, which was exactly my point.
Originally posted by footwasher:
The anger condemned by the text is the anger of Cain, resentful anger, clarified in the examples I provided. No one suggested only one use of the word, or posited that ALL anger is wrong, so you can put that strawman back in storage, to use on an actual hayseed.
quote:Those who live their lives plotting evil are (mercifully) rare. The vast, vast majority of us are muddling through life as best we can on this difficult/confusing/animal/ planet which God in her wisdom chose to bless us with.
I don't think many people are evil. We make mistakes, we learn. By and large we do our best to care for others, both people known and unknown to us. We get on amazingly well, even in very large groups.
Some (sociopaths, psychopaths) have, one way or another, gone badly wrong and now have no empathy. But - although the damage they cause is terrible - they are very much in the minority.
quote:But you posted that you resented people with beautiful cars, not better food or nicer clothes. Resentment is resentment. Plotting need not manifest to make you culpable.
Originally posted by Boogie:
And resentful anger is rare, which was exactly my point.
quote:Resentment is sin. See the Sermon on the Mount.
Originally posted by Boogie:
I don't think many people are evil. We make mistakes, we learn. By and large we do our best to care for others, both people known and unknown to us. We get on amazingly well, even in very large groups.
Some (sociopaths, psychopaths) have, one way or another, gone badly wrong and now have no empathy. But - although the damage they cause is terrible - they are very much in the minority.
Those who live their lives plotting evil are (mercifully) rare. The vast, vast majority of us are muddling through life as best we can on this difficult/confusing/animal/ planet which God in her wisdom chose to bless us with.
quote:No I didn't - I said that, like most people, I had a fleeting 'what if' feeling.
Originally posted by footwasher:
But you posted that you resented people with beautiful cars, not better food or nicer clothes. Resentment is resentment. Plotting need not manifest to make you culpable.
quote:The idea is to capture our thoughts so that we don't put harmful ideas into action. Once we have, it is a good thing to reflect upon it, decide we won't do it again, and ask for God's forgiveness. That gives us a clean sheet, so that we're no longer burdened by them.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Do people really tot up their sins of the day, including resentment, envy, negative thoughts, lustful thoughts, and so on? Gordon absolutely bleeding Miss Bennett.
It reminds me that at work (therapy), probably the commonest thing I used to say to people was, 'stop being so hard on yourself', as one of the commonest neurotic symptoms was precisely that.
It used to frighten me how hard people were on themselves, I don't mean religious people, so I suppose this scrupulosity has sunk deep into the collective psyche.
quote:OK, fair enough. I do think it sounds incredibly narcissistic, my little negative thoughts are so important, apparently.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:The idea is to capture our thoughts so that we don't put harmful ideas into action. Once we have, it is a good thing to reflect upon it, decide we won't do it again, and ask for God's forgiveness. That gives us a clean sheet, so that we're no longer burdened by them.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Do people really tot up their sins of the day, including resentment, envy, negative thoughts, lustful thoughts, and so on? Gordon absolutely bleeding Miss Bennett.
It reminds me that at work (therapy), probably the commonest thing I used to say to people was, 'stop being so hard on yourself', as one of the commonest neurotic symptoms was precisely that.
It used to frighten me how hard people were on themselves, I don't mean religious people, so I suppose this scrupulosity has sunk deep into the collective psyche.
Resentment, envy etc are acid to us if we allow them to remain unchecked.
quote:There are a lot of people who are too hard on themselves and would benefit greatly if they could ease up on themselves. On the other hand, there are also a lot of people who really should be harder on themselves and at least think a little bit about what they ought to do differently. My guess is that compared to the former group, the latter group is not very well represented among your clients.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
To me, the whole process sounds very burdensome. It reminds me of clients I had who every night, would go through the day at work, trying to remember all the mistakes they'd made. But why?
quote:I don't think that's true really. It's true I suppose, that unthinking people tend to remain unthinking, but as we know, life has a habit of giving most people a shock now and again, and then you find bewilderment and so on, and even a kind of break-down, if you are lucky!
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:There are a lot of people who are too hard on themselves and would benefit greatly if they could ease up on themselves. On the other hand, there are also a lot of people who really should be harder on themselves and at least think a little bit about what they ought to do differently. My guess is that compared to the former group, the latter group is not very well represented among your clients.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
To me, the whole process sounds very burdensome. It reminds me of clients I had who every night, would go through the day at work, trying to remember all the mistakes they'd made. But why?
quote:How about people who see problems they create for themselves compared to people who think all the problems they see are someone else's fault? I'll be surprised if you think there is no significant bias in the selection criteria for the sample you are basing your observations on.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think that's true really. It's true I suppose, that unthinking people tend to remain unthinking, but as we know, life has a habit of giving most people a shock now and again, and then you find bewilderment and so on, and even a kind of break-down, if you are lucky!
I'm not sure how many people remain untouched in that way.
quote:I don't think you can. But in terms of guilt and shame, and blame, you can certainly build up a kind of profile, or set of profiles. Definitely, there are those who blame, and those who are ashamed, although in fact, many people do both (obviously). But this stuff is empirical, not predictive. The next person you meet will have a unique set of characteristics.
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:How about people who see problems they create for themselves compared to people who think all the problems they see are someone else's fault? I'll be surprised if you think there is no significant bias in the selection criteria for the sample you are basing your observations on.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think that's true really. It's true I suppose, that unthinking people tend to remain unthinking, but as we know, life has a habit of giving most people a shock now and again, and then you find bewilderment and so on, and even a kind of break-down, if you are lucky!
I'm not sure how many people remain untouched in that way.
I appreciate the insights you offer here, but how much can you apply them to the whole population?
quote:Absolutely. But it's more obvious how to apply that as a therapist than as a paster in the pulpit.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The next person you meet will have a unique set of characteristics.
quote:Not really. An old supervisor of mine used to say, well, give it two years, and if you still don't understand what they're saying, maybe time for them to move on! Well, it takes two years for some people to thaw out.
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:Absolutely. But it's more obvious how to apply that as a therapist than as a paster in the pulpit.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The next person you meet will have a unique set of characteristics.
quote:OK, then I am surprised. A therapist listens to an individual or small group and tries not to judge or assume. A preacher delivers a message to a large group covering the whole spectrum, trying to inspire those who blame and those who are ashamed. Can a preacher focus only on the message that we should not be too hard on ourselves? Or would it need to be balanced by something else?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Not really.
quote:Yes, I see what you mean. It seems difficult to combine different messages - don't be hard on yourself, but pay attention also, (for the unthinking).
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:OK, then I am surprised. A therapist listens to an individual or small group and tries not to judge or assume. A preacher delivers a message to a large group covering the whole spectrum, trying to inspire those who blame and those who are ashamed. Can a preacher focus only on the message that we should not be too hard on ourselves? Or would it need to be balanced by something else?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Not really.
quote:
quetzalcoatl: But of course, there are so many levels in people. For example, the ones who blame, are often deeply ashamed.
quote:Yes, those are good, important points.
quetzalcoatl: But curiously, individuals are rather similar, since many people are not homogeneous.
quote:Except that a lot of religious people, including some Christians, maintain that they do have such a proof – despite being unable to demonstrate it. And that’s OK, a bit sad perhaps, but OK until they start screwing up other people’s lives by insisting that their belief is a really, actually, undoubtedly, trust me on this I’m a diamond geezer truth which you can take to the bank and the poor blighters take them at their fancy-dressed, false reputation enhanced word. It happens - time and time again, can’t put food on the table? – God still expects you to tithe, don’t use those nasty science-based medicines - just pray......... Not that any of such people ever come to SoF of course, but the “moderates” have always provided the breeding ground for “extremism”, enabled the confused smokescreen into which the “extremists” retire to regroup and failed to deal with their own “nutters” because to do so leaves them exposed as the “new nutters”
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Can't we create a special forum where people can go to say "You don't have scientific proof for the existence of God!" and then we set up a rota where we take turns of going into that forum and reply "We know!"
quote:Clearly your version of Christianity is markedly different to that which I grew up in – I was taught that Christ is God and that God is omnipresent. The obvious dichotomy was what started the quest that led to logic sneaking into the bubble.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Christ radiates God, Martin: the goodness and love, peace and light of God.
There is no place for evil or sin, for deception or denial, in the presence of Christ.
quote:I took the model concept to mean that the conscious is modelling the unconscious - I think that is inaccurate. I do think that "The conscious brain believes it is making the decisions, but in fact the decisions are already made." is an accurate model (description) as to how the experimental evidence indicates that things work.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The conscious brain believes it is making the decisions, but in fact the decisions are already made. Why is that not an inaccurate model?
quote:But the first is capable of proof – you could have photographed the birds. You can’t photograph God. Whilst I’m neither a mathematician nor a physicist I believe the second is only true within certain limits.
(I also know lots of things that are not provable: for example, I know that the birds I saw in a tree yesterday were woodpigeons, which is not provable, because there's no documentary evidence; and that a straight line is the shortest distance between two points.)
quote:Firstly, I've read a fair amount of New Scientist and also a fair amount of philosophical discussion of these experiments, stroke victims, change blindness, etc. Therefore, I have what I consider a justifiable belief that the probability of me learning enough that I don't know already and that significantly affects my understanding of these matters is low compared to the time I would have to spend on it.
If you can do so I recommend that you watch the television series “The Brain with David Eagleman”. The first two shows are available on the BBC iPlayer - BBC4.
quote:Are you deliberately misrepresenting what I said or have I failed to make it clear enough? The unconscious does not choose what evidence to consider, it reacts to the totality of its data. Additional data is harvested by the conscious brain – sight, hearing, etc. and added to the information available – that’s why the need to be able to accept modification to one’s cherished ideas is important, cognitive dissonance is painful and opens the cogniter(?) to abuse by driven minds
In any case, my point is that if you really think that the conscious mind has no choice in what decisions it makes, and that all the work happens at the subconscious level, it makes no sense to talk about basing beliefs on evidence available to the conscious brain. If the subconscious brain decides what it believes based on whatever evidence it chooses,
quote:Wrong assumptions lead to wrong conclusions
and then lets the conscious brain kid itself that it was making the decision on rational criteria, then you cannot claim for yourself any warrant to claim that your beliefs are actually more rationally grounded than anyone else's.
quote:As to modesty - I’m not too busy to risk watching programmes which might prove me wrong.
This requires a bit more modesty towards other people's epistemological positions that you've so far shown.
quote:I don't. But you are rehashing your same old non-arguments, on a thread that isn't about proof for God, about scientific evidence, or about neurological proof of free will.
HughWillRidmee: Except that a lot of religious people, including some Christians, maintain that they do have such a proof
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
HWR. Puh-leeeeze! I agree with LeRoc, damn his eyes. I said something nice about you anadromously or elsewhere, but this is just not appropriate here. A strong minority of us, here at least, make NO such claims of proof. Utterly reject ALL such claims.
And of course we have non-transferable, interior, Jungian, proofs. And I'm a Freudian. It would be so much easier to be strong atheists, but we just can't get over The Hump to get there.
Rhetoric shorn of two legs, leaving logic alone, is a woefully inadequate stool on which to declaim to Christian atheists.
quote:1 – I responded to a post which claimed that the self-giving love that leads to actions against our own interests, has its origin in God. We know that instinctively. This is a claim about how our brain operates, a claim without evidence or reason to support it which, if left unchallenged, could be used to justify beliefs and actions that otherwise might not be justifiable.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I don't. But you are rehashing your same old non-arguments, on a thread that isn't about proof for God, about scientific evidence, or about neurological proof of free will.
HughWillRidmee: Except that a lot of religious people, including some Christians, maintain that they do have such a proof
quote:It was noticed and appreciated
Originally posted by Martin60:
HWR. Puh-leeeeze! I agree with LeRoc, damn his eyes. I said something nice about you anadromously or elsewhere,
quote:I understand that and some atheists try to separate Christians into good/reasonable/we can work with Christians on the one hand and dogmatic/lying-for-Jesus/all-or-nothing Christians (think parts of the Tea Party etc.) on the other. I don’t know where the line can be drawn.
but this is just not appropriate here. A strong minority of us, here at least, make NO such claims of proof. Utterly reject ALL such claims.
quote:strong atheism is usually considered to be the belief that there is no god or gods. Since the concept of god(s) is so hugely amorphous I’m reluctant to go there myself – though I’m pretty sure that specific god(s) I’ve been exposed to are rationally implausible.
And of course we have non-transferable, interior, Jungian, proofs. And I'm a Freudian. It would be so much easier to be strong atheists, but we just can't get over The Hump to get there.
quote:This didn’t start as a response to an obvious Christian atheist though did it?
Rhetoric shorn of two legs, leaving logic alone, is a woefully inadequate stool on which to declaim to Christian atheists.
quote:This thread is about the origins of evil and sin. To you, evil and sin don't exist because everything we do is the product of our neurology. That's noted. By your own definition, your discussion stops here. I don't see a need to rehearse your scientific evidence non-logic here.
HughWillRidmee: I responded to a post which claimed that the self-giving love that leads to actions against our own interests, has its origin in God. We know that instinctively.
quote:'My conscious mind is making the decisions' is a inaccurate model of the process in the unconscious mind that amounts to the decisions already being made.
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:I took the model concept to mean that the conscious is modelling the unconscious - I think that is inaccurate. I do think that "The conscious brain believes it is making the decisions, but in fact the decisions are already made." is an accurate model (description) as to how the experimental evidence indicates that things work.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The conscious brain believes it is making the decisions, but in fact the decisions are already made. Why is that not an inaccurate model?
quote:The two clauses in the first sentence are in different tenses. It doesn't matter whether or not I could have photographed the birds; it's only capable of proof if in fact I did photograph the birds.
quote:But the first is capable of proof – you could have photographed the birds. You can’t photograph God. Whilst I’m neither a mathematician nor a physicist I believe the second is only true within certain limits.
(I also know lots of things that are not provable: for example, I know that the birds I saw in a tree yesterday were woodpigeons, which is not provable, because there's no documentary evidence; and that a straight line is the shortest distance between two points.)
quote:The analogy here is that I've read Professor A's book aimed at third-year undergraduates and masters students, and you're telling me to sit through Professor B's first year undergraduate lectures.
quote:If I said this I would expect to be told that it was a cop-out – that I was not prepared to risk having my precoEnceived ideas shot down. Would you take second- hand religious instruction from a young , inexperienced, unqualified novice or go to the source – to the professor who is a professional sharer of his, and his colleagues, experiences and results. After all - you might find out that I’ve misunderstood the facts and be able to offer to help me get an accurate understanding mightn’t you?
quote:Firstly, I've read a fair amount of New Scientist and also a fair amount of philosophical discussion of these experiments, stroke victims, change blindness, etc. Therefore, I have what I consider a justifiable belief that the probability of me learning enough that I don't know already and that significantly affects my understanding of these matters is low compared to the time I would have to spend on it.
If you can do so I recommend that you watch the television series “The Brain with David Eagleman”. The first two shows are available on the BBC iPlayer - BBC4.
If you can't be bothered to take the time to make your points yourself I can't be bothered to do your work for you.
quote:Firstly, this is quibbling over words.
quote:Are you deliberately misrepresenting what I said or have I failed to make it clear enough? The unconscious does not choose what evidence to consider, it reacts to the totality of its data.
In any case, my point is that if you really think that the conscious mind has no choice in what decisions it makes, and that all the work happens at the subconscious level, it makes no sense to talk about basing beliefs on evidence available to the conscious brain. If the subconscious brain decides what it believes based on whatever evidence it chooses,
quote:It is not true that data is harvested by the conscious brain. It goes through the unconscious brain before it goes to the conscious brain.
Additional data is harvested by the conscious brain – sight, hearing, etc. and added to the information available
