homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Do we WANT there to be a God? (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Do we WANT there to be a God?
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055

 - Posted      Profile for Pre-cambrian   Email Pre-cambrian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If you want to talk about 'offence', then the idea that only atheists are 'intellectually honest' just about takes the biscuit! (A point brought up in the OP).

Can you point to any occasion in this thread where an atheist has actually said this, as compared to someone else claiming that atheists say this?

quote:
I am not sure that this accusation against Mark_in_Manchester is entirely fair. He was talking about wanting 'truth' to exist.
No, he explicitly said that everyone "human" wants God to exist, ergo someone who does not want God to exist is not human.

--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."

Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048

 - Posted      Profile for Jessie Phillips     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
But what I think is so incredibly arrogant and cannot stand is the attitude that says, "Well, of course we all, being the weak human beings we are, have a 'need' for some kind of 'God,' we all want to believe in something, but I, the Noble, Brave, and Superior Atheist have managed to struggle against that desire for God and have chosen the lonely but honest path of not believing, though it goes against the grain, while the rest of you weak-kneed believers have simply invented a God to satisfy your innate need for one."

Not sure why, but this makes me think of early Christian martyrdom legends. Wasn't Polycarp accused of being an atheist, on the grounds that he would not pour out a libation for the statue of the emperor, or something?

It seems to me that the idea that atheists are superior for winning their struggle against the need to believe that there is a God, is not much different to the idea that the early Christians were superior for winning their struggle against the need to believe that the true god is the Roman emperor, rather than Jesus Christ.

The only difference is that one or two of those Christians may possibly have been mauled by one or two beasts over the matter. Then again, maybe they weren't. Perhaps the martyrdom legends were all made up. But that's not the point. Point is, I'm not really seeing equivalent bravery on the part of atheists. Yet. But never say never.

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
All but those who are insane believe (consciously or unconsciously) in something called 'truth', even though there may be disagreements concerning the content of 'truth'. I would argue that the concept of 'truth' only makes sense within a worldview in which there is an objective - and therefore eternal - basis for truth, which is the view that affirms the existence of an eternal 'reason', which Christians call the mind of God. I find it difficult to comprehend what meaning 'truth' has if the entire content of the human mind is simply an emergent property of animal instinct, which is, in turn, the product of the mindless movement of matter.

I'd agree that it's difficult to see what "truth" might mean if human cognitive processes can be accounted for entirely in terms of natural phenomena that have already been successfully modelled.

But since I don't believe that the mechanics of cognition are themselves inherently beyond human comprehension, I am therefore sceptical of "truth".

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I would say that our fundamental human need for truth and reason reflects the reality of an ultimately objective reason, which cannot be merely the emergent property of matter.

It's nice to think that there is an objective reason. But that doesn't by itself mean that there is such a reason. Unless, of course, you use the argument that if it's possible to think of something, then the thing you've just thought of must therefore exist, because it's impossible to think about non-existent things.

What exactly is existence, anyway? Does existence exist? Does non-existence exist? If either existence or non-existence or both exist, how do we know that they exist? Can we know whether they exist or not? And what does it mean for existence and non-existence to exist anyway?

Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
mark_in_manchester

not waving, but...
# 15978

 - Posted      Profile for mark_in_manchester   Email mark_in_manchester   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks EE for your followup post, and sorry if you felt tarred with my rather sloppily-expressed brush...again, I'm very much behind your post, which is probably more clear and certainly more carefully constructed than anything I'm going to be able to put together. But here we go...

PreCambrian said:

quote:
This is offensive bollocks. Firstly explain why truth is meaningless without a transcendent origin. Secondly you are saying that anyone who has no desire for God to exist - i.e. me and some other contributors to this thread - are sub-human and criminally insane. This really does deserve a hell call.

Well, I'd be happy to do it there if you want to..or perhaps I can have a go here.

Perhaps your 'secondly' first...no, that's very definately NOT what I said - though I can see that your inference of such an offensive statement is perhaps justified by my sloppy construction, and deserves a reply.

I AM saying that a commitment to objective truth which transcends the personal, is required to restrain actions in society which most would view as inhumane - indeed it is required to make the use of such a term meaningful. So - if a (misguided, as I would see it) theist started to harm or kill his unbelieving neighbours, we would need a commitment to some universal principle which would entitle us to make him cease.

I say that God (as I understand Him in his revealed nature in Christ) commands this guy to cease. (tangent - this is not to say that those who believe in Christ do not frequently do things which God commands them cease - as I tried to indicate by choosing a theist for the example).

A non-theist would clearly find such an appeal to the authority of God outrageous - and would need to appeal to a different source of Truth. To which I turn around your first question back to you - can you explain how Truth can be meaningful *without* a transcendent origin?

When I was an atheist, I found no philosophical basis for a commitment to such Truth which does not ultimately require a self-creating origin - or perhaps which look OK but then fail in circumstances which call for them to be 'trumped' by a higher authority which is ultimately self-creating. I've explored a few...perhaps another thread, or this will get too big? Such an origin is, in my view, a god by any common definition of that word. So the limit of my offence (and I understand that this may be indeed be offensive, to which I add that I'm not trying to be inflammatory) is to suggest that all who maintain a humane position are engaged in inter-faith dialogue, since at the end, they are all stuck with 'Truth...it just is'.

This is not at all the same as a suggestion that those who choose not to express their commitment to Truth in terms of God / god(s) are criminally-insane - the logic is not coummutative or associative or whatever the right term from maths is - it doesn't work backwards. Clearly and by observation, at least as many non-theists are 'humane', as theists. My argument concerns what makes them so.

It's also worth saying that I make no special claim for the Christian God here - hence the reference to inter-faith dialogue. I am a Christian - but the 'why' of that is not relevant to this exchange.

I'd seriously welcome your views on where Truth comes from, either here or somewhere more infernal. I'm sorry I wound you up - and I hope I've expressed myself more clearly.

MiM

--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)

Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010  |  IP: Logged
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048

 - Posted      Profile for Jessie Phillips     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
I AM saying that a commitment to objective truth which transcends the personal, is required to restrain actions in society which most would view as inhumane - indeed it is required to make the use of such a term meaningful.

I'm intrigued by the use of the word "inhumane" there - particularly given that I've recently read "The Beast Within" by Joyce E. Salisbury.

You see, I'm wondering why anyone really needs to commit to objective truth that transcends the personal. I'm also wondering exactly how far above the personal a truth needs to transcend before it is considered "objective".

It seems to me that the only thing you need to be able to restrain the "inhumane" is a belief that there's a difference between heroes and monsters. Between humans and animals. Between the civilised and the barbarians. Between "us" and "them". In short - you need some form of tribalism. And you need to be able to paint those outside the tribe as somehow inferior, somehow less humane, somehow more beastly, than those inside the tribe.

Hence the mores about bestiality. If a human mated with a primate, they probably won't produce offspring - but what if they do? Would the offspring be a human, or a beast? Would it participate in the resurrection, or wouldn't it? Most religions that claim to teach "objective truth" don't like to grapple with questions like that. So they duck them, by making out that such unions are bad. Hence the Old Testament prohibition of Jews intermarrying with Gentiles.

I grant that the "objective truth" about the difference between humans and beasts needs to transcend the personal. But does it need to transcend the tribe? Does it need to transcend humanity? What if you face a hungry wolf one day, and you have your own opinions about the difference between "humane" and "inhumane". Does it matter whether the wolf agrees with your opinions or not? If not, why not?

Supposing it doesn't matter whether the wolf agrees or not. And supposing you imagine that the nation you come from is civilised nation - and, one day, you meet someone who comes from a nation that you consider to be barbarian. Does it matter whether the barbarian agrees with your opinion on the difference between "humane" and "inhumane"? If so, then why does it matter? If it matters whether the barbarian agrees or not, but it doesn't matter whether the wolf agrees or not, then isn't that a contradiction? Just how "objective" does this so-called "objective truth" have to be, anyway?

I can certainly see how the ability to distinguish between "humane" and "inhumane" depends on a "truth" that transcends the personal. But does it need to transcend the tribe? Does it need to transcend humanity? If not, then is it really "objective" - and does it need to be "objective"?

Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
mark_in_manchester

not waving, but...
# 15978

 - Posted      Profile for mark_in_manchester   Email mark_in_manchester   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hi Jessie -

quote:
And supposing you imagine that the nation you come from is civilised nation - and, one day, you meet someone who comes from a nation that you consider to be barbarian. Does it matter whether the barbarian agrees with your opinion on the difference between "humane" and "inhumane"? If so, then why does it matter?
Thanks for this - it's right at the heart of it, for me. For it to 'matter', God (or god(s), since I'm still not making any specific claims for Christ) has to be there to Make It So. I think nearly everyone thinks it does matter - matters that (for instance) women live in what I (and, I would guess but not presume, you) would regard as subjugation in some cultures, that their genital mutilation / foot binding / etc might be 'inhumane' - and so on. I am heartily glad that this is so, but in contrast to other posters, I think this means (to tie this back to the OP) that it necessitates a God / god(s) - and so, whether we express it in these terms or not, we all want there to be a God / god(s). The only defense against this assertion seems to me to be a rational derivation of transcendent Truth, which I don't believe exists...but which I am open to thinking about.

If there is no transcendent Truth, then I can find no argument why one tribe's view can take precedent, other than by brute strength justified on aesthetic or some other grounds. If this is the case, then Truth is not as I know it, and the only reason why I might not choose to piss on the next disabled person I meet will be because it is 'not very nice'. I'm too evil for that to work - moral choice for me needs a stronger injunction than that which dissuades me from wearing socks with sandals...

--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)

Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010  |  IP: Logged
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048

 - Posted      Profile for Jessie Phillips     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
Thanks for this - it's right at the heart of it, for me. For it to 'matter', God (or god(s), since I'm still not making any specific claims for Christ) has to be there to Make It So. I think nearly everyone thinks it does matter - matters that (for instance) women live in what I (and, I would guess but not presume, you) would regard as subjugation in some cultures, that their genital mutilation / foot binding / etc might be 'inhumane' - and so on. I am heartily glad that this is so, but in contrast to other posters, I think this means (to tie this back to the OP) that it necessitates a God / god(s) - and so, whether we express it in these terms or not, we all want there to be a God / god(s).

So - am I understanding you correctly, that you are saying that if there is a transcendent truth, there must also be a divinity?

Am I safe in assuming that your definition of "divinity" is quite loose here - and that any entity, with volition, and which is thought to be either immortal, or, failing that, to have a life span exceeding those of humans several times over, can be described as a "divinity"? Or am I making the definition of "divinity" even narrower than you would?

I think there's still an uncertainty over the level of transcendence. It's all very well to say that you should not mutilate genitals or bind feet, and then treat that more as transcending the tribe but not the species - but what about cannibalism? Is it wrong to eat other humans? If it's wrong to eat humans, is it okay to eat other animals?

If it's wrong for a human to eat a human, but it's okay for a human to eat a lamb, then is it okay for a lamb to eat a lamb? Not that a lamb would eat a lamb, of course - but, similarly, is it okay for wolves to eat lambs? How can it make sense to say that it's humane for humans to eat lambs, but not humane for wolves to eat lambs?

It seems to me that the definition of "humane" is based on the subjective experience of humanity. Since not every creature is human, then the idea that such a definition could ever be considered part of an objective truth seems questionable.

quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
If there is no transcendent Truth, then I can find no argument why one tribe's view can take precedent, other than by brute strength justified on aesthetic or some other grounds.

So, don't you think that's what happens anyway? Might is right? History is written by the victors, and all that? You win the war, you colonise the foreign nations - and then you cook up the theological and/or cultural and/or aesthetic argument about how it was right that this happened.

quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
If this is the case, then Truth is not as I know it, and the only reason why I might not choose to piss on the next disabled person I meet will be because it is 'not very nice'. I'm too evil for that to work - moral choice for me needs a stronger injunction than that which dissuades me from wearing socks with sandals...

Which I guess is where the concept of life span comes into it.

Pissing on a disabled person won't exactly do your reputation a lot of good if anyone gets to hear about it. You might care what your reputation is right now - but will you still care about it after you die? Actually - a surprising number of people do seem to care how they might be remembered after they die. Why? Don't know. Maybe because of the kids. Maybe for other reasons. But the point is, they sometimes base their decisions about that on the lessons they think they've learned from the life stories of those who've died before us.

A person's legacy might outlive them - and the more ostentatious the deeds of the king, the hero or the celebrity are, the longer they are likely to be remembered. We are more impressed by the story of a person who has been remembered for thousands of years - even if we suspect they never actually existed in the first place - than we are with people who are alive today, but to whom we have never been introduced.

And I suspect it was this observation that gave rise to the concept of what we call a "divinity" in the first place.

It seems to me that Christians and atheists alike don't think anything of calling celebrities "Hollywood gods" or "football gods". But to call a manual labourer a "factory god" seems slightly ridiculous.

In this sense, the word "god" is used in much the same way as "star"; we talk about "rock stars" but not "factory stars". A "god" - or a "star" - is distinguished from an ordinary mortal by the belief that they have - or are developing - a legend that's thought to be likely to last a bit longer than our ordinary mortal lives.

Indeed - we even talk about celebrities being "immortalised in celluloid". Does having a film made of you really stop you from dying? Clearly not.

Point is, I think that the moral imperative lies not in whether the moral code itself is considered to be long-lasting - but in the question of what your actions are thought to do to any long-lasting legacy that you and your family may or may not have. And it's this that gives rise to the concepts of what we call "god", "immortality", and "eternity".

Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
mark_in_manchester

not waving, but...
# 15978

 - Posted      Profile for mark_in_manchester   Email mark_in_manchester   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hi Jessie - some interesting points you raised.

Warning - Jessies post was long, and so is this reply.

quote:
So - am I understanding you correctly, that you are saying that if there is a transcendent truth, there must also be a divinity?
That's my working hypothesis - because I don't know of any satisfacitory arguments which don't work back and back through a chain of causal links, ending up with an 'it just is' - in which self-creating thing I'm drawing an equivalence with divinity. The other equivalence which strikes me is that this thing has 'saving power' - it saves me from nihilism.

quote:
Am I safe in assuming that your definition of "divinity" is quite loose here - and that any entity, with volition, and which is thought to be either immortal, or, failing that, to have a life span exceeding those of humans several times over, can be described as a "divinity"? Or am I making the definition of "divinity" even narrower than you would?
For the purposes of this argument, I think it's the 'self-creation' which does it for me, rather than anything worked out regarding volition, or temporal considerations.

quote:
I think there's still an uncertainty over the level of transcendence. It's all very well to say that you should not mutilate genitals or bind feet, and then treat that more as transcending the tribe but not the species - but what about cannibalism? Is it wrong to eat other humans? If it's wrong to eat humans, is it okay to eat other animals?
I'm not saying one should not do those things, so much as observing that secular commentators (I listen to a lot of Radio 4) do say them, consistently. I'm interested to know where their moral authority comes from - and since I can find none which will bear the weight of the kind of vehemence of their injunctions against this stuff apart from God, I suggest they worship (ascribe a source of ultimate values to) an unnamed, unwanted, involuntary moral god. Of course, i could just be blind-sided by my belief in God - but no-one has yet put a convincing case to me why accepting self-creating, sharable and solid moral views with no apparent rational derivation, is philospohically different from accepting a Creator.

I'm not hung up on the species stuff, as I can say as a theist (for example) Peter was commanded in a vision to eat all sorts of meat, Jesus ate meat etc; but also I know that 'doing it (good) to the least of these others...you did it for me' is a central concept, and that apparently 7 people can be fed on vegetables grown on the land required to raise beef for enough one. So it's a complex moral issue, which seems to suggest eating less meat in a heavily populated world would be a good thing. As regards humane killing...nature sure is red in tooth and claw. We would probably choose not to inflict unnecessary suffering, and Christians might think of that as part of stewardship of the created environment. Where secular thinking get this from is less clear to me - but I am very clear they do express it, lest anyone get the wrong idea that I'm calling secular thinkers 'savage'. [Smile]

quote:
Since not every creature is human, then the idea that such a definition could ever be considered part of an objective truth seems questionable.
Humans have to decide how to act. 'Humane' is a useful word in that it has 'pre-theoretic' common meaning - sure, only humans can be humane - maybe we can have an interesting time working out where humans derive their moral authority from, before speculating about other species?

quote:
So, don't you think that's what happens anyway? Might is right? History is written by the victors, and all that?
Sure I do. But if that's all there is, then ISTM all our complex moral soul searching (were we _right_ to go into Iraq / Sierra Leone / Bosnia etc) goes out the window in favour of unrestrained self-interest. I know most Christians think things are more complicated - and the fact that most secular commentators also hold solid, principled, nuanced moral views, makes me wonder from where they derive them.


quote:
Which I guess is where the concept of life span comes into it.

I thought your ideas on posterity are interesting.

Going back to your 'tribe' analogy - your idea accounts for differing moral codes amongst different tribes, whose respective moral legacies might be expected to be judged by different standards. But it does not speak to our presumed right to contrast between tribes - unless I guess we harbour the assumption that our own tribe will 'win'...which I guess might be a natural assumption...

OK, working that one out - committed Nazi enagages enthusiastically in the holocaust, expecting to be praised by future Nazis. 21C UK historian praises 1940s German dissenters, looking for approval from future UK non-fascists. Looks OK...but does not account for Rosa Parks / Bonhoeffer (sp), challenging the system from within a hostile paradigm? Though I can see why it might account for our subsequent enthusiasm regarding their stance...

I struggle with your point about family legacy, as I'm not at all interested in it - but I am concerned very much about the derivation of my moral stance.

And - (again, I'm not trying to be inflammatory or insulting, but I'm an engineer and in engineering one tests cases by applying ridiculous bounding test cases - zero load, infinite load - and then working back towards the more realistic but hard-to-model ground in the middle) - can we say that our objection to a hypothitical, 'foreign' paedophile culture only amounts to the social standing we expect to accrue from taking that position, in life and/or posterity?

I know a few people who seem to verge on something like that manner of thinking, but most 'secular' friends would look on them as having something missing...suggesting (to me) that unacknowledged first cause which (reverting again to the OP) they 'want'...

--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)

Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010  |  IP: Logged
itokro
Shipmate
# 16135

 - Posted      Profile for itokro   Email itokro   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
mark_in_manchester, you seem to be suggesting that people who don't believe in some form of God or Gods (regardless of whether or not they acknowledge that belief) have no reason not to be cruel to others - am I right in thinking that's your position? Because if so, I'm afraid I don't agree. I am capable of recognising:

(a) That there are certain ways I would never wish to be treated

(b) That the same is true for other people, and that in many cases the behaviour they don't wish to experience is the same as the behaviour I don't wish to experience (I could attribute this similarity to a code instilled by God, culture, genetics, something else, or some combination of the above)

(c) That if I treat others in a cruel way, I have no right to expect any better treatment from them

(d) That other people are human too, and even if I am mistreated, this doesn't mean I should mistreat them... because showing others the kindness I would wish to be shown is just a decent thing to do, and makes the world a slightly better place.

In summary, I don't think I need the threat of a vengeful deity to make me behave. In fact I think it cheapens God when people suggest that the main point of his existence is to scare us into being good.

Posts: 74 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
mark_in_manchester

not waving, but...
# 15978

 - Posted      Profile for mark_in_manchester   Email mark_in_manchester   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hi Itokro -

quote:
you seem to be suggesting that people who don't believe in some form of God or Gods (regardless of whether or not they acknowledge that belief) have no reason not to be cruel to others - am I right in thinking that's your position?
Yes - so long as we note that very, very often (at least as often as self-professed theists, I guess), secular people *are* considerate, moral, thoughtful, searching etc etc. But no-one has offered any solid philosophical ground for where such lack of cruelty can be derived from, apart from the ultimate cause of 'it just is' - which self-creation makes it equivalent to an unacknowledged thiesm, IMV.


quote:
(a) That there are certain ways I would never wish to be treated
Sure, I find that too, but in the absence of an 'it just is' golden rule, why should that have anything to do with how you or I treat others?

quote:
(b) That the same is true for other people, and that in many cases the behaviour they don't wish to experience is the same as the behaviour I don't wish to experience
Sure - but again in the absence of an 'it just is' golden rule, or perhaps 'it just is' common humanity, why worry about what they're feeling? Nietzsche thought such worries were evidence of 'slavish' fear that the 'others' might get us if we didn't promise not to get them...but that ubermenschen might boldly go out and kick the shite out of them all regardless. Dostoyevsky's (sp) Crime and Punishment explores similar ideas..these are old problems (which is good because as an engineer I doubt my philosophical chops are very up-to-the-minute)...

quote:
(c) That if I treat others in a cruel way, I have no right to expect any better treatment from them

That presumes that the 'right' of reciprocity is already established somehow. How? Maybe God decrees justice...He created it...it just is. Where else can it come from? Please note I'm NOT saying only the Christian God can be the source (though I hope / trust he is) - but I AM saying that any other self-creating source is a de-facto god, in terms of making a philosophical categorisation - ISTM.

quote:
(d) That other people are human too, and even if I am mistreated, this doesn't mean I should mistreat them... because showing others the kindness I would wish to be shown is just a decent thing to do, and makes the world a slightly better place.
I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments, would wish to follow them, expect/ hope you're better at it than I am etc etc [Smile] . BUT - 'is just a decent thing to do' is not good enough to fight evil (in me, in the world around me), raises several questions about 'decent' as interpreted by different cultures, and rests on an undeclared 'it just is' - 'a slightly better place'...in whose terms? IMV an undiscovered, unwanted, undeclared deity.

quote:
In summary, I don't think I need the threat of a vengeful deity to make me behave. In fact I think it cheapens God when people suggest that the main point of his existence is to scare us into being good.
Me neither, and I agree wholeheartedly. BUT I think that universal love and justice are not derivable rationally, so they must be self-creating, so they must live in the same philosophical category as God / god(s). Which means that humanists knocking Christians for dogged adherence to irrational belief sets is (again IMV) daft - we're all theists on the above argument. IMV. Until someone destroys my faith (OK, a bit dramatic, but this would move me a good way back towards atheisism) by providing a really convincing argument for a truly rational, universal derivation of these things which avoids nihilism AND 'it just is' explanations, whilst adequately encompassing the common meaning of the terms as used by normal, pre-theoretic humans...

I can't get the right tone here at all, in writing on these lists - I'm going for convinced, urgent, but not pompous or didactic. You wouldn't have guessed, i guess. I'm not trying to big myself up for being such a wise theist, but I am saying the nihilistic abyss is there, real, and wants to eat us / scares me severely - whilst Chistians and Humanists who both 'mean well' are spending so much time arguing about whether 'it just is' beliefs are OK or not. ISTM that we both use them, and that such discussions are therefore a waste of time better spent agreeing on more areas of common cause to avoid the abyss...

cheers

MiM

--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)

Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010  |  IP: Logged
NoSuchThingAsNothing
Apprentice
# 16382

 - Posted      Profile for NoSuchThingAsNothing     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
It does seem that there is an innate desire to believe in God, but I don't feel that atheists are somehow 'resisting the pull', or are better or superior in consequence. Over the years I've become convinced that there is a genetic element to belief, and I at least seem to have been incapable of it from a very young age. When it comes to the wish that there were a God, it's not in my own case a pull that I resist, but a longing that can never be satisfied. I long for there to be a loving God who cares for all, but I have no sense whatsoever that there is one: on the contrary.

This struck a chord within me because I've had the same but opposite experience. I've never not believed that Jesus is what the bible says he is, etc. I even tried lying a couple of times by saying that I was looking for proof either way but in my head I'd chosen to lie and it even felt like a lie. Though belief is a considered to be a choice, my own experience is different. I could have chosen to live what felt in me to be a lie though and perhaps in time it would have felt true.

Having never been atheist I'm not sure what atheists would expect of any G-d that were to exist. I'm also not sure what is lacking from or included in their view of this world that tells them there is no G-d. I'm fairly certain it would differ greatly between people so I'm not sure how anyone, atheist or not, can claim that all atheists and indeed people want there to be G-d.

It seems like there could be a few purposes to it though.

Defence - An atheist with some doubts trying to reinforce to themselves there is no G-d might tell themselves whatever bad feeling they feel about the lack of G-d is ok because everyone wants there to be G-d.
Attack - An atheist trying to attack theists might come from the perspective of there is no G-d but it is understandable that others believe in one because we all want to. A similar perspective to your take Trudy Scrumptious.
Retreat - An atheist not wanting to debate the existance or non-existance of G-d might choose to say that everyone wants there to be G-d so why are we even talking about it?

Posts: 34 | Registered: Apr 2011  |  IP: Logged
ZombieBunny
Apprentice
# 16388

 - Posted      Profile for ZombieBunny   Email ZombieBunny   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Basically, there are two choices:

1) Life is a comedy. There is a plot with a happy ending.
2) Life is a tragedy. This is all a bit of a fluke, there are no guarantees, and everyone dies at the end of the story.

By default, atheism requires the second premise to be true. Yet, atheists seem to create their own comedy by turning science into something of a religion. It's comforting to think that science and reason can provide a happy ending for the human race [immortality, eradication of disease, end to poverty, etc.], even if religion fails us.

Which is telling. There does appear to be a deep-seated desire in the human psyche [generally speaking, of course] to believe that it's all going to work out for the better eventually. Whether or not it actually *will* work out in the end is a matter of debate. But the desire, I think, is decidedly present in most of the population; actual mileage may vary.

By the way, the statement, "I'm too much of an intellectual to believe there is a god" is roughly on par with, "I'm a Christian so I don't believe in evolution." It is simply a way of disposing of information or problems we currently don't know how to deal with. The truth, as usual, is likely to be someplace in the middle.

/Just my opinion

[ 02. May 2011, 15:30: Message edited by: ZombieBunny ]

--------------------
/Just my opinion

Posts: 36 | From: Tennessee | Registered: May 2011  |  IP: Logged
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352

 - Posted      Profile for Invictus_88     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Zombie,

There are transcendent atheist narratives, though. Isaac Asimov's "The Last Question" is one of the most striking and most accessible examples of this.

Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged
Amika
Shipmate
# 15785

 - Posted      Profile for Amika   Email Amika   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by NoSuchThingAsNothing:
quote:
Having never been atheist I'm not sure what atheists would expect of any G-d that were to exist. I'm also not sure what is lacking from or included in their view of this world that tells them there is no G-d. I'm fairly certain it would differ greatly between people so I'm not sure how anyone, atheist or not, can claim that all atheists and indeed people want there to be G-d.

It seems like there could be a few purposes to it though.

Defence - An atheist with some doubts trying to reinforce to themselves there is no G-d might tell themselves whatever bad feeling they feel about the lack of G-d is ok because everyone wants there to be G-d.
Attack - An atheist trying to attack theists might come from the perspective of there is no G-d but it is understandable that others believe in one because we all want to. A similar perspective to your take Trudy Scrumptious.
Retreat - An atheist not wanting to debate the existance or non-existance of G-d might choose to say that everyone wants there to be G-d so why are we even talking about it?

If only everything was so clear as these options sound! I don't know that everyone wants there to be a god, but I have found that a majority of people believe in something 'supernatural', from Christianity to astrology or even the sense of natural justice: 'what goes around comes around'. I have never had any of these beliefs, but have been conscious of a desire for life to be more than I perceive it to be: a random event with no meaning whatsoever. Hence my previous post when I said I longed for a god. It is the associated meaning and purpose for which I actually long. I know there is no meaning, but that doesn't stop me wishing there were! [Roll Eyes]

What tells an atheist there is no god? I can only speak for myself, but it distills down to the simple inability to believe in any religion I've yet come across. It's not because I 'worship' science instead, or because something happened to me that turned me away from the Christianity in which I was brought up. It's not because of Dawkins or Hitchens. I just couldn't believe from the age of about eight, and nothing has altered that view since. As I think I showed above, though, being an atheist doesn't preclude being an idealist/dreamer, and longing for a better world...

Posts: 147 | From: Ingerland | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged
mark_in_manchester

not waving, but...
# 15978

 - Posted      Profile for mark_in_manchester   Email mark_in_manchester   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hi Amika -

Thanks - I've enjoyed reading your frank posts.

You said:

quote:
I know there is no meaning, but that doesn't stop me wishing there were!

I can identify with that feeling, having been there for some time...if you don't mind me asking a genuine question, are you sure there is no meaning for you? I ask since you say you've not been able to find your way to faith, despite being sympathetic to the possibility of something more to life - I presume because you find those faiths you have explored unconvincing, perhaps rationally / emotionally / morally or on other grounds. Doesn't such a rejection of deficient faith imply a quite solid kind of meaning, required to frame a judgement of insufficient Truth? And (yes my record is stuck - I'm a one-trick philosophical pony/pigmy)...from whence does that meaning derive?

--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)

Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010  |  IP: Logged
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614

 - Posted      Profile for HughWillRidmee   Email HughWillRidmee   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical: You are right, Trudy, in saying that this attitude on the part of some atheists is arrogant. While it may not be displayed by many - or even most - atheists, it certainly is an intensely patronising attitude. But what is even worse is that it is a lie, because it is not at all obvious that intellectual honesty affirms the non-existence of God.


quote:
Originally posted by The Midge Truly I would welcome evidence that my ‘invisible friend’ did not exist because we’re enemies at times.
Wrong way round I'm afraid folks.
Nothing ever will confirm the non-existence of God, it is impossible to prove such a negative. The onus of proof is on those who make extraordinary claims not those who reject them. Claims made without valid evidence may be dismissed without valid evidence.

quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious I've always felt that to be agnostic is the only absolutely intellectually honest position. Surely any honest person would have to admit that we cannot possibly know FOR CERTAIN where there is a god, many gods, or no gods at all? It seems to me we are all agnostics (don't know) but some of us make the choice to believe, or to disbelieve. But people (on either side) who argue with absolute certainty as if they know there is, or isn't, a god, and their statements can be definitely proven, seem a bit scary.
Sorry to keep on about this - Atheist = One who does not believe in a god or gods. Atheism is a lack of belief - not necessarily an active disbelief (although some atheists do also adopt such a position). For me, there seems to be no valid evidence for a god or gods, but there might, of course, be something equating to a god (who has no interaction with our universe) in a different existence. If you think that makes me an agnostic - feel free, but as far as this existence is concerned I'm an atheist through an inability to believe in something that seems to me to be as irrational, irrelevant and unnecessary as god(s).

quote:
originally posted by ZombieBunny Basically, there are two choices:

1) Life is a comedy. There is a plot with a happy ending.
2) Life is a tragedy. This is all a bit of a fluke, there are no guarantees, and everyone dies at the end of the story.

By default, atheism requires the second premise to be true

Alternatively

1) It's a farce? It's a (Grimm?) faiytale?
2) It's a (mainly) joyous voyage of discovery unburdened by the fear, failure and futility imposed by irrational superstition. Random mutations moderated by benefit, there are no unrealistic and unsupported expectations, and everyone dies.

By default, a lack of atheism leads to cognitive dissonance when that which is sensed fails to match that which the preferred brand of revalatory story insists is true.

--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)

Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
The onus of proof is on those who make extraordinary claims not those who reject them.

The claim that something Divine exists is incredibly ordinary.

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Claims made without valid evidence may be dismissed without valid evidence.

"Valid" operates as weasel word there, allowing the insertion of one's philosophical prejudices.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
ZombieBunny
Apprentice
# 16388

 - Posted      Profile for ZombieBunny   Email ZombieBunny   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Alternatively

1) It's a farce? It's a (Grimm?) faiytale?
2) It's a (mainly) joyous voyage of discovery unburdened by the fear, failure and futility imposed by irrational superstition. Random mutations moderated by benefit, there are no unrealistic and unsupported expectations, and everyone dies.

By default, a lack of atheism leads to cognitive dissonance when that which is sensed fails to match that which the preferred brand of revalatory story insists is true.

I'd like to respond to your comments, but since it has not been my personal experience as a Christian to be "burdened by the fear, failure and futility imposed" upon me by my own antiquated and moronic belief that God exists, I feel that I can't speak to this. Perhaps, though, there are a few Christians who have some comprehension of what burdened, conflicted, and miserable failures they are who could respond to you.

To be honest, being called "irrational" by the scientific community doesn't sway me much. Scientific knowledge shifts and changes over time based on the current level of understanding. At one time, the scientific community [all perfectly rational and scientific thinkers in their day] thought that the earth was the center of the universe. Those who disagreed were considered to be "irrational" in their time, but later turned out to be right. Is it so unlikely to suppose that other "irrational" views or theories might be proved to be right in the future?

What about other views currently supported by the scientific community that are, basically, unprovable? We think the Big Bang probably happened, but it's not repeatable and no one appears to have been around at the time to witness it. So, since it can't be proven [unless, of course, you've figured out how to spontaneously create a universe in your garage and can show us how to do it in ours], we should reject it as "irrational" and move on? I hardly think so.

I also don't see that theism leads to dissonance. I believe that god created the universe and everything in it [Religion], including humans, whom he endowed with the cognative ability [Reason] necessary to discover what makes the universe tick and bend it's various processes to suit our needs [Science]. Maybe I've got something screwed in backwards here, but it appears that everything fits neatly with little or no dissonance.

But then, what does a lowly superstitious moron like me know about things like this?

--------------------
/Just my opinion

Posts: 36 | From: Tennessee | Registered: May 2011  |  IP: Logged
Yorick

Infinite Jester
# 12169

 - Posted      Profile for Yorick   Email Yorick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
The onus of proof is on those who make extraordinary claims not those who reject them.

The claim that something Divine exists is incredibly ordinary.
Nice turn. The predominance of belief in god(s) makes these claims very common, so in that narrow sense they’re ordinary. However, this is not what is meant here by ‘extraordinary claims’, as you know very well. The Divine is by definition extraordinary, regardless of the depressingly gross commonness of man’s claims about it.

Of course, some of us feel ordinary life is already so special that we don’t feel any irresistible compulsion to imagine the Divine, however attractive the rewards might be. You would, no doubt, call this arrogance.

(Oh, and welcome to the SoF, NoSuchThingAsNothing.)

--------------------
این نیز بگذرد

Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Yorick

Infinite Jester
# 12169

 - Posted      Profile for Yorick   Email Yorick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ZombieBunny:
Scientific knowledge shifts and changes over time based on the current level of understanding. At one time, the scientific community [all perfectly rational and scientific thinkers in their day] thought that the earth was the center of the universe. Those who disagreed were considered to be "irrational" in their time, but later turned out to be right. Is it so unlikely to suppose that other "irrational" views or theories might be proved to be right in the future?

But that’s the thing. The scientific view is open to revision, whereas the religious view is not (except whenever it becomes convenient).

Welcome to the SoF, ZombieBunnie.

[ 03. May 2011, 09:01: Message edited by: Yorick ]

--------------------
این نیز بگذرد

Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Trudy Scrumptious

BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647

 - Posted      Profile for Trudy Scrumptious   Author's homepage   Email Trudy Scrumptious   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Of course, some of us feel ordinary life is already so special that we don’t feel any irresistible compulsion to imagine the Divine, however attractive the rewards might be. You would, no doubt, call this arrogance.

Now, see, I wouldn't call that arrogance at all, because that's quite different from what you said on the other thread. If you are satisfied with a godless world and feel no need of a god, then of course it's logical for you to be an atheist.

It's the implication that you DO feel the need for a god, but have been clever and brave enough to overcome that need unlike the rest of us weaklings, that I find offensive.

--------------------
Books and things.

I lied. There are no things. Just books.

Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Yorick

Infinite Jester
# 12169

 - Posted      Profile for Yorick   Email Yorick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I didn't say need. Well, at least if I did, that wasn't what I meant. I meant people tend to want there to be a god, and they want him to be exactly the way they imagine him to be, so much, in fact, that that's precisely how they do in fact imagine him to be.

--------------------
این نیز بگذرد

Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
NoSuchThingAsNothing
Apprentice
# 16382

 - Posted      Profile for NoSuchThingAsNothing     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
Originally posted by NoSuchThingAsNothing:
quote:
Having never been atheist I'm not sure what atheists would expect of any G-d that were to exist. I'm also not sure what is lacking from or included in their view of this world that tells them there is no G-d. I'm fairly certain it would differ greatly between people so I'm not sure how anyone, atheist or not, can claim that all atheists and indeed people want there to be G-d.

It seems like there could be a few purposes to it though.

Defence - An atheist with some doubts trying to reinforce to themselves there is no G-d might tell themselves whatever bad feeling they feel about the lack of G-d is ok because everyone wants there to be G-d.
Attack - An atheist trying to attack theists might come from the perspective of there is no G-d but it is understandable that others believe in one because we all want to. A similar perspective to your take Trudy Scrumptious.
Retreat - An atheist not wanting to debate the existance or non-existance of G-d might choose to say that everyone wants there to be G-d so why are we even talking about it?

If only everything was so clear as these options sound! I don't know that everyone wants there to be a god, but I have found that a majority of people believe in something 'supernatural', from Christianity to astrology or even the sense of natural justice: 'what goes around comes around'. I have never had any of these beliefs, but have been conscious of a desire for life to be more than I perceive it to be: a random event with no meaning whatsoever. Hence my previous post when I said I longed for a god. It is the associated meaning and purpose for which I actually long. I know there is no meaning, but that doesn't stop me wishing there were! [Roll Eyes]

What tells an atheist there is no god? I can only speak for myself, but it distills down to the simple inability to believe in any religion I've yet come across. It's not because I 'worship' science instead, or because something happened to me that turned me away from the Christianity in which I was brought up. It's not because of Dawkins or Hitchens. I just couldn't believe from the age of about eight, and nothing has altered that view since. As I think I showed above, though, being an atheist doesn't preclude being an idealist/dreamer, and longing for a better world...

*armchair psychologist hat on*
Just out of curiosity, was 8 about the same time you found out or started to suspect the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus weren't real and those who loved you and you loved and looked up to had been essentially lying to you your whole life though with the very best of loving intentions?
*armchair psychologist hat off*

Not judging that by the way. Most of my kids still believe in them.

(thanks for the welcome Yorick [Smile] )

Posts: 34 | Registered: Apr 2011  |  IP: Logged
ZombieBunny
Apprentice
# 16388

 - Posted      Profile for ZombieBunny   Email ZombieBunny   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
But that’s the thing. The scientific view is open to revision, whereas the religious view is not (except whenever it becomes convenient).

Welcome to the SoF, ZombieBunnie.

Thanks, Yorick.

I tend to agree with you on this one to a point, but I'd rather not take the thread direction off on a wild tangent.

--------------------
/Just my opinion

Posts: 36 | From: Tennessee | Registered: May 2011  |  IP: Logged
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Just a note to say that anybody who thinks that scientists are all happy little revisionists, changing their theories to fit all the new evidence, has never worked in a science department. The scientists I know would all have to be dragged kicking and screaming to accept a new idea. Anybody remember the vitriolic verbal abuse - much of it personal - that was directed in the 60s and 70s to those who thought that birds might have been descended from dinosaurs? Or that an asteroid impact might have been responsible for a mass extinction 65 million years ago? When it comes to anathematising each other, some scientists leave the theologians on the starting-blocks!

As to the OP, I'm not sure I want there to be a God. People's opinions about him have certainly made my life pretty miserable sometimes, principally because I'm gay. But I'm sure a worldful of atheists would have found an excuse to be horrible to me, too.

--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
itokro
Shipmate
# 16135

 - Posted      Profile for itokro   Email itokro   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ZombieBunny:
What about other views currently supported by the scientific community that are, basically, unprovable? We think the Big Bang probably happened, but it's not repeatable and no one appears to have been around at the time to witness it. So, since it can't be proven [unless, of course, you've figured out how to spontaneously create a universe in your garage and can show us how to do it in ours], we should reject it as "irrational" and move on? I hardly think so.

Except Science, in my experience, is less likely to claim Absolute Truth. It's more likely to say "Yes, this is a model. It's not a perfect one*, but it produces usable results and/or is the best we've got at the moment". I have a lot of respect for religious people who can take a similar view of their faith and admit they don't know it all, but are willing to work off what they've got. But taking that attitude towards Religion seems to be less common than taking it towards Science.

*"Assume x to be a perfect sphere"; "neglect the effect of friction"; "assume y operates in a vacuum"...

Posts: 74 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Amika
Shipmate
# 15785

 - Posted      Profile for Amika   Email Amika   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NoSuchThingAsNothing:
*armchair psychologist hat on*
Just out of curiosity, was 8 about the same time you found out or started to suspect the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus weren't real and those who loved you and you loved and looked up to had been essentially lying to you your whole life though with the very best of loving intentions?
*armchair psychologist hat off*

Not judging that by the way. Most of my kids still believe in them.

Not exactly. I don't remember ever believing in Santa Claus! [Biased] I think eight was when I was first able to think for myself, and no one could answer my questions about God adequately. I sought some real evidence of what I was being taught to believe in and there was none. I didn't feel lied to until much, much later when I read the Bible all the way through.
Posts: 147 | From: Ingerland | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged
Amika
Shipmate
# 15785

 - Posted      Profile for Amika   Email Amika   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:

You said:
quote:
I know there is no meaning, but that doesn't stop me wishing there were!

I can identify with that feeling, having been there for some time...if you don't mind me asking a genuine question, are you sure there is no meaning for you? I ask since you say you've not been able to find your way to faith, despite being sympathetic to the possibility of something more to life - I presume because you find those faiths you have explored unconvincing, perhaps rationally / emotionally / morally or on other grounds. Doesn't such a rejection of deficient faith imply a quite solid kind of meaning, required to frame a judgement of insufficient Truth? And (yes my record is stuck - I'm a one-trick philosophical pony/pigmy)...from whence does that meaning derive?
I think that depends on how you define 'meaning'. My interpretation of it is a reason for existence beyond procreation/the continuation of one's species. I can't call procreation/continuation of species a meaning.

Yes I've found all religion and other beliefs to be deficient on many grounds (not that I've ever sought a religion in which to believe - on the contrary). I think you're asking on what that rejection is based - as in, what do I believe that makes it impossible to believe in God (getting very circular here!) and where does that 'belief' come from? I could write a whole book on that topic but in a tiny nutshell the world sans any deity makes sense to me in its randomness. I don't see this as meaning, however.

Posts: 147 | From: Ingerland | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614

 - Posted      Profile for HughWillRidmee   Email HughWillRidmee   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ZombieBunny:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Alternatively

1) It's a farce? It's a (Grimm?) faiytale?
2) It's a (mainly) joyous voyage of discovery unburdened by the fear, failure and futility imposed by irrational superstition. Random mutations moderated by benefit, there are no unrealistic and unsupported expectations, and everyone dies.

By default, a lack of atheism leads to cognitive dissonance when that which is sensed fails to match that which the preferred brand of revalatory story insists is true.

I'd like to respond to your comments, but since it has not been my personal experience as a Christian to be "burdened by the fear, failure and futility imposed" upon me by my own antiquated and moronic belief that God exists, I feel that I can't speak to this. .................But then, what does a lowly superstitious moron like me know about things like this?
From whence cometh lowly and moronic?
I was merely providing an alternative view using unsupported sweeping generalisations - it seemed appropriate.

Originally posted by IngoB
quote:
"Valid" operates as weasel word there, allowing the insertion of one's philosophical prejudices.
But removing "valid" without effective replacement means that he(a)r(e)s(a)y and guesswork can be weighted equally with undeniable fact. If you wish to proffer a better word I'm open to suggestions.

Adeodatus - you could have added Plate tectonics as well (and no doubt many more).

Thanks to Yorick and itokro - seems to me you've made it unnecessary to respond further.

--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)

Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
kankucho
Shipmate
# 14318

 - Posted      Profile for kankucho   Author's homepage   Email kankucho   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
....[I} suggest that all who maintain a humane position are engaged in inter-faith dialogue, since at the end, they are all stuck with 'Truth...it just is'.

This is not at all the same as a suggestion that those who choose not to express their commitment to Truth in terms of God / god(s) are criminally-insane - the logic is not coummutative or associative or whatever the right term from maths is - it doesn't work backwards. Clearly and by observation, at least as many non-theists are 'humane', as theists. My argument concerns what makes them so....

Hello Mark

Non-theist here. Well - sort of.

I hope you'll agree that the above pulled quote is a fair snip of your longer argument, and that I'm not evading your more detailed argument if I say that I am humane for the same reason that theists are humane. Humanity is an innate, fundamental aspect of what I am - of what we all are. "If you prick us, do we not bleed?"... etc.

The only difference between us is perhaps that I embrace the 'just-isness' of truth, whereas you want to believe there is a transcendent reason for truth being so. Yet, those who (want to) believe in God are apt to say God is truth. If so, why not just call it truth, and cut out the superfluous and heavily loaded synonym?

Truth is what all of us really seek, isn't it?

--------------------
"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself" – Dr. Carl Sagan
Kankucho Bird Blues

Posts: 1262 | From: Kuon-ganjo, E17 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765

 - Posted      Profile for Dave W.   Email Dave W.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Just a note to say that anybody who thinks that scientists are all happy little revisionists, changing their theories to fit all the new evidence, has never worked in a science department. The scientists I know would all have to be dragged kicking and screaming to accept a new idea. Anybody remember the vitriolic verbal abuse - much of it personal - that was directed in the 60s and 70s to those who thought that birds might have been descended from dinosaurs? Or that an asteroid impact might have been responsible for a mass extinction 65 million years ago?

The statement I've highlighted is a bit odd for you to make immediately before you provide two stellar examples of scientists accepting new ideas.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
NoSuchThingAsNothing
Apprentice
# 16382

 - Posted      Profile for NoSuchThingAsNothing     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
quote:
Originally posted by NoSuchThingAsNothing:
*armchair psychologist hat on*
Just out of curiosity, was 8 about the same time you found out or started to suspect the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus weren't real and those who loved you and you loved and looked up to had been essentially lying to you your whole life though with the very best of loving intentions?
*armchair psychologist hat off*

Not judging that by the way. Most of my kids still believe in them.

Not exactly. I don't remember ever believing in Santa Claus! [Biased] I think eight was when I was first able to think for myself, and no one could answer my questions about God adequately. I sought some real evidence of what I was being taught to believe in and there was none. I didn't feel lied to until much, much later when I read the Bible all the way through.
Ahh k [Smile]
Posts: 34 | Registered: Apr 2011  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Yorick: But that’s the thing. The scientific view is open to revision, whereas the religious view is not
Aha, so this is why religious thought has remained unchanged during the last 5000 years, and why religious people always agree with eachother [Roll Eyes]

Christian religion too has changed enormously since its beginnings. Many forms of contemporary Christianity would be unrecognisable to its first century adherents. That is because religion has always been reinterpreted, revised, changed. This is what people like St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther... did. And I could name countless others.

Some of their ideas were accepted swiftly, some met resistance, and yes, some of them were answered with violence. And I readily admit that the latter probably happened more often in religion than in the scientific world. But saying that religion isn't open to revision is a very transparent strawman.

quote:
itokro: Except Science, in my experience, is less likely to claim Absolute Truth. It's more likely to say "Yes, this is a model. It's not a perfect one*, but it produces usable results and/or is the best we've got at the moment".
This is certainly true at the level of scientific models. But if we go up one philosophical level, I heard many people express the idea that "The Scientific Method is the only true way in which we can view the world."

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Yorick

Infinite Jester
# 12169

 - Posted      Profile for Yorick   Email Yorick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
But saying that religion isn't open to revision is a very transparent strawman.

We were talking about belief in the existence of god(s). How has that changed in religion, exactly?

--------------------
این نیز بگذرد

Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Yorick: We were talking about belief in the existence of god(s). How has that changed in religion, exactly?
You're arguing semantics here. Many religious people have stopped believing in a god. But the thing is: by definition then they are not religious anymore.

But within religion, ideas of what a "god" is, and what "believing in a god" means, has changed enormously in the last millennia, and is still changing.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Yorick

Infinite Jester
# 12169

 - Posted      Profile for Yorick   Email Yorick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
You're arguing semantics here. Many religious people have stopped believing in a god.

No, I’m not. You’re sidestepping. We’re not talking about people who lose their belief in god- I agree. My point about science was that, unlike with religion and belief in god, knowledge derived by its method is always subject to revision. You can argue that the way people believe in god has changed over millennia, but the ‘knowledge’ that god exists (however theology has changed) has not, and it is not subject to revision.

--------------------
این نیز بگذرد

Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Just a note to say that anybody who thinks that scientists are all happy little revisionists, changing their theories to fit all the new evidence, has never worked in a science department. The scientists I know would all have to be dragged kicking and screaming to accept a new idea. Anybody remember the vitriolic verbal abuse - much of it personal - that was directed in the 60s and 70s to those who thought that birds might have been descended from dinosaurs? Or that an asteroid impact might have been responsible for a mass extinction 65 million years ago?

The statement I've highlighted is a bit odd for you to make immediately before you provide two stellar examples of scientists accepting new ideas.
Contintuing minor tangent ...

Kicking and screaming. The evidence for those theories (and plate tectonics - thank you, HughWillRidMee) was conclusive long, long before the theories began to be accepted by the establishment. The issue wasn't lack of evidence, it was that the evidence went against the long-held ideas of Important People. Between the theories being put forward and their acceptance, careers and reputations of good scientists were ruined.

But you don't need to go looking through the literature to find evidence of scientific conservatism. Ask any physicist how many senior female colleagues he has. Or why he still uses FORTRAN IV in his computer models.

--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Yorick: My point about science was that, unlike with religion and belief in god, knowledge derived by its method is always subject to revision.
You're making false analogies here. Let me try to put into a table. The Ship's formatting doesn't help much, but I'll try.

SCIENCE <-> RELIGION

METAPHYSICAL LEVEL: The idea that we can understand the Universe by measurements and observation <-> The idea that there is something "higher" and that we can know something about them by revelation and/or faith

DETAILED LEVEL: Knowledge and models derived by this method <-> Religious opinions and ideas derived by this method

What you're doing is to confuse the metaphysical level with the detailed level.


Within science, knowledge at the detailed level is subject to revision of course. Bbut you'd be surprised how many scientists are reluctant to give up their cherished model. Albert Einstein's reluctance to accept Quantum Mechanics is a well-documented example.

Within religion, ideas at the detailed level are also subject to revision - to a degree. Yes, there are fundamentalists that will reject any revision of their detailed beliefs. However, the fundamentalist view isn't the only view, and there are many revisions happening of religion at the detailed level. We wouldn't have theology if there weren't.

Within science, you'll have to admit that the basic idea at the metaphysical level isn't challenged much. Of course, there are people within Philosophy of Science polishing somewhat at the edges of this idea, but the basic idea pretty much stands.

Within religion, also the basic idea is pretty much a given. We wouldn't be religious if we didn't have it. However, you'd be surprised how much "polishing at the edges" is also done by theologists at this front.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Yorick

Infinite Jester
# 12169

 - Posted      Profile for Yorick   Email Yorick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Kicking and screaming.

Of course, scientists have investment in their knowledge, and there are many human reasons why they might be reluctant to accept challenges to that investment- this is perfectly natural, and it works in exactly the same way for religion. The difference, however, is evidence. A scientist can refute accepted and invested knowledge with independently reproducible proof. For every scientist determined to possess the accepted knowledge, there are others more determined to dispossess him of it by proving better otherwise. Thus, scientific knowledge is subject to evolutionary forces that work towards truthfulness, as opposed to religion, which may only seek to find new and better ways of evidencing the same thing, regardless of its status as truth.

--------------------
این نیز بگذرد

Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055

 - Posted      Profile for Pre-cambrian   Email Pre-cambrian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
LeRoc, where does the Bible fit in your ordering of Metaphysical and Detailed Levels?

--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."

Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Pre-cambrian: LeRoc, where does the Bible fit in your ordering of Metaphysical and Detailed Levels?
Depends on what we're saying about the Bible. I would place the statement "Through the Bible, we can know something about God" pretty high towards the Metaphysical level. But discussing particular Bible texts and their meaning would go much farther down to the detailed level.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
mark_in_manchester

not waving, but...
# 15978

 - Posted      Profile for mark_in_manchester   Email mark_in_manchester   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hi Kanchuko -

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
....[I} suggest that all who maintain a humane position are engaged in inter-faith dialogue, since at the end, they are all stuck with 'Truth...it just is'.

This is not at all the same as a suggestion that those who choose not to express their commitment to Truth in terms of God / god(s) are criminally-insane - the logic is not coummutative or associative or whatever the right term from maths is - it doesn't work backwards. Clearly and by observation, at least as many non-theists are 'humane', as theists. My argument concerns what makes them so....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure, I think that's a very fair quote - perhaps I can send you my next verbose meanderings for your proof reading / a decent precis!

you replied:

quote:
...I'm not evading your more detailed argument if I say that I am humane for the same reason that theists are humane. Humanity is an innate, fundamental aspect of what I am - of what we all are. "If you prick us, do we not bleed?"... etc.

The only difference between us is perhaps that I embrace the 'just-isness' of truth, whereas you want to believe there is a transcendent reason for truth being so. Yet, those who (want to) believe in God are apt to say God is truth. If so, why not just call it truth, and cut out the superfluous and heavily loaded synonym?

I'm glad we agree on the first bit - so if it's not too insulting and you understand my use of the term, it seems to me we're now into inter-faith dialogue. Occam's Razor works in your favour (just-is truth is a whole lot more 'economical' (less imparsimonious? [Razz] ) than 2000 years of thinking about the 'Son of God', not to mention other contenders which make appearances on the ship from time to time such as Cthulu (??sp!!) or the flying spaghetti monster)...'revealedness' (is that a word?) works in my favour, in that Truth Incarnate is still tough, but a whole lot easier to think about as a human, than just-is-but-remote-and-not-incarnate-truth.

After that, I guess we're into 'who moved the stone' territory. But we both have faith, ISTM - and WRT the OP, we both want Truth (I'll call it God, you'd rather not) to exist. I don't think that point is widely grasped by those who have an aversion to the whacky, out-there idea of an irrational belief in God / god(s).

quote:
Truth is what all of us really seek, isn't it?
Absolutely - it's either there and one or both of us is wrong about it, or we both made it up in which case our difference of opinion (and pretty much everything apart from physical appearance which makes us 'recognisably human') is not worth a brass razzoo...
[Smile]

--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)

Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010  |  IP: Logged
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055

 - Posted      Profile for Pre-cambrian   Email Pre-cambrian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Pre-cambrian: LeRoc, where does the Bible fit in your ordering of Metaphysical and Detailed Levels?
Depends on what we're saying about the Bible. I would place the statement "Through the Bible, we can know something about God" pretty high towards the Metaphysical level. But discussing particular Bible texts and their meaning would go much farther down to the detailed level.
What I was hoping to tease out was how the Bible equates to a science text book in the Religion/Science analogy, because that helps to show how willing each is prepared to go in responding to shifts in evidence.

In the case of the text book scientists have no qualms in saying that x text book is out of date, incorrect, just plain wrong. but with the Bible, e.g. in the case of the genocide of the Amalekites apparently ordered by God, we have seen on threads on the Ship Christians trying to justify it, or explain it, or suggesting in this case that black actually means white. But they cannot say that Samuel is just plain wrong and the lines should be crossed out, which is what science would do.

Equally in the case of homosexuality, individual Christians have to talk round Leviticus or Romans, they cannot simply cross it out and say it was wrong and no longer applies. So of course there will always be Christians justifying homophobia in the name of the Bible.

So I think Yorick was not making a false analogy in saying that science is much more open to self-criticism and self-correction.

--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."

Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
The difference, however, is evidence. A scientist can refute accepted and invested knowledge with independently reproducible proof. For every scientist determined to possess the accepted knowledge, there are others more determined to dispossess him of it by proving better otherwise. Thus, scientific knowledge is subject to evolutionary forces that work towards truthfulness, as opposed to religion, which may only seek to find new and better ways of evidencing the same thing, regardless of its status as truth.

You are confused about what is analogous to what here. This is better:

natural science <-> (Christian) theology
  • nature <-> God
  • experimental/observational data <-> revealed data
  • experimentalists <-> prophets, OT writers, Christ, NT writers, Church Fathers / bishops under certain conditions
  • a particular data set <-> a particular piece of revelation
  • most important / established data set <-> the canonical scriptures
  • hunting for experimental errors <-> hunting for errors in historical transmission / translation
  • hypothesis / model / theory <-> interpretation / exposition / argumentation
  • theoreticians <-> preachers / theologians / spiritual advisers
  • hunting for errors in theory <-> hunting for errors in interpretation / advice
The core of faith is untouchable exactly as the core of natural science is untouchable: one cannot doubt the revelation of God in principle and still do theology, just as one cannot doubt the experimental / observational collection of data about nature in principle and still do natural science. What one can doubt in science are the theories, and to a much lesser extent, the actual data available. That is to say: while there is a chance of error both in theory and data, ultimately data is the arbiter of theory and not vice versa. Likewise, in religion one can doubt all the various interpretations given (say some exegesis of the bible), yet only to a much lesser extent the actual revelation we have in hand. The latter one can investigate concerning errors in the process of it coming to us, but ultimately revelation will be the arbiter of interpretation, not vice versa.

The analogy is really quite close. The difference is that natural data is compelling by our senses (which we cannot but ultimately trust), whereas revealed data is compelling by faith (which we must decide to ultimately trust). The same "evolutionary forces" that you see in natural science have been at work in theology, i.e., there has been considerable progress. However, it lies in the nature of the subject that theology progresses much more slowly than natural science, since it is based on cultural - and hence intrinsically complex and imprecise - material. Theology is more comparable to the social sciences than physics concerning that.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614

 - Posted      Profile for HughWillRidmee   Email HughWillRidmee   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
.....The analogy is really quite close. The difference is that natural data is compelling by our senses (which we cannot but ultimately trust), whereas revealed data is compelling by faith (which we must decide to ultimately trust)..........

In separating the "natural" from the "revealed" I suspect you have hit the nail upon it's head and may be providing a better determination of relevance than my earlier, and probably clumsy, use of "valid evidence".
(I do have a problem with "revealed data" - as the old saying goes, the plural of anecdote is not data, but this may not be crucial in this context).

For clarification - When you say (which we must decide to ultimately trust) should the reader understand the "we" to refer to all human beings, those who wish to be christians/religious/theologically aware or some other subset of humanity?
I hope you don't mean all of us because I really think that I am incapable of making such a decision. Hence my negative reaction to the thread headline.

--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)

Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765

 - Posted      Profile for Dave W.   Email Dave W.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Just a note to say that anybody who thinks that scientists are all happy little revisionists, changing their theories to fit all the new evidence, has never worked in a science department. The scientists I know would all have to be dragged kicking and screaming to accept a new idea. Anybody remember the vitriolic verbal abuse - much of it personal - that was directed in the 60s and 70s to those who thought that birds might have been descended from dinosaurs? Or that an asteroid impact might have been responsible for a mass extinction 65 million years ago?

The statement I've highlighted is a bit odd for you to make immediately before you provide two stellar examples of scientists accepting new ideas.
Contintuing minor tangent ...

Kicking and screaming. The evidence for those theories (and plate tectonics - thank you, HughWillRidMee) was conclusive long, long before the theories began to be accepted by the establishment. The issue wasn't lack of evidence, it was that the evidence went against the long-held ideas of Important People. Between the theories being put forward and their acceptance, careers and reputations of good scientists were ruined.

Cherry picking. (And I'm skeptical of your confident assertion of what constitutes conclusive evidence, or when it was reached.)

Vast tracts of today's physics would be totally unrecognizable to a scientist from the end of the 19th century - so where are all the physicists whose new ideas resulted in their careers and reputations being ruined as everyone else was reluctantly dragged "kicking and screaming"? Wait, here they are! Oh, the poor martyrs.

Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
(I do have a problem with "revealed data" - as the old saying goes, the plural of anecdote is not data, but this may not be crucial in this context).

Data comes in many forms, as also indicated by the Latin root (a "datum" is simply "something given"). Historical data, for example, is no less data just because it is not read off some meter. The trustworthiness of data is partly related to its kind, but of course a meter reading can be completely wrong and "soft" data can be basically certain (e.g., "there were once Romans", or "sex is important to human culture"). However, it is actually Christian dogma that Christian "revealed data" is not per se compelling. One cannot come to faith by one's own lights, i.e., by judging intellectually the evidence as it is given (thus, the "revealed data"). Hence much ado about this is simply mistaken, the Christian data claim vs. non-believers is merely that there are non compelling reasons against Christianity, i.e., the "revealed data" could be right and is not obviously wrong. Once you are convinced of Christianity by other means, then Christian "revealed data" plays much the same role for theology and spiritual advice as empirical data plays for natural science. This analogy is hence not intended for apologetic battles, it is simply pointing out that within the context of faith believers operate in much the same way intellectually as non-believers outside of it.

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
For clarification - When you say (which we must decide to ultimately trust) should the reader understand the "we" to refer to all human beings, those who wish to be christians/religious/theologically aware or some other subset of humanity?
I hope you don't mean all of us because I really think that I am incapable of making such a decision. Hence my negative reaction to the thread headline.

If you were genuinely incapable of making this decision - and many people are, e.g., infants - then obviously you would not have to make it. God does not ask the impossible of us. However, it is basically certain that you can make this decision - after all, you are presumably having this conversation with me, thus are mentally sufficiently able.

There are likely many independent obstacles to faith for you, e.g., upbringing, social environment, lack of role models, etc. However, I'm betting that there is a key mistake in your very approach to this. Basically, data gathering, analysis, argument and so forth will not be able to do more for you than this: identify Christianity as possible enough to be a viable intellectual option. If you see the chance of Christianity being true as roughly 50:50 (some parts perhaps more likely, some less, but overall it could go either way), then the job of your intellect is done as non-believer. More it cannot really do for you concerning finding faith. There are also techniques for "strengthening" weak faith once it is there (nothing particularly esoteric, as usual there is no magic but simply repetition and effort). But it is a mistake to employ them before some faith is present.

The key decision cannot be forced. Quite to the contrary, it is more something that comes when you let go. It bubbles up from the deep, it is not forced down from above. It is a soft whisper that you can hear when all is quiet, not a shout of command. So here's my step by step guide to faith:
  1. Convince yourself diligently that it is possible.
  2. Relax. Really. After 1. is done, whenever you tense up it is going wrong.
  3. Keep engaging, keep listening, keep searching. Don't go to sleep about this just because you are relaxed.
That's all. Oh, and do not necessarily expect the decision to occur consciously in a single moment. For some people it is indeed like that, for some it is a mostly unconscious process taking a long time. The way is not the goal, the goal is the way.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Pre-cambrian: What I was hoping to tease out was how the Bible equates to a science text book in the Religion/Science analogy, because that helps to show how willing each is prepared to go in responding to shifts in evidence.
I see. I wouldn't equate the Bible to a science text book in this analogy, I would probably equate commentaries on the Bible to science text books.

So, where does this leave the Bible? I like IngoB's analogy above, where Bible is "reveiled data". It is a big amount of what we study, and therefore could be analogous to observational/experimental data in nature.


Look, Yorick is probably partly right: resistance against revision of our beliefs certainly exists within religion, and probably more so than in science.

But that doesn't mean that within science there aren't any absolute or near-absolute truths. "We can understand the Universe through measurement and observation" is a big one. And it also doesn't mean that revision of beliefs doesn't happen within religion. They happen all the time. I for one are glad that I don't believe anymore in a god who disguised as a bull to mate with an innocent girl. Religion has progressed.

In science, models are revised based on evidence. In religion, idea systems are revised based on discussion, new insights, interaction with an ever-changing society... Of course there are differences between the two proocesses, but I don't see a moral difference between the two ways of doing revision, as Yorick claims.

I'm also not sure if openness to revision of ones ideas is a moral absolute. There are some personal ideas of mine that are not open to revision. To give an example, "family is important" is one of them.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Yorick

Infinite Jester
# 12169

 - Posted      Profile for Yorick   Email Yorick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
… ultimately data is the arbiter of theory and not vice versa. …

I fully agree- data is king. However, you do not seem to acknowledge the profoundly fundamental difference between your revealed data and science’s experimental/observational data, which is of course that the former is not interpersonal whereas the latter is.

Your revealed data belongs subjectively to you alone. Your ticket is not transferable.

--------------------
این نیز بگذرد

Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Yorick: Your revealed data belongs subjectively to you alone. Your ticket is not transferable.
Of course it is. I transfer it every time I go to church, have a discussion about religion, do voluntary work...

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I fully agree- data is king. However, you do not seem to acknowledge the profoundly fundamental difference between your revealed data and science’s experimental/observational data, which is of course that the former is not interpersonal whereas the latter is. Your revealed data belongs subjectively to you alone. Your ticket is not transferable.

You are getting confused again. Please actually look at my detailed analogical mapping provided above! The "revealed data" of Christianity is of course (basically) as accessible to you as it is to me. You can pick up a bible and read it just as much as I can, for example. I do not have any revealed data that is mine alone in the sense of my analogy. Of course, I have had subjective experiences which you are not able to share directly. However, they are not part of the Christian revelation - which in one sense ended with Christ, and in another sense continued afterwards through very specific operations of His Church.

My basic point is that within the context of faith in God, theology operates basically like natural science operates within the context of nature. The analogy is precisely not about how one may arrive in this context of faith, which is what you are getting at. Becoming faithful is not analogous to being convinced by some scientific theory. Rather, becoming convinced by some particular interpretation of the bible, when having faith in its validity, is analogous to that.

As I've said above, the analogy one can draw between theology and natural science is not one that can do battle in order to convince you that God exists. Rather, the analogy merely shows that within faith, intellectual life can flourish in the same sort of patterns that you appreciate in natural science, albeit founded on a different basis. One can indeed be a scientist of God, as one can be a scientist of nature.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools