|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Better to believe what's true than what's false?
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by SusanDoris:
all statements which purport to tell truths about God/god/s especially when reported to children as truth, however well-intentioned the information-giver, are false.
Now, see, that's just epistemic arrogance right there. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
OK. Let's try the actual factual version - SusanDoris overstated.
Throughout history every mystery ever solved has turned out to be ... not magic. And not God and not miraculous either. And much that was thought to be miraculous has been explained as not. The divine currently has a 0% success rate as a beyond reasonable doubt explanation for anything.
No, this isn't proof that there is no divine. Merely strong evidence that the deeper you look the more wonderous the world looks ... and the less miraculous.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Throughout history every mystery ever solved has turned out to be ... not magic. And not God and not miraculous either. And much that was thought to be miraculous has been explained as not. The divine currently has a 0% success rate as a beyond reasonable doubt explanation for anything.
No, this isn't proof that there is no divine. Merely strong evidence that the deeper you look the more wonderous the world looks ... and the less miraculous.
Some might say the more miraculous!
The miracles of Jesus would still be considered to be miracles today.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Some might say the more miraculous!
The miracles of Jesus would still be considered to be miracles today.
Or they would be considered myths, tall stories, and shaggy dog stories that didn't actually happen. And people would document what did happen after about the third time.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
To further Justinian's point, there were undoubtedly some people during Hitler's rise to power who sincerely believed in the Third Reich, the stated aims of Hitler's party, that they belonged to a super-race destined to rule the world, etc. etc.
Some people would claim the problem here was that these individuals subscribed to a false belief.
Is that really the problem? Or is it that belief itself, when held passionately enough, encourages the suspension of the critical faculties?
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by SusanDoris:
all statements which purport to tell truths about God/god/s especially when reported to children as truth, however well-intentioned the information-giver, are false.
Now, see, that's just epistemic arrogance right there.
Yes, and I'm quite happy to agree with you there. I did think of modifying the post slightly, but as I am as certain as I can be that there isn't going to be posted the one piece of factual information that will change me from a non-believer to a believer, I decided against it this time.
Once again, just because something can't be empirically verified doesn't mean it is false. The statement that all statements can't be empirically verified cannot be empirically verified. So, your arrogance is based on a load of philosophical nonsense.
I'm not about to change what I teach my daughter based on a load of philosophical nonsense you accept as true.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
[ 14. October 2013, 12:15: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
To further Justinian's point, there were undoubtedly some people during Hitler's rise to power who sincerely believed in the Third Reich, the stated aims of Hitler's party, that they belonged to a super-race destined to rule the world, etc. etc.
Some people would claim the problem here was that these individuals subscribed to a false belief.
Is that really the problem? Or is it that belief itself, when held passionately enough, encourages the suspension of the critical faculties?
Yes, the most dangerous people are the idealists, particularly when they become zealous, because then, they not only think that they are right, but they are determined that you will also be right, in the same way as they are! I suppose Hitler has been one of the supreme utopians of the modern age. Stalin less so, as he was a cynical bastard really, and probably didn't believe a word of it.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Throughout history every mystery ever solved has turned out to be ... not magic. And not God and not miraculous either. And much that was thought to be miraculous has been explained as not. The divine currently has a 0% success rate as a beyond reasonable doubt explanation for anything.
No, this isn't proof that there is no divine. Merely strong evidence that the deeper you look the more wonderous the world looks ... and the less miraculous.
That's a fundamental misunderstanding of miracle IMO. As Wikipedia summarizes: "A miracle is often considered to be an event not ascribable to the laws of nature, therefore outside or beyond nature. Yet God may work with the laws of nature to perform what are considered miracles. Theologians say that, with divine providence, God regularly works through created nature."
Therefore, by God's involvement nature itself becomes miraculous. Something being naturally explainable doesn't prevent it being miraculous, or an Act of God. Otherwise you only believe in the 'God of the Gaps', who is a very small God indeed and getting smaller by the day.
As Dietrich Bonhoeffer said: "...how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know."
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
SusanDoris: On the news this morning, there was an item from India in connection with the hurricane. A young man said he was alive because of God. Does that belief cause harm? No - and I could add, 'of course not'. But in a small way it does. The reasons for the very low number of deaths is mainly the practical actions taken by the Indian government. Perhaps a more practical, non-believing attitude by the population in general, rather than a reliance on God,might just make for greater safety and forthought? I think so.
I don't see the Indian government refraining from taking practical actions because they are leaving things in the hands of God/gods. In fact, I see very few people who stop taking care of their own safety because of this.
--------------------
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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It's a false dichotomy, isn't it? As if believing in God would actually make you careless about stuff. I haven't noticed that in religious people; properly speaking, they should be more careful, as they see life as a gift to be cherished.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's just a general observation. We've had threads in the past where Christians have heartily supported Puddleglum's Wager,
Really? I'll have to take your word for it. I'd be surprised to see a Christian take such a position so baldly.
In any case, Puddleglum's Wager was apparently Lewis' attempt to present Descartes' Ontological Proof in a form applicable for children, but I think its an extremely flawed presentation since it misrepresents the Proof IMO. Whether Lewis believed it himself as expressed by Puddleglum is another question, but if he intended it to be a simplified version of the Ontological Proof then the position is certainly not as simple as "believe it even if its not true", even if that's how it comes across in his speech. Puddleglum's position therefore would be more like, "since I can imagine a better world, that's proof for its existence", (which is a rubbish argument anyway IMO, but it helped him break the Witch's spell).
I'd be interested if you could link to any Christian who does argue for such a position as "believe it even if its not true" though.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Throughout history every mystery ever solved has turned out to be ... not magic. And not God and not miraculous either. And much that was thought to be miraculous has been explained as not. The divine currently has a 0% success rate as a beyond reasonable doubt explanation for anything.
No, this isn't proof that there is no divine. Merely strong evidence that the deeper you look the more wonderous the world looks ... and the less miraculous.
That's a fundamental misunderstanding of miracle IMO.
And a fundamental misunderstanding of God (as you rightly pointed out)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, the equation of God with magic always puzzles me, since the intelligibility of the universe has been a central plank in some arguments for theism. And intelligibility surely rests on non-magic. That is the basis for Darwinian theodicy, for example, that God does not intervene to save the wounded animal, as that would be magical, and therefore, unintelligible.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
SusanDoris: On the news this morning, there was an item from India in connection with the hurricane. A young man said he was alive because of God. Does that belief cause harm? No - and I could add, 'of course not'. But in a small way it does. The reasons for the very low number of deaths is mainly the practical actions taken by the Indian government. Perhaps a more practical, non-believing attitude by the population in general, rather than a reliance on God,might just make for greater safety and forthought? I think so.
I don't see the Indian government refraining from taking practical actions because they are leaving things in the hands of God/gods. In fact, I see very few people who stop taking care of their own safety because of this.
Her post does reflect a lack of critical thinking. I thought that was important to New Atheist types. Fundamentalists are fundamentalists.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Beeswax Altar: Her post does reflect a lack of critical thinking. I thought that was important to New Atheist types. Fundamentalists are fundamentalists.
I think you are being to harsh on her. Although many of her posts are based on arguments that don't stand the test of logic, at least she is trying out her arguments against us, to see what our reactions will be. I have the impression that underneath all of this, she has a real interest in finding out what Christians think. Not all New Atheists have this interest.
--------------------
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
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
As if believing in God would actually make you careless about stuff.
How about all those people saying climate change can't be a real problem because God is in charge of the world and wouldn't let us destroy it?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Marvin the Martian: How about all those people saying climate change can't be a real problem because God is in charge of the world and wouldn't let us destroy it?
Yes, in this case religion can be a bad thing. I don't share their beliefs.
(Although the version I hear most often is "Climate change can't be a real problem because God will whisk the believers away from the world before it is destroyed.")
--------------------
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
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I have the impression that underneath all of this, she has a real interest in finding out what Christians think.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Sweet Jesus LeRoc. You're wronger than a wrong thing on a wrong day. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I know some atheists who are interested in Christian ideas, and some who know a lot about them, but they seem to be outweighed by those who are scornful. I don't see Susan as either really; she is a fundamentalist really, or if you like, she is certain she is right. This is rather boring, as it is in the religious.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, the equation of God with magic always puzzles me, since the intelligibility of the universe has been a central plank in some arguments for theism. And intelligibility surely rests on non-magic. That is the basis for Darwinian theodicy, for example, that God does not intervene to save the wounded animal, as that would be magical, and therefore, unintelligible.
Magic involves suspension of the laws we can observe govern our universe. As do gods. Magic v. miracle, where is the difference in the internal logic?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, the equation of God with magic always puzzles me, since the intelligibility of the universe has been a central plank in some arguments for theism. And intelligibility surely rests on non-magic. That is the basis for Darwinian theodicy, for example, that God does not intervene to save the wounded animal, as that would be magical, and therefore, unintelligible.
Magic involves suspension of the laws we can observe govern our universe. As do gods. Magic v. miracle, where is the difference in the internal logic?
Sorry, I can't follow your syntax here, especially, 'as do gods'.
However, historically, there have obviously been different kinds of arguments for gods or God, and in an odd way, there are opposed arguments vis a vis magic.
One argument is that God does magic/miracles, e.g. walking on water.
However, there has been another argument that God does not do magic. This is the argument from intelligibility, since magic would produce a non-intelligible reality, unless it was repeatable magic, I suppose, in which case, it might be called nature.
Christianity is particularly interesting, since both arguments are extant - I believe that the intelligibility argument is linked with Pope Benedict, but don't have a link. However, it is also historically a traditional argument, e.g. Spinoza, Aquinas.
[ 14. October 2013, 14:57: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Magic involves suspension of the laws we can observe govern our universe. As do gods.
I don't know about whichever gods you're talking about, but the Christian God does not require suspension of natural laws to be and to act. They are His laws after all so why should He need to subvert or break them.
Sometimes He may choose to, perhaps to make a point that He is not bound by them, but He does not need to, and mostly He appears to work within the natural laws, instead of without them. And perhaps even on the occasions where He acts without them, it ony appears this way to us because we don't understand the mechanisms of His actions.
[ 14. October 2013, 15:15: Message edited by: Hawk ]
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Surely, there's a big difference here between God and gods. God, at least in the Abrahamic traditions, is often reckoned to be Reason itself, or if you like, Mind. This connects with the argument from intelligibility, although probably indirectly. I mean that you can't directly infer God from an intelligible universe. However, that takes us into a morass of unpleasant neo-Aristotelian stuff about teleology and so on.
Anyway, going back, gods as far as I can see, were often not reckoned to be particularly rational at all, or even benign. Some of them seem closely connected with natural phenomena, some with human activities like war and domestic life.
Of course, you could argue that Yahweh made the transition from one to t'other - from a tribal god to a universal God of reason and love. I think some Christians don't like that idea.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
justinian and LeRoc
Thank you for your posts!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
The connection between magic, intelligibility and a Darwinian theodicy is interesting, and this is a boiled down version of it.
1. Pain is beneficial to animals, since it provides a warning against danger, injury, sickness, and so on.
2. Connected with this is the idea that pain has evolved in animals as an aid to survival.
3. If God exists, he could presumably intervene to rescue animals who are in pain.
4. However, if he did this, it would be a magical act, that is, an interruption to the regularity of nature.
5. Furthermore, magic is arbitrary and non-intelligible.
6. Most people agree that the universe is intelligible.
7. Therefore, if God intervened in the cause of animals in pain, the universe would be less intelligible, and might even be highly non-intelligible.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Still not seeing a major difference between god and magic.
What difference is there? Your contention, quetzalcoatl, seems to be that since Christianity has an internal logic, that this is sufficient. However, belief still requires an act of faith. Pure faith.
Hawk, replace magic with God and the argument is identical. All that separates is that pesky word
faith.
Understand, I do not have any issues with theism in and of itself. Some theists however make me crazy.
ETA:Ditto atheists
[ 14. October 2013, 17:55: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
lilBuddha
Now, in turn, I am baffled by your phrase, the 'internal logic' of Christianity, since I don't recollect referring to that.
The medieval idea was that the universe is intelligible, because God is rational, or in fact, is Mind. This is quite distinct from magic.
One way of phrasing it, is that this intelligibility is perceived by intelligence (us), and created by intelligence (God), but, as I said, I don't think this a knock-down argument at all, (there aren't any). Yes, it requires faith.
Incidentally, this is not in itself a Christian idea - it is found in Islam, Judaism, and probably other religions as well.
[ 14. October 2013, 18:21: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The problem with false beliefs is that when you act upon them, you probably won't get the result you are looking for. Because you're acting on a false premise.
Even worse: once in awhile you will get the result you are looking for, even if by random chance. Then a bad habit is reinforced. It's like gambling. Reasoning abundantly shows that casino gamblers will lose in the long run. But people addictively gamble because occasionally they have "won," so they continue to believe or
hope that they will get rich. BF Skinner's operant conditioning explains this phenomenon beautifully: behavior intermittently rewarded is difficult to extinguish.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Although there are other, interesting, accounts of gambling addiction - for example, that some gamblers like losing, or need to lose, or are addicted to losing, and so on. This is along the lines of some criminals wanting to be caught.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Incidentally, this is not in itself a Christian idea - it is found in Islam, Judaism, and probably other religions as well.
It's fundamental to Greek philosophy, which is probably where they all got it from.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Eh up Silchester 'lad'. It certainly is. Ignorance is hell. That of others acutely for me since yesterday. As Sartre said.
I am finally, unbelievably, at the point with church, of what's the point. Yesterday's dose of charismatic heterodoxy is the straw that's broken this camel's back.
With a typical loop of cognitive dissonance, it's been a long time coming. And it hurts. Ah well. Pruning always does. God surely chastises whom He loves ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
[
If the person accepts that the existence of the dead relatives the psychic is talking to is "false", how does it help them?
If they don't know its false, but everybody else thinks its false - that's different.
They are helped by not taking the actions suggested by the psychic such as giving the psychic tens of thousands of dollars for candles or to keep in "safe place".
More generally barring fraud by psychic my personal belief is that there's usually a richer relationship with more to be gained by connecting with other people in the real world rather than staring into a fiction.
Close your eyes and use the force is not a good way to pilot for most of us.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Bit of a false dichotomy, there, isn't there? Putting my Jungian hat on (ow!), staring into a fiction for some people seems essential, although, not, I agree, if it involves fraud. For example, consulting one's own dreams, drawings, stories, journals, and so on, may be highly enjoyable and beneficial, and not inimical to meeting real people, in fact, it may help it. As to dead ancestors, well, in some cultures it probably works. The power of the archetype, I suppose.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
"Surely you have heard about the...mystery made known to me by revelation,...In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets." (Eph 3:2-5)
Still hidden from me, I'm afraid. And presumably Hindus, Moslems, Buddhists and Maoris, too.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Bit of a false dichotomy, there, isn't there? Putting my Jungian hat on (ow!), staring into a fiction for some people seems essential, although, not, I agree, if it involves fraud. For example, consulting one's own dreams, drawings, stories, journals, and so on, may be highly enjoyable and beneficial, and not inimical to meeting real people, in fact, it may help it. As to dead ancestors, well, in some cultures it probably works. The power of the archetype, I suppose.
I believe the thread is about believing in things that are false. It's one thing to read fiction and enjoy it and use it to ponder the world. It's another to believe it's true and ignore the reality it contradicts.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Still not seeing a major difference between god and magic.
...
Hawk, replace magic with God and the argument is identical. All that separates is that pesky word
faith.
Not really sure what you mean lilBuddha. You're saying you don't see a major difference between god and God? Your posts are very obscure at the moment I'm afraid. if you're responding to something I've said, please explain what you mean. My previous post explained how God and magic are not synonymous. Magic requires the breaking of natural laws, God doesn't.
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:
"Surely you have heard about the...mystery made known to me by revelation,...In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets." (Eph 3:2-5)
Still hidden from me, I'm afraid. And presumably Hindus, Moslems, Buddhists and Maoris, too.
Hidden to such people because God has not yet revealed Himself to them through His Spirit. Yet anyone who asks will receive, anyone who seeks will find, and anyone who knocks will have the door opened to them.
[ 15. October 2013, 09:50: Message edited by: Hawk ]
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Puddleglum's position therefore would be more like, "since I can imagine a better world, that's proof for its existence", (which is a rubbish argument anyway IMO, but it helped him break the Witch's spell).
I read it more like "since I can imagine a world so much more complete, complex, and full of life than yours" rather than simply "better". There was additional justification that all 3 of them seemed to have the same detailed fantasy.
I also read some of "The Giants and Trolls win. Let us die on the right side, with Father Odin." in it, which Lewis was fond of, and I think he is expressing the idea that the superior morality is the superior morality irrespective of the impossibility of victory if their hoped-for-world turned out to be non-existent.
And yes, it broke the witches spell as well.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Throughout history every mystery ever solved has turned out to be ... not magic. And not God and not miraculous either.
That's what 'solved' means. Duh.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
That's also gibberish, as how do you realize that something is 'not God'? By agreeing that it's part of nature and not magic? See above.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, the most dangerous people are the idealists, particularly when they become zealous, because then, they not only think that they are right, but they are determined that you will also be right, in the same way as they are!
No. The second most dangerous people are the idealists, trying to change things for the better. The most dangerous people are, in fact, the cynics, opposing every possible positive change on the grounds that "That will never work" or "It's never been done before" or "It's the way of the world" or "It isn't the right time". And as such the cynics are always on the side of perpetuating injustice. Without blind, bull-headed idealists who wouldn't take no for an answer no positive changes would have been made.
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
That's a fundamental misunderstanding of miracle IMO. As Wikipedia summarizes: "A miracle is often considered to be an event not ascribable to the laws of nature, therefore outside or beyond nature. Yet God may work with the laws of nature to perform what are considered miracles. Theologians say that, with divine providence, God regularly works through created nature."
Therefore, by God's involvement nature itself becomes miraculous. Something being naturally explainable doesn't prevent it being miraculous, or an Act of God. Otherwise you only believe in the 'God of the Gaps', who is a very small God indeed and getting smaller by the day.
The problem is that without genuine miracles and a God who is overtly active, you have a God who is utterly indistinguishable within the bounds of this world from a world without a God. And yet has a massive, direct, and personal bearing on the next world. If God behaves the way you say it implies that God does not want to be known directly. Or that God does not exist and humans, the supreme pattern creators, are inventing this explanation called God.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Justinian
Nice point about cynics, but they are idealists, aren't they?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The problem is that without genuine miracles and a God who is overtly active, you have a God who is utterly indistinguishable within the bounds of this world from a world without a God.
How would you know what a world without a God looks like? And how can you compare that to this world?
And why do you deny God's natural miracles by saying they are not 'genuine miracles'? I think you mean 'supernatural' rather than 'genuine'. Something doesn't need to be supernatural to be from God though.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
How would you know what a world without a God looks like? And how can you compare that to this world?
One that ran only on the rules findable through science? And the gaps that can also be roughly found (science can never have all the answers). Hint: that is this world. It's also the world that we get if God is presumed to work through natural forces, making God indistinguishable from not doing anything.
[ 15. October 2013, 12:55: Message edited by: Justinian ]
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
How would you know what a world without a God looks like? And how can you compare that to this world?
One that ran only on the rules findable through science? And the gaps that can also be roughly found (science can never have all the answers). Hint: that is this world. It's also the world that we get if God is presumed to work through natural forces, making God indistinguishable from not doing anything.
That, for me, is incorrect, since I don't need miracles or magic to experience a God who knows and loves me. Of course, I don't know if this is indistinguishable from a world without God, since I can't conceive of that.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That, for me, is incorrect, since I don't need miracles or magic to experience a God who knows and loves me. Of course, I don't know if this is indistinguishable from a world without God, since I can't conceive of that.
You don't need miracles or magic to experience a God who knows or loves you whether one exists or not. Derren Brown, an atheist, was able to give a hardline atheist a religious experience in under an hour (Fear and Faith part two).
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
And why do you deny God's natural miracles by saying they are not 'genuine miracles'? I think you mean 'supernatural' rather than 'genuine'. Something doesn't need to be supernatural to be from God though.
The problem here, though, is that you talk of 'God' or 'supernatural', but before you go any further, I wonder whether you should be obliged to attempt the impossible, i.e. to define God since there are whole layers of assumptions and complexity, not to mention regression, in that word. Supernatural is not a problem because it is easily understood as a concept.
And of course it goes without saying that I'm very much nodding in agreement with justinian's posts.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
God wouldn't be God if God could be easily defined in words. Why would one expect God to be easily explained by something as limited as human language? Why should Hawk feel obliged to do anything? You never feel obliged to justify your logical positivism.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
How would you know what a world without a God looks like? And how can you compare that to this world?
One that ran only on the rules findable through science? And the gaps that can also be roughly found (science can never have all the answers). Hint: that is this world. It's also the world that we get if God is presumed to work through natural forces, making God indistinguishable from not doing anything.
The world we have is one that is intelligible through careful observation. This is also a world with God. Therefore a world without God can be presumed to be anything other than this, (for instance ancient civilisations imagined it as a world of formless chaos, or akin to a stormy sea - our imaginations may be more fertile). With nothing concrete to base such a world on except random speculation, it is impossible to adaquately compare the two however.
Your mistake is to assume that just because this world is or can be intelligible to us, this precludes God. I assume the opposite, that God is a God of order and law. You assume that God is chaotic, that he acts and operates outside of intelligible and observable laws, that he is 'magic' (i.e. something we can't explain or makes no observable sense, it just happens). Such a chaotic god is like the gods imagined by the pagan religions, whose gods were capricious and could not be relied on. But the Lord God is a God of the Law, who is the same yesterday, today and forever, and whose promises can be trusted.
These different assumptions lead to our different conclusions on the same evidence. You see an intelligible world that runs on observable laws and ask where the gaps are that could allow an unintelligible (or magic) god to exist. I see such a world and see the hand of the Creator of Order and the Maker of Law in it all.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
The problem here, though, is that you talk of 'God' or 'supernatural', but before you go any further, I wonder whether you should be obliged to attempt the impossible, i.e. to define God since there are whole layers of assumptions and complexity, not to mention regression, in that word. Supernatural is not a problem because it is easily understood as a concept.
Supernatural isn't easily understood as a concept. It only means 'other than natural'. It is a handy umbrella term for 'everything else we can't or won't try to explain', which is hardly much of a definition.
In terms of defining God, the best I can do is to point you to Jesus.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That, for me, is incorrect, since I don't need miracles or magic to experience a God who knows and loves me.
How can you experience God without miracles or magic? How can something that is not part of the universe be felt only through things that are?
quote:
Of course, I don't know if this is indistinguishable from a world without God, since I can't conceive of that.
It's completely indistinguishable. The sun would still shine, the grass would still grow, people would still be people. Hell, they'd even still believe a whole bunch of crazy-ass shit about whichever god(s) they believe in. The only difference would be that there wouldn't actually be a god - but of course there would be no way to prove that. There would be no difference whatsoever between the two, which of course leads one to wonder - which world do we actually live in?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
The world we have is one that is intelligible through careful observation. This is also a world with God. Therefore a world without God can be presumed to be anything other than this,
That's a non-sequiteur. You can not say "Systems like this do this therefore systems without this do that."
quote:
Your mistake is to assume that just because this world is or can be intelligible to us, this precludes God. I assume the opposite, that God is a God of order and law. You assume that God is chaotic, that he acts and operates outside of intelligible and observable laws, that he is 'magic'
Quite the contrary. I assume that any observable being operates according to the rules they themselves follow. I further assume that that applies to any entity. Even chaotic systems have rules they follow once you understand them well enough - and apparent chaos takes at least second order interactions. Every being is true to its own nature, and it takes intelligence to change that nature.
quote:
These different assumptions lead to our different conclusions on the same evidence. You see an intelligible world that runs on observable laws and ask where the gaps are that could allow an unintelligible (or magic) god to exist.
No. I ask why unless either God does not exist or God wants to be left alone, God does not manifest clearly. It's about psychology, not physics.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
