|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What do Theologians know?
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
One reason for why science is on the upswing and theology is on the defensive could be that the unproven axioms in science are almost taken as self-evident.
In my admittedly rudimentary understanding of scientific procedure, the basic axiom of science is that natural occurrences have natural explanations. This axiom is taken for granted, but it might reflect our own materialistic times.
Before the scientific age of the Enlightenment, it was taken that the supernatural was self-evident, whereas past the Enlightenment, the supernatural is seen as irrelevant, even non-existent.
But I don't think it is possible to actually prove that "natural events have natural explanations."
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I watched the video clip in its entirety and realised, not for the first time, how greatly the issues of evolutionism and creationism have polarised thought across the Atlantic. I'm pretty much on Jerry Coyne's side in his views on the importance of critical thought and the extent to which creationist proponents seek to find evidence for prior beliefs. But furthering that discussion is a Dead Horse. It's actually been discussed in great depth in The Death of Darwinism and the great majority of Christians here who have participated in that discussion regard creationists, particularly those supporting Intelligent Design conceptions, as polemicists, rather than serious scientific enquirers or critics.
I liked the way Jerry Coyne spoke conversationally and moderately but firmly. I’ve had a quick look at the link and the OP; I see it dates to 2001, I’ll read through later.
quote:
On the specific point, I think Jerry Coyne seems to have a very limited understanding of what serious theologians actually do. But perhaps more seriously, I agree the observation that in general serious theologians would know that there is a common belief at work in the minds of believers. It is that God cannot be grasped by the human mind.
Can you elaborate on why you think this is so? quote:
The other point is that IME all serious theologians I read these days employ critical thinking in their work. They do not necessarily accept anything purely "on authority".
Except, maybe, the assumption that God is?! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And, just as it would be impossible to summarize on this thread everything that is known about physics or mathematics, it's similarly impossible to answer your question "what do theologians know?".
Not what they know, but what they know about God (as you go on to say in next sentence). quote:
We can give you are top few things-- the 2 or 3 things we think are most important in the list of things that theologians have said or proposed about God. But that would be very incomplete and simplistic ...
But 'said' or proposed' falls short of 'knowing', don't you think?,
--------------------
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
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Perhaps you have missed the point I am making, which is to address your original question about knowing God through the study of theology …
Ah, I see what you mean. As Theologians are studying ‘the nature of God’, then they would already Believe that there was a God to study, wouldn’t they? quote:
…and not to talk about world factual history. (I wonder why you don't doubt the existence of Shakespeare, or accept that his writing has made an impact on the world, but that is beside the point.)
The point I was making is that one doesn't actually get to know a person from all that others have said, but one does come to find out a lot about them from what others have experienced of them, and from what they have said themselves.
I wonder what you think it is that makes you and millions of others accept the existence of God? More and more now is known about how humans experience feelings etc; experiences believed as being connected with God are natural too. quote:
In the same way, we can find out a lot more about God by studying theology, but to know God would only happen if we spent time with God.
Thank you.
--------------------
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
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
SusanDoris said:
Ah, I see what you mean. As Theologians are studying ‘the nature of God’, then they would already Believe that there was a God to study, wouldn’t they?
No! God does not exist in that way, and cannot be studied.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Perhaps you have missed the point I am making, which is to address your original question about knowing God through the study of theology …
Ah, I see what you mean. As Theologians are studying ‘the nature of God’, then they would already Believe that there was a God to study, wouldn’t they?
So do, some don't. I'm a member of AAR (American Academic of Religion), the leading academic organization in the field at least in the US. I've heard scholarly papers presented by theologians on both side of that equation.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Well I have a similar feeling as LeRoc, and it doesn't seem to me that you really answered his question here. Since it's a question I share, I'd really be interested in your answer.
Whether I completely disagree with others' opinions or not, I find the communication always interesting. Hearing what other people think, believe and feel is perennially interesting. I agree that the liklihood of my ever stepping back into a religious belief are as near zero as makes no difference, but having been a believer myself, having friends and acquaintances whose beliefs range from nominal to unwavering, I shall not be losing interest in the discussions until I die! I did not mention family here, as they are all non-believers! quote:
At this point I think we can all agree that a.) religious beliefs are not based on empirical scientific data. b.) you don't share our (believers) desire to engage beliefs not based on empirical scientific data. I don't see any reason to continue to go round & round repeating those two rather self-evident statements. Given that we all understand those two things, what more is there to be said?
I don't know, but I'll keep reading andlooking! Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you think I do not'engage' beliefs, could I not say that the opposite applies to believers here? quote:
What are you hoping to gain from our conversations?
I'm not hoping to 'gain' anything; I simply enjoy the exchange of posts with interesting people. Seriously, message boards (the four I go to) have been something of a life-saver, over the past ten years I don't know what I'd be doing otherwise.
I stress that is not self-pity - I never waste time on that -it's just the facts!
[ 15. September 2015, 13:14: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
--------------------
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
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Upstream I said that believing in God was a gamble I am prepared to take.
Susan D asked why.
Basically because the alternatives are an even greater gamble.
Well, I just have to ask - what are the alternatives to which you refer?!
--------------------
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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Susan, I didn't mean to sound petulant or rude-- and I'm sure LeRoc didn't either. I'm just at a loss about what the point of the conversation is when it just seems doomed to continue in the same endless cycle that's getting tiresome. Can we move past the "you folks believe in something that can't be empirically proven" meme? We know it, you know it, you don't like/get it, we know you don't like/get it. Now what?
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
And Susan Doris never explains why we should be bothered that our beliefs can't be empirically verified. Philosophy should be a required course in high school. Christian theology should also be part of the history and English curriculum.
--------------------
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
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I can't help being curious though. You asked "So I can't help wondering then why they believe in God." I gave you an answer of how this worked out in my case. Has my answer helped you in any way?
Helped is not the right word, really. I'm not actually looking for anything. I just love being involved in conversation, discussion, communication with interesting people, whether I agree with them or not. It is far, far more interesting than listening to some double-glazing people who were here this afternoon to give me a quote!: quote:
....one of the things I said that theologians study is Church History. I think you'll agree with me that this is something that can be studied in an objective way (at least as objective as the disciplines of History and Sociology can be).
Yes, definitely.
quote:
Also, I hope you can agree with me that the question "does God exist?" isn't really relevant when studying Church History. Whether the things the church believes in are true or not, its history and the impact it has had (and still has) on society is something that can be studied.
Yes, I see what you mean,, and agree, but one has to bear in mind that churches and religions exist because of a belief in a God. This belief requires 100% subjective, faith. quote:
Now onto something more complex. Suppose a theologian studies something like "the differences between the concepts of God that people had in 600 BC and in the 21ˢᵗ Century". Of course, you're an atheist. You believe that the concepts we have of God are human constructs and nothing more. I am a Christian and I believe that these concepts relate to something real.
But that doesn't matter much when we want to study these concepts. We can study the differences between 6CBC and 21C concepts whether they relate to something real or not.
Okay, no argument there. quote:
In my (admittedly limited) experience, this is what theologians do. Regardless of how they feel about it personally, theologians they leave the question "does God exist?" open in their scientific work. There are plenty of things you can study without answering that question.
Again, no argument. However, don't you think they should spend some of their time defining, substantiating, providing one piece of information which would remove any doubt that god is not in fact a human idea? Otherwise it seems to me that they are evading the question and are relying entirely on what people have thought and said.
While I've been writing this, I've done a lot of thinking - and that too is most definitely an excellent way to pass time here. I'm sorry I could not come and say hello when you were in London.
--------------------
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
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
We have an SoF member called The Atheist who contributed unrestfully here for a while a few years ago but stopped contributing a while back. Maybe he got bored with us? He's still on the books so he definitely didn't get banned.
:)That's interesting! Yes, he does like to create a ripple here and there, doesn't he? I'll never go to NZ again, but if I did, I'd definitely drop in and say hello!
--------------------
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
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Susan, I didn't mean to sound petulant or rude-- and I'm sure LeRoc didn't either.
I know. Having read yours and Le roc's posts for years,I would not think of them as anything other than interesting, so thank you. quote:
I'm just at a loss about what the point of the conversation is when it just seems doomed to continue in the same endless cycle that's getting tiresome. Can we move past the "you folks believe in something that can't be empirically proven" meme? We know it, you know it, you don't like/get it, we know you don't like/get it. Now what?
No idea at the moment!!!
[I fixed the code, SusanDoris. You'd missed out a ] after [/QB and the net result was to muck up the appearance of your post. Try using preview post before posting. It will help you to avoid doing that in future]
[ 15. September 2015, 22:13: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Perhaps you have missed the point I am making, which is to address your original question about knowing God through the study of theology …
Ah, I see what you mean. As Theologians are studying ‘the nature of God’, then they would already Believe that there was a God to study, wouldn’t they? quote:
…and not to talk about world factual history. (I wonder why you don't doubt the existence of Shakespeare, or accept that his writing has made an impact on the world, but that is beside the point.)
The point I was making is that one doesn't actually get to know a person from all that others have said, but one does come to find out a lot about them from what others have experienced of them, and from what they have said themselves.
I wonder what you think it is that makes you and millions of others accept the existence of God? More and more now is known about how humans experience feelings etc; experiences believed as being connected with God are natural too. quote:
In the same way, we can find out a lot more about God by studying theology, but to know God would only happen if we spent time with God.
Thank you.
I really don't think you see what I mean. You don't seem to have got past the idea that theology is about whether or not God exists. It is not. Therefore we are talking past each other.
I am trying to help you to see that theology is about finding out about the characteristics of God via specific routes, and therefore expanding knowledge of God whether one believes in God's existence or not. This directly addresses your op.
I am not here to justify why I believe in the existence of God, but as you ask it is because I live in relationship with the living God and share my experience of God with billions of other people, who like me are convinced that we are not deluding ourselves by attaching our own feelings and imaginations to a concept called God. Rather, we have sufficient personal evidence to believe that the supernatural God spoken of and demonstrated by Jesus is real: is other than us.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
SusanDoris: I'm not actually looking for anything. I just love being involved in conversation, discussion, communication with interesting people, whether I agree with them or not.
I like discussing with you too. It's just that sometimes you have the habit sometimes of asking us a question, challenging us to answer it, and when we do you move the discussion in another direction. It is this that we call moving the goalposts sometimes. I used to find it rather irritating, but I can stand it better now.
quote:
SusanDoris: It is far, far more interesting than listening to some double-glazing people who were here this afternoon to give me a quote!:
Hey, maybe you can convince them to become atheists!
quote:
SusanDoris: but one has to bear in mind that churches and religions exist because of a belief in a God. This belief requires 100% subjective, faith.
Of course. Yes, churches are founded based on things that cannot be proven empirically. I agree with you.
But that doesn't take away that churches themselves are things that exist. They can be observed, analysed, studied ... And a lot of theologians are doing exactly that.
The church can be studied, whether you believe in God or not.
The same thing with the Bible. We cannot prove that what is written in the Bible is true (whatever 'true' means here). But the Bible is something that exists. It can be observed, analysed and studied.
Jerry Coine says that a top Theologian would be one who knows what all other top Theologians had said about God. I admit that this is a bit funny in a kind of clever way.
He is painting an image here of theologians trying to research God. And because they can't submit Him to empirical tests, they just repeat what other theologians say about Him.
That's kind of funny, but it is based on an incorrect understanding of what theologians do. They don't spend their time trying in vain to subject God to empirical tests. They study things that can be analysed objectively: the church, the Bible, the cultures that are expressed in it, modern-day religious people ...
And these things can be analysed objectively whether you believe in God or not. The question "does God exist?" isn't a determining factor for these studies.
quote:
SusanDoris: However, don't you think they should spend some of their time defining, substantiating, providing one piece of information which would remove any doubt that god is not in fact a human idea?
It isn't up to me to determine what theologians should do, I guess that they're perfectly capable to decide that for themselves.
I'm having a bit of difficulty parsing your sentence because it contains a triple negation, but I think what you're suggesting is that theologians should try to come up with empirical evidence that God is real (and not just a human idea).
I don't think that they can. I don't think that it is possible to prove God empirically. And I don't think that theologians are working on that.
quote:
SusanDoris: Otherwise it seems to me that they are evading the question and are relying entirely on what people have thought and said.
I agree that they are evading the question a bit in their academic work. Their position seems to be: we cannot prove God's existence objectively, so let's concentrate on things we can analyse objectively. This seems a sensible position to me.
And I don't think they rely entirely on what people have thought and said. For example, when they study things like "What would Bible text X have meant in the culture in which it was written?" (an objective question that can be studied academically), they rely on a lot of things: archaeology, non-Christian sources, insights from psychology and sociology ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
On the specific point, I think Jerry Coyne seems to have a very limited understanding of what serious theologians actually do. But perhaps more seriously, I agree the observation that in general serious theologians would know that there is a common belief at work in the minds of believers. It is that God cannot be grasped by the human mind.
Can you elaborate on why you think this is so? quote:
The other point is that IME all serious theologians I read these days employ critical thinking in their work. They do not necessarily accept anything purely "on authority".
Except, maybe, the assumption that God is?!
So far as God being grasped by the human mind is concerned, consider whether a dog can grasp in its doggy mind the intricacies of abstract thought of which human beings are capable. And the way those are applied in all the things human beings produce or make. You would I guess have no difficulty in recognising that it is unfair to expect the dog to grasp all of that. But it might be dimly aware of something which we would describe as gratitude and affection for the care its Master provides. In its own doggy way, it seems to need to belong.
A crude analogy of course. But one of the old Fathers did indeed observe in the 4th Century that "God can not be grasped by the human mind. If He could, He would not be God." I'm sure thoughts like that would be at work for him. In any case, it's a very common understanding of believing people; theologians would know that.
On your second point re assumptions that "God is", others have explained that it is perfectly possible to be a theologian and not assume, or even believe, that "God is". I suppose you might wonder why this is so. But in general, theologians are not required to practise apologetics.
And I think you and Jerry Coyne may share the misunderstanding that theology is all about apologetics. It simply isn't. If you think that, you're just wrong.
[ 16. September 2015, 08:04: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I used to find it rather irritating, but I can stand it better now.
I will try to improve!!
It seems to me that the God at the base of all theological studies about churches etc is the elephant in the room! quote:
I'm having a bit of difficulty parsing your sentence because it contains a triple negation, but I think what you're suggesting is that theologians should try to come up with empirical evidence that God is real (and not just a human idea).
Agree, and of course apologies always for any incorrect grammar.
--------------------
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
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Barnabas62
Thank you for your answer. I can't think of anything further to add at the moment ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
Rowan Williams, in the introduction to a book of collected papers, divides theological arguments into three types:
Celebrative: this is about showing that Christian theology is a coherent body of doctrine that at least plausibly fits with human experience.
Communicative: this is about putting Christian theology into dialogue with other religious traditions or non-religious modes of thought and seeing how Christianity can incorporate those insights.
Critical: this is about asking whether the theological body is still in continuity with the original gospel, whether the whole edifice is still grounded in experience, whether or not the rites and language is still meaningful.
Some examples of what Williams talks about:
How does theology avoid talking over the voices of the people it is talking about? How does it leave a right of reply?
How is it possible to say that all the various phenomena called Christianity are all authentically part of the same thing? How is it possible to say that some things just can't count?
How should a Christian theology that wants to base itself on the Bible react to voices on its margins, that use the Bible in ways that are critical of the centre? Are those marginal voices not Christian theology too?
How should we go about reading the Bible? Do we try to look for an overall message, or should we read it as something containing internal arguments?
What is the relation between the doctrine of creation properly understood and anthropology? What psychological and political resources does it make available?
Et cetera.
[ 16. September 2015, 13:03: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you think I do not'engage' beliefs, could I not say that the opposite applies to believers here?
To some extent, maybe, but you do insist on producing a fait accompli, i.e. "well! science cannot prove God's existence, so obviously there is no god, so why you are still a believer" (although you are more polite than that ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ) and we go "well actually, faith doesn't work like that and lots of religious people do actually accept the theory of evolution etc." and thus we go merrily around in circles. I note that nobody here has tried to de-convert you from atheism (as far as I know).
quote:
I simply enjoy the exchange of posts with interesting people. Seriously, message boards (the four I go to) have been something of a life-saver, over the past ten years I don't know what I'd be doing otherwise.
I stress that is not self-pity - I never waste time on that -it's just the facts!
I completely understand about messageboards being life-savers.
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Again, no argument. However, don't you think they should spend some of their time defining, substantiating, providing one piece of information which would remove any doubt that god is not in fact a human idea? Otherwise it seems to me that they are evading the question and are relying entirely on what people have thought and said.
No theologian could provide 100% proof that God exists. It's impossible to do that. And that's not really their job. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
I'm a Christian, I believe God exists because a) I believe the Bible and b) I believe I have a personal relationship with Jesus, through prayer among other things. There's more I could say, but that'll do for now. These things I accept by faith. The gospel is simple stuff, really: perhaps that's offensive to some intellectuals. (Not that I'm anti-intellectual, but Jesus did say we must be like little children in order to enter the Kingdom.)
I have no issues with science. Science explains how, it cannot explain why: not its remit.
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
It seems to me that the God at the base of all theological studies about churches etc is the elephant in the room!
But why is God 'the elephant in the room'?
![[Confused]](confused.gif) You mean because no theologian can actually prove God's existence beyond any reasonable doubt?
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Rowan Williams, in the introduction to a book of collected papers, divides theological arguments into three types:
Celebrative: this is about showing that Christian theology is a coherent body of doctrine that at least plausibly fits with human experience.
Communicative: this is about putting Christian theology into dialogue with other religious traditions or non-religious modes of thought and seeing how Christianity can incorporate those insights.
Critical: this is about asking whether the theological body is still in continuity with the original gospel, whether the whole edifice is still grounded in experience, whether or not the rites and language is still meaningful.I w
Very interesting post - thank you. I've read it several times.
I would of course like to have a chat with Rowan Williams and ask him to define for me where and what God is-since there wouldn't be theology without the idea of god! .
--------------------
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
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Laurelin
Thank you - I'll read again more thoroughly and respond tomorrow afternoon.
--------------------
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
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
I'm not convinced RW would take you up on that invitation.
Theology, as I understand, is an intra- and inter-faith dialogue, and a faith-based perspective on questions, such as ethical issues, studied by secular philosophers and other thinkers.
I would not personally say that theology was much concerned with proving the existence of God. It is concerned with the nature and character of God, centrally so, but God's existence is assumed.
Fundamentally, it's actually quite a boring question, because it's one of faith: either you believe in God's existence or you don't. You can usefully and interestingly discuss what led you to your conclusion, but I'm not entirely convinced that that would constitute theology.
That, however, seems to me more likely to do so than a discussion of God's existence, which would be about as interesting as watching two people arguing over the contents (if any) of Schroedinger's box.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
SusanDoris: It seems to me that the God at the base of all theological studies about churches etc is the elephant in the room!
I like that expression. We don't really have it in Dutch.
The image this expression brings to my mind is this. There are a lot of theologians together. In a university classroom or perhaps in an academic congress. They are going on about intertextual relationships, cultural markers, neo-Platonic revisionism of church policies ... When suddenly someone stands up and shouts: "But does God actually exist?!"
A sudden silence, where only the nervous shuffling of some papers can be heard. The lecturing professor starts to blush, while the student on the first row suddenly takes a big interest in studying his feet. People look around from one side to another, and after a while some people can't stop themselves from giggling softly.
This goes on until someone in the room takes the initiative and asks: "what about liturgical practices in early-medieval Armenia?" The tension is broken, there is a sigh of relief and everyone feels that they can go on as usual again.
I like this; it's funny. I can see this being played out in a tv sketch. But I'm afraid that it doesn't really happen like this.
The existence (or not) of God isn't a taboo subject when theologians are talking between each other. I imagine that they do it quite often. It is just that when they're doing academic work, they can't really say something objective about it. So most of the time, they prefer to leave the question open.
May I ask you a question? Suppose for a moment that you are right. God doesn't exist, He is just a human construct. In this case, would it still be important to study church history, or early Jewish texts? Why? Or why not?
--------------------
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
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
I think you need to split two types of theological enquiry.
There is that which focuses on what we can say about God
and there is that which focuses on what people have said about God.
The second is a case of historical, literary and ethnographic studies. It is also the dominant type taught in many Universities.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
SusanDoris: It seems to me that the God at the base of all theological studies about churches etc is the elephant in the room!
I like that expression. We don't really have it in Dutch.
The image this expression brings to my mind is this. There are a lot of theologians together. In a university classroom or perhaps in an academic congress. They are going on about intertextual relationships, cultural markers, neo-Platonic revisionism of church policies ... When suddenly someone stands up and shouts: "But does God actually exist?!"
A sudden silence, where only the nervous shuffling of some papers can be heard. The lecturing professor starts to blush, while the student on the first row suddenly takes a big interest in studying his feet. People look around from one side to another, and after a while some people can't stop themselves from giggling softly.
This goes on until someone in the room takes the initiative and asks: "what about liturgical practices in early-medieval Armenia?" The tension is broken, there is a sigh of relief and everyone feels that they can go on as usual again.
I like this; it's funny. I can see this being played out in a tv sketch. But I'm afraid that it doesn't really happen like this.
The existence (or not) of God isn't a taboo subject when theologians are talking between each other. I imagine that they do it quite often. It is just that when they're doing academic work, they can't really say something objective about it. So most of the time, they prefer to leave the question open.
Exactly. I've seen that exact scene played out in many a seminary classroom-- but always w/o the awkward ending. I've had it happen in my own classroom. Often it leads to a very fruitful and interesting discussion not unlike the one we're having here-- on the nature of knowledge, of truth, sources of authority, and how we apprehend these things.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
I've been following this thread and pondering about what to say.
From my experience of doing theology I would say that we have wider knowledge of scripture, tradition and reason than non-specialists. That means that we can go some way towardas discernig which are legitimate developments in theology and which aren't.
Specialist skills that help this are:
abilty to read the Bible in Hebrew and Greek;
Knowledge of the history of biblical interpreation
knowledge of church history, the philosophy of religion and the early fathers and mothers
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
…but you do insist on producing a fait accompli, i.e. "well! science cannot prove God's existence, so obviously there is no god, …
Just a small quibble here, Science does not attempt to prove negatives; it attempts to falsify Theories, which either strengthens or improves them. quote:
…so why you are still a believer" (although you are more polite than that ) and we go "well actually, faith doesn't work like that and lots of religious people do actually accept the theory of evolution etc." and thus we go merrily around in circles. I note that nobody here has tried to de-convert you from atheism (as far as I know).
They could do it with ease if there was just one fact! quote:
I'm a Christian, I believe God exists because a) I believe the Bible and b) I believe I have a personal relationship with Jesus, through prayer among other things. There's more I could say, but that'll do for now. These things I accept by faith. The gospel is simple stuff, really: perhaps that's offensive to some intellectuals. (Not that I'm anti-intellectual, but Jesus did say we must be like little children in order to enter the Kingdom)
One of the advantages of being an atheist is that we know that when we die, there is no more and therefore spend no time at all thinking about it!
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
It seems to me that the God at the base of all theological studies about churches etc is the elephant in the room!
But why is God 'the elephant in the room'?
I suppose it would have been more accurate to say the complete lack of God is the elephant-sized space in the room which believers will not accept is a vacuum. Hmmm, I’m not sure that sentence works!
--------------------
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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Susan, as much as you seem to want to continue the conversation, as has been pointed out already, you don't seem to be hearing what we're saying. I'm not really sure what more there is to say as we are still-- days later-- going 'round and 'round in the exact same circle. I would love to talk more with you if we can find something-- anything-- to talk about rather than repeating the same tiresome riff.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
ThunderBunk
Thank you for your post. I quite agree that the chances of RW giving me an interview are zero! A fascinating situation would be a roomful of Bishops and me at the front plaing out the scene as excellently described by Le Roc in his post!
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
May I ask you a question? Suppose for a moment that you are right. God doesn't exist, He is just a human construct. In this case, would it still be important to study church history, or early Jewish texts? Why? Or why not?
Love that image - super post, thank you!! And yes of course it is not only very important, but essential, to study anything that has been a part of the history of the human species.
--------------------
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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I'm going to sit on the couch and raise a glass to the elephant-sized space in my room, whatever is in it.
--------------------
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
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Jengie jon,Leo and cliffdweller
Thank you for your posts. I certainly feel I know more a bout theology now anyway.
I think you are right, cliffdweller, that it is probably a good idea to move on!
--------------------
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
|
|
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
SusanDoris:What do today's senior Theologians know about God.
There are plenty of senior theologicians on the Ship, so I hope they'll be able to answer you, but my guess is that when they answer this question honestly they'll say: "not a lot".
Sorry to come late to this, but when Karl Barth, towards the end of his life, was asked if he was approaching complete knowledge of God and faith he replied to the effect of "when you dip your toe in the ocean and remove it, the impact on the ocean's contents of the residue that leaves with your toe is the equivalent of that which I know of God." (He probably added a four page excursus ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) )
[ 17. September 2015, 19:59: Message edited by: Zappa ]
--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/
Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
SusanDoris: A fascinating situation would be a roomful of Bishops and me at the front plaing out the scene as excellently described by Le Roc in his post!
Aah, that's your phantasy. Nice. If you're ever going to do this for real, please invite me. I'd love to see this
quote:
SusanDoris: And yes of course it is not only very important, but essential, to study anything that has been a part of the history of the human species.
So we both agree that studying things like church history, ancient texts ... is relevant, whether there is a God or not. Actually, I think this is a big part of what theologians are doing.
--------------------
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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
SusanDoris: A fascinating situation would be a roomful of Bishops and me at the front plaing out the scene as excellently described by Le Roc in his post!
Aah, that's your phantasy. Nice. If you're ever going to do this for real, please invite me. I'd love to see this
Shouldn't be too hard to arrange because, as noted before, this happens all the time. Susan might be disappointed, though, when no one acts shocked or nervous or changes the subject, but just carries on answering her very normal question that, again, is asked in these settings all the time.
[ 18. September 2015, 21:34: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
windsofchange
Shipmate
# 13000
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
One of the advantages of being an atheist is that we know that when we die, there is no more and therefore spend no time at all thinking about it!
Hi SusanDoris - I'm late to the party so please forgive me for just jumping in. I'm really enjoying your intelligent responses here & in other threads (even though, as a theist, I don't always agree with you!).
However, I did want to point out that just being an atheist does not mean you know for sure what will happen (if anything) when you die. I think that is more of a materialist, rather than atheist, worldview.
For exmaple, a lot of Buddhists are atheists in the sense that they don't believe in a God or gods, but they do believe in the possibility of reincarnation.
So - just being an atheist - which is, after all, simply a lack of belief in the existence of deities - doesn't necessarily mean a lack of belief in some sort of afterlife, right?
Thanks for letting me intrude - carry on! ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
[ 18. September 2015, 21:52: Message edited by: windsofchange ]
--------------------
"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on." (owner of Coney Island Freak Show, upon learning someone outbid him for a 5-legged puppy)
Posts: 153 | From: Reseda, CA, USA | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Jengie jon,Leo and cliffdweller
Thank you for your posts. I certainly feel I know more a bout theology now anyway.
I think you are right, cliffdweller, that it is probably a good idea to move on!
Here's a thought Susan Doris.
Hebrews 11:1,2 says faith is both substance and evidence yet you can't see it. So what sort of substance can't one physically sense? Obviously what is posited is a realm beyond the material yet we experience it from within the material if we do so at all.
If one tries to apply scientific method you strike a category error because science deals exclusively with the material world. Jesus often spoke to those that had ears to hear as a metaphor for grasping his teaching. Consequently, if Christianity has any substance, then, though we are materially located, there is an element of humanity that is, for want of a better term, 'spirit'.
For you, though, that door is shut by your own admission. However, just because you may say you are only a collection of molecules, does not make it true if in fact part of you is 'spirit.' Lots of people are in denial about all sorts of stuff but all that means is a refusal to acknowledge a fact everyone else can see. Eg "I can stop drinking whenever I like". Denial is an avoidance mechanism. It stunts personal growth.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
If you're ever going to do this for real, please invite me. I'd love to see this
That will be up to the younger generations of scientists, atheists and humanists to tackle! quote:
So we both agree that studying things like church history, ancient texts ... is relevant, whether there is a God or not. Actually, I think this is a big part of what theologians are doing.
One day, maybe, they will admit that the God, whose 'nature' they are supposed to have been studying is a myth. I'll be long gone by then.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Shouldn't be too hard to arrange because, as noted before, this happens all the time. Susan might be disappointed, though, when no one acts shocked or nervous or changes the subject, but just carries on answering her very normal question that, again, is asked in these settings all the time.
The questioner would not usually be an atheist though, I think!
[ 19. September 2015, 07:26: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
One day, maybe, they will admit that the God, whose 'nature' they are supposed to have been studying is a myth. I'll be long gone by then.
What puzzles me is why you should care what they believe? Have you bought into some kind of Dawkinsite understanding that religious belief is always unhealthy, sometimes dangerous, and therefore it's in everyone's interests to be cured of it?
Personally, I don't think it's my business to "set other people straight" i.e. come around to my way of thinking. In the terms of my religion, conviction, repentance, change of mind are matters of internal choice, guided and helped by the Holy Spirit. Or if you prefer it, the Quaker term is the "inner light". That's respectful of personal autonomy.
Of course there is straightforward stupidity, often best illustrated by pointing to contradictions. And of course some religious people are stupid. And of course there is human malevolence. Some religious people illustrate that as well. But those are common human failings; no group of people, none of us can claim to be completely free from those ills.
Which brings me back to the start. Are you really bothered by, in your terms, our stubborn adherence to what you see as a myth? If so, why? You can't possibly know for sure if any of us would be better off without this adherence.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
How do scientists go about showing that we are not living in a simulation?
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Morgan
Shipmate
# 15372
|
Posted
I like Anselm's description of theology as faith seeking understanding. I think the critical word for me is the seeking. This is a constant process. Theology, like science, seeks to know more of the truth of that which is examined, each by the methods best suited to that task.
When I began my theological studies we were told that the overall objective of the course was to make us examine everything we had ever believed about God and that if we ended the course believing exactly the same things as when we started, then at least we would know why.
At the simplest level the common ground of science and faith is to begin with a hypothesis and to see whether our and others' experience, either experimental or experiential, appears to strengthen or negate the hypothesis. When the hypothesis is 'proven', this truth holds only until further evidence points in other directions.
So our understanding of God, like our understanding of the physical world, may change over time but that says more about us than about God or the universe.
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
The more one knows, the more one knows how little one knows.
The joy of recognising how little we know is the opportunity to seek further, or different, understanding. That's theology for me, a continuing opportunity to seek more understanding of the nature of God and of our relationship with God.
Posts: 111 | From: Canberra | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by windsofchange:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
One of the advantages of being an atheist is that we know that when we die, there is no more and therefore spend no time at all thinking about it!
Hi SusanDoris - I'm late to the party so please forgive me for just jumping in. I'm really enjoying your intelligent responses here & in other threads (even though, as a theist, I don't always agree with you!).
Thank you for saying; the more who join in the merrier anyway! And the more interesting SoF is. quote:
However, I did want to point out that just being an atheist does not mean you know for sure what will happen (if anything) when you die. I think that is more of a materialist, rather than atheist, worldview.
For exmaple, a lot of Buddhists are atheists in the sense that they don't believe in a God or gods, but they do believe in the possibility of reincarnation. [
When I was young, I used to think I would quite like to come back as an opera singer, with lovely slim knees and advanced skills in swimming! The less time I have left, the more realistic I am. quote:
So - just being an atheist - which is, after all, simply a lack of belief in the existence of deities - doesn't necessarily mean a lack of belief in some sort of afterlife, right?
Thanks for letting me intrude - carry on!
But the thought of reincarnating time after time is definitely not cool!!
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Here's a thought Susan Doris.
Hebrews 11:1,2 says faith is both substance and evidence yet you can't see it. So what sort of substance can't one physically sense? Obviously what is posited is a realm beyond the material yet we experience it from within the material if we do so at all.
What is the benefit of having faith entirely without evidence (the concrete, objective sort) in any god? quote:
For you, though, that door is shut by your own admission. However, just because you may say you are only a collection of molecules, does not make it true if in fact part of you is 'spirit.
Thank you . Yes, I am a collection of molecules , cells, genes, chemicals etc, which have, over many millions of years, via all our ancestral species, evolved into our human species, which is the only one able to speak, make up sounds and groups of sounds which name objects, both concrete and abstract, including of course ideas. I do not attempt to define spirit or soul, since they are words to enable us to talk about different aspects of who and what we are. None can be separated out. In my opinion, some music is sublime and can move me to tears, I can imagine an infinite number of things both existing and non-existing, and if all those aspects of me are not my 'spirit', my 'soul', then can you tell me what they are, and how the spirit and soul of atheist are different. quote:
' Lots of people are in denial about all sorts of stuff but all that means is a refusal to acknowledge a fact everyone else can see. Eg "I can stop drinking whenever I like". Denial is an avoidance mechanism. It stunts personal growth.
An atheist could respond by saying that theists are in denial because they will not acknowledge that the God they believe in has only an infinitesimally, vanishingly small possibility of existing.
--------------------
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
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Barnabas62
Thank you for your post. I will need to read through again, but will respond asap.
--------------------
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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
SusanDoris: One day, maybe, they will admit that the God, whose 'nature' they are supposed to have been studying is a myth. I'll be long gone by then.
Err ... once again I wonder why I'm having a discussion with you if you simply ignore everything we've been saying so far ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
We've already agreed that theologians study a lot of things that are acutally quite useful, regardless of whether God exists or not. You said yourself: "And yes of course it is not only very important, but essential, to study anything that has been a part of the history of the human species." And now we're back at "Theologians study the nature of God?"
Once again, you claim to love Science. Are you prepared to challenge your assumption "theologians study the nature of God" or are you just going to repeat this dogma like a broken record, no matter what people say?
--------------------
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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Shouldn't be too hard to arrange because, as noted before, this happens all the time. Susan might be disappointed, though, when no one acts shocked or nervous or changes the subject, but just carries on answering her very normal question that, again, is asked in these settings all the time.
The questioner would not usually be an atheist though, I think!
Depends on the setting. I teach in a faith-based university that has no faith requirement for students, so we do get a surprising number of non-Christians (including atheists) attending, for a variety of reasons. So in my setting it is often (tho not always) atheists who would raise the question. In a seminary obviously the students are Christians, but at the point they are raising these sorts of questions their faith may be being rocked in one way or the other, so they could probably better be described as agnostic.
My point was that your gleeful (and yes, mocking) depiction of the scene just doesn't fit with reality. Academic theologians are really not afraid of the Big Questions-- in fact, that's generally what draws them to the field in the first place. When the questions are raised-- as they inevitably are in most every theology class-- there is no awkward silence, no painful shuffling or staring at one's feet, no quickly changed topic. Rather, it is usually the beginning of a fruitful and interesting discussion-- exactly the sort that theology classes are designed for.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Apologies for any weird letters that might turn up instead of punctuation. I have listened through the preview, and it sounds all right!
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
One day, maybe, they will admit that the God, whose 'nature' they are supposed to have been studying is a myth. I'll be long gone by then.
What puzzles me is why you should care what they believe?
Firstly: I respect every person’s right to believe what they choose to, and which is true for them, and will strongly and robustly defend their right to do so, and the status quo, until, that is, a stronger Godless, ethical and moral etc, background comes to be accepted by a majority. Obviously, this is not going to happen any time soon. Religious beliefs in this country are as they are (although adherence to God beliefs is lessening, however slowly it is happening), with the CofE is a solid background to life and it’s the ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ sort of thing. I care about it very much – see later here. quote:
Have you bought into some kind of Dawkinsite understanding that religious belief is always unhealthy, sometimes dangerous, and therefore it's in everyone's interests to be cured of it?
Most decidedly not! I’m far too level-headed for that. quote:
Personally, I don't think it's my business to "set other people straight" i.e. come around to my way of thinking.
Well, no, but the very sub-heading of this forum, ‘the magazine of Christian unrest’, would seem to indicate that those here enjoy discussions for their (the discussions’) own sake, and would be on exclusively believers’ sites if they were looking only for reinforcement of their own beliefs. quote:
In the terms of my religion, conviction, repentance, change of mind are matters of internal choice, guided and helped by the Holy Spirit. Or if you prefer it, the Quaker term is the "inner light". That's respectful of personal autonomy.
I’m with the Quakers on this one, although I suppose that they think that God supplies the ‘inner light’. Whatever name we give it, it is a human concept,. I change my life, take responsibility for my mistakes and do my best to correct them, but I rely on other humans’ advice, whether it is from my contemporaries, or from the accumulated moral wisdom of humanity. quote:
Of course there is straightforward stupidity, often best illustrated by pointing to contradictions. And of course some religious people are stupid. And of course there is human malevolence. Some religious people illustrate that as well. But those are common human failings; no group of people, none of us can claim to be completely free from those ills.
Agreed; no argument there. quote:
Which brings me back to the start. Are you really bothered by, in your terms, our stubborn adherence to what you see as a myth? If so, why?
The thing that I feel very, very strongly about is the way that adults continue to teach children that their faith is right and, sometimes, that others are not, that ‘God is love’, that God does/wants/thinks X, Y and Z, without a shred of testable (plus all the other words that Science uses) evidence to support it. This continues (with I stress most strongly in nearly every case the very best of caring and loving intentions – and where I was involved similarly when young) in spite of the fact that there is now such a huge, and rapidly increasing , infinity of knowledge and facts about so much in the universe, faiths are here to stay, I suppose.
Okay, there should be an increase in confidence in people acknowledging that of course we don’t know huge amounts, but the need for a God-did-it should gradually diminish, shouldn’t it?
It cannot possibly happen suddenly – there has to be a change which itself becomes the replacement for unfounded religious beliefs. This was foreseen in some ways of course in Star trek, but in my opinion it is inevitable. At that time, the majority , say 60%, will not believe in any God/god/s. quote:
You can't possibly know for sure if any of us would be better off without this adherence.
Of course not. I can only speak for myself, and know that while I still believed, although more and more faintly, that there was some force/power, there was a microscopic mistake somewhere in me, and that when I erased that minuscule belief, I felt whole, complete.
And last, but not least, always and always it is the participation in discussion with people like all those here on Ship of fools that never fails to make me appreciate membership here. Also, I take my hat off to the whizz-kids who invent specialised software like mine to enable me to do so.
(tidied up code and a couple of spellos)
[ 19. September 2015, 17:01: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Ah, I see I've missed one of the italic tags...
(tidied up - 'twas bold, not italic coding that went awry, but no matter)
[ 19. September 2015, 16:56: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Firstly: I respect every person’s right to believe what they choose to, and which is true for them, and will strongly and robustly defend their right to do so...
Honestly, this is not the way you come across, other than in the most literal sense (i.e. I'm sure you would not support some sort of government ban on all religious expression). "Respect" is not really what I hear from you. That could be just my own defensiveness of course.
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Well, no, but the very sub-heading of this forum, ‘the magazine of Christian unrest’, would seem to indicate that those here enjoy discussions for their (the discussions’) own sake
oh, you got that one right!
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
How do scientists go about showing that we are not living in a simulation?
I don't know, but neither can I suggest a hypothesis for such an investigation.
[
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
