Is religion harmful?

[GoodCallYouWin]

In the Virus of Faith (http://watchthis.zakyoung.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=719&Item id=5) Dawkins argues that Faith is a virus and extremely disastrous. Does Religion cause harm? Or does the good from religion outweigh the harm it causes?

[luckyme]

Only if inhaled.

luckyme

[ThreeMartini]

Not if used in moderation.

[kerowo]

As long as you control the religion and it doesn't control you I think you are alright.

[PantsOnFire]

Like many things in life, it can be harmful if misused.

[Duke]

It's thus far been very harmful, but there's a theoretical possibility that it doesn't need to always cause problems.

[kerowo]

It's too bad it is so ingrained in the human head that we don't have a lot of evidence of what a society is like that doesn't have religion around.

[m_the0ry]

There is no practice more degenerate and damaging than faith.

[Archon_Wing]

[ QUOTE ]
In the Virus of Faith (http://watchthis.zakyoung.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=719&Item id=5) Dawkins argues that Faith is a virus and extremely disastrous. Does Religion cause harm? Or does the good from religion outweigh the harm it causes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Religions are very varied-- they are not just the Abrahamic ones most commonly discussed here. But of course it could be destructive when used the wrong way, just like gambling addiction. The major problem comes if you become too wrapped up in your beliefs and close your mind and heart but both of the above are hardly exclusive to religion. I must note most of the theists I know are not homicidal maniacs.

Fables and myths have their place. Just because a turtle and a rabbit never had a race in real life doesn't mean the story is worthless.

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no practice more degenerate and damaging than faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only because religion has been at it for a long time. Those without faith haven't done such a bang up job of things either.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Fables and myths have their place. Just because a turtle and a rabbit never had a race in real life doesn't mean the story is worthless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Breathing causes harm.
Overall, it's a good thing.

When we refer to a harmful or helpful action it is the sum of it's parts that matters, we'd be hard pressed to come with something that is 100% good or 100% harmful.

Picking some aspect of religion as 'doing good' doesn't answer the OP, it's a given that something about it would be useful.

luckyme

[m_the0ry]

Faith has been detrimental to humanity since its conception, and certainly religion is not dependent on faith as we can see from the practice of Buddhism. Faith is the chink in the armor of human rationale - it delivers blinding happiness at the cost of awareness. It is not religion or spirituality that is harmful; it is faith that makes a religion so easy to propagate and sustain, and faith that makes every act in its name unjustifiable.

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." ~ Benjamin Franklin

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
Faith has been detrimental to humanity since its conception, and certainly religion is not dependent on faith as we can see from the practice of Buddhism. Faith is the chink in the armor of human rationale - it delivers blinding happiness at the cost of awareness. It is not religion or spirituality that is harmful; it is faith that makes a religion so easy to propagate and sustain, and faith that makes every act in its name unjustifiable.

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." ~ Benjamin Franklin

[/ QUOTE ]

Tell it to Stalin.

[m_the0ry]

[ QUOTE ]
Tell it to Stalin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any correlation you see there is so contrived it's hard to know where to start. I cannot see any part of this comment that is worth rebut.

[Metric]

I don't think faith is by definition a bad thing. I tend to think of the following psychological scale:

constant faith 1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10 constant re-analysis

If you expend all of your energy re-analyzing and second guessing the rationale behind what you are doing, you will never get anything done. And likewise, if you simply attach yourself to the first idea you're exposed to and never re-think its foundatons, you stand a very good chance of wasting your efforts on the development of lousy ideas.

[m_the0ry]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think faith is by definition a bad thing. I tend to think of the following psychological scale:

constant faith 1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10 constant re-analysis

If you expend all of your energy re-analyzing and second guessing the rationale behind what you are doing, you will never get anything done. And likewise, if you simply attach yourself to the first idea you're exposed to and never re-think its foundatons, you stand a very good chance of wasting your efforts on the development of lousy ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting interpretation of faith but I disagree. Maybe I consider faith something different than you do.

When someone has faith in some idea, that means they will actively reject new propositions relevant to that idea without analysis. I believe this is inherently bad without exception. I do not believe that the polar opposite of faith is 'constant re-analysis'. Rather I believe the opposite of faith is admittance of new information.

[Bill Haywood]

Is a crowbar harmful?

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think faith is by definition a bad thing. I tend to think of the following psychological scale:

constant faith 1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10 constant re-analysis

If you expend all of your energy re-analyzing and second guessing the rationale behind what you are doing, you will never get anything done. And likewise, if you simply attach yourself to the first idea you're exposed to and never re-think its foundatons, you stand a very good chance of wasting your efforts on the development of lousy ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting interpretation of faith but I disagree. Maybe I consider faith something different than you do.

When someone has faith in some idea, that means they will actively reject new propositions relevant to that idea without analysis. I believe this is inherently bad without exception. I do not believe that the polar opposite of faith is 'constant re-analysis'. Rather I believe the opposite of faith is admittance of new information.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to me that this is a pretty narrow definition of faith (simply ignoring evidence), but I pretty much agree on the conclusions you arrive at based on that definition. I'm trying to capture a little of the Biblical definition "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." I.E. someone attaches to an idea based on the promise it shows.

A non-religious example: Someone studying string theory or loop quantum gravity may be aware of counter-arguments to the foundations of their approach (counter-arguments which haven't been completely refuted). However, if you hope to achieve anything in building the theory, you at some point have to attach yourself to the good aspects of the theory and see what you can get out of them. Re-analysis of your approach is a good thing, but it can't be all-consuming -- at some point you need to put the (possibly good) counter-arguments out of your mind and just go with it.

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tell it to Stalin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any correlation you see there is so contrived it's hard to know where to start. I cannot see any part of this comment that is worth rebut.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point you are avoiding is that while there has been lots of damage done by organized religion there has also been tremendous damage done by those who are non-religious.

Categorically decrying religion as the worst of the worst is exactly the same as decrying the secular world as the worst of the worst. You've gone so far away from religion you caught up to it on the other side.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
The point you are avoiding is that while there has been lots of damage done by organized religion there has also been tremendous damage done by those who are non-religious.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's mixing very different levels in the comparison.
It could be an answer to a question, "Have religious people done harm?" but not a very good one even to that.

[ QUOTE ]
Categorically decrying religion as the worst of the worst is exactly the same as decrying the secular world as the worst of the worst.

[/ QUOTE ]

The comparison in context of the OP would be -
Is religion harmful? - Yes.
Are there secular philosophies that are harmful? -Yes.
Are there secular philosophies that are not harmful? - yes. moderate western democracies are an example.

As long as we stick to religion = theism. If we put "a devotion to french fries" under religion, which some posters on here do, then the question becomes meaningless.

luckyme

[bunny]

Faith doesnt always cause harm. You can follow a religion without abandoning reason, it's just not often done. An atheist may not feel compelled to believe something for which there is no objective evidence (although I think most do about some non-God things). However, a religious person who believes based on subjective evidence alone and who also concedes any points which are subsequently contradicted by objective evidence is neither irrational nor inherently harmful.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
The comparison in context of the OP would be -
Is religion harmful? - Yes.
Are there secular philosophies that are harmful? -Yes.
Are there secular philosophies that are not harmful? - yes. moderate western democracies are an example.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that religion has done more gross harm than moderate western democracies. However, it isnt true that moderate western democracies cause no harm - I presume you mean the good things they have done outweigh the bad?

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Tell it to Stalin.



[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good example of why faith is bad. Communists thought Stalin was a level above them, they learned never to challenge Stalin, but to obey him unquestionably. Even as Stalin was starving the people of the Ukraine to death, his people had absolute faith in him. He ran his country as if he were a God, and many people worshiped him accordingly.

[Peter666]

Who cares? It's all meaningless in Dawkins' world because there is nothing after death. So do whatever you want. Religion gratifies some people like drugs or reading science textbooks does for others. In fact, Dawkins' pisses off more people than he pleases, so he is harmful.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, Dawkins' pisses off more people than he pleases, so he is harmful.

[/ QUOTE ]
If the end-goal of life were for everyone to be ignorant and content, I'll admit that religion would be the way to go.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Is religion harmful?

[/ QUOTE ]


Depends on whom welds the most religious influence. See Torquemada or Girolamo Savonarola for the negative side of the ledger. See, ____________________, for the positive side of the ledger.

-Zeno, The Antipope

[MidGe]

Religions is harmful in the fact that it isn't truthful. Since all religions contradict themselves by sects, and only one could be true if at all, religion is as harmful as any other lie or denial of reality.

[rubberloon]

The interaction of the catholic church, the papacy and primarily western europe had massive effects. Including the persecution of heretics and pagans around 400 and the orthodox-catholic split around 700. The larger interaction of islam and its neighbors is still with us. As Djilas said (in Wartime, his account of Jugoslavia 1941-5) the first excuse for people to kill each other is language, the second religion, the third politics but they don't need an excuse to kill each other.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that religion has done more gross harm than moderate western democracies. However, it isnt true that moderate western democracies cause no harm - I presume you mean the good things they have done outweigh the bad?

[/ QUOTE ]

from an earlier post -

[ QUOTE ]
Breathing causes harm.
Overall, it's a good thing.

When we refer to a harmful or helpful action it is the sum of it's parts that matters, we'd be hard pressed to come with something that is 100% good or 100% harmful.

Picking some aspect of religion as 'doing good' doesn't answer the OP, it's a given that something about it would be useful.

[/ QUOTE ]

So we seem to agree that with questions such as, "Do you like porridge?" the yes or no answer means in sum total and it's not necessary to respond to them with every little aspect we considered in order to reach our conclusion. Life would become very long if disclaimers were implied as mandatory.
We all know people that are like that. "Enjoy your trip?"
"yes, the meals were good, but ... yadda,yadda."
the 'yes' answered the question, the rest is friendly chatter.
"yes" or "no" does not even hint at "in every little aspect".

luckyme

[bunny]

Thanks. It reads clearly to me now, I guess I was tired or not paying attention.

[CrayZee]

There are positive aspects of religion, but not mutually exclusive to religion (i.e., community, altruism, death coping mechanism, etc.). But, yeah, religion is more harmful than not...but the "science worldview" could be too difficult for most individuals to grasp or appreciate. (Faith is easy, all you have to do is simply believe.)

Perhaps the "faith worldview" is something programmed into our genes in that we mostly like to follow authority. After all, the saying goes, "too many chiefs and not enough indians" leads to what, I don't know...too many skeptical thinkers out of control?

But on the positive side, people are generally more knowledgeable about the science perspective than in the past. At least in industrialized societies. This could be a reflection of the shift in work from labor jobs to more creative-type, specialized knowledge jobs in technologically and economically advanced societies.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
Faith has been detrimental to humanity since its conception, and certainly religion is not dependent on faith as we can see from the practice of Buddhism. Faith is the chink in the armor of human rationale - it delivers blinding happiness at the cost of awareness. It is not religion or spirituality that is harmful; it is faith that makes a religion so easy to propagate and sustain, and faith that makes every act in its name unjustifiable.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

It's thus far been very harmful, but there's a theoretical possibility that it doesn't need to always cause problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how anyone can claim this as fact. I think you can make the argument that religious thinking in the modern society is 'harmful'. But to claim that over the course of history religion has been detrimental to humanity is a very bold claim for such an insanely complex issue.

[t.conley]

I guess I would say faith and religion are different things. Secondly I started watching and like 30 seconds in the narrator says, "those who adhere to Judaism, Islam and Christianity still prefer to ignore reason and have faith in their forever unprovable omnipresent creator." I could be mistaken but I suppose that this statement takes faith to have or at least I need faith to believe it is forever unprovable.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm trying to capture a little of the Biblical definition "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." I.E. someone attaches to an idea based on the promise it shows.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not just call it "hope" and stop trying to confuse it with "faith"?

Back to the OP ...

Inherent in most religions is the concept that certain ideas are not to be questioned, challenged, or denied. This is clearly harmful, IMHO.

Another concept in most religions is the existence of the supernatural. To the extent that this distracts us from the natural world, this is also harmful.

Finally, these religions require the use of faith to maintain these harmful ideas in the face of evidence that suggests them to be harmful.

This constitutes what I consider a three-pronged attack on reason and this has been very harmful in the past and will continue to be so in the foreseeable future.

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm trying to capture a little of the Biblical definition "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." I.E. someone attaches to an idea based on the promise it shows.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not just call it "hope" and stop trying to confuse it with "faith"?

[/ QUOTE ]
"Hope" does not capture the concept of steadfastness inherent in just about anyone's definition of faith. In mtheory's definition, it's there by the consistent excluding of all contrary evidence. In my definition, it's there as the ability to move forward with a promising concept despite the existence of some unanswered objections to it. I get the feeling that a lot of you want to define it as "something bad" simply because it's a word religious folks tend to use.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

Inherent in most religions is the concept that certain ideas are not to be questioned, challenged, or denied. This is clearly harmful, IMHO.

Another concept in most religions is the existence of the supernatural. To the extent that this distracts us from the natural world, this is also harmful.

Finally, these religions require the use of faith to maintain these harmful ideas in the face of evidence that suggests them to be harmful.

This constitutes what I consider a three-pronged attack on reason and this has been very harmful in the past and will continue to be so in the foreseeable future.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if I grant you all those points about religion being harmful (and I think I do for the most part), you haven't shown that this harm has outweighed the good of religion in human history.

I could easily make the argument that the use of reason has been harmful in human history. But I would never claim that it has done more harm than good, and I'm not even sure it's a provable claim one way or the other.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm trying to capture a little of the Biblical definition "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." I.E. someone attaches to an idea based on the promise it shows.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not just call it "hope" and stop trying to confuse it with "faith"?

[/ QUOTE ]
"Hope" does not capture the concept of steadfastness inherent in just about anyone's definition of faith. In mtheory's definition, it's there by the consistent excluding of all contrary evidence. In my definition, it's there as the ability to move forward with a promising concept despite the existence of some unanswered objections to it. I get the feeling that a lot of you want to define it as "something bad" simply because it's a word religious folks tend to use.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the problem is that many religious people use the word "faith" to mean so many things.

They use it in the sense of a trust, or a leap of faith; they use it to express hope, and they use it to trump reason.

This last one gets us atheists really riled up, and so we attack it, but believers seem to think we're attacking their trust and their hope - even when people like Dawkins clearly say that they're only attacking the anti-reason aspects of the word "faith".

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if I grant you all those points about religion being harmful (and I think I do for the most part), you haven't shown that this harm has outweighed the good of religion in human history.

I could easily make the argument that the use of reason has been harmful in human history. But I would never claim that it has done more harm than good, and I'm not even sure it's a provable claim one way or the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not interested in whether or not religion is net a "good" or a net "bad" because I think the question is silly. Religion is far too big a concept to neatly pigeonhole as "good" or "bad".

However, certain common characteristics of religion are clearly harmful and so I choose to target my attacks there.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In fact, Dawkins' pisses off more people than he pleases, so he is harmful.

[/ QUOTE ]
If the end-goal of life were for everyone to be ignorant and content, I'll admit that religion would be the way to go.

[/ QUOTE ]

The whole point of religion is to make conclusions about the truth in order to be content. Dawkins is preaching his own atheistic religion, whose main form of worship appears to be bashing other religions.

He is silly enough to believe that only science can answer all questions and that at the same time, people will continue being "nice" to each other, when history has already proven that nothing is more cruel than the atheistic, cold, calculating, scientific ethic.

[Ben K]

If Dawkins were preaching an atheistic religion, then there would be:

"A religion is a set of beliefs and practices generally held by a community, involving adherence to codified beliefs and rituals and study of ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction."

In line with the opening paragraph on religion in Wikipedia. There isn't a codified set of beliefs however so he isn't preaching a religion. It's very simple.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
If Dawkins were preaching an atheistic religion, then there would be:

"A religion is a set of beliefs and practices generally held by a community, involving adherence to codified beliefs and rituals and study of ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction."

In line with the opening paragraph on religion in Wikipedia. There isn't a codified set of beliefs however so he isn't preaching a religion. It's very simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course science has a codified set of beliefs, it's called the scientific method.

[Ben K]

No, it has a method. Like everything else in science it can, and will, be changed if it is found to be inadequate. Since you are unable to propose or demontrate a better way of working out what is true, it will stand for the time being.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
No, it has a method. Like everything else in science it can, and will, be changed if it is found to be inadequate. Since you are unable to propose or demontrate a better way of working out what is true, it will stand for the time being.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is it possible to determine what is "inadequate" if it is merely a method? Science must obviously hold some set of beliefs in order to make such conclusions.

[Ben K]

It would be inadequate if it was shown to not produce (and re-produce) results consistent with reality as perceived by everyone (normally minded) doing the experiments.

Good science tries to cover all bases and state all assumptions including method so if, in future, something was found to be wrong (method included) then the conclusion could be re-visited.

Religion has nothing reproducible and in many ways has nothing at all except "we have a book that says this happened x years ago". If it were true that this happened then (assuming reality hasn't changed materially) it would be reproducible.

This is why I like science. Everything ever worked out can be re-worked out tomorrow. Religion can't do that. I don't need the argument from authority, though like most lay people I accept it. If I really distrusted someone saying sound travels at x m.p.h then I could test it for myself.

You know all this, I'm wondering where you're trying to lead me.....

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even if I grant you all those points about religion being harmful (and I think I do for the most part), you haven't shown that this harm has outweighed the good of religion in human history.

I could easily make the argument that the use of reason has been harmful in human history. But I would never claim that it has done more harm than good, and I'm not even sure it's a provable claim one way or the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not interested in whether or not religion is net a "good" or a net "bad" because I think the question is silly. Religion is far too big a concept to neatly pigeonhole as "good" or "bad".

However, certain common characteristics of religion are clearly harmful and so I choose to target my attacks there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I might have misunderstood the intentions of your post. I was mostly still trying to argue against the fact that religion was a harmful institution throughout human history and was detrimental to the well-being of civilization. I agree that it today's world it is often misguided and harmful and that we should try to eliminate these elements from religion.

[Peter666]

I'm leading you to the conclusion that even science is subject to philosophy. And philosophy is subject to theology.

What you perceive as reality, may not be what other people perceive as reality. And true, they may be absolutely nuts and not "normal" for thinking the world is flat, but what are you going to do about it? How are you going to impose your "scientific beliefs" on them? And what will you do when they claim YOU are not normal?

Dostoevsky dealt with these issues very thoroughly. "The Underground Man" is a case of a person deliberately acting against reason out of sheer spite. And so long as human beings have free will and an intellect, science alone will not satisfy them. Dawkins' total FAITH in science shows utter contempt and ignorance about human nature, and the ways to satisfy it.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm leading you to the conclusion that even science is subject to philosophy. And philosophy is subject to theology.


[/ QUOTE ]

You invoke a hierarchy which is interesting - is theology subject to anything or is it the ultimate holder of all truth? No separate realms of knowledge or schools of thought that work in parallel with no overlap, or even the converse, schools of thought that continually battle each other?

It is also very interesting that you already know what conclusion you will reach.

You appear to wish to subjugate all knowledge and truth under the Vatican Roof or perhaps a cadre of Jesuit Professors to which all of humanity is subject. I think this rot of course. But fanatical religion goons, high priests or shaman, along with their megalomaniac henchmen, are a perennial force in any cultural and civilization. The credulous are always ready to take up whatever scheme or chimera that comes down the pike, sometimes hatched by well-meaning dupes, sometimes by scoundrels and charlatans; which almost always evolves into some orthodoxy that wishes to sustain itself, for which an organizational hierocracy is build up to maintain influence, power, and self glory. The wretchedness of a beuearacray is thus easily fostered and perpetuated in a framework of religious orthodoxy sustained by morons, mountebanks, parasites, or the likes of a Thomas Aquinas, a John Calvin or better still: Torquemada or Girolamo Savonarola. [added in edit: or Cardinal Gibbons]


Soli Deo gloria!

What is your opinion on Stephen Jay Gould’s separate magisterial concept (in regards to religion and science), which Dawkins disagreed with by the way?

-Zeno, The Antipope

[Ben K]

I agree that we differ in perceptions of reality but what of it? I'm not going to do anything about people who insist the World is flat except, perhaps, explain and show them satellite pictures of a round Earth. If it had to be settled one way or the other then we could find someone to do a test we could both witness and agree to accept the results.

Science is a way of settling arguments over facts that does not involve "my personal intuition tells me it's true". It's outside of any one individual and is cumulative across the thousands of scientists around the World. How do religious people settle their differences? Well, you can see that around the World easily enough.

Dawkins total faith is science extends as far as identifying the truth. There is nothing wrong with science working to understand human nature, it's just the work in that area is fairly new - for instance, altruism has always been though uniquely human but it's now been experimentally demonstrated in chimps too. The tests are being re-done to check it's genuine of course. The point is that science is about understanding. The first scientists were clergymen trying to understand God's universe. If there's something not understood then get scientific about it. Standing around making stuff up doesn't help.

As for science being subject to philosophy being subject to theology. I don't know enough about philosophy to say abut the first part but the theology link is just out of date by a few hundred years.

[Ben K]

So religion is harmful because it limits understanding.

How many agricultural improvements has the bible given us in the last 200 years? Ever?
How many vaccines? How many pain reduction compounds?

Religion merely consists of the wisdom of its time. It has been superceeded.

[GoodCallYouWin]

"
Religion merely consists of the wisdom of its time. It has been superceeded. "

Like how 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' has been superceeded by 'we can invade whoever we want for whatever reason we want'? Some truths are universal.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Religion merely consists of the wisdom of its time. It has been superceeded.


[/ QUOTE ]

How can wisdom about agriculture supersede wisdom about morality or eternal life?

[Alex-db]

Modern farming has superseded medival agricultural wisdom.

Modern science has superseded ancient religious beliefs.

Modern moral thought has superseded biblical hand-me-downs.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Modern farming has superseded medival agricultural wisdom.

Modern science has superseded ancient religious beliefs.

Modern moral thought has superseded biblical hand-me-downs.


[/ QUOTE ]


What medieval agricultural wisdom in the Bible?
What Bible beliefs has science superseded?
I know your reference to modern morality is just funnin, right?

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Religion merely consists of the wisdom of its time. It has been superceeded.


[/ QUOTE ]

How can wisdom about agriculture supersede wisdom about morality or eternal life?

[/ QUOTE ]

Man I hate the word "wisdom" because people toss it around way too casually.

There's nothing particularly wise about 99% of what most religions have to say about "eternal life". Morality can be debated.

[m_the0ry]

[ QUOTE ]
I know your reference to modern morality is just funnin, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Law = modern morality. The delusionist in you wants to believe that without a scripture, every person on the globe consequently believes it is okay to kill thy neighbor. Every actualization of democracy has proven that this is not the case. Further, and most importantly, law allows for adaptation to the dynamics of a social environment.


[ QUOTE ]
What Bible beliefs has science superseded?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll start the list with #1, but I'd like to get everyone involved. Please add on your own.

1. Heliocentricity

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I know your reference to modern morality is just funnin, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Law = modern morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't like calling law and morality synonymous. However, modern coded law has certainly superceeded ancient morality codes.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What Bible beliefs has science superseded?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll start the list with #1, but I'd like to get everyone involved. Please add on your own.

1. Heliocentricity

[/ QUOTE ]

This could be fun ...

2. Genesis
3. Exodus

[Peter666]

I agree with Gould's separate magisterial concept. The problem is we have scientists like Dawkins who think their knowledge of biology makes them qualified philosophers, which is not the case. True religion and true science don't quarrel.

Your criticism of organizational hierarchy applies just as well to science as it does to religion. Scientists want recognition, power and glory as much as anyone else.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What Bible beliefs has science superseded?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll start the list with #1, but I'd like to get everyone involved. Please add on your own.

1. Heliocentricity

[/ QUOTE ]

This could be fun ...

2. Genesis
3. Exodus

[/ QUOTE ]

http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/bepart13.html (from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_the_Bible)
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The delusionist in you wants to believe that without a scripture, every person on the globe consequently believes it is okay to kill thy neighbor.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, the realist in me recognizes that without an absolute reference point no person on the globe can justify the precept that it isn't okay to kill just anyone you please, a precept more easily recognized in earlier times than in today's society which seems to think the precept that something that can be true for me but not for you doesn't at least logically remove any reasonable objection to murder.

[ QUOTE ]

Further, and most importantly, law allows for adaptation to the dynamics of a social environment.


[/ QUOTE ]

The Nazis dynamically adapted to their social environment though law in a way that isn't very acceptable to most - but, hey, it was true for them.

[ QUOTE ]

1. Heliocentricity


[/ QUOTE ]

Chapter and verse, please.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]

Chapter and verse, please.

[/ QUOTE ]

From the book of broken promises. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=scimathphil&Number=110841 98&Searchpage=1&Main=10270091&Words=+NotReady&topi c=&Search=true#Post11084198)

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Chapter and verse, please.

[/ QUOTE ]

From the book of broken promises. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=scimathphil&Number=110841 98&Searchpage=1&Main=10270091&Words=+NotReady&topi c=&Search=true#Post11084198)

[/ QUOTE ]

Zing. NotReady doesn't consciously realize that he's actually trying to convince himself to stop believing irrational things.

But, to answer his question:

http://creationwiki.org/Geocentricity#Related_Scripture

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

http://creationwiki.org/Geocentricity#Related_Scripture


[/ QUOTE ]

See:

the web (http://)

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]

Your criticism of organizational hierarchy applies just as well to science as it does to religion. Scientists want recognition, power and glory as much as anyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was thinking about this also while writing it out, and as far as it goes what I said applies to a variety of hierarchical groups, say, government organizations, philosophers, and other examples could be mentioned

I have read Gould's essay on his magisterial concept and I am fairly certain that in the past I have posted about it, and provided a link to the essay, in some thread on this forum. It is an excellent essay and well written. I can't honestly say that I agree with certainty with his concept. But it is worthy of consideration.

-Zeno, The Antipope

[Alex-db]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Modern farming has superseded medival agricultural wisdom.

Modern science has superseded ancient religious beliefs.

Modern moral thought has superseded biblical hand-me-downs.


[/ QUOTE ]


What medieval agricultural wisdom in the Bible?
What Bible beliefs has science superseded?
I know your reference to modern morality is just funnin, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought someone else mentioned agriculture, I didn't mean it was biblical, just setting up my set of 3 comparable successions.

2nd question has been done to death over and over, I'll assume noone is in such serious denial to cover it again.

3rd is the more interesting. We can show that modern moral thought has superseded Biblical thought by the number of times religious people have to use the word "interpret".

On a cold, literal reading, as atheists are often 'accused' of doing, there is almost nothing of value that can be gleaned from the Bible. And there are many, many examples of things we would all consider horrendous moral practice.

I doubt you'll admit it, but you mostly use a modern, atheist, moral code when deciding which bits of the Bible 'applies today', and how you will interpret those parts.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I doubt you'll admit it


[/ QUOTE ]

At least something in your post is right.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

http://creationwiki.org/Geocentricity#Related_Scripture


[/ QUOTE ]

See:

the web (http://)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
CreationWiki is a free encyclopedia of creation science being assembled by an international team of editors. All creationists are welcome to get involved with the development of this ever-growing resource, which currently consists of 2,950 articles.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a link to your source. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

It's a link to your source.


[/ QUOTE ]

Oops, sometimes I go too fast.

Nice post, though.

[Ben K]

Superceeding does not mean replacing.

Things which were correct are kept, things which wrong dropped.

[Ben K]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What Bible beliefs has science superseded?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll start the list with #1, but I'd like to get everyone involved. Please add on your own.

1. Heliocentricity

[/ QUOTE ]

This could be fun ...

2. Genesis
3. Exodus

[/ QUOTE ]

4. People coming back from the dead
5. Seas parting
6. Serpents talking
7. Bushes speaking
8. Banishng demons

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

4. People coming back from the dead
5. Seas parting
6. Serpents talking
7. Bushes speaking
8. Banishng demons


[/ QUOTE ]

Prove they didn't happen. Go ahead. I dare ya.

[Ben K]

Prove they did. The burden of proof is on you as you believe them to be true in spite of modern science saying they can't happen.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

modern science saying they can't happen.


[/ QUOTE ]

LOL

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

modern science saying they can't happen.


[/ QUOTE ]

LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see why this is a shock to you. None of us has ever seen or heard any evidence of these things happening except through religious traditions. Isn't the burden of proof on you to prove that these things didn't happen? Why should we believe the words of the Bible if we don't believe it to be divinely inspired?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Why should we believe the words of the Bible if we don't believe it to be divinely inspired?


[/ QUOTE ]

Define science.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why should we believe the words of the Bible if we don't believe it to be divinely inspired?


[/ QUOTE ]

Define science.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like to think of science as knowledge about the physical world learned through falsifiable testing through the scientific method.

But it doesn't matter if I say science disproves them or not. Have you heard or seen credible evidence of any of those things happening in the past 500 years? We make the assumption that the physical laws of the universe haven't changed in the past million years. You do not, or at least you believe that God bent these laws to suit his whims in the past. Since we don't see evidence of this bending today, doesn't it fall on you to show us that this is even possible?

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why should we believe the words of the Bible if we don't believe it to be divinely inspired?


[/ QUOTE ]

Define science.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can anyone possibly not see that this guy is just trolling?

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Since we don't see evidence of this bending today, doesn't it fall on you to show us that this is even possible?


[/ QUOTE ]

Not in NR's world. And he thinks we're all fools for even suggesting such a thing.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

But it doesn't matter if I say science disproves them or not.


[/ QUOTE ]

But Ben said it does. Which is it?

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But it doesn't matter if I say science disproves them or not.


[/ QUOTE ]

But Ben said it does. Which is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not exactly arguing his point though. I'm saying that the burden of proof falls on you to provide evidence that these supernatural events could have occurred. I'm asking you to tell me why I should believe in these supernatural events if I don't believe in a divinely inspired Bible?

Why are you ignoring the rest of the body of my posts?

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

4. People coming back from the dead
5. Seas parting
6. Serpents talking
7. Bushes speaking
8. Banishng demons


[/ QUOTE ]

Prove they didn't happen. Go ahead. I dare ya.

[/ QUOTE ]

Science can NEVER prove that something didn't happen. The atheists who say otherwise are morons. Only MATH can prove something never happenned. For example no one ever discovered two cubes that added up to a third one.

However, Probability and Statistics, can be used to show that the information we have about ressurections and speaking bushes is such that when someoneone claims to have witnessed such an event, the odds are overwhelming that he is mistaken. The odds shrink if he supplies us with evidence. But the original statistical evidence is so overwhemingly against him that his own evidence is unlikely to make a big dent in the statistical odds. Certainly the existence of the Bible is not strong enough evidence to accomplish that task.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Why are you ignoring the rest of the body of my posts?


[/ QUOTE ]

I was trying to engage Ben and multitable. What is you want to know? As to burden of proof, I can just claim you have the burden - the Bible has been around a long time, is something of a miraculous item in itself, and has been attested to by hundreds of millions, many of them very "smart" people. So who gets to set the burden?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Science can NEVER prove


[/ QUOTE ]

You're right about science (man I love trolling these atheists), but you're wrong about probability - for much the same reason.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
As to burden of proof, I can just claim you have the burden - the Bible has been around a long time, is something of a miraculous item in itself, and has been attested to by hundreds of millions, many of them very "smart" people. So who gets to set the burden?

[/ QUOTE ]

But if you're trying to prove non-believers that these supernatural events actually occurred, you have to give them a reason to believe that the laws of physics did not apply in the past.

I'm not really asking you why you believe what you do (although I am curious). I'm more concerned with understanding how you can convince someone who doesn't already believe in the Bible. It seems as though this document is the only primary source that provides evidence to these claims. Most Christians have already conceded that much of the Bible is metaphorical/allegorical, so it seems that the best reason for believing in a literal miracle is that it is what Christians have traditionally believed.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

But if you're trying to prove non-believers that these supernatural events actually occurred, you have to give them a reason to believe that the laws of physics did not apply in the past.


[/ QUOTE ]

What I was trying to extract from you and Ben in my trollish ways is whether or not you admit the possibility of miracles. If you are a naturalist, as the Bible says, someone could return from the dead and you would not believe. If science is the only valid form of knowledge, and science only studies natural phenomenon, then science will never prove or disprove miracles.

[ QUOTE ]

Most Christians have already conceded that much of the Bible is metaphorical/allegorical


[/ QUOTE ]

You may be right concerning professing Christians. Some of them don't even believe God exists or that there's an afterlife, so the word Christian is mostly meaningless.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Science can NEVER prove


[/ QUOTE ]

You're right about science (man I love trolling these atheists), but you're wrong about probability - for much the same reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, what would HE know about probability?

Seriously... It seems you are incorporating probability in the same vein as someone who jokes that flopping a set is 50/50. Either you will, or you won't. So too, it seems you relate probabilities to biblical miracles. Either they happened, or they didn't. And you choose to believe they did.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. The probability of a miracle having occured is NOT zero. It never will be. Not as long as you are using math. But if you ARE using math, then you have to acknowledge that the more spectacular the miracle, the less likely it actually ocurred. It doesn't mean it didn't, but if you think it's more likely than not to have occured, YOU are the one who is wrong about probability.

As I've always said, what it comes down to is faith. Just admit it. You believe these things based on faith. Not because they are likely to have occured, but because you choose to believe (have faith), that they did. Say that, and there's nothing left for argument.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

It seems you are incorporating probability


[/ QUOTE ]

I am?

[ QUOTE ]

The probability of a miracle having ocurred is NOT zero.


[/ QUOTE ]

Miracles don't occur. They are performed.

[ QUOTE ]

As I've always said, what it comes down to is faith. Just admit it


[/ QUOTE ]

Faith is involved on both sides, but evidence is also involved. Can you admit that?

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

What I was trying to extract from you and Ben in my trollish ways is whether or not you admit the possibility of miracles. If you are a naturalist, as the Bible says, someone could return from the dead and you would not believe. If science is the only valid form of knowledge, and science only studies natural phenomenon, then science will never prove or disprove miracles.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am most certainly open to the possibility although I have to admit I'm not exactly sure what would qualify as evidence to me. I would most certainly need more than a document though. A first hand account with sufficient testing would probably do it, but I realize that this is not possible for the notion of past miracles.

I was just trying to ask you how you prove to someone that miracles have occurred when they don't already believe in the supernatural. It is a very bold claim.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Most Christians have already conceded that much of the Bible is metaphorical/allegorical


[/ QUOTE ]

You may be right concerning professing Christians. Some of them don't even believe God exists or that there's an afterlife, so the word Christian is mostly meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I meant by that bit was that if your only evidence is the Bible, you come to a problem. There is no authority that delineates what is literally true in the Bible and what is not. So it is hard to point to a passage and say that it happened because there is so much disagreement within the Christian community.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I was just trying to ask you how you prove to someone that miracles have occurred when they don't already believe in the supernatural. It is a very bold claim.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't claim to be able to prove something to someone who denies the possibility.

[ QUOTE ]

What I meant by that bit was that if your only evidence is the Bible, you come to a problem.


[/ QUOTE ]

My evidence is everything because back of everything is the miracle of existence, human reason and life. The Bible gets more specific. And yes faith is required. But faith is also required to believe it all happened by accident.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I was just trying to ask you how you prove to someone that miracles have occurred when they don't already believe in the supernatural. It is a very bold claim.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't claim to be able to prove something to someone who denies the possibility.


[/ QUOTE ]

But what about someone who says it's possible but very unlikely given what he knows? What can you do to convince him that it's more likely than he thinks? You seem to be saying that you can only convince believers.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

What I meant by that bit was that if your only evidence is the Bible, you come to a problem.


[/ QUOTE ]

My evidence is everything because back of everything is the miracle of existence, human reason and life. The Bible gets more specific.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I understand this. Could you rephrase it maybe? I was saying that if you only have one source you have to work extra hard to show that this source is extremely accurate. And my whole point was that not even 'believers' seem to agree on what it says.

[ QUOTE ]
And yes faith is required. But faith is also required to believe it all happened by accident.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about those of us who claim that we genuinely don't know how it all happened? What evidence would you give them to sway their opinion.

Trust me, I get what you're saying. Many people don't want to know and don't want to hear you out. But what about people who are on the fence? What do you say to them?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

But what about someone who says it's possible but very unlikely given what he knows? What can you do to convince him that it's more likely than he thinks?


[/ QUOTE ]

All I can do is what I've been doing on this forum - provide arguments, point to evidence, answer questions. The Bible says that God makes Himself known to all, that the heavens are telling of the glory of God, and many other passages. All I can do is remind someone of what they already know deep down. I can't overcome unbelief.

[ QUOTE ]

I was saying that if you only have one source


[/ QUOTE ]

The Bible isn't really just one source, it's a collection of many books written over a long period of time by many different authors. There are many reasons to trust it which are too numerous to go into here. Other sources are what I mentioned above - arguments, etc. I've never seen the relevance of the argument that there is disagreement over the Bible. If you read it you would expect disagreement as the Bible itself talks about that subject. If it's God's Word it will be true, and it promises that you can come to know the truth.

[ QUOTE ]

Many people don't want to know and don't want to hear you out. But what about people who are on the fence? What do you say to them?


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, what I've been doing on this forum. And there are many, many resources that will help with specific problems. You think the Bible has errors? There are whole libraries that deal with that issue. You think the Bible contradicts science? Again, I don't think it does but to show that can require much serious investigation.

Up til now in this thread I've been trying to show that the naturalist explanation is inadequate and irrational. If you can see that you've already taken the first step to admitting the possibility of miracles (defined as God's special intervention in nature), if you admit that you've admitted to God, and so on. In the end it's a question of faith - I can't give that to anyone, but God can.

I believe the Bible as a system, a worldview, fits the facts of experience and history far more closely than any other worldview. I think only on the concepts in the Bible can reason, morality and science be justified - that any nontheistic worldview destroys the possibility of knowledge. No atheistic system can justify reason, etc.

[David Sklansky]

"My evidence is everything because back of everything is the miracle of existence, human reason and life. The Bible gets more specific. And yes faith is required. But faith is also required to believe it all happened by accident."

The evidence you cite makes deism reasonable. It is also evidence that would make the beliefs of monotheists plausible. If it wasn't for the fact that those monotheists are specifying very specific miracles that there is no good reason to believe actually happened.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

there is no good reason to believe actually happened.


[/ QUOTE ]

What about my syllogism?

[m_the0ry]

NotReady: prove that every miracle is not the illusion of a miracle.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

NotReady: prove that every miracle is not the illusion of a miracle.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can't. I can't even prove I'm typing this. Once again, faith is required.

[Taraz]

First I want to thank you for your contributions to this forum. I realize that it's tough for a theist to come in here and express his views, but I think it's necessary for any of us to actually learn anything. I still might reply to your longer post, but I don't have time to really think about it right now.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

NotReady: prove that every miracle is not the illusion of a miracle.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can't. I can't even prove I'm typing this. Once again, faith is required.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a HUGE concession. You're basically saying that one shouldn't reasonably believe in miracles until after they have acquired faith in God and the Bible.

I realize that you may retort that believing anything else requires faith as well. I would agree to a certain extent, but that doesn't change the fact that you must be convinced of Jesus's divinity before you can really believe in miracles.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I realize that you may retort that believing anything else requires faith as well.


[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't mean it as a retort, exactly. I believe all humans act and think in a religious mode, that we are continually presented with the claims of God and continually are making decisions in the religious area. I believe that atheism is a form of faith, that humans can't exclude faith so long as their brain is operational. If you deny God there are some monstrous whoppers you must believe instead, and that requires much faith.

[ QUOTE ]

but that doesn't change the fact that you must be convinced of Jesus's divinity before you can really believe in miracles.


[/ QUOTE ]

At a minimum you must believe in the possibility of a personal God to believe in miracles as they are traditionally defined. I suppose it's possible for a miracle to be one link in a conversion process, but I think you won't believe something is a miracle unless you believe in God. I think the divinity of Jesus is an important doctrine and that all genuine Christians, who are the least bit diligent, will eventually acknowledge it, but I don't think it is initially necessary. I just don't think you can proceed very far in Christianity without accepting it.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:

It seems you are incorporating probability




I am?


[/ QUOTE ]


If I misunderstood, and you admit your beliefs have nothing to do with probabilities, then never mind.


[ QUOTE ]
Miracles don't occur. They are performed.

[/ QUOTE ]


Was this quip just a filler to make your response look fuller? Once a miracle has been performed, it can be said to have , ocurred right? This type of stuff is going to make a liar out of me for saying you don't troll.


[ QUOTE ]
Faith is involved on both sides, but evidence is also involved. Can you admit that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, I'll admit that. Absolutely. Without question. Our only problem is that we are worlds away for just how much weight such evidence should be given.

I make the odds of a sea actually ever spontaneously parting at 5 quintillion to 1. And... I'll concede that the bible is in fact evidence of this, and am willing to reduce those odds to about 4.9 quintillion to 1.

The thing is, starting at 5 quintillion to 1, I'm going to need something a little more weighty than a 2000 year old book written by mortal men, in order to persuade me this actually happened. But I'm telling right now that I don't think it's impossible. I definitely don't put the odds at zero.

[edit:] I define faith as something you believe "despite" insufficient evidence or evidence to the contrary. For instance, if I choose to believe my wife will be faithful in the future, despite her being unfaithful in the past, then I am placing my "faith" in her that she will be faithful from here on out. This is different than believing the light will go on when I flick the 'on' switch. That's not faith. That's a rational belief based on prior results and evidence.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

If I misunderstood


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to respond to your post in one piece so no more quotes.

The reason I said miracles are performed is to distinguish them from odd things happening through cause and effect, to underscore that it is God who does miracles rather than that they just happen. This matters because of the issue of probability - I constantly challenge DS on his use of probability concerning the existence of God and miracles because probability can only make sense in naturalistic terms, calculations performed on the basis of empiricism and natural law. It's absurd to try to apply that principle to God, the Creator, the Absolute, Supernatural Being who operates according to no man's probability estimates - it's ridiculous.

That I needed to do that is evident from your attempt to calculate the probability of a sea spontaneously separating - it didn't separate spontaneously, God separated it. Please give me the formula for calculating the probability that God will decide to part the Red Sea.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm going to respond to your post


[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I had another thought on this. Bear with me cause I'm doing three things at once.

I can see using probability to determine the odds of something happening naturally, then if it's very unlikely, you might incline toward miracle.

The way I understand DS' use is that he questions the event in the first place on the basis of probability. If you grant the event occurred, fine, use probability to try to estimate the odds. But you can't use probability to determine whether it happened.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

NotReady: prove that every miracle is not the illusion of a miracle.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can't. I can't even prove I'm typing this. Once again, faith is required.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's dishonest to even hint at any equivalence between the "faith" required to believe in one's own existence and the faith necessary to believe that in XYZ B.C. Elijah called down fire from heaven to consume (http://nasb.scripturetext.com/2_kings/1.htm) precisely 102 soldiers. However, I see theists attempt this sort of sleight of hand all the time.

Really, there's an enormous amount of sophistication required to say anything useful about this issue...but it's very interesting. Also, bringing it up is easily the fastest way to assess someone's intellectual honesty. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

It's dishonest to even hint at any equivalence between the "faith" required to believe in one's own existence and the faith necessary to believe that in XYZ B.C.


[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't make it equivalent. The greater includes the lesser. And I have posted on the greater ad infinitum. If you were honest you would mention that.

[Subfallen]

I don't follow...how are you even suggesting that believing in one's own sentience requires "faith" at all? What do you mean, "The greater includes the lesser?"

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't follow...how are you even suggesting that believing in one's own sentience requires "faith" at all? What do you mean, "The greater includes the lesser?"


[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't referring to sentience but proving there is an external world. If I can't prove that how can I prove a miracle?

[Subfallen]

Meh...I'm not sure how useful it is to frame the problem as one of proving existence...the problems of language and consciousness alone provide too many hurdles for me to grasp anyways.

Or...maybe, too many hurdles for anybody...if Wittgenstein couldn't...

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure how useful it is to frame the problem as one of proving existence


[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe it was a bad example. I was just trying to make the point I can't prove a miracle. The issue of epistemology could occupy several other threads.

[Lestat]

I do see what you're saying. That the odds of water molecules somehow all behaving in such a way as to naturally part, have nothing to do with whether God decided to perform this miracle. And of course, you believe that if God decided to do so, He is certainly capable of it. Heck, if God exists, I'll say the same thing. So it comes down to what you said above. What are the odds that God would decide to do so? I think you win on that one.

But I also think you and David are talking apples and oranges. The question is not whether the miracle "could" have occured, but whether or not it "did" occur. I believe David is talking about the latter. If he's not, then I actually agree with you. Of course, I'll believe the Red Sea "could" have parted, if there is a God and He wanted to part it.

I just think the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of it never having parted. And for this, I use probability based on evidence. Water molecules have never been observed to behave that way. Science tells us that the life of the universe is far too short to ever expect them to behave that way. There is no physical evidence that the water of the Red Sea behaved that way thousands of years ago. There are no eye witness accounts that it ever happened. All we have is an almost 2000 year old book written by mortal men who said it did. That's just not enough. So I say the probability that the Red Sea ever actually parted is extraordinarily low.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I realize that you may retort that believing anything else requires faith as well.


[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't mean it as a retort, exactly. I believe all humans act and think in a religious mode, that we are continually presented with the claims of God and continually are making decisions in the religious area. I believe that atheism is a form of faith, that humans can't exclude faith so long as their brain is operational. If you deny God there are some monstrous whoppers you must believe instead, and that requires much faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is where you misunderstand many atheists/agnostics. There aren't monstrous whoppers that I believe instead of God. I believe I don't know a lot of things. I don't know why the universe exists, I don't know how human consciousness arose, I don't know why there are physical laws to the universe. My position, and the position of many atheists and agnostics, is that we don't find God to be a compelling answer to these questions. It's not that there is a better answer, it's that there is no good answer in my mind.

Yes, believing in God would explain these things, but I don't find the evidence for the God that you believe in to be very convincing. In my mind, there are better explanations for why most of humanity believes in God/Gods than that they actually exist.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

but that doesn't change the fact that you must be convinced of Jesus's divinity before you can really believe in miracles.


[/ QUOTE ]

At a minimum you must believe in the possibility of a personal God to believe in miracles as they are traditionally defined. I suppose it's possible for a miracle to be one link in a conversion process, but I think you won't believe something is a miracle unless you believe in God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again this is a huge concession because you shouldn't be surprised at all that atheists deny miracles and don't see why they should accept them. If I need to have faith before I believe in miracles you shouldn't be arguing about the validity of miracles with me. It would seem much more fruitful of a discussion to try to convince me why I should have faith, since I would need that before I even consider miracles.

[ QUOTE ]
I think the divinity of Jesus is an important doctrine and that all genuine Christians, who are the least bit diligent, will eventually acknowledge it, but I don't think it is initially necessary. I just don't think you can proceed very far in Christianity without accepting it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you mind explaining what it means to "get far" in Christianity?

Also, on a completely unrelated note, are you more upset by atheists or liberal Christians who believe Jesus was a great teacher and not God?

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">I think this is where you misunderstand many atheists/agnostics. There aren't monstrous whoppers that I believe instead of God. I believe I don't know a lot of things. I don't know why the universe exists, I don't know how human consciousness arose, I don't know why there are physical laws to the universe. My position, and the position of many atheists and agnostics, is that we don't find God to be a compelling answer to these questions. It's not that there is a better answer, it's that there is no good answer in my mind. </font>

This pretty much nails it for me. To the point where I'd happily sign my name to it.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The question is not whether the miracle "could" have occured, but whether or not it "did" occur.


[/ QUOTE ]

But this is the exact point at which you can't use probability to determine whether or not a miracle did occur. A miracle is supernatural, probability can only deal with the natural.

[ QUOTE ]

There are no eye witness accounts that it ever happened. All we have is an almost 2000 year old book written by mortal men who said it did.


[/ QUOTE ]

Heh, there were quite a few eye witnesses, millions, I think. Of course you won't accept them or any of the other testimonies in the Bible. So that raises the issue of the Bible as God's Word. A large topic.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">I think this is where you misunderstand many atheists/agnostics. There aren't monstrous whoppers that I believe instead of God. I believe I don't know a lot of things. I don't know why the universe exists, I don't know how human consciousness arose, I don't know why there are physical laws to the universe. My position, and the position of many atheists and agnostics, is that we don't find God to be a compelling answer to these questions. It's not that there is a better answer, it's that there is no good answer in my mind. </font>

This pretty much nails it for me. To the point where I'd happily sign my name to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is stronger if you use the words "Biblical God".

Also I was indeed talking about the probability that Biblical miracles "did" happen rather than "could" happen.

[m_the0ry]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

NotReady: prove that every miracle is not the illusion of a miracle.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can't. I can't even prove I'm typing this. Once again, faith is required.

[/ QUOTE ]

Follow up question,

Are you inerrant in determining which improbable scenarios are miracles and which are just pure chance, or is there some margin of error?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I believe I don't know a lot of things.


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, I can't wrangle with you about what's inside your head. I can say that your actions are probably not consistent with the statement you're making. Unless you admit to being irrational. Because you engage in logical discourse, you probably make moral judgments, you may even entertain future hopes, if you're a scientist you investigate the world as if it was there, and many more actions which can only be rational if:

If what?

But many people's fundamental beliefs are not formulated in a self-conscious way, so again I can't address your situation personally, but I can talk about them by inference.

[ QUOTE ]

It's not that there is a better answer, it's that there is no good answer in my mind.


[/ QUOTE ]

If by good answer you mean omniscient, total understanding then I can't help you. But I can make a rational case for God, the Bible and Christianity. That's what I try to do on this forum. If you have understood my arguments and reject them then that forms a part of your belief system, because when you reject a proposition you are expressing unbelief. "I don't know" in certain situations is not a neutral position if you ought to know. I'm not saying you ought to know at this point, but God says all are responsible because He reveals Himself to all. "I don't know" eventually equals "I don't accept". Again, not being personal, just telling you what I think the Bible indicates. God will not leave us alone, He will not allow neutrality - we are being saved or we are being condemned all along the timeline of our lives. There are no spiritual Switzerlands.

[ QUOTE ]

In my mind, there are better explanations for why most of humanity believes in God/Gods than that they actually exist.


[/ QUOTE ]


There are many false religions and false gods. That man is a religious being should cause at least some curiosity beyond just chalking it up to evolution.

[ QUOTE ]

Would you mind explaining what it means to "get far" in Christianity?


[/ QUOTE ]

I meant that when someone becomes a Christian he enters into discipleship which involves progress in becoming like Christ. That involves learning and practicing. To deny the divinity of Christ is to deny a major doctrine of the Bible and I think it would hinder a Christian in his progress. I've never known a practicing Christian who does deny that Christ is God, though historically that heresy does exist, and is traditionally denounced as heresy. But I was just trying to emphasize the importance of the doctrine, I'm not trying to pronounce judgment on anyone.

[ QUOTE ]

are you more upset by atheists or liberal Christians who believe Jesus was a great teacher and not God?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not upset by either. I'm concerned to defend the Gospel and to impart whatever knowledge I have that may help anyone seeking the truth.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Also I was indeed talking about the probability that Biblical miracles "did" happen rather than "could" happen.


[/ QUOTE ]

Aha!

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Are you inerrant in determining which improbable scenarios are miracles and which are just pure chance, or is there some margin of error?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have much opinion about miracles that are not in the Bible. The Bible is inerrant in that respect.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">I think this is where you misunderstand many atheists/agnostics. There aren't monstrous whoppers that I believe instead of God. I believe I don't know a lot of things. I don't know why the universe exists, I don't know how human consciousness arose, I don't know why there are physical laws to the universe. My position, and the position of many atheists and agnostics, is that we don't find God to be a compelling answer to these questions. It's not that there is a better answer, it's that there is no good answer in my mind. </font>

This pretty much nails it for me. To the point where I'd happily sign my name to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is stronger if you use the words "Biblical God".


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I mean an omnipotent, benevolent, meddling God. A deistic God kind of makes sense to me, but I wouldn't say that there is compelling evidence.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Also I was indeed talking about the probability that Biblical miracles "did" happen rather than "could" happen.


[/ QUOTE ]

Aha!

[/ QUOTE ]

But it is important to keep in mind that if they "didn't" happen, your specific beliefs are incorrect.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

But it is important to keep in mind that if they "didn't" happen, your specific beliefs are incorrect.


[/ QUOTE ]

Paul beat you to it:

1 Corinthians 15:17

and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I believe I don't know a lot of things.


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, I can't wrangle with you about what's inside your head. I can say that your actions are probably not consistent with the statement you're making. Unless you admit to being irrational. Because you engage in logical discourse, you probably make moral judgments, you may even entertain future hopes, if you're a scientist you investigate the world as if it was there, and many more actions which can only be rational if:

If what?

But many people's fundamental beliefs are not formulated in a self-conscious way, so again I can't address your situation personally, but I can talk about them by inference.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are many questions that I believe I do know the answer to, so I don't see your point. I believe the world exists, I believe that some actions are better in certain situations than others (although I hesitate to call anything right or wrong), and I believe logical discourse can lead to understanding. I don't see how any of these things necessitates a belief in God.

Would you mind telling me which of my actions you are talking about that would mean that I have taken a position on God's existence? I don't need to have an answer for ultimate questions in order to function. I don't think that you can really have an answer for many of life's ultimate questions.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

It's not that there is a better answer, it's that there is no good answer in my mind.


[/ QUOTE ]

If by good answer you mean omniscient, total understanding then I can't help you. But I can make a rational case for God, the Bible and Christianity. That's what I try to do on this forum. If you have understood my arguments and reject them then that forms a part of your belief system, because when you reject a proposition you are expressing unbelief.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true, I don't believe in the God you are proposing. I don't think your arguments for the Bible and Christianity are compelling. This does not mean, however, that I believe I know the answer to questions that believing in God would take care of. This is important. They are two separate things. I don't believe in the God you believe in. I can't explain why many things that you attribute to him have happened, but I don't have an alternate theory. I just don't think your theory/claim is a satisfactory answer.

[ QUOTE ]
"I don't know" in certain situations is not a neutral position if you ought to know. I'm not saying you ought to know at this point, but God says all are responsible because He reveals Himself to all. "I don't know" eventually equals "I don't accept". Again, not being personal, just telling you what I think the Bible indicates. God will not leave us alone, He will not allow neutrality - we are being saved or we are being condemned all along the timeline of our lives. There are no spiritual Switzerlands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I'm not claiming a neutral position on whether your God exists. I'm claiming a neutral position on the question of who created the universe and why we are here. Completely different.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

In my mind, there are better explanations for why most of humanity believes in God/Gods than that they actually exist.


[/ QUOTE ]


There are many false religions and false gods. That man is a religious being should cause at least some curiosity beyond just chalking it up to evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that their are and have been "false" religions and Gods is one of the reasons I tend to disbelieve in your conception of God.

And I am intensely fascinated by religious thinking. I think it's much, much more complex than simple biological evolution. I probably differ from some other non-believers on this question though. I assure you that I have studied, discussed, and read about many, many religions.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Would you mind explaining what it means to "get far" in Christianity?


[/ QUOTE ]

I meant that when someone becomes a Christian he enters into discipleship which involves progress in becoming like Christ. That involves learning and practicing. To deny the divinity of Christ is to deny a major doctrine of the Bible and I think it would hinder a Christian in his progress. I've never known a practicing Christian who does deny that Christ is God, though historically that heresy does exist, and is traditionally denounced as heresy. But I was just trying to emphasize the importance of the doctrine, I'm not trying to pronounce judgment on anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Understood. I wasn't quite sure what you meant.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

are you more upset by atheists or liberal Christians who believe Jesus was a great teacher and not God?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not upset by either. I'm concerned to defend the Gospel and to impart whatever knowledge I have that may help anyone seeking the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe upset was the wrong word choice. Perhaps 'frustrated' would be more appropriate. I was just curious as to who you think does more damage to Christianity, the believer who gets things wrong or the atheist who attacks the religion.

For me personally, I am much more frustrated/upset/disappointed by atheists who overstate their claims and needlessly rail against religion than most others. It irks me because I believe they are trying to make some of the same points I am, but they are doing a piss poor job of it. I thought you might feel similarly about liberal theists think Jesus was "just a man".

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But it is important to keep in mind that if they "didn't" happen, your specific beliefs are incorrect.


[/ QUOTE ]

Paul beat you to it:

1 Corinthians 15:17

and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that from your point of view, the distinction between the probability that miracles could occur, compared to did occur, is pretty irrelevant.

Meanwhile if there is a God out there, who enjoys your eloquent arguments that he must be out there, but who is simultaneously of a tad different form than you think, you constantly exasperate him with quotes like the one above.

Also, does the Pope's silly statements about you, make you reflect on the wiseness of moving slightly toward a more generic Christianity rather than sounding like him?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't see how any of these things necessitates a belief in God.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't believe that God exists then you must not believe in an Absolute Person. That usually means naturalism, which I will use, and I believe that even if you object to that word, whatever position you take if you exclude God as I defined, there's no real distinction from naturalism.

So naturalism means the universe is all there is. That means that either chance or impersonality is ultimate. Either position is the same for the purposes of this argument. But on the basis of naturalism defined that way you can't justify logic, morality or even science. Nor can there be purpose or meaning to existence. But no one really lives as if they reject all these things. Even people we might consider completely evil operated with assumptions of morality, etc. Hitler was angry at those who tried to assassinate him. A completely irrational position on a naturalistic assumption. I'm not claiming Hitler was a naturalist, just using that for illustration.

Naturalism is basically irrational or nonrational. But, to sum up, people act as if the universe is rational, morality makes sense, life has meaning and purpose. If God doesn't exist, the universe doesn't make sense. I can't prove it does make sense, but few people actually live consistently with that belief.

[ QUOTE ]

Would you mind telling me which of my actions you are talking about that would mean that I have taken a position on God's existence?


[/ QUOTE ]

When you say "I don't know" you're saying that God hasn't revealed Himself. As I said, perhaps He hasn't to you yet, I don't want to make this personal. But the Bible says He does reveal Himself to all, that all of existence testifies to Him and glorifies Him. He doesn't allow room for "I don't know", at least not as a final position. And in view of what you say later, you've gone beyond "I don't know" with respect to the God of the Bible.

[ QUOTE ]

I can't explain why many things that you attribute to him have happened, but I don't have an alternate theory. I just don't think your theory/claim is a satisfactory answer.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to judge you in your current situation. Your status with God is between you and Him. I can only tell you that you should be aware what His Word says about His own revelation through His Word and through His creation.

[ QUOTE ]

Again, I'm not claiming a neutral position on whether your God exists. I'm claiming a neutral position on the question of who created the universe and why we are here. Completely different.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think that says a lot. You admit you aren't neutral toward the God of the Bible. That's the point I was making.

[ QUOTE ]

Perhaps 'frustrated' would be more appropriate.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, Christians, some genuine, some not, can hurt Christianity. Isn't the most common objection "Oh, you're just a bunch of hypocrites"? Who did Jesus berate and accuse the most? Religious hypocrites.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The point is that from your point of view, the distinction between the probability that miracles could occur, compared to did occur, is pretty irrelevant.


[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't though because if you deny their possibility there's nothing else to discuss about their actuality. And it can't be decided on the basis of probability.

[ QUOTE ]

you constantly exasperate him with quotes like the one above.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why doesn't He tell me that?

[ QUOTE ]

Also, does the Pope's silly statements about you


[/ QUOTE ]

I missed it. What did he say?

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

If you don't believe that God exists then you must not believe in an Absolute Person.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not familiar with the phrase "absolute person", what does that refer to?

[ QUOTE ]

So naturalism means the universe is all there is.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I'm saying that I don't know whether or not the universe is all that there is. I don't even think we can know whether it is all that there is.

[ QUOTE ]

Naturalism is basically irrational or nonrational. But, to sum up, people act as if the universe is rational, morality makes sense, life has meaning and purpose. If God doesn't exist, the universe doesn't make sense. I can't prove it does make sense, but few people actually live consistently with that belief.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I just don't agree that the universe doesn't make sense without God. I'm sure many people agree with me. But I think that's an argument for a different thread. I guess I would just say that I don't think the universe is rational, morality makes sense if you live in contact with other people, and the meaning and purpose of life is whatever you wish to make of it. I know you disagree with all these positions, but they make internal sense to me. I'm just trying to show you that many of us don't see any conflict here. I know you do, so we should probably continue this particular aspect of the discussion at a later time.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Again, I'm not claiming a neutral position on whether your God exists. I'm claiming a neutral position on the question of who created the universe and why we are here. Completely different.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think that says a lot. You admit you aren't neutral toward the God of the Bible. That's the point I was making.


[/ QUOTE ]

I would readily concede that I don't believe in the God of the Bible as you conceive him. The point I'm making is that I don't believe in "monstrous whoppers" as an alternative. I believe that I don't know what is out there. I know that may not be good enough for some, but I don't think making a hasty decision is a good choice either.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Perhaps 'frustrated' would be more appropriate.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, Christians, some genuine, some not, can hurt Christianity. Isn't the most common objection "Oh, you're just a bunch of hypocrites"? Who did Jesus berate and accuse the most? Religious hypocrites.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was just curious as to how Christians see the situation. I didn't really mean to say, "Oh look how divided you are! Even amongst yourselves!!!" Like if I went around acting like PTB and go around preaching Jesus's "message" and not his divinity, what would you think about that? Would I just be misguided or do you feel like I'm doing harm to God's plan?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not familiar with the phrase "absolute person", what does that refer to?


[/ QUOTE ]

This is difficult to do piecemeal so perhaps another thread would be good.

[ QUOTE ]

Would I just be misguided or do you feel like I'm doing harm to God's plan?


[/ QUOTE ]

I can't judge PTB but I can say his message isn't Scriptural - and I'm not going to debate it with you if you're there, P. In one sense nothing can harm God's plan. But Christians should promote truth and counter error where possible.

[Taraz]

With respect to David's point, I think the disagreement between he and you hinges on a simple point.

David believes that if God could intervene he would have done so more often. We would have had more instances of him breaking the laws of physics and we would have evidence of them. I think he's trying to say that since God has only seemingly acted a couple times, he probably never acted at all.

You are saying that you can't put a probability on it because you can't know God's intentions. Maybe he hasn't needed to act in the past 2000 years.

I can kind of see both sides on this one, but I think I agree with you NotReady. I don't think probability is a good way of determining whether or not miracles occurred. I think it is more reasonable to say that since we have not witnessed any miracles in the past thousand years, I would need extraordinary evidence to convince me that they did occur. The Bible simply doesn't qualify as good enough evidence for me. However, debating this would lead to a protracted debate on the validity and historical accuracy of the Bible. Most of us aren't really equipped to have such a debate and it would probably take far longer than any of us are willing to devote to the task.

[Taraz]

NR, could you respond to this point please? It seems like you're ignoring it.

[ QUOTE ]

I would readily concede that I don't believe in the God of the Bible as you conceive him. The point I'm making is that I don't believe in "monstrous whoppers" as an alternative. I believe that I don't know what is out there. I know that may not be good enough for some, but I don't think making a hasty decision is a good choice either.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Alex-db]

Its an interesting assumption that human tendency towards morality to optimise living in communities suggests the existence of a Christian God.

Does our societies system of optimising production by tending towards capitalism suggest that the Christian God is a capitalist?

[ QUOTE ]
think this is where you misunderstand many atheists/agnostics. There aren't monstrous whoppers that I believe instead of God. I believe I don't know a lot of things. I don't know why the universe exists, I don't know how human consciousness arose, I don't know why there are physical laws to the universe. My position, and the position of many atheists and agnostics, is that we don't find God to be a compelling answer to these questions. It's not that there is a better answer, it's that there is no good answer in my mind.

This pretty much nails it for me. To the point where I'd happily sign my name to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is correct for me too, and so not knowing with certainty the entire basis for the framework for morality, but noticing that the choices are the intuitive; emergence from succesfully continuing societies, or the long-shot; the mythological basis, we choose the former.

There are commonly used philosophiocal cliches about knowing we don't know. NR used the phrase
[ QUOTE ]
The Bible is inerrant in that respect.

[/ QUOTE ]

and whatever it was in reference to, its a terribly closed-minded thing to say.

The atheist/scientific approach doesn't suffer from that shortcoming, and is continually revised to accept new information, such as if a miracle occured.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't believe that God exists then you must not believe in an Absolute Person. That usually means naturalism,

[/ QUOTE ]

NotReady, at least open your mind to the facts: most religions and religious people have been polytheists not monotheists. Why? Simply because polytheism makes more sense to explain the indisputably abominable side of godness!

[Lestat]

Ok, well let me ask you this...

Suppose I never wear seat belts when I drive, but for some reason I happened to put one on one day while driving to work. I get into a bad accident and all the doctors and experts say that if I didn't have my seat belt on, I would not have survived. If I were a believer, I might say this was a small miracle. If YOU were a believer, you might say the odds were quite likely that God intervened and made sure I wore a seatbelt that particular day.

Now suppose I arrive at my job at a machine shop. No one is around and I sever my arm off while operating some dangerous piece of equipment. I'm losing blood like crazy and pass out. When I come to, my arm is back in place and perfectly fine.

There's no question about the latter incident. If it occured, it MUST have been a miracle from God. But when you hear these two stories, which one are you most likely to believe as having occured? Having only my word to go on, would you not assess the latter miracle as being considerably less likely to have occured based on the fact that it is far more likely for divine intervention to have caused someone to put on a seat belt, than to have reattached a severed arm?

When deciding on whether or not to believe these two stories, do you not use probabilities? I.e., it is more likely (there have been more claims), of being guided by an inner voice from God, than of having an arm re-attached?

So we come full circle and you're right. It comes down to faith. Faith that the bible is correct. And yes, that is a large topic.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

NR, could you respond to this point please? It seems like you're ignoring it.


[/ QUOTE ]

You've said you don't believe in the God of the Bible. That logically means you hold an anti-theist position. That means the universe is ultimately irrational or non-rational, that there's no mind behind the universe. Yet you act as if logic, morality and science make sense and as if nature has order. This requires you to hold to self-contradictory positions about the universe - you must be both irrational and rational at the same time. That which appears to be designed isn't actually designed, that which has no inherent order can be made systematic by a finite mind. You must believe that though there is no purpose to the universe the lives of men have significance. You must believe that though there is no absolute standard for morality there is some logical reason for behaving morally. You must believe that though all is ultimately chaos it's possible to distinguish one fact from another fact.

I'm not saying every individual actually goes through these mental processes in a self-conscious way, but that they are logically inferred from anti-theism. It's easy to see why this is so. If God is ultimate Reason and the Creator of the universe to reject Him is to reject reason itself - what can remain except self-contradiction? To deny that He created the universe if He actually did create it is to attempt to rationalize what you first state is irrational, and to state it's possible for a contingent, finite creature to accomplish the task - quite a whopper. To reject the absolute standard of morality and then state there is such a thing as good and evil, right and wrong, is self-contradictory.

I didn't come up with this. The history of philosophy is a road map leading to the recognition that on any atheistic basis all is absurd, but then living as if reason and purpose actually have meaning and that the brute facts delivered to us by the "great blooming confusion" of ultimate "chaos and old night" can be rationally comprehended by the mind of a being that popped up out of nothing for no reason.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
You've said you don't believe in the God of the Bible. That logically means you hold an anti-theist position.

[/ QUOTE ]

ORLY

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Its an interesting assumption that human tendency towards morality to optimise living in communities suggests the existence of a Christian God.


[/ QUOTE ]

What I've said is that morality(oughtness) requires God - otherwise all you have is what you describe - pragmatism.

[ QUOTE ]

and whatever it was in reference to, its a terribly closed-minded thing to say.


[/ QUOTE ]

Miracles. You might notice that even Dawkins said something like "Some people's minds are so open their brains spill out on the floor".

[ QUOTE ]

The atheist/scientific approach doesn't suffer from that shortcoming, and is continually revised to accept new information, such as if a miracle occured.


[/ QUOTE ]

How open are you to that if you deny the possibility of miracles?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

If it occured, it MUST have been a miracle from God.


[/ QUOTE ]

Or friendly aliens. Or you dreamed the whole incident. Have you seen the movie Contact? At the end Foster is talked into believing her entire experience was just a hallucination. Sagan inadvertently answered his own questions about miracles.

[Alex-db]

We don't deny the possibility of miracles, we deny that there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable man to believe that something we would call a miracle has ever happened.

We could stumble across a slight definitional possibilty, because if a 'miracle' happens verifiably, it will be something that happened and we will look for the cause and mechanics behind it (a God perhaps?). But since it actually happened, that thing will be accepted as a part of naturalism, which might mean some people say its not a miracle. That isn't something I think we need to worry about btw.

[Alex-db]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

NR, could you respond to this point please? It seems like you're ignoring it.


[/ QUOTE ]

You've said you don't believe in the God of the Bible. That logically means you hold an anti-theist position. That means the universe is ultimately irrational or non-rational, that there's no mind behind the universe. Yet you act as if logic, morality and science make sense and as if nature has order. This requires you to hold to self-contradictory positions about the universe - you must be both irrational and rational at the same time. That which appears to be designed isn't actually designed, that which has no inherent order can be made systematic by a finite mind. You must believe that though there is no purpose to the universe the lives of men have significance. You must believe that though there is no absolute standard for morality there is some logical reason for behaving morally. You must believe that though all is ultimately chaos it's possible to distinguish one fact from another fact.

I'm not saying every individual actually goes through these mental processes in a self-conscious way, but that they are logically inferred from anti-theism. It's easy to see why this is so. If God is ultimate Reason and the Creator of the universe to reject Him is to reject reason itself - what can remain except self-contradiction? To deny that He created the universe if He actually did create it is to attempt to rationalize what you first state is irrational, and to state it's possible for a contingent, finite creature to accomplish the task - quite a whopper. To reject the absolute standard of morality and then state there is such a thing as good and evil, right and wrong, is self-contradictory.

I didn't come up with this. The history of philosophy is a road map leading to the recognition that on any atheistic basis all is absurd, but then living as if reason and purpose actually have meaning and that the brute facts delivered to us by the "great blooming confusion" of ultimate "chaos and old night" can be rationally comprehended by the mind of a being that popped up out of nothing for no reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

This looks full of logical errors, but some depend on your definition of rational. I took it to mean things which stem from laws of physics etc. So a naturalist believing rivers will flow downhill on any similar planet is believing in a rational universe.

I would argue that to be a theist is to believe in an irrational or non-rational universe. Theists suggest that a God frequenty contradicts logic to manipulate the universe towards events that would not happen in our rational expectations.

This means the anti-theist position is not self-contradictory.

[ QUOTE ]
That which appears to be designed isn't actually designed, that which has no inherent order can be made systematic by a finite mind. You must believe that though there is no purpose to the universe the lives of men have significance

[/ QUOTE ]

Who thinks it appears designed? Who thinks lives of men ultimately have significance?

It is easy and not a contradiction to believe this:
[ QUOTE ]
You must believe that though there is no absolute standard for morality there is some logical reason for behaving morally

[/ QUOTE ]

It is interesting to see this purported atheist belief system; it feels like theist propaganda and can't make sense if it is analysed intellectually.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You must believe that though there is no absolute standard for morality there is some logical reason for behaving morally


[/ QUOTE ]

It is interesting to see this purported atheist belief system; it feels like theist propaganda and can't make sense if it is analysed intellectually.


[/ QUOTE ]

NR seems to believe that if he makes that same argument often enough, eventually it will hold water.

It is just a more polished version of SAR's argument that "atheists have no reason not to rape, steal and kill".

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
You must believe that though there is no absolute standard for morality there is some evolutionarily selective reason for behaving morally...

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP.

There is nothing "absolute" about rationality, logic, or morality. Something is rational if it meets our subjective standards for rationality. Something is logical if it satisfies our definitions of logical rigor. Something is moral if it coincides with our ethical intuitions.

Of course, our standards for rationality, our definitions of logical rigor, and our moral intuitions are all derived from thousands of years of human interaction with reality. So in a way, I guess this is as "absolute" a source of truth as one can imagine.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

You've said you don't believe in the God of the Bible. That logically means you hold an anti-theist position.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is somewhat true. I think it is highly unlikely that the God of the Bible as you describe him exists. I am more sympathetic to deism, but I realize that there isn't much satisfactory evidence for that belief either.

[ QUOTE ]
That means the universe is ultimately irrational or non-rational, that there's no mind behind the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

The universe maybe be irrational or non-rational, I DON"T KNOW and I don't think it's necessary to hold a strong opinion on that to function in this world.

[ QUOTE ]
Yet you act as if logic, morality and science make sense and as if nature has order. This requires you to hold to self-contradictory positions about the universe - you must be both irrational and rational at the same time.

[/ QUOTE ]

One point that you're missing is that just because these things make sense to humanity doesn't mean they make sense ultimately. Just because they make sense in a human society doesn't mean they would make sense for an alien society or for the entire universe.

[ QUOTE ]
That which appears to be designed isn't actually designed, that which has no inherent order can be made systematic by a finite mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Evolution provides more answers to me on the design question than theism does. It is not yet a complete picture of how things have happened, but it is an extremely elegant mechanism.

[ QUOTE ]
You must believe that though there is no purpose to the universe the lives of men have significance.

[/ QUOTE ]

There might be a purpose to the universe, I DON'T KNOW. But, for me, the lives of men have significance because they influence the lives of other men. Your actions have consequences for those around. That is significant to me.

[ QUOTE ]
You must believe that though there is no absolute standard for morality there is some logical reason for behaving morally.

[/ QUOTE ]

There might be some absolute standard for morality, I DON'T KNOW. A logical reason for acting morally is because it would be better to live in a society where people behave morally instead of one where people do not behave morally.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying every individual actually goes through these mental processes in a self-conscious way, but that they are logically inferred from anti-theism. It's easy to see why this is so.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are making the common error of assuming that an absence of belief is disbelief. It's true that I don't believe in the God that you paint for us. But I don't hold a strong belief about where everything came from, or if there is an absolute in this universe.

[ QUOTE ]
If God is ultimate Reason and the Creator of the universe to reject Him is to reject reason itself - what can remain except self-contradiction?

[/ QUOTE ]

And what if God isn't ultimate Reason and the Creator of the universe? Then everything is meaningless? You remind me of Dostoevsky. Other philosophers have dealt with this objection.

[ QUOTE ]
To reject the absolute standard of morality and then state there is such a thing as good and evil, right and wrong, is self-contradictory.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've previously stated in this thread that "I believe the world exists, I believe that some actions are better in certain situations than others (although I hesitate to call anything right or wrong)".

[ QUOTE ]

I didn't come up with this. The history of philosophy is a road map leading to the recognition that on any atheistic basis all is absurd

[/ QUOTE ]

Many philosophers have disagreed with this position. Don't act like the argument is settled.

[ QUOTE ]
but then living as if reason and purpose actually have meaning and that the brute facts delivered to us by the "great blooming confusion" of ultimate "chaos and old night" can be rationally comprehended by the mind of a being that popped up out of nothing for no reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

One more time, I DON'T KNOW if reason and purpose have ultimate meaning, I DON'T KNOW if we popped out of nothing, I don't NEED to know these things in order to live my life. What I do know is that the God of the Bible that you espouse isn't intellectually satisfying to me. I tend to deny that specific possibility, but I have chosen to reserve judgment on these ultimate questions until I find a better answer. Perhaps this answer may not come, but I'm willing to live with that. Perhaps it is also the case that your God hasn't revealed himself to me. It is certainly a possibility, although one that I find remote.

[Subfallen]

Excellent posts in this thread Taraz, very nicely done.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
Excellent posts in this thread Taraz, very nicely done.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you. I guess now is as good a time as any to say that I don't think we should seek the abolition of religion like many atheists do. I think religion has a lot to offer people, but I think we should all work to emphasize that nobody has the answers to many of life's questions. Religion should also be open to intense criticism and revision like everything else. I know many on both sides think that revising religion is tantamount to saying it's 'false' or 'wrong' but that all depends on what purpose religion serves for you.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The universe maybe be irrational or non-rational, I DON"T KNOW and I don't think it's necessary to hold a strong opinion on that to function in this world.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hitler functioned. Cockroaches function. Unless you withdraw completely from making moral and logical judgments you have to think past that. Otherwise you are left with pragmatism, which is what I've said many times before is the only logical conclusion to non-theism.

[ QUOTE ]

One point that you're missing is that just because these things make sense to humanity doesn't mean they make sense ultimately. Just because they make sense in a human society doesn't mean they would make sense for an alien society or for the entire universe.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you deny that there is ultimate purpose and meaning to or in or for the universe you can't save meaning for anything within the universe. Yes, you can maintain your life has meaning for you. And so we have 6 billion different concepts of meaning. That sounds like chaos to me. And how can you have significant communication on any important level with anyone else? The only way is to ignore your basic concept of meaninglessness and act as if there actually is purpose. Some of the existentialists, the high-priests of nihilism, engaged in radical social and political involvement. Most people can't really be consistent non-theists. As I said earlier, you have to be irrational and rational at the same time.

[ QUOTE ]

Evolution provides more answers to me on the design question than theism does


[/ QUOTE ]

Though I seriously doubt evolution it doesn't preclude design.

[ QUOTE ]

It is not yet a complete picture of how things have happened, but it is an extremely elegant mechanism


[/ QUOTE ]

If evolution is true and is elegant then it was designed.

[ QUOTE ]

That is significant to me.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and that's good. But you can't justify that significance in an ultimately meaningless universe.

[ QUOTE ]

A logical reason for acting morally is because it would be better to live in a society where people behave morally instead of one where people do not behave morally.


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it is, but why should you go along with it?

[ QUOTE ]

But I don't hold a strong belief about where everything came from, or if there is an absolute in this universe.


[/ QUOTE ]

You may not formulate it that way but your beliefs about these things are strong in the sense that they make a fundamental difference in how you live.

[ QUOTE ]

And what if God isn't ultimate Reason and the Creator of the universe? Then everything is meaningless? You remind me of Dostoevsky. Other philosophers have dealt with this objection


[/ QUOTE ]

Dos. was right. If God is dead all is permitted. I haven't seen an answer to that yet.

[ QUOTE ]

I've previously stated in this thread that "I believe the world exists, I believe that some actions are better in certain situations than others (although I hesitate to call anything right or wrong)".


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but you haven't justified it. Why shouldn't I lie, steal and murder? Those actions may well be better for me in certain situations.

[ QUOTE ]

Many philosophers have disagreed with this position. Don't act like the argument is settled.


[/ QUOTE ]

They may disagree but they haven't shown how to avoid nihilism on an atheistic worldview.

[ QUOTE ]

Perhaps it is also the case that your God hasn't revealed himself to me. It is certainly a possibility, although one that I find remote.


[/ QUOTE ]

One thing I find helpful is to go outside on a clear, moonless night and look up.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

We don't deny the possibility of miracles
...
that thing will be accepted as a part of naturalism,


[/ QUOTE ]

I can't quite reconcile these two.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Theists suggest that a God frequenty contradicts logic to manipulate the universe towards events that would not happen in our rational expectations


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think God contradicts pure logic but He certainly isn't bound by what we think are rational expectations.

[ QUOTE ]

Who thinks it appears designed?


[/ QUOTE ]

Dawkins.

[ QUOTE ]

Who thinks lives of men ultimately have significance?


[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't think so there's little left to discuss.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Something is rational if it meets our subjective standards for rationality. Something is logical if it satisfies our definitions of logical rigor. Something is moral if it coincides with our ethical intuitions.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Plenty of people on this forum have stated what you do about morality but I can't recall anyone saying it about rationality and logic. Wow.

Does tend to prove my point though.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but you haven't justified it. Why shouldn't I lie, steal and murder? Those actions may well be better for me in certain situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why the prisons are full of christians. Obviously many do think that way. oh, well, the good times are coming for them, seeing they buggered up this opportunity.

luckyme

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You must believe that though there is no absolute standard for morality there is some evolutionarily selective reason for behaving morally...

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP.

There is nothing "absolute" about rationality, logic, or morality. Something is rational if it meets our subjective standards for rationality. Something is logical if it satisfies our definitions of logical rigor. Something is moral if it coincides with our ethical intuitions.

Of course, our standards for rationality, our definitions of logical rigor, and our moral intuitions are all derived from thousands of years of human interaction with reality. So in a way, I guess this is as "absolute" a source of truth as one can imagine.

[/ QUOTE ]

you're getting WAY ahead of NR with this. He tells there's no reason he wouldn't be a pyschopath if evolution is true, now you want him to realize that logic and rationality are on the table too.

That's way cruel, luckyme

[NotReady]

That's why the prisons are full of parolee hopefuls

FYP

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Something is rational if it meets our subjective standards for rationality. Something is logical if it satisfies our definitions of logical rigor. Something is moral if it coincides with our ethical intuitions.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Plenty of people on this forum have stated what you do about morality but I can't recall anyone saying it about rationality and logic. Wow.

Does tend to prove my point though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which of your points are you saying this proves?

Anyways, I'm just stating the obvious: morality, reason, logic are all meaningless except through their relation to human consciousness. Attempt to define a morality for earthworms or a logic for small boulders or a rational schema for shades of purple...you get the point.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
That is significant to me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, and that's good. But you can't justify that significance in an ultimately meaningless universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Existential meaning does not need logical justification; it only needs subjective justification.

There is nothing else. If I experience my life as meaningful, then it is meaningful in the only sense that matters...or makes sense.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Which of your points are you saying this proves?


[/ QUOTE ]

That without God there is no meaning.

[ QUOTE ]

Attempt to define a morality for earthworms or a logic for
small boulders or a rational schema for shades of purple...you get the point.


[/ QUOTE ]

Morality doesn't apply to non-sentients. But I assure you there is nothing so small that is excluded from God's plan. "All the hairs of your head are numbered".

[Subfallen]

Thought experiment on source of meaning...

We are allowed to split the universe into two separate timelines and watch a young woman fresh out of college live two different lives.

In the first, she will be preached the Gospel, and then blinded and locked in a suitcase-sized cell for the rest of her life. An intravenous drip for nutrients and a automated colostomy bag will be her only interface to the world.

In the second, she will never hear the Gospel, but will be happily married, have two well-adjusted children, and---marvel of marvels---find a cure for AIDS.

Which timeline will provide a more meaningful life? Show your work and justify your answer for full credit.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

Hitler functioned. Cockroaches function. Unless you withdraw completely from making moral and logical judgments you have to think past that. Otherwise you are left with pragmatism, which is what I've said many times before is the only logical conclusion to non-theism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not very familiar with pragmatism, maybe I would agree with its tenets.

[ QUOTE ]

If you deny that there is ultimate purpose and meaning to or in or for the universe you can't save meaning for anything within the universe. Yes, you can maintain your life has meaning for you. And so we have 6 billion different concepts of meaning.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't see that big of a problem with that. Of course everyone doesn't have the same concept of meaning because we communicate and share our ideas. But as it stands we definitely have thousands of concepts of meaning in this world already.

[ QUOTE ]
And how can you have significant communication on any important level with anyone else? The only way is to ignore your basic concept of meaninglessness and act as if there actually is purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have significant communication by learning someone else's concept of meaning. This isn't hard to do because we have language and we all agree to use certain symbols. I really don't see a conflict here.

[ QUOTE ]

Though I seriously doubt evolution it doesn't preclude design.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would be fine with design if the design were evolution. I don't think that there is much good evidence for this, but I don't discount it as a possibility.

[ QUOTE ]

If evolution is true and is elegant then it was designed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily. One reason why evolution is so elegant is that it is all that there could be. The only species that we see are the only ones that could have lived given their environment.

[ QUOTE ]

Yes, and that's good. But you can't justify that significance in an ultimately meaningless universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see why I need to justify the meaning I see in life to anybody or anything else. I can share my views and others are free to accept or reject them. I will freely admit that what is significant to me might be meaningless to others. I would like to think that others agree with what I find significant however.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

A logical reason for acting morally is because it would be better to live in a society where people behave morally instead of one where people do not behave morally.


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it is, but why should you go along with it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because if you don't go along with it you are working to destroy this society. By acting counter to society's morality you are changing society's morality. If I want the moral code to stand, I abide by it's laws.

[ QUOTE ]

You may not formulate it that way but your beliefs about these things are strong in the sense that they make a fundamental difference in how you live.

[/ QUOTE ]

Example? It doesn't necessarily have to be my life, but what is an example of a difference it would potentially make.

[ QUOTE ]

Why shouldn't I lie, steal and murder? Those actions may well be better for me in certain situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe that lying, stealing, and murdering are always wrong. If a Nazi officer asks me if I'm hiding any Jews, I will always say that I'm not. If my family is being held hostage unless I steal a dollar from McDonald's I will steal that dollar. If a shooter is on a killing spree, I feel justified in killing him.

[ QUOTE ]

They may disagree but they haven't shown how to avoid nihilism on an atheistic worldview.


[/ QUOTE ]

Atheism is compatible with nihilism. But atheism is also compatible with relativism, pragmatism, objectivism, etc. Atheism doesn't lead to any view on morality, but it is compatible with many of them. If you are an atheist, you don't get your morals from atheism, they come from somewhere else. In fact, I could be an atheist and subscribe to the morality laid out in the Bible if I so felt.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

But as it stands we definitely have thousands of concepts of meaning in this world already.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think we've about exhausted this topic. In previous threads on this forum I have reached a point where someone asks "Why does there have to be absolute morality" or "Why does the universe have to have an ultimate meaning or purpose?"

Two of the apologists that influenced me the most dealt with this problem in one paragraph each. If someone asks that kind of question there's not much left to say. My argument is built on explaining why only a Christian worldview is rational and makes sense of the universe. If you reject the need for rationality, ultimate truth, meaning, purpose, then nothing I have to say will have any relevance to you.

The history of philosophy and theology is the search for truth, meaning and purpose. You are basically saying such things don't exist or that they don't matter. I have no real response to that position except to assert there is ultimate truth, meaning and purpose and they do matter.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But as it stands we definitely have thousands of concepts of meaning in this world already.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think we've about exhausted this topic. In previous threads on this forum I have reached a point where someone asks "Why does there have to be absolute morality" or "Why does the universe have to have an ultimate meaning or purpose?"

Two of the apologists that influenced me the most dealt with this problem in one paragraph each. If someone asks that kind of question there's not much left to say. My argument is built on explaining why only a Christian worldview is rational and makes sense of the universe. If you reject the need for rationality, ultimate truth, meaning, purpose, then nothing I have to say will have any relevance to you.

The history of philosophy and theology is the search for truth, meaning and purpose. You are basically saying such things don't exist or that they don't matter. I have no real response to that position except to assert there is ultimate truth, meaning and purpose and they do matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

There may be absolute truth, absolute meaning, and absolute purpose in life. I allow for that possibility. But, if these things exist, it is absolutely impossible for any of us to know them fully. The best we can do is make a good faith effort to produce some truth, meaning, and purpose. Perhaps we are all striving for the same thing, perhaps not. Maybe logic and science are simply yearnings for understanding God, but we can never know this God and we shouldn't claim to. We make our own meaning because that is all we can do.

My ultimate point is that we should act with humility and always assume that we probably have it wrong. Always keep searching and realize that what is good enough for you is not good enough for all.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

but we can never know this God and we shouldn't claim to.


[/ QUOTE ]

Do you see that this is a sweeping statement about ultimate truth and that it denies the possibility of God communicating to us? I know people here think I'm arrogant, that I pretend to know it all. If you read my posts closely I think you will find I never claim to know anything but what I've been taught, by other theologians, and especially by what God says in His Word. The Bible either is or isn't God's Word. If it is then what it says matters.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
Thought experiment on source of meaning...

We are allowed to split the universe into two separate timelines and watch a young woman fresh out of college live two different lives.

In the first, she will be preached the Gospel, and then blinded and locked in a suitcase-sized cell for the rest of her life. An intravenous drip for nutrients and a automated colostomy bag will be her only interface to the world.

In the second, she will never hear the Gospel, but will be happily married, have two well-adjusted children, and---marvel of marvels---find a cure for AIDS.

Which timeline will provide a more meaningful life? Show your work and justify your answer for full credit.

[/ QUOTE ]

And...? Since you're the one all about absolute meaning, you should have the most compelling answer to this dilemma, no?

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

but we can never know this God and we shouldn't claim to.


[/ QUOTE ]

Do you see that this is a sweeping statement about ultimate truth and that it denies the possibility of God communicating to us? I know people here think I'm arrogant, that I pretend to know it all. If you read my posts closely I think you will find I never claim to know anything but what I've been taught, by other theologians, and especially by what God says in His Word. The Bible either is or isn't God's Word. If it is then what it says matters.

[/ QUOTE ]

It denies the possibility of God communicating to us perfectly. I believe all would agree to that. The Bible may be the perfect word of God but humans have been trying to decipher it's meaning for thousands of years. We are still struggling to understand what it is really saying. Perhaps God gives us hints along the way, but what are we to do in the mean time but to try our best and come up with what we can?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Perhaps God gives us hints along the way, but what are we to do in the mean time but to try our best and come up with what we can?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's hard to understand:

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved".

Of course, there are passages in the Bible and concepts as well that are hard to understand. But I think the central message about God, us, sin and salvation is clear enough - even the famous divide between Catholic and Protestant over justification and salvation is more semantics than substance. Peter said "There are some things in Paul that are hard to understand" but there is clarity on the most important issues.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's hard to understand:

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved".

Of course, there are passages in the Bible and concepts as well that are hard to understand. But I think the central message about God, us, sin and salvation is clear enough - even the famous divide between Catholic and Protestant over justification and salvation is more semantics than substance. Peter said "There are some things in Paul that are hard to understand" but there is clarity on the most important issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

But even that phrase itself is open to a myriad of interpretations. Believe he died for your sins? Believe in his message and his teachings? Believe that he was a precursor to Muhammad? I assure you that many have read the Bible with utmost sincerity and have come to a different conclusion than you and many other Christians have.

And clearly you believe the semantics to be of tantamount importance.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

And clearly you believe the semantics to be of tantamount importance.


[/ QUOTE ]

I asked someone else once to do something, which he couldn't. See if you can:

Write a propositional statement that no one can mis-interpret.

What about this one:

Don't eat the fruit.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And clearly you believe the semantics to be of tantamount importance.


[/ QUOTE ]

I asked someone else once to do something, which he couldn't. See if you can:

Write a propositional statement that no one can mis-interpret.

What about this one:

Don't eat the fruit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great, I didn't!

And I can't conceive benevolence as making me guilty for the crimes of my ancestors. That is too obviously wrong for any being with a modicum of morality!

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thought experiment on source of meaning...

We are allowed to split the universe into two separate timelines and watch a young woman fresh out of college live two different lives.

In the first, she will be preached the Gospel, and then blinded and locked in a suitcase-sized cell for the rest of her life. An intravenous drip for nutrients and a automated colostomy bag will be her only interface to the world.

In the second, she will never hear the Gospel, but will be happily married, have two well-adjusted children, and---marvel of marvels---find a cure for AIDS.

Which timeline will provide a more meaningful life? Show your work and justify your answer for full credit.

[/ QUOTE ]

And...? Since you're the one all about absolute meaning, you should have the most compelling answer to this dilemma, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

WAITING.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And clearly you believe the semantics to be of tantamount importance.


[/ QUOTE ]

I asked someone else once to do something, which he couldn't. See if you can:

Write a propositional statement that no one can mis-interpret.

What about this one:

Don't eat the fruit.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's my entire point. You are assuming that people who don't believe the Bible are willfully turning their back on God, when the more likely answer is that they are unwittingly misinterpreting it. You then claim that these people are doomed for all of eternity.