Mock my theology here! :p

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
If I can just as you a very straight forward question:

What is it that causes you to step outside of your logic and arrive at an invisible being in the sky? I don't mean that in a snide way... Just that I'm sure you realize it is very illogical to believe that and more illogical still, to believe in any one specific god or religion . If you weren't logical in the first place, it would make sense. But given that you ARE logical, I don't understand. I guess what I'm trying to find out is, what makes a logical Jesus freak tick?

[/ QUOTE ]
I have avoided this question because it seems more theological than philosophical and perhaps not the most appropriate post for these forums. Since you ask though I will make an attempt at explaining my theological position (the core of which I believe is rational, the details irrational but forced on me). Just a warning to others though, the remainder of this post is not really philosophical - you may want to skip over it /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

I was an atheist until well into my adult years for essentially the same reasons as most people here. I have a scientific mind and upbringing and viewed the scientific method as the ultimate guide to truth (technically an approximation of the truth but still the best guide out there). I studied physics, pure maths and philosophy at University - post grad was all pure maths and during this time I came to regard mathematical truths and logical truths as even more trustworthy than scientific ones (I am also a platonist but that is for a different thread).

After graduating, I lived for another ten years or so as an atheist before identifying myself as first a theist and then a christian (although fairly clearly a heretical one). The reason for adopting theism was a rational one in my view, the rest was irrational but I have no rational way to choose a theology and have to do something. I have said before, but will stress here, I think my reason for being a theist is rational to me, but it would be irrational for anyone else to value the evidence highly.

There is one fact that I found myself presented with for which theism seems the best explanation. That fact is a personal experience with God - a purely internal and subjective "connection" but one that has occurred again and again and persisted over the last twenty years. Initially, of course, although I recognised it as meaningful in some sense I rejected any religious interpretation of it - I believed that I wanted there to be a God and had therefore subconsciously invented the feeling. I believed I had been societally conditioned to interpret these experiences in a religious way, but there were in fact biological reasons for it. I doubted that it was anything more than having a conversation in my head or remembering something pleasant. I spent fifteen years or so denying any "truth" to this feeling and assuming there was a scientific, although unknown to me, explanation. During all this time, I experienced and continue to experience this putative "connection with God" probably around twice a week. As far as I can remember though, it was with me on-and-off throughout several relationships, a few degrees, three jobs, etc, etc

After fifteen or so years of denying this connection I realised that it was a fact about the world that my philosophy needs to explain. Analysing it critically, I realised that I had come to believe this "thing" I connected with was God - not through any conscious choice it had just happened. Initially, this annoyed me as it was so irrational (I felt) and I knew I was an atheist, etc etc. The fact is, that no matter how I denied it consciously, I still believed it.

Now I acknowledge (still) that I may be wrong and that my earlier diagnosis may be correct - I may be deluded, culturally conditioned, whatever...But the best explanation for the world as I find it is to accept God's existence. Essentially, I have one fact to explain that you dont - namely this ongoing but purely subjective experience. Eventually, I realised that denying the truth of this is actually irrational - I know it to be true as surely as I know pythagoras' theorem to be true (obviously I dont mean that the method of knowing is the same, but the certainty is). I can think of all kinds of materialistic explanations and may well be wrong in my belief, but it is the best explanation I can find at the moment.

Having made the step to call myself a theist I undertook to also test this belief at every opportunity - after all most of my prerequisites for rational belief (which I outlined in a recent post) are missing so its rationality is clealy weak (although the belief is strong). It may be at some point that I will discover a better explanation and who knows - I may go back to being an atheist again. Nonetheless, for now it is rational for me to be a theist as that is the best explanation for the world as I find it.

For the rest (being a christian, etc, etc) this seems to me to be an irrational decision. Unfortunately, I have to adopt an irrational position here. After all, having realised I now believe in God, I have to relate to him in some way (even doing nothing is a theological choice) and I think there are very few rational methods for choosing which religion is "right". I read a bunch of things, talked to a bunch of people and decided to call myself a christian as it seemed "right" to me. This is clearly an irrational choice, but the best I can do.

I am still a rational, scientific person. Thus, I have a fairly scientific approach to theology - this is why I label myself a heretic. All this is clearly not philosophy but theology - nonetheless, just to complete the picture, some of the views I hold are:

The bible is not literally true. God inspired various prophets throughout the years - they did the best they could to write it down (being imperfect humans they screwed up a bit though) and holy books are a good guide to what god wants.

The bible has been edited, changed and interpreted predominantly by the church which has at times been a decidedly secular organisation, is also a human institution and thus is also imperfect. I reckon some of what's in the bible probably shouldnt be there, more likely I reckon we're missing bits.

God doesnt act directly in the world. I dont believe in intercessionary prayer, I believe in prayer as a source of inner strength.

God invented evolution (which I think is terribly clever) and made everything that way.

The biggest philosophical challenge to the theist position is the problem of evil.

God made us with free will even though he knew we would do bad things. This is prima facie evidence to me that God wants us to make ethical decisions. That the crux of being human is deciding what's right and what's wrong and acting accordingly.

I hope all that answers your question. Suffice it to say, I was dragged screaming and kicking to the theist position. Eventually though, I realised that it was the most reasonable explanation I could find. Also, I discovered I believed in God (rather than chose) and have been testing that belief ever since - that's why I think my theism is rational.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
God invented evolution...

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for an interesting read.

What do you consider to be the best example of two species where the first became the second through the process of natural evolution?

[atrifix]

Interesting stuff. You probably omitted this intentionally, but I'll risk it anyway: would you mind sharing exactly what this "connection" with God was?

Also note that you can't use logic for everything, as Godel showed. E.g., presumably there is some fact of the matter as to whether the continuum hypothesis is true or false--but both it and its denial are consistent with most mathematical systems.

[HLMencken]

Excellent post--thank you for sharing the source of your beliefs.

[chezlaw]

Nice post. In all important regards I dont see how this can be seen as illogical or irrational. I think this is the key:

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I discovered I believed in God (rather than chose)


[/ QUOTE ]

chez

[Lestat]

Possibly the most eloquent discription of one's position on theism I've heard. Thank you.

For the record, I don't feel there is anything wrong making decisions based on feel rather than fact. I've said before that taking a best guess in the absense of any proof whatsoever, is a strong evolutionary trait. Man would not have survived this far if he didn't have the ability to accept faith and act on things for which he has no proof. Anyway, excellent post.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
God invented evolution...

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for an interesting read.

What do you consider to be the best example of two species where the first became the second through the process of natural evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably that time I gave birth to a chicken.

Boy the creationists sure shut up when that happened.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Possibly the most eloquent discription of one's position on theism I've heard. Thank you.

For the record, I don't feel there is anything wrong making decisions based on feel rather than fact. I've said before that taking a best guess in the absense of any proof whatsoever, is a strong evolutionary trait. Man would not have survived this far if he didn't have the ability to accept faith and act on things for which he has no proof. Anyway, excellent post.

[/ QUOTE ]
Something I've been trying to say and probably not getting across is that rational theism as illustrated here is basically the same as rational atheism (this is true of all rational issues).

The only difference is that the rational theist believes in god - but thats a matter of fact not rationality.

chez

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
God invented evolution...

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for an interesting read.

What do you consider to be the best example of two species where the first became the second through the process of natural evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably that time I gave birth to a chicken.

Boy the creationists sure shut up when that happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

I won’t ask about the events leading up to that circumstance.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Probably that time I gave birth to a chicken.

Boy the creationists sure shut up when that happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

I won’t ask about the events leading up to that circumstance.

[/ QUOTE ]


As part of my fraternity hazing, I had to insert two pounds of scrambled eggs from the dining hall up my ass. I guess they weren't cooked enough.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Probably that time I gave birth to a chicken.

Boy the creationists sure shut up when that happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

I won’t ask about the events leading up to that circumstance.

[/ QUOTE ]


As part of my fraternity hazing, I had to insert two pounds of scrambled eggs from the dining hall up my ass. I guess they weren't cooked enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

That sort of material has no place on 2+2.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
What do you consider to be the best example of two species where the first became the second through the process of natural evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not my field and I have no specific example. My reading on the matter is restricted to "big picture" stuff rather than nuts and bolts. I believe it happens on the authority of people working in the field.

Another reason (more philosophical) I believe in evolutionary theory is that I cant see why it wouldnt happen. If you think about it - it is such an amazing and elegant explanation for complexity and purpose arising from simple things. I dont find it at odds with my theism at all - I think the idea of God just snapping his fingers and making people would be a human way to do it. Inventing evolution was a far cleverer way. (And theologically there is no problem with accepting this and having God guiding each of the "random" mutations, the natural selective pressures, etc etc to get what he wants. Random events are only random from within the universe.)

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
That fact is a personal experience with God - a purely internal and subjective "connection" but one that has occurred again and again and persisted over the last twenty years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you elaborate?

[Darryl_P]

Your story is eerily similar to mine. Thanks for sharing.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting stuff. You probably omitted this intentionally, but I'll risk it anyway: would you mind sharing exactly what this "connection" with God was?

Also note that you can't use logic for everything, as Godel showed. E.g., presumably there is some fact of the matter as to whether the continuum hypothesis is true or false--but both it and its denial are consistent with most mathematical systems.

[/ QUOTE ]
For the first - you're right I did omit it intentionally. There are two reasons for this - the first is that this is a philosophy forum and me "sharing my revelation" or something just seems out of place here (probably a certain fear as well I guess). The second reason is that I am very bad at explaining it - I have tried and failed several times. Suffice it to say it is very real to me and imo meaningless (or close to) to anyone else.

The statement on logic I agree with - I loved Godel's theorems (mathematical logic was my major interest in philosophy). I still get tangled up mentally trying to keep a grip on it all but it's worth the effort if anyone reading this hasnt read up on it.

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That fact is a personal experience with God - a purely internal and subjective "connection" but one that has occurred again and again and persisted over the last twenty years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you elaborate?

[/ QUOTE ]

God whispers in my ear too (at least that's the way I think of it.) This is bunny's thread though- he may think of it differently.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That fact is a personal experience with God - a purely internal and subjective "connection" but one that has occurred again and again and persisted over the last twenty years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you elaborate?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll give it a go later tonight (just got to work /images/graemlins/frown.gif) I dont know that it will be particularly eloquent though.

[madnak]

Why does the person feeling imply a God? Is it inconsistent with other extraphysical themes such as a universal order or harmony, benevolent spirits, a pantheon of Gods, or other alternatives to an omnipotent, personal God?

How do you choose which sections of the Bible to believe?

What specifically seemed more intuitive about Christianity than, say, Taoism or Buddhism or Hindu?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Why does the person feeling imply a God? Is it inconsistent with other extraphysical themes such as a universal order or harmony, benevolent spirits, a pantheon of Gods, or other alternatives to an omnipotent, personal God?

[/ QUOTE ]
It is inconsistent with those others yes. It doesnt logically imply a God in the strict sense, it is just that God is the best explanation I have.

[ QUOTE ]
How do you choose which sections of the Bible to believe?

What specifically seemed more intuitive about Christianity than, say, Taoism or Buddhism or Hindu?

[/ QUOTE ]
It seems this is theological ground and as such I do not claim to be rational or logical here - I cant think of a way to make such decisions rationally. What I do in all these cases is think about them lots, read books, talk to people and go with what feels right. I do try and ensure my conclusions are consistent with other rational beliefs I have - but IMO this process provides very loose guidelines to theology as it is such a woolly subject.

[MidGe]

bunny,

It is refreshing and gives some hope, to hear from a sensible theist.

Besides the personal god experience, you mentionned, which I have not had, I think I undertand the other motives for your decisions (hope, peace of mind etc..) and if you find it useful or beneficial, I would be the last one to object.

I have come to a different conclusion from you and, as you know, am a strong atheist. That being said, I would never denigrate or mock your position. At the very least you are not pushing some obscurantism down mine or others throats and you are very clear on the motivations for your choice. I thank you for this and wish you the best possible life.

With respect,


MidGe

[Gobgogbog]

This actually sounds remarkably similar to my wife's beliefs. She also calls herself a Christian. She arrived at her positions quite differently, though, having been raised religious (and then coming to her heretical position herself.)

[Lestat]

Of course, this is the gist of it. Whatever this personal experience was/is, it's your evidence for belief in God. That you realize this unexplained detail is irrational is exemplary.

I think a more important question for you to elaborate on (at least one I'd be more interested in), is by what means have you continued "testing" this belief. And what are the results from these tests that cause you to believe your conclusion is rational?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

first a theist and then a christian (although fairly clearly a heretical one).


[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you call yourself a Christian, why not just theist or even deist?

[ QUOTE ]

The bible has been ... changed


[/ QUOTE ]

Examples?

Have you noticed how much the atheists like this post? Though you state you are being irrational they seem to think your position is quite rational. Does this suggest anything?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

first a theist and then a christian (although fairly clearly a heretical one).


[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you call yourself a Christian, why not just theist or even deist?

[ QUOTE ]

The bible has been ... changed


[/ QUOTE ]

Examples?

Have you noticed how much the atheists like this post? Though you state you are being irrational they seem to think your position is quite rational. Does this suggest anything?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, its religon that is the really irrational bit.

chez

[Metric]

Very interesting. I wonder -- if you had not had access to the works of Christianity, etc., what sorts of "general beliefs" about the nature of God were you moving toward based only on your "general revelation?"

Perhaps this is the sort of thing that Paul had in mind when he wrote that God's nature was visible in some sense to all.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The bible has been ... changed


[/ QUOTE ]

Examples?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are multiple versions. Ergo, the Bible has been changed.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Though you state you are being irrational they seem to think your position is quite rational. Does this suggest anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

Firstly, he is not going outside of his lane. Religion in the faith lane, and science in the scientific lane, thus not guilty of obscurantism.

Secondly he does not use theological terror to try to convince others that he is right above all others.

I guess you could call him civilised and yet religious. Absolutely non-objectionable.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

There are multiple versions. Ergo, the Bible has been changed.


[/ QUOTE ]

Rotgut.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Absolutely non-objectionable.


[/ QUOTE ]

But Christian?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Absolutely non-objectionable.


[/ QUOTE ]

But Christian?

[/ QUOTE ]

If he says so... who am I to judge?

There are after all a dizzying number of groups believing different things calling themselves christians above alll others ... lol

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

who am I to judge?


[/ QUOTE ]

Now that's funny.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, this is the gist of it. Whatever this personal experience was/is, it's your evidence for belief in God. That you realize this unexplained detail is irrational is exemplary.

I think a more important question for you to elaborate on (at least one I'd be more interested in), is by what means have you continued "testing" this belief. And what are the results from these tests that cause you to believe your conclusion is rational?

[/ QUOTE ]
I test this as I test all my beliefs - by comparing it with others I hold and seeing if it is consistent. Also just being open to other explanations is a form of testing it I think - I acknowledge that I may be wrong, although I think I'm right. If another explanation turns out to be better, I guess I would abandon the belief - it's hard for me to say though as it is difficult to be objective about something fundamental.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

who am I to judge?


[/ QUOTE ]

Now that's funny.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the other hand, I have no difficulty in recognising and judging theological terrorism.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Very interesting. I wonder -- if you had not had access to the works of Christianity, etc., what sorts of "general beliefs" about the nature of God were you moving toward based only on your "general revelation?"

Perhaps this is the sort of thing that Paul had in mind when he wrote that God's nature was visible in some sense to all.

[/ QUOTE ]
Basically the theistic conception - all-good, all-powerful(?), all-knowing. Perhaps not the all-powerful bit I'm not really sure. I wouldnt claim to be able to answer this in any truly objective way obviously. I did read reasonably widely (eastern and western, islamic and christian etc...) but I'm from a western, christian culture so it wouldnt be a surprise one way or the other if Christianity gelled with my feelings.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Absolutely non-objectionable.


[/ QUOTE ]

But Christian?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not Christian, if Christianity most closely resembles his beliefs. If there are things he doesn't agree with, what would you have him do? Start his own religion? Is there nothing you do not question about Christianity?

This is why I think he is getting respect from atheists. He is thinking for himself. He admits (as do most atheists), that his position contains vulnerability. Only hardcore fundamentalists are self-important enough to think their position is infallible. That only they can be right, and only they have all the answers.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you call yourself a Christian, why not just theist or even deist?

[/ QUOTE ]
I read the bible and felt very comfortable with it (or what I got from it anyway). I felt like it was "right" and this was confirmed by speaking to ministers, other people of faith, etc. Within this post I have tried to limit myself to what can be rationally justified as I believe that is the point of a philosophy forum. My choosing Christianity over others is an irrational or faith based decision that I cannot argue rationally.

I attend church weekly, go to bible study and discuss the bible with my minister frequently (who clearly disagrees with me but also calls me a christian, although a misguided one /images/graemlins/tongue.gif). Perhaps I will eventually adopt a literalist interpretation of the bible rather than the allegorical one I do at this time.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The bible has been ... changed


[/ QUOTE ]

Examples?

[/ QUOTE ]
Again this is an irrationally derived belief of mine (if that means anything). I dont pretend to be an expert it just seems sensible to me. The example I would give is the discrepancy between Roman Catholic bibles and Protestant bibles. Either a bit has been added, or a bit has been taken away.

[ QUOTE ]
Have you noticed how much the atheists like this post? Though you state you are being irrational they seem to think your position is quite rational. Does this suggest anything?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think they are responding to the fact that I have clearly delineated where I believe I am rational and where I am irrational. Ultimately, I think theists and atheists struggle to talk to each other - the best that can be achieved imo is to have someone intelligently disagree with me as this helps me clarify what my beliefs are.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

There are multiple versions. Ergo, the Bible has been changed.


[/ QUOTE ]

Rotgut.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you care to explain? Are you claiming there are not different versions of the Bible? Or are you just claiming that yours is the "right" one, and it hasn't changed? Well, since a bunch of guys got together and voted on what was the word of God and what was not, that is. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Why not Christian,

[/ QUOTE ]

It was just a simple question. Does the word Christian have any content or not? What about the word God?

[ QUOTE ]

Only hardcore fundamentalists are self-important enough to think their position is infallible. That only they can be right, and only they have all the answers.


[/ QUOTE ]

This rant is far more arrongant than any fundamentalist I know of.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Absolutely non-objectionable.


[/ QUOTE ]

But Christian?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not Christian, if Christianity most closely resembles his beliefs. If there are things he doesn't agree with, what would you have him do? Start his own religion? Is there nothing you do not question about Christianity?

This is why I think he is getting respect from atheists. He is thinking for himself. He admits (as do most atheists), that his position contains vulnerability. Only hardcore fundamentalists are self-important enough to think their position is infallible. That only they can be right, and only they have all the answers.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it is a fair question to ask why I call myself Christian, then in the same breath challenge what is a fundamental belief of a lot of others who also call themselves Christian. It seems like a pointless claim I am making.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Within this post I have tried to limit myself to what can be rationally justified as I believe that is the point of a philosophy forum.


[/ QUOTE ]

First you shouldn't worry about this being a "philosophy" forum. Religion has been the main topic here since it's inception. I personally don't distinguish between theology and philosophy as I believe theology can be fairly classified as a type of philosophy, or even vice versa.

I do appreciate your post and the reason I asked is many call themselves Christian who aren't even close.

I do disagree with you on your implication that Christianity is irrational - as I've said before, I believe it's the only rational worldview - but that's another thread.

[ QUOTE ]

The example I would give is the discrepancy between Roman Catholic bibles and Protestant bibles


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe I'm nitpicking when I say you aren't distinguishing between translations and the original text. Most theologians believe the Bible is contained in the originals. As to the Apocrypha, I'm not real familiar with it, but I don't think anything in it changes any major doctrine, and the fact some Christians think it's Scripture doesn't make it so. Canonicity is also another thread.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
God invented evolution...

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for an interesting read.

What do you consider to be the best example of two species where the first became the second through the process of natural evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps I misunderstood the thrust of this question first time round. To clarify my views - I dont think a new species popped fully formed from an old one. I think there was a slight deviation, then another, then another different isolated groups developing in differing environments and then benefitting from different mutations (and so diverging). I think it is a gradual process and there is no point where one begins and the other ends.

[NotReady]

You said:


[ QUOTE ]

There are multiple versions


[/ QUOTE ]

in response to a statement that the Bible has been changed.

The Bible is the orginal texts. It has been translated into most of the world's languages. Translations are not changes. If HPFAP has been translated, does this mean it's been changed?

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Have you noticed how much the atheists like this post? Though you state you are being irrational they seem to think your position is quite rational. Does this suggest anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

To me, it suggests that he is adopting an irrational belief for perfectly rational reasons. His motivation for adopting theistic beliefs is a recurring internal and subjective (and presumably enjoyable) experience.

He acknowledges the possibility that this experience can have other reasons than those that a fundamentalist would postulate, but states that it is not in his best interests to struggle to debunk it. (If something makes you happy, are you really going to try to remove it from your life?)

I can certainly relate. I'm an atheist, but I still attend Wiccan sabbats with my friends; I have no problem suspending my disbelief for something that I find emotionally and spiritually fulfilling. I'm a determinist, but I adopt a position of personal responsibility and free will because it is more conducive to productive and fulfilling actions than a nihilistic position.

The human mind is not always rational. Sometimes irrationality makes us feel good. And as long as you're not condemning others or pushing your bible-based morality into the legal system, few if any atheists will have any problems with your beliefs.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
First you shouldn't worry about this being a "philosophy" forum. Religion has been the main topic here since it's inception. I personally don't distinguish between theology and philosophy as I believe theology can be fairly classified as a type of philosophy, or even vice versa.

I do appreciate your post and the reason I asked is many call themselves Christian who aren't even close.

[/ QUOTE ]
To clarify - in Australia (where I live) it is far more common for a christian to believe in the bible in a non-literal sense. I go to a mainstream church (Uniting Church of Australia, ex-Presbyterian) and have reasonably mainstream christian views - I believe in the bible I just view it as "contaminated" if you like, by human ineptitude. I merely wanted to ensure I wasnt speaking for most of the people who post here as it seems most here have a literal interpretation.

[ QUOTE ]
I do disagree with you on your implication that Christianity is irrational - as I've said before, I believe it's the only rational worldview - but that's another thread.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have fairly strict definitions of what I consider to be rational - I prefer strict so that anyone can accept them. Given a belief in God and Jesus, christianity is clearly the only rational view but that is an assumption many are not willing to make.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The example I would give is the discrepancy between Roman Catholic bibles and Protestant bibles


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe I'm nitpicking when I say you aren't distinguishing between translations and the original text. Most theologians believe the Bible is contained in the originals. As to the Apocrypha, I'm not real familiar with it, but I don't think anything in it changes any major doctrine, and the fact some Christians think it's Scripture doesn't make it so. Canonicity is also another thread.

[/ QUOTE ]
My point is - the apocrypha is scripture according to some christians and not scripture according to others. An error has occurred somewhere in what should be included, an error I attribute to human failure. How am I to determine which is the true version?

I accept your point that it doesnt make a huge difference in a doctrinal sense - but if we are saying THIS is the word of God, we need to be very sure.

I appreciate criticism from theists as well so please continue to challenge my theological position (People who object can always skip over this thread, hey?)

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
To me, it suggests that he is adopting an irrational belief for perfectly rational reasons. His motivation for adopting theistic beliefs is a recurring internal and subjective (and presumably enjoyable) experience.

He acknowledges the possibility that this experience can have other reasons than those that a fundamentalist would postulate, but states that it is not in his best interests to struggle to debunk it. (If something makes you happy, are you really going to try to remove it from your life?)

I can certainly relate. I'm an atheist, but I still attend Wiccan sabbats with my friends; I have no problem suspending my disbelief for something that I find emotionally and spiritually fulfilling. I'm a determinist, but I adopt a position of personal responsibility and free will because it is more conducive to productive and fulfilling actions than a nihilistic position.

The human mind is not always rational. Sometimes irrationality makes us feel good. And as long as you're not condemning others or pushing your bible-based morality into the legal system, few if any atheists will have any problems with your beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]
A minor point but I did actually struggle to debunk it - I just couldnt find a better explanation. (Perhaps "I am deluded" is an equally good explanation but, surprisingly, that doesnt feel right /images/graemlins/tongue.gif)

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

To me, it suggests that he is adopting an irrational belief for perfectly rational reasons.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how this statement can be consistent.

[ QUOTE ]

His motivation for adopting theistic beliefs is a recurring internal and subjective (and presumably enjoyable) experience


[/ QUOTE ]

In that case it wouldn't be a belief, it would be a hope.

[ QUOTE ]

(If something makes you happy, are you really going to try to remove it from your life?)


[/ QUOTE ]

If it's false and harmful, yes.

[ QUOTE ]

The human mind is not always rational.


[/ QUOTE ]

We agree on something.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

believe in the bible in a non-literal sense


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a sticking point with me. I recently stated in another thread that all language is both literal and figurative. I really think you are talking about how something should be interpreted. You probably think Adam and Eve are allegories, but you may also think Paul and Peter were real people, perhaps even Jesus. But even with Adam and Eve you probably think the allegory stands for a real, literal truth. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just say so if I'm wrong.

[ QUOTE ]

I believe in the bible I just view it as "contaminated" if you like, by human ineptitude.


[/ QUOTE ]

This highlights another real problem. If you can pick and choose what you accept from the Bible, why bother with it at all? What then distinguishes it from Plato, the Koran, or your own philosophy?

[ QUOTE ]

Given a belief in God and Jesus, christianity is clearly the only rational view but that is an assumption many are not willing to make.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well stated. Given that we are both finite and sinful, we all must make assumptions. That could lead to a very long discussion, better left for another day.

[ QUOTE ]

My point is - the apocrypha is scripture according to some christians and not scripture according to others.


[/ QUOTE ]

So is the Book of Mormon. Decisions, decisions.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That fact is a personal experience with God - a purely internal and subjective "connection" but one that has occurred again and again and persisted over the last twenty years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you elaborate?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is hard to elucidate - essentially a feeling of companionship and shared strength. It feels like there is someone with me - not speaking or communicating really - just caring. I have had a number of "odd" experiences that superficially are similar but are qualitatively different from this. I have had deja vu, the spooky feeling that someone is watching me, a hunch that someone will want me - followed up immediately by a phonecall, etc etc. All of these are easy to dismiss as coincidence (although spooky at times). When I am "in touch" with God - it's what I mean by praying. I have a certainty that he is there. The method of experiencing it is clearly different, but I am as certain of the reality of this experience while it is happening as I am that Pythagoras' theorem is true, or that 28 is a perfect number.

I dismissed it for all the obvious reasons for many years but it is qualitatively different from anything else I have experienced and has persisted despite ten years of disbelief and considerable mental effort actively trying to find a simpler explanation. Thus, I am forced to accept it as a fact about the world that needs explaining - either I have a very determined subconscious, cultural conditioning, need for love, whatever...or a personal God exists and cares about me (or something else I havent thought of or encountered yet). The best explanation seems to me to be that God exists.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
God invented evolution...

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for an interesting read.

What do you consider to be the best example of two species where the first became the second through the process of natural evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps I misunderstood the thrust of this question first time round. To clarify my views - I dont think a new species popped fully formed from an old one. I think there was a slight deviation, then another, then another different isolated groups developing in differing environments and then benefitting from different mutations (and so diverging). I think it is a gradual process and there is no point where one begins and the other ends.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn’t mean to redirect your thread. What I was going to ask is how you thought the first instance of a new species found a mate, or do the same random mutations effect a significant portion of a population simultaneously?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
God invented evolution...

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for an interesting read.

What do you consider to be the best example of two species where the first became the second through the process of natural evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps I misunderstood the thrust of this question first time round. To clarify my views - I dont think a new species popped fully formed from an old one. I think there was a slight deviation, then another, then another different isolated groups developing in differing environments and then benefitting from different mutations (and so diverging). I think it is a gradual process and there is no point where one begins and the other ends.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn’t mean to redirect your thread. What I was going to ask is how you thought the first instance of a new species found a mate, or do the same random mutations effect a significant portion of a population simultaneously?

[/ QUOTE ]
or neither like everybody else who knows anything about evolution.

chez

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

believe in the bible in a non-literal sense


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a sticking point with me. I recently stated in another thread that all language is both literal and figurative. I really think you are talking about how something should be interpreted. You probably think Adam and Eve are allegories, but you may also think Paul and Peter were real people, perhaps even Jesus. But even with Adam and Eve you probably think the allegory stands for a real, literal truth. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just say so if I'm wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont understand what you mean here. I think the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (for instance) was a story about sin being the cause of evil and suffering. I think it is a truth, but I dont believe that at some point the earth was just one garden with two humans and a large number of co-existing animals.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe in the bible I just view it as "contaminated" if you like, by human ineptitude.


[/ QUOTE ]

This highlights another real problem. If you can pick and choose what you accept from the Bible, why bother with it at all? What then distinguishes it from Plato, the Koran, or your own philosophy?

[ QUOTE ]

My point is - the apocrypha is scripture according to some christians and not scripture according to others.


[/ QUOTE ]

So is the Book of Mormon. Decisions, decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is my point - choosing to accept the apocrypha or the book of mormon for that matter is pick and choosing as you said above, isnt it? I think we are forced to try to decide what is scripture and what isnt. I also think we are destined to fail, but our duty is to do as well as we can.

I would make the point that I am not advocating picking and choosing what you like - I am suggesting we are given moral faculties, religious inspiration and faith to help us try and determine what is right.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To me, it suggests that he is adopting an irrational belief for perfectly rational reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how this statement can be consistent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Simple. His goal is to be happy. Let's say that believing that fluffy bunnies dance on the moon makes him happy. Believing in moon bunnies does not seem to impair future, overall happiness. Therefore, the person has no reason to disbelieve in fluffy dancing bunnies.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(If something makes you happy, are you really going to try to remove it from your life?)

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's false and harmful, yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Within a secular paradigm, there is no reason to suspect that OP's beliefs are harmful.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
God invented evolution...

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for an interesting read.

What do you consider to be the best example of two species where the first became the second through the process of natural evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps I misunderstood the thrust of this question first time round. To clarify my views - I dont think a new species popped fully formed from an old one. I think there was a slight deviation, then another, then another different isolated groups developing in differing environments and then benefitting from different mutations (and so diverging). I think it is a gradual process and there is no point where one begins and the other ends.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn’t mean to redirect your thread. What I was going to ask is how you thought the first instance of a new species found a mate, or do the same random mutations effect a significant portion of a population simultaneously?

[/ QUOTE ]
or neither like everybody else who knows anything about evolution.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I’m sorry, I didn’t get that. Which ain’t good, because I’m hanging on your every word.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
God invented evolution...

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for an interesting read.

What do you consider to be the best example of two species where the first became the second through the process of natural evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps I misunderstood the thrust of this question first time round. To clarify my views - I dont think a new species popped fully formed from an old one. I think there was a slight deviation, then another, then another different isolated groups developing in differing environments and then benefitting from different mutations (and so diverging). I think it is a gradual process and there is no point where one begins and the other ends.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn’t mean to redirect your thread. What I was going to ask is how you thought the first instance of a new species found a mate, or do the same random mutations effect a significant portion of a population simultaneously?

[/ QUOTE ]
or neither like everybody else who knows anything about evolution.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I’m sorry, I didn’t get that. Which ain’t good, because I’m hanging on your every word.

[/ QUOTE ]
You've commented on evolution a few times so I assume you know something about it. Then you must know that evolution doesn't require the first member of a species finding a mate, or by random mutations effecting multiple members simultaneously.

Clear now /images/graemlins/smile.gif

chez

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">Therefore, the person has no reason to disbelieve in fluffy dancing bunnies. </font>

I really like your first arguments to NotReady, but have a hard time agreeing here. We do not pick and choose our beliefs as we do fruit at the market. It's not that we have no reason to disblieve something, but that we need a reason to believe it.

OP HAS a reason for his belief in God, even while acknowledging it is unscientific and barely passed his own criteria for forming a belief. To this extent the cause of his belief might be irrational (the unexplained personal experiences), but the belief itself remains rational (the personal experiences do exist and something must be attributed to them. God makes as much sense as any other explanation). While fluffing dancing bunnies on the moon would almost never make a sensible answer or belief.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
God invented evolution...

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for an interesting read.

What do you consider to be the best example of two species where the first became the second through the process of natural evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps I misunderstood the thrust of this question first time round. To clarify my views - I dont think a new species popped fully formed from an old one. I think there was a slight deviation, then another, then another different isolated groups developing in differing environments and then benefitting from different mutations (and so diverging). I think it is a gradual process and there is no point where one begins and the other ends.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn’t mean to redirect your thread. What I was going to ask is how you thought the first instance of a new species found a mate, or do the same random mutations effect a significant portion of a population simultaneously?

[/ QUOTE ]
or neither like everybody else who knows anything about evolution.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I’m sorry, I didn’t get that. Which ain’t good, because I’m hanging on your every word.

[/ QUOTE ]
You've commented on evolution a few times so I assume you know something about it. Then you must know that evolution doesn't require the first member of a species finding a mate, or by random mutations effecting multiple members simultaneously.

Clear now /images/graemlins/smile.gif

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t pretend to any expertise in the subject, but I do have what I consider legitimate questions, like how does the new species perpetuate itself without its first member(s) mating?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I think it is a truth, but I dont believe that at some point the earth was just one garden with two humans and a large number of co-existing animals


[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I mean. You don't think Adam and Eve were two actual people but you do believe (literally) that man is sinful. So you are both a literalist and a figurativist (is that a word?). So are fundamentalists.

[ QUOTE ]

This is my point - choosing to accept the apocrypha or the book of mormon for that matter is pick and choosing as you said above, isnt it? I think we are forced to try to decide what is scripture and what isnt. I also think we are destined to fail, but our duty is to do as well as we can.


[/ QUOTE ]

There is a wealth of scholarship on canonicity. It isn't a simple subject. I'm not competent to discuss it in depth but for those who seriously want to know the material is there.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Let's say that believing that fluffy bunnies dance on the moon makes him happy.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think we've probably exhausted this subject. I will just point out it's unlikely he really believes in those bunnies.
[ QUOTE ]

Within a secular paradigm, there is no reason to suspect that OP's beliefs are harmful.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think OP was speaking within a secular paradigm. And plenty of atheists (Dawkins comes to mind) would take serious issue with you.

[hmkpoker]

If the fluffy dancing moon bunnies were as popular a belief as the Bible, this would be the case.

Keep in mind that the purpose of using moon bunnies as my example was to illustrate the beneficial use of an irrational belief to a Christian. I'm not going to illustrate my point to NotReady by presupposing Christianity to be an irrational belief.

The whole thing, of course, turned out to be futile, because NotReady can't think outside his little biblical box.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a wealth of scholarship on canonicity. It isn't a simple subject. I'm not competent to discuss it in depth but for those who seriously want to know the material is there.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you have any references? I prefer old-fashioned written-on-paper books but a good internet site on the subject would be appreciated. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn’t mean to redirect your thread. What I was going to ask is how you thought the first instance of a new species found a mate, or do the same random mutations effect a significant portion of a population simultaneously?

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think a new species has a definite beginning. There is initially one mutant in a population of "original" species. It's children have the same mutation (keeping it simple - in actuality it's probably correct to say they have a greater chance of having it). This mutated gene is passed down through the original mutant's descendants (all still within the same species). If there now develop two groups of this species - geographically separated and in different environments then the mutation may be advantageous in one and not in the other. If that is the case - then the population living in the environment where the mutation is beneficial will gradually have a higher and higher proportion of this gene. Over time - if the mutation is important enough - they will all have it. I still think at this time they are both the same species, just one population in area A with characteristic X being prevalent, another population in area B without it featuring prominently.

Over a long time - mutations such as this occur again and again, some are advantageous to whatever environment the population finds itself in, others are deleterious or meaningless. The upshot is that the two populations of species will gradually diverge in a way that "suits" their environments. Early on in the separation they can still interbreed and are still different populations of the same species. At the end of the (long) process they can no longer interbreed and are very different - they are now different species. There is no point where they "change" it's a gradual thing like "Now it's hot, earlier it was cold...when did it change from hot to cold?"

The inevitable caveat - this is not my field and is just my understanding but I think it is pretty much the standard view on evolution in a "big picture" sense. I would repeat the point I made in my original post - I think this is a terribly clever way to do it. As a theist it's things like this that make me appreciate God's cleverness as a designer - to get so much out of something so simple is awesome IMO.

I would also repeat my question of what do you think would stop evolution happening? DNA copying errors and spontaneous mutations are definitely observed facts. I dont know if you doubt modern cosmology but if you dont, the age of the earth is easily enough to account for some natural selection to have occurred (even if there is some doubt as to whether there is enough time for humans to have evolved from sludge - there isnt doubt in my mind but like I said it's not my area, I just ask my geneticist friend /images/graemlins/tongue.gif). It seems to me that natural selection is inevitable - what would stop it from happening?

[godBoy]

Thanks Bunny,

It seems you have been intentional about seeking out answers, I really respect your conclusions because they are your own. I trust you will continue to learn from your experiences and find the answers you are looking for.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
This highlights another real problem. If you can pick and choose what you accept from the Bible, why bother with it at all? What then distinguishes it from Plato, the Koran, or your own philosophy?

[/ QUOTE ]

I see Bunny's questions concerning the authority of the bible as making the best conclusions possible with the knowledge he had available at the time. The most logical position.

Although, I think that there is a time when you need to make some 'unjustified' decisions out of faith alone. We'll never have all the answers so we need to trust in someone who does.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Although, I think that there is a time when you need to make some 'unjustified' decisions out of faith alone. We'll never have all the answers so we need to trust in someone who does.


[/ QUOTE ]
That is a statement of credulousness.
'I don't know' is a statement of skepticism.

Are they both rational?

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I don’t pretend to any expertise in the subject, but I do have what I consider legitimate questions, like how does the new species perpetuate itself without its first member(s) mating?


[/ QUOTE ]
There's lots of literature if you're interested but here's an abstraction that might explain the general idea to you. Bear in mind that the number of parts is just a device for the analogy and has no real equivelent in biology.

Imagine a set of objects each with 100 parts represented by a value. The objects can pair up (mate) if they have any 95 values in common and then produce similar new objects (off-spring).

Initially all objects can mate. At random times a part can mutate to a new value. After mutation each object has no problem (in general) in finding loads of mates but some objects will not be able to mate with other objects as they have drifted apart to the point where they do not have 95 values in common - these are different species of object but there's no object unable to find a mate and no first member problem.

Add some survival pressure and thats the basic idea. Bit rough but hope it helps.

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Do you have any references?


[/ QUOTE ]

I've never looked into this very deeply. It's always been evident to me that there is a qualitative difference between the received canon and writings like those found in the Apocrypha, Koran and Book of Mormon. There is a unity and cohesiveness among all the books of the Bible that is just not there in non-canonical writings. That's always seemed obvious to me and so I've never really studied the question, though I think it is an important one. The existence of expert scholarship by people I trust has always been enough for me. I've skimmed some works about the history of both Old and New Testament canons and simply don't find anything controversial. The New Testament was agreed on with virtually no dissent at the time. The Old Testament had been settled for several hundred years before Christ, and Jesus and His disciples never questioned anything about the content of Scripture.

Having said that, I found this site (http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon.html) which seems sound.

[Rduke55]

I love your OP bunny because I see my beliefs in it.

As to the evolution, you seem to be doing a good job of it. The easiest way to think of speciation is using the example of speciation by geographical isolation.
Let's say there was a population of animals living on an island. They're all the same species. Then an earthquake happened and split the island in two and spearated it.
At first they have similar gene pools. But over time because of different selection pressures (maybe the main predators of our critters are now only on one island, maybe the climate is different, maybe the soil and therefore vegetation is different, etc., etc. etc.) favoring different traits and genetic drift (the non-selected random changes that accrue in a population) after a while the two populations will be unable to reproduce with each other and voila! they're different species.
This is only one example of how speciation occurs (and using only one of the definitions of species) but it's the one I have the easiest time wrapping my head around.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
You said:


[ QUOTE ]

There are multiple versions


[/ QUOTE ]

in response to a statement that the Bible has been changed.

The Bible is the orginal texts. It has been translated into most of the world's languages. Translations are not changes. If HPFAP has been translated, does this mean it's been changed?

[/ QUOTE ]

If there were multiple versions of HPFAP which included different chapters from each other, then yes, it's been changed.

This is why it's frustrating trying to discuss *anything* with you. You change the plain meaning of simple words like "changed", as if unilaterally changing the definition of a word wins you some kind of debate trophy for your now unassailable argument.

My point remains: there are multiple versions, ergo the Bible has changed.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

If there were multiple versions of HPFAP ... there are multiple versions, ergo the Bible has changed.


[/ QUOTE ]

Can you get more circular?

[madnak]

How does the idea of hell fit into your beliefs?

[Sharkey]

Look at it in terms of input and output. Simply, into the “speciation process” goes one mutually fertile population. At the other end emerge two mutually infertile populations. Thus far, I think we all agree.

However, how de we account for the mutual fertility within the new species? How did the mutations, individually and in total, that produced such a significant drift from the original population as to create speciation, retain the internal fertility of the new species?

As far as random DNA mutations are concerned, they happen all the time. Whether anything good comes of them is another matter.

[Sharkey]

See my previous post and add: It seems unlikely for one mutually fertile species to randomly mutate into another mutually fertile species. How are the mutations coordinated so as to retain fertility within the new population?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
However, how de we account for the mutual fertility within the new species? How did the mutations, individually and in total, that produced such a significant drift from the original population as to create speciation, retain the internal fertility of the new species?

[/ QUOTE ]
There is an inherent check on this - if at any point one of the mutations made the descendant infertile with regard to the surrounding population then it would not breed and the mutant gene would cease to be part of the gene pool. Thus each of the little changes that have occurred looking back down the evolutionary path have been selected to preserve the population's mutual fertility.

I think a significant point about evolutionary theory is that it is fundamentally not random. The mutations are random but the selective process that determines which genes are passed into the next generation's gene pool has an inherent bias towards physical features which help you survive and have children in your current environment (including the ability to breed with the general population).

[ QUOTE ]
As far as random DNA mutations are concerned, they happen all the time. Whether anything good comes of them is another matter.

[/ QUOTE ]
If they are random I cant see why some of them wont be beneficial.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
How does the idea of hell fit into your beliefs?

[/ QUOTE ]
First let me say that I consider this a theological question - as such I (as a believer) am forced to take a view but have no rational way to "decide" what to believe. I do have an opinion that "seems right" to me but consider myself unqualified, unknowledgeable and unlikely to get it truly correct.

I cant imagine the God I experience as creating a burning, torturous, awful place to put people who sin - then creating people with free will who he knows will sin. I think he created us with free will and gave us the choice to worship him or not (or "live by his law" or whatever term seems appropriate). I think those who choose to - who acknowledge the evil within them and strive to be good - receive something amazing (Heaven) and those who dont make the effort to live moral lives miss out on that amazing thing (Hell).

I think the peaceful life in the clouds, surrounded by angels, yada yada is an imperfect humanization of whatever that living with God experience is actually like. Similarly, I think the burning hell, tortured by demons and so on is an imperfect representation. I think Hell is just - not-Heaven. Exactly what either entails is something I have no clue about (and I expect it is completely different from anything we can imagine). Certainly if there is life-after-death (not something I've ever really thought about) it will be a non-physical existence - that would have to be a qualitatively different way of existing. I cant begin to speculate what it would be like.

I dont believe Hell is suffering though - except for the fact that it is absence of Heaven. Getting philosophical again for a moment - it is possible that Hell is good (and all the people who go there are better off existing than not) Heaven though, is fabulously better. That might be a logically consistent way of answering "Why did God make Hitler?"

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I cant imagine the God I experience as creating a burning, torturous, awful place to put people who sin

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets forget hell in the future. Look at the hell we currently live in (with tsunamis, earthquakes, virii, animal devouring each other, etc. etc. )

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Lets forget hell in the future. Look at the hell we currently live in (with tsunamis, earthquakes, virii, animal devouring each other, etc. etc. )

[/ QUOTE ]
As I said in my original post - I think the problem of evil (both human and natural) is the greatest philosophical challenge to the theist position. An atheist has nothing to explain as natural evils are just a brute fact about the world - it's just like that. Clearly a theist has some explaining to do.

I have posted before on how I reconcile the seeming contradiction between a benevolent God and the natural evils of the world:

The ethical acts and feelings I value the most are things like compassion, sympathy, self-sacrifice and sharing. These things are only possible given the existence of evil. You cant feel sympathy for someone who has everything they want and is never unhappy. Acts of compassion and sacrifice are beautiful (even if often tragic) acts. It is consistent to believe that a benevolent god would allow evil in the world if its existence led to greater nett good. In fact, if this was the case - a truly benevolent god would do exactly that.

The best objection to this argument (one I cant answer philosophically) is that surely God could make the world just a bit less evil without reducing the secondary goods that come from it. If two hundred people die in a natural calamity, surely the same compassion would be felt if one hundred and ninety nine die?

Theologically - I can trust that this is indeed the best he could do (because by his nature that's what he always does). This position is internally consistent but is not very persuasive to a non-believer. Philosophically, I have no answer other than to say that the claim that it is possible to have a world with less evil and greater nett good is impossible to justify and impossible to test.

[madnak]

I don't think I've ever met a Christian with such a solid position before. I'm impressed.

[MidGe]

bunny,

[ QUOTE ]
The ethical acts and feelings I value the most are things like compassion, sympathy, self-sacrifice and sharing. These things are only possible given the existence of evil. You cant feel sympathy for someone who has everything they want and is never unhappy. Acts of compassion and sacrifice are beautiful (even if often tragic) acts. It is consistent to believe that a benevolent god would allow evil in the world if its existence led to greater nett good. In fact, if this was the case - a truly benevolent god would do exactly that.

[/ QUOTE ]

That I feel is a bit of a strectch... It seems to me that it would be the same as encouraging people to repeatedly hit their heads against a wall, because it would be so good when they stopped. I mean it is the end justifies the means. Not a vey acceptable rationalisation, imo.

[PastorDavidDD]

I, for one, want to simply thank you for sharing your inner journey and typing your resulting current beliefs so clearly and intelligently. Yours is a post I will think about. You have a different way of looking at things than most Christians, but I believe that all honest ones will say they have some measure of doubt and inner confusion over some of the details of their faith. God is complicated and it is indeed very difficult for humans (and angels for that matter) to fully understand His ways. Thanks again for allowing the glimpse inside. -Dave.

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that it would be the same as encouraging people to repeatedly hit their heads against a wall, because it would be so good when they stopped.

[/ QUOTE ]I don't think his position amounts to this. This is more a result of the "evil is a contrast" response. His world-view is something like a consequentialist utilitarianism. What it does amount to is the denial of the premise "There is evil in the world".

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]

That is a statement of credulousness.
'I don't know' is a statement of skepticism.

Are they both rational?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure, but it's not as obvious as it seems that they're mutually exclusive. Take the continuum hypothesis--both it and its negation are consistent, yet people have no difficulty in believing one way or the other, and have some spirited arguments over whether it is true or false.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
bunny,

[ QUOTE ]
The ethical acts and feelings I value the most are things like compassion, sympathy, self-sacrifice and sharing. These things are only possible given the existence of evil. You cant feel sympathy for someone who has everything they want and is never unhappy. Acts of compassion and sacrifice are beautiful (even if often tragic) acts. It is consistent to believe that a benevolent god would allow evil in the world if its existence led to greater nett good. In fact, if this was the case - a truly benevolent god would do exactly that.

[/ QUOTE ]

That I feel is a bit of a strectch... It seems to me that it would be the same as encouraging people to repeatedly hit their heads against a wall, because it would be so good when they stopped. I mean it is the end justifies the means. Not a vey acceptable rationalisation, imo.

[/ QUOTE ]
I wouldnt use the same argument to defend banging heads against the wall because stopping banging your head (although it is better than continuing to do so) is not as good as not banging it in the first place. The only way the argument holds any water is if the utopia that God may have instead made is worse than the world we live in (because all the secondary goods outweigh all the evil required for their existence). On the face of it, this is an odd claim, I admit. However, although I expect it is unsatisfying to non-believers, it is internally consistent.

With regard to the end justifies the mean - I agree that it is pretty much what I am saying. Ethics was not my field in philosophy at all and I would appreciate hearing any criticisms on this point of view.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If there were multiple versions of HPFAP ... there are multiple versions, ergo the Bible has changed.


[/ QUOTE ]

Can you get more circular?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you get more obtuse?

I doubt it. WTF is it like in your head? There are multiple versions of the Bible. They are different from each other. Some haves books not included in others and vice versa. ERGO THE BIBLE HAS CHANGED.

Why do I even bother?

[NotReady]

You're amazing. One original. Many translations. Don't you have a PH.D. in something?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
You're amazing. One original. Many translations. Don't you have a PH.D. in something?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a matter of translations, as I have REPEATEDLY EMPHASIZED. Are you seriously claiming that there are NOT multiple versions of the Bible that have DIFFERENT BOOKS in them? Aren't you supposed to be a Christian or something?

Apocrypha? Tobit? Judith? Wisdom of Solomon? Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach?
Baruch? Letter of Jeremiah (= Baruch ch. 6)? First, Second, Third, and Fourth Maccabees? Additions to the Book of Daniel (Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon)? The Additions to the Book of Esther (with a translation of the entire Greek Text of Esther)? First and Second Esdras? Prayer of Manasseh? Psalm 151, following Psalm 150 in the Greek Bible?

Ethiopian Bible? Roman Catholic Bible? Greek Bible? Slavonic Bible? Protestant Bible? All of these have distinct books that are not included by others or are missing books represented in others.

So I ask again, if you have a copy of HPFAP and it does not have Chapter 3 but it has an extra chapter at the end that my copy does not, has HPFAP changed or not?

Maybe the third time's the charm: There are different versions of the Bible, ergo the Bible has changed.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

if you have a copy of HPFAP and it does not have Chapter 3 but it has an extra chapter at the end that my copy does not, has HPFAP changed or not?


[/ QUOTE ]

So if Indonesia publishes HPFAP and mistranslates something or doesn't include something you would maintain that HPFAP has changed? What if I type it out but make a typo? Has HPFAP changed? What if I type it out but include a chapter from Phil Helmuth's book? Has HPFAP changed? Apparently according to you it has.

My position is that the Bible is the Word of God.

1 Peter 1:
24For,
"ALL FLESH IS LIKE GRASS,
AND ALL ITS GLORY LIKE THE FLOWER OF GRASS.
THE GRASS WITHERS,
AND THE FLOWER FALLS OFF,
25BUT THE WORD OF THE LORD ENDURES FOREVER "

[Borodog]

So which one is the "right" one? And why couldn't you just answer the damn question I asked in the first place, since it apparently IS your contention that YOURS is THE Bible and all the others are wrong. What arrogance.

You have to be the most intellectually dishonest poster I've ever seen.

[MidGe]

Disingenuous again,

[ QUOTE ]
So if Indonesia publishes HPFAP and mistranslates something or doesn't include something you would maintain that HPFAP has changed?

[/ QUOTE ]

If there were aditional chapters, or changes to the odds given... I would call it a revised edition.


Which, given your "BUT THE WORD OF THE LORD ENDURES FOREVER" seems to indicate, according to your standards that the bible in its multiple "editions" is not the word of god.

[NotReady]

This started when bunny said the Bible has changed. The Bible is the Word of God. The Word of God doesn't change. The Bible therefore hasn't changed. You're almost the most intentionally stubborn poster I've ever encountered.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

If there were aditional chapters, or changes to the odds given... I would call it a revised edition.


[/ QUOTE ]


If Joe Smith in Podunk makes an unauthorized change you would call it a revised edition? Really?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
This started when bunny said the Bible has changed. The Bible is the Word of God. The Word of God doesn't change. The Bible therefore hasn't changed. You're almost the most intentionally stubborn poster I've ever encountered.

[/ QUOTE ]

So which one is it? Why can't you answer a simple question?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

So which one is it? Why can't you answer a simple question?


[/ QUOTE ]

Which one of what is what? Why can't you ask a simple question?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So which one is it? Why can't you answer a simple question?


[/ QUOTE ]

Which one of what is what? Why can't you ask a simple question?

[/ QUOTE ]

Which one of the manifold different texts that say "Bible" on their front cover is the One True Word of God, you disingenuous un-Christian embarrassment to the faith?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

you disingenuous un-Christian embarrassment to the faith?


[/ QUOTE ]

I have a policy of ignoring people who are so inept at debate they dissovle into personal insult. You now win that prize. As my last post to you I will say the following:

In one of my original posts in this idiotic sub-thread I explained exactly what I was talking about when I said Bible - i.e., the original texts. You have totally ignored this, sunk into a mindless word game, stupidly ignored the point I was making and finally resorted to personal insult. Bye.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I explained exactly what I was talking about when I said Bible - i.e., the original texts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately you never said which of the original texts, which is what we were trying to get you to answer, since different denominations are based on different selections of original texts.

Secondly, it seems that without being an ancient greek scholar there is very little chance of starting to understand the so-called word of god. One has to rely on those mostly evil (satanic in xians cosmology/mytrhology?) people that have made the texts selections and translations. I say mostly evil, since I presume only one of them would be the unadulterated and complete word of god.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

which is what we were trying to get you to answer,


[/ QUOTE ]

No you (meaning the other guy) weren't. You(meaning the other guy) were trying to prove that a translation amounts to a change.

[ QUOTE ]

it seems that without being an ancient greek scholar there is very little chance of starting to understand the so-called word of god


[/ QUOTE ]


Not true. You can compare translations and you can examine a transliterated version of the original along with a Greek-English dictionary, and you can find any number of commentaries that exegete and explain, all of which can be compared. For that matter, there isn't that much difference between translations, and those areas that do matter are easily studied.

[MidGe]

Again NotReady, you are trying to avoid the question. If I can quote from Borodog earlier post:
[ QUOTE ]
It's not a matter of translations, as I have REPEATEDLY EMPHASIZED. Are you seriously claiming that there are NOT multiple versions of the Bible that have DIFFERENT BOOKS in them? Aren't you supposed to be a Christian or something?

Apocrypha? Tobit? Judith? Wisdom of Solomon? Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach?
Baruch? Letter of Jeremiah (= Baruch ch. 6)? First, Second, Third, and Fourth Maccabees? Additions to the Book of Daniel (Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon)? The Additions to the Book of Esther (with a translation of the entire Greek Text of Esther)? First and Second Esdras? Prayer of Manasseh? Psalm 151, following Psalm 150 in the Greek Bible?

Ethiopian Bible? Roman Catholic Bible? Greek Bible? Slavonic Bible? Protestant Bible? All of these have distinct books that are not included by others or are missing books represented in others.

So I ask again, if you have a copy of HPFAP and it does not have Chapter 3 but it has an extra chapter at the end that my copy does not, has HPFAP changed or not?


[/ QUOTE ]

He seems to talk about more than a translation difference. We are talking about entire books here!

[Lestat]

I think the question is, are there fundamental differences between all these different bibles? It seems NotReady is saying there isn't. Personally, I don't know enough about any of them to say whether he's right or not. I certainly trust his knowledge of the bible, I just don't trust his interpretation.

If there are key changes or omissions such as the 10 commandments were different, then I think we have to call them "different" books. But if they are fundamentally the same (i.e. the main themes are the same, the main characters are the same, the main messages and meanings are the same, etc.), then I would allow they could be the same book which got muddied over many many years and/or translations.

I would consider HPFAP and HPFAP 21st Century edition, to be the same book, because while the newer book may have added some things, it does not deviate from the main concepts of the original book.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

He seems to talk about more than a translation difference. We are talking about entire books here!


[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, my mistake. He also brought up the question of which books should be included in the Bible. To some extent we were talking at cross purposes. I will again point out that I'm talking about the original texts. They haven't been changed. That was the whole point I was trying to make.

The next question is which books should be considered God's Word. And of course that does vary. Some people think the Koran is God's Word, some think the Book of Mormon is. The Jesus Seminar wants to include the Gospel of Thomas.

The issue of canonicity is different fromt the question I was addressing. I stated in another post that I haven't studied that question in depth. The fact that there is sometimes an issue about which texts are the inspired Word of God does no more to legitimize attacks on His Word that does the fact that there are translation and interpretation questions. Man is free to attack God's Word in many different ways.

To say that different people and churches at different times have included different books in what they call the Bible is basically the same as saying there have been disagreements about doctrine in the church. This was true from the start, even before the New Testament had been completed.

When bunny said the Bible has been changed I asked for examples and made it clear I was talking about the original texts. If you want to get into which books are God's Word and which aren't that is a separate issue from what I was addressing.

Just for your information, I believe the books normally included in most English translations, KJV, NASV, etc., are God's Word, the Apocrypha isn't, neither is Thomas. There is a wealth of material on the web dealing with these questions. It's never been an issue for me or for the vast majority of the church.

[MidGe]

We are talking entire books here. The apocrypha (probably the best known contentious book), for instance, is completely different from any other books, as a lot of them are from each other, both in style and contents. Some denominations include it, some don't. Which is the unadulterated and complete word of god? That is the question! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Just for your information, I believe the books normally included in most English translations, KJV, NASV, etc., are God's Word, the Apocrypha isn't, neither is Thomas. There is a wealth of material on the web dealing with these questions. It's never been an issue for me or for the vast majority of the church.


[/ QUOTE ]

But aren't you now relying on translations rather than original texts?

BTW I am sure the original texts didn't magically change. The exegis of the same and the inclusion or not, did.

[Lestat]

This is something I should stay out of. I am completely ignorant on this subject.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

But aren't you now relying on translations rather than original texts?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't speak Greek or Hebrew. I'm generally aware of translation issues. As I said, they can be resolved without knowing the original languages. Also, no translation is going to stray very far from the originals simply because the originals are well known and any obvious mis-translation will be easily noticed.

[ QUOTE ]

BTW I am sure the original texts didn't magically change.


[/ QUOTE ]

From the way bunny worded his original post there was an implication, intended or not (probably not), that the originals had been changed over time. That was really my only concern.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

This is something I should stay out of. I am completely ignorant on this subject.


[/ QUOTE ]

But you got my point better than anyone else so far.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
From the way bunny worded his original post there was an implication, intended or not (probably not), that the originals had been changed over time. That was really my only concern.

[/ QUOTE ]
It was certainly unintended - I meant that what was included as canon had changed over time. This is an issue I am reading and thinking about at the moment, something I have an opinion on (I always have an opinion!) but acknowledge a very poor knowledge about.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

It was certainly unintended - I meant that what was included as canon had changed over time


[/ QUOTE ]

When I first read your post my initial reaction was to jump in about how the Word of God never changes. I then realized you weren't specific what you meant by change so I asked for examples.

When I see "Bible" I think "Word of God". The Word of God doesn't change so my primary position is the Bible doesn't change. For people like Borodog Bible means an arbitrary collection of tall tales, thrown together for political and other reasons, and changed at will over time. So the dispute was caused by lack of definition of the subject matter. My failure to see this was in part caused by his lapse into personal insults. One of my greatest weaknesses in debates is poor handling of insults, which is the main reason I withdraw when this occurs.

So my final position on this is - the Word of God doesn't change, what people consider to be the Word of God varies.

[Borodog]

A yes. Of course it was *I* that started the impolity of the discussion:

[ QUOTE ]
Rotgut.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you get more circular?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
You're amazing. One original. Many translations [In response to my repeated clarifications that it is not a matter of different translations but of different versions that include different books]. Don't you have a PH.D. in something?

[/ QUOTE ]

[Jshuttlesworth]

I just discovered this thread and read through most of it.

Bunny: thank you very much for your post. It changed many of my attitudes. Your stance is in no way irrational. You have drawn conclusions based on what you have percieved in reality. I think it is unlikely that you actually experienced exactly what you "know" happened to you, but that does not mean you are irrational. An argument can be both completely rational and have no persuasive value. For example, it is necessary that one of the following arguments is deductively sound:

P1: It is either the case that God exists or 2+2=5.
P2: 2+2 != 5.
C: God exists.

P1: It is either the case that God does not exist or 2+2=5.
P2: 2+2 != 5.
C: God does not exist.

I suspect you believe wholeheartedly in the first argument, but you realize that it is not persuasive.

From your description of yourself, it seems as if we have similarly rigorous rational minds, and the discrepencies in our conclusions stem from our different perceived experiences.

I do have a few questions to ask you about the problem of evil. You say:
[ QUOTE ]
The biggest philosophical challenge to the theist position is the problem of evil.

God made us with free will even though he knew we would do bad things.

[/ QUOTE ]

and also:

[ QUOTE ]
Basically the theistic conception - all-good, all-powerful(?), all-knowing. Perhaps not the all-powerful bit I'm not really sure.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe the propositions "God is omniscient" and "Humans have free will" to be contradictory. Here's why:

I am taking "Humans have free will" to mean "When a human being is faced with a decision A, he can either chose to commit action A or to abstain from action A." I will aslo take it to mean "If a human commits (or does not commit) action A, it is true that he could've acted differently."

Let's say it is I who am faced with decision A. It is either the case that God does know if I will commit A, or he does not know if I will commit A. If he does not know, the proposition "God is omniscient" is false. (Unless you claim that it is possible for God to be all-knowing and for him to not know whether I will commit action A, which is possible only if you claim that it is logically impossible to know if I will commit A, and God's omniscience/omnipotence does not imply that he can do what is logically impossible.)

If God does know whether I will commit A, then it is either the case that my action will be in accord with God's knowledge (i.e. God knows I will commit A, and I do, or he knows I will not commit A, and I don't), or it will not (i.e. he knows I will commit A, but I do not, and vice versa). But if the proposition "God is omniscient" is true, he cannot possibly be incorrect in his knowledge about my action A, and my action MUST be in accord with his knowledge. If my action must be in accord with God's single knowledge (he either knows that I will or will not commit the action - he cannot logically know that I will both commit and not commit action A), then I am not free to chose to commit or not commit action A, and it is thus irrational to dually hold the beliefs "God is omniscient" and "I exercise my free will in chosing to commit or not commit action A." By extension, it is irrational to hold the beliefs "God is omniscient" and "Humans have free will."

The argument for second-order good as a response to evil is worth examining, as well. I don't have time to do that right now, but I'll just say that my response would involve pointing out that if second-order good exists, then so does second-order evil (cruelty, deceit, etc.), as a response to first-order good (pleasure).

In response to the bible discussion, I will say to Borodog: If I take a copy of "A Confederacy of Dunces" by John Kennedy Toole, cross out the title and write "The Bible," then I have NOT created a new version of (or changed) the bible in the eyes of a theist. Similarly, if I take "America the Book" by Jon Stewart, et al., cross out the title and write "HPFAP," then I have not created a new version of HPFAP in your eyes. (Please correct me if, in your eyes, I would've created a new version (i.e changed) HPFAP.)

To NotReady: there is absolutely no way for an atheist to identify "one" bible.
Thanks for this discussion, everyone.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
For example, it is necessary that one of the following arguments is deductively sound:

P1: It is either the case that God exists or 2+2=5.
P2: 2+2 != 5.
C: God exists.

P1: It is either the case that God does not exist or 2+2=5.
P2: 2+2 != 5.
C: God does not exist.

I suspect you believe wholeheartedly in the first argument, but you realize that it is not persuasive.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree - one of these arguments is sound (and you're right - I think it's the first) but you cant tell which one unless you know whether God exists or not.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe the propositions "God is omniscient" and "Humans have free will" to be contradictory. Here's why:

I am taking "Humans have free will" to mean "When a human being is faced with a decision A, he can either chose to commit action A or to abstain from action A." I will aslo take it to mean "If a human commits (or does not commit) action A, it is true that he could've acted differently."

Let's say it is I who am faced with decision A. It is either the case that God does know if I will commit A, or he does not know if I will commit A. If he does not know, the proposition "God is omniscient" is false.

If God does know whether I will commit A, then it is either the case that my action will be in accord with God's knowledge (i.e. God knows I will commit A, and I do, or he knows I will not commit A, and I don't), or it will not (i.e. he knows I will commit A, but I do not, and vice versa). But if the proposition "God is omniscient" is true, he cannot possibly be incorrect in his knowledge about my action A, and my action MUST be in accord with his knowledge. If my action must be in accord with God's single knowledge (he either knows that I will or will not commit the action - he cannot logically know that I will both commit and not commit action A), then I am not free to chose to commit or not commit action A, and it is thus irrational to dually hold the beliefs "God is omniscient" and "I exercise my free will in chosing to commit or not commit action A." By extension, it is irrational to hold the beliefs "God is omniscient" and "Humans have free will."

[/ QUOTE ]
This argument is not convincing to me - I would question what you mean by "I could have chosen differently", or it is possible for me to choose the alternative. I subscribe to a fairly standard philosophy on this - I think it is possible for me to choose differently if there exists a possible world in which I made a different choice. I do think there is a possible world in which I made a different choice - and in that possible world the God of that world knows that I will make the opposite choice.

I think there is confusion with regard to past/present/future arising from taking a subjective viewpoint and erroneously concluding it is an objective fact. In relativity observers will disagree on the simultaneity of events. I dont know if you read the recent thread on that but for simplicity - imagine I am moving past you very, very fast and you see two events happen simultaneously on either side of me. From where I sit - I see the one in front of me occur and think "Hmm - I wonder if event B is going to occur or not? It could be either way" (and this is true - reality for me would be identical whether both events occurred or not - I am completely unable to distinguish until I observe event B happening or not). However - from your perspective, you know that it is going to happen (not in any way where you can tell me before I can find out for myself - but the point is you see both events happen at once.

My conception of God is similar (though not identical, obviously) - he "sees" me born and later make some choice "all at once". For me, I have to go through life choosing which path to take - he sees me make my choice before I make it, but this is not inherently a contradiction (as I say - there is a possible world where I make the other choice - the God in that world sees me make the other choice).

I hope this makes some kind of sense.

[ QUOTE ]
The argument for second-order good as a response to evil is worth examining, as well. I don't have time to do that right now, but I'll just say that my response would involve pointing out that if second-order good exists, then so does second-order evil (cruelty, deceit, etc.), as a response to first-order good (pleasure).

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a good point - but I dont think it is damaging to the internal consistency of the argument as (of course) there are now third order goods, then fourth, then fifth, etc....my claim is merely that the sum total of all these (possibly infinite?) layers is better than it would be without any evil.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

That is a statement of credulousness.
'I don't know' is a statement of skepticism.

Are they both rational?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure, but it's not as obvious as it seems that they're mutually exclusive. Take the continuum hypothesis--both it and its negation are consistent, yet people have no difficulty in believing one way or the other, and have some spirited arguments over whether it is true or false.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree they are not mutually exclusive but I'm confused about the rest. I'll state how I see the continuum hypothesis (CM) point and perhaps you can clear up what you mean.

CM does not follow from the usual axioms, hence it is not believed to follow or not. Different axiomatic systems are created by assuming CM true or false. People can argue which is more interesting but not which is correct.

In an ealier post you said that 'presumably there is some truth of the matter [about CM trueness]'. I don't see what you mean by that, surely the point of CM being independant of the axioms is that there is no matter of fact about it.

chez

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

That is a statement of credulousness.
'I don't know' is a statement of skepticism.

Are they both rational?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure, but it's not as obvious as it seems that they're mutually exclusive. Take the continuum hypothesis--both it and its negation are consistent, yet people have no difficulty in believing one way or the other, and have some spirited arguments over whether it is true or false.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree they are not mutually exclusive but I'm confused about the rest. I'll state how I see the continuum hypothesis (CM) point and perhaps you can clear up what you mean.

CM does not follow from the usual axioms, hence it is not believed to follow or not. Different axiomatic systems are created by assuming CM true or false. People can argue which is more interesting but not which is correct.

In an ealier post you said that 'presumably there is some truth of the matter [about CM trueness]'. I don't see what you mean by that, surely the point of CM being independant of the axioms is that there is no matter of fact about it.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
There are statements which are true and yet are independent of the axioms (a la Godel's theorem). Godel created the mathematical equivalent of the sentence "This statement has no proof." There is no way to demonstrate this sentence or its negation from the axioms of the system in which it is framed. Nonetheless, it is true (it has to be or the system becomes inconsistent).

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

That is a statement of credulousness.
'I don't know' is a statement of skepticism.

Are they both rational?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure, but it's not as obvious as it seems that they're mutually exclusive. Take the continuum hypothesis--both it and its negation are consistent, yet people have no difficulty in believing one way or the other, and have some spirited arguments over whether it is true or false.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree they are not mutually exclusive but I'm confused about the rest. I'll state how I see the continuum hypothesis (CM) point and perhaps you can clear up what you mean.

CM does not follow from the usual axioms, hence it is not believed to follow or not. Different axiomatic systems are created by assuming CM true or false. People can argue which is more interesting but not which is correct.

In an ealier post you said that 'presumably there is some truth of the matter [about CM trueness]'. I don't see what you mean by that, surely the point of CM being independant of the axioms is that there is no matter of fact about it.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
There are statements which are true and yet are independent of the axioms (a la Godel's theorem). Godel created the mathematical equivalent of the sentence "This statement has no proof." There is no way to demonstrate this sentence or its negation from the axioms of the system in which it is framed. Nonetheless, it is true (it has to be or the system becomes inconsistent).

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand that, I just unsure of the point being made about skepticism/credulesness.

It is a little creduless to believe the axioms are consistent if it cant be proved. I say a little because there's lots of evidence of consistency (no-one has produced a proof that 2+2=5).

Thats not the same as having a belief about the trueness of CM, is it?

chez

[bunny]

Certainly not the same no - I think I misunderstood your post. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]

I agree they are not mutually exclusive but I'm confused about the rest. I'll state how I see the continuum hypothesis (CM) point and perhaps you can clear up what you mean.

CM does not follow from the usual axioms, hence it is not believed to follow or not. Different axiomatic systems are created by assuming CM true or false. People can argue which is more interesting but not which is correct.

In an ealier post you said that 'presumably there is some truth of the matter [about CM trueness]'. I don't see what you mean by that, surely the point of CM being independant of the axioms is that there is no matter of fact about it.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I was a little terse and may have unwittingly presented my opinion of a controversial issue as a generally accepted fact. It is true that CM does not follow from the usual axioms, but that does not mean that it isn't true or false. Any realist is going to say that CM is true or false, and a number of anti-realists will as well. Of course you may also believe that there is no fact of the matter about whether CM is true or false, given that either it or its denial is consistent (unlike Godel statements like "This statement has no proof"). You would be in good company either way, at any rate.

I am not a mathematician, so perhaps I shouldn't speak about controversial matters, but I believe that the general consensus is that CM is false. The fact that CM is completely provably independent of the axioms doesn't mean that it doesn't have a truth-value. Cohen believed not only that it is false, but that it is even obviously false.

At any rate, my rather obtuse point was that credence and skepticism are not necessarily mutually exclusive. At times they are, and at times they aren't. The case of CM is interesting because although there is no proof one way or the other, mathematicians like Godel and Cohen believe that it is false; that is, although it supercedes a rational axiomatic system, they still claim that the belief is rational.

[chrisnice]

Have you ever looked into the Mormon religion bunny? I think you might like it, esp seeing how you dont blindly accept everything that you are told. Their views on good\evil, hell, and an importance on personal experiance seem to mesh rather nicely with what I have read of your views. (At least my Sunday School recollection of what they teach.)