Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 06:28pm PT
|
I'd like to comment on what Matisse posted about evolution and God (as well as to tell Phantom X that this is SERIOUS stuff so quit FOOLING AROUND!).
Whereas there is nothing, logically, preventing you from believing in evolution and God, there are some boundaries around the issue that you need to be aware of. Evolution requires no special supernatural intervention at any point since the beginning of the tree of life. By believing in evolution, you believe that you can trace your ancestry back to the beginning - to some primordial replicators, living approximatley 3.5 to 4 billion years ago. We're all cousins more or less, everything that's alive today.
This begs some thorny questions like what is the soul in the context of evolution? Do all animals and plants have one? If they do, how are the ones that aren't us held accountable by God? If only humankind does, how did it come about, since humankind evolved from lower branches on the tree that apparently did not have one? What about the several species of genus homo that died out? Did they have souls? Did God at some point imbue a soul into some part of the tree of life? Why is it that we can kill other species of animal but it is morally wrong to kill other humans? The boundaries seem rather arbitrary through the lens of evolution. It all gets very messy, whereas evolution, itself, is so simple and elegant.
|
|
scuffy b
climber
Stump with a backrest
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 06:53pm PT
|
Funny, Jaybro,
I've just been reading about allochthonous bodies.
I'm sort of behind on my geological reading (opposite of DMT),
just found out that the red soils in the Mother Lode which have
puzzled me for 50 years now are ancient Laterites.
What a relief.
And eeyonkee, you might want to be more careful prodding
Phantom X like that. He's not the cupcake he used to be, and you
don't know what fearsome technology he may have harnessed by now.
Anathematization is to be avoided if possible.
|
|
Phantom X
Trad climber
Honeycomb Hideout
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 07:17pm PT
|
Scuffy B. Please quit screwing around. Can you not see that we are involved in the Battle of the Minds? Please Grug continue.
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 07:36pm PT
|
john wrote: The true essence of God is found through the heart.
John the heart is a organ/muscle.
The mind is where it all starts and ends.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 08:38pm PT
|
Phantom X not the cupcake he used to be? - I don't know, I think I'll take my chances. He's one funny boy though, that's for sure.
|
|
Brunosafari
Boulder climber
Redmond, OR
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 09:36pm PT
|
You're personality is persuasive, Scuffy B.
I'll enter this thread, asking for slack and a sure belay at the same time. It's quite a challenge to address this wide range of ideas and experiences; hard to do without recognizing the potential for communcating personal disrespect. I've only been tuning into Supertopo for a few months now, after Mike Graham contacted me about the Stonemaster thread. And I've become amazingly attached to people who I've never met, and have only just read their TRs etc.. This morning I awoke from a fitful sleep and there were tears for "Pagan Monkey Boy, " because of the ordeal he is experiencing. Because so many of my climbing experiences and people have defined my personality, I suppose that is natural. I guess, I'm getting at the subject of tone here, as I have been overwhelmed by the many deaths, losses, break-ups, despairs, addictions, and general struggles we have all witnessed along beside the incredible humor and adventures we read. That is just a reminder to all, including myself, that our spiritual lives and personal development are always in a state of evolution, a diminishing one or an ascending one and we should then avoid rash reactions, needless sarcasm and harsh personal judgements that can be cruel and devestating to each other. Yet, the persistance of reasoned dialogues such as these tells me that for Supertopans, life itself is sacred and that perceived false truths about it will be examined.
Earlier in my life I was quite a confident skeptic and so I strongly identify with that experience. As I read the various objections posed to Christian Faith, my opinion is that the subject of Knowledge Sources is close to the heart of the discussion. Some skeptics manage to argue themselves out of existance in Atheism, as I will try to relay. Another consistent idea I'm seeing mentioned is the subject of Theological Relativism, often expressed in the statement, "what's true for you is true." Finally, I'll try to mention a few points on the big subject of ideas concerning Biblical Inerrancy.
In Theology, the subject of Knowledge and it's source is referred to as Epistemology. It is no exaggeration to say epistemology is the subject of the greatest interest today in both Modern Philosophy and Theology. It asks the question, "what can be known about God, about Man and about the Universe. We should not be naive in our discussions of science, because resultant technologies have the capacity to inflict endless misery in the absence of a moral compass. So it is a mistake to think of epistemology, or theology/philosophy as an irrelevant, "ivory tower" subject, a little mouse beneath the 'more important' inquirys of scientific research. Nobody can escape philosophy-you have one, maybe a flimsy one, but a philosophy nevertheless. Modern science is a kind of junior philosophy, often fueled by marketplace considerations and saying relatively little about the big questions of ontology. Consequently it becomes possible to to create a society which is technologically advanced yet humanly primative or ill. I think we are approaching that place in America today. Please do not assume that I am anti science--Not at all. I just believe there are limits of benefit when science is divorced from the guiding foundation of theological inquirey. Copernicus, Newton and Eienstein were convinced Theists and it is Theism that has given rise to our greatest academic instituions. As we observe the shallowness of popular American Church culture, should we rush to throw out the baby with the bathwater? Are you going to allow a low point in history to potentially rob you of eternal life?
The existence of God cannot be proven, either with a Bible or without one. Christian Thinkers often speak of "certitude," rather than "certainty," to which then a step of reasoned faith (as opposed to blind faith), takes or has taken place.
Cornelius Van Til is an example of a 20th century theologian who's epistemology is has been called Presuppositionism. In other words, "pre-assuming" a given world view, how does it comparatively stack-up to our experiences, scholastic inquirey and observations. He influenced a very important culture critic, Francis Schaeffer. His triad series, "The God who is There,", "Escape to Reason," and "True Spirituality" should not be passed over IMHO., if you are seeking an integration of faith with an appreciation of history, the arts and philosophy.
Norman Geisler is an example of a philosopher who represents a different approach called "Verificationism. " The Verificationist starts with an evaluation of the evidence first, and then, arrives to reasonable certitude of God. Evidences include everything from the world's complexity (scientific observation), beauty and design to Human Nature and the truth claims of the Old and New Testaments. His book, "Christian Apologetics," surveys and critiques historical philosophies and in the final chapters, there is the critical examination of Christianity.
C.S. Lewis's book, "Mere Christianity," is a very popular and readable ascent.
I won't fail to mention the man under whom I had the privilege to study, Mark Hanna. His book, "Crucial Questions in Apologetics," is brilliant, but not light reading.
Anyone Snoozin' yet?!
Hanna maintains the existence of God cannot be proven, but is "apprehended," by everyone (reminding me of Ed Hartouni's "born with the idea of God," observation), but that our fallen human nautures cause us to suppress that truth.
One amazing "apprehension," he cites is the dark and silent experience of Helen Keller, who said, after learning to speak, that before she possessed even language itself, she, nevertheless, had awareness of God.
Atheism is logically untenable or self-defeating. In order to claim God does not exist with certainty, one would have to possess exhaustive knowledge, i.e. one would have to be God. This is the logical principle of identity, the number one in mathematics, and cannot be refuted.
There are two kinds of Agnostics. The first states that God is unknowable. But again, one would have to possess exhaustive knowledge to make that claim. The second kind of agnosticism is a stance of "seeking" and possesses greater logical integrity. It states, "maybe God exists, but I can't be reasonably sure."
On the surface it appears that the rise of Existentialism, and the modern notion of Relative Truth offers a sanctuary, one which is suitably humble, yet all incompassing. But this idea comes at terrible cost. With the loss of Objective Truth, we lose the option to make judgements of human behavior. Thus it becomes immaterial, as Schaeffer says, whether we help an elderly woman across a bridge or else kick her into the drink, because "my truth," says she is merely a meaningless cellular mass. The Relativist ultimately has nothing to say on the subject of war, ethics or morals.
Christians believe the the Old and New Testaments to be infallible in the "original autographs only, not necessarily perfect in our present archaelogical findings. But they are still considered trustworthy via the science of Textual Criticism. An excellent source of data on New Testament texts, though quite technical, is Bruce Metzger's, "The Texts of the New Testament."
Leaving authenticity, Fallibility in respect to truth is another subject, though obviously related. I don't think it is necessary to accept a high doctrine of Inspiration to recognize the amazing credibility of the Old and New Testaments: Unique, among religious writing, the multiple authors constantly appeal to and record historic data and geography. There are some contradistinctions, but no proven "tight,"contradictions. Most modern objections fail to appreciate the context of very harsh ancient world. Jesus revealed that some Old Testament precepts were concessions to primative sensibilities, and went on to teach the deeper truth. Almost every aspect of human life is addressed and then unified by the continuing thread of the subject of the promised Messiah. In fact, over 300 prophesies in respect to the Messiah are fulfilled by the life of Jesus in the Gospel accounts, including the lineage and virgin birth, childhood home, mairacles of healing, rejection, death by crucifixion and not least, the Resurrection, all foretold dramatically by mind-blowing, hated prophets hundreds, even thousands of years previously. That is why Jesus said to his detractors, "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me." And also "You search the Scriptures, for it is they which testify of me."
Textual Criticism examines variences in ancient manuscripts, which are predominantly varient spellings and word omissions. If all the varient readings were tossed into the Black Canyon of the Gunnison, it would not alter the defining teachings of Christianity in the slightest.
In short, the Bible is far and away the most impressive literature of all time, no close seconds. What compares to it? Shakespeare? I think the Bard himself would have set us straight.
Read it as you would anything, searching for the intended meaning of the author. Orthodox Christians have never believed in "wooden literalism." When Luke starts his account by saying, "In the days of Herod, the King of Judea, a certain Priest named Zechariah, of the course of Abia; and his wife was of the daughtes of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth...," the references to time, people and place indicate a book of history, not just some airy metaphor. The actual allegories are extermely evident and are usually announced and also interpreted for the reader, such as in the writings of Isaiah, Jeremaiah, Ezekiel, etc.. Mataphor and Simili are everywhere in the Books of Poetry which are set in parallelism, and repetition, like American Blues: The Psams, Proverbs, Song of Songs and Job. Is there any mistaking the pendantic purpose and literary nature of the Parables? I think skeptics might be shocked to observe the clarity of genre in the Bible. I was.
I'm so sorry if this has been too ambitious. We are discussing the most important, and vast subject on earth though. We can't approach K2 the same way we would a boulder problem, can we? There are plenty of issues and objections remaining (!), but I hope I have helped to provide some reference points on the subject of Epistemological starting points. Thank you for your indulgence my higly esteemed friends!
Bruce Adams
|
|
Brunosafari
Boulder climber
Redmond, OR
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 09:52pm PT
|
just heard on the news, Edmond Hillary died today, at 88. Let's have a moment of silence.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 10:22pm PT
|
Bruce, I figured it would have to come down to this at some point. Let me tell you everyone, Bruce Adams (Brunosafari) is one of the kindest, most interesting, nicest, smartest, funniest (although a distant 2nd to his brother, Kinley), overall best human beings I have ever met in my life's journey. He happens to be a devout Christian, I am an atheist.
I absolutely think that Bruce is my better in so many ways. I'm lazy, vain, a poor basketball player for all that I have invested in the sport, at best a middling climber. Bruce may suck as much as I do in basketball (I can only hope), but that would be all that I could ever hope to have over him. And yet I absolutely believe in my position and am incredulous that Bruce can be believe in his, in spite of his superior attributes. Go figure!
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 10:38pm PT
|
Bruce...long...but nice post.
Proving there is or isn't a God mean little to nothing to me.
How you live life here means so much more.
Greg...how are you? I didn't suck at basketball...what does that mean?
Bruce wrote: In short, the Bible is far and away the most impressive literature of all time, no close seconds.
That is an opinion...not a fact.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 10:42pm PT
|
bob d': "Proving there is or isn't a God mean little to nothing to me."
Until you're dead.
|
|
Phantom X
Trad climber
Honeycomb Hideout
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 10:43pm PT
|
Yes explain the basketball theory. Are we talking about counter-prayer?
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 10:51pm PT
|
Here's the basketball story - no, I mean basketball 'moral'. "I think that your basketball ability is probably the best indicator of your overall athletic ability. I suck at basketball, ...therefore, I suck, you know, athletically".
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 11:02pm PT
|
werner wrote: bob d': "Proving there is or isn't a God mean little to nothing to me."
Until you're dead.
From Webster...Dead...1: deprived of life : no longer alive
Werner...dead is final...it won't matter.
I rather talk about this....The law of conservation of energy states that energy is never created nor destroyed.
Energy in the universe is a constant.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 11:06pm PT
|
Are you sure?
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 11:15pm PT
|
Werner, here's my whole take on the immortality or not thing. The older I get, the higher sleeping gets on the list of things i'd rather be doing. When I was 20, it was, maybe 29th on the list, now that I'm 51, it's maybe third, right behind sex and climbing. By the time I'm 70, maybe it will move up to No. 1. When sleep is nO 1, it's not a big stretch to think of the "big sleep" as pretty much the best thing you can strive for.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 11:19pm PT
|
That means you are already close to death.
|
|
Brunosafari
Boulder climber
Redmond, OR
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 11:20pm PT
|
Kind of you Greg! My list of confessions probably beats yours by far, and I guarantee you can whip me in basketball. As we age, let's change that metaphor to shuffleboard.
P.S. Phantom X for president!
B
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 11:36pm PT
|
Poor Bruce wrote:
"Atheism is logically untenable or self-defeating. In order to claim God does not exist with certainty, one would have to possess exhaustive knowledge, i.e. one would have to be God. This is the logical principle of identity, the number one in mathematics, and cannot be refuted. "
This is nonsense. You don't know what you are talking about.
First you make a [specious] claim, "Atheism is logically untenable or self-defeating.".
"You offer nothing that supports this claim.
"In order to claim God does not exist with certainty, one would have to possess exhaustive knowledge, i.e. one would have to be God."
WHY????
Dude, this is not how logic works. Go back to school. Only, don't take logic from philosophers or theologians, who barely grasp it, take from mathematicians.
You are confused. First, possessing exhaustive knowledge is not needed to disprove a theorem. You only need ONE counter example. Second, possessing exhaustive knowledge is not possessing all knowledge. Third, you need to state that IF god exists, then he and he alone possesses all knowledge, and show that it is true. But before that you have to prove that god exists. So, you make unproved statements and present them as proved. That makes a faulty argument.
"This is the logical principle of identity, the number one in mathematics, and cannot be refuted."
Don't go bandying about terms from mathematics here.
Math/logic is a game, and also offers a way of looking at the world, based on certain assumptions that all serious mathematicians agree on. These are called axioms. When two sides in an argument can't agree on the basic assumptions (axioms), there can be no meaningful logical argument, because the first rule is already broken.
|
|
Brunosafari
Boulder climber
Redmond, OR
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008 - 11:54pm PT
|
Hi Dirt! I've been considering your God as retard idea for several days now. It is a form of Henotheism. Won't you grant a little indulgence (of time in thought) before the ad hominem attacks! I did not invent the refutation of Atheism though I agree with it. I'm just relaying it, as I stated. Thankyou Sir, Bruce
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 12:21am PT
|
Pascal’s Wager
If one believes in God but is eventually proven wrong, one loses nothing.
But if one believes and is proven right, one gains just about everything.
And what if one disbelieves in God and is proven wrong? What if one lives an atheistic life and then finds out there is a God?
That’s going to be trouble for sure. Hehehe
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!