Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 05:45pm PT
|
I think the difference between scientists and apologeticists is [roughly] scientists consider the observable and ask, "how can this be?", where apologeticists consider the inobservable and ask, "how can this not be?" The essential activity of the former is to generate questions and of the latter to provide answers.
We require questions to better understand a world as uncomfortable as our questions. We value answers which provide control and comfort over that world above all others. And we seem to be the only creature genetically predisposed to an interest in either. Given life on Earth at all levels in the food chain is a cyclic and chaotic matter of consumption - consume and in turn be consumed (see recent articles on the role of insects in the demise of dinosaurs). That we value answers which provide us leverage as a species should come as no surprise.
What I do find surprising is the enormity of role of unverifiable answers in the self-organization of our species. This is likely a survival mechanism centered around resource acquisition and defense. A simple look at the yellow pages under 'Churches' illustrates the pull to organize, and act of organizing, is far more important to our species than what we organize around (hence the Teapot and CotFSM conjectures) - nearly any sufficiently abstract, communicable concept will suffice. I would even go so far as to posit that for a concept to be useful for this binding purpose, it has to be sufficiently abstracted from daily life as to be deliberately unverifiable. Why? Because power among our species is based on an undeniable survival imperative of marshalled defensive resources - allowing people to have individually verifiable judgments about the binding supposition would lead to divisive behavior weakening the whole. Collective ruthlessness towards indivuals who diverge from even the most ludicrous binding proposition is simply a fear-based disincentive; promoting it is a staple of human leadership. All Gods, from my perspective and by definition of their univeral utility, are designed to be unverifiable.
And I personally can't find a more compelling justification for God than swiping a petri dish with two competing bacterial strains - the imperative and rationale are intuitive and obvious - the consequences are equally so. When I see a listing for the names of God throughout human history, I see a one-to-one taxonomy of petri dishes which always makes me curious as to the recipes of the various culture media.
[ Bruce, I'll take another look re: Relativism... ]
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 05:53pm PT
|
Ah yes
It's OK dirt, we still love ya dude.
So after a couple of nice pitches on the rock I see you're all still here.
I like this man Brunosafari (Sir Bruce).
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 05:55pm PT
|
Bruce, I fail to see how reading the scriptures will change my thinking about this, in fact, my reading and thinking about it is exactly what I'm talking about here... that what ever I decide, it is subjective, not objective.
So let us postulate that "god" only exists in thought, "god" exists.
If that is true, how can it be a problem?
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 06:10pm PT
|
"When a person dies – or, in Scientology terms, when a thetan abandons their physical body – they go to a "landing station" on the planet Venus, where the thetan is re-implanted and told lies about its past life and its next life. The Venusians take the thetan, "capsule" it, and send it back to Earth to be dumped into the ocean off the coast of California. Says Hubbard, "If you can get out of that, and through that, and wander around through the cities and find some girl who looks like she is going to get married or have a baby or something like that, you're all set. And if you can find the maternity ward to a hospital or something, you're OK. And you just eventually just pick up a baby." To avoid these inconveniences, Hubbard advised Scientologists to refuse to go to Venus after their death."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thetan
|
|
scuffy b
climber
Stump with a backrest
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 06:31pm PT
|
I didn't realize you could just say no to Venus.
maternity wards, wandering the streets...
too inconvenient, for sure.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2008 - 11:13am PT
|
Bruce, hopefully you are still playing on this thread. If someone else had written what you did, I would have discounted it out of hand. But you are my friend and a great guy and a Poway Mountaineer.. I would contend that you are who you are DESPITE your religious convictions. Anyhow...
With respect to the "God does not play dice with the universe" statement. Not to beat a dead horse, but Einstein ABSOLUTELY did not mean God in a theistic way. He wrote a famous paper justifying his statement, "I don't believe in a personal God". Back then, all of the religious folks went out of their way to condemn him for it. Now they cherry pick and misinterpret the God does not play dice quote and claim him as one of their own. Sheesh!
Back to your "Atheism is logically untenable" statement.
"God's existence cannot be proved OR DISPROVED formally by a syllogism of logic because such arguments are self annihilating." Fair enough, I suppose, but how does this have ANY bearing on whether God exists or not? Why single out the atheist side and not the theist side as untenable? Where's the logic in that? Why should the atheist have to disprove God and not the other way around?
"I consider myself a Christian Humanist, a Christian who affirms the arts and sciences". - On this one, I'd just like to explore those beliefs, a little bit.
1. Do you believe that the earth is on the order of 6,000 or 4.5 billion years old?
2. Do you believe in evolution?
3. Do you believe that Muslims and/or Jews (without converting) will also be "saved, or is that something exclusively for the Christian believers (I'm assuming that we atheists will most certainly be left out).
4. If you were born in Saudi Arabia, would you likely be a Christian, and, if not, how would you go about insuring that you are "saved"
You sort of join at the hip philosophy and theology and infer that someone who isn't a theist is also not a philosopher. Not true. I very much consider myself a philosopher. Some of the hardest and most interesting problems we have on the planet involve ethical considerations. Ethics is in a higher realm than religion. I would contend that the take on ethics that an atheist has is far superior to that of a theist, because the arguments are free from the arbitrariness of faith-based beliefs.
|
|
elcap-pics
climber
Crestline CA
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2008 - 12:23pm PT
|
Religion has never overturned a scientific finding while science has constantly overthrown religious dogma, created in the name of some unproven god... God vs Science? No contest!
|
|
Colby
Social climber
Ogdenville
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2008 - 02:27pm PT
|
First, the OP is probably fabricated. If not, the philosophy professor know little about science - specifically evoloution.
Bruce: Einstein's "theism" becomes a matter of semantics. Not to say you made this assertion, but he did not believe in the supernatural god that is concerned about human's daily affairs. Sounds like this quotation is more of a rhetorical device to communicate that the workings in the universe are not random; these workings are properties of action and reaction with regard to physics and chemistry. Like many quotations are, this is probably taken out of context.
Quote: "Atheism is untenable." - Yeah, I'd like to see you try and disprove it. Besides the burden of proof lies with the people making the assertion that there is a god and we are supposed to live by his/her/its directives.
This argument will, and has, gone on and on because you can't prove or disprove either side. You can, however, make strong judgements based on probability.
Arguments I have against a God:
1) Believers are invoking a complex being (way more complex than the world) to explain the complexity of the world. When asked what created the complex being, the usual reply is "somethings are out of our realm of knowledge". So, you're not willing to admit the universe could be created after BILLIONS of years of (mostly) small incremental changes, but you're willing to accept that a supernatural being much more complex than the universe created itself?
2) Throughout history, there have been millions of fabrications of what God is. If you were born somewhere else, very likely, you would have a different perception of God. Why do you assume that your fabrication is correct? God is a product of culture and fear.
For reasons explained above, I usually hate quotation. But here's one for you - "Spirit shine...all the time...can render you blind".
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2008 - 02:28pm PT
|
Jesus raised the dead, calmed storms, and walked on water. Show me where science has done that. Other saints have done this too.
I don't want a science vs God world. I believe the two should work in conjunction. The original purpose of religion was to help set humans free from the suffering that they have created. This is the altruistic purpose. But religion has been hijacked. This is why revelations says ( I forget the exact numbers ) that something like 7 out of 8 churches have lost their first Love.
Altruistically, science is also here to set us free from suffering. Lots of times it does so by creating work saving inventions. Sometimes it creates more suffering when it creates pollution.
Neither science nor religion are perfect. Yet I believe in both God and science.
|
|
Colby
Social climber
Ogdenville
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2008 - 02:38pm PT
|
Moosie: I don't think that Jesus did any of that. Yes, I have read the bible. I believe the bible has about as much authority as Harry Potter.
"I don't want a science vs God world. I believe the two should work in conjunction."
That's the point is they don't work in conjuction and are irreconciliable.
"The original purpose of religion was to help set humans free from the suffering that they have created." You think so, huh? I would disagree. Is constant contrition being set free?
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2008 - 02:51pm PT
|
About 40 BC, when asked to condense the Torah, Hillel said "Do not unto others what you would not have them do unto you. All the rest is commentary."
What any of us believes, assumes a real extension only when we allow it to affect the way we treat others. Over many thousands of years history suggests those believing in gods have a blemished record as regards their treatment of others. Perhaps even more blemished than the record of the non-believers.
Christ or someone like that surely lived then just as similar people have existed since. Gandhi springs to mind. If he were to see what exists today, he would surely repeat what he is believed to have said then. "Forgive them father, for they know not what they do."
God versus science is not the question. Our specie is not advancing.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2008 - 03:04pm PT
|
John Moosie -
the historic accounts we read in any historic text may represent a more complex story than accepting what was written as literal truth. And what is written is written by a person.
One can accept the authority of something as given. Science, as I have said many times before, accepts the authority of nature alone. This is very limiting, but it provides an absolute test for determining what is true and what is false in science, and quantifies the limits of our ability to make statements regarding truth and falseness.
I can sit with a copy of Newton's Optics on my bench and reproduce each of his experiments, exactly as he did. It is a central tenant of science, reproducibility, and a central requirement: that we are able to describe our observations and experiments in such a way that they can be reproduced by anyone. Our work in science strives to be objective.
There is much in our experience of reality which is subjective. Our subjective experience is real, but it may not be representative of physical reality. What is generally true about a subjective experience, however, is that it is not reproducible, it cannot generally be evoked by a written description or prescription; which is nearly a definition of "subjective experience." Our confusion with the reality of the experience as the experience of reality is at the roots of this debate.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2008 - 04:34pm PT
|
" You think so, huh? I would disagree. Is constant contrition being set free?"
As I said, religion has been hijacked by the ego. It no longer represents true teachings. God does not wish you to be in constant contrition. God wishes you to be Free. The problem is that our ego has confused what true freedom is. Some think that being free to drink beer all day is true freedom, yet because they are not conscious of what true freedom is, they are not aware that there is so much more.
.......................
Ed, my teachers are much further along the spiritual path them I am. They are experiencing more of the abundant life that Jesus told us about. The experiment is ones life. Just because the results take years to reproduce does not invalidate them. We have spent years and years and even lifetimes creating our hell. To undo that takes time. One must balance ones Karma and one must cleanse ones subconscious from all untruth to be truly free. This is a process. It doesn't happen overnight.
If witnessing the abundance that God promises is part of the scientific experiment, then I have witnessed it. I have seen healings that are not explained by science.
There is more.
..................
Earlier Bob said that the heart is just an organ. For him the mind creates everything. In part this is true, yet there is more. For what creates the mind. Is it contained in the brain ? Yet the brain is just an organ.
Bob, you wrote,
"I find it degrading, ignorant and rude to think as a believer in a mystical being that you have the goods...so to speak, to a better life/afterlife than someone else who doesn't believe in that same being. The God you speak of is no better than you if this is what he/she taught you to believe."
How many things in life do others know that you don't ? How many of these things could possibly make your life better ? Do you begrudge them their knowledge ? What if they offered it to you freely, yet you failed to see the significance of it ? Would it be their fault that you failed to grasp what they were offering you freely ?
It is only your ego that feels degradation. Your ego is not Truth. It is a construct of your fear. Your higher self does not feel degradation. When you learn to be in contact with your higher self, then you will be on the path to freedom from these feelings. The true path to God offers freedom. Anything else is a false path.
And yes, I do believe that I will be free. I already feel a great relief from my burdens plus I see the joy that others have and I want that joy.
Read, "The Christ is Born in You" by Kim Michaels. Or " I Love Jesus, I hate Christianity".
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2008 - 05:02pm PT
|
John wrote: How many things in life do others know that you don't ? How many of these things could possibly make your life better ? Do you begrudge them their knowledge ? What if they offered it to you freely, yet you failed to see the significance of it ? Would it be their fault that you failed to grasp what they were offering you freely ?
It's been offered...I didn't want what they were asking for in return. You folks can't seems to grasp that! I am a fairly stable human being, I have lived a good life, married for 33 years to the love of my life, three great children and wonderful parents. And that just the tip of it...Science has answered more of my questions than religion has come close to0...
I don't need Jesus or God to love or accept me on their terms or to tell that I am a worthy or unworthy human being...I know how I live and how I treat others will be the judge of that. I have had love my whole life.
As to ego...your a hypocrite and I think you know why.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2008 - 05:16pm PT
|
Bob, You seem to be confusing me with religion. You are perfectly free to believe and feel any way that you wish. I do not condemn you. As for me being a hypocrite, if you mean that I still have ego, then I agree with you. But this does not mean that I do not see the ego in another, much like a person who is overweight can begin the process of losing weight and still be able to help another even though they have not lost all the weight they wish to lose.
The path back to wholeness is a process. I am glad that you feel whole and that you feel your life is good, but this does not change anything I said.
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2008 - 05:26pm PT
|
John...condemn me or not condemn...that laughable. Reading to much of the bible??
Sad...you seems like the lost one here. Hope you find what your looking for.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2008 - 05:40pm PT
|
You are the one who claims to feel degraded. How does that line up with the freedom you claim? That feeling is what I was commenting on because that is what condemns you, not me. That is why I mentioned condemnation. If you wish to continue with that. Then go for it. I just offer a way out of that feeling.
As for me. I am finding what I need. Thank you. And no, I do not think that I am perfect. LOL, That notion cracks me up. :-) I really do hope that you can see that I wish you no ill will.
John
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2008 - 07:18pm PT
|
John Moosie said The problem is that our ego has confused what true freedom is. Some think that being free to drink beer all day is true freedom.
Now, this is getting personal...
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2008 - 07:26pm PT
|
john wrote: I really do hope that you can see that I wish you no ill will.
No all you wish is that everyone sees the world through your eyes...kinda like nuns and priests I had in school. LOL
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!