BWE
Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006
|
| Quote (skeptic @ Jan. 10 2007,22:25) | I have absolutely no evidence of oblivion prior to existence nor can I even conceive of what oblivion actually is or means. I don't even know if oblivion is a possibility but I do know that existence both is a possibility and Is or has never been a possibility as has always Been. Here, I'm not referring to the universe but to Existence, all universes, all time, all space, etc.
So, no, you're right, I have no reason to assume a state of oblivion except that I have to set up an initial assumption in order to analyze the current reality and the easist way to do this is by comparison. If not it becomes impossible to evaluate the question at the heart of all this:
Why are we? |
This was a very long detour to get to what you exactly didn't say.
| Quote (scary @ -,-) | In the US a brand of evangelical Christianity is the norm. As such there is a ton of popular media directed toward Christians. On a regular basis this media puts out comforting words to sincere Christians saying things like: “You know the things you’ve been hearing about evolution? Well it turns out real scientists aren’t even sure about it. Plus it can be mathematically proven that we were designed.”
Most Christians—even educated ones—are ignorant of the real biological sciences so this type of thing is easy to accept. In addition they are often taught a false dichotomy of “if evolution is true there is no God.”
But in some cases (like mine) people decide to look just a little deeper.
When they do they see the lies being propagated in the name of Christ, it does provide a challenge to one’s Christian faith. Those without a basis for their faith outside of literalism and popularism truly struggle.
I’m hoping a thread like this one will genuinely discuss how to resolve some of those issues (and acknowledge some are never going to be resolved.)...
This is pretty much my stance. One of the things I hated about ministry was being the morals instructor/enforcer. The way evangelicals practice their faith today the minister is trying to impose Christian behavior from the outside.
I always had the opinion if you are a Christian you ought to know not to treat your wife like crap—you shouldn’t need someone to tell you.
Now that I am out of ministry I enjoy being responsible for my own faith and not everyone else’s. I’m OK with God whether someone else agrees, disagrees or doesn’t even think about me.
And power—even in small congregations—is a real issue in Christianity. I’ve often said if you’re a nobody in life you can always find fame as a pastor. It’s the easiest gig to get.
If God exists—and I believe He does (note the caps)—then His existence is consistent with accurate science, at least in my view. I don’t believe He set up a lying universe.
I don’t expect to ever understand all of God nor of science, but denial is not an alternative. I am willing to say I have my own reasons for maintaining my faith, but I do try to integrate scientific reality with it as well. Denial is intellectually lazy and cannot, by its very nature, lead to deeper “faith.”
I think the title of this thread is somewhat unfortunate--I don't think we need to debate whether there are intellectually honest anybodys, of course there are. If we approach this thread from the idea of "we don't know everything about our faith but are trying to see how we can combine faith and science into a consistent whole" I believe it will be helpful to everyone.
Sure maybe Louis, Lenny et al will put in some jibes, but then again, maybe sometimes we deserve them.
You have to admit framing the debate as "are there intellectually honest Christians" maybe wasn't the smartest way to label this thread.
|
Dang, where did you come from? I just reread this thread because of the sidetrack of absolutes, and I realized, "This guy is really smart". And this is the religion thread that really is what this forum is trying to grapple with. Yeah, it's nominally about science but it's really a response to the ID thingy that got so roundly trounced at Dover. We are asking ourselves (at least I am), "How did we get here?" Not cosmically but "how did the wingnuts get such a voice? What's up with this darn religion thing?"
And it boils down to reconciling religion and evidence. Just like you said. It is an honest question.
You replied to me with:
| Quote | I respectfully disagree. Or at least I think I do. I am not a literalist, but I do believe the Bible to be reliable. I am not immune to considering positions that seem to be the opposite of what I believe the Bible is saying. If you are saying literalists cannot be intellectually honest, then I agree. If you’re saying one must accept the Bible as total mythology to be intellectually honest, then I disagree...
Second, I have a pretty good grasp on my own belief system which I am constantly refining in the light of new experiences/information/study. I don’t really depend on others to define my belief system.
|
Well said. I respectfully disagree with you. I was not raised with religion. But I was raised in the way out woods in the mountains of the north cascades and I definitely knew god. My god. Cosmos, part of which is Earth. I don't think you can select christianity out of the milieu and say you did it independently based on some intrinsic value. I read most of the holy books as a kid and, to me, they are all pretty much the same. If you think reasons exist that elevate one specific mythology over another, I would want some evidence.
Louis said: | Quote | Actually Russell makes an excellent point, one I should have made myself. {smacks self in head}
What do you mean by "god" and "religion"? I would argue that science has shown that many definitions of "god" have no basis in fact. Note the word MANY not the word ALL. It is possible to imagine a god concept which is consistent with what we currently know about science for example.
"Religion" based on faith or revelation alone falls into that category of epistemological methods that are anathema to reason and thus science. That conflict exists. Does this mean it's impossible to be "religious" and a "scientist"? No it doesn't because as Russell correctly notes it really depends on what you mean by "religion".
|
Excellent point. If god is simply the word (or symbol) for "that which is". Then xianity is just a face in the crowd.
Louis then said: | Quote | If you are claiming that your god is something we don't/can't fully understand then sorry chum but that's really not cutting any mustard. It's the argument from personal incredulity and the argument from mystery added together. It proves, demonstrates and illuminates nothing. Saying something is mysterious or unkowable by fiat is the end of inquiry not the beginning. Perhaps your not saying that, perhaps you mean something different by "denial", enquiring minds want to know!
Wasn't there some bod who mentioned the two books of revelation, one of scripture one of nature? Where is your god to be found in the book of nature? Appeals to mystery, personal (in)credulity and the like don't work for all the standard reasons.
Yours in hopeful anticipation of a genuinely excellent discussion with a genuinely rational and intelligent human being ;-) * |
Which has turned out mostly to be.
Scary: | Quote | | My understanding of God is based on the traditional Judeo/Christian deity as pictured in the Old and New Testaments. While there will always be some debate on every specific characteristic of this god, the broad strokes a pretty well agreed upon: Omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence. |
So why the xian god? why not forget the name and enjoy the connection?
Skeptic said: | Quote | The idea that science can disprove the existence of God is in question. I use the big "G" in an effort to avoid the purple elephant or Effiel Tower lunatic analogies and just try to focus upon God as a supernatural concept.
Science is forever framed within human perspective and also confined by it. We attempt to describe the universe in terms we can understand based upon reason and logic universal to all. Anything beyond these limits is untestable by science, reason or logic. This is not a statement about actual existence just the ability to evaluate existence in these terms.
Faith is not based upon reason in the same sense. With a primary basis in introspection, meditation and revelation, a person makes a reasoned choice to believe based upon the impact and strength of these sources of knowledge. Physical measurements are not taken and evidence of this nature is not gathered. All knowledge gained is ultimately of a personal nature and not directly transferable to another. It must be experienced. As the saying goes, "Some things have to be believed to be seen."
It is for these reasons and distinctions that I have no conflict between science and religion. They don't speak the same language, they don't live in the same town and they don't hang out together. In short, they have nothing in common and do not belong in an opposing conversation (my opinion). That is also why, I feel, that the statement as to the existence of God being assessed by science is foundationally wrong. Science can not be used to evaluate God, to me, it's just that simple. |
way back a bit.
But specific claims can be measured. That's what science does. So the Ark, Jesus's ressurrection, burning bushes etc. get nailed. Since the religion based it's validity on these events with the very tangible supernatural, logic dictates that the religion is like all the others. Not unique.
Lenny replied: | Quote | | That, BTW, is why the evangelical-atheist campaign to stamp out religion is, besides being utterly futile and hopeless, simply shooting at the wrong target. "Religion" is not the problem. "Fundamentalism" is. Some people, apparently, can't tell the difference. |
which is not altogether consistent with the idea of rational and religious coexisting.
Reciprocating Bill: | Quote | A corollary question: “Are there facets of the experience of human beings in the natural world that are inexpressible by means of human language – yet may be grasped (although not expressed propositionally) in other ways?”
I am an atheist, and certainly a devotee of scientific ways of knowing, yet I hold that the answer to both questions is “yes.” Human beings have the potential for inarticulate ways of knowing that can disclose experiences and, at times, comprehension, that cannot be expressed propositionally. Certainly these are the concerns of many of the arts; by the same token, elements of these experiences are the concern of some spiritual practices, which in some instances can guide persons to these otherwise inexpressible experiences.
Moreover, there are forms of such practice that are compatible with, and indeed enhanced by, scientific ways of knowing (and that are themselves likely to be better understood by means of, for example, cognitive science). One can engage in such practices, harvest for oneself the experiences therein, and even legitimately characterize them as, in a sense, “comprehension,” and remain intellectually and scientifically honest. |
But yet again, why single out one religion? I very deeply hold to the principle that science maps surfaces and that meditation and "spirit" is another dimention not accesible to science. But also not knowable in concrete terms. Hmm. Should I question that one?
Scary: | Quote | | I don’t believe my understanding of God is any more reasonable or authoritative than any of the other major religions. I do believe the major religions have a little more authority than the FSM because the ancient religions have been somewhat vindicated in their principles by hundreds of years of followers who found value and truth through their teachings. That doesn’t make them right, it just gives them a little more validity than a random religious thought. |
That seems like a fallacy.
Scary again:[quote}Agreed, but I wonder if there aren’t some predictions we can make if the Bible is reliable. For example: the Bible pictures Christians (as a group) as having the regular intervention of God in their lives. If you find a group of people who are practicing Christians, there ought to be a track record of “beyond a reasonable doubt coincidental” answers to prayer.
I understand I am not giving you a quantifiable scientific prediction, but if one looks at it much like a jury looking at evidence in a case, possibly there is enough evidence to at least propose that faith is reasonable.[/quote]
Once again, why single out one religion?
Then we get to this one which is what the current discussion seems to be working on:
Skeptic: | Quote | Faith to me has always been an easy question. I've never been one to wrestle with it only with my inability to adhere to courses of action that I know that I should. The reason for this is that I've reduced it all back to a single question: existence vs. oblivion.
Since we have two choices it would seem that there would be a fifty-fifty chance of either result. So why do we have existence over oblivion? To do this we (or me as the case would be) would have to be able to examine each and compare and contrast to understand why one result is favored. This we can not do. We exist within a material world and have absolutely no understanding or experience of non-existence. This last is not just me talking; no one can comprehend oblivion and there's been a lot of very smart people throughout history that have come to the same conclusion.
So all we know is existence and that begs the question as to what caused it. Whatever caused it stands outside of the material universe in terms of essence or composition. It is prior to the natural laws that describe the material universe and is therefore, by definition, super-natural. Once you get to this point it all becomes semantics. Whether it the First Cause or the Cosmic Spirit or God or whatever becomes a personal choice. I strongly disagree with BWE because at the root nearly any faith can be intellectually honest if it is sincere. |
No one can comprehend oblivion? Begs the question? This is the exact discovery of the eastern traditions. You can comprehend it. There is not quite the question you begin with. And, also, a root doth not a burning bush make.
--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far
The Daily Wingnut
|
