Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Intellectually Honest Christians?

Pages: (12) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... >

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2007,23:01    Quote (The Wayward Hammer @ Jan. 05 2007,22:52) For example, have you seen the picture from Cassini with Saturn and its rings backlit by the Sun?  And there is a small bluish dot off to the left - Earth from a billion miles away.  I could write many words about that dicotomy - the massive planet with its stunning rings and little blue dot.  But the picture is a lot better. I feel the same way when I see the Hubble Deep Field photo.  All those galaxies, so far away, stretching on and on and on . . . . What a marvelous universe we live in.   And how sad that so many people want to try to force it to be what they want it to be.  What it *is*, is good enough for me. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2007,00:11    Scary, I'll offer this and maybe it will help and maybe it won't, if so just happily ignore it. 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. On thing we've done in science is study the things we can study.  Things we can observe, measure, quantify and so forth and we've skipped over the more difficult questions because they are not accessable by science.  The fundamental question is existence vs oblivion but we can not study that so we move on down the line until we find something we can study.  Unfortunately, men of science often will use this later knowledge to extrapolate back to the earlier questions and make a determination.  This determination is invalid.   As a sidebar, every couple of years, popular media puts forth the idea of a faith gene, the reason why some believe and some don't.  In some ways I find this compelling because just from personal experience I know it would be impossible for me to ever believe in nothing.  It destroys my understanding of causation and an objective reality and it is something I've never been able to comprehend.  Maybe that's my limitation or I'm just wired that way, who can say? Also, your earlier reference to the three O's as a working definition of God follows very easily from Aquinas' argument.  If God is Existence or the To Be as Aquinas defined Him then the Three O's follow quite naturally and in a similar way to Deadman's grandfather's explanation of the unified concept. Just thought I'd add an appropriately long post, though not nearly as long as others, and I hope that might help as you frame the debate in your head.  If not, like I said, junk it.

curious Posts: 8 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2007,00:49    Quote On thing we've done in science is study the things we can study.  Things we can observe, measure, quantify and so forth and we've skipped over the more difficult questions because they are not accessable by science.  The fundamental question is existence vs oblivion but we can not study that so we move on down the line until we find something we can study.  Unfortunately, men of science often will use this later knowledge to extrapolate back to the earlier questions and make a determination.  This determination is invalid. {my emphasis}   But not necessarily if that determination is an ampliative one. Scientific theories can help us remedy rational thinking, i.e., the explanations of science can act as scaffolding for philosophical excursions. And hopefully these excursions, being logical/rational/etc... , will help to at least explicate your worries. At the very least, the sciences give us excellent predictions. Being a bit more adventurous, science helps us (see/understand/...) something objective about this world. It isn't the definite word, but it's not trivially vacuous and/or invalid.

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2007,01:23    The invalidity (my word, lol) I'm referring to arises from the application of knowledge gained through rational means to evaluate an irrational experience.  Maybe irrational is the wrong word here but events beyond the natural laws can not be assessed rationally.  We have no frame of reference to apply in this case.  In essence, science would be saying: "If the emergence of Existence were to conform to natural law, then this is how it happened."  In this case there is no natural law that applies, at least not that we know of, so it is of no use to extend these laws anyway. Science can certainly suggest some ideas as to the origin of a universe but that would be a universe that existed  within our own.  Anything beyond (or before) exists under laws that we have knowledge or experience of and therefore our knowledge just doesn't apply. Disclaimer: the above comments are purely my opinion since I certainly have no special knowledge of the nature of the universe, existence and everything.

ScaryFacts Posts: 337 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2007,06:07    Quote (BWE @ Jan. 05 2007,18:27) There is not only no evidence for any religion but there is contraverting evidence. Good post, BWE. I (obviously) disagree that we have no evidence.  While I know I am going out on a limb here, there is no doubt in my mind that I personally have experienced “coincidences” so often as to be beyond a reasonable doubt.  (I still have to start writing those things up, and I think you may not agree once I do, but I do believe most rational people will at least see why I  say it is evidence.) Is it hearsay?   Technically, I suppose, but that does not negate its value. By the way…you wrote up a really cool view of life and death for you back a month or two ago.  I couldn’t remember what thread it was on, but if you know where it is, it might be good to post it again on this thread.  I felt it was well written and clearly presented your beliefs.

ScaryFacts Posts: 337 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2007,06:19    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 05 2007,20:52) Let me share this essay, which I wrote perhaps 15 years ago: I was brushing my teeth, or doing something else as ordinary, when suddenly struck:  I am arches of experience emerging from the workings of my body, a transparent structure of color and action, transacting with an environment that is itself built of both awareness and physicality.  A reality that includes body and experience.  I am a tower of mental and physical homeostasis and balance, built of many rooms of knowing and behavior, a structure of self. I never thought before about brushing teeth being a transcendental experience. Bill, this is great post.  I am beginning to think you (and others) may be correct that our “soul” is not independent of our bodies.  As I mentioned in an impossibly long post earlier:  Christianity teaches the necessity of a physical body post resurrection.   If we didn’t need a body, it seems to me this teaching wouldn’t be so important. But as I also mentioned, this begs a huge question about where is the soul between death and resurrection.  I don’t have any real insight there yet.

ScaryFacts Posts: 337 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2007,06:31    Quote (Steviepinhead @ Jan. 05 2007,20:55) So, I'm happy to kick all this around with Scary Ha, my plan is coming together perfectly: Pretend not to be a fundy to gain the trust of the atheists [check] Gain their trust by pretending to be rational [check] Tell the atheists you want their input [check] Over time gently destroy their false reasoning Pretend to become a fundy with them Have them all move to my compound in Guyana OK, on a more serious note... Steve, thanks for at least not pointing and laughing.  I apreciate your willingness to discuss these issues with me.

ScaryFacts Posts: 337 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2007,06:34    Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 05 2007,21:42) I won't and ya know what? I'll say suck my dick to anyone that does try that stupid crap. NO ONE knows what this shit means. Gee, Deadman, don't hold back, tell us what you really think.

ScaryFacts Posts: 337 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2007,06:43    Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 05 2007,21:33) Every time I've seen someone like Scary come into an evolution-creation forum (ANY forum), it always ends the same way.  Every time.  The fundies jump all over him because "people who don't believe the Bible are just atheist devil-worshippers".  And the hyper-atheists jump all over him because "supernaturalism is stupid and religion is for retards". Thanks for defending me Lenny. When I left the church I experienced the loss of my home, my friends as well as my job and income.  Dealing with people here is a walk in the park.  Trust me, nobody’s going to run me off unless I want to leave.

ScaryFacts Posts: 337 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2007,06:54    Quote (Russell @ Jan. 05 2007,22:32) I think Mr. Facts might well agree with me. I do agree which is why I immediately apologized when you made it clear to me that wasn’t what you were saying. Though I want to make something else clear:  I attempt to be considerate, polite and appropriately humble.  But I have no trouble sticking up for myself.  Heck, just this morning I was bathroom walled—and I didn’t even use profanity.  I hope no one is worried about hurting my feelings. And please, call me Scary, everyone does.  No need for formality here.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2007,07:09    Quote (skeptic @ Jan. 06 2007,01:23) The invalidity (my word, lol) I'm referring to arises from the application of knowledge gained through rational means to evaluate an irrational experience.  Maybe irrational is the wrong word here but events beyond the natural laws can not be assessed rationally.  We have no frame of reference to apply in this case.  In essence, science would be saying: "If the emergence of Existence were to conform to natural law, then this is how it happened."  In this case there is no natural law that applies, at least not that we know of, so it is of no use to extend these laws anyway. Science can certainly suggest some ideas as to the origin of a universe but that would be a universe that existed  within our own.  Anything beyond (or before) exists under laws that we have knowledge or experience of and therefore our knowledge just doesn't apply. Skeptic here illustrates my point, just as some of our resident atheists already have illustrated the same point. BOTH of them want to re-frame the whole discussion in terms of "authority".  To Skeptic, it's simple --- we can understand the unvierse, but we can't understand what's outside the universe, god is outside the universe, we can't understand god, therefore we should just shut up and listen to what god tells us. To the hyper-atheists, it's equally simple --- we can understand the universe, there IS nothing outside the universe, therefore anything asserted to be outside the universe has no authority and doesn't need to be listened to. As I noted, both of these sides are using the very same framework, and the very same argument inside that framework.  They are both simply arguing over who has "religious authority" and who doesn't. As I also noted, neither I nor any of the moderate non-fundie Christians utilize that framework.  Neither I nor any of the non-fundie Christian moderates assert or accept any "religious authority".  And that is why neither Skeptic nor Russell are able to understand my point.  It simply falls outside of their conceptual framework, and until they themselves are able to look outside their framework, they quite simply will not ever be able to understand a word that I (or any of the moderate Christian majority) are saying.  It falls completely outside their experience, and they literally have no idea what the words are referring to. And there is nothing I or anyone else can do to make it any more clear for them.  No words are understandable to those who don't have the experience of which the words are referring.  If they wish to understand, they MUST look outside of their conceptual framework. Alas, that is very difficult for most people to do.  It's far easier to just remain within their conceptual framework, and argue with each other over who has "authority" and who doesn't. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

ScaryFacts Posts: 337 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2007,07:11    Quote (The Wayward Hammer @ Jan. 05 2007,23:03) Much of this reminds me of Paul Tillich or even Bishop Spong.  I think Scary is more in the Marcus Borg camp - which I think is a good place to be! …Borg's basic thesis is that man over the years has experienced the reality of God and man's sacred writings are a response to that experience.  They are true without necessarily being factual. Hammer great, thoughtful post. I’m not ready to go as far as Tillich or Spong, though you never know where I will eventually arrive.  Borg is possibly closer to where I am today (literally, I am questioning everything day by day) though I am not quite ready to picture God “in everything” quite yet.  I have some growing to do. But you are correct in my view of scripture, though I haven’t completely settled "scriptural" in my mind just yet. Quote (The Wayward Hammer @ Jan. 05 2007,23:03) I still struggle myself with what is "real" and how we know what real is.  But I do know that religion as we have it today is about power, not faith. Exactly.  I couldn’t agree more. Quote (The Wayward Hammer @ Jan. 05 2007,23:03) Maybe I will end up like Martin Gardner - believing because it comforts me to do so. Isn’t this the reason anyone has any faith at all?  We seek a god, a faith, a system for living because it gives us some emotional payoff we feel we need.  If, like Lenny, we are an apa-theist there’s no motivation.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2007,07:21    Quote (curious @ Jan. 06 2007,00:49) Scientific theories can help us remedy rational thinking, i.e., the explanations of science can act as scaffolding for philosophical excursions. And hopefully these excursions, being logical/rational/etc... , will help to at least explicate your worries. It always strikes me how so many science-types lean so heavily on being "rational" and "logical" in their philosophical views of life.  It's like they are all named "Spock", and have all attained Kohlinar. Alas, humans are irrational, emotional, illogical, impulsive creatures. When scientists choose someone to marry, I doubt very much that they use the "rational" "logical" "scientific method" to do so . . . . . The worst ones are the "biological determinists" who assert that thought and emotion itself (including religion, in most cases) is "nothing but the deterministic motion of molecules in the brain".  They remind me of Data's definition of "friendship"  -- "As I experience certain sensory input patterns, my mental pathways become accustomed to them. The inputs are eventually anticipated, even missed when absent." I bet they're, uh, great at parties.  (yawn) -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

ScaryFacts Posts: 337 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2007,07:23    Quote (skeptic @ Jan. 06 2007,02:23) The invalidity (my word, lol) I'm referring to arises from the application of knowledge gained through rational means to evaluate an irrational experience.  Maybe irrational is the wrong word here but events beyond the natural laws can not be assessed rationally. There is a basic assumption that God (or god) as defined by the Bible acts in supernatural ways, but I don’t believe this is scripturally supported. Follow my reasoning here (and tell me if I am crazy): If you accept God is, on some level, the creator, then you also believe he established the natural laws of the universe. Isn’t it possible such a god would also operate according to the laws he established?  If so, then it is possible using natural observation we can learn about his universes and God himself.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2007,07:50    Quote (ScaryFacts @ Jan. 06 2007,07:11) Isn’t this the reason anyone has any faith at all?  We seek a god, a faith, a system for living because it gives us some emotional payoff we feel we need.  If, like Lenny, we are an apa-theist there’s no motivation. Au contraire, I assure you that I am QUITE highly motivated.  I would think that to be rather obvious.   The difference between me and the fundies is that my motivation doesn't come from any external source -- it comes from within ME.  I am responsible for my own life -- me and me alone.  Not "god", not "the devil".  Just me.  Every decision I make is MY decision.  I, and I alone, am responsible for the results of those decisions. As I noted before, the fundies are absolutely terrified of that.  The one thing they fear most in the world is having to make a decision for which they, and they alone, are responsible.  So, they push that responsibility off onto something else.  They give responsibility for their entire lives to their Authority Father Figure, who they assume always knows best, and therefore they grant that Father Figure total and complete responsibility to make all their decisions for them. Of course, in a real sense, the fundies still do not escape responsibility for their decisions.  After all, the decision to grant all decisions over you to somebody else, is itself a decision *they themselves* have made.  If they grant decision-making authority over them to someone else, that is still THEIR decision, and because they can un-do that decision at any time, they still retain full responsibility for it.   WE choose all of our own opinions and decisions -- they do not choose US.  The real question is whether or not we choose to also acknowledge the RESPONSIBILITY for those opinions and decisions.  The fundies do not --- they prefer to hold "god" or "the devil" responsible for everything that happens to them -- so nothing is ever the fundies' fault or responsibility.  Here, I give the atheists full points -- they take full responsibility for their lives, and they don't try to foist responsibility for their lives off onto some Big Daddy in the Sky (and make no mistake, "Big Daddy in the Sky" is exactly how the fundies want their god to be). It's one thing I find so liberating about all the Asian "religious" traditions.  In all of them, YOU are the captain of your own ship.  You choose your own course, you decide when and where to turn, and you are responsible for everything that happens.  There's no Big Daddy in the Sky to watch out for you.  You are entirely on your own. No one can tell me how to be "me".  Not even god can do that.  Only *I* can do that.  Which is precisely why the question of god's existence is such an irrelevant non-issue to me.   I find that quite liberating.  Many people, though, simply aren't *ready* to acknowledge responsibility for their own lives.  Therefore I do not begrudge people their Big Daddy in the Sky if they need it, just as I don't begrudge people a hearing aid or a walking cane if they need it.  If it helps them get through life, then that's fine with me -- as long as they remember that their right to swing their cane ends at the tip of my nose. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2007,07:55    Quote As I noted, both of these sides are using the very same framework, and the very same argument inside that framework.  They are both simply arguing over who has "religious authority" and who doesn't. If that's what you think I think, you (ahem) completely and utterly missed my point. But never mind. I don't want to distract from the more interesting interaction here with a dispute over whose view is more transcendent, or who can more preachily denounce preachiness. -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2007,08:01    Quote (ScaryFacts @ Jan. 06 2007,07:23) Isn’t it possible such a god would also operate according to the laws he established?  If so, then it is possible using natural observation we can learn about his universes and God himself. You are, of course, viewing "god" entirely in human terms. I doubt that "god" is a human.   I prefer to view "god" and "creation" (temporarily adopting the Christian terminology) as different aspects of the same thing, not as separate and distinct entities.  But , of course, that is just my opinion, and it is, of course, no more authoritative or infallible than anyone ELSE's opinion.   It's up to you to find your OWN opinion.  No one else can do that for you. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2007,08:08    Quote (Russell @ Jan. 06 2007,07:55) or who can more preachily denounce preachiness. "Preaching" is all about "authority".  People without "authority", cannot "preach". So we are back to my point.  You still have not left the whole "who has authority?" framework.  And that's why you still don't grasp what I'm saying. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2007,08:25    Quote (ScaryFacts @ Jan. 06 2007,07:11) I have some growing to do. We  *all*  do. It never stops. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2007,08:27    Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 06 2007,07:09) As I also noted, neither I nor any of the moderate non-fundie Christians utilize that framework.  Neither I nor any of the non-fundie Christian moderates assert or accept any "religious authority".  And that is why neither Skeptic nor Russell are able to understand my point.  It simply falls outside of their conceptual framework, and until they themselves are able to look outside their framework, they quite simply will not ever be able to understand a word that I (or any of the moderate Christian majority) are saying.  It falls completely outside their experience, and they literally have no idea what the words are referring to. You've confused me, Lenny.  For one thing I didn't refer to authority anywhere in my post.  That aside, I'd really like to know what framework you work from because, as you said, it alludes me.  There either is or there isn't something outside of the universe.  There are no other alternatives to that question, unless you see something that I and many others do not.  I just take the question to the next logical conclusion.  The fact that the universe exists is proof to me that something beyond the universe exists. You speak as if this conclusion is somehow limiting or derived from the simple-minded.  How can it be when it is one of the TWO equally valid available conclusions?  If there are more than two choices here, please, enlighten me because I fail to see them. This may, in fact, prove what you're asserting but I believe the burden rests on you to provide an alternative.  Otherwise, I would say that both Russell and I occupy opposite sides of a valid coin and it would be you that is stuck in a prison of you're own making.

lkeithlu Posts: 321 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2007,08:34    I want to thank all of you for your time spent on this thread. One of the wonders of the internet is experiencing a conversation of this nature among people whose daily existence is different. Yes, sometimes my friends/coworkers (that group represents almost a complete overlap) have discussions that are deeper than the everyday, usually with the help of aqueous ethanol solutions. But our experiences are too similar (we are boarding school teachers), and our opportunities too few (we are boarding school teachers). Your comments are interesting and thoughtful. KL

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2007,08:35    Quote (ScaryFacts @ Jan. 06 2007,07:11) I’m not ready to go as far as Tillich or Spong, though you never know where I will eventually arrive.  Borg is possibly closer to where I am today I'm just curious here:  you seem to be searching everywhere and anywhere for answers, except in the one place that is most readily accessible and knowable for you --- inside yourself. Why is that? -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2007,08:38    Quote (skeptic @ Jan. 06 2007,08:27) I'd really like to know what framework you work from because, as you said, it alludes me. I know it does.  And there's nothing I can do about that. Whether you see it or not is entirely up to you. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2007,08:41    Quote (ScaryFacts @ Jan. 06 2007,07:23) Quote (skeptic @ Jan. 06 2007,02:23) The invalidity (my word, lol) I'm referring to arises from the application of knowledge gained through rational means to evaluate an irrational experience.  Maybe irrational is the wrong word here but events beyond the natural laws can not be assessed rationally. There is a basic assumption that God (or god) as defined by the Bible acts in supernatural ways, but I don’t believe this is scripturally supported. Follow my reasoning here (and tell me if I am crazy): If you accept God is, on some level, the creator, then you also believe he established the natural laws of the universe. Isn’t it possible such a god would also operate according to the laws he established?  If so, then it is possible using natural observation we can learn about his universes and God himself. If God established the laws of the universe then He, She or It operates a level above those laws.  He is not ONLY subject to them because he defined them.  Think of it in spheres.  The Universe is a sphere that is surrounded by another sphere that encapsulates or IS God.  Everything that occurs within the Universe are subject to the established natural laws but events also occur outside the sphere that are not.  Creation, is this sense the moment or event of existence, is one of these cases.  It occured within the sphere that houses or Is God and became the Universe.  Consider it a sub-set.  It reflect the whole but does not necessarily contain all the members of the larger set.  I hope that helps clarify my meaning when I refered to super-natural. The next question, the one I think Lenny is getting at, is whether or not there is any interaction between the two spheres.  That, I believe, can only be resolved at the personal level.

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2007,08:48    Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 06 2007,08:38) Quote (skeptic @ Jan. 06 2007,08:27) I'd really like to know what framework you work from because, as you said, it alludes me. I know it does.  And there's nothing I can do about that. Whether you see it or not is entirely up to you. There's nothing you can do about because you choose not to? Or am I so inferior that there's no hope? Or there is no real answer? Come on, Lenny, this is a cop-out and a contemptous one at that.  As I said, the burden lies with you.  Show me an alternative and I'll consider it, otherwise... Why not go back to the blondes and brunettes.  I thought that was a fantastic piece which I intend to use in the future (with appropriate acknowlegement, of course).

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2007,09:14    Skeptic:       Quote There either is or there isn't something outside of the universe.  There are no other alternatives to that question, unless you see something that I and many others do not. But there ARE alternatives.  One is that neither pole of this dichotomy -  there IS or ISN'T something "outside" of the universe (or "before time") - has any meaning.   This is rather like demanding to know whether there IS, or IS NOT something north of the north pole. As it happens, it is not that one answer is correct and the other mistaken; rather, neither has any meaning: "There is nothing north of the north pole" has no more meaning than "there is something north of the north pole."   So it is not that your answer to your question is correct (or incorrect). Rather, the conceptual tools that you are applying, which are so useful in ordinary contexts and that you conceptualize as sweeping out all of the possible alternatives, may be wholly inappropriate to the issue at hand. That is the alternative that you and so many others are not seeing. -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

curious Posts: 8 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2007,09:17    Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 06 2007,07:21) It always strikes me how so many science-types lean so heavily on being "rational" and "logical" in their philosophical views of life.  It's like they are all named "Spock", and have all attained Kohlinar. Alas, humans are irrational, emotional, illogical, impulsive creatures. When scientists choose someone to marry, I doubt very much that they use the "rational" "logical" "scientific method" to do so . . . . . The worst ones are the "biological determinists" who assert that thought and emotion itself (including religion, in most cases) is "nothing but the deterministic motion of molecules in the brain".  They remind me of Data's definition of "friendship"  -- "As I experience certain sensory input patterns, my mental pathways become accustomed to them. The inputs are eventually anticipated, even missed when absent." I bet they're, uh, great at parties.  (yawn) What, you mean everyone doesn't have Bayesian procedures for picking who to talk to at parties? But seriously, rationality helps to inform our (maybe just my) ethics and epistemology so I would think it would be of foremost importance to our (my) philosophical views. But, of course I (but maybe not you) will fail miserably to perfectly follow/track/obey these views, but that's life. Consequently, emotions, intuitions, and other mechanisms for a proper social life are still vital (or until this guy gives us some better algorithms ).

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2007,09:25    Lenny: Quote Here, I give the atheists full points -- they take full responsibility for their lives, and they don't try to foist responsibility for their lives off onto some Big Daddy in the Sky (and make no mistake, "Big Daddy in the Sky" is exactly how the fundies want their god to be). It's one thing I find so liberating about all the Asian "religious" traditions.  In all of them, YOU are the captain of your own ship.  You choose your own course, you decide when and where to turn, and you are responsible for everything that happens.  There's no Big Daddy in the Sky to watch out for you.  You are entirely on your own. Here I wonder if, having aptly jettisoned parents floating in the sky, you are not over-valorizing freedom, agency, and the personal self.   After all, another tradition of the East, particularly Buddhist and Zen Buddhist traditions, is to underscore the illusory nature of the personal ego, and to attempt to experience (however briefly) its dissolution. -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2007,16:17    Quote (skeptic @ Jan. 06 2007,08:48) Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 06 2007,08:38)   Quote (skeptic @ Jan. 06 2007,08:27) I'd really like to know what framework you work from because, as you said, it alludes me. I know it does.  And there's nothing I can do about that. Whether you see it or not is entirely up to you. There's nothing you can do about because you choose not to? Or am I so inferior that there's no hope? Or there is no real answer?... Because there is something else. The dichotomies you propose are not necessarily dichotomies to all others. Many of the reasons you defend your god are the same kind of dichotomies. You might want to question your either-or's if you are looking for a clearer view of the tao . It isn't always where you look for it. And it has no more intrinsic value than not finding it. How do I have this special knowledge? Ahhh. That too is less interesting than you might suppose. -------------- 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

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2007,16:41    I will try to illustrate what I mean, Skeptic, as clearly as I am able. You say: >There either is or there isn't something outside of the universe.  >There are no other alternatives to that question But my dear Skeptic, there *is* indeed a third alternative answer to that question.  It goes, " Who the #### cares?" I am not being flippant.  I assure you I am utterly serious. To both you and Russell (using you both as convenient stand-ins for the two competing sides of the argument), the question "is there something outside the universe" has enormous import precisely because it answers the question (or at least you both THINK it answers the question) "who has religious authority, and who doesn't?"  Or, if you prefer, "whose religious opinions are correct, and whose aren't?" -- the same question, since both you and Russell (metaphorically) accept the same suite of religious authorities, though one of you asserts them and the other one denies them.  And that indeed is the entire framework within which you and Russell (metaphorically) are arguing. To people who don't assert or accept any "religious authority" outside of themselves (and in particular those who don't accept the Biblically-centered version of authority that both you and Russell *do* accept), however, the question itself is utterly and completely meaningless, as are all of the arguments over it and its implications.  It has no import at all.  It simply makes no difference. And to you, for whom that question is absolutely vital, the very idea that it might be entirely beside the point, is, quite literally, inconceivable.  After all, as you yourself so aptly put it, in your view, there *can be* only two options --- either for you, or against you.  Ditto for Russell.  And what both of you do, is argue back and forth over whether the answer is indeed for you, or against you. Any view in which that answer is simply irrelevant, though, is a crashing source of incredible befuddlement to both of you.  Which is why neither of you are able to understand the third way (the way of all the non-fundie non-authoritative religions).  It quite literally lies outside the conceptual framework that you both accept. That has nothing to do with being "stupid" or "simple-minded".  It is a matter of perception.  If you allow only two possibilities, then you simply *cannot see* a third.  And no one else can MAKE you see it.  You have to do that yourself.  (shrug) -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Pages: (12) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard