»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Is Religion a Virus of the Mind?
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Is Religion a Virus of the Mind? |
|
|
berengar Member
since 2004-01-02
Posts 86 |
Forgive my impertinance ... but there's a few interesting comments made by Richard Dawkins (author of 'The Selfish Gene ' etc) on viruses of the mind (just as there can be computer viruses or the biological variety). As is his wont, he levels his canon squarely at the bastions of religious belief, which he castigates as examples of 'viral infections'. Now, as a believer myself, I would love to see what responses could be made to his comments, and will cheer from the sidelines, as it were. All excerpts are taken from 'Viruses of the Mind' in "Dennett and His Critics" (Blackwell, Oxford, 1993). "It is intriguing to wonder what it might feel like, from the inside, if one's mind were the victim of a "virus"...Progressive evolution of more effective mind-parasites will have two aspects. New "mutants" that are better at spreading will become more numerous. And there will be a ganging up of ideas that flourish in one another's presence, ideas that mutually support each other just as genes do...These "gangs" will come to constitute a package, which may be sufficiently stable to deserve a collective name such as Roman Catholicism or Voodoo...our minds are friendly environments to parasitic, self-replicating ideas or information, and...typically massively infected. Like computer viruses, succesful mind viruses will tend to be hard for their victims to detect. If you are the victim of one, the chances are you won't know it and may even vigorously deny it. Accepting that a virus might be difficult to detect in your own mind, what tell-tale signs might you look out for? I shall answer by imagining how a medical textbook might describe the typical symptoms of a sufferer (arbitarily assumed to be male); 1) The patient typically finds himself impelled by some deep, inner conviction that something is true, or right, or virtuous; a conviction that doesn't seem to owe anything to evidence or reason, but which, nevertheless, he feels as totally compelling or convincing. We doctors refer to such belief as "faith". 2) Patients typically make a positive virtue of faith's being strong and unshakable, in spite of not being based on evidence. Indeed, they may feel that the less evidence there is, the more virtuous the belief... 3) A related symptom...is the conviction that "mystery" per-se is a good thing. It is not a virtue to solve mysteries. Rather we should enjoy them, even revel in their insolubility... 4) The sufferer may find himself behaving intolerantly towards vectors of rival faiths, in extreme cases even killing them or advocating their deaths. He may be similarly violent towards apostates or towards heretics. He may also feel hostile towards other modes of thought that are potentially inimical to his faith, such as the method of scientific reason which may function rather like a piece of anti-viral software... 5) The patient may notice that the particular convictions that he holds, while having nothing to do with evidence, do seem to owe a great deal to epidemiology. Why, he may wonder, do I hold this set of convictions rather than that set? Is it because I surveyed all the world's faiths and chose the ones whose claims seemed most convincing? Almost certainly not. If you have a faith, it is statistically overwhelmingly likely that it is the same faith your parents and grandparents had...by far the most important variable determining your religion is the accident of birth... 6) If the patient is one of the rare exceptions who follow a different religion from his parents, the explanation may still be epidemiological. To be sure, it is possible that he dispassionately surveyed the world's faiths and chose the most convincing one. But it is statistically more probable that he has been exposed to a particularly potent infective agent - a John Wesley, a Jim Jones or a St Paul. Here we are talking about horizontal transmission, as in measles. Before, the epidemiology was that of vertical transmission, as in Huntingdon's Chorea... 7) The internal sensations of the patient may be startingly reminiscent of those more ordinarily associated with sexual love. |
||
| © Copyright 2004 berengar - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I'm not ignoring this. I just frankly don't understand it. If someone could explain this using language more easy to comprehend I would sure appreciate it.  |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
The idea is simple. Ideas in general act remarkably like viruses (biological or computer). Religion seems to be a particularly potent one. Symptoms of an infected patient: 1) I don't think, I know it is true. I don't care what you say, what evidence you can muster, you will not deceive me, for I already know. 2) If God wanted us to know the nature of the universe, He would have already told us. 3) The ability to believe in impossible things regardless. The fear, like discovering how a magic trick works, of no longer feeling wonder. 4) Believe what I do or die. 5) It's good enough for daddy, it's good enough for me. 6) It's not what you know, it's who you talk to. 7) The similarity of revelation emotions to orgasm. See Chaucer's the Nun-priest. I would add one more: Reproduction 8) I am compelled to convert you. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Hmm. My turn to be startled at this question for reasons of my own. But I'm wondering, if this is so, is there a negative consequence of this "infection"? I mean to the individual. (came back to clarify) |
||
|
berengar Member
since 2004-01-02
Posts 86 |
Dawkins sure seems to think so; in the form of various behavioural and cognitive 'eccentricities' (the relevent ones being listed). That being said, a virus of the mind per se is not necessarily negative. What Dawkins is saying is ideas spread and replicate themselves in much the same way DNA or programmed algorithims do. Certain oppurtunistic 'memes' (ideas, if you will) are embedded just like viruses and live off the belief structure that the person holds. It is this 'parasitical' agent which infects people, perspectives etc. Apologies for the lack of initial clarity. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
berengar, no apology necessary. I'm not exactly up on medicine or computers, but not knowing never stopped me from trying to understand a thing. So if you all can tolerate my ineptitude here, I'll attempt to not be needlessly annoying. In the spirit of the analogy though, I was thinking much as a patient would upon being told they were sick. There are questions here. Is it fatal? would be the first one for me. Is it contagious? Is there a cure? What would treatment entail? and, after watching loved ones suffer to unsuccessfully kill disease, there would be the personal decision of whether treatment at all would be worth the trouble. (I've seen cancer patients starve to death.) I have more trouble with the computer virus analogy. The first thing I'd want to know is what type of virus I'm hosting. It doesn't go much further than that, either, because as I said, while I'm not very savvy about any of things, I find the topic interesting. I think I can suspend my belief (or disbelief) long enough to consider the implications. I'll be reading, but probably blessedly silent. |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: I see a significant problem with this idea. If Dawkins is quick to explain religious thought in terms of purely naturalistic phenomena (ie viruses), then why doesn't the same suspicion apply to his own thoughts? He averts this question deftly by assuring us that all religious thought is based on non-reason, and that his own thought is based squarely on reason and "evidence". But that's begging the question. After all, his own atheistic thoughts have not been shown to be based on reason or any kind of evidence. But is it valid to use highly speculative conjecture such as this, based neither upon reason nor evidence, to discredit those who disagree? Personally, I think Dawkins might have a bacterial or fungal infection in the brain, to explain such antics.  The problem in the above statements has to do with espousing an ideology which insists that everything must be explained in purely naturalistic terms. If Dawkins slurs religionists as virally infected, how can he thereby discredit them for that? In terms of Dawkins' strict naturalism, even our rationality is a result of random mutation, and natural selection. Even what he calls "reason" arose as a rather recent evolutionary characteristic among more developed bipeds, that came from pure biology. From his view, can there be any guarantee that "reason" is a true reflection of reality, or even a better path? The very fact that non-reason still exists, shows that it is still a viable option in the evolutionary marketplace. Let's say for a moment that a religious man is religious because of some virus. Well animals once became rational because of genetic mutations. Big difference (facetiously said). What is the universal standard which arbitrates whether it is better to be "rational" or "religious"? ... Whether to have a viral change, or a genetic mutation? Survival? Then the judgement is pending. We are all still in the time of trial. My point is, whether by way of virus, or genetic fluke, Dawkins' brainwaves, and the Pope's came about through the same kind of pathway ... a natural one, that has nothing to do with reason. Of course unless we accept Dawkins' absolute naturalism, there is nothing that compells us to think that reason doesn't reflect truth about the universe, or that it depends soley on molecular cause and effect. Reason involves a ground / consequent relation, that pure mechanics cannot explain. Let's look at Dawkins' viral symptoms, and see how his own worldview might measure up to his diagnostic standard: 1) The patient typically finds himself impelled by some deep, inner conviction that something is true, or right, or virtuous; a conviction that doesn't seem to owe anything to evidence or reason, but which, nevertheless, he feels as totally compelling or convincing. You mean like the conviction that we should force purely naturalistic causation, like a procrustean bed, to literally everything, even ideas and emotions? Or that God as an ontologically real person does not and cannot exist? This is ideology, not based upon reason or evidence. 2) Patients typically make a positive virtue of faith's being strong and unshakable, in spite of not being based on evidence. Indeed, they may feel that the less evidence there is, the more virtuous the belief... "Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." (Richard Lewontin, Billions and Billions of Demons, New York Review of Books, Jan. 9, 1997) and ... "I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and naturally, hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that." (Thomas Nagel, Professor of Philosophy and Law at NYU) 3) A related symptom...is the conviction that "mystery" per-se is a good thing. It is not a virtue to solve mysteries. Rather we should enjoy them, even revel in their insolubility I actually found the following poem on the Web... http://members.lycos.co.uk/mentalmatters/writing/We%20wonder.htm 4) The sufferer may find himself behaving intolerantly towards vectors of rival faiths Though I easily could, I need go no further than Dawkins himself ... "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that)" (Richard Dawkins, 1989, “Book Review”, The New York Times, section 7, April 9.) then in comment of his own beligerant statement Dawkins wrote the following non-apology: "I first wrote that in a book review in the New York Times in 1989, and it has been much quoted against me ever since, as evidence of my arrogance and intolerance. Of course it sounds arrogant, but undisguised clarity is easily mistaken for arrogance. Examine the statement carefully and it turns out to be moderate, almost self-evidently true.” 5) The patient may notice that the particular convictions that he holds, while having nothing to do with evidence, do seem to owe a great deal to epidemiology. Why, he may wonder, do I hold this set of convictions rather than that set? Is it because I surveyed all the world's faiths and chose the ones whose claims seemed most convincing? Almost certainly not. If you have a faith, it is statistically overwhelmingly likely that it is the same faith your parents and grandparents had...by far the most important variable determining your religion is the accident of birth... What about the exceptions, might they cast doubt upon this assertion? 6) If the patient is one of the rare exceptions who follow a different religion from his parents, the explanation may still be epidemiological. To be sure, it is possible that he dispassionately surveyed the world's faiths and chose the most convincing one. But it is statistically more probable that he has been exposed to a particularly potent infective agent - a John Wesley, a Jim Jones or a St Paul. Here we are talking about horizontal transmission, as in measles. Before, the epidemiology was that of vertical transmission, as in Huntingdon's Chorea..." Of course not. Whatever the evidence is, it will always prove Dawkins' point ... or either that symptoms 1 & 2 apply clinically to Dawkins as well. 7) The internal sensations of the patient may be startingly reminiscent of those more ordinarily associated with sexual love. There is a lot more to sexual love than an orgasm. But what was Dawkins' point here, in relation to viruses? That the "religious" virus is sexually transmitted, or that it produces sexual feelings? The first idea is reversed and therefore invalid, the second isn't true of any virus I know of. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (02-11-2004 12:58 AM).] |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I think most of humankind is prone to be religious, and not only in the most obvious manifestations of orthodoxy, be it Christianity, Judaism, Islam, et al, but in all other philosophies of man as well, including secular humanism and aetheism. I think everyone has a god of some sort (usually themselves). I believe it is a deficiency in our genes (nature) that allows the virus of religion to grow and take hold so easily. And it's probably the most stubborn bug known to man, partly because people don't see that they have a disease to begin with and partly I think because they rather enjoy it. It makes them feel good about themselves. It can bring a sense of gratification to feel morally or intellectually superior to others through what one believes, disbelieves, does or doesn't do (not that most folks would ever say that out loud or admit that to themselves even!) Yep, we human beings are a sick, helpless bunch indeed! Sounds like we need a Saviour, doesn't it?  |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Let me see... If the question is the product of a tainted organism, and we are in fact espousing fact according to our own tainted belief system, then is all of this discussion, in fact, delerium? Because if it is, I think I would choose to be deleriously happy. Harmless delerium? Don't mind if I do. I've been looking for it all of my life. |
||
|
berengar Member
since 2004-01-02
Posts 86 |
Denise Dawkins would characterise our need for a saviour as symptomatic of a viral infection - what to make of that? Stephen A good rebutal, though I can't help but comment on the allusion Dawkins made about those who deny evolution. At the very least, if you wish to deny evolution (or the importance of natural selection, or whatever) you should have another coherent, scientifically based alternative in mind. But we've been down this path before, haven't we? Serenity, I confess I don't know how far Dawkins wished to pursue the analogy of the infected patient (I prefer the computer virus analogy because one can still function even with 'bugs' in the system). I suspect Dawkins wanted to make the point that religion is a virus that can be fatal, or potentially so - to reason (as he would understand it). It can obviously be 'cured', given time and the right 'medicine', in which case the bizarre symptoms would dissappear. Good questions. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: I didn't include that quote to revive the debate on the validity of the theory of Evolution. I quoted it to show that Dawkins demonstrates the same intolerance which he considers to be a symptom of a dogmatic viral illness. But as to your statement that in order to have valid doubts about Evolution you must have an intact scientific theory in place, I disagree. Consider the following paragraphs by Alvin Plantiga, given when facing the same charge. quote: I think there are enough weaknesses in the general theory to warrant a healthy doubt, even if a strictly scientific replacement hasn't yet been provided. You don't have to own a pair of shoes that fit, in order to know that the ones you're wearing don't. Anyway ... back to the viral religionists and anti-religionists, shall we? Stephen. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Why not? Let's test it and find out. quote: But that's what Alvin P. says on his homepage. Christians (and religions in general) aren't or don't have to be based on evidence or reason. quote: The lack of evidence leads to the lack of belief. That's not reasonable? quote: It's a metaphor. Does it work or doesn't it? quote: Of course, he does. Or perhaps they're in the stomach and intestines. quote: But that's not a problem, that's the rule. How can supernaturalism be tested or falsified? quote: You mean, it's not their fault? quote: I think that's exactly what Dawkins is saying. Let's find out. quote: Yes, that's right. quote: The judgement is always pending. We are always on trial so to speak. quote: Reason doesn't explain itself? But you just did (natural selection, evolutionary process etc.). There's a shift here. Reason is not magic, nor should it be considered a new God. They aren't in competition -- at least Alvin P. seems to think so. quote: I'll have to come back to this one, it's too big to handle quickly. But, I have no evidence for a computer behind me right now, is it an ideology or ideological to state that there is no computer behind me right now? quote: In other words, science can't say, "Because God made it that way." Yeah. quote: Nagel really said that? I've read Nagel and this seems very unNagelian to me. But, at least to some, the point may be true. God, at least on some descriptions, is a sociopath. Wow, how far can I distance myself from that. quote: and quote: Always willing to go a few rounds on evolution with you, Stephan. But his point is that the sheer amound of work needed to disprove evolution is staggering. Saying, "I don't believe in evolution," is like saying, "I don't believe the earth goes around the sun." You just can't refute it with. "Look, the sun rises and the sun sets, doesn't it?" quote: I think they do. How you get your beliefs, how you are infected, doesn't strike me as all that important. How you interrogate them afterwards, how you test them does. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
We come to know that mead is a drink, and that mead has honey and is sweet and that it is not available "instant" in nature, and it doesn't make itself. And for sure if you ask for mead and someone brings you a vat of mud instead, you know the difference. For mead is not mud, and mud is not mead. We know what drink is and what dirt is, therefore one is not the other. So I trust the same way as mead is known from mud because it is not an element on its own and is not dirt, but is a drink with mixed but certain elements that humans put together to make it what it is , and known from other drinks because it has its own history and tradition and is a nobler choice of drinks, so is religion known from virus. Mead is not mud; therefore religion is not virus. [This message has been edited by Essorant (02-11-2004 09:36 PM).] |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
quote: That's easy, Berenger. The blind can't see and the deaf can't hear. And those who say they see and hear are the most blind and deaf of all. And I believe the sick don't get well without healing from the Great Physician. But those who don't believe they are sick don't usually search out a cure. I haven't read Dawkins so I don't know if he has a 'cure' for the 'viruses' of mankind or not, or is he just a diagnostician who can offer no hope (that would be a pretty bleak and unprofitable profession, practically speaking, to be engaged in though, wouldn't it?) And are he and others who think as he does, in his opinion, free of such maladies of mankind, or does he contend we are all, himself included, infected and in need of a cure? The impression I get from the little that I've read of him here, he seems to think he is immune. I could be wrong though, what with this virus and all.  |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
There isn't a God, gods, deities, witches, astrology, etc. Sheesh, how come there are so many people who now and have believed in them? They're dumb. Not all people are dumb, some people are smart and believe. No, if smart people are true to themselves, they don't believe. Nope, some really smart people believe. But they are infected. Evolution provides for survival of the fittest and not survival of the smartest. Man has evolved not only physically, but with little bugs in their brains to condition them to believe in some higher power. Huh? memes you idiot. Not much you can do about it, you are infected with the virus. How do you get rid of it? Be really, really smart. Then what do you believe in? Sheesh, you are dumb, you don't believe in anything if you are really, really smart because you have intellectual enlightenment and will be near godlike and be nice and benevolent to everyone. How can you be near godlike if you don't believe in god? Sheesh, once you are able to step outside of the evolutionary scheme of things, er genes, er memes, you are a god. If you are really, really smart, you believe in yourself. Gotcha, you're suffering from a god-complex. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: You've taken him out of context. Usually what Plantiga says is that the Christian may be justified in his belief without empiricism or rationalism ... that's quite different than no reason and no evidence. quote: It's no more reasonable than saying that "the plethora of evidence leads to belief". It's always been a presuppositional disagreement Brad ... an interpretation of evidence based upon the rules of one's worldview, and defining what might possibly constitute evidence. When strict methodological naturalism is used, certain answers are ruled out ahead of time. That belief itself is in no way evidential, or proven by reason. It is simply the naturalist's chosen ideology. quote: It doesn't. Stephen: quote: Brad: quote: Sorry, you simply beg the question. Tell me, how can naturalism be tested or falsified? I didn't ask how can natural happenings be tested, I said how can naturalism itself be tested? Let me remind you that miracles, one of the classic proofs of supernaturalism, have always been deftly explained away in terms of purely natural causation, or either faith in future knowledge ... "We can't explain, but some day we will be able too". With such a methodological naturalism, literally any experience could be explained away. Brad, you could hear God yourself, and if you chose to retain a dogged naturalism, you would be forced to call it a hallucination. In fact you would be forced to call any recognition of the supernatural, by any person, in any time period, a hallucination or delusion or the like. That doesn't sound like science or rationality to me (or to many others). It sounds like a chosen way of looking at things, a presuppositional framework. Stephen: quote: Brad: quote: No. I mean that a Monk's brainwaves and Dawkins' brainwaves (according to his Neo-Darwinian scheme) both came from microscopic anomolies. How does this help us to make a value judgement between the two? Is the pot calling the kettle black? quote: My question is, if reason came through sheer cause and effect (as materialistic naturalism dictates) ... how did we come to know things through ground and consequent? How did our thoughts which came about through chemistry, begin to tell us about the nature of reality? In other words, how did sheer chemistry get so smart about chemistry? Brad, please don't refuse to see that a materialistic atheistic view involves something very akin to faith and mysticism after all. quote: Is it an ideology to say "I don't exist"? Many philosophers have come to that conclusion by the sheer lack of incontrovertible proof. Yet, obviously, the question presupposes the questioner ... just like the creation presupposes the Creator, and design presupposes the Designer. To compare the question of God with a computer behind your back, that you can check with a glance, is far too simplistic. quote: Yeah, but Lewontin's quote shows that the materialist is forced to "unscientific" inference nevertheless ... "no matter how counterintuitive", is the phrase he used. I guess if a human were designed to possess no knowledge other than pure "science" ... ie a strict empirical epistemology, then he could never say "God made it that way". But since he isn't made that narrow, he is free to make the same kind of inference that the naturalist does when he says "Nature alone did it that way". quote: Funny ... I've heard naturalists describe nature in the same kind of way. "Brief and powerless is Man's life; on him and all his race the slow, sure doom falls pitiless and dark. Blind to good and evil, reckless of destruction, omnipotent matter rolls on its relentless way; for Man, condemned today to lose his dearest, tomorrow himself to pass through the gate of darkness, it remains only to cherish, ere yet the blow falls, the lofty thoughts that ennoble his little day; disdaining the coward terrors of the slave of Fate, to worship at the shrine that his own hands have built; undismayed by the empire of chance, to preserve a mind free from the wanton tyranny that rules his outward life; proudly defiant of the irresistible forces that tolerate, for a moment, his knowledge and his condemnation, to sustain alone, a weary but unyielding Atlas, the world that his own ideals have fashioned despite the trampling march of unconscious power." (Bertrand Russell, A Free Man's Worship) quote: Depends on what you mean by evolution. No one denies genetic change happens. It has not been scientifically proven to explain the diversity we see. It is a hypothesis that fits well with methodological naturalism. But there are problems with it, which are not readily admitted. My point in quoting Dawkins was to show that he possesses the same irritation and fervor against someone who doesn't happen to hold his particular cosmology or ideology, as the religious types he wants to slur as virally infected. Dawkins simply flunks his own medical exam. He must be infected. Stephen. |
||
|
berengar Member
since 2004-01-02
Posts 86 |
Denise Dakins is bringing attention to the idea that people are 'infected' and they don't know it; I suspect he would concede he's 'infected' in some sense. He used the example of the Roman Catholic priest who broke the 'shackles' of his belief - and it took him 30 years to do so (so yes, Dawkins asserts, there is hope even for the most theistically orientated - notice the bulge in my cheek). |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Dawkins describes the picture of a television evangelist: quote: And it works. So why do people buy it? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Stephan, Ah, come on. Even you would accept that 99% of all supernatural claims are fraudulent. The question is where and how does this gullibility come into play. I'm not sure Dawkins has got it right here (though I give it more credit than you do), but I do think there's a better explanation than, "Well, people are stupid." |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad, I really don't know what percentage is fraudulent, as regarding claims of miracles. But as fascinating and common as the subject is, you can't debunk the supernaturalist worldview by mentioning such things as fraudulent miracles, and minds who believe them. You yourself may not try so hard to do so ... Dawkins does. It would be invalid for me to point out all of the poor "science" in the world today and the irrationality of those who believe it without question, in order to prove that the scientific endeavor itself is pathological. As there is a division of real science and pseudo-science, there is also a division of real religious claims and false. The cause is probably more psychological than intellectual. But it works both ways. The intuitive knowledge that there is a supernatural element to the world, and the need to experience it, can be wrongly taken to mean "The particular miraculous claim before me is always true". Likewise, the intuitive knowledge that our scientific knowledge is valuable, and the need to explain things in such terms, can be wrongly taken to mean, "This is the only valid kind of knowledge that exists" Stephen. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
quote: As Brad pointed out in another thread, words are defined by their use. Since Kierkegaard, faith and reason have become increasingly contradictory. In large part, I agree with Dawkin’s first statement, insomuch as it applies to religious practices that discourage a rational evaluation of beliefs. “If two people are thinking the same thing at the same time, than only one person is thinking …” or something to that that effect. Many Christian sects are doing the same thing right now, but I’d argue that such a practice by a Christian is singularly unnecessary. Eyewitnesses of Jesus Christ’s life, death, and resurrection have recorded what Jesus had said such events mean to mankind. Jesus’ resurrection gives us, in my opinion, the “evidence and reason” necessary to believe His claims – namely, that his death on the Cross is a sufficient propitiation of our moral imperfection and that His resurrection secures our forensic justification with God. So while it may be correct that some religions would define (or at least paraphrase in a way that sounds better) "faith" as Dawkins has, I do not belief that definition of faith is consistent with the orthodox Christian use of the word. Regarding the resurrection, I think you can claim three things and maintain your intellectual integrity (at least to some degree): 1. There is evidence that Jesus rose from the dead but I don’t believe it 2. There is evidence that Jesus rose from the dead and one could reasonably conclude that it did, indeed, happen, but I’ve decided not to act on the evidence 3. There is evidence Jesus rose from the dead, and I am convinced of it and will act accordingly But one does not correctly understand the definition of evidence if one says there is no evidence that the resurrection occurred. Therefore, if the object of a religious practitioner’s faith is the crucified, died, buried, and risen Jesus Christ, then it is entirely incorrect to say that such a believer’s faith is of the sort that “doesn't seem to owe anything to evidence or reason, but which, nevertheless, he feels as totally compelling or convincing.” quote: Much of this, I believe is a result of the importation of (1) humanism and (2) Eastern philosophy into western religious practice. To the extent that Dawkin’s statement applies to such faith’s/philosophies, I could not agree more. But if Dawkins is intending his "cannon" to hit orthodox Christianity, then I think all he is going to hit his own straw-men. Wouldn't that be intellectual "friendly fire?" quote: This is certainly true of many sects, particularly those extremist organizations that, while at the same time discouraging a rational evaluation of one’s faith, assert that their respective organization’s claims are founded on alleged “supernatural” revelations of the religious founder(s) and/or leader(s). Again, I think many Christians do this also, but, again, I believe they do so unnecessarily. Christianity does rely on supernatural revelations of God, but the cardinal beliefs of the Christian faith are firmly founded on evidence that supports their veracity. The exacting of violence on “heretics” by Christians is an unfortunate misunderstanding of the polemic nature of the New Testament books and letters. It is both the responsibility of the Christian church to do whatever is within its jurisdiction to discipline those who espouse such misguided beliefs and to governments to punish those who act in ways that harm others (beyond harming the egos of others, that is )Tolerance is also a much-loaded word these days. I can be intolerant of an argument or position if the argument or position cannot be sustained by the evidence. Except when it comes to religion, I suppose. But that assumes all religious faiths are on equal footing when it comes to the availability of evidence making the claims of one religion more compelling than another. THAT is an assumption that surely isn't borne by the evidence. quote: This begs the question that there is no verifiable evidence for the truth of any one faith over another. I would argue, however, that there are many tough-minded Christians out there who would recant their faith if the evidence proved insufficient to support continued belief and practice. And for those who persist in believing anything without subjecting their system of beliefs to a rational examination, caveat emptor. quote: John Wesley … ~shiver~ … now THERE is a particularly virulent strain of semi-Pelagianism. Shame on John … acting as though there wasn’t a theological reason for the Protestant Reformation. Seriously, it is unfair to compare Wesleyan-Arminianism to the cult practices of the likes of Jim Jones. I am not aware of any Wesleyan Methodists or Nazarenes who present with the same characteristics of closed-mindedness, institutional dogmatism, and isolationism as of cults like Jones’. As far as St. Paul is concerned, while he was not an eyewitness, at least not in the same sense as the other Apostles, there is evidence that Paul’s teachings were accepted by at least some of the Apostles who were. And while some of the other Apostles outlived Paul (i.e., they had an opportunity to distance themselves from Paul's teachings), they did not - even John, who by all accounts outlived Paul by as many as 20-30 years. quote: Startling, but often true. “Don’t confuse me with the facts, I’ve already made up my mind.” If your “spiritual” experiences contradict documented facts, then it is certainly not advisable to toss the facts out the window. On a similar vein, I’d be willing to suggest to Dawkins that he not disregard the facts that support the Christian faith just so his opinions can sound more universally applicable than they really are. Skepticism taken too far is certainly as virulent as any experience-/feelings-based faith. Seems like that would require blind faith in one's own skepticism? Jim |
||
|
berengar Member
since 2004-01-02
Posts 86 |
Brad If 99% of all miraculous claims are fraudulent, doesn't it imply the remaining 1% is genuine, and therfore testimony to the reality of the supernatural? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
quote: LOL It doesn't surprise me that Dawkins credits the priest with the breaking of the shackles that had him bound. That's quite in line with the thinking of folks who deny any higher authority than man himself. Who else would they credit, after all? Man can certainly try to break the shackles of religion, and may even think he has succeeded in large measure, but I think something else has to fill the vacuum that is left, and if it's just another religious system then there will be more shackles to contend with. I think it's important to define terms. Religion and faith are not synonyms, although they are frequently used that way. According to Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary the word religion is traced back to the Latin word religio meaning “to tie, to bind, to restrain.” The word is a combination of two words, re and ligare. The prefix re means “to return,” and ligare, from which we get the word ligature, means “to bind.” All religious systems, at least the ones that acknowledge a supreme being, can be defined as man's attempt to earn something from God through man's own efforts. I think bondage is a good synonym for religion, no matter the label slapped on it. Biblical faith, on the other hand, is a trusting in the work of another, which brings peace and rest, freeing us from the shackles of endless religious 'doing'. Religion is of man and about man. And I believe that human beings are naturally religious and nothing done in the name of religion surprises me. Faith, as I see it, is of God and about God and a supernatural work of God that breaks the shackles. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
berengar, No, of course not. I simply meant that Stephen would agree with me that the Greek Gods do not live on Mt. Olympus and never did, that Izanami and Izanagi did not create the Japanese islands in a ritual 'dance' (complete with dripping spear), and that the Heaven's Gate people are not living it up on some 'higher plane' thanks to aliens. Stephan's abstract naturalism v. supernaturalism is too general to do his own beliefs any good. I concede the logical possibility of supernaturalism (as long as it's defined in such a way as to avoid contradiction) and nothing more. This is similar, perhaps, to what Jim means by "all religions are not created equal". As long as we stay with that general dichotomy, you play right into Dawkins' hands. |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
Dawkins- My serenity comes from the satisfaction of seeing a really, really neat, elegant explanation that can explain so much... Religion, it's like an AIDS virus, like a rabies virus. I think it's a very good analogy. In essence, Dawkins says all religions exist on blind faith, reject science and appeal to the mentally challenged. Apparently all religions are lumped together along with rabies and aids which are lesser evils. He seems to say pretty much all the evils of the world are caused by religion. Pretty much explains Stalin, Hitler and the idea that maybe economic and social factors play a role in failings of mankind in done in the name of religion. If religion is a virus, why are not ideas also viruses? Guess you get to pick the memes you like and the ones you want to trash. Dostoyevsky - If God is dead, everything is permissible. But at least we will all be serene. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Where does he say mentally challenged? quote: Where does he say 'lesser evils'? quote: Even he cursory reading of Dawkins would show this to be false. I don't think you have to read Dawkins to participate, but why jump to such wild conclusions? Is it not enough that he's saying what he's saying. quote: Ideas are memes, viruses are those memes that are parasitical. quote: D. was wrong. Everything is already permissible with God. Dare I use the most glaring, recent example. I'll give you one guess. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
For all the seeming concern and heat shown for Religion on this side and in Nature on that it strikes me as too odd we end up basically very detached from both in the more general pressing of social and worldly living. Are these things only meant to be chiefly theorized and contemplated on and then not chiefly acted for? Where do you see naturalness or religiousness being the chief pursuits today? If you still believe that civilization exist with human or that humans are pursuing civilization: where do see living more intimatly and balancedly with nature, or living more honourably with religion or both naturally and religiously with honour? It really doesn't seem to me right now either are being pursued that much in the overall generalness and effect. I simply don't see people pursuing civilization. Civilization is out of fashion it seem. People forgot about it many ages ago and now it we quite excessivly only ourselves and the human world and a destination of a human city for the whole world, and things that have come to define a city--men don't seem to even consider the city itself may be in excess and the direction back TO something a bit more agreeable with nature, a bit more rural, and with ability to choose "less" sometimes, rather than toward more city and more of everything that makes a city may be the wiser answer because I don't think wee can expect to use "more" of anything well if we can't cultivate and edify well what we already have, and especially may not on hastermaker's acre, the citystructure that will take over and put Nature and the Spirit last, for "more" and "beyond." |
||
|
berengar Member
since 2004-01-02
Posts 86 |
Hello Essorant Methinks this thread has more to do with the conflict (illusionary or otherwise) between the worldviews of supernaturalism and naturalism - NOT nature, which is something completely different. Liked your mead/mud alliterative analogy though. LOL. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Brad: quote: What's interesting, Brad, is that the Christian Gospel writers seem to have anticipated your point in recording the account of Jesus' healing of the man who was paralyzed: quote: Mark's Gospel also records the event in Chapter 2. Jesus' declaration that the man's sins were forgiven was no more verifiable than a medium's claim that he/she is channeling the spirit of Elvis. But as we see, Jesus was the first Christian evidentialist - and knew that, in order for His spiritual claims to be believed, that a physical manifestation of His spiritual authority was necessary. Perhaps rather than seeing the spiritual and natural as being in conflict, it is more correct to say that the spiritual cannot be ascertained by the natural without initiative being taken on the spiritual end - the spiritual is not in conflict with nature, it is outside of nature. So, in order for us to have more than an intuitive knowledge of the spiritual, there must be some manifestation of the spiritual in space and time. Also, earlier you wrote: quote: Call it what you like, but I would prefer that the evidence convert you, my friend. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but it does seem that our expectations of religion are not all that different. Jim P.S. Berengar - interesting choice of names. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Ess: I think you'd like L. E. Modesitt's "Recluse" series. Regarding your post, and a bit off topic, I hear what you're saying about the need for balance, but I've always found the term exceedingly self-conscious and its definition more than a bit elusive. Civilization and technology, although potentially destructive to nature, are not necessarily in conflict with nature - in many ways they are an ordering of nature. The trick is sustaining the increasing demands of civilization while minimizing or decreasing its adverse impact on nature. Since good things - including this forum - are the results of technology, I don't think the answer lies in reducing technology, but rather in decreasing the adverse impact technology has on our natural environment. Jim |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I deleted my post because I thought it was getting a bit too off topic. Thank you though for your point. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
The reason I think we need less of business and technology in living right now is because I think we are in an age excess of many of them--many that we don't need. But I don't have the willpower to attempt to mention these areas; for previous endevours here have left me forspent. One has to look at the generalness that comes out of the specific things we are doing; if the general picture is not prospering, I think there must be something wrong in the more-specific areas, perhaps because they have not looked faithfully enough at in a view that tries to comes more to look at all society and all the world at the same time. rather than only "here and now" or predominatly only the "humanworld" or for a specific "business" of the human world. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Actually, Jim, that reminds me of something Stephan said earlier: quote: I don't really understand the distinction. It's certainly true that I may have taken him out of context (I was getting a little irritated by that time at some of the, what seemed to me, an almost intentional misreading of Dennet). I don't believe that science and serious theology are in contradiction either. I was talking to berengar the other day and realized that if something like the multi-verse turns out to be correct, it wouldn't be a disproof that some sentient being didn't get that started. On the other hand, when Dawkins states that God is not an explanation of complexity (As God would be as at least as complex as the complexity attempting to be explained), he's got a point. As a disproof of God, it's certainly not very persuasive. As an explanation of what evolution theorists are trying to do, it makes perfect sense. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Well, if this is a thread that deals with supernaturalism and naturalism, I suppose we have to be clear on the kind of naturalism I subscribe to: quote: --Bo Dahlbom, introduction to Dennet and his Critics , p. 5. An example of this involves a Dennet 'intuition pump': quote: In other words, TANSTAAFL. So let's see, let's divide the supernaturalists and naturalists up here: 1. supernaturalists: berengar, serenity blaze, Stephanos, Denise, Essorant, Tim, and jbouder 2. naturalists: Brad It would be fun to play W. Churchill, "Very well, then alone." But, from my standpoint, it really ain't that big a deal and all the rests of the supernaturalists will disagree with each other anyway. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Which is just the old "we can never really know anything" saw, with a subtle twist; i.e., the only way to know something is to know everything. I'm not too sure how helpful that is? |
||
|
berengar Member
since 2004-01-02
Posts 86 |
never in the field of human conflict etc etc...c'mon brad, you know you secretly prefer it that way, it makes you feel more righteous, no? Another Churchillian quote (in reference to El Alamein)... "this is not the end, it is not even the beginning of the end, but it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
berengar, Sure. Of course, I could just hang out at the JREF forums or Internet Infidels, be in the majority, and still disagree with everyone. Ron, Sure. Though I would say that, while most of our beliefs are true, we can't tell which ones are true for sure. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Half agree, Brad. I know which of my beliefs are true. It's the "for sure" that throws a wrinkle in the pattern. ANY pattern. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Beliefs are as true as they are believed in. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
You know, I think the real war between naturalists and supernaturalists won't be fought over evolution(Honestly, I think, most arguments are "scraps from Longshanks table"). I suspect the next battle will be fought over consciousness. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
All things that are believed are ever part living and learning; there is not one thing that one may summon in his imagination that does not have some truth and possibility. All the aspects of the dragon exist. Fire, poison, coldbloodedness, greed; scaley beasts, ferociousness; and all the evidences of dinosaurs give them even that much more support. If there is a God that is absolute, I don't think we may possibily create something imaginary or by hand that he may not have created in anyway; nor if evolution may produce the mingling of elements to produce all the attributes that make us imagine such beings when we only know one world of the whole universe intimatly, why out of the whole universe it may not compound to such things most likely in greater completenesses. But I don't judge existance or truth by how physical things are. If it may be held in any manner, by any sense, thought, fancy, whim, etc it is there. I don't believe there are pockets of things that are not really there. Things are simply there sometimes more spiritually or sometimes more physically. But I am inclined though to believe that all spiritual bodies and physical bodies are always still interwoven into each other and are never severed either from other completly. Those who believe the absolute physical-dependency, or absolute spiritual dependency are both right, but provably never on their own. [This message has been edited by Essorant (02-14-2004 02:38 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Ess, it seems you're suggesting that anything that can be imagined must exist, in part or in whole, else we would be unable to imagine it. And I agree. That doesn't mean, however, that we are freed from the need to make distinctions. The food I might imagine eating for dinner tonight might well exist, but it will not sustain me as well as the food in my refrigerator. Maybe Zeus and Ra Ammon exist in the sense you describe, or even in some larger and undetermined sense, but existence doesn't equate to sustenance. Without further distinctions, we face the danger, both physically and spiritually, of starving to death. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Maybe Zeus and Ra Ammon exist in the sense you describe, or even in some larger and undetermined sense, but existence doesn't equate to sustenance. Wouldn't this apply to mainstream world religions as well? And further, who else besides our selves could best determine what sustenance our spiritual body needs? Isn't it possible to have an allergy to some tenets, just as certain individuals have food allergies? Perhaps Islam makes me break out in spiritual hives. Perhaps the same misogynistic tendences espoused by most mainstream religions make it impossible for me to digest those teachings and methods of worship--how can one embrace a religion that denies self worth? |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
and yikes--didn't mean to sound hostile or anything--I was just in a hurry.  be back later. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Excellent question! The good news is I think there's an equally excellent answer. The bad news is that answer just lead us back to the same circular question. IMO, a good spiritual diet, just like any good physical diet, should lead to health rather than disease. If you develop hives or bad gas or spend too many nights sleepless and miserable, it might be a good idea to eliminate the lactose or spices or caffeine from your diet. In a very similar vein, if all the luck in your life seems to be the bad kind, it might be a good idea to examine and perhaps eliminate the choices that lead to those things most people call luck. A spiritual diet, after all, should lead to good choices. Good choices should lead to good results. Unfortunately, while hives are fairly easy to recognize, not all feelings of physical malaise are. Back around 1993, I dated a girl who refused to eat red meat, and out of respect for her, I refrained from eating beef, too. At least, mostly. Six weeks into our relationship, I noticed a real difference in the way I felt every morning. I honestly can't say it was the change in diet, but the point is, I didn't actually realize I felt crappy until I started feeling good. Which is where we get back onto the circular track. A spiritual diet with sustenance should lead to a good life. But as you put it, Karen, who besides ourselves can best determine what is a good life? And maybe that should really be who, including ourselves, can best determine a good life? Ain't no easy answers. Except, maybe, I really do believe that when one starts feeling well again, THAT is both recognizable and a dang good sign. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Sheesh. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: What particular form do you think the battle will take? Stephen. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Well, two hundred years ago (I think), the question was whether the exinction of species was possible. Is there anybody who doubts extinction today? And or at least I've tried to show that evolution is really the common sensical position, but when it comes to a naturalized description of the mind, well, I think it will strike most as counter-intuitive. Because it is an attempt to explain intuition itself. Take your Cartesian stance, "There has to be an I in order to ask the question, do I exist." On the face of it, what could make more sense? Unfortunately, the descriptions (at this point, still speculations) can easily be seen to attempt to show that that 'I' doesn't exist. In fact, it shows that that 'I' isn't really what you think it is. What could be stranger than someone else telling you you don't know who you are? History, society, language are filled with this basic assumption: "We are made in God's image." |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Preponderance is a luxury though. Logic didn't exist until the Greeks invented it. We're emotional beings....we make our decisions based on what we want -- not on logic -- then supplement our decision with a logical construct. Individuality is almost as recent a development as logic. In the past there was no I... in some cultures there is still little individuality. I write in response to the entire thread -- not just Brad's latest postings... which are -- interestingly logical assumptions. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Echoing Jim, I never did intend the philosophical / metaphysical argments against naturalism to provide proof of a distinct form of Supernaturalism, such as Christianity. But there are some who cannot even begin to ask which theistic belief system may be right, until they begin to believe that there can be one, or there might be one, or begin to suspect that naturalism has considerable problems of it's own. I think from there, the comparison of Poytheistic, Pantheistic, and Monotheistic religions would be helpful. Which is tenable? Then a comparison of Monotheistic religions, and their claims, would ensue. By study and process of elimination, the most likely candidate can be ascertained. Even then, personal experience of God is paramount. There is an element of Faith, and personal revelation that must push one from probability, onward to assurance. I think that even Jim would agree with that. Stephen. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
But even if none are tenable Stephen it would still not preclude a higher being, or many higher beings. It would merely suggest what we already know to be indicated -- that our limited perception changes as our body of knowledge increases. Faith also implies its' sister -- doubt. And, doubt is good. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Cruising some of the evolution forums and evolution/creationist debate forums, you may have a point. At one place, they even talked about sending invitation letters to creationist organizations to bring in more 'fodder'. Don't know if it was enacted, but it certainly poses some problems for someone like me. Witness the Dawkins debacle on "From a Frog to a Prince" -- respectable debate and giving the benefit of the doubt just aren't in large supply these days. And what's the deal with Darwin Day? I smiled when I realized what was happening but when a friend asked in complete sincerity, "Aren't there people who worship Charles Darwin?" I realized that this just can't be the right way to expound a naturalist position. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Really wasn't looking for this, wife and daughter are asleep and just doing some random reading, but here it is: http://secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_21_3.html quote: |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
What is the point of living and believing in anything when all things that make us sacred must only be in our head or beyond us? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Essorant, Questions like that just baffle me. It's like saying, "What is the point of living and believing if we aren't Gandalf?" |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Ancient barbarians were the foremost founders of Spirit-seeking, and bearers of religion before it had a name; and then perfectionists came and usurped spirituality and forced it all into a seperate house to be detached from nature and natural bodies and glazed with perfectionism; that soon scientists would force as being all only in mind's headquarters. And now basically nothing sacred is left "outside" Everything is cramped and isolated into centers of the head or put into special houses and books or in remote places detached from nature. The early barbarians for all the ubiquitious ruthlessness and migratory physical lives seemed at least able to be agreeable and constant in their beliefs. And at least they were able to uphold a spirit and nature that were interwoven. And worship them at the same time. That now seems much more ever than the fragmented fanciers of religions and naturalisms may do today segregating everything. [This message has been edited by Essorant (02-16-2004 08:31 PM).] |
||
|
Tais Member
since 2004-01-28
Posts 92Ontario, Canada |
Religion is a belief, where there are rules, or laws which guide us on the belief of a certain religion. Religion is suppose to guide, and make a happy and satisfying path in life for those who believe. Religion is the gathering of people with the same beliefs. Religion is a word given to a certain line of beliefs, or a 'basis' thought of life and destiny of the human being, and our relationship with God. Those are my understandings of religion, in my words. Virus is something which spreads quickly without us wanting it to, or becomes dormant. Virus is considered something which destroys, when we think of computer virus, virus which makes humans ill or kills them. I don't see any connection at all between virus and religion, neither any connection between virus and the mind. We don't know our minds completely. But we do know that it has conscious and unconscious states - which are divided into several other things, according to each different theory. And we do know that we need to want or desire something to go after it (free will). So, if our mind 'go after' what we believe in or want to believe in, then religion cannot be a virus. Some people say they don't believe in anything. That is not true. There is always something they will believe in. Either they believe in themselves, others, things...they do believe in something. A necessity is not considered a virus. It is a necessity for the human being to believe in something. Religion only gathers those with the same belief. But no one is obligated to believe in what others believe in - again, free will. Religion gives us the opportunity to connect with the heart (feelings), the mind and the soul (spirit). Whether people think that the spirit is part of the mind or not, does not matter. There is obviously a full connection between 'something' within us, when we believe. It's a good feeling, it's satisfying and it's a necessity. But definitely not a virus. Tais |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: if A then B A = something exists B = it is always defined or named That's not logical. Was logic invented or discovered? Was math invented or discovered? Logic is not an arbitrary construct, though we do it imperfectly. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: I might rephrase that to ask, "What is the point of living and believing if we aren't in a world that is similar to Middle Earth". That's not such a baffling question really, even though Tolkien's world is fictional and Earth is real. Middle Earth was made by a personal being (read in the Simarillion). Good and Evil were real and personal forces. There were things like honor and disgrace that were more than arbitrary feelings. There were larger distinctions which gave even a simple life in the Shire, a real honor and dignity. So everyone didn't have to be Gandalf, but shared his world. If all such thoughts are merely "in our head", if the whole of reality is mechanistic through and through, and our little flicker of rational thought cannot be shown to be universal in any way, then Essorant's question may hold more weight that you think. If "meaning" and "purpose" are just more examples of chemically caused feelings, then what is there to qualify them? On a reflective level, I too have asked, if the naturalist were right, what purpose or obligation is there to life? What is the import of continuing in the dance, if there's no tune to dance to? The existentialists weren't able to really answer this question. The only thing offered in response since Jean Paul Sartre and others has been something like, "Just keep busy and don't ask, we weren't meant to". BTW, I'm a lover of Tolkien's work. I thought some of you might be interested in an audio lecture called "Ten insights on Evil from Lord of the Rings" by Peter Kreeft. It might have some bearing on our previous thread about whether or not Evil exists The link is to download the Mp3 file, which is 13.6 Megs ... kind of a large file, but worth it. http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/04_lord-of-the-rings/ten-insights-on-evil.mp3 Stephen. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Well. This is taking forever to download--but what the heck? shrug, I got nothin' but time. and thanks for the link Stephan. I know someone else who is going to be very interested in this. |
||
|
Vagabond Member
since 2004-01-23
Posts 163 |
i like this(mp3) i'm only 4:01 into it Vagabon the Lost One |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I don't have any problems with guidance whether you find it in the Bible or Lord of the Rings. I have a problem when that guidance is left unquestioned. I have a problem when you are told not to question. The basic virus thesis here as I understand it is an attempt to describe religion without an intentional stance. A computer virus or a biological virus does not have intent. They aren't trying to kill you or hurt your computer, it is a consequence of what they do (reproduce themselves) that these things take place. A basic defense of religion is that it doesn't want to hurt people or that it wants to help people above and beyond material needs (As an idea, of course, this is correct, it has no intent). One consequence of this belief is that people die, people let others die, people give away their money etc. etc. It is not intended (from the idea's point of view), and yet it happens. Again and again, "But that's not God's fault," or "It is God's will," or "It is not for us to question the ways of God (or the Church)." The first two statements presume to know the will of God, the third says that we can't know and shouldn't ask. The first two provide, not for infinite justice, but for infinite justification (and really, really scare me). Berengar tells me that someone else has said that, but I don't know who. Yet, the third mirrors Sartre's call not to question, as Stephan puts it. I'm not sure where Sartre actually says such a thing, but I do think that's how Stephan sees existentialism. After all, when Alvin P. states that he doesn't have to have a theory in order to counter another belief, isn't he being just a wee bit disingenuous there? He may not have a theory but he does have a belief. God did it. And that's enough for him. Should it be enough for any of us? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
perspective Stephen... perspective my friend... ... Logic is only logical because we think it is... it constantly creates paradoxes and is therefore, not logical... |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Logic needs to be in moderation too |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
almost forgot Bertrand Russell -- quote: We wouldn't say that about basic math -- every student needs to know 2+2=4(excepting for extremely large quantities of 2). Is logic improving or are we just discovering more dimensions of it? If it is improving then it is an invention... it is improving -- getting fuzzy even... But of course that's just a variant of the syllogism. When logic is perfected it may look a lot like emotion. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: "Logic is only logical because we think it is", is itself based upon logical syllogism. Reductio ad absurdum: If logic is only logical because we "think it is", then illogic would also be logical whenever we think it is. But no matter if someone thinks they can walk out of their house through the front door, and yet at the same time remain in their house, they never can pull it off. quote: That's my point. Logic is the ONLY tool you have available wherewith to debunk logic. If it's illogical, you've accused yourself of invalid thought. If you want to qualify yourself by saying that thought doesn't have to be logical to be valid, then you've opened (or closed) the door to everything else. In which case you haven't much to say. I'm doubtful of how many logicians would agree with what Bertie said in that quote. But consider this: quote: But I think you may have missed my point. I wasn't trying to deny that logic has it's limitations. Rather, I was trying to show that when a pre-Greek person understood that he couldn't hunt and sleep at the same time, even though he wanted to do both, he was at that moment participating in informal logic. It was certainly not invented, only later defined and named in various ways. And it is certainly irreducible and necessary, since you yourself probably can't count how many times you use it (consciously or not) in a day. That's very different from something that is like emotion, sentimental and sometimes not based in reality. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: on dial-up Serenity? DSL has spoiled me, and I would never want to go back to that "download while you sleep" thing. Stephen. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
shaking my head but grinning, Stephan--I am persistant. Or is that stubborn?  there's fine lines everywhere I tell ya. You boys go back to your discussion now. I'll just sit back here quietly and download. (It's been what, 3 days now?)  |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Methinks we may have strayed a little too far off the path here Stephan... can you imagine that? Us? I agree with you. I also disagree. Logical? You bet... To an extent Aristotle's logic is a good example of entropy -- it seems to be ordered but it is really gravitating to higher disorder. Illogic may indeed be logical -- but, we'd never know it -- our brains are only formatted to handle the kind of logic that results in singularities (which -- happens in math too). These are just tools we're using to try to describe reality -- but they aren't the reality they are describing -- even though they are necessarily a part of it... see... syllogisms abound. You may have an interest at some point, if you have the time, to study fuzzy logic a little bit. Which is what I was referencing above -- it is more flexible -- and like human intelligence -- is capable of reaching conclusions with incomplete data -- which is why I say it looks a lot like emotion. I have to fall back again to my Einsteinian agnosticism -- God may not require logic -- or even intellect as we understand it -- who knows? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Brad; quote: I'm not sure that we can attribute those results to the idea though -- in the cases where it is true the idea was just the weapon of choice -- or negligence -- whichever the case may be -- those things all happen without religion too -- we may blame human nature -- but not the idea -- per se. eh? But, I agree with the rest. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I'm not sure I understand what you mean LR. The basic of the virus metaphor is that it doesn't have to have intent in order to cause harm. You're certainly right that many with an intent to cause harm (dupe others etc.) use religion for that, they'll also use the rhetoric of science for the same thing (the picture of the Old West snake salesman and his scientific potions for example), but while I think we can make a distinction between the claims of science and science itself, can we do the same for religion. That is, can we make a distinction between the claims of religion and religion itself? Rethinking this, I might condense the definition of a virus into just two points: 1. Unquestioned faith in one authority regardless of other evidential considerations. If infected, you wouldn't condsider a second opinion, of if you did, you would consider it blasphemous. 2. A need to spread this unquestioned faith by any means not explicitly banned by that authority. However, that authority is spiritual, or speaks with spiritual authority, and so any action can, in principle, be licensed. If you want to argue that the virus can be extended into other areas (nationalism, dialectical materialism immediately come to mind), I would agree, but why must we always exonerate relgion for its faults? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Stephan, I don't believe that orgin is essence. I simply see no reason to worry that say love of my wife or daughter, a respect for healthy discussion, an admiration for people who take risks for the sake of others are any less if their origins are biological or cultural rather than spiritual. In my world, the bad guys can win and we have to be more vigilent as a result. I just don't trust, "It will all work out in the end, just have faith." |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: You're describing a clichéd stereotype, Brad. Like the naïve academic or the absent-minded scientist, the reality is rarely as simple as the perception. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I'm strictly referencing Brad the part of the quote where you attribute the consequence to the belief. It, to me, seems like attributing a murder to a gun. I like your revisions better -- but like Ron -- I think it's only true in some cases -- and it's those cases where you see me poking at religion with a stick -- I don't exhonorate it at all -- I give it credit where it deserves it -- and I decimate it where I think it's wrong (don't I?) Not all Christians are flat earthers, not all oppose gay rights, not all are strict creationists -- just like all of Islam is not on a Jihad. If you take, for example, the post-exhilic period in Hebrew history -- you'll see men bending the faith of their fathers, blending it with Zorostrianism, and carrying out what looks a lot like genocide to 'redeem' Isreal.. (in Ezra and Nehamiah)... we can't really say that the idea was the cause because there was no basis in the idea for what they were doing -- they twisted the idea to turn it into a rabid nationalism... but the Bible also contains the protest literature -- Ruth and Jonah -- that fly in the face of Ezra and Nehamiah and loudly proclaim -- 'nationalism and racism are stupid'. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I think my ultimate view on the topic would be that religion is probably more analagous to an Operating System than a virus. It's the Doctor Watsons you have to be scared of. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
It may well be true that I have a blind spot, but I can't see it yet. I just don't see the connection between and the absent-minded professor or even the stereotype of a scientist as a nerd. Isaac Asimov says somewhere that science doesn't progress with "Eureka, I've found it!". Progress begins when someone says, "Gee, that's funny..." But is it stereotypical to say that religion begins with variations on "Eureka . . ."? The basic difference is whether the idea, if followed, leads to horrible consequences, and other factors serve to ameliorate those consequences (horse sense, tradition, human bonds, rationality etc.). Or whether these consequences are aberrations, the result of other factors (greed, lust for power, ignorance, stupidity etc.). It seems we (I've done it myself.) always fall back on the latter. I'm not sure, no longer sure, this is always correct. Why? What follows from the belief that the world is not worth living in if there is no God? or Does the world have any value at all if there is no God? I keep reading this as origin as essence, and it strikes me as an archaic proposition. Does anything, any actions, follow from these propositions? LR, Should we give guns to children -- spiritual or otherwise? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Asimov, I think, was referencing an intellectual hunger that is every bit as compelling as physical hunger. The eureka celebrations and the porterhouse steaks aren't driving forces, but rather are satisfactions. We have five or six thousands years of history that would strongly suggest an equally powerful spiritual hunger at play. Religion isn't a driving force. It's a satisfaction. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
No, but I think the analogy ends there Brad. We know that boxcutters can be weapons, passenger jets, a drum of fertilizer, a toothpick -- if the intentions to kill are there. We're mostly in agreement -- and I think it is the un-questioning aspect of religious totalitarianism that is the real danger -- (and our founding fathers knew it too) especially to children -- which is why I liken religion more to an operating system -- it's going to effect the interpretation of all sensory input. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I'm stuck with this idea of spiritual hunger. I don't get it. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Brad: I think this is a good illustration of "spiritual hunger" in this short bio of Mortimer Adler. In many ways (in Adler's case), it is indistinguishable from intellectual hunger: quote: http://radicalacademy.com/adlerarticlemcinerny2.htm Hawke rightly points out that we ought to all be vigilant against the brand of religious totalitarianism that forbids a rational assessment of its religious system. I believe that the anti-intellectual notion that the sacred must remain untouched by reason is patently false. But I also believe we must remain equally vigilant against the temptation to disavow serious religious inquiry on the basis of the existence of such totalitarian religious sects. Religious belief does not have to be wholely personal and experiencial - to suggest such a thing, in my view, is little more than an attempt to escape from the unpleasant experience of having to re-order one's beliefs. Jim |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: We all seem to agree that religious totalitarianism is wrong, but I suspect we disagree on how far it goes down. The quote here, for example, is it prescriptive or descriptive? Does the search for wisdom inevitably lead to the Divine or if it doesn't, is it really the search for wisdom? |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Brad: Well, perhaps you'd consider sharing how far you believe religious totalitarianism goes? If you are equating totalitarianism with any world-view that affects the behavior of its adherents, then truly all world-views are totalitarian. If, however, you are referring to those institutions that seek to subordinate the individual and conform all aspects of the individual's life to the will of the institution, than any extremist group, religious or secular, is equally culpable of being totalitarian. My guess is that you see the tendrils of totalitarianism in those that use their religion as a platform for exerting influence on issues that are not necessarily black and white or even related directly to the cardinal doctrines of the faith they espouse. I don't have a problem calling such behavior "totalitarianistic," but wouldn't call it totalitarian any more than I would call the color gray "black." As far as the statement goes, I think it is being used descriptively here of Adler's eventual conclusion. Adler has probably used the statement prescriptively in his writings (and I would be inclined to agree with him). I think Adler recognized that the answers to life's questions will remain elusive as long as the philosopher concentrates myopically on self. Jim |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I'm not sure. I certainly fine consolation when I make a statement (I think it was about YEC) and the response was, "Brad, I'm a Cristian, not a moron." I also fine consolation when Denise says something like, "I'm a Christian, not crazy." I suppose what I'm thinking about are the endless predictions of the end of the world. Would you consider these statements to be extremist? For example, "The Late Great Planet Earth" -- I actually read that some twenty years ago -- or that Gorbachev has the mark of the beast on his forehead? It never pays a prophet to be too specific. At any rate, is this mindset mainstream or would you consider it extremist? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I'm actually pretty close to Jim on this too... which may mean I'm somewhere between Brad and Jim or, maybe Brad and Jim are actually in pretty close proximity as well. Agreed, Jim, that secular institutions are equally capable of being 'totalitarianistic' -- the main one being the corporation. I've seen first-hand the ones that want to permeate every aspect of its member's lives (and I'd put a lot of the more modern 'liberal' ones in that category as well.) The potential for establishing an oppressive regime in a circumstance where there is an economic relationship that flows uni-directionally is not small. But since we're talking totalitarian religion I think there are a few hallmarks to look for in systems or its constituents: Their perception of truth is the only truth Reprovement of any questioning of authority See themselves at war with the world Black and white thinking Legalistic (with some really hard rules to follow) Discount everyone who disagrees categorically Believe they will be punished or rewarded (in real time) according to behavior Believe they will be rewarded for giving money with financial gain If it isn't in the canon/ holy writ it is not relevant If their faith is strong enough they will be protected from harm People who get sick deserve their illness People who are poor deserve to be poor God hates sinners God wants them to be happy Feel persecuted (us and them) Of course this isn't an all-inclusive list, nor are all of these required to meet the requirements of totalitarianism to my mind. Some of these are, after all, contradictory. And I think that it could be argued that some of these elements would be present, to a degree, in most religions -- after all -- if one doesn't think a religion is 'true' why practice it? It's the thought processes around that idea though, and the actions and consequences involved where we can delineate. And, sometimes, frankly -- it's a 'know it when you see it' kind of thing. A good example being some minister blaming the terrorist attacks of 9/11 on certain 'sinners' in America that we all recall -- but, mainstream religion was pretty quick to reprove the would be reprover... My agnosticism is the only honest choice for me -- but that doesn't mean everyone should follow me into devout agnosticism. Re: your last question Brad -- who was it that said 'If you don't know what Eschatology is don't worry -- it's not the end of the world?' But I think the answer -- is in lottery tickets -- would the states be selling so many of them if every Christian thought the world was coming to an end? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Good point. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Good point? It seems you might just as easily argue that the sale of lottery tickets proves no one really believes they'll die. Then again, maybe that *is* a good point. Perhaps sanity is best defined by the dichotomies in our belief systems rather than the consistencies? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
quote: Brad, I wouldn't call all of it extremist. Some of what you hear certainly could be. A lot of it though I would simply call misguided attempts at interpretation but no one's interpretations can be said to be infallible anyway. We all come to the Scriptures with our own presuppositons, not to mention preprogramming if we were brought up within a partiular denomination. Even within the same person there can be many layers of meaning in a single word or a single theological concept. It's quite maddening at times, for me at least, trying to figure out exactly what it is I do believe about different topics. Since I'm not the type to believe something because I am told something is the truth, or because something is a majority opinion (or a minority opinion, for that matter), I approach everything with a "prove it to me" attitude. And boy, does my brain hurt sometimes. And I've come to realize that there are lots of things I'll never understand or be able to figure out. And that's okay. But I do know that we are not supposed to be prophesying, in the sense of setting dates for the Second Coming, etc. Christ said that he didn't even know the day or the hour, that only the Father knows, so how could any of us know? So the way that I see it, anyone who does make such a prediction will wind up looking like a fool, and rightly so. And I believe that the end of time will be whatever it is supposed to be, whenever it is supposed to be, and will play how it was designed to play out. I have some current theories, but I also know that they too are subject to change. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Brad: quote: To quote the men of the Tribe of the Fire People to Lothar of the Hill People, "Oh do not even get me started" (okay, so maybe I'm one of the few here with a penchant for vague allusions to classic Saturday Night Live skits). quote: Disagreeing with Denise here, increasingly, I would call it both. But I would add the epithet "unorthodox" and perhaps "grossly irresponsible" to those two terms. Such behavior is sensationalistic and actually creates more disallusioned agnostics in the long run, even when personalities like Hal Linsay and David Wilkerson enjoy short-term "success" in the numbers of people they "convert" with their wild predictions. Interestingly enough, I began to identify myself as a Christian during my mid-teens after attending a Pentecostal church. I went on to complete a four-year undergraduate program in preparation to enter the ministry within the same Pentecostal denomination. As I learned the art of interpretation, I began discovering numerous contradictions between what is in the Bible and the practices and teachings that were endorsed by a large number of the denomination's pastors and leaders. I was left with two choices: (1) judge Christianity on the basis of how I was observing it being practiced and disavow myself of it, or (2) judge Christianity on the basis of its historic claims and attempt to reform my fractured belief system to the best of my ability. My eventual choice is pretty obvious to you now, but there were many times along the road where I believe I was close to adopting the agnostic mindset. So why do people fall for the sensationalism? Mostly, I think, because of the appeals of authority (people want to be told what to believe rather than hash it out for themselves), community, commitment to a cause and an opportunity to bring “sight” to a blind world, and finally the appeal experience - a faith founded on feelings rather than faith founded on the historical facts of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. So yes, mainstream Christian leaders are saying irresponsible things, and yes, much of mainstream Christian eschatology is a horrible mess exacerbated by pop-fiction, but I don't think such problems in the church at-large invalidate the truthfulness of the claims I have come to believe. Because I can be assured that a strong case can be made for the veracity of my world-view AND because my life experiences confirm rather than deny what I have come to believe, I do so. Hawke: I'm not sure whether our apparent agreement means I'm closer to being an agnostic or that you are closer to being an orthodox Christian. I suppose the Apostle Paul said it best when he posited that, without the Resurrection, we have no hope and we may as well eat, drink and be merry, because tomorrow we will die. I think your point about secular totalitarianism underscores my firm belief that the problem is not a religious or secular problem as much as it is a human problem. Your list is pretty thorough, by the way. I would clarify the first (and perhaps second) in that such institutions seek to bury the individual in the "group mind" and allow for the peaceful coexistence of logically contradictory beliefs. The institution stands or falls on the authority of its leadership. I also find it interesting that some groups perceive a verbal challenge of their belief system to be persecution. Until Brad ties me to a post and begins beating me until I accept the Gospel According to Derrida, his disagreement with me is not persecution. Anyway, I think that is, again, more a human reaction to having strongly held beliefs challenged than a reaction that is necessarily religious. quote: Good point. I agree. quote: I have little doubt that this is true for you now. Denise: quote: When one popular author wrote back-to-back best-sellers, "1,988 Reasons Why Jesus is Returning in 1988" and "1,989 Reasons Why Jesus is Returning in 1989," can we in the church chalk this up to misguided interpretation or do you think we have an obligation to confront and correct teachings that are false? The Church does have polemic responsibilities and, while some minor departures can be overlooked, false prophesy isn't one of those minor departures. quote: And there is ample room within orthodox Christianity to accommodate differences in opinion in regards to issues that are not central to Biblical Christianity - eschatology included - but there is a vast difference between the statements "Jesus's return will occur in 2005" and "Jesus's return is imminent." quote: I think you're doing a fine job digesting all those theological chunks. Jim |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
After a debate with a Catholic named Donohue, Chrisopher Hitchens remarked: quote: |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I think Jim's and my disagreement stems from two or three basic points: 1. He seems to accept a foundationalist epistemology, I reject it. What do I mean by that? Simply put, if there is no God, then we have no reason for living, no meaning in life, and no way we can know anything for sure. I just think this is wrong. I can think of many reasons to live, as sentient beings we assign meaning and value to our lives, and I don't think it's a particularly good thing to believe in anything for sure anyway (At the metaphysical level anyway. Out day to day lives are filled with certainty.) I don't have any problems with eat, drink, and be merry, but I do have a problem when people say, "If there's no God, then it's okay to murder people." The response is, "Do you mean to say that the only reason you don't murder people is that God tells you not to?" Again, there are plenty of good reasons not to murder people with or without God. The unstated question, however, is "If God told you to murder someone would you do it?" The response to that question, "It wouldn't be God if He had told me to do that." But that's a rational argument. What do you do with the kind of absolute certainty that is claimed by some of the followers of God? And, amazingly enough, if you made a judgement concerning the voice in your head that tells you what to do, you have a tool to judge God, and the foundation goes down the drain. Just a few more things (though I don't know if Jim actually holds the countrary position): Poverty is not beautiful, natural disasters aren't something to be loved, crises are not to be yearned for, and the end of the world should not be prayed for. Like Baudrillard said about 911, when I listen to preachers, friends, or whoever, I often get this feeling in the back of my head, "Geez, you want it to happen." |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
quote: I would agree, Jim, that this would be one of the extremist positions. When I first became a Christian the date setters were proclaiming 1980. It's all unbiblical and should be denounced as such, and I think, by and large, it is. I guess I was referring more to Brad's statement with a wider context, i.e., any discussion of the end of the world, and in that context I was allowing for the various understandings that people have of how it will play out. And in that only one view will ultimately be proven accurate (but who knows, possibly we may all have it wrong) there must be many misguided attempts at interpretation out there. quote: Thanks, Jim, I need all the encouragement I can get! Sometimes I get such a bad case of indegestion, especially when I am wrestling with the various understandings out there of salvation itself with all the various nuances relating to its obtainment. Although I know what I believe I don't like to close myself off from the understandings that others might have about the topic and sometimes my brain feels like a pretzel! Brad, I think that whenever you have a very dogmatic organization, very few of its members actually believe all of its decrees. But what many people don't know about the Roman Catholic Church is that if you don't actually agree with all of its decrees, they don't actually consider you a real member anyway, at least officially. At least that is what I was taught when I was growing up in that denomination. Maybe that is equally true of any extremely dogmatic organization, I don't know, but it seems to make sense to me that it would be. It just seems to be the nature of the beast (no biblical allusions intended.) quote: Briefly, because I have to go get ready to see 'the movie', I would say that a belief in God gives a richer and deeper meaning to life. I don't doubt that those without faith can find reason for and meaning in life. I think otherwise people would go stark raving mad. quote: Does anybody say that? I've never heard anyone say that. I believe that everyone has within them a knowledge of right and wrong, a conscience, (except perhaps the criminally insane) whether they possess faith or not. I think it just comes down to who gets the credit for that knowledge being within people. Those of faith credit God. Those without faith credit man, or nature, or genes, I suppose, I really don't know. Maybe different people (without faith) have differing theories. quote: No, poverty, disasters, natural or otherwise, and crises are not desirable, but I view them all as a necessary backdrop against which the good can be seen as good, so that we can appreciate what good is. Without the bad I don't think people can truly appreciate good. I also don't understand why those who view the end of the world as 'bad' for the majority of the world's population pray for it to come either. When I held that view, I prayed for it to be delayed for as long as possible (laughing at myself know for even thinking my prayers regarding Divine timing could actually influence God's timing, since He has already set the date, to my understanding anyway.) Since I now view it as the prelude to the most blessed time for all humanity, I can yearn for its coming. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
To some, religion may be a virus of the mind, but to others it may be the anti-body needed to fight off other viruses. One thing for sure, religion was created by man, just as what is known to be god was created by man. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
quote: Opeth, doesn't being an agnostic, by its very definition, preclude you from being "sure", one way or the other, about God? Or have you progressed to aetheism? |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Denise, You misunderstood my reply. The reply given does not state that God does not exist. So, to answer your question, my answer is, no I have not. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Okay, I get where you're coming from now, Opeth. You state that you are sure that what is known about God was created by man. That statement begs the question though, how can you be sure of that, given that in your mind God may indeed exist, don't you think it even possible (which your being sure seems to preclude) that if He does exist, he would communicate to us at least some knowledge of Himself? To my mind, it seems only logical that it is possible. And if assert that it's not possible, what is your reasoning process behind that assertion? |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
quote: Well, maybe too simply put. It almost sounds as though you are assuming that I am beginning with a complete Christian view and interpreting meaning against my presuppositions. But that's more along the lines of how a philosopher might go about the question of meaning. I suppose the main presupposition I bring to the table is that certain facts are self-interpreting (res ipsa loquitur - the thing speaks for itself). Consider this question for a moment, Brad ... if Jesus did rise from the dead, how does that change your perspective on meaning? Gotta run. Will try to elaborate more later. Jim |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Well, Jim, let's at least try to see where the perspectives are: Would you fight any less for your son if Jesus hadn't risen from the dead? |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Brad: Of course not. But without concurrent providence, I don't believe the sum of my efforts would have been exceeded by the dramatic results. Additionally, I believe my faith - which is grounded in the gifts of the historical incarnation, life, death and resurrection of God the Son - provides me with a reason to look beyond the interests of my son and to give of my time to make Pennsylvania a better place for children like my son who I will probably never meet. Earlier you wrote: quote: Autism isn't beautiful, expending significant financial and emotional resources in adversarial proceedings with multiple bureaucracies that neither understand the disorder nor want to spend the money to treat it properly is not something to be loved, having a child whose neurobiological condition causes him to be both aggressive and self-injurious is not something to be loved, and I certainly didn't pray that he would be among the 1 in 150 afflicted by the disorder. I'm not going to pretend to understand why such things happen, and it would be easy to focus myopically on the trials and what my son cannot do as a result of his condition. But what is beautiful, to be loved, and to be prayed for is the manner in which the trials are overcome, my son's amazing (and somewhat perplexing) strengths, and the hard work involved helping both my own son and many other children like him. That outlook is most certainly attributable to my faith, Brad. You gonna answer my question now or do you always answer questions with a question? Jim |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I answer ? I believe ? Why would any decent God ask otherwise? Sorry, just more questions. What do I believe in? I believe in NO GOD It's time to get to work. |
||
|
Tais Member
since 2004-01-28
Posts 92Ontario, Canada |
I believe in God, in Jesus Christ as the Messiah, the Holy Spirit, and I believe that Mary, mother of Jesus, was crowned in heaven by her Son Jesus. Those are my beliefs. Do I have proof? Yes, I do. But not to post here. My proof is only for me, and for my children. Our past (mine and my children's) have had many wonderful things, and God's hand guiding us and many miracles. The same must happen to almost everyone on this planet...but those who want to see will see them, and those who don't want to, will not see them happening around them. So...yes I have proof that God exists, and that the Holy Trinity is true and exists. But I will not even try to prove it here...it's no use telling of my past and what happened that made me each day, see God more and more in our lives. It will be like talking to a wall...to some. I can see by some posts here, that it's no use to talk about God. Each one is determined to believe in what they want. So...be it then. And only one question I leave for those who think that they are superior enough not to need God: "Can you tell us that you are truly a happy person? Is love and peace engraved in your heart and mind?" I will answer for me: "Yes, no matter what happens, the love and peace will always be in my heart, mind and soul because God is also there, and nothing can destroy that. We are destructible, but God and His love is not." And I hope those who don't believe in God, will find their peace someday. Did I actually post that? Yes, I did. And I stand by every word... Tais |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Brad: My-my ... looks like my question triggered avoidance behavior. I asked: quote: I'm still interested in your answer. If it helps, if Jesus didn't rise from the dead, I wouldn't be a Christian - I might consider that natural theology has its merits, but I've always found that philosophical speculation of the Aristotelian sort required more assumptions than I am comfortable with making. Jim P.S. I can accept that you believe in NO GOD - but in making such a declaration, I believe it is inescapable that you must also declare you belief that (1) the personal arose from the impersonal, (2) matter plus time plus chance gave rise to mind, (3) something came from nothing and that potentials actualize themselves - essentially that non-being is the ground upon which being rests. [This message has been edited by jbouder (03-01-2004 11:55 AM).] |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"... don't you think it even possible (which your being sure seems to preclude) that if He does exist, he would communicate to us at least some knowledge of Himself?" ~ Of course it is possible. However, whichever form of communication She would take would ultimately be interpreted by those whom She communicated with, thereby creating a god as known by the humankind. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Opeth: God revealing Himself in a manner understandable by finite human beings is not the same thing as man creating God. Yours is a fallacy of inversion. Jim |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"God revealing Himself in a manner understandable by finite human beings is not the same thing as man creating God. Yours is a fallacy of inversion." ~ Yeah, right... in one way only, I forgot. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Opeth: History is to be interpreted, as to its meaning and significance, in terms that best fit the facts under analysis. In legal-historical reasoning, facts in themselves provide adequate criteria for choosing among variant interpretations of them (paraphrasing John Warwick Montgomery here). Divergent interpretations do not invalidate the facts - they merely call into question the means by which the interpretations were derived. Jim P.S. You still committed a fallacy of inversion - aren't you the one who once said, "Logic rules!" |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Just which facts are we talking about? Is it an actual fact that god revealed herself to humankind? I'll answer the question for you. No. Therefore, logically, no fallacy was commited. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
quote: Logical Fallacy #2 - Universal Negative Hypothesis. It would take absolute knowledge to absolutely eliminate the possibility that God has revealed Himself in history. To make this statement in the absolute sense would require omniscience. Essentially, you would have to assume the place of God to absolutely disprove the actuality of His revelation of Himself to men (as you've attempted to do). Jim P.S. Your original statement still includes a fallacy of inversion, regardless of the non-facts in that statement. P.P.S. As entertaining as this exchange is, I'd rather not lose the opportunity to continue this discussion with Brad in this thread. If you want to challenge the factualness of divine revelation, perhaps you'd consider doing so in another thread? |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"It would take absolute knowledge to absolutely eliminate the possibility that God has revealed Himself in history." ~ For sure, however substitute God for alien, would you then still agree? |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
quote: ~Sigh~ Yes. Applying what I wrote earlier, a reputed alien encounter should be interpreted, as to its meaning and significance, in terms that best fit the facts under analysis. Absolute certainty is always elusive in synthetic reasoning, but depending on the facts, it is possible to arrive at an answer that satisfies a significant burden of proof. About starting that other thread ...? Jim |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Start a thread about what? If you'll excuse me... I partook in much celebration last night and am mentally not up to my normal speed. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Avoidance behaviour? Probably. A friend of mine a few years back asked if Christians acted, I don't know, more Christian, would I have left? I responded that the idea probably would never have entered my head. But in answer to your question, I would want to know how He was able to do that. In the early nineteenth century (I think), death was a fairly common misdiagnosis, so much so that bells were put on the outside of coffins in order to alert others to the fact that reports of one's death were sometimes premature. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Brad: I appreciate your honesty. It is interesting that, even when significant evidence exists affirming the authenticity of the core claims of the Christian Gospel, people still cite Christians not being "Christian" enough as a reason for disbelief. Even though every Christian fails to measure up at times, I know many Christians who persistently strive to do good things and give of themselves to help those who need it most - for nothing in return. Regarding your answer, if you would insist on a naturalistic explanation, I think the better answer would be that the disciples stole the body. I find it difficult to belief that a swooned Jesus, severely beaten, crucified and stabbed, and buried in 75 pounds of spices and linens, could have had the strength to push a 1000+ lb. stone up an incline, escaped the guards posted at the tomb, and have cleaned himself up enough to make a convincing presentation to his disciples. I dunno - since I do believe miracles can happen, I suppose it could have happened this way. Jim P.S. You didn't really answer the question, by the way. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Well, Jim, I guess I'm stuck. I'm not quite sure how to answer your question. Let's assume that the Resurrection did happen, that He rose from the dead because He was a miraculous being. Does everything else that bothers me about Christianity suddenly change? First, quote: Of course, there are good Christians in the world (There are a few that even post here from time to time. ). And I can deal with Christians failing sometimes. Given that the bar is so high, it would seem inevitable that they do. It's not virtue as such that I was talking about there (I admit it was a vague statement though). How many times have I heard Christians describe themselves as unworthy of Christ's love? How many times have I heard, sometimes, in the same conversation an absolute confidence displayed that they know the TRUTH. Where did that humility go? I simply can't tell the difference between the need to witness for their own sake and the need to convince me for my sake or the need to convert me to what they believe for their sake. Denise's most recent comment here is a good counter-example of this by the way (Personally, the best argument here that religion is not a virus.) But this leads to my second objection: the argument from authority. Now, you and Stephan do a pretty good job of stepping around this one, but we all know that it's a logical fallacy. And, of course, most of us rely on it a lot of the time (How can we check everything?), but it's not a persuasive tool. And, unfortunately, it leads to some bizarre statements, an ever increasing myopic environment where only one source is considered valid (even if contradicted by many other forms of evidence) or where one's personal feelings are universalized and projected onto everyone else, but the other person's feelings, thoughts, notions are never considered. I don't mean to say that my feelings have actually been hurt, I mean that ultimately I don't think anyone's listening. And why should they, I realize. They already know the TRUTH. At another website, I recently engaged in a debate over a distinction between methodological naturalism and what was called methodological theism. At first, I was greatly intrigued by the prospect (I suspected that it would be something like hermenuetics), but I soon discovered that there was very little that was methodological about this form of theism, it was simply another way of stating good, old fashioned Theism. First, posit God. Second, posit Christ. Third, agree with everything I say and if you don't, you still aren't seeing the way a Christian sees it. It's a nice trick, but I soon pointed out that this was not significantly different from was usually being said. I was then accused (albeit by a different person than the original debater) of a secular bias. Really, I have a secular bias? More to say on this, but this comment has already gone on too long, so let me finish with my final objection. Presumably, the resurrection of Christ would undergird all the metaphysical speculation about Heaven/Hell, the soul, the need for redemption, the final days, the Return, and paradise on earth. It's not so much that I disagree with any of this, it's that I don't understand most of it -- except perhaps as a hunch that there is something else, something better out there. And when I do get a decent analogy or description (something that I can actually glimpse), it's not the kind of place I would like to go. However, I have my own hunch and it's along these lines by Valery: quote: But my hunch could be wrong. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"Even though every Christian fails to measure up at times, I know many Christians who persistently strive to do good things and give of themselves to help those who need it most - for nothing in return." ~ Not for an eternal life with God? Christianity is all about, "What is in it for me?" Be honest. Why do most people "come" to Jesus? |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Brad, Regarding the ressurection of Christ's body and the immortality of the soul, as I heard from a Catholic priest (just the other day), "Well, it is a mystery." Thank you for clearing that up, father. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Opeth, Why someone 'comes' to Jesus or why someone remains a Christian is a difficult question. Why someone leaves is just as difficult perhaps. Very few of us actually come to any general view of the world through rational deliberation, we already have our world view and then look for reasons for it. Now by that, I don't mean we don't change. I think make lots of little decisions, a lot of little things happen to us, and that these little things and decisions accumulate over time. We then reflect on those little changes, and then rationalize whatever point of view or opinion that pops into our head at that moment. I think this evolutionary model is a far better description, and, in fact promises a more satisfying life than the revolutionary one of revelation or reason. The scary part, for me, is that people do claim to make the jump, and the even scarier one that they want others to take their hand and jump with them. As far as mystery goes, I like the fact the priests often say, "I don't know." The scary part is that many often say, "I don't know, but you should do what I say, you should believe what I believe, for your sake." I'm not suggesting that they don't believe what they profess to believe, I'm suggesting that many people (not just priests), claim knowledge that they don't have, and say that lack of knowledge is the basis for belief, claim knowledge that they can't articulate, or defer that knowledge to God. The problems here are simple enough: 1. the first is a contradiction 2. the second is really a hunch, not knowledge 3. the third is an infinite deferral With all that said, I don't think anyone should move in either direction toward belief or away from it, with one leap. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Brad? I like what you just said, very very much. Thanks. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Denise said; quote: When I read this Denise what I hear you say is that it was necessary for my son and his mother to die so that someone else could understand what happiness is. I can't be offended by that because I know you and know that you don't mean it with any kind of malice -- I know you're trying to work out your philosophy just as all of us do our entire life. The only reason I bring it up is because it may bear some re-tooling. Many, many people will hear it the same way that I reflected it back to you. Jim, As far as I can make it is; Deus erat in Christo mundum reconcilians sibi. (God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself.) But with a few caveats. When I use the word God my paradigm is totally different. And I'd have to say no to the entire Apostle's Creed. If you want to talk about the Gospel of John though -- I think there are some worthy notions there. Other than that -- there is probably very little difference between me and an Orthodox Christian -- in fact -- you could drop me off at an Episcopal Church on Sunday morning -- I could sing 'God of Our Fathers' (tenor -- or maybe the bass line), and discuss the sermon with the Parson over a chicken dinner. It might get lively though depending upon which wing of the Episcopal Church we're talking about. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: I accept that. I think the personal, if I understand what you mean here, what Rorty might call private, arises from the impersonal. This impersonal I would call the social. quote: Sure, except you've left out accumulated change through natural selection. Again, I think the difference between you and me is that you think one description is the right one, and I think multiple descriptions from multiple viewpoints can all be correct (and doesn't negate that some descriptions are wrong).quote: Ah, this is the tricky one. I think that 'something' does depend on 'nothing' (call it nothingness, non-being, differance, difference itself, or whatever) for its existence, but I'm not sure it is linear. Maybe a matter of co-dependency? Still, at that level of abstraction, I really think are naive intuitions simply fall apart. It may very well be that all of our speculations, scientific, philosophical, or theological are nowhere near being an accurate description of this relationship. quote: --Wittgenstein |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Brad, I enjoyed reading that reply #115. "Why someone 'comes' to Jesus or why someone remains a Christian is a difficult question." ~ For sure. That is why I answer it by what I experienced in my lifetime. Practically every Christian I know of, has accepted Jesus for something in return, with the overwhelming majority accepting Christ in order to live forever/escape hell. "Why someone leaves is just as difficult perhaps. Very few of us actually come to any general view of the world through rational deliberation, we already have our world view and then look for reasons for it." ~ I agree. For me, I was able to shed my worldview, maybe not entirely, but enough to rationally deliberate issues, facts, opinions, etc., and leave christianity. "Now by that, I don't mean we don't change. I think make lots of little decisions, a lot of little things happen to us, and that these little things and decisions accumulate over time. We then reflect on those little changes, and then rationalize whatever point of view or opinion that pops into our head at that moment. I think this evolutionary model is a far better description, and, in fact promises a more satisfying life than the revolutionary one of revelation or reason. The scary part, for me, is that people do claim to make the jump, and the even scarier one that they want others to take their hand and jump with them." ~ Well put. "As far as mystery goes, I like the fact the priests often say, "I don't know." The scary part is that many often say, "I don't know, but you should do what I say, you should believe what I believe, for your sake." I'm not suggesting that they don't believe what they profess to believe, I'm suggesting that many people (not just priests), claim knowledge that they don't have, and say that lack of knowledge is the basis for belief, claim knowledge that they can't articulate, or defer that knowledge to God." ~ Yes. Again, well stated. "With all that said, I don't think anyone should move in either direction toward belief or away from it, with one leap." ~ Neither do I, but then the majority of people will not ever want to move to begin with. ~ I think what happened to me was inevitable. I was born and raised a catholic (of which after completely forsaking the faith due to what I am about to describe next, I now have a better opinion of and for good reason), attended catholic schools from grade 1 to graduation. It wasn't until I was about 11 that I found out that there were other religious beliefs in the US other than catholicism and judaism. Sure, I knew of those "crazy" religions in other countries (India, Japan, etc), but dismissed those religons and people as ignorant and "below our level" tripe. Talk about a limited worldview. But when I joined the military and began to meet people from all across the US, when I moved to the SE, to the NW, and in between and conversed with people, my worldview began to expand. I traveled to other countries and learned about their cultures and religions, my worldview expanded even further... when I attended college and studied the histories of various nations, even further... During all that time, I studied with protestants and many other people from various denominations. Became a baptist, a pentacostal, and finally, after praying and studying realized that their had to be one true christian church... but the more I studied ancient cultures, the more opened my mind to other possibilities, I came to where I am now. Sorry about the rant, but I was inspired by your reply. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Well I'll be the first to admit that possibly many of my thoughts could use a re-tooling, or at least my expression of my thoughts. I'm very sorry for your personal losses, L.R., and don't make light of them or anyone else's personal tragedies. I guess "growth through pain" might be a better way to express what I was trying to convey. I guess I start from the vantage point of tragedy as an inevitable part of life and that being the case, what can we make of it for our betterment. The devastating loss of loved ones is the bitterst pill of all. And I'd rather have them back than any 'good' (a deeper appreciation of life and a deeper cherishing of the loved ones that remain, that eventually surfaces) but we don't get to make those choices. As grief subsides we gradually can accept the 'good', or perhaps it is the slowly dawning 'good' that eventually eclipses the grief and helps us to cope with life without them? I guess I just try to find a meaning or purpose in everything, even things that seem totally and completely devoid of any redeeming value whatsoever. And I believe that God does bring good out of bad, not that I always like it or necessarily agree with his viewpoint at the time! I hope I've expressed myself a bit better this time around! |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Sorry, all. There is much to respond to and free time hasn't actually been in abundance for me in Amish Country USA. Brad: quote: Sounds a little bit like a misunderstanding on the parts of both parties. Doctrinally, I think a Christian may rightly say they are unworthy of God's favor in an actual sense. Christians are declared worthy in a forensic sense - in other words Christ is our worth, and His righteousness becomes ours by imputation. As for the Christians you describe, not everyone has an interest in exploring the rationale for his or her faith, just as not everyone has an interest in philosophy - this doesn't automatically make them wrong when they speak of what they "know" authoritatively, it just makes them annoying to people like you and I. quote: I've written here before that success in finding answers to life's questions is very heavily dependent on the reliability of our sources. I think what is important is that we test our sources vigorously so that the "authority" is grounded in fact. quote: Those crazy philosophical Christian apologists. I've been trying to convert that ilk to the school of evidential apologetics for the better part of ten years now. quote: Close, but most importantly, the Resurrection undergirds the fact that Jesus' death has meaning for us (as an atonement for sin) and gives us a factual basis on which to speak with confidences in regards to our redemption. Furthermore, His being the "Firstborn of the dead" (in Christianese terms) provides me with a foundation on which I can believe that, one day - perhaps long after I die - I will be raised also. There are more "practical" benefits also, like being a part of a community of people who earnestly want to do good - hey - even I need help sometimes. Regarding Valery's quote - I see where he (she?) is coming from, and I don't entirely disagree. But my faith isn't grounded on ambitious terms, but in history. Later you wrote: quote: Neither do I. The "leap of faith" is an unfortunate phrase born out of early Christian existentialism that has stuck. For me, faith has been more of a natural step from facts I found to be trustworthy. Granted, it didn't begin that way for me, but when the time came for me to honestly evaluate what I believe, I did my best to be thorough. quote:. I cannot say definitively that natural selection was not the means by which God brought life from non-life, mind from the mindless, etc.. But natural selection isn't really all that much about science as much as it is about historiography. I agree that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the record itself, and not be arrogated by the critic to assume fraud or error unless the interpreter of the record disqualifies him or herself with contradictions or the record itself is disqualified by internal inconsistency or material contradiction. In some instances, this means multiple descriptions from multiple viewpoints can be correct at times, but other times, depending on the nature of the evidence, we can weed out those conclusions that are less likely and/or wrong. Opeth: quote: We bark because we are dogs, Opeth, we don't bark to become dogs. You can't earn a free gift, only show gratitude for receiving it. Hawke & Denise: Tragedy and hard times are more often, to me, defining moments in our lives. I don't mean to sound too much like Kid Rock in saying "only God knows why," but I think we make a mistake when we do ask "why" when we experience tragedy or suffering. Hawke's loss is certainly greater than any I have experienced, but I have a feeling he came to the same realization I have after I experienced significant, albeit lesser, losses: things are as they are - the only question worth asking is where do I go from here? Hawke: LOL. How can you throw out the whole Apostle's Creed and keep the Gospel of John? Creation, Incarnation, ministry, death, Resurrection, etc. Why is it that you can hint to your Episcopal background, yet I am know closer to actually knowing what you believe than before you offered the hint? Jim |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"We bark because we are dogs, Opeth, we don't bark to become dogs. You can't earn a free gift, only show gratitude for receiving it." Jim, That dog does not hunt. Truth on this matter was arrived at my personal experience. Come to Jesus to avoid an eternal damnation = What is in it for you. Come to Jesus to live for eternity = What is in it for you. Come to Jesus and you will no longer suffer from (insert addiction, problem, etc., here) = What is in it for you. Preachers, and all who walk "the faith" get others to join the club through the philosophy of GET. Your analogy doesn't work. "If this grand panorama before me is what you call God...then God is not dead." |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Here is a better analogy... The dog trainer bribes the dog with treats in order to train it to do what the trainer wants it to do. Without the treat for obedience process, the dog would not obey to the trainer. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"Is Religion a Virus of the Mind? ~ Getting back to the original question... I guess it all depends on the individual. To me, it is. And, all I ask is that the carriers quit trying to infect me with their virus. With life being so short, and the fact that it is my life, is that too much to ask for? (rhetorical question) "If this grand panorama before me is what you call God...then God is not dead." [This message has been edited by Opeth (03-06-2004 05:08 PM).] |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Since you're bringing up the subject of operant conditioning, I thought I'd let you know that one of the most common means of extinguishing undesirable behavior in others is by removing the stimulus. If you don't want others discussing religion with you, don't start religion-oriented threads. Jim |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"Since you're bringing up the subject of operant conditioning, I thought I'd let you know that one of the most common means of extinguishing undesirable behavior in others is by removing the stimulus. If you don't want others discussing religion with you, don't start religion-oriented threads." ~ I'll remember that the next time a preacher knocks on my door, without me asking him too. I'll remember that the next time I stand in formation and listen to the chaplain preach his christian prayer, without me asking him too, I'll remember that when... I could go on for quite some time here... Nah, Jim. What you are reading is the reaction to the virus. Good try, though. "If this grand panorama before me is what you call God...then God is not dead." |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Denise and Jim. I don't think it's as important that you arrive at a final answer as it is that you're working on it. I also don't think there are degrees to loss. Loss is loss. I'm sure I've suffered no more pain than anyone else has or will Jim. But I appreciate both of your responses. I don't think this is a problem that is unique to Christianity though -- it is yet -- one more human problem, obviously. It's also a human problem to regale the bereaved with platitudes -- which I might warn against. A friend (who was not a Christian) remarked to me once quote: After I decked him as he was getting up he naturally asked why I hit him... I said... " It's a life lesson. You just have to figure out what it is you're supposed to learn from it." But we do grieve -- and we recover. As Jim put it -- you stop asking why. What I've said in the past: quote: Perhaps Denise -- it would be better to just stick to what Jesus said -- "The rain falls on the just and the unjust." He seemed pretty reluctant to say why. Jim, It's simple -- what I've always said -- a text need not be literally true to contain 'truth'.Notice also that I didn't include the Nicene Creed. I can find some value in parts of that. I don't think you can know what I believe because I'd have to post an entire exposition -- who would read it? (yawn) But, I'll gladly discuss it -- and have been for four years. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Hey guys, I've really wanted to participate in this thread but my computer took a tumble off the desk while my wife and I were painting one day. Irritating, but I ended up getting a new computer. Also things have been very busy. But I'll try to peep in here and there. Brad: quote: Yeah. There is much extremism in the world of Christendom that bothers believers as much it bothers you. It's just my opinion ... but you might fare better reading "The Abolition of Man" by Lewis, or "How Should We Then Live" by Schaeffer, rather than "TLGPE". These works seem to confirm the same general idea of the death of mankind (caused by the fall), but are not as fanciful in their descriptions. The problem is, the validity of the Judeo/Christian prophecies concerning the end of this present order and the beginning of the new, gets confused with that of certain particular caricatures of it. Smoldering aunt sallies do not rule out the possibility of truth in eschatology. (that's all for now ... it's hard to know what to address when you've been gone a while) Stephen. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Hmmm, maybe we should just wait for Stephan to catch up. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
quote: Well, L.R., I don't think He was reluctant to say why. I just think that He knew that they knew the Scriptures that declared that truth and that those same Scriptures also declared the 'why', that everything is from the hand of God, which they would also have known. Perhaps prudence dictates that type of abbreviated response, perhaps maybe even in most cases, especially if standing within striking distance . It depends on the one to whom we are speaking or comforting, I would say.To some the best thing to say is, "it just is" or "only God knows" or something similar, or maybe even saying nothing at all, but just be there for them. With some I could also comfort them with my conviction (and theirs), as a reminder, that nothing happens to us that is not permitted by God, that all that happens to us is ultimately according to His will for the fulfillment of His purposes in us and through us, to conform us more and more into the image of the Son, even though we can't see any possible good in it at the moment. My understanding of the sovereignty of God brings much comfort to me. But not everyone believes in God and not everyone who does believe in God has the same understanding as to the extent of His sovereignty. Wisdom is definitely needed when we are attempting to comfort people, because, afterall, it is the person that we are attempting to comfort whose outlook and receptivity that should be considered paramount, or else why attempt to comfort them at all if we only end up wounding them with words that they aren't able to receive? Stephen, I was wondering where you were. Welcome back! Now, what the heck are "smoldering aunt sallies" ? I can't say that I've ever heard that term. Is it some sort of philosophical lingo or maybe some sort of regional lingo? Brad, Stephen is a quick study. We won't have to wait too long I'm sure! |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Don't worry Denise -- I haven't punched anybody since... mm.. last week.. (j/k) And I certainly wouldn't argue that what you say may have been in Jesus' mind. He was without question a man of scripture. One day when you have the time you may want to add Kershner to your reading list. Stephan; hurry back into the fray... our conversations aren't balanced without your input. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Thanks, I may do just that, L.R., but first you'll have to tell me who he is and what he has written so I can check it out. I can't say that I've heard of him. What is his field? Maybe that will narrow it down for me. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Rabbi Harold Kushner When Bad Things Happen to Good People When All You've Ever Wanted Isn't Enough Who Needs God I think he'd be right up your alley (no wonder you hadn't heard of him -- I spelled his name rong up there... ack!) |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Ah, yes, him I've heard of! Good writer with lots of wisdom to share. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Denise ... I'm sure you know what smoldering means. aunt sally n. - 1) in the U.K., a traditional target used in throwing-games in fairgrounds, shaped as the head of a woman of advanced years, typically with a clay pipe in her mouth, that throwers try to break. 2) a person who is a ready target for criticism or focus for disputation. It's sort of similar to "strawman", but it's a British term. Stephen. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Thanks Stephen, I had my suspicions that it meant something like strawman but couldn't find the definition and didn't just want to make assumptions. Thanks again! |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
This one too.  |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Karen, I'm wondering ... were there aspects of these threads you wanted to bring up? Or were you just raising them from the depths in hopes that someone else might take up where they left off? Stephen |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Karen's been thinking again... and there's a lot of sources in here I meant to get back to and didn't. So, no, I'm not trying to start anything except my brain, here. I bumped them so I could find them easily. But, it IS interesting, and we do have some new folks here, so sure, I'd enjoy reading any new comments. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Is religion a virus of the mind? Yes, absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt. "We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
But its too simplistic to say that Christians are "atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in". The best of paganism was but a partial and imaginative reflection of the one true God. So in a sense, the Christian doesn't lose the gods, but finds their summation in Christ. The colors of the old Pantheon are found anew in the precious stones of God's temple. Its just that the errors of mistaken identity and the diabolical shades are taken away. My point is, there's a great difference between atheism and theism. It's having all the beauties of divinity (including all that was glorious in pagan religions), or none. Dawkins' idea that atheists are dismissing "merely one more" doesn't tell what's really at stake. Stephen |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: It may be simplistic Stephen but that doesn’t negate the fact that it’s true, if you want some hard evidence that Christians are atheists about most gods then try answering the following. Of all the gods that have ever existed in the minds of men how many do you believe actually exist? You can wriggle around the question by suggesting that all gods are a reflection of the one true god if you like but I wouldn’t recommend opening that particular can of worms. quote: Unicorns are beautiful or they would be if they actually existed, divinity falls into the same category. You’re holding out your hand and asking whether I want the beautiful but invisible clothes you’re holding or nothing at all, you’re selling an idea of beauty or, if you prefer Richards’s terminology a meme. I’ll stick with nothing – it doesn’t cost me anything. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Of course it does . . . as you well know. Nothing is free of cost, including nothing. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch: quote: It's not a new idea. It perfectly sound theology to say that Biblical monotheism has always been concerned not so much with condemning the virtues attributed to idols, as insisting on their true source. The only problem with the meme idea, from Dawkin's view, is that his own rhetorical ideas can be no different than a meme ... or a virus if you prefer. In fact to say that all life arose without a maker, by process of random mutations invites the exact same kind of criticism as would any change induced by a microorganism. How is genetic malfunction any different than viral infection? Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Henotheism |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos If life needs to be created by a creator then the life of God needs to be created thus too. Who created his life? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: “Insisting on their true source” Is that a nice way of saying “death to all infidels”, “lets start a crusade” or “welcome to the inquisition”? “Insisting on their true source” implies that any religion, presumably other than your own is a false religion and that the god that the followers of that religion are worshiping doesn’t actually exist. Now call me pedantic if you like but that sounds suspiciously like an atheistic statement to me, in which case the quote by Dawkins is valid. Religious people like you have no problem questioning the existence of other people’s gods, Richard just takes it one step further and questions the existence of yours. Of course you can go down the can of worms trail if you like and insist that Allah, Buddha and Zeus are just reflections of the one true god or differing descriptions of the same invisible elephant. But then you’d need to convince me why your particular elephant was any more valid than theirs and that there wasn’t in fact several or no elephants to begin with. Your god and their god are separate and distinct entities created and sustained by faith alone when you argue that their god doesn’t exist I’m quite happy to agree with you and when they argue that your god is false I’m the first one nodding his head. Which is exactly what Dawkins was alluding to in the quote I used. quote: Absolutely no difference whatsoever if you ignore the fact that Dawkin’s idea isn’t contracted by accident or spread surreptitiously from birth whether the recipient wants it or not. Dawkin’s idea is offered and accepted or denied based on evidence – Dawkins meme is a vaccine not a virus. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: True but saying: I’ll stick with nothing – After an in-depth cost\benefit analysis I consider the option of nothing to be substantially more beneficial and more cost effective. Hasn’t got the impact I was looking for. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Grinch, Nothing needs to live up to your expections in order to exist. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
PS "...and that there wasn’t in fact several or no elephants to begin with." That should be "there weren't" instead of "there wasn't". |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Not at all. But I didn't think you'd resort to ad hominem quite so early in the discussion. Pacifism and religious exclusivism are not incompatible, either logically or practically. quote: There are many levels on which I can offer you reasons as to why. First of all, Greek and Roman "gods" were not transcendent but themselves dependents and seated within the natural order. They were amplified humanity, not the "origin of all things". So philosophically, Zeus still begs the question of who made him, if not mankind. Then there's the historical (questions of historical veracity), the existential (questions of human need), the antropological (questions of human nature) ... all of which underscore the truth of God. There's alot I could go into, if I didn't feel that your request for reasons was given more as a dare. quote: Atheism (and Evolution for that matter) may be just as imposed as religion may be ... just as indoctrinational, just as militant. However, you want catch me using those kinds of complaints against it, because as you well know, none of that has much bearing on the question of whether any of it is true or not. quote: How can naturalism (or dialectical materialism) be based on evidence, since it is not a statement about particulars but about the whole? It is a universal and absolute statement, based on presuppositions. It is a filter through which one may accept or reject certain kinds of evidence according to the tenets of that philosophy, like a religion. I never deny Christianity's presuppositional commitments, but only insist that it is more consistent with who we are, than the other set. You may say that Dawkins views of evolution are evidentiary (though the evidence itself is questionable), but not his anti-religious philosophy. Evolution in and of itself does not preclude the need for a divine maker. As Chesterton once said; there is little difference between a slow miracle and a fast one. The question of benefit (using the metaphor of vaccine or virus) is still open. Is it more becoming or beneficial to believe in God, does it make you more moral? I would agree with you that Theism (as a mere intellectual belief) may not. There's more to it. more later, Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ess: quote: Not an easy question. But in simplest terms, finite life was necessarily created, not divine life which is not finite. Finitude calls for dependence, not eternity. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I think the problem of your approaches is that you are both "catering" to nonexistance. Neither you nor Grinch have even proven that any life didn't exist at one point, and yet you are trying to claim or deny "origins" by which seemingly all or most life needed to come into existance. If life wasn't what we are willing to refer with the word "life", why couldn't have existed as something else, that lived up to what we may be willing to refer to with a different word? In other words, why couldn't life have existed at all times, but just not exactly in the way by which we are still willing to call it "life"? Does life stop existing just because it evolves into death? I don't think so. When life evolves into death it continues to exist as death, but we don't continue to be willing to call it "life" by its extreme difference, therefore we call it "death" It is immortality in a sense, just not the kind most of us wish for because it involves life continuing not in the same or similar way, but as death itself. It is one eternal existance, but evolves into two differences where by one we call it "life" and by another we call it "death". Even though life always exists, it doesn't always live up to the expectations we have in our definition, but instead it may exist as something we hold as the opposite, such as death itself. Everything always exist, but it doesn't always stay the same either as it is at other places of space or time, or as we describe it. When something doesn't live up to being the same or doesn't live up to being as we describe, it is not at all because it is not existant, but because it is different. [This message has been edited by Essorant (10-11-2007 03:10 PM).] |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Stephen, quote: My statement was aimed at religion as a whole not any particular individual. If it could be called ad hominem it’s probably closest to a tu quoque ad hominem argument, which as you know is a valid argument. You suggested that the statement made by Dawkins to the effect that the religious do not disbelieve in other peoples gods was incorrect. I merely pointed out that the historical evidence contradicts your assertion, while I agree that believing in one god and being a pacifist is possible, believing in one true god and not disbelieving the existence of other gods is, I believe, impossible. quote: That’s interesting, Zeus wasn’t a god because he needed a creator, can that argument be applied to Buddah, Allah or even your own god? quote: It wasn’t a dare Stephen I was simply trying to ascertain whether you believed your god was the one true god and that all other gods were false. quote: Atheism is offered religion is imposed, the truth of either is secondary it is the method of infection that is important. That’s why I was so emphatic in my earlier statement that religion could be deemed a virus of the mind, because infection isn’t normally by choice whereas atheism can be accepted or denied in the same way a vaccine can be accepted or denied. quote: No, I’d say both were offered with evidence and that the validity of the evidence offered can of course be questioned, tested and amended (unlike religious doctrine). One piece of evidence offered by Dawkins is the means by which people acquire their religious beliefs; in fact it’s the foundation upon which the virus of the mind suggestion is built. How do you explain that the vast majority of people who hold religious beliefs just happen to hold the same beliefs as their parents? That religions are geographic in nature and that even today with modern communication and the availability of information it’s unlikely that a person will ‘discover’ the one true religion (yours presumably) and change their religious beliefs? quote: Evolution doesn’t preclude the need for little green men either, that doesn’t mean it has to include them just because some people like watching the X files. Chesterton’s quote with regard to evolution is so far out it’s not even wrong, his smoke and mirror use of the word miracle is designed to lead you to the wrong conclusion. Perhaps I can explain the flaw in his logic. People, based on their expectations of the event actually happening, classify miracles, this classification it’s based on the level of incredulity regarding the event taking place. There are small miracles for instance, like having a bad fall and not breaking a bone, these are events that are unlikely and fortuitous but still fairly commonplace and so are judged minor miracles. Next you have medium miracles, these are events that are reasonably rare and fairly incredible, hitting a hole in one at golf could fall into this category, you could reasonably expect to do it once, perhaps twice in your golfing career but it doesn’t happen every day. The final type of miracles are the events you wouldn’t expect to happen at all, something really incredible, these are true miracles, things like an apple instantaneously appearing out of thin air. Now supposing I showed you an apple that I’d grown on one of my apple trees and explained all the steps that apple had needed to literally come to fruition, would you class that as a miracle and if so what level? You could argue that the apple was a miracle in and of itself, a fantastic example of the cornucopia offered by nature but would you call it a true miracle? Chesterton suggests that the miraculous nature of an apple grown on a tree slowly is exactly the same as an apple that appears spontaneously out of thin air. While both apples in and of themselves are fairly miraculous I wouldn’t say that the way they came about was equally miraculous, would you? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Grinch, Monotheism indeed denies other gods, but that is because it believes there is only one god, not that there is no god, as atheism. Therefore, I don't think you may rightly say that monotheism is atheistic. If you say monotheism is atheistic, then it seems by the same principle you should accept the reverse, that is, that atheism is monotheistic too. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Dawkins isn’t suggesting that monotheism is the same as atheism he’s suggesting that the particular tendency of people who hold monotheistic beliefs to deny the existence of other gods is atheistic in nature. “Your god does not exist” Sounds to me like an atheistic statement, whether uttered by an atheist a theist or an etymologist. quote: I don’t so I won’t (see above). |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Grinch Let's turn "gods" into "women" for a minute. If a man avoids all other women because he believes only his lover is a true woman, has a great relationship with her, marries her, and has children, and a long and happy life and love with her, you and Dawkins would say that is like not believing in any and not having a relationship with any woman at all? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I’m pretty sure Dawkins, and I’m absolutely sure that I, wouldn’t say anything of the sort but that’s probably due to the fact that your analogy doesn’t resemble in the slightest the atheistic\monotheistic conundrum you’re trying to resolve. Dawkins does not suggest that the monotheist is atheistic for the same reason I wouldn’t suggest that the man in your analogy doesn’t believe in having a relationship with women. Dawkins suggests that the act of denying other gods is atheistic in nature, you’d have to introduce a similar act to make your analogy truly comparative. Try this: If the man said, “I detest married women” he could be labelled as holding anti-marriage views despite the apparent paradox of being married to a women he loves. Is comparative to: If the man said, “your god doesn’t exist” he could be labelled as holding atheistic views despite the apparent paradox of being monotheistic. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
But that's the point I am focusing on. Atheism isn't about denying "other gods", it is about denying any and all gods. It doesn't say "other gods" are nonexistant or false. It says any and all gods are nonexistant or false. And that is a big difference, a difference which for the believer would be the likeness to having no woman at all, instead of denying others and having as wife the one he truly believes in. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
LOL. The whole quandary here, I think, is an unspoken presumption of atheism. The conundrum, and the alleged parallels, only exist because the atheist is convinced the monotheist is wrong. If we instead accept the possibility that denying all gods save one true God just might be a valid claim, then the seeming similarities between atheists and monotheists evaporate like so much mist. The man who insists that two plus two equals four probably shouldn't be confused with the man who insists math doesn't work, even though both would probably agree that two plus two doesn't equal five. Their common ground, in other words, falls far short of making them the same. We can't yet apply a truth table to religion, but that doesn't mean that a truth table doesn't exist. Eventually, some people will be right, some people will be wrong, and therein will rest the only differentiation that really matters. (The math analogy may seem a stretch because, after all, no one really claims that mathematics doesn't work; there are no math atheists. It seemed appropriate to me, however, because, if you allow the introduction of paradox (division by zero), there are going to be times when two plus two really does equal five. I sort of like the implication that maybe the atheist and the monotheist are BOTH wrong at least part of the time. ) |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Brilliant. What I'll try to say in a few hundred words, Ron says in a few dozen. And Essorant too was keen to liken the comparison of atheism and theism to that of misogyny and monogamy. One man distrusts the face of all women ... the other sees one as the sum and best of all women. Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch: quote: Grinch, if you'll go back and read my statement, I never said that Dawkin's statement about monotheism was technically incorrect. I did say that its trivializing conclusion doesn't follow from a proximity of numbers. That kind of statement is rhetorical and simplistic despite any mathematical accuracy it may hold. quote: My point was that Zeus as a "god" was quite a different concept than the Judeo-Christian God who is transcendent as well as personal. A god who is subject to nature rather than its creator and sustainer would indeed beg the question of origin. A transcendent being, by nature, would not. Since Buddhism is not a theistic religion, but more of a philosophy, the question of origins would apply to Siddhartha Guatama as it would any other human being. The question would not apply to Allah or to the Christian God, since both are described as transcendent ... Islam itself (particularly Allah) being a later remaking of Judeo-Christian theology. quote: Yes and no. or ... Yes but its not that simple. Even misguided religion contains the expression of a genuine desire for God. Right attributes often, wrong personage.quote: I admit religion may be imposed. It often is. Some of that imposition crosses over into coercion, while some is proper. There's nothing wrong with teaching your children what is true authoritatively ... whether it be a matter of religion or otherwise. Every dogma is subject to a spectrum ranging from outright abuse to parental insistence, to gentle persuasion. Atheism is no different. What I note about your approach (gleaned from Dawkins it seems) is that it lumps everyone religious into the same criminal boat, and sees all the atheists exonerated. Or to put it in terms of ideology, it makes religious belief out to be inherently oppressive and narrow, and atheism to be instrinsically good, openminded, and unbiased. It sounds almost like a religious fanaticism, in that it seeks to justify its own ranks and demonize others. To take you seriously I would have to understand why you are glossing over the history of atheism (as ideology) in such examples as imposed Marxism or the likes of Madalyn Murray O'Hair, or even "Infidels.org" who teach atheism as dogmatically as any fundamentalist religion. Remember I am not denying such examples in religion. I am only pointing out the fallacy of Dawkins arguments. (I also say this lest Brad pipes in, assuming I'm trying to prove Christianity by pointing out that religious faults are no worse than atheist faults ) Sometimes debris has to be moved out of the way before anything more can be established. quote: More erudite thinkers (at least in the areas of philosophy and psychology) than Dawkins have pointed out that the transmission of ideas have nothing to do with whether they are true, good, or evil. And more than that, the transmission of ideas is very similar accross the board; Dawkins' ideas being no exception. If the mode of transmission is his point of criticism, then he holds a very poor argument, seeing his own ideas run on the same social and neural tracks. Has Dawkins never struck you as preachy? Better check his temp. quote: No. But you missed his point. He was simply trying to express that time does not remove the difficulty or wonder of creation. The fact that you (a mere varying structure of dumb molecules, by your own worldview) can sit here and debate with me about the nature of the entire universe, and feel that you can know something real beyond your own cerebral cortex, is a wonder that is not lessened by the passing of time. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: I just wanted to clarify that I used "dumb" here not in the insulting sense, but as meaning "silent". When I reread my post, I felt that it could be taken wrongly. Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
For anyone who is interested in the relationship between faith and science, (and whether or not they are really at odds) and the subject of this thread ... I found a very recent debate that will prove savory. Between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox (both men of science) whose conclusions about God are opposite, this debate deals mainly with the subject matter of this thread, albeit more articulately. Perhaps it may serve to further the discussion here as well. hope you enjoy. Part one Part two Part three Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Unfortunately the audio on my computer doesn't work  |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Yet more motivation to get that fixed! Stephen |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
