Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Steve H on August 13, 2017, 08:57:54 AM
-
Let's face it - in this scientific age, the arguments for the existence of God don't bear much scrutiny, and the arguments against are hard to counter, in particular the existence of suffering: not all suffering, which is probably inevitable in a material universe, but the built-in suffering, such as parasitic worms, some of which cause hideous suffering to their hosts, but have to do so in order to live themselves; also horrendous genetic diseases such as spinal muscular atrophy, epidermolysis bullosa, and proteus syndrome.
However, human beings have a religious capacity and need (not every single human, before some smart-arse says "I dont!", but humans in general), so why not practice religion - Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism or whatever - without pretending that it is a true account of the world: treat it, as it were, as artrather than science? That, essentially, is the non-realist position, espoused by Don Cupitt and others, and foreshadowed by Paul Tillich, and is where I am nowadays.
Thoughts? Come on, traditionalists - try to argue me back into belief in an objectively-existing God!
-
What if none of this is real.?
Like a completely mad dream & when we 'die', we 'wake up' ???
-
What if none of this is real.?
Like a completely mad dream & when we 'die', we 'wake up' ???
No thanks.Horrible thought!
When I'm dead I want to be dead thank you.
-
Well, this thread didn't take long to go off-topic!
-
Accepting the precepts in The Sermon on the Mount and the parable of the Good Samaritan are all that is necessary to be an effective christian.
The myths, legends and fairy tales are incidental. The cultural values of christianity are the only important features of the religion. The Old Goatherders Book of camp Fire Tales is superfluous.
-
I think that myth is something that seems as necessary to us as any religious tendencies, maybe more so. Whether it is a way of ynderdtanding ourselves or a leap into another realm, I think it is a part of being human to tell fairy stories and deep, dark legends.
-
However, human beings have a religious capacity and need (not every single human, before some smart-arse says "I dont!", but humans in general), so why not practice religion - Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism or whatever - without pretending that it is a true account of the world: treat it, as it were, as artrather than science? That, essentially, is the non-realist position, espoused by Don Cupitt and others, and foreshadowed by Paul Tillich, and is where I am nowadays.
I think that is fair enough. Science and reason would suggest there is no such thing as a divine being somewhere out there. Real divinity maybe lies in the expression of human yearning for divinity. By yearning for the divine, we become divine.
-
That's well put, Torridon. A divine being 'out there' doesn't make sense. As you know I'm a pantheist - so to me the universe is 'god'. This is making me wonder if I see the universe as a single 'being'. Hmm.
-
The human mind is capable of great feats, which can convince people that even the weirdest things are true.
-
That's well put, Torridon. A divine being 'out there' doesn't make sense. As you know I'm a pantheist - so to me the universe is 'god'. This is making me wonder if I see the universe as a single 'being'. Hmm.
That seems like the Old Testament Hebrew God .... Elohim .... the One who is the totality of powers, forces and causes in the universe. Then to confuse matters, along comes Jehovah ... YHVH .... the uncreated Creator who is independent of any concept, force, or entity.
-
That seems like the Old Testament Hebrew God .... Elohim .... the One who is the totality of powers, forces and causes in the universe. Then to confuse matters, along comes Jehovah ... YHVH .... the uncreated Creator who is independent of any concept, force, or entity.
I believe god was created, by the human mind.
-
I believe god was created, by the human mind.
All beliefs are created by the mind, I believe.
-
Gods were invented to facilitate the exercise of power. Initially, natural events were explained as the action of gods and people who claimed to capable of communicating with gods gained power over others. The priesthood invented itself to be able to dominate others. In time this became solidified into an institution, traditions were established and belief became a social control mechanism.
A recent manifestation of this was the development of Marxism - a few explantory mechanisms ("rules" of history etc), self-selected priesthood (Lenin, Stalin etc) and enforced belief system. There even schisms - Maoism.
-
You are talking about religion rather than God I think, HH. People can and so experience something if 'god' without religion or the need for a mediator.
-
Let's face it - in this scientific age, the arguments for the existence of God don't bear much scrutiny,
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Scientism.
-
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Scientism.
Science has much more credibility than religion.
-
SteveH,
Let's face it - in this scientific age, the arguments for the existence of God don't bear much scrutiny...
Sort of. If by "God" you mean an objective, "out there somewhere" god then when religious apologetics tries to play on science's (ie, naturalism's) turf it crashes and burns. When it attempts more abstract approaches though it fails for reasons not to do with science - for example because the validating logic is faulty.
If on the other hand people want to attach the label "God" to internal experiences, meditative practices and the like that's just nomenclature.
-
Science has much more credibility than religion.
How does that help antitheism?
-
Who is bothered by 'antitheism' but you?
-
Who is bothered by 'antitheism' but you?
Non sequitur.
How does science being 'more credible' help Floo in her antireligious quest?
-
If by "God" you mean an objective, "out there somewhere" god .
[/quote]
?
What do you mean by this?
-
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Scientism.
Meaning?
-
Gods were invented to facilitate the exercise of power. Initially, natural events were explained as the action of gods and people who claimed to capable of communicating with gods gained power over others. The priesthood invented itself to be able to dominate others. In time this became solidified into an institution, traditions were established and belief became a social control mechanism.
I think this is too cynical. Inevitably, it was used by some to gain power, but it was sincerely believed by most, including the priesthood, even while they were using it to gain power and influence.
-
Vlad,
Non sequitur.
That's still not what non sequitur means.
How does science being 'more credible' help Floo in her antireligious quest?
What makes you think she's on an "antitheist quest", and what makes you think that she thinks finding science more credible helps with it?
-
Meaning?
Meaning that science does not do God and therefore has nothing to say about God anddoes not scrutinise God as you seemed to suggest.
Any idea of primacy of science over religion is a matter of philosophical preference and not science.
-
SteveH,
Meaning?
Careful. "Scientism" just means, "putting undue weight on the methods and findings of science". Vlad though has re-defined it as something like "the belief that science can or will explain everything" in order to attack it. It's one of his fave straw men, as for that matter is routinely eliding "atheist" into "antitheist".
-
SteveH,
Careful. "Scientism" just means, "putting undue weight on the methods and findings of science". Vlad though has re-defined it as something like "the belief that science can or will explain everything" in order to attack it. It's one of his fave straw men, as for that matter is routinely eliding "atheist" into "antitheist".
Hillside
Steve H is putting undue weight on science.
Can we move on now now we've buried your objections.
-
Vladdo,
Meaning that science does not do God...
And nor of course does it claim to.
...and therefore has nothing to say about God anddoes not scrutinise God as you seemed to suggest.
The problem there being that nor does anything else, but there you go.
Any idea of primacy of science over religion is a matter of philosophical preference and not science.
Actually it's more a matter of practicality. Medicine and surgery can cure you; praying can't.
-
Vladdo,
Steve H is putting undue weight on science.
Can we move on now now we've buried your objections.
"We" haven't, and I addressed the issue with SteveH back in Reply 16.
-
Medicine and surgery can cure you; praying can't.
Evidence of that positive assertion? Ha Ha Ha.
-
Meaning that science does not do God and therefore has nothing to say about God anddoes not scrutinise God as you seemed to suggest.
Any idea of primacy of science over religion is a matter of philosophical preference and not science.
Science doesn't do god, anymore than it does fairies, as there is no evidence either exist, in reality.
-
Science doesn't do god,
Yes....I said that.
-
Yes....I said that.
Oh dear! ::)
-
... why not practice religion - Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism or whatever - without pretending that it is a true account of the world: treat it, as it were, as artrather than science? That, essentially, is the non-realist position, espoused by Don Cupitt and others, and foreshadowed by Paul Tillich, and is where I am nowadays.
I've read a lot of the non-realist literature - Don Cupitt (a beautifully hand-written letter from whom I cherish) is a particularly interesting writer, I think; twenty-odd years ago David Hart was the chaplain at Loughborough University, not too far from me.
I've always found it fascinating, but AFAIC where the wheels come off is that it's a largely cerebral, intellectual approach to religion which is likely to be only ever of limited appeal. It won't catch on in a big way, so to speak. I have absolutely no argument with, and for that matter go quite a long way with, those who interpret religion non-realistically as a corpus of symbolic myth with "cash value" (as William James put it) insofar as it satisfies the intellect without outraging it as supernatural, personalistic literalism does. That's fine for some; but I suspect that a non-realist God is too much of an airy and bloodless abstraction for people - usually in fraught circumstances - who very much want there to be a realist, objective God out there who does typically goddy things. That's to say, I don't know how much mileage bereaved parents, or somebody facing their imminent end from cancer (for example), would get out of a non-realist God which is Ultimate Concern (Tillich, I think?) or whatever. For a lot of people Bertrand Russell's idea of God as cosmic older brother does seem to loom large, and the non-realists can't I think ever hope to compete with that. It's a little like the Sinclair C5 of theology - seems like a good idea, but it'll never catch on.
-
a realist, objective God out there who does typically goddy things.
What do you mean by this?
-
What do you mean by this?
You know the routine surely, Vlad - creating, judging, answering prayers, forgiving, not forgiving etc.
-
You know the routine surely, Vlad - creating, judging, answering prayers, forgiving, not forgiving etc.
Well then I think you are being a bit mealy mouth not trying to scare Steve H with a full on but merely insinuated ''God does not exist and you are stupid not to be not just merely atheist but out and out antitheist''. It will be interesting to see you and Hillside trying to schmooze someone into your point of view.
In any case eliminating God as creating is a bit of scientism on your part since..................... where's your evidence? and as we know science doesn't do God.
-
Well then I think you are being a bit mealy mouth not trying to scare Steve H with a full on but merely insinuated ''God does not exist and you are stupid not to be not just merely atheist but out and out antitheist''.
Some understanding on your part of Christian non-realism would seem to be in order, Vlad.
In any case eliminating God as creating is a bit of scientism on your part since..................... where's your evidence?
That's a poorly disguised negative proof fallacy. Tut.
-
Well then I think you are being a bit mealy mouth not trying to scare Steve H with a full on but merely insinuated ''God does not exist and you are stupid not to be not just merely atheist but out and out antitheist''. It will be interesting to see you and Hillside trying to schmooze someone into your point of view.
In any case eliminating God as creating is a bit of scientism on your part since..................... where's your evidence? and as we know science doesn't do God.
Science finds evidence to support its conclusions, there is no evidence to substantiate the existence of god, you haven't come up with any.
-
Some understanding on your part of Christian non-realism would seem to be in order, Vlad.
I asked you first.
-
SteveH,
Careful. "Scientism" just means, "putting undue weight on the methods and findings of science". Vlad though has re-defined it as something like "the belief that science can or will explain everything" in order to attack it. It's one of his fave straw men, as for that matter is routinely eliding "atheist" into "antitheist".
That's what I thought. It is pretty obvious that science now explains much that was once attributed to God, in particular the theory of evolution.
-
That's what I thought. It is pretty obvious that science now explains much that was once attributed to God, in particular the theory of evolution.
... which goes to show that if you go down the route of using God as an explanatory model, you're going to end up with an ever diminishing God.
-
... which goes to show that if you go down the route of using God as an explanatory model, you're going to end up with an ever diminishing God.
As science ticks more and more boxes.
-
I've read a lot of the non-realist literature - Don Cupitt (a beautifully hand-written letter from whom I cherish) is a particularly interesting writer, I think; twenty-odd years ago David Hart was the chaplain at Loughborough University, not too far from me.
I've always found it fascinating, but AFAIC where the wheels come off is that it's a largely cerebral, intellectual approach to religion which is likely to be only ever of limited appeal. It won't catch on in a big way, so to speak. I have absolutely no argument with, and for that matter go quite a long way with, those who interpret religion non-realistically as a corpus of symbolic myth with "cash value" (as William James put it) insofar as it satisfies the intellect without outraging it as supernatural, personalistic literalism does. That's fine for some; but I suspect that a non-realist God is too much of an airy and bloodless abstraction for people - usually in fraught circumstances - who very much want there to be a realist, objective God out there who does typically goddy things. That's to say, I don't know how much mileage bereaved parents, or somebody facing their imminent end from cancer (for example), would get out of a non-realist God which is Ultimate Concern (Tillich, I think?) or whatever. For a lot of people Bertrand Russell's idea of God as cosmic older brother does seem to loom large, and the non-realists can't I think ever hope to compete with that. It's a little like the Sinclair C5 of theology - seems like a good idea, but it'll never catch on.
I think you'd be surprised at how common a crude version of non-realism is amongst the not-particularly-well-educated. Nicky Gumbell, of Holy Trinity Brompton, the Alpha course bloke, once gave the game away when he said that many graduates of Alpha said something like "Christianity is true for me". He felt it necessary to "correct" them, telling them that it is true for everybody, whether or not they acknowledge it. Well, I'm with the "true for me" people.
-
SteveH,
Careful. "Scientism" just means, "putting undue weight on the methods and findings of science". Vlad though has re-defined it as something like "the belief that science can or will explain everything" in order to attack it. It's one of his fave straw men, as for that matter is routinely eliding "atheist" into "antitheist".
Hillside
I think it is disingenuous of you to suggest I have never thought of scientism as ''putting undue weight on the methods and findings of science''
That of course can be up to and including a belief that science can or will explain everything.
Are you suggesting that scientism is not worthy of attack?
If you have not come across extreme scientism you either have your eyes closed or should get out more IMHO.
-
Hillside
I think it is disingenuous of you to suggest I have never thought of scientism as ''putting undue weight on the methods and findings of science''
That of course can be up to and including a belief that science can or will explain everything.
Has anyone espoused such a belief?
-
As science ticks more and more boxes.
Dynamite Tick
Diesel Tick
CFC's Tick
H Bomb Tick
-
Dynamite Tick
Diesel Tick
CFC's Tick
H Bomb Tick
Sectarianism Tick
Covering up of abuse scandals - Tick
Religious 'dominion' over the planet Tick
Just war hypothesis Tick
End times = nuclear war Tick
Not to mention some humdingers to make you feel nostalgic for the glorious Christian past - Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch hunts, burning the wrong kind of Christians at the stake...
-
Sectarianism Tick
Covering up of abuse scandals - Tick
Religious 'dominion' over the planet Tick
Just war hypothesis Tick
End times = nuclear war Tick
Not to mention some humdingers to make you feel nostalgic for the glorious Christian past - Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch hunts, burning the wrong kind of Christians at the stake...
Yes I think we know the problems with religion.
However the problems created by science are sidelined in nonsensical science vs religion intoning from antitheists and their bedfellows.
-
I think you'd be surprised at how common a crude version of non-realism is amongst the not-particularly-well-educated. Nicky Gumbell, of Holy Trinity Brompton, the Alpha course bloke, once gave the game away when he said that many graduates of Alpha said something like "Christianity is true for me". He felt it necessary to "correct" them, telling them that it is true for everybody, whether or not they acknowledge it. Well, I'm with the "true for me" people.
1. I'm anti-Nicky Gumbell. In my opinion he is a complete fraud.
How dare he muddle so many people with the stuff he promotes.
2. It is now 2:30 p.m. and I've had , This page can't be displayed' all day until now. Grrr!
3. I think it is a waste of precious living time to give the idea of an objective God any actual credibility. It is easy to understand how god beliefs arose from superstitious answers to the questions that humans thought up about the world around them.
4. There is so much of great interest in the world of Science to learn which one can have belief in because it works.
5. The more anyone learns about god beliefs the more we understand human behaviour and can take it forward and, one hopes, make sensible, practical progress in the future.
Okay, now it looks as if I have a bit of catching up to do!!
-
Ooooh I seriously don't like Gumvel, HTB, Alpha and all it stands for. The damage that woo peddler does scares me.
-
Vladdo,
I think it is disingenuous of you to suggest I have never thought of scientism as ''putting undue weight on the methods and findings of science''
I didn’t say that. What I did say though was that you’ve invested hugely in a personal re-definition of it in order to attack it. No-one I know of subscribes to that re-definition though, so your critique of it is just so much howling at the moon.
That of course can be up to and including a belief that science can or will explain everything.
Which no-one suggests.
Are you suggesting that scientism is not worthy of attack?
Depends which definition of it you think you’re referring to.
If you have not come across extreme scientism you either have your eyes closed or should get out more IMHO.
So now you’ve changed from “scientism” to “extreme scientism”. Odd.
Let me help you: what you’re actually referring to is called “metaphysical naturalism”, though again I’ve never heard anyone propose it.
-
Vladdo,
I didn’t say that. What I did say though was that you’ve invested hugely in a personal re-definition of it in order to attack it. No-one I know of subscribes to that re-definition though, so your critique of it is just so much howling at the moon.
Which no-one suggests.
Depends which definition of it you think you’re referring to.
So now you’ve changed from “scientism” to “extreme scientism”. Odd.
Let me help you: what you’re actually referring to is called “metaphysical naturalism”, though again I’ve never heard anyone propose it.
Vlad chokes on acrid ''Blue'' smoke and bumps into another of Hillsides mirrors.
-
Blimey Vlad, you are really making up for lost time, since your little 'holiday'! ;D
-
Dynamite Tick
Diesel Tick
CFC's Tick
H Bomb Tick
Totally irrelevant post Tick
-
Vladdo,
Vlad chokes on acrid ''Blue'' smoke and bumps into another of Hillsides mirrors.
Avoidance noted.
-
That's well put, Torridon. A divine being 'out there' doesn't make sense. As you know I'm a pantheist - so to me the universe is 'god'. This is making me wonder if I see the universe as a single 'being'. Hmm.
You must distinguish between inanimate and animate matter, though. In no sense can inanimate matter be thought of as part of a being.
The universe is structured I'm a way that points to God. We think of prayers as going 'upwards' as if God was above us, for example. For me that's either a sign that we and the universe are designed, or its a giant coincidence. Or another example is the moon appearing to be exactly the same size as the sun - an eclipse can move us to examine our thoughts and actions, etc.
Yeah, I know there are nasty aspects of the natural world, that seem to make any designer look nasty. But that's another debate - all in all, design is like a signpost pointing to a creator.
-
... that's in the same way that if you see an airplane flying, that's a sign that there is a clever person who has built it.
-
Non realist christianity; yes?
ippy
-
You must distinguish between inanimate and animate matter, though. In no sense can inanimate matter be thought of as part of a being.
Eh ? I am made of trillions of atoms, not one of which is alive. Am I not a being therefore ?
The universe is structured I'm a way that points to God. We think of prayers as going 'upwards' as if God was above us, for example. For me that's either a sign that we and the universe are designed, or its a giant coincidence. Or another example is the moon appearing to be exactly the same size as the sun - an eclipse can move us to examine our thoughts and actions, etc.
Yeah, I know there are nasty aspects of the natural world, that seem to make any designer look nasty. But that's another debate - all in all, design is like a signpost pointing to a creator.
That is personal interpretation, ie part of your particular bias-set, not something objective.
-
... that's in the same way that if you see an airplane flying, that's a sign that there is a clever person who has built it.
Within the particular context of human civilisation that would be reasonable. You can't extrapolate from that to some fundamental prime cause context without running into logic problems though.
-
Eh ? I am made of trillions of atoms, not one of which is alive. Am I not a being therefore ?
That is personal interpretation, ie part of your particular bias-set, not something objective.
So you discount Biology then and hence consider the likes of Dawkins a pseudoscientist?
-
I asked you first.
No, you made a statement, and then went on to divert the thread into the area of your favourite bugbear - scientism (or what you understand by that term). The thread is about non-realist Christianity. Shaker made it plain that he is well-informed about its arguments, and has read a good deal of the literature. You appear to be somewhat ill-informed.
-
I've read a lot of the non-realist literature - Don Cupitt (a beautifully hand-written letter from whom I cherish) is a particularly interesting writer, I think; twenty-odd years ago David Hart was the chaplain at Loughborough University, not too far from me.
Cupitt seems to have been very diligent in this respect. I can't boast a full letter from him, but I received a very polite postcard from him when I took him to task over some of his arguments over his TV series back in the '90s. (I was still a believer in "Life Force" back then, so no doubt my angle of approach was different from yours.) He suggested I give his books a try, since he thought he did better in that medium. I proceeded to read quite a few.
There's no doubt he writes well. I liked the way he traced the development of theological thinking down the ages from a belief in a 'God out there' to a 'God within' (I suppose Christianity traditionally has promoted both at once, though the 'God within' has rather taken a subsidiary role). Cupitt took his argument into the areas of Jung, then Tillich, then Wittgenstein - and that's where I parted company with him, in this case my objections being similar to yours.
He was for a time a priest in the Church of England, and no doubt still used the Book of Common Prayer, and maybe recited the Creed. I have to say, it takes some stretch of the metaphorical approach to see what relevant meaning might be gleaned from "Christ.. ascended into heaven and sitteth on the right hand of God". Maybe Vlad can tell us what that really means.
-
I thought being a non-realist is a prerequisite for being a supporter of christianity or any other religion?
ippy
-
I thought being a non-realist is a prerequisite for being a supporter of christianity or any other religion?
ippy
Hadn't taken you for a Platonist, ippy!
-
Hadn't taken you for a Platonist, ippy!
Ah you've spotted the subtlety of how I try to hide it, mind you that popular three coloured ice creamism.
ippy
-
Ah you've spotted the subtlety of how I try to hide it, mind you that popular three coloured ice creamism.
ippy
More a Three Flavours Cornetto person, myself.
-
Let's face it - in this scientific age, the arguments for the existence of God don't bear much scrutiny, and the arguments against are hard to counter, in particular the existence of suffering: not all suffering, which is probably inevitable in a material universe, but the built-in suffering, such as parasitic worms, some of which cause hideous suffering to their hosts, but have to do so in order to live themselves; also horrendous genetic diseases such as spinal muscular atrophy, epidermolysis bullosa, and proteus syndrome.
However, human beings have a religious capacity and need (not every single human, before some smart-arse says "I dont!", but humans in general), so why not practice religion - Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism or whatever - without pretending that it is a true account of the world: treat it, as it were, as artrather than science? That, essentially, is the non-realist position, espoused by Don Cupitt and others, and foreshadowed by Paul Tillich, and is where I am nowadays.
Thoughts? Come on, traditionalists - try to argue me back into belief in an objectively-existing God!
There was a comment from a poster with the moniker R U Mashin' on the old BBC Christian Topic site who said this years ago (1):
Coversion (sic) is achieving a mental state where the Christian model 'works' - that is offers us a consistent world view.
Deconversion is when this model fails.
The problem with the intellectual-only approach to God is that one unintentionally ends up creating a ‘god’ in their own image. The approach may be far more sophisticated than building idols of wood or stone, but the root is the same: something created by human beings to make sense of the world.
The antidote is a biblical incident that appears here regularly! When God tells Abraham to sacrifice his son Issac, an intellectual-only approach will either conclude that Abraham was mistaken or that God was lying about Issac being Abraham’s heir. This either-or approach is what happens today, and as it stands there is no way to resolve the apparent contradiction.
The solution is to do what Abraham did. He trusted God! Hebrews 11 v 19 shows that Abraham reasoned that if Issac were to be killed, God would have to raise him from the dead. At the time when Abraham decided to trust God, he didn’t know how things were going to play out.
Ultimately the faith of the Christian is not in arguments for God, or in counter-arguments for those against. It is in the person of God Himself! Therefore, what is needed today is the same kind of trust in God when we don’t have all the answers now, e.g. the often raised problems of evil and suffering. It is neither trust-only (no intellect) or intellect-only (no trust). Both are needed.
(1)#68 of this thread Deconversion: Phase 0 (the pre-deconversion)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbreligion/NF2213235?thread=6244050&skip=60#p74791102
-
Ultimately the faith of the Christian is not in arguments for God, or in counter-arguments for those against. It is in the person of God Himself!
Having used the negative proof fallacy on another thread, here you are within moments laying down the begging the question fallacy, aka circular reasoning aka petitio principii. No one could ever accuse you of being inconsistent, I'll give you that.
-
There was a comment from a poster with the moniker R U Mashin' on the old BBC Christian Topic site who said this years ago (1):The problem with the intellectual-only approach to God is that one unintentionally ends up creating a ‘god’ in their own image. The approach may be far more sophisticated than building idols of wood or stone, but the root is the same: something created by human beings to make sense of the world.
The antidote is a biblical incident that appears here regularly! When God tells Abraham to sacrifice his son Issac, an intellectual-only approach will either conclude that Abraham was mistaken or that God was lying about Issac being Abraham’s heir. This either-or approach is what happens today, and as it stands there is no way to resolve the apparent contradiction.
Ultimately the faith of the Christian is not in arguments for God, or in counter-arguments for those against. It is in the person of God Himself! Therefore, what is needed today is the same kind of trust in God when we don’t have all the answers now, e.g. the often raised problems of evil and suffering. It is neither trust-only The solution is to do what Abraham did. He trusted God! Hebrews 11 v 19 shows that Abraham reasoned that if Issac were to be killed, God would have to raise him from the dead. At the time when Abraham decided to trust God, he didn’t know how things were going to play out.
(no intellect) or intellect-only (no trust). Both are needed.
(1)#68 of this thread Deconversion: Phase 0 (the pre-deconversion)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbreligion/NF2213235?thread=6244050&skip=60#p74791102
So if I believe god is telling me to sacrifice my child I go along with it, as I know god will make it right in the end, is that what you are saying?
-
So if I believe god is telling me to sacrifice my child I go along with it, as I know god will make it right in the end, is that what you are saying?
Probably Floo, it's hardly a surprise when you see yet another ridiculous idea that comes under the heading, religion.
ippy
-
Probably Floo, it's hardly a surprise when you see yet another ridiculous idea that comes under the heading, religion.
ippy
There was a case in the US a little while ago; a couple refused to have their sick child treated as they believed god would ride to the rescue. The poor child died. :o
-
Sword,
He trusted God!
See whether you can spot the problem here.
I'll give you a clue: the fallacy of reification.
-
There was a comment from a poster with the moniker R U Mashin' on the old BBC Christian Topic site who said this years ago (1):The problem with the intellectual-only approach to God is that one unintentionally ends up creating a ‘god’ in their own image. The approach may be far more sophisticated than building idols of wood or stone, but the root is the same: something created by human beings to make sense of the world.
The antidote is a biblical incident that appears here regularly! When God tells Abraham to sacrifice his son Issac, an intellectual-only approach will either conclude that Abraham was mistaken or that God was lying about Issac being Abraham’s heir. This either-or approach is what happens today, and as it stands there is no way to resolve the apparent contradiction.
The solution is to do what Abraham did. He trusted God! Hebrews 11 v 19 shows that Abraham reasoned that if Issac were to be killed, God would have to raise him from the dead. At the time when Abraham decided to trust God, he didn’t know how things were going to play out.
Ultimately the faith of the Christian is not in arguments for God, or in counter-arguments for those against. It is in the person of God Himself! Therefore, what is needed today is the same kind of trust in God when we don’t have all the answers now, e.g. the often raised problems of evil and suffering. It is neither trust-only (no intellect) or intellect-only (no trust). Both are needed.
(1)#68 of this thread Deconversion: Phase 0 (the pre-deconversion)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbreligion/NF2213235?thread=6244050&skip=60#p74791102
Who said anything about intellect-only? If I was intellect-only, I'd be an atheist. It's because of Christianity's emotional hold that I hang on as a non-realist.
-
Sword,
See whether you can spot the problem here.
I'll give you a clue: the fallacy of reification.
Hang on a minute........all is physical is it Hillside?......even information?...........and here you are accusing people of reification, making the non physical concrete.
What's going on?
-
Hang on a minute........all is physical is it Hillside?......even information?...........and here you are accusing people of reification, making the non physical concrete.
What's going on?
Information is a property of brains, and brains (for those lucky enough to have one) are physical objects, are they not?
If you have any example(s) of information existing apart from some physical substrate (such as a brain or the contents of a computer; something physical at any rate), I'm all ears.
-
Information is a property of brains, and brains (for those lucky enough to have one) are physical objects, are they not?
If you have any example(s) of information existing apart from some physical substrate (such as a brain or the contents of a computer; something physical at any rate), I'm all ears.
If what you say is true how can you also accuse of reification? Since reification is making the abstract concrete or physical.
Over to you Brains.
-
I haven't once mentioned reification, for one thing.
For another, on the naturalist view things that we might conveniently call abstract - mathematics, for instance - are dependent upon (and for not a few people, actually created by) human brains. Essentially there's no difference other than a semantic one, since the former inescapably entails the latter (again, unless you can show otherwise).
-
I haven't once mentioned reification, for one thing.
For another, on the naturalist view things that we might conveniently call abstract - mathematics, for instance - are dependent upon (and for not a few people, actually created by) human brains. Essentially there's no difference other than a semantic one, since the former inescapably entails the latter (again, unless you can show otherwise).
No you didn't but you were stupid enough to try to defend Hillside who did mention reification like some terrier.
Even Hillside seems to have the sense to try and sweep claiming all information is physical and accusing people of reification under the carpet since it all seems a tad contradictory and possibly a turd that cannot be polished.
-
Vlad the Irrationalist,
Hang on a minute........all is physical is it Hillside?......even information?...........and here you are accusing people of reification, making the non physical concrete.
What's going on?
You've missed it completely. Old Rubber Spatula of Unreason told us that the answer was that someone had "trusted God". Absent demonstrating this god in the first place, what he should have said if he wasn't to overreach was something like, "trusted his belief about a god" - which is why he fell into the fallacy of reification.
-
Vlad the Irrationalist,
No you didn't but you were stupid enough to try to defend Hillside who did mention reification like some terrier.
Even Hillside seems to have the sense to try and sweep claiming all information is physical and accusing people of reification under the carpet since it all seems a tad contradictory and possibly a turd that cannot be polished.
Wrong again - see above.
-
Vlad the Irrationalist,
You've missed it completely. Old Rubber Spatula of Unreason told us that the answer was that someone had "trusted God". Absent demonstrating this god in the first place, what he should have said if he wasn't to overreach was something like, "trusted his belief about a god" - which is why he fell into the fallacy of reification.
No doubt but What I want to know is how you square the concept of reification, making the non physical physical with the belief that information is physical.
-
Vlad the Irrationalist,
No doubt but What I want to know is how you square the concept of reification, making the non physical physical with the belief that information is physical.
No doubt, and I'd be willing to explain it to you if you wanted to start a discussion on it. That though has nothing to do with old Rubber Spatula's use of reification when he told us that someone "trusted God" rather than "trusted his belief in God".
Do you understand the issue now?
-
Vlad the Irrationalist,
No doubt, and I'd be willing to explain it to you if you wanted to start a discussion on it. That though has nothing to do with old Rubber Spatula's use of reification when he told us that someone "trusted God" rather than "trusted his belief in God".
Do you understand the issue now?
-
Vlad the Irrationalist,
Vlad the Irrationalist,
No doubt, and I'd be willing to explain it to you if you wanted to start a discussion on it. That though has nothing to do with old Rubber Spatula's use of reification when he told us that someone "trusted God" rather than "trusted his belief in God".
Do you understand the issue now?
So now we know you've mastered cut and paste, did you have anything of your own to say?
-
Vlad the Irrationalist,
So now we know you've mastered cut and paste, did you have anything of your own to say?
How do you square accusing people of reification and believing that information is physical?
Take your time.....I understand the Earth has billions of years before it is engulfed by an expanding sun.
-
Vlad the Irrationalist,
How do you square accusing people of reification and believing that information is physical?
Take your time.....I understand the Earth has billions of years before it is engulfed by an expanding sun.
Two mistakes there:
First, I don't have to. Whether or not I can explain "information is physical" is entirely unrelated to Rubber Spatula's reliance on the fallacy of reification. A tu quoque is a tu quoque whichever way you look at it - or, to put it another say, two wrongs wouldn't make a right.
Second, I can explain it easily. If you want to start a discussion on it, I'll even do so.
-
Vlad the Irrationalist,
Two mistakes there:
First, I don't have to. Whether or not I can explain "information is physical" is entirely unrelated to Rubber Spatula's reliance on the fallacy of reification. A tu quoque is a tu quoque whichever way you look at it - or, to put it another say, two wrongs wouldn't make a right.
Second, I can explain it easily. If you want to start a discussion on it, I'll even do so.
How can the question I asked have mistakes and be a tu quoque?
NURSE.......HES HAVING THE IMAGINARY ARGUMENTS AGAIN!!!
Hillside how do you square accusing someone of Reification while holding the view that information is physical?
-
Vlad the Irrationalist,
How can the question I asked have mistakes and be a tu quoque?
Because your tu quoque was one of your mistakes.
This thinking thing really isn’t your long suit is it.
NURSE.......HES HAVING THE IMAGINARY ARGUMENTS AGAIN!!!
Oh dear. See above.
Hillside how do you square accusing someone of Reification while holding the view that information is physical?
Now try reading what I actually said slooooowly for comprehension. The “when” renders your question null – whetheror not I can explain “information is physical” (which I can by the way, as indeed can Vlatko Vedral in his rather good book “Decoding the Universe”) is entirely irrelevant to Rubber’s use of reification.
Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?
-
Vlad the Irrationalist,
Because your tu quoque was one of your mistakes.
This thinking thing really isn’t your long suit is it.
Oh dear. See above.
Now try reading what I actually said slooooowly for comprehension. The “when” renders your question null – whetheror not I can explain “information is physical” (which I can by the way, as indeed can Vlatko Vedral in his rather good book “Decoding the Universe”) is entirely irrelevant to Rubber’s use of reification.
Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?
Anybody?
-
Vlad the Irrationalist,
Anybody?
Your'e asking anyone else why you don't grasp that your tu tuoque is a bad idea?
Seriously?
Weird indeed.
-
It's because of Christianity's emotional hold that I hang on as a non-realist.
Could you expand on this please. I'm not sure what you mean? Thanks.
-
Could you expand on this please. I'm not sure what you mean? Thanks.
Have you read Steve's opening post?
-
Could you expand on this please. I'm not sure what you mean? Thanks.
Or Shaker's #33?
-
Have you read Steve's opening post?
Ah just the man.
Can non realism exist in a universe where information is physical?
-
Vlad the Irrationalist,
– whetheror not I can explain “information is physical” (which I can by the way, as indeed can Vlatko Vedral in his rather good book “Decoding the Universe”)
That's nice for you but not relevant to believing that information is physical and accusing someone of reification which seems to be contradictory because how can any information be non real and subsequently reified?
I have started another thread could you please refrain from visiting it just to say you are unwilling to address the question.
-
Could you expand on this please. I'm not sure what you mean? Thanks.
I don't believe that God exists, as the arguments against are strong, and the arguments for are weak, but Christianity has a strong emotional hold, so I continuea as a practising Anglican Christian. If it turns out that I'm wrong, and God is real, I trust I won't be condemned for not believing what I found impossible to believe any longer. I assume that commitment is more important than intellectual assent to ceertain propositions.
-
On another tack: of course information isn't physical - what a silly idea. It is an emergent property of certain physical arrangenets (e.g. the DNA code), but emergent properties are not physical.
-
I don't believe that God exists, as the arguments against are strong, and the arguments for are weak, but Christianity has a strong emotional hold, so I continuea as a practising Anglican Christian. If it turns out that I'm wrong, and God is real, I trust I won't be condemned for not believing what I found impossible to believe any longer. I assume that commitment is more important than intellectual assent to ceertain propositions.
I think you might have a unique place around here Steve.
I find atheists a bit cagey when you ask what they mean by exist....fearing the "ah so" and the "in that case" scenarios. Many Christians you might find would agree that God is not just another thing.
Perhaps you could help us out with a definition of existence and/or reality.
-
Only very naive theists believe that God exists in the same way that you, I and this computer do. I am not you, you are not me, and neither of us is this computer. God must be of another order of reality altogether, both encompassing and going beyond all particular existing things - assuming that there is any reality, of any kind, which corresponds to the word "God".
-
God must be of another order of reality altogether, both encompassing and going beyond all particular existing things - assuming that there is any reality, of any kind, which corresponds to the word "God".
I find nothing particularly heretical or controversial about the above.
-
Vlad the irrational,
That's nice for you but not relevant to believing that information is physical and accusing someone of reification which seems to be contradictory because how can any information be non real and subsequently reified?
That's incoherent (try looking up "reify"), and the point in any case was that you were attempting a basic logical error - the tu quoque. Even if I couldn't explain why information is physical, that would still have nothing to do with a different example of reification.
I have started another thread could you please refrain from visiting it just to say you are unwilling to address the question.
Re why information is now widely considered by the scientific community to be physical, here's a useful place to get you started:
http://www.informationr.net/ir/18-3/colis/paperC03.html#.WZW5GK3Mw3g
Suggest you start there, and ask me again when you have questions.
-
I don't believe that God exists, as the arguments against are strong, and the arguments for are weak, but Christianity has a strong emotional hold, so I continuea as a practising Anglican Christian. If it turns out that I'm wrong, and God is real, I trust I won't be condemned for not believing what I found impossible to believe any longer. I assume that commitment is more important than intellectual assent to ceertain propositions.
My youngest sister is a curate, her training incumbent, a rector now retired, shocked his congregation one day by claiming he didn't believe in god!
-
Vlad the irrational,
That's incoherent (try looking up "reify"), and the point in any case was that you were attempting a basic logical error - the tu quoque. Even if I couldn't explain why information is physical, that would still have nothing to do with a different example of reification.
Re why information is now widely considered by the scientific community to be physical, here's a useful place to get you started:
http://www.informationr.net/ir/18-3/colis/paperC03.html#.WZW5GK3Mw3g
Suggest you start there, and ask me again when you have questions.
I am not passing any judgment here on whether information is physical.
Neither have you established where or why there is a tu quoque.
Now those things are out of the way can you justify holding the position that all information is physical(real)
AND entertaining the idea of non real information since reification, which you accused AB of, involves trying to make the non real real?
-
My youngest sister is curate, her training incumbent, a rector now retired, shocked his congregation one day by claiming he didn't believe in god!
Anthony Flew shocked his congregation by claiming he did believe in God.
-
Vlad the IRrational,
I am not passing any judgment here on whether information is physical.
Did I say otherwise?
Neither have you established where or why there is a tu quoque.
Of course I have. I explained that Sword had relied on reification when he claimed that someone had "trusted God" rather than trusted a belief in (a) god. You then asked how I could argue that given that I argue that information is physical.
Now those things are out of the way...
Priceless.
...can you justify holding the position that all information is physical(real)
Yes, as (more importantly) can the people who work in the field that I linked to.
AND entertain the idea of non real information since reification, which you accused AB of, involves trying to make the non real real?
Of course. See if you can work out why. Here's a clue: in what way is "God" information, other that is than in the sense that the three letters of the word are bits on information? For information to be more complex than the bits of the letters used to name it, there has to be some content.
All you have to do now then is to populate the white noise of "god" with some content.
Good luck!
-
I find nothing particularly heretical or controversial about the above.
You weren't supposed to.
-
Anthony Flew shocked his congregation by claiming he did believe in God.
Who?
-
Who?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew
-
Who?
He was a philosopher, well known in atheist circles, who just before he died claimed that he had become a deist (not a theist) in a book ghost written by somebody else.
How reliable this claim was is doubtful given that IIRC somebody called Mark Oppenheimer interviewed Flew and exposed a mass of inaccuracies, inconsistencies and misunderstandings on Flew's part which - being kind - cast some doubt on his reliability.
-
It's not unusual for people to find something god-like in their lives as death approaches. The opposite often happens too.
-
It's not unusual for people to find something god-like in their lives as death approaches.
Cramming for the finals, as it's been called.
The opposite often happens too.
I dare say it does. I suspect that those who think that conversion to some form of godism actually says something to its credit and are vocal about it are notably silent about its opposite, however ;)
-
I think it's quite natural to make death seem less frightening by discovering a faith of some kind, and therefore opening up the possibility of an afterlife. There's also the observation that some prepare for death by becoming very cynical about life, even catastrophising it in order to comfort themselves about leaving it. Losing faith as death approaches suggests that someone has discovered that for them life is better just left in a sock drawer.
-
I think it's quite natural to make death seem less frightening by discovering a faith of some kind, and therefore opening up the possibility of an afterlife.
True; but it's far from unknown for some to claim that this has happened to others when in fact it didn't.
-
I think it's quite natural to make death seem less frightening by discovering a faith of some kind, and therefore opening up the possibility of an afterlife.
Flew was an opponent of life after death. I'm not sure his conversion to an Aristotelian God changed that.
my reading of the Wikipedia biography is that Flew was exposed to ,to me, a familiar hysteria and anger from a type of antitheism needing all the philosophical clout it can muster to keep it's unformed embryonic philosophical base ticking.
-
Flew was an opponent of life after death. I'm not sure his conversion to an Aristotelian God changed that.
my reading of the Wikipedia biography is that Flew was exposed to ,to me, a familiar hysteria and anger from a type of antitheism needing all the philosophical clout it can muster to keep it's unformed embryonic philosophical base ticking.
Unpacking that car crash, perhaps you should try reading Oppenheimer rather than Wikipedia:
http://tinyurl.com/yd9b7g3k
A long and detailed read, but worth it.
-
Unpacking that car crash, perhaps you should try reading Oppenheimer rather than Wikipedia:
http://tinyurl.com/yd9b7g3k
A long and detailed read, but worth it.
I don't recall claiming Flew for Christianity.
-
I don't recall claiming Flew for Christianity.
I don't recall you doing so either. The article however is in large part about those who did.
-
I don't recall you doing so either. The article however is in large part about those who did.
So what has that to do with me?
-
So what has that to do with me?
You were the one who brought Flew into the thread (#105); shouldn't you know?
-
Shakes,
You were the one who brought Flew into the thread (#105); shouldn't you know?
Are you suggesting that Vlad should actually have some knowledge of the subjects he presumes to discuss and criticise?
Well, that's novel.
-
Just a wild thought of mine!
-
You were the one who brought Flew into the thread (#105); shouldn't you know?
That doesn't explain why I should be associated with an article about how some people allegedly tried to claim Flew for Christianity.
So far I am getting different antitheist stories about Flew.
1, He continued as a hard atheist and the deism and theism was a conspiracy.
2. He only converted to deism which is as good as atheism.
3. He converted to belief in an Aristotelian God.
4. He was senile and not responsible for his views.
Once again I'm forced to ask you guys for a straight story.
-
That doesn't explain why I should be associated with an article about how some people allegedly tried to claim Flew for Christianity.
So far I am getting different antitheist stories about Flew.
1, He continued as a hard atheist and the deism and theism was a conspiracy.
2. He only converted to deism which is as good as atheism.
3. He converted to belief in an Aristotelian God.
4. He was senile and not responsible for his views.
Once again I'm forced to ask you guys for a straight story.
On all available evidence: 1 is absurd (who has ever claimed this 'conspiracy'? Name names) and 2 is straightforward nonsense. Nos. 3 and 4 stand up however.
-
On all available evidence: 1 is absurd and 2 is straightforward nonsense. Nos. 3 and 4 stand up however.
So going further aren't you just promoting the ''Oi nutter'' view of anything contrary to the antitheist line?
-
So going further aren't you just promoting the ''Oi nutter'' view
Only when speaking to you, Vladdychops :D
I don't consider Flew to have been a 'nutter'; I think the evidence demonstrates that his intellectual powers were a long way short of what they had been, which for someone in their eighties is hardly surprising and not some kind of moral failing. Don't you think that regarding such a person as a 'nutter' is highly offensive, Vlad?
-
Flew was an opponent of life after death. I'm not sure his conversion to an Aristotelian God changed that.
Seems that your (lack of) knowledge has torpedoed you again, Vladster.
Reading around the Philosophy Now website which you linked to on another thread, by coincidence I found the following:
In 2001 he [Flew] had phoned to ask about a very brief news item we had just published in Philosophy Now, about some reports of scientific research into near death experiences. He was very excited about the research and whether it might indicate the possibility of some kind of survival of consciousness after death. I knew little about the research but agreed to try to find out more. When I rang back (after speaking to a doctor friend, a Christian incidentally, who was very sceptical about the work) I was astonished how keen Flew seemed to be to find some possibility that the research was accurate. Eventually after long discussion he remarked that because his father had been a clergyman, he always felt a filial duty to go out of his way to be fair to the religious side of any argument.
(Source: http://tinyurl.com/ydavvh36 )
"I was astonished how keen Flew seemed to be to find some possibility that the research was accurate".
Would you say that that sounds like an opponent of life after death, Vlad?
-
Only when speaking to you, Vladdychops :D
I don't consider Flew to have been a 'nutter'; I think the evidence demonstrates that his intellectual powers were a long way short of what they had been, which for someone in their eighties is hardly surprising and not some kind of moral failing. Don't you think that regarding such a person as a 'nutter' is highly offensive, Vlad?
I'm just asking.
You seem to make the link between being persuaded by notions of God being Aristotelian notions of God with mental incapacity.
That is a much trumpeted notion (particularly arsehole shaped trumpets) that as yet has to be demonstrated
Dawkins had a stroke. Are his new atheist views now to be discounted following the same ''Oi nutter'' logic?
-
I'm just asking.
You seem to make the link between being persuaded by notions of God being Aristotelian notions of God with mental incapacity.
Sorry, can you recast that in comprehensible?
Dawkins had a stroke. Are his new atheist views now to be discounted following the same ''Oi nutter'' logic?
Aren't his views exactly the same after his stroke as before it? If that's the case - as far as I can see it is - then what relevance does his stroke have to anything?
-
Sorry, can you recast that in comprehensible?
Aren't his views exactly the same after his stroke as before it? If that's the case - as far as I can see it is - then what relevance does his stroke have to anything?
1. Yes sorry
I'm just asking.
You seem to make the link between being persuaded by notions of God(In Flew's case these being Aristotelian notions of God) with mental incapacity.
Yes I'm sure Dawkins is still the same zealous fundementalist New atheist we know and love........but perhaps increasingly more in the style of a kind of Alf Garnett.
-
Regardless of his intellectual capacity, there's a suggestion that towards the end of his life Flew wanted facts to fit the possibility of God and an afterlife.
Wow, that's unheard of. ::)
-
1. Yes sorry
I'm just asking.
You seem to make the link between being persuaded by notions of God(In Flew's case these being Aristotelian notions of God) with mental incapacity.
There's still an accusatory whiff of 'mental incapacity = moral failing' here. We know of at least some of Flew's reasons for accepting an Aristotelian/deist god - not all, but some. One of them was his perception that there was no plausible scientific account of the origin of life. To believe in a god on this basis seems, being kind, remarkably sloppy thinking for a professional academic philosopher - an ad hoc exercise in god-of-the-gapsery. However, when challenged on the point Flew admitted that he hadn't kept up with the most recent research, that he had been misled by certain individuals and conceded that he had "made a fool" of himself (his phrase) for these reasons.
That doesn't make him some exemplar of moral turpitude but a very old man out of the loop.
Yes I'm sure Dawkins is still the same zealous fundementalist New atheist we know and love........but perhaps increasingly more in the style of a kind of Alf Garnett.
This must be some other Dawkins you're referring to. I was discussing Richard Dawkins.
-
There's still an accusatory whiff of 'mental incapacity = moral failing' here.
I'm afraid that must be coming from you....................
You know what they say ''He who smelt, dealt''.
-
I'm afraid that must be coming from you....................
You know what they say ''He who smelt, dealt''.
Alas no: it stems from what you call the "Oi nutter" view in #125.
-
I find nothing particularly heretical or controversial about the above.
I'm surprised that this passed with little comment
Steve had written " assuming that there is any reality, of any kind, which corresponds to the word "God"." That is hardly an enthusiastic endorsement for the realist God position. Now what he wrote may not be controversial in liberal Christian circles, but it expresses a sentiment I wouldn't expect you to be assenting to. You, after all, have claimed that you have met this reality, which you call God, or more specifically, Christ. Moreover, you frequently argue for the existence of a "First Cause" a la Aquinas*, and presumably you also think this first cause equates with a reality that you choose to call 'God'.
On the other hand, it is the non-believers here - such as NS, blue and Shaker, who I think would more readily assent to the idea that the word 'God' does not correspond to any reality of any kind. 'God' is, in short, woo. And I'd suggest that phrases such as "Ground of Being" (Tillich) are just sophisticated woo, unless it be asserted that the Ground of Being is normative and creative - in which case we're back in "realist God" territory again.
*I think you'll find that Steve himself is no enthusiast for Aquinas' 'proofs' - in fact I remember him getting quite polemical about their inadequacy in the past.
-
On the other hand, it is the non-believers here - such as NS, blue and Shaker, who I think would more readily assent to the idea that the word 'God' does not correspond to any reality of any kind.
Not necessarily; if you put 'objective' before 'reality' you'd be nearer the mark. Surely it's standard Christian (indeed theist generally) doctrine that God is external to and independent of the mind of the believer - this is the realism that non-realism (duh!) denies or rejects. But suppose you deny this and then use the word God for some other thing - is that real even if it's only subjectively true? The phrase 'of any kind' is a problem.
But then it's not even that simple. Consider pantheism, for example, where nature or the universe are defined as God. I think those things are external to and independent of minds; they were around before minds came on the scene and would exist if all minds disappeared overnight. There's always been a fairly robust argument as to whether this is legitimate on linguistic grounds, but a non-negligible number of people do adhere to this stance.
-
Not necessarily; if you put 'objective' before 'reality' you'd be nearer the mark. Surely it's standard Christian (indeed theist generally) doctrine that God is external to and independent of the mind of the believer - this is the realism that non-realism (duh!) denies or rejects.
Happy with the addition of 'objective'. Indeed, it is standard traditional doctrine that God is completely 'other', transcendent, external to the human mind, and beyond any definitions that we might come up with. However, Vlad subscribes to the 'realist' view, and claims that this reality has somehow contacted him - whereas Steve has categorically stated that he subscribes to the non-realist view in opposition to this* (which is why I found it strange that Vlad was in conciliatory mode - perhaps he thinks he's found a friend).
Pantheism has its own thread, I believe :) I tend to think of it as sexed-up atheism, unless you are prepared to suggest that it is both creative, normative and teleological (likewise with the Ground of Being)
*I believe Steve was not always firmly of the non-realist persuasion. I remember him saying that he "switched from realist to non-realist as often as he changed his underpants" (this was in a conversation (back in the dark ages of St Thad's Forum) about Teilhard de Chardin and Bergson and his Life Force [Elan Vital] if I remember rightly.)
-
Pantheism has its own thread, I believe :)
Don't even ... :D
I tend to think of it as sexed-up atheism
... and the peculiarities of the English language leave us with atheistic theism or theistic atheism. Where will it all end.
unless you are prepared to suggest that it is both creative, normative and teleological
Creative - by definition, I'd have thought.
Teleological - I personally don't see how this can be defended but I'm all earholes to anybody who thinks they can give it a bash.
Normative - not sure what you mean here; do you mean something like 'has preferences laid down as morally binding rules and statutes'?
-
Normative - not sure what you mean here; do you mean something like 'has preferences laid down as morally binding rules and statutes'?
Something like that. I'd have to assume that those who want to claim pantheism as a real theism would assume that there is a morality pre-figured in the 'stuff' somewhere, which would eventually emerge as a persuasive force once humans had arrived on the scene.
I do not believe any such thing.
-
Pantheist real-theist here (kind of) and I see no morality involved. Although maybe I'm more animist than theist.
-
*I think you'll find that Steve himself is no enthusiast for Aquinas' 'proofs' - in fact I remember him getting quite polemical about their inadequacy in the past.
Most of them don't stand up, but I did surprise myself some time ago when I thought that God the realist one) might be the answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?", and realised that that was, more or less, the first-cause argument. However, if it provesw anything, it only proves a Deist God who made everything in the first place, which is a long way short of the Judaeo-Christian God.
-
SteveH,
Most of them don't stand up, but I did surprise myself some time ago when I thought that God the realist one) might be the answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?", and realised that that was, more or less, the first-cause argument. However, if it provesw anything, it only proves a Deist God who made everything in the first place, which is a long way short of the Judaeo-Christian God.
It doesn’t prove anything. If it wasn’t flawed it would, as you suggest, lead only to deism (ie, a god who wound up the clock and then left the scene). The flaws undo it though – the only way out of an infinite regress is arbitrarily to use special pleading for an “uncaused cause” (essentially, “it’s magic innit”), and it assumes that the cause and effect we see inside the universe would also be required for there to be a universe.
Whether someone wants to call the universe “the universe” or “deity” though doesn’t matter overmuch – it’s just nomenclature. Incidentally, Einstein said the same thing I think (cue Gonnagle with his big book of Albert quotes!).
-
Pantheist real-theist here (kind of) and I see no morality involved. Although maybe I'm more animist than theist.
Rhiannon
I'm content to let intelligent believers like yourself subscribe to whatever beliefs they choose (hope that didn't sound too patronising). But it appears that 'wholesome' moralities have emerged in modern paganism (as opposed to Christianity-in-reverse nonsense such as Satanism). That dictum "and it harm none, do what you will" is a good axiom to live by. According to Neo-Darwinism, such precepts eventually arose simply because altruism proved to offer evolutionary advantage over huge aeons of time. Do you see morality as just a consequence of blind evolutionary processes?
-
Whether someone wants to call the universe “the universe” or “deity” though doesn’t matter overmuch – it’s just nomenclature. Incidentally, Einstein said the same thing I think (cue Gonnagle with his big book of Albert quotes!).
That reminds me - wee Gonners isn't around these days. Does anybody know if he's OK?
-
That reminds me - wee Gonners isn't around these days. Does anybody know if he's OK?
NS or Gordon might know as they meet together occasionally in some place called Glasgow I understand.
-
Most of them don't stand up, but I did surprise myself some time ago when I thought that God the realist one) might be the answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?", and realised that that was, more or less, the first-cause argument. However, if it provesw anything, it only proves a Deist God who made everything in the first place, which is a long way short of the Judaeo-Christian God.
I sometimes think the realist God belief of traditional Christianity is a long way short of the Judaeo-Christian God. Such a belief seems to offer as much to Aristotle and Plato (the latter esp. when 'souls' are brought into the picture). Floo notwithstanding (with her mantram of the 'evil God of the Bible') - I don't see any uniformity in the way God is referred to in the Bible. You certainly see the transcendent God of the philosophers in Genesis 1 and Isaiah (2nd Isaiah). But in Genesis 2 the blighter is getting his hands dirty making clay models, and becoming flummoxed when his creations disappear out of sight. The tribal Yahweh is human all too human, and preoccupied with 'smiting'.
As for the God of Jesus (depending on which evangelist you read) - he likes to call him "Dad" and suggests that double egg and chips will arrive out of the blue if you ask for it when you're feeling peckish.
St Paul of course suggests "in Him we breathe and move and have our being", which sounds a bit pantheist.
-
Nice post, Dicky. In fact, it's said that the rabbis of old praised the contradictions in the Hebrew Bible, which Christians patronizingly call the OT, and said that there was a conversation between different views about God, rather than a contradiction. I don't know whether modern rabbis do the same, but again, it's often said that Judaism is less hung up on doctrine. Hence, atheist Jews don't ruffle feathers or twist knickers.
Paul uses the word 'pleroma', sort of totality, which some New Agers took to using. In fact, I have heard it in Zen, used rather paradoxically, thus, this moment is the pleroma, or this blade of grass, rather like Blake.
-
Rhiannon
I'm content to let intelligent believers like yourself subscribe to whatever beliefs they choose (hope that didn't sound too patronising). But it appears that 'wholesome' moralities have emerged in modern paganism (as opposed to Christianity-in-reverse nonsense such as Satanism). That dictum "and it harm none, do what you will" is a good axiom to live by. According to Neo-Darwinism, such precepts eventually arose simply because altruism proved to offer evolutionary advantage over huge aeons of time. Do you see morality as just a consequence of blind evolutionary processes?
Intelligent believer. ;D
Well I guess to qualify as a believer I'd need to know what I believe in. I don't believe in anything that has a 'mind' as such. The best I can come up with is that the same animating energy that runs through you and me also runs through the whole of the universe. It's not a choice, it just is how I see or feel things to be. Always have. But I often feel like my theism slips further and further beyond my grasp, it's not especially solid.
My personal morality is largely derived from the fact that I feel like crap when I don't do what I consider to be the right thing. 'Least harm' is probably more realistic than 'help loads' given that the road to hell is very often paved with good intentions. So yes, I'm probably with Darwin - it's survival of the most co-operative.
-
Nice post, Dicky. In fact, it's said that the rabbis of old praised the contradictions in the Hebrew Bible, which Christians patronizingly call the OT, and said that there was a conversation between different views about God, rather than a contradiction. I don't know whether modern rabbis do the same, but again, it's often said that Judaism is less hung up on doctrine. Hence, atheist Jews don't ruffle feathers or twist knickers.
Paul uses the word 'pleroma', sort of totality, which some New Agers took to using. In fact, I have heard it in Zen, used rather paradoxically, thus, this moment is the pleroma, or this blade of grass, rather like Blake.
wiggi
Ah yes, pleroma - a word beloved of those heretical Gnostics, I think. I think he also used archons, a favourite of the latter as well - all of which has led some to suggest he was a true-blue Gnostic himself. Did he use ogdoad as well?
-
That's a nice word, never heard it. I bet Lawrence Durrell uses it, and he writes a lot about mad gnostics.
I think the Jesus mythers use stuff like that from Paul, to argue that for him, Christ is a spiritual being tormented by the archons and demons, who dwell in the realms several rungs up from the material.
-
#142
Most of them don't stand up, but I did surprise myself some time ago when I thought that God the realist one) might be the answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?", and realised that that was, more or less, the first-cause argument. However, if it provesw anything, it only proves a Deist God who made everything in the first place, which is a long way short of the Judaeo-Christian God.
It doesn’t prove anything. If it wasn’t flawed it would, as you suggest, lead only to deism (ie, a god who wound up the clock and then left the scene). The flaws undo it though – the only way out of an infinite regress is arbitrarily to use special pleading for an “uncaused cause” (essentially, “it’s magic innit”), and it assumes that the cause and effect we see inside the universe would also be required for there to be a universe.
Not only incorrect, it also ignores the problems with the alternative, namely nothing causing something.
-
How can nothing cause anything?
-
#142
Not only incorrect, it also ignores the problems with the alternative, namely nothing causing something.
Is that the only alternative?
-
(not every single human, before some smart-arse says "I dont!", but humans in general) [/quote}
I have only just read this OP - would you care to explain why someone contradicting your statement has to be defined as a "smartarse"?
"Smartarse" is a pretty good description of your quoted comment!
Before posting this comment I read over some other posts you have made and it seems to me that you have a really inflated opinion of yourself - what's the word - oh yes - arrogance!
Example - trying to slap down a University professor on matters pertaining to his particular speciality. Whohoo, ballsy SteveH ballsy!
-
#142
Not only incorrect, it also ignores the problems with the alternative, namely nothing causing something.
But does God create something from nothing? How does he do that?
-
How does he do that?
In mysterious ways?
-
#142
Not only incorrect, it also ignores the problems with the alternative, namely nothing causing something.
As others have said: how does it do this?
There are two related issues though: the first being what exactly is 'nothing' and does this state of 'nothing' really exist; the other being that if, as Sword suggests, something from nothing is a problem then it is also a problem for supporters of god, since 'where does god come from if not from nothing?' really does require an answer, then there is the obvious regress issue.
If it was (or is) assumed that god is the exception then it seems we have a class of things that are uncaused: if god is a member of this class then why not, say, the rest of the universe? If it is said that god is the sole occupant of this class then we need to see the workings-out leading to that assumption, and first-cause proponents seem to get stuck here.
I'll stick to a thoughtful 'dunno'!
-
How can nothing cause anything?
I don't know.
Equally, I don't know that it can't either, so I am stuck not knowing.
Same as you.
-
In mysterious ways?
Very mysterious indeed.
I wonder what or who created god?
-
Is that the only alternative?
It is if you agree with bluehillside's proposition in his #151
The flaws undo it though – the only way out of an infinite regress is arbitrarily to use special pleading for an “uncaused cause” (essentially, “it’s magic innit”), and it assumes that the cause and effect we see inside the universe would also be required for there to be a universe.
a caused cause - infinite regression
an uncaused cause - not allowed as a means of terminating the regression, according to bluehillside
therefore the only other option is a cause from nothing to terminate the regression
unless ...
the whole proposition of an infinite regression is flawed in the first place!
-
If it was (or is) assumed that god is the exception then it seems we have a class of things that are uncaused: if god is a member of this class then why not, say, the rest of the universe?
Did the universe have a beginning?
-
Did the universe have a beginning?
No idea.
Did god have a beginning?
-
How can nothing cause anything?
I'll use the same rhetorical question as Bramble did when asked about how God creates something out of nothing in post 156:
In mysterious ways?
:)
-
I wait with bated breath for Sword of the Spirit to come up with an answer for us all.
-
Come on, guys, God's mysterious ways are very very special, as they are written down, and then interpreted by a godly crew of hipsters, who are full of luurve towards all men and women. Have I missed anything out? Oh yes, the nothing that God creates out of is a special nothing, also full of luurve, and also space dust, so God is onto a winner there, cobble it all together, now I'm channeling Tommy Cooper.
-
Come on, guys, God's mysterious ways are very very special, as they are written down, and then interpreted by a godly crew of hipsters, who are full of luurve towards all men and women. Have I missed anything out? Oh yes, the nothing that God creates out of is a special nothing, also full of luurve, and also space dust, so God is onto a winner there, cobble it all together, now I'm channeling Tommy Cooper.
But "the Void is always full".
Must admit I'm getting a bit confused about SteveH's position. On this thread, he started by arguing for the non-realist God standpoint. Elsewhere (on the icontinence pants thread) he seems to be arguing that the "stuff of the universe is mind-stuff" (which is closer to the realist God outlook). And here he's giving a nod to Aquinas' First Cause.
-
Sword,
Not only incorrect, it also ignores the problems with the alternative, namely nothing causing something.
Which part do you think to be incorrect and why, and it doesn't "ignore" it at all - rather it asks first why you think the universe had to have cause at all, and second why you think moving the problem back a step into a conjecture you call "god" and then applying some special pleading to it helps you.
-
Did the universe have a beginning?
Our local universe certainly seems to. But the Cosmos my be eternal.
It is not known.
-
It is if you agree with bluehillside's proposition in his #151
Do you agree with that proposition?
-
trying to slap down a University professor on matters pertaining to his particular speciality. Whohoo, ballsy SteveH ballsy!
I didn't do that - I argued with him about a philosophical point.
-
I didn't do that - I argued with him about a philosophical point.
Yes you did! You told him to do some learning!
As to the philosophiocal point I would suggest that his academic qualifications mean he knows an infinite amount more about philosophy than you ever will!
Which is why I leave arguing philosophy with him to a, to use your own term, smartarse like you.
-
Steady on, for all we know steveH is as well qualified. Not everyone wears it on their sleeves. In any case debate means challenging established ideas, even those held with authority. On this message board it's done all the time & isn't that what we like about it?
-
Steady on, for all we know steveH is as well qualified. Not everyone wears it on their sleeves. In any case debate means challenging established ideas, even those held with authority. On this message board it's done all the time & isn't that what we like about it?
Actually, Steve included the professor in his general denigration of "logorrhoeic idiots", in a post addressed to the professor, and that didn't seem to have much to do with challenging established ideas. In fact, Steve had been arguing on the basis of ideas put forward by pundits long dead, and he didn't seem to like being pulled up over the suggestion that their ideas had been superseded.
Of the latter, the prof had said
No I disagree with them and in every case their views are understandably woefully ill informed as they cannot have taken account of the massive increase in knowledge over recent decades, for the simply reason that they have all been dead for over 50 years.
For what it's worth, I'd say that the prof, far from being a 'logorrhoeic idiot' writes prose of an admirable lucidity (for an academic, a breed given to regurgitating a cliquish jargon comprehensible only to themselves. I can think of one individual prone to spewing out such jargon like some malfunctioning Dalek, though - he is not an atheist )
-
Dicky,
Actually, Steve included the professor in his general denigration of "logorrhoeic idiots", in a post addressed to the professor, and that didn't seem to have much to do with challenging established ideas. In fact, Steve had been arguing on the basis of ideas put forward by pundits long dead, and he didn't seem to like being pulled up over the suggestion that their ideas had been superseded.
He's also given to dismissing as "bollocks" arguments he can't process. Be interesting for example to see how he'd argue for absolutism without omniscience.
-
Dicky,
He's also given to dismissing as "bollocks" arguments he can't process. Be interesting for example to see how he'd argue for absolutism without omniscience.
Blue
I'm at a loss to know exactly where Steve stands now. I know that years ago he was prone to waver between realism and non-realism. Given his first post in this thread, he seemed to be firmly in the non-realist camp, "doing religion" without affirming any of its propositions, treating it "as an art, rather than as a science". But his arguments elsewhere suggest that he's still hankering for there to be some 'universal mind' as the basis of everything. Certainly his opposition to regarding mind as an epiphenomenon of matter suggests this, and he's quite polemical about it. I must admit, the phenomenon of consciousness itself is quite extraordinary, but I've learned from here not to indulge in 'arguments from incredulity' :) Sometimes the ghost of old Bish Berkeley rears itself though....
-
Within the particular context of human civilisation that would be reasonable. You can't extrapolate from that to some fundamental prime cause context without running into logic problems though.
What I always come back to is that the signs of intelligent design don't give us conclusive revelation of the existence of God, just clues or hints. We need personal revelation from God Himself in order to know Him.
-
What I always come back to is that the signs of intelligent design don't give us conclusive revelation of the existence of God, just clues or hints.
Is that the signs of intelligent design in kittens and rainbows, or the signs of intelligent design in rectal cancer?
-
Blue
I'm at a loss to know exactly where Steve stands now. I know that years ago he was prone to waver between realism and non-realism. Given his first post in this thread, he seemed to be firmly in the non-realist camp, "doing religion" without affirming any of its propositions, treating it "as an art, rather than as a science". But his arguments elsewhere suggest that he's still hankering for there to be some 'universal mind' as the basis of everything. Certainly his opposition to regarding mind as an epiphenomenon of matter suggests this, and he's quite polemical about it. I must admit, the phenomenon of consciousness itself is quite extraordinary, but I've learned from here not to indulge in 'arguments from incredulity' :) Sometimes the ghost of old Bish Berkeley rears itself though....
Leave past behind. Now is what matters.Let us all ponder beliefs/non-beliefs on here 'til we may conclude - or not. Big deal for some of us with questions on thejourney.
-
When I started out here I was a polytheist/pantheist. Not any more. Things change.
-
Yes you did! You told him to do some learning!
As to the philosophiocal point I would suggest that his academic qualifications mean he knows an infinite amount more about philosophy than you ever will!
Which is why I leave arguing philosophy with him to a, to use your own term, smartarse like you.
I don't recall telling him to "do some learning" - it's not a phrase I'd use. Anyway, how was I to know he was a neuro-scientist before he told me?
-
But "the Void is always full".
Must admit I'm getting a bit confused about SteveH's position. On this thread, he started by arguing for the non-realist God standpoint. Elsewhere (on the icontinence pants thread) he seems to be arguing that the "stuff of the universe is mind-stuff" (which is closer to the realist God outlook). And here he's giving a nod to Aquinas' First Cause.
I wobble.
-
It is if you agree with bluehillside's proposition in his #151
a caused cause - infinite regression
an uncaused cause - not allowed as a means of terminating the regression, according to bluehillside
therefore the only other option is a cause from nothing to terminate the regression
unless ...
the whole proposition of an infinite regression is flawed in the first place!
You are making even less sense than usual.
-
Dicky,
He's also given to dismissing as "bollocks" arguments he can't process. Be interesting for example to see how he'd argue for absolutism without omniscience.
What do you mean by that?
-
Spud and SteveH
For me, the Intelligent Design - Creator is the elephant in the room.
Take DNA.... we all have a different pattern... and where does 'the information' come from?
The fibonacci sequence in nature is all about design. If there is design there is a designer.
-
Is that the signs of intelligent design in kittens and rainbows, or the signs of intelligent design in rectal cancer?
You have a point. The rectum seems to be intelligently designed and I would expect the designer to be able to fix it when it goes wrong.
-
Spud and SteveH
For me, the Intelligent Design - Creator is the elephant in the room.
Take DNA.... we all have a different pattern... and where does 'the information' come from?
The fibonacci sequence in nature is all about design. If there is design there is a designer.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/pseudo/fibonacc.htm
-
I don't recall telling him to "do some learning" - it's not a phrase I'd use. Anyway, how was I to know he was a neuro-scientist before he told me?
Because he knew, unlike you, exactly what he was/is talking about?
-
You have a point. The rectum seems to be intelligently designed and I would expect the designer to be able to fix it when it goes wrong.
And yet this fixing doesn't occur.
-
SteveH,
What do you mean by that?
You were arguing for "absolute truths". You cannot though know something to be an absolute truth unless you can eliminate even the possibility of an unknown unknown that would falsify the claim. And the only way to do that would be to be omniscient.
In everyday parlance it doesn't matter much - "it's absolutely true that Uncle Harry used to get pissed over Christmas dinner" is true enough. When you're talking strict epistemology though, it matters a lot.
To put it another way, we can only identify as true that which we are capable of identifying as true. We are not though omniscient.
-
Spud and SteveH
For me, the Intelligent Design - Creator is the elephant in the room.
Take DNA.... we all have a different pattern... and where does 'the information' come from?
The fibonacci sequence in nature is all about design. If there is design there is a designer.
No. it isn't. You're just cherry picking.
-
I wobble.
Can see that steveH. i wouldn't believe anyone who says they never 'wobble', it's human. Be interested to see where you are when you come out t'other side. Faith isn't static. One of the reasons I appreciate the Quakers is their recognition of that(but like yourself don't take the plunge & actually join them).
-
No. it isn't. You're just cherry picking.
No, not cherry picking, just seeing what many others can also see.
So are you saying you can see no design in the 'programming' of DNA and it's complexity?
-
And yet this fixing doesn't occur.
It does according to the testimony of some Christians. It might be like an eclipse: visible only to a few in different places at different times. If you are skeptical about these, what about the gospel accounts of Jesus healing people of every kind of disease?
John 1:14 says that in Jesus, God was revealing himself to us. Which is what I was getting at a few posts ago. We have clues from the creation that God exists, but he confirms it through Jesus Christ.
-
It does according to the testimony of some Christians.
... one of whom has claimed as much on this forum.
Guess what happens when you press for some testable, shareable, investigable evidence, something that we can follow up for ourselves?
It might be like an eclipse: visible only to a few in different places at different times.
Except eclipses can not only be predicted long in advance but investigated. And no eclipse is visible to "a few" people.
If you are skeptical about these, what about the gospel accounts of Jesus healing people of every kind of disease?
What about them?
John 1:14 says that in Jesus, God was revealing himself to us. Which is what I was getting at a few posts ago. We have clues from the creation that God exists, but he confirms it through Jesus Christ.
Isn't that what Muslims say about Mohammed?
-
Spud
so what do you think are the prospects for getting rid of my cancer with a prayer or two?! :D
I'll stick to medication and, it may turne out to be, surgical skill.
-
Spud,
It does according to the testimony of some Christians.
Just out of interest, what do you think the relationship to be between testimony and evidence?
-
SweetPea,
So are you saying you can see no design in the 'programming' of DNA and it's complexity?
Why would anyone with even a cursory understanding of the relevant science think that?
-
... one of whom has claimed as much on this forum.
Guess what happens when you press for some testable, shareable, investigable evidence, something that we can follow up for ourselves?
I mainly wanted to point out that although it may seem like healing doesn't occur, it has occurred according to the NT.
Except eclipses can not only be predicted long in advance
As was Christ's coming and miracles, Matthew 8:17 and Isaiah 53:4.
but investigated.
Luke 1:3
And no eclipse is visible to "a few" people.
Neither were Jesus' healing miracles.
What about them? Isn't that what Muslims say about Mohammed?
Really, did Mohammed claim to be the Son of God?
-
I mainly wanted to point out that although it may seem like healing doesn't occur, it has occurred according to the NT.
In which the events referred to are two millennia in the past, and where the provenance of these stories is uncertain - then there is the problem of mistakes or lies, and then there is the problem of there being no evidence beyond these anecdotal claims: pinch of salt stuff really, and best not taken seriously.
As was Christ's coming and miracles, Matthew 8:17 and Isaiah 53:4.Luke 1:3
Same problems.
Neither were Jesus' healing miracles.
Same problems.
Really, did Mohammed claim to be the Son of God?
So what: I could claim to be the son of Zaphod Beeblebrox but I could be wrong, honestly mistaken or telling lies.
-
I mainly wanted to point out that although it may seem like healing doesn't occur, it has occurred according to the NT.
This is merely assertion unsupported by a scrap of evidence, about which you are quite correct that reasonable people are sceptical.
As was Christ's coming and miracles, Matthew 8:17 and Isaiah 53:4.Luke 1:3Neither were Jesus' healing miracles.
Ditto.
Really, did Mohammed claim to be the Son of God?
Did Jesus?
-
Spud
so what do you think are the prospects for getting rid of my cancer with a prayer or two?! :D
I'll stick to medication and, it may turne out to be, surgical skill.
I would suggest you follow both processes. Let me tell you a story of two brain tumors.
The daughter of one of our Bible Study members (she lives in the UK) was recently diagnosed with a brain tumor. She was waiting her turn in the NHS for surgery, the state of the tumor being monitored in the interim. Naturally there was also much prayer being made for her within the group. Then about ten days ago she was suddenly told that an opportunity to perform the surgery the next day has arisen and she was to report to the hospital early in the morning.
She was in the operating theatre for over 12 hours. During the entire period much prayer was offered. She now faces a lengthy recovery and rehabilitation period but indications are for a good prognosis.
The second case concerns the son of one of the mothers in our group and goes back a while. Again a fairly significant tumor was identified and surgery was planned. Again much prayer was offered. But during the wait for surgery he began to feel much improved. Subsequent tests showed that the tumor had completely disappeared. It has never returned.
So did God act in answer to the prayers? The Christian answer would be in the affirmative in both instances. But as is His sovereign right the answers came through different channels. But that is a statement of faith and not of fact. The facts are simply as outlined in the above two paragraphs. And for those who would conclude that the second tumor was nothing more that one of those rare cases of spontaneous remission and just a fortunate co-incident, you may well be correct. My own experience is the more one prays the more these co-incidents seem to happen.
-
DaveM,
I would suggest you follow both processes. Let me tell you a story of two brain tumors.
The daughter of one of our Bible Study members (she lives in the UK) was recently diagnosed with a brain tumor. She was waiting her turn in the NHS for surgery, the state of the tumor being monitored in the interim. Naturally there was also much prayer being made for her within the group. Then about ten days ago she was suddenly told that an opportunity to perform the surgery the next day has arisen and she was to report to the hospital early in the morning.
She was in the operating theatre for over 12 hours. During the entire period much prayer was offered. She now faces a lengthy recovery and rehabilitation period but indications are for a good prognosis.
The second case concerns the son of one of the mothers in our group and goes back a while. Again a fairly significant tumor was identified and surgery was planned. Again much prayer was offered. But during the wait for surgery he began to feel much improved. Subsequent tests showed that the tumor had completely disappeared. It has never returned.
So did God act in answer to the prayers? The Christian answer would be in the affirmative in both instances. But as is His sovereign right the answers came through different channels. But that is a statement of faith and not of fact. The facts are simply as outlined in the above two paragraphs. And for those who would conclude that the second tumor was nothing more that one of those rare cases of spontaneous remission and just a fortunate co-incident, you may well be correct. My own experience is the more one prays the more these co-incidents seem to happen.
Affecting anecdotes both, but how do you validate your remarkable claim that “the more one prays the more these co-incidents seem to happen”?
How for example did you account for confirmation bias? Did you use separate test and control groups, and how did you decide which set to pray for and which not to pray for in order to avoid selection bias? For the former, did you distinguish between those who were told they were prayed for and those who didn’t know? What statistical analysis did you do to eliminate noise, and how did you decide how many standard deviations from the mean constituted outliers? Was the incidence of successes greater than you’d expect to happen spontaneously in the general population of people with the same diagnoses, and if "yes" how did you validate that?
See, here’s the thing: the religious in particular put great store by “testimony”. I’ve never yet though been able to find a logical path from testimony to evidence, except that is as evidence that people believe the narratives they reach for to explain the phenomena they observe. To be fair to you, you were careful not to jump to “therefore God”, but the “seems” of “the more one prays the more these co-incidents seem to happen” is the key word here.
To you, it probably does seem that way. It probably does too though to the person who hops backwards with a stick or rhubarb up his nose chanting the lyrics of Bros’s “When Will I be Famous?” who gets the same ratio of hits and misses, but also ignores the latter.
-
Dave M #201
I refer you to bluehillside's #202.
-
Bluehillside,
The stick of rhubarb is a pretend microphone, right?!
-
DaveM,
Affecting anecdotes both, but how do you validate your remarkable claim that “the more one prays the more these co-incidents seem to happen”?
Short answer is I do not attempt to. But before you rush in with a response along the lines of, ‘Ha, caught with your pants down again’ let me share one further anecdote which dates back many years.
Around the 1980’s many parts of the Church were significantly impacted by what was termed the ‘Renewal Movement’. At that time a new large church emerged in this country whose leader was making all sorts of claims about healing miracles which were being witnessed in large numbers at their church meetings. When challenged on these claims he made a very foolish response. He invited the media (TV in particular) to attend a meeting on a certain Sunday where they would be able to witness and record such events as proof of his claims.
I remember being asked by some friends before the meeting what I thought would take place. My short answer was nothing. This for the simple reason that God will not permit Himself to be put to the test.
And that is exactly what transpired. Large crowds and a significant media contingent were present. But the Lord declined the invitation and decided to go walk about in some other parts of town instead.
The simple facts are that you cannot put the Lord in a test tube and subject Him to testing of a scientific nature. And I do not waste my time trying to ‘prove’ the testimonies I share on issues like praying for the sick through the process of validation using the methodology of science. Which is why I said in #201 that my view that the outcome in both cases was a result of prayer, was a statement of faith and not of scientific fact.
God does not use miracles to convince the unbeliever. It is not in His nature to do so.
So I may well continue to share further such co-incidences as they arise. And the facts I present dealing with the nature and final outcome of the problem will be correct. But any views expressed as to the reason for the outcome being due to God’s intervention will be a reflection of my faith and not one of scientific fact. It would not be in expectation of anything but further cynical responses. Such is the nature of this forum.
-
Of course, what you refer to as cynical responses are what the rest of us call rational ones. You're as perfectly well aware as are we that holding a belief in a God that declines to be tested - thus making any claims of alleged healing instantly and automatically untestable - is pretty much the most whopping exercise in question-begging (in the proper sense of the phrase) ever known to man. And of course massively convenient for you, off the evidential hook as you are.
Still, to your credit you do admit that your beliefs are held on the basis of faith not fact - such a concession is rare indeed round these here parts.
-
Short answer is I do not attempt to. But before you rush in with a response along the lines of, ‘Ha, caught with your pants down again’ let me share one further anecdote which dates back many years.
Around the 1980’s many parts of the Church were significantly impacted by what was termed the ‘Renewal Movement’. At that time a new large church emerged in this country whose leader was making all sorts of claims about healing miracles which were being witnessed in large numbers at their church meetings. When challenged on these claims he made a very foolish response. He invited the media (TV in particular) to attend a meeting on a certain Sunday where they would be able to witness and record such events as proof of his claims.
I remember being asked by some friends before the meeting what I thought would take place. My short answer was nothing. This for the simple reason that God will not permit Himself to be put to the test.
And that is exactly what transpired. Large crowds and a significant media contingent were present. But the Lord declined the invitation and decided to go walk about in some other parts of town instead.
The simple facts are that you cannot put the Lord in a test tube and subject Him to testing of a scientific nature. And I do not waste my time trying to ‘prove’ the testimonies I share on issues like praying for the sick through the process of validation using the methodology of science. Which is why I said in #201 that my view that the outcome in both cases was a result of prayer, was a statement of faith and not of scientific fact.
God does not use miracles to convince the unbeliever. It is not in His nature to do so.
So I may well continue to share further such co-incidences as they arise. And the facts I present dealing with the nature and final outcome of the problem will be correct. But any views expressed as to the reason for the outcome being due to God’s intervention will be a reflection of my faith and not one of scientific fact. It would not be in expectation of anything but further cynical responses. Such is the nature of this forum.
You are entitled to your faith if it does the business for you. At least you admit it is faith not fact.
-
You are entitled to your faith if it does the business for you. At least you admit it is faith not fact.
Hear! Hear!
-
I would suggest you follow both processes. Let me tell you a story of two brain tumors.
The daughter of one of our Bible Study members (she lives in the UK) was recently diagnosed with a brain tumor. She was waiting her turn in the NHS for surgery, the state of the tumor being monitored in the interim. Naturally there was also much prayer being made for her within the group. Then about ten days ago she was suddenly told that an opportunity to perform the surgery the next day has arisen and she was to report to the hospital early in the morning.
She was in the operating theatre for over 12 hours. During the entire period much prayer was offered. She now faces a lengthy recovery and rehabilitation period but indications are for a good prognosis.
The second case concerns the son of one of the mothers in our group and goes back a while. Again a fairly significant tumor was identified and surgery was planned. Again much prayer was offered. But during the wait for surgery he began to feel much improved. Subsequent tests showed that the tumor had completely disappeared. It has never returned.
So did God act in answer to the prayers? The Christian answer would be in the affirmative in both instances. But as is His sovereign right the answers came through different channels. But that is a statement of faith and not of fact. The facts are simply as outlined in the above two paragraphs. And for those who would conclude that the second tumor was nothing more that one of those rare cases of spontaneous remission and just a fortunate co-incident, you may well be correct. My own experience is the more one prays the more these co-incidents seem to happen.
I would disagree that "the more one prays the more these co-incidents seem to happen".
The harder you look the easier it is to find ways to make the co-incidents fit.
You can, and at least one longterm poster used to do so all the time, make anything fit, usually on the premise that 'how do you know that it wasn't the fact that God intervened that worked and it would have done even if the medicos had not done their bit or that it wasn't God directing the efforts of the medicos'.
-
No, not cherry picking, just seeing what many others can also see.
So are you saying you can see no design in the 'programming' of DNA and it's complexity?
To respond to your first sentence, where you say you haven't cherry picked. Firstly fibonnaci sequences occurs in nature. Yes, they do, but rarely in perfect form. A design suggests a designer but there is no evidence of any designer unless you suggest that entirely natural processes are responsible for the patterns produced in nature. And, of course, there are many other natural patterns which occur in nature too, such as symmetry, spirals, waves, tesselations, dots, stripes, fractals. These can often be explained by natural processes or evolutionary processes according to the laws of physics and can also be described in mathematical terms. So why pick out the fibonnaci pattern for special mention?
I see that Rhiannon has suggested this site:
https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/pseudo/fibonacc.htm
You never know, you might learn something by looking at it.
As regards DNA, I see no evidence of intelligent design in DNA at all. As far as we can tell, DNA originated as RNA, which is much simpler. DNA, of course, is one of the tools which has shown how we are connected to all other living things, and is a source of evidence for the process of evolution. There is no evidence, and more importantly no need for any intelligent design element to be introduced. Indeed, the make up of the genome suggests there are large amounts of junk DNA, which can be explained by random mutation, but not by design, unless one suggests a particularly unintelligent, imperfect and haphazard designer perhaps.
-
I wobble.
Apparently. And you did so years ago, "changing from realist to non-realist as often as you changed underpants". Nowt wrong with that - it's a sign of an enquiring mind. However, on this thread you seemed to have come down firmly for the non-realist view, whereas elsewhere you seem to be arguing forcibly for something closer to the realist one. All a trifle confusing.
-
That's what wobbling is Dicky, confusing :D.
A nice long bike ride to clear the head is recommended, it's only raining a little bit.
-
That's what wobbling is Dicky, confusing :D.
A nice long bike ride to clear the head is recommended, it's only raining a little bit.
Look, I don't care how much Steve wobbles - my own views on a number of matters are not at all consistent. But I try not to pretend that I'm arguing with conviction for one point of view whilst arguing at the same time with equal conviction for another, and flinging out thuggish ad hominems in the process. I always admired Steve's postings years ago - his no-bullshit approach was very refreshing. I'm not so impressed by his more recent effusions. They seem like double-think.
-
Thinking out loud doesn't always work.