Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Torri,

I don't think Vlad has ever been observed to use tools

I'm pretty sure he's not a corvid either...

[torridon]

But he is always crowing on about philosophical materialism.

Oh dear, sorry 'bat that.

[Alien]

Alien,

Oh dear. You don't have faith in your wife.

You've tried and failed with that schtick before - conflating the ambiguities in the term "faith" and then pointing to the presence of one as if it were inconsistent with denial of the other.

The prosaic meaning of "faith" is a reasonable confidence of a future event or behaviour based on the evidence of historic data. I have "faith" that my car will start for example the next time that I want it to - it's a good car, it's well maintained, it's aways started in the past etc. 

The religious meaning though is very different - it's the bridge you need to build from assertion to belief precisely when you don't have evidence to support you but want to maintain the belief nonetheless.

Most of us have "faith" (first meaning), only some have "faith" (second meaning) and treating them as if they were the same is just cheating.

Again.

I would be happy to use whatever word you like. However, Christian faith is trusting in what you have good reason to believe is true. That is what is meant when we translate the word pistis (and its cognates) from the Greek. It looks very much like the "prosaic" meaning you quoted above.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Alien,

I would be happy to use whatever word you like. However, Christian faith is trusting in what you have good reason to believe is true. That is what is meant when we translate the word pistis (and its cognates) from the Greek. It looks very much like the "prosaic" meaning you quoted above.

Any number of people may think they have good reason to believe in any manner of supernatural "somethings", but you attempted to make a point by conflating the material, everyday, objectively used meaning of "faith" with the idiosyncratic, subjective, personal belief meaning of the term. It's entirely possible to have the former and not the latter, and you cannot just claim that those who do are thereby inconsistent or mistaken.

[Alien]

Alien,

I would be happy to use whatever word you like. However, Christian faith is trusting in what you have good reason to believe is true. That is what is meant when we translate the word pistis (and its cognates) from the Greek. It looks very much like the "prosaic" meaning you quoted above.

Any number of people may think they have good reason to believe in any manner of supernatural "somethings", but you attempted to make a point by conflating the material, everyday, objectively used meaning of "faith" with the idiosyncratic, subjective, personal belief meaning of the term. It's entirely possible to have the former and not the latter, and you cannot just claim that those who do are thereby inconsistent or mistaken.

So what significant difference is there between what I said Christian faith is and what you termed the prosaic meaning?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Alien,

So what significant difference is there between what I said Christian faith is and what you termed the prosaic meaning?

All the difference in the world, which is why the tenets of your "faith" (religious sense) aren't taught as facts in most schools, whereas the "faith" of car mechanics (prosaic sense) are. The moment you ever find a method to test your claims that could change of course, but for now they're qualitatively different things.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why? What about those using tools?

OK, I get that, altho I don't see that corvids or chimps would be able to contribute anything to this debate

Has Vlad posted on this topic yet? 

I don't think Vlad has ever been observed to use tools 

No, I just reply to their posts.

[Alan Burns]

Why? What about those using tools?

The animals' use of tools are just examples of learnt behaviour to do a specific task.  The animals using the tools do not go on to adapt these tools for other uses, and therefore these activities show little evidence of intellect.

[Rhiannon]

Blue tits taught themselves to open milk bottles. The bottles themselves are relatively recent inventions. Even more interesting is that robins figured it out for themselves whereas once the blue tits had it down they did teach it to others.

http://www.britishbirdlovers.co.uk/articles/blue-tits-and-milk-bottle-tops

[torridon]

Why? What about those using tools?

The animals' use of tools are just examples of learnt behaviour to do a specific task.  The animals using the tools do not go on to adapt these tools for other uses, and therefore these activities show little evidence of intellect.

I don't see why the fact that we have greater intellect than other creatures should justify us abandoning our intellect. Quite the opposite I would have thought; what would be the point in having legs and then refusing to walk ?

[jakswan]

Why? What about those using tools?

The animals' use of tools are just examples of learnt behaviour to do a specific task.  The animals using the tools do not go on to adapt these tools for other uses, and therefore these activities show little evidence of intellect.

Even if that were true, and the intellect is small, are you now withdrawing your comment 'There is no intellect apart from the human one'

[Outrider]

I humbly admit that my own idea of what the best thing to do is probably wrong, so I hold on to the bible claim that everything will happen for the good if we put our faith in God. 

and by such attitudes you close your mind to the inconsistencies in your thinking, and why I say that faith is a bad thing.  It's a case of preferring selection bias over facing up to and actually dealing with pieces of your jigsaw that don't fit.

But if we allow human intellect to complete the jigsaw we will end up with as many different solutions as there are humans.

Right - what's wrong with the idea that there are as many good ways to live as there are people to live those good ways?

Morality is about how we prioritise or limit most fairly the competing desires of equally valid people.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

Why? What about those using tools?

The animals' use of tools are just examples of learnt behaviour to do a specific task.  The animals using the tools do not go on to adapt these tools for other uses, and therefore these activities show little evidence of intellect.

Even if that were true, and the intellect is small, are you now withdrawing your comment 'There is no intellect apart from the human one'

that one was one of torridon's

[ippy]

Why? What about those using tools?

The animals' use of tools are just examples of learnt behaviour to do a specific task.  The animals using the tools do not go on to adapt these tools for other uses, and therefore these activities show little evidence of intellect.

Instead of talking from, your rear end as you usually do Alan, try reading some Frans De Waal books or by going to the Ted network, on line.

     Frans de Waal: Moral behavior in animals | TED Talk | TED ...

Video for Frans De Waal▶ 16:52
https://www.ted.com/.../frans_de_waal_do_animals_ha...
But Frans de Waal shares some surprising videos of behavioral tests, on primates and other mammals ...,

You might learn something Alan, but somehow I doubt it.

ippy

[Alan Burns]

I humbly admit that my own idea of what the best thing to do is probably wrong, so I hold on to the bible claim that everything will happen for the good if we put our faith in God. 

and by such attitudes you close your mind to the inconsistencies in your thinking, and why I say that faith is a bad thing.  It's a case of preferring selection bias over facing up to and actually dealing with pieces of your jigsaw that don't fit.

But if we allow human intellect to complete the jigsaw we will end up with as many different solutions as there are humans.

Right - what's wrong with the idea that there are as many good ways to live as there are people to live those good ways?

Morality is about how we prioritise or limit most fairly the competing desires of equally valid people.

O.

Relying purely on their own intellect, every individual seems to have a different concept of what reality is and how we should live in it.  To me Christianity gives the ideal template for how we need to live our lives on this earth, and we are doomed to failure once we try to replace this by something devised by humans alone.

[Nearly Sane]

How did you determine it is ideal?

[torridon]

Relying purely on their own intellect, every individual seems to have a different concept of what reality is and how we should live in it.  To me Christianity gives the ideal template for how we need to live our lives on this earth, and we are doomed to failure once we try to replace this by something devised by humans alone.

Two issues with that.

Because it is an ideal template for you it does not follow that it is ideal for everyone. There is no one-size-fits-all formula for a good or happy life, that would suggest that humans are homogenous, whereas in reality we are each of us unique, and no two people will ever see things exactly the same way.

There is little reason to suppose that yours is a template of non-human origin anyway, apart from that is what it itself might claim. That's circular thinking, like the claim that the Bible is true, why, because it says so in the Bible. No doubt Blue will be along shortly to admonish you for indulging such patent logic fallacies.

[Outrider]

Relying purely on their own intellect, every individual seems to have a different concept of what reality is and how we should live in it.  To me Christianity gives the ideal template for how we need to live our lives on this earth, and we are doomed to failure once we try to replace this by something devised by humans alone.

Relying on Christianity has resulted in how many thousand different sects, cults and denominations? Given, by your own words here, you appreciate the diversity of human feeling and experience, how can you expect such a restrictive philosophy to be sufficient for such a varied populace?

If this God-inspired philosophy were so superior wouldn't it be obvious to everyone how good it is? Some of it, certainly, I agree with, but other elements are utterly repugnant: the misogyny, the slavery apologetics, the homophobia, the tribalism... why? Are they really components of the 'ultimate philosophy'?

Are we individually capable of coming up with 'one philosophy to rule them all'? Probably not. Why, though, as an congregation, are we not capable of iterative improvements over time to certainly approach one?

O.

O.

[Alan Burns]

Relying purely on their own intellect, every individual seems to have a different concept of what reality is and how we should live in it.  To me Christianity gives the ideal template for how we need to live our lives on this earth, and we are doomed to failure once we try to replace this by something devised by humans alone.

Relying on Christianity has resulted in how many thousand different sects, cults and denominations? Given, by your own words here, you appreciate the diversity of human feeling and experience, how can you expect such a restrictive philosophy to be sufficient for such a varied populace?

If this God-inspired philosophy were so superior wouldn't it be obvious to everyone how good it is? Some of it, certainly, I agree with, but other elements are utterly repugnant: the misogyny, the slavery apologetics, the homophobia, the tribalism... why? Are they really components of the 'ultimate philosophy'?

Are we individually capable of coming up with 'one philosophy to rule them all'? Probably not. Why, though, as an congregation, are we not capable of iterative improvements over time to certainly approach one?

I concede that it is easy to pick fault with things as they are, but to date no nation has fully embraced Christianity as taught in the New Testament.  On the evolutionary time scale we are still in the early days of seeing the impact which the life, death and resurrection of Jesus has had on the world as a whole.  The shock waves of this monumental event are still going on.  I still maintain that we are seeing a better quality of life in those countries which have a Christian heritage, but I fear that human endeavours to go it alone will allow the evil one to flourish.

[Shaker]

I concede that it is easy to pick fault with things as they are, but to date no nation has fully embraced Christianity as taught in the New Testament. On the evolutionary time scale we are still in the early days of seeing the impact which the life, death and resurrection of Jesus has had on the world as a whole. The shock waves of this monumental event are still going on.

Really? It seems to me vastly more the case that after two millennia it's the technologically advanced, scientifically-orientated, developed secular liberal democracies which are abandoning Christianity, Alan. Thankfully.

These are not countries which have never given Christianity a go; these are countries which did so and have grown out of it or - as in the case of the USA now - are still in the process of doing so.

I still maintain that we are seeing a better quality of life in those countries which have a Christian heritage, but I fear that human endeavours to go it alone will allow the evil one to flourish.

Nonsense on stilts.

[Outrider]

I concede that it is easy to pick fault with things as they are, but to date no nation has fully embraced Christianity as taught in the New Testament.

Thank god for that! Seriously, I suspect some of the middle-Ages nations would contest otherwise, though I'm more than ready to concede that their interpretation of it would be different to yours.

On the evolutionary time scale we are still in the early days of seeing the impact which the life, death and resurrection of Jesus has had on the world as a whole.

We're still waiting on some sort of reason to accept that it happened - we're seeing the impact the story has had on the world in the attempts to sustain misogynistic, homophobic and, in some instances racist ideals as well as sectarian violence and theocratic, repressive states. That's before we get into the mere fact that adherents of Christianity add validity to the idea that religious belief has merit in the first place, justifying similar excesses from the likes of Islam and Hinduism.

The shock waves of this monumental event are still going on.  I still maintain that we are seeing a better quality of life in those countries which have a Christian heritage, but I fear that human endeavours to go it alone will allow the evil one to flourish.

I'd agree we are, I'd contest whether that's because of Christianity - primarily because our lives have improved increasingly as religiosity has diminished. It may be that there's a degree of openness and permissivity it Christianity that's not available in other religions that's allowed scientifically validated ideas to flourish, which in turn have led to an increased secularism.

I suspect, though, that the flourishing of human wellbeing has been due to the wealth of easily available natural resources in Western Europe which allowed an increased proportion of the populace to divert their attention away from subsistence activities and towards other pursuits - such as science, philosophy and art. That these lands were populated by Christian adherents was happenstance more than anything else.

O.

[BashfulAnthony]

I concede that it is easy to pick fault with things as they are, but to date no nation has fully embraced Christianity as taught in the New Testament. On the evolutionary time scale we are still in the early days of seeing the impact which the life, death and resurrection of Jesus has had on the world as a whole. The shock waves of this monumental event are still going on.

Really? It seems to me vastly more the case that after two millennia it's the technologically advanced, scientifically-orientated, developed secular liberal democracies which are abandoning Christianity, Alan. Thankfully.

These are not countries which have never given Christianity a go; these are countries which did so and have grown out of it or - as in the case of the USA now - are still in the process of doing so.

I still maintain that we are seeing a better quality of life in those countries which have a Christian heritage, but I fear that human endeavours to go it alone will allow the evil one to flourish.

Nonsense on stilts.

Really?  Somebody forgot to tell the massive crowds who turned out to greet the Pope, including one crowd of hundreds of thousands approaching, a million!  Talk about wishful thinking!  By the way, in the Philippines there was a crowd of near to 6 miillion!!  I bet you enjoyed seeing that on the news, though you will, of course, deny you saw it!   

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

Really?  Somebody forgot to tell the massive crowds who turned out to greet the Pope, including one crowd of hundreds of thousands approaching, a million!  Talk about wishful thinking!  By the way, in the Philippines there was a crowd of near to 6 miillion!!  I bet you enjoyed seeing that on the news, though you will, of course, deny you saw it!

Ooh, an argumentum ad populum. We haven't had one of those for a while - sounds like we me be in for another game of logical fallacy top trumps!

How many people then did not turn up in each of these places?

[BashfulAnthony]

BA,

Really?  Somebody forgot to tell the massive crowds who turned out to greet the Pope, including one crowd of hundreds of thousands approaching, a million!  Talk about wishful thinking!  By the way, in the Philippines there was a crowd of near to 6 miillion!!  I bet you enjoyed seeing that on the news, though you will, of course, deny you saw it!

Ooh, an argumentum ad populum. We haven't had one of those for a while - sounds like we me be in for another game of logical fallacy top trumps!

How many people then did not turn up in each of these places?

That is just about the lamest detractionI have ever heard from you!  You are certainly losing your touch:  could be your age.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

That is just about the lamest detractionI have ever heard from you!  You are certainly losing your touch:  could be your age.

You attempted a fallacious argument. I pulled you up on it. A "lame detraction" ("detraction"?) would be something like complaining about the use of strong language so as to avoid engaging with the issue on the table.

Now who do we know who'd do a thing like that?