What is scholarly about discussing any aspect of religion?

[wigginhall]

No, whether or not they are independent or not he is still responsible. We don't have to trouble ourselves about the distinction.

If you created some AI robot and released it into the community, you would be resposible for any harm it did regardless of whether it could act independently of you or not. You might receive some sympathy/mitigation as a human being but if you were blessed of the three Omnis I would suggest you would end up eating a lot of porridge.

In fact, it strikes me that quite a lot of Christians are shifting, or have shifted, towards deism.   I mean, that while they pay lip-service to the 3 Os, or 4 Os, or however many there are, they don't follow it through.  They don't claim that God causes earthquakes or the ebola virus, or should stop either.   Why not?

In fact, those Christians who do claim this seem quite odd.   I got a leaflet through my door from a local church arguing that 9/11 happened because the American people had stopped prayer in school.    Possibly in the US, this is quite a common view, but less so in the UK, I think. 

So God is not really really omnipotent.   Or he could be, but he chooses not to be, or some formulation like that.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Should we trouble ourselves with the consequences?

Well if God created us then he should. I don't believe God exists so we should.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

In fact, it strikes me that quite a lot of Christians are shifting, or have shifted, towards deism.   I mean, that while they pay lip-service to the 3 Os, or 4 Os, or however many there are, they don't follow it through.  They don't claim that God causes earthquakes or the ebola virus, or should stop either.   Why not?

In fact, those Christians who do claim this seem quite odd.   I got a leaflet through my door from a local church arguing that 9/11 happened because the American people had stopped prayer in school.    Possibly in the US, this is quite a common view, but less so in the UK, I think. 

So God is not really really omnipotent.   Or he could be, but he chooses not to be, or some formulation like that.

Far better put than I could ever manage.

[wigginhall]

Far better put than I could ever manage.

Oh monsignor, you make me blush.   But there is another point - what is the consequence of a shift to Christian deism?  I would suggest, that it represents a slow-motion collapse, including for example, an intellectual defeat.  However, of course, the evangelicals are fighting a rear-guard action against this. 

[Nearly Sane]

Oh monsignor, you make me blush.   But there is another point - what is the consequence of a shift to Christian deism?  I would suggest, that it represents a slow-motion collapse, including for example, an intellectual defeat.  However, of course, the evangelicals are fighting a rear-guard action against this.

Which is surely, while shaking one's head in unbelief, one has to admire the Calvinists and their logically consistent position?

[wigginhall]

Which is surely, while shaking one's head in unbelief, one has to admire the Calvinists and their logically consistent position?

Yes, it does seem quite a heroic position, although doomed really.   As on the other thread, consistency spells The End. 

[Nearly Sane]

Yes, it does seem quite a heroic position, although doomed really.   As on the other thread, consistency spells The End.

Indeed Logic is a cold god, slowly laughing at its followers, as they crawl in the wake of its foul excreta.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

In fact, it strikes me that quite a lot of Christians are shifting, or have shifted, towards deism.   I mean, that while they pay lip-service to the 3 Os, or 4 Os, or however many there are, they don't follow it through.  They don't claim that God causes earthquakes or the ebola virus, or should stop either.   Why not?

In fact, those Christians who do claim this seem quite odd.   I got a leaflet through my door from a local church arguing that 9/11 happened because the American people had stopped prayer in school.    Possibly in the US, this is quite a common view, but less so in the UK, I think. 

So God is not really really omnipotent.   Or he could be, but he chooses not to be, or some formulation like that.

Quite so. One of the less-often noted weaknesses of the "nothing comes from nothing" nonsense (aside that is from the list of unwarranted assumptions on which it rests) is that at best it would only lead to deism, or perhaps to pantheism - one god or each of the four fundamental forces for example, or a whole dynasty of gods stretching even further back than the one who pouffed into existence our universe. It says nothing about the Christian or indeed any other specific gods though.

Perhaps as you imply that's the new line of defence: "OK, we've lost the argument for an interventionist god, so we'll mass the troops instead behind a disinterested deity and see how that goes for a bit". As for the evangelicals - be nice to think they're just the equivalent of flat earthers and will be treated as such as the inexorable march of reason and science continues, but I fear that the death throes could be nasty. End of timers in the military for example could be pretty worrying.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In fact, it strikes me that quite a lot of Christians are shifting, or have shifted, towards deism.   I mean, that while they pay lip-service to the 3 Os, or 4 Os, or however many there are, they don't follow it through.  They don't claim that God causes earthquakes or the ebola virus, or should stop either.   Why not?

In fact, those Christians who do claim this seem quite odd.   I got a leaflet through my door from a local church arguing that 9/11 happened because the American people had stopped prayer in school.    Possibly in the US, this is quite a common view, but less so in the UK, I think. 

So God is not really really omnipotent.   Or he could be, but he chooses not to be, or some formulation like that.

Wait a cotton picking moment.
Deists we are told are people who believe that God made the firework, lit the blue touch paper and retired never to darken the door of the universe again.

My experience though is that I frequently and in many respects have to make myself go bang.

The other point is that a true deist denies God any option of return......or have I got that wrong?

However he does it God relates to us in real time......or is that us just relating in eternity. I don't know. (which as we are told is a good place to be if you are a non believer but fatal if you are a believer)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wiggs,

Quite so. One of the less-often noted weaknesses of the "nothing comes from nothing" nonsense

Oh dear.....You've just eliminated yourself from any 'proofs' of naturalism which depend on cause and effect.

[SusanDoris]

In fact, it strikes me that quite a lot of Christians are shifting, or have shifted, towards deism.   I mean, that while they pay lip-service to the 3 Os, or 4 Os, or however many there are, they don't follow it through.  They don't claim that God causes earthquakes or the ebola virus, or should stop either.   Why not?

I think it is because facts and knowledge of them are sufficiently well established and clear enough to have replaced unevidenced faith in a god-did-it explanation.

I've been thinking actually, and I wonder whether the terms 'sceptic' and critical thinking' have about them a negativity. Prhaps if more persistent stress was put on  terms like 'evolved human skills', there might be a growing confidence in the fact that everything that has ever been thought, said and written has been done by humans.

[BeRational]

Oh dear.....You've just eliminated yourself from any 'proofs' of naturalism which depend on cause and effect.

Do they?

Are quantum level actions based on cause and effect?

I though I had read that they are not, and so too radio active decay.

[Sassy]

These were never in dispute.

Citation needed.

God created an old world like he created a mature adult at a day old.
How do we know... We would not have survived had he made two babies.

Sorry but it is obvious no babies could have survived with parents. God created all things and he could hardly put man on gases with nothing to sustain him could he?

So the earth was created an old earth within the days God made it...

Obvious answer no other could possibly be true. God himself saying...


King James Bible
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Creation itself is proof of God because you have absolutely NO OTHER ANSWER for it...

[Stranger]

God created an old world like he created a mature adult at a day old.
[blah, blah, blah]

This has nothing to do with my post.

Creation itself is proof of God because you have absolutely NO OTHER ANSWER for it...

Back to the argument from ignorance fallacy.     

It was the Great Green Arkleseizure, I tell you!!! You have NO OTHER ANSWER!

[BeRational]

Sassy

Creation itself is proof of God because you have absolutely NO OTHER ANSWER for it...

What creation. I am not aware of a creation.

What are you talking about?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sassy,

God created an old world like he created a mature adult at a day old.
How do we know... We would not have survived had he made two babies.

Seriously?

Seriously seriously?

Good grief!

[Bubbles]

Why not work on finding some solid evidence that would support and perhaps take religions off of the fiction shelf, first and the if this can be done it would justify having as many long and serious discussions anyone could ever want.

If the solid evidence was found there would of course be the added bonus of no, often referred to as, atheists, all wondering how come these people allowed themselves to became so deluded?

These discussions about the, maybe not the best description, inns and outs of the bible, effectively the workshop manual, seem so meaningless and pointless when there is apparently no means proving any of it as factual.

ippy   

Ippy

One doesn't have to be in a religion or believe any religion to read and learn about it.

What makes it scholarly isn't whether it's true or not, but just having enough of a subject to study.

[Bubbles]

You can be a scholar of feminism, but you don't have to be a woman.

[Dicky Underpants]

Ippy

One doesn't have to be in a religion or believe any religion to read and learn about it.

What makes it scholarly isn't whether it's true or not, but just having enough of a subject to study.

I think we've learned by now that ippy is just a little bit allergic to talk about the supernatural (I certainly don't believe in such things myself any longer). However, as you imply, there are other aspects to religion, and to the Bible in general.
Taking the Old Testament in particular, there's some fine poetry in the Song of Solomon (ignoring the absurd interpretation that Christian apologists have put upon it). There's the Book of Esther, which tells of the experience of the Jews in exile - and doesn't mention God once!

There are also various solid archaeological objects such as the Prism of Sennacherib, which tell of the siege of Jerusalem from a non-biblical viewpoint (thus corroborating the Bible account to some extent).


PS.

I was intrigued to find this in the most unutterably boring book in the Bible - Leviticus. At the risk of being considered a bible thumper, I'd say the following precepts are worth considering, even today (and one can ignore "I am the Lord thy God" bits:

[11] "You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another.
[12] And you shall not swear by my name falsely, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD.
[13] "You shall not oppress your neighbor or rob him. The wages of a hired servant shall not remain with you all night until the morning.
[14] You shall not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block before the blind, but you shall fear your God: I am the LORD.
[15] "You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.
[16] You shall not go up and down as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not stand forth against the life of your neighbor: I am the LORD.
[17] "You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason with your neighbor, lest you bear sin because of him.
[18] You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself:

[33] "When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong.
[34] The stranger who sojourns with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt

[wigginhall]

There is some fascinating anthropological research into the various functions of religions in different societies.   The guy who is well known on this is Scott Atran, and his book 'In Gods We Trust'.   

One of the interesting ideas about tribal religions and rituals, is that they often encode crucial aspects of life for that tribe, e.g. hunting methods, agricultural practises, fertility of land and humans, knowledge about animals and plants, and so on. 

You could argue that industrial society reduces this to a minimum, and there are now only vestiges of it in Western religion, e.g Harvest Festival. 

However, somewhere like the US shows how religion is a community practice, or I should really say, praxis, in order to sound posh.

Anyway, I think it is certainly scholarly to look at stuff like this.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

There is some fascinating anthropological research into the various functions of religions in different societies.   The guy who is well known on this is Scott Atran, and his book 'In Gods We Trust'.   

One of the interesting ideas about tribal religions and rituals, is that they often encode crucial aspects of life for that tribe, e.g. hunting methods, agricultural practises, fertility of land and humans, knowledge about animals and plants, and so on. 

You could argue that industrial society reduces this to a minimum, and there are now only vestiges of it in Western religion, e.g Harvest Festival. 

However, somewhere like the US shows how religion is a community practice, or I should really say, praxis, in order to sound posh.

Anyway, I think it is certainly scholarly to look at stuff like this.

Couldn't agree more - I've always thought that religions (plural) have done best where their functionality in terms of ritual, cohesion, explanation (in the absence of better answers) etc is most useful. It answers too the charge of, "so if (insert name of religion here) isn't true, how come it's survived then?" - they survive for readily identifiable reasons that need have nothing whatever to do with the truth or otherwise of their claimed facts.

The US is an oddity - I've travelled a fair bit on business to the East and West coasts, but almost not at all to the bits in between. When I was there I was barely aware of religion, and the people I dealt with never mentioned it. My sense though is that it's much more entrenched centrally and in the South, and actually that it correlates even in the US to poverty/wealth indices to a large extent too.

No-one running for the Senate would ever admit to being an atheist for example - at least if he wanted to get elected - but some of them must be, and perhaps quite a few. It's a sort of schizophrenic "I'll just pay lip service to this stuff to get the votes" mentality, though I was struck by Pres Obama's first inauguration speech when he referred to people of faith "and of none".   

Be interesting to see some research on it though.

[Hope]

May I return to the thread title and point out to ippy the nature of scholarly discussion.  It almost always involves differences of opinion and, where it doesn't, it often introduces and/or revisits oher ideas that have been forgotten or recently discovered.  On the occasions neither of these occur, the discussion can be tedious and unchallenging.

[Dicky Underpants]

There is some fascinating anthropological research into the various functions of religions in different societies.   The guy who is well known on this is Scott Atran, and his book 'In Gods We Trust'.   

One of the interesting ideas about tribal religions and rituals, is that they often encode crucial aspects of life for that tribe, e.g. hunting methods, agricultural practises, fertility of land and humans, knowledge about animals and plants, and so on. 

That's a very important point, wiggi. It demonstrates the immense practicality of certain aspects of religion, and how much many religions are concerned with human life in the here and now. However, so much of this is inextricably linked in with the spiritual outlook of such peoples (some of course believe unquestioningly that they were taught all this lore by spiritual entities - who may have appeared to their shamans in trance visions or sleep, or, as far as the tribes in question are concerned, in actuality).

Seems though, that if you want to get rid of the spiritual dimension in these questions, the rest of the lore would tend to disappear with it. There are vast pharmaceutical resources still left in the Amazon jungle, and the knowledge of such matters still lies with the few indigenous tribes left there. However, I think the more likely outcome of the encroachment of secular life is that the tribes themselves will be wiped out (and probably most of the forest too) rather than their spiritual beliefs going first.

[ippy]

May I return to the thread title and point out to ippy the nature of scholarly discussion.  It almost always involves differences of opinion and, where it doesn't, it often introduces and/or revisits oher ideas that have been forgotten or recently discovered.  On the occasions neither of these occur, the discussion can be tedious and unchallenging.

Yes but some people think it's scholarly to discuss religion as though it's not fiction, in other words discussing religion without being able to lift religion off of the fiction shelf; not that scholarly, unless of course some evidence was found, there's no evidence and it's extremely unlikely any will ever be found.

You might as well be discussing the ins and outs of the Sherlock Holms books and Conan Doyle, as though Holmes was a real person, Holmes, religion, it's all fiction unless of course someone comes up with the necessary. Not very likely is it Hope?

Bit more scribble there for you to misquote Hope, see? I do my best to help you along on your way.

ippy   

[Dicky Underpants]

Wiggs,

Couldn't agree more - I've always thought that religions (plural) have done best where their functionality in terms of ritual, cohesion, explanation (in the absence of better answers) etc is most useful. It answers too the charge of, "so if (insert name of religion here) isn't true, how come it's survived then?" - they survive for readily identifiable reasons that need have nothing whatever to do with the truth or otherwise of their claimed facts.

blue
If by 'their claimed facts' you mean their assertions about God, souls, Resurrection(s) etc, then I largely agree with you. It's interesting to compare the survival of Christianity with Mithraism. The latter seemed quite a rival to Christianity in the development of the Roman Empire, and though we don't know too much about Mithraism's mystical beliefs, we can be pretty sure it offered some eternal 'rewards' for its participants (most of the other mystery religions did). However, Mithraism was an extraordinarily blokey religion - no females allowed in its places of worship. Christianity - at least in its earliest manifestation - gave great importance to women (even if they were considered to be a bit risky where sex was concerned). And of course Christianity did stress practical altruism.