Non-realist Christianity

[SteveH]

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".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

[floo]

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!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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!

[SteveH]

I find nothing particularly heretical or controversial about the above.

You weren't supposed to.

[floo]

Anthony Flew shocked his congregation by claiming he did believe in God.

Who?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Who?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew

[Shaker]

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.

[Rhiannon]

It's not unusual for people to find something god-like in their lives as death approaches. The opposite often happens too.

[Shaker]

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 

[Rhiannon]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[Shaker]

So what has that to do with me?

You were the one who brought Flew into the thread (#105); shouldn't you know?

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

[Shaker]

Just a wild thought of mine!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Shaker]

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.