?s about Xtianity but were afraid to ask

02/24/2009 07:31:20 PM · #551

Originally posted by FireBird:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
In effect, you are rejecting religious faith because it doesn't help you understand the physical world,

I thought he was rejecting god. Isn't that what atheism all about?

Yes, but in the specific exchange we were debating *faith* itself... He never actually stated he doesn't believe in God, just that religious faith doesn't help explain the world. That's apparently his litmus test for something's validity, how well it "explains" the world. I know, I know, I'm not being fair, but...

I listen to stuff like that, and wonder how these supreme rationalists deal with the concept of "love"...

R.

Canon FD 70-210mm f/4.0 MF

02/24/2009 07:35:38 PM · #552

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It just takes us right back to where Achoo's at in the debate with Scalvert, where Shannon rejects out-of-hand the concept of God because there's no evidence to support it...

Not quite. There are plenty of things that may be absolutely true, but for which there is no evidence. Absence of evidence is not proof of absence. However, most modern, rational people reject Russell's teapot and Greek mythology as patently absurd given what we DO know about our universe, so it's curious that so many would distinguish between what they themselves acknowledge as ridiculous and similarly supernatural accounts they consider unquestionable reality. I simply see no reason to accept a single account of the same sorts of myth and magic that even the most fervent believers reject in every other instance over the infinitely more likely explanation that it's ALL the same manmade fiction.

Well, the thing of it is, I make a very real distinction, myself, between the idea of *God* and any wholesale acceptance of man's poor attempts to characterize and interpret Her. I readily accept the idea that religions, collectively, are man-made fictions imposed upon an unknowable concept. But that doesn't mean the concept is invalid, just that, in typical bungling, opportunistic, screwed up human fashion we have made a mockery of the concept, if you take my drift?

R.

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

02/24/2009 08:46:13 PM · #553

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I understand what you're saying, but what sort of "rational, evidence-based reasoning" can address the unknowable? It's like a philosophical oxymoron. Certainly we can, if we choose, approach our discussion of the unknowable in a rational manner, I have no problem with that, but when you postulate the need for an "evidence-based" component in the discussion, you lose me.

Well I guess I would have to ask what you mean by "unknowable." If by unknowable you mean that there are things that exist outside of the natural, materialistic world, then I would have to say I am not convinced any such thing exists.

Taking your example of "love," for instance: This used to be thought to reside very solidly in the unknowable category, but there is actually a lot of recent research that is uncovering the materialistic basis for love, including its neurochemical underpinnings. Love is very real, there just doesn't happen to be anything supernatural about it. Love is actually a perfect example - the theistic believer looks at love and says, "it is an unknowable mystery," and throws up his hands, while the scientific rationalist says, "I wonder how that works," and starts collecting data. There certainly are things that are "unknown," but I don't know that this means they are strictly "unknowable."

Where philosophy (and I include religious philosophy in this) comes into play for me is in those areas where scientific rationalism doesn't provide a clear cut answer - generally in areas of social policy or personal philosophy. For example, "At what point does a fertilized egg deserve to be thought of as a human person?" Science per se does not provide an answer for this, but I would also argue that religious faith doesn't either, at least not for society. An individual's religious faith may inform their response to this question, but that only definitively answers it for that person alone and appeals from faith will be unpersuasive to anyone standing outside of the religious tradition on which the argument is based. For that reason, evidence-based, philosophical reasoning would seem to be the only viable way to engage in such debates. And when I say "evidence-based," I mean debates where one brings support for ones argument that a person from a different perspective should be willing to credit - i.e., "option x reduces the amount of suffering in the world in such and such a way"; or "option y is dangerous because it leads to undesired consequences a and b." "Because my holy book said so," or "because I have faith that x is true," are not only non-evidence based, they are ultimately unpersuasive.

Originally posted by FireBird:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

The materialistic worldview is an elegant, coherent, and demonstrably accurate view of our existence.

So you took the blue pill.

Quite exactly the opposite, I would say.

Message edited by author 2009-02-24 20:49:20.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

02/24/2009 08:54:27 PM · #554

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I listen to stuff like that, and wonder how these supreme rationalists deal with the concept of "love"...

R.

Love is great. It inspires me and affects me in pretty much exactly the same ways as I am sure that it affects you.

But I don't think that it is something that transcends the physical universe. I don't reject the modern biological explanation of electro-chemical processes that correlate with loving emotions in the subject.

Moreover, I don't reject the validity of brain scans that show the electro-chemical processes in action nor challenge their validity purely because they don't accord with a more romantic but naive view of the world.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

02/24/2009 09:17:19 PM · #555

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I listen to stuff like that, and wonder how these supreme rationalists deal with the concept of "love"...

The same way as anything else. Why wouldn't the same sort of chemical and physical processes that govern other human behavior also be responsible for love?

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I make a very real distinction, myself, between the idea of *God* and any wholesale acceptance of man's poor attempts to characterize and interpret Her.

;-) Isn't it interesting that people generally attribute not only human form to their gods, but also gender. Why would an immortal god have any need for sexual characteristics? Especially when a few spare ribs and some dirt would suffice (not that a god would really need ribs either). Getting back to your point, though... if the nature of a god were THAT unknown, then any supposed obligations and influences would be equally unknown, and the god becomes essentially irrelevant.

david_c

Canon EOS-7D

02/24/2009 09:49:28 PM · #556

Originally posted by Flash:

As a "believer", I have long struggled to understand how God allows for these types of events?

The "problem of evil" is very old, indeed.

02/24/2009 10:20:59 PM · #557

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I listen to stuff like that, and wonder how these supreme rationalists deal with the concept of "love"...

The same way as anything else. Why wouldn't the same sort of chemical and physical processes that govern other human behavior also be responsible for love?

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I make a very real distinction, myself, between the idea of *God* and any wholesale acceptance of man's poor attempts to characterize and interpret Her.

;-) Isn't it interesting that people generally attribute not only human form to their gods, but also gender. Why would an immortal god have any need for sexual characteristics? Especially when a few spare ribs and some dirt would suffice (not that a god would really need ribs either). Getting back to your point, though... if the nature of a god were THAT unknown, then any supposed obligations and influences would be equally unknown, and the god becomes essentially irrelevant.

Well, Shannon, as a matter of fact I *don't* attribute any such characteristics to the *prime mover*, which is sort of why I took a sly dig at the whole concept by calling It "her"... Since this whole thread has fairly much stuck with the Judeao-Christian tradition, and that's a definite "Him"...

More interestingly, that's EXACTLY why I brought up the concept "love". We're all enlightened beings, right? We reject superstition and all sorts of mumbo-jumbo claptrap, including which doctors, sorcery, seers, all that sort of stuff. Definitely including the idea of "love potions", the sort of stuff you paid the scary old grandma-lady to provide for you in your quest to win a certain heart, don'tcha know?

And now, guess what? Our much-vaunted science, in its thrilling (I am being serious here) quest to explain the physical, reality-based underdpinnings of absolutely EVERYthing, has identified certain electro-chemical processes as being, at the very least, associated with the concept "love". And I submit to y'all that IF this is the case, then it's at least plausible that the old coot may have been onto something, that the idea of a "love potion" may have rational underpinnings, and this particular field of "mumbo jumbo" may be based on "reality" after all. Or something like that.

I don't think it's as cut-and-dried as you seem to posit. I think the lines are all fuzzy. And I don't see any reason why I have to assume that just because you can chip away at the unknowable and provide, bit by bit, scientific comprehension of the mechanisms of same, that this proves it's "just science" and "God" has nothing to do with it.

I'm NOT sayuing that "God" is responsible for love, mind you. I'm just pointing out the things move in and out of our comprehension with fair regularity, that last week's anathema is this week's gospel, and that for all that you can prove to your own satisfaction how this, that, or the other thing is, ultimately, rational, for all of that I have never seen an explanation for what's apparently the underlying assumption of your position:

That if the universe can be proven to be rational, then it eliminates the concept "God" from consideration. I think that's bullshit, frankly. Both emotionally and logically. I think the intricate, provable structure that links all things can be seen, perfectly validly, as proof of Her existence.

Thanks for listening,

R.

02/24/2009 11:07:25 PM · #558

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

...if the universe can be proven to be rational, then it eliminates the concept "God" from consideration.[/i] I think that's bullshit, frankly. Both emotionally and logically. I think the intricate, provable structure that links all things can be seen, perfectly validly, as proof of Her existence.

The intricate, provable structure that leads from energy to subatomic particles to atoms to molecules to minerals to entire planets and galaxies needn't imply, much less prove, anything greater pushing buttons behind the scenes. Indeed, if that were the case, then the complexity of that being, in turn, would imply/prove an even more complex creator behind that, and so on ad infinitum.

Insert any other supposed magical being in place of God (fairies, Zeus, Horus, unicorns, etc.) and it doesn't change your assertion. The mere possibility that one or more of that group might exist isn't very compelling, particularly when each requires the suspension of natural laws (unlike a "love potion" which might have some basis in chemistry). The history of that argument runs something like this:

Magical beings claimed to exist: tens or hundreds of thousands
Magical beings demonstrated to actually exist: 0
Magical beings still assumed to be real: usually 1

FireBird

02/24/2009 11:41:38 PM · #559

Originally posted by scalvert:

Indeed, if that were the case, then the complexity of that being, in turn, would imply/prove an even more complex creator behind that, and so on ad infinitum.

So it appears you're afraid if there was a god it would be turtles all the way down.

02/25/2009 12:02:11 AM · #560

Originally posted by FireBird:

So it appears you're afraid if there was a god it would be turtles all the way down.

Just pointing out, as I have on numerous occasions, that the concept of "intelligent design" or "prime mover" is ultimately its own downfall. If the universe is so complex that it must require a creator, then that creator must also require a creator since the knowledge and ability to create a universe should be even MORE complex, the creator's creator would then require it's own creator, and so on. This obvious paradox should make it clear that the initial supposition must be false.

Canon FD 70-210mm f/4.0 MF

02/25/2009 12:46:38 AM · #561

I have not seen this thread before, but I do have questions...

Why is Divorce looked upon so badly in the Xtianity circles? In basic terms how dare I get judged as such. Seems simple for people that have not walked in my shoes...

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

02/25/2009 08:05:21 AM · #562

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I'm just pointing out the things move in and out of our comprehension with fair regularity, that last week's anathema is this week's gospel, and that for all that you can prove to your own satisfaction how this, that, or the other thing is, ultimately, rational, for all of that I have never seen an explanation for what's apparently the underlying assumption of your position:

That if the universe can be proven to be rational, then it eliminates the concept "God" from consideration.

No, I think that the rational, materialist nature of the universe simply renders the concept of "God" unnecessary. As I said above, you can certainly posit a god or gods that fits within such a universe, but this is not the type of god that people of faith believes exist; an interventionist god. For me, the provably materialistic nature of the universe shifts the burden of evidence onto those who would make God claims - that is, if the universe shows no evidence for some supernatural entity or entities, why should we believe? (Or, if you claim the universe does show evidence for a supernatural entity, what evidence is there for this claim?)

Also, I don't think it is accurate to say that "things move in and out of our comprehension." The scientific revolution of the last century or so, shows a steady, cumulative increase in understanding. The only way you can make the claim that things move in and out of our comprehension is to say something like, "Well we used to be sure that disease was caused by bad odors, but now we believe it is caused by germs." The problem with that is that the germ theory of disease is highly unlikely to be overturned. It will be refined and previous work will be added to, but the new, better understandings we achieve isn't the same as overturning prior understandings. True paradigm shifts are extremely rare, and become rarer still all the time. The possibility must, I suppose, always exists for such shifts in science, but the probability becomes smaller with every advancement to our understanding.

02/25/2009 09:46:17 AM · #563

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

The possibility must, I suppose, always exists for such shifts in science, but the probability becomes smaller with every advancement to our understanding.

Case in point would be quantum mechanics, chaos theory, stuff like that, attacking some of the strongest underpinnings of Newtonian physics. I'm not being hardass on this, really, but for the longest time there we *knew* the fundamental, underlying nature of the universe, then it turns we didn't after all. And now what we have is a whole bunch of wild speculation (I'm all in favor of that, BTW) as scientists try to nail down stuff that's *way* out there, and we have stuff like Schrodinger's cat (old example I know) and basically, at a fundamental level, we just have educated guesses at the force that holds the universe together, and whilst that's fine with me (I love the sense of exploration it brings) it seems to me things are maybe just a little less cut-'n-dried than y'all would have us believe out in realityville.

Remember when "everyone" thought space was filled with "the ether"? Then we "realized" it was a vacuum, a void? And now we *think* it's actually chock-a-block *full* of something called "dark matter"?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying any of this invalidates science, I understand it's the scientific process at work, I'm all for it, but my point is certainties become less certain all the time.

R.

02/25/2009 12:23:05 PM · #564

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

For me, the provably materialistic nature of the universe shifts the burden of evidence onto those who would make God claims ...

I think Bear has a good point that we do not understand as much as we may think we do. I'll also just point out that your statement above is self-fulfilling because of the underlying assumptions. The universe is only proven to be materialistic because we only use materialistic methods to measure it. Why would we expect otherwise? In the rest of your post, however, you are summarizing a strong argument; the "God of the gaps", but while this line of reasoning has some strength, it does not go the whole way. As mentioned in every financial ad, and as we are far too aware of in these current times, "past performance does not predict future results". So while it is entirely possible the march of scientific knowledge will progress until we know all there is to know, it is also possible we will run up against walls that are impenetrable (ie. phenomena exist that cannot be explained by material methods). And while those walls exist (and they will certainly exist as long as you and I are alive), the "God of the gaps" adherent is placing an educated bet just as someone who is willing to guess some of those walls will always remain and represent evidence that there is more to the universe than its material nature.

This argument can be found strewn through Rant and I know we've been here many times. But I felt compelled to respond like a kid in front of a Whack-a-mole game.

02/25/2009 12:33:55 PM · #565

Originally posted by MQuinn:

Good question. I would respond to say that difference circles hold different amounts of abhorance for divorce although everybody agrees it is not the wished for result of a marriage (I think you can agree with that as well). The bible has many passsages saying divorce is something God detests. However, the bible also says divorce is something God has allowed. In biblical times, divorce was a one-sided proposition. It became the practice that men could divorce their wife for more or less any reason. Women, on the other hand, had a very limited ability to sue for divorce. Some of the bible's revulsion of divorce needs to be seen in this context and it is the lack of social justice which is invoking such a strong response. In our society we don't have this issue, although it is replaced with the problem of taking marriage too lightly. Marriage is a sacred bond and your basic divorce flies in the face of the importance of such.

Anyway, I don't know your situation and frankly I think there are cases where divorce is the best option of many poor options. I do always have little alarm bells go off when I hear someone say "how dare you". While you may have been justified in your divorce (again I have no clue of the circumstances), I doubt you have zero guilt in the situation (because everybody has failed in some regard to be the perfect spouse). I'm not judging you because I'm simply grouping you with everybody else (including myself), but sometimes an argument of "but I did nothing wrong!" is met with a stronger resistance than the circumstances would otherwise warrant.

02/25/2009 01:02:11 PM · #566

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The universe is only proven to be materialistic because we only use materialistic methods to measure it.

That's brilliant! If we measure things that don't exist with methods that don't exist, then anything becomes possible. It's like saying mathematical theorems are only proven because we use numbers. :-/

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

...the "God of the gaps" adherent is placing an educated bet just as someone who is willing to guess some of those walls will always remain and represent evidence that there is more to the universe than its material nature.

The only thing "educated" about assuming a magical explanation is that it's what you've been "taught."

Love,
The Mole.

02/25/2009 01:30:33 PM · #567

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The universe is only proven to be materialistic because we only use materialistic methods to measure it.

That's brilliant! If we measure things that don't exist with methods that don't exist, then anything becomes possible. It's like saying mathematical theorems are only proven because we use numbers. :-/

No, I think it's like saying poetry doesn't exist because every time we do mathematical calculations we wind up with numbers.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Scalvert:

The only thing "educated" about assuming a magical explanation is that it's what you've been "taught."

Perhaps. But the same can be said for the assumption that we will be able to explain everything at some mystical point in the future when currently we clearly cannot. It's a worldview and it's chosen. I'm not saying it's not rational and I'm not saying it doesn't make sense and I'm not saying smart people shouldn't chose it, but I'm saying it is what it is, an educated bet. Obviously you think it's a bet worth making, but other people (smart people) feel the smart money falls on the other side.

Message edited by author 2009-02-25 13:30:56.

02/25/2009 08:54:44 PM · #568

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Anyway, I don't know your situation and frankly I think there are cases where divorce is the best option of many poor options. I do always have little alarm bells go off when I hear someone say "how dare you". While you may have been justified in your divorce (again I have no clue of the circumstances), I doubt you have zero guilt in the situation (because everybody has failed in some regard to be the perfect spouse). I'm not judging you because I'm simply grouping you with everybody else (including myself), but sometimes an argument of "but I did nothing wrong!" is met with a stronger resistance than the circumstances would otherwise warrant.

My situation was from infidelity, not on my part but my exwifes. She basically was meeting up with men for sex through the internet. She did it the first time early on in our 10 year marriage. I forgave her the first time and really tryed to step up in my marriage. Through the Catholic counsler we worked on steps to repair the damage done to the marriage of her actions. I was told I need to step up, I admitted my faults, and really tryed to make it work. The next time around she hid it better, by the time I found out for 2 years she was hooking up with men. The marriage was unfixable. I know divorce is always the last choice, but at that point it was my only choice. My fault in the whole thing was I married her in the first place. It was all her actions that ended any hopes for our marriage. Course the kicker of it all is my exwife conceived our first child one day before I found out her double life. I filed for divorce before even knowing she was pregnant, that didn't come up till well into the divorce. Yes its DNA proof positive my son.

But I was judged instantly by the church I had been at since I was 7 years old. Snide under voice comments of how I just up and left my wife while she was pregnant, and such. This was the only church I had ever known, but I kept my mouth shut and didn't say anything about my divorce, I really didn't think it was their business. It all came to a head when I was going to baptise my son. I was pulled to the side and told that the church leaders really don't think its a good idea and agreed. Not only was I judged but my son was also, he didn't do a thing wrong! I never went back to that church after that, in fact none of my family goes there anymore.

I don't blame God on that one, that was all the followers of that church. So wraped up in the rumor mill with limited grasps on facts. But I do feel slighted by those people that chose to form their own conclusions. I didn't ask to be in the position Im in, it just kinda happened. Gods got my back on this, my son who is 15 months old now looks nothing like my exwife, and totally a spitting image of me:)

02/25/2009 09:37:15 PM · #569

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The universe is only proven to be materialistic because we only use materialistic methods to measure it.

That's brilliant! If we measure things that don't exist with methods that don't exist, then anything becomes possible. It's like saying mathematical theorems are only proven because we use numbers. :-/

No, I think it's like saying poetry doesn't exist because every time we do mathematical calculations we wind up with numbers.

Given that poetry is also the literary product of human imagination, I certainly can't argue with that. ;-)

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

The only thing "educated" about assuming a magical explanation is that it's what you've been "taught."

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

But the same can be said for the assumption that we will be able to explain everything at some mystical point in the future when currently we clearly cannot.

I don't know of anyone who holds that assumption. As I've often stated, events and processes can have a natural explanation even if we don't know what it is, and the idea that we'll never have all the answers is perfectly acceptable to me. We will never know the exact position and momentum of an electron, but we needn't resort to miracles to fill that gap in knowledge.

02/25/2009 09:44:50 PM · #570

Originally posted by MQuinn:

I kept my mouth shut and didn't say anything about my divorce, I really didn't think it was their business.

If you stop and think about it, their business is exactly what it is.

02/25/2009 09:54:43 PM · #571

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by MQuinn:
I kept my mouth shut and didn't say anything about my divorce, I really didn't think it was their business.

If you stop and think about it, their business is exactly what it is.

Could you explain this to me further? Im kinda confused on your response...

02/25/2009 09:59:54 PM · #572

Organized religion is a business, and "life issues" â�� birth, marriage, divorce and death â�� are the big moneymakers. Your divorce is literally their business.

02/25/2009 10:38:56 PM · #573

Originally posted by MQuinn:

But I was judged instantly by the church I had been at since I was 7 years old. Snide under voice comments of how I just up and left my wife while she was pregnant, and such. This was the only church I had ever known, but I kept my mouth shut and didn't say anything about my divorce, I really didn't think it was their business. It all came to a head when I was going to baptise my son. I was pulled to the side and told that the church leaders really don't think its a good idea and agreed. Not only was I judged but my son was also, he didn't do a thing wrong! I never went back to that church after that, in fact none of my family goes there anymore.

Ya, I gotta say I don't have a lot of patience for behavior like this. Pretty lame.

Thanks for sharing the personal story. I certainly cannot blame you for taking the action you did.

02/25/2009 10:41:51 PM · #574

Originally posted by scalvert:

I hear you Shannon. You are just restating your position. I hold the exact same position except I am happy to allow the miraculous to intervene. It's not that I don't think we should always explore for answers, but I'm satisfied that some things may not be answerable by science.