Science and Theology, the sequel

02/16/2010 05:19:13 PM · #1201

That seems nothing but an ad hominem attack Louis. Speaking honestly. A) The man is small potatoes and B) he's old and senile. How does that speak to his argument? as well as pointing out that it would be twice in only a few days the denizens of DPC Rant "know better" than the people who speak for themselves (a la Michael Vick and now Flew).

I also smile bemusedly at the fact that "philosophy circles" are virtually unknown by whomever you were quoting. That sounds just like many people we find here. Philosophy? It's CRAP! (best Mike Myers impression) Who needs it?

Did you catch he was the first to give name to the "no true scotsmen" argument? Anybody who has been around these discussions before is bound to know that argument. I'm not trying to inflate his reputation, but to simply say he is "nobody" is somewhat arguing from ignorance.

Message edited by author 2010-02-16 17:26:02.

02/16/2010 06:47:40 PM · #1202

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Surely you know that "The Bible" has been through numerous editing processes whereby certain documents were included and others omitted, depending on which group did the editing, and that not all "versions" of the Bible contain the same stories -- this is not even getting down to the level of the decisions made as to how to translate or interpret certain passages. Good God (pun intended), the very fact that there is more than one version of "the Bible" extant today id de facto "support of my claim." If God indeed gave you the ability to reason, at least use it once in a while.

Surely you know that this is a common misconception and that the books of The Bible were almost unanimously accepted as canonical (authoritative) ever since they were written. There are a few exceptions, of course, regarding the New Testament canon, specifically the books of Jude, Hebrews, and 2nd Peter were questioned. However, that was all sorted out very easily. Other writings came around later, but the early church fathers did not accept those books as canonical. The early Christians had two criteria for determining if a NT book was authoritative. It had to be written by an apostle and it had to be written during the lifetime of the apostles (first century). There were many books that surfaced and and their authority was questioned, but the early church fathers did not question the authority of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, etc... We have the Muratorian Canon as early evidence of which books were considered authoritative. We also have numerous letters and documents from the early church fathers that quote directly, and almost exclusively, from many of the New Testament books as further evidence of what was accepted as canonical and what wasn't.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Nope. You spent 6 paragraphs dancing all around "God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false" without actually acknowledging the simple fact that he lied. Whether or not those he lied to would have believed the truth anyway is both irrelevant to your claim that God never lies and a blatant act of entrapment. They had already been judged wicked before this deceit, and "God lies in order to condemn those who don't believe the truth" is a circular statement. Oh, and so much for free will... the story here has God making absolutely certain that some people cannot make a 'correct' choice of their own volition.

Ugh... Here's a good explanation of this "strong delusion" that might be helpful. At any rate, this is an advanced theological question, and there are a number of good explanations for this. The main point is that God does not deliberately lie in order to cause people to reject him. The "strong delusion" that God sends in this passage is a result of the fact that the people already chose to reject God. Those people are already lost and condemned, so God is not forcing a choice, but is judging for a choice that has already been made. This is not "dancing". This is careful exegesis my friend.

Originally posted by RayEthier:

If indeed this is the scenario you envisage I would strongly suggest you not embark in a career in law enforcement. By his very actions, your God has deliberately enticed people into doing something they might not otherwise have engaged in. One would think that if judgement has not yet been passed that there might have existed a possibility for salvation... but all hope is gone now that these poor weak people have been enticed into a life of sin by both Satan and God...what chance did they have?

As I just explained, God has not deliberately enticed people to doing something they wouldn't want. The passage clearly says that the people have already decided to reject God. In essence, God is just giving them what they want. They already chose to reject God, so God is just allowing them to reject him further. To get deeper into this, I would have to explain predestination and the "elect" to you. God doesn't force people to reject him, but he will use those who have already rejected him for his purposes. The people had their chance, and they rejected God.

Originally posted by RayEthier:

...Hmmmm, kinda throws a wrench into that "Forgive and Forget" thing I heard so much about.

Well, that's not really a biblical concept anyways. God doesn't forget anything.

Originally posted by Matthew:

We seem to be talking at cross purposes. I am talking about personal politics â�� not the governance of the empire. From what you say, you probably agree that Christianity offered something new to people and by preaching equality it will have redefined their personal relationship with other people and the state. That was the upside, and persecution was the downside.

I agree with that.

Originally posted by Matthew:

It is an enjoyable discourse. However, it bemuses me how apparently intelligent people can accept something so illogical and against reason as the existence of an interventionist god in the world. The US bucks the international trend (together with Ireland) that shows a clear correlation between higher education and higher rates of atheism (or to put it in a less inflammatory way, a correlation between the lack of education and higher levels of religious belief).

Those who believe don't think religion is illogical, otherwise they wouldn't believe it. Nobody believes in anything unless they think it's logical and religious people are no exception. Just because it's illogical to you, doesn't mean it's illogical to everyone.

Originally posted by Matthew:

I thought that you believed that interpretation of the bible was an objective affair (not prone to multiple and differing interpretations)?

I believe that The Bible has only one right interpretation, but for some passages that one right interpretation is not clear. There are plenty of verses that don't require any further interpretation than what the words clearly say, and there are some that have attracted mountains of speculation.

Originally posted by Matthew:

Does it not worry you that we need a study guide to point us to one way of interpreting these verses that makes some sort of sense? Surely you can understand the accusation that the natural meaning of words needs to be twisted in order to make the bible internally consistent to any great degree.

It doesn't worry me because like I said above, this issue is one of those that has a lot of deep theology involved. All matters that pertain to Salvation are crystal clear. Once you believe, then you have a desire and a need to dig deeper. The words don't need to be "twisted" in order for The Bible to be internally consistent. Bible scholars know their Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic pretty darn well, and they don't suggest new translations that are outside the realm of possibilities. As with all languages, words have multiple meanings. This "twisting" that you are referring to is really nothing more than considering all the possibilities of what a text could mean, and choosing the one that is most consistent with the rest of The Bible.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

02/16/2010 07:02:10 PM · #1203

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
it is fallacy to simply reject something on grounds that it is too complicated

Flew said again that his deism was the result of his... "own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself â�� which is far more complex than the physical Universe â�� can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source."

That would be your aforementioned fallacy.

not all fallacies are created equally and what you seem to consider one seems to have other reasonable people giving some actual consideration.

Dude, YOU said that the very thing Flew describes is a fallacy! That someone uses that fallacy as the basis for his belief does not excuse it.

Louis

Nikon D800

02/16/2010 07:05:13 PM · #1204

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

That seems nothing but an ad hominem attack Louis. Speaking honestly.

Actually, no. It's in fact a sad story, and anyone who either knows Antony Flew or is much smarter and more empathetic than I will tell you the same (including Richard Dawkins). That's why it's so reprehensible that anyone would use him in any way whatsoever to support, of all things, a position in an argument. He's gravely ill, and a brilliant intellectual career is being sullied by a few low-minded opportunists. That's how I see it.

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

02/16/2010 07:08:37 PM · #1205

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

There are a few exceptions, of course, regarding the New Testament canon... However, that was all sorted out very easily.

02/16/2010 07:15:27 PM · #1206

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

God does not deliberately lie in order to cause people to reject him. The "strong delusion" that God sends in this passage is a result of the fact that the people already chose to reject God. Those people are already lost and condemned, so God is not forcing a choice, but is judging for a choice that has already been made.

You're still not disputing the fact that God lies. Just just making excuses for it... and poor ones at that. If the people are already condemned, then why even bother furthering the offense with your own deceit? It would be like the IRS determining that people cheat on their taxes and then giving them the wrong tax tables to make sure that they do (and you claiming the IRS never gives bad information). Funny that your link tries so hard to explain that the passage doesn't really say what it says. At least play some music while you dance.

02/16/2010 07:16:03 PM · #1207

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
There are a few exceptions, of course, regarding the New Testament canon... However, that was all sorted out very easily.

What I mean is that it wasn't hard to figure out which books had apostolic authorship and which ones didn't. Hebrews was the only book that was accepted without known authorship on the basis that the theology in Hebrews is very close to Paul's theology. There were questions whether extra-biblical books should later on, but there were very few questions regarding the authority of the NT books that we have today.

02/16/2010 07:17:24 PM · #1208

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Surely you know that this is a common misconception and that the books of The Bible were almost unanimously accepted as canonical (authoritative) ever since they were written.

ROFL!

02/16/2010 07:26:59 PM · #1209

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
That seems nothing but an ad hominem attack Louis. Speaking honestly.

Actually, no. It's in fact a sad story, and anyone who either knows Antony Flew or is much smarter and more empathetic than I will tell you the same (including Richard Dawkins). That's why it's so reprehensible that anyone would use him in any way whatsoever to support, of all things, a position in an argument. He's gravely ill, and a brilliant intellectual career is being sullied by a few low-minded opportunists. That's how I see it.

Oh, well, if Dawkins' says it...

Personally, I would think if he was being used as a mouthpiece by someone else that Flew would have lucid moments where he would denounce his "conversion" (to deism), but we don't see that. Plus his quotes still sound intelligent to me. I'm afraid your rebuttal is just too simplistic an answer and, like it or not, does, by definition, qualify as ad hominem. We should ignore the argument because of some quality about the person making it.

02/16/2010 07:29:02 PM · #1210

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Umm...

I don't think that you ought to go down that path. Definitions start to get in the way, plus you're speaking for people who may not necessarily agree with that idea.

Faith is illogical......yet people have it based on beliefs that cannot be proven.

Religion is the product of man, and is not only illogical, it's irrational, and over the years has been destructive and dangerous. Everything that man has done badly in the name of God will for the most part slot into some category of religion.

Here's a f'rinstance.....I believe in God.....for my own reasons, and I can't really explain it all that well. Don't necessarily care to, and don't have to, either.

Because of what I feel to be my relationship with God, I'm cool with it being kinda irrational.

But I pretty much have no use for organized religion 'cause I have yet to see one that doesn't try to convince the rest of the world that their version is the right version. That just seems so arrogant. Even if they're not openly evangelistic aboiut it, there's always something of an air of superiority that goes along with being convinced that you've got it right. I can't deal with that. So consequently I float around from church to church trying to find people who are more interested in doing and being good to the people around them because it's the right thing to do. Not too much luck so far. I've met individuals here and there that I felt were the closest thing to angels on earth, yet they generally seem to be singular in their work, and seem to be on the outskirts of the congregation quietly helping people who really need them.

02/16/2010 07:30:48 PM · #1211

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Who gets to ascertain what that one interpretation is?

02/16/2010 07:37:52 PM · #1212

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

there were very few questions regarding the authority of the NT books that we have today.

Ya oughta nail that down a little.

Very few questions from the people studying it who are responsible for its current acceptance, right? And very few questions still isn't *NO* questions.

It's really kind of a concensus rather than something proven. Granted, perhaps an educated concensus, but still nothing that can be verified.

It was cool that you finally admitted that there is no absolute authority, e.g. an original copy, and that assemblage of stories was carefully corroborated amongst learned men of the time, but again, you have to concede that this is still only man's best effort to create an "Owner's Manual" for Christianity. It just doesn't have direct provenance.

02/16/2010 08:54:49 PM · #1213

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Oh, well, if Dawkins' says it...

I'm afraid your rebuttal is just too simplistic an answer and, like it or not, does, by definition, qualify as ad hominem. We should ignore the argument because of some quality about the person making it.

Um, hello?

The esteemed Mr. Flew says, "My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species..." So the ONLY reason he believes in the possibility of a god (emphatically not the interventionist Christian type) is because of what you declared a fallacy. That's not much of a foundation.

02/16/2010 08:56:49 PM · #1214

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Surely you know that this is a common misconception and that the books of The Bible were almost unanimously accepted as canonical (authoritative) ever since they were written.

ROFL!

I said almost unanimously... as I said before Jude, Hebrews, and 2 Peter were questioned, but only because there was uncertainty regarding authorship. Think of it this way, the process of decided which books were canonical did not involve adding in the books that we have now, rather it involved eliminating the books that were obviously not canonical. Most of the New Testament books were never questioned.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

It was cool that you finally admitted that there is no absolute authority, e.g. an original copy, and that assemblage of stories was carefully corroborated amongst learned men of the time, but again, you have to concede that this is still only man's best effort to create an "Owner's Manual" for Christianity. It just doesn't have direct provenance.

Systematic theology always starts with two doctrines: the doctrine of Scripture and the doctrine of God. Before you can begin doing theology, you need to establish that Scripture is divinely inspired, inerrant, and preserved through time. While no original exists, and it is impossible to verify that today's Bible matches the originals, we can continue doing theology on the basis of faith. This really isn't all that different than how science is done. You take what's seen, develop theories about what's not seen, and continue theorizing on the basis of the new yet unproven theories.

Message edited by author 2010-02-16 20:57:09.

02/16/2010 09:08:25 PM · #1215

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Before you can begin doing theology, you need to establish that Scripture is divinely inspired, inerrant, and preserved through time.

Okay.....how does one do that?

Since you cannot really prove any of that, it has to be a leap of faith.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

While no original exists, and it is impossible to verify that today's Bible matches the originals, we can continue doing theology on the basis of faith.

Again with that leap. And what has to be done in that case is acceptance of the given of the faith without the proof. That's okay, but then you have to acknowledge that the way it works is through the acceptance of that given, and that you work forward from there as to how you make your life choices.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

This really isn't all that different than how science is done. You take what's seen, develop theories about what's not seen, and continue theorizing on the basis of the new yet unproven theories.

Umm.....not exactly. Science has that pesky thing with theories actually being proven, disproven, modified, updated, and there is considerable cross-checking and evaluation.

Pretty much none of that applies to faith because it all hinges on the decision, and choice, to make the leap of faith, accept what cannot be proven, and use that as your given in perpetuity.

By no means a logical, scientific process.

02/16/2010 09:30:27 PM · #1216

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Before you can begin doing theology, you need to establish that Scripture is divinely inspired, inerrant, and preserved through time.

Okay.....how does one do that?

Since you cannot really prove any of that, it has to be a leap of faith.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

You're right, it is a leap of faith. Most theologians start with Scripture and, taking a leap of faith, believe that it is inerrant. After that, most theologians develop a theology of God. They look at what Scripture says about God (after already establishing that Scripture is true) and determine what his character is. After determining God's character (loving, truthful, faithful, just, holy, powerful, etc.) most theologians conclude that God wants to lead people to himself through His word (Scripture) which means that Scripture must be truthful and faithful to God's character (otherwise it wouldn't work in leading people to him). Once you "take the leap of faith" and assume that Scripture is inerrant, Christian theology becomes extremely logical. If you can't get past that first leap, then nothing will seem logical.

1 Corinthians 1:18, "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Yes, but what about the scientific theories that haven't been proven yet? If it hasn't been proven, we still assume that it can be proven in the future. The difference is that when scientific theories prove to be true, all we get is more security in human intelligence. When (and for some people, IF) Christianity proves to be true, those who believed it will get Salvation.

02/16/2010 09:41:42 PM · #1217

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Oh, well, if Dawkins' says it...

I'm afraid your rebuttal is just too simplistic an answer and, like it or not, does, by definition, qualify as ad hominem. We should ignore the argument because of some quality about the person making it.

Um, hello?

The esteemed Mr. Flew says, "My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species..." So the ONLY reason he believes in the possibility of a god (emphatically not the interventionist Christian type) is because of what you declared a fallacy. That's not much of a foundation.

Oh, that. Don't take me so literally. When I said "all fallacies are not created equally" I meant that you might consider it a fallacy but others do not. Personally, if I labelled the above argument with the appropriate atheist moniker, I'd think it was a "God-of-the-gaps" argument rather than ID specifically. I actually don't think it to be a fallacy at all. I agree, that when considering the existence of God, one must "take into consideration" the fact that we cannot currently explain the origin of DNA of the first reproducing species. I'm not saying it is proof, but I am saying that it needs to be discussed and not simply dismissed in the manner that is often done here (by people such as yourself) with a non-challant declaration of "fallacy!".

02/16/2010 09:51:09 PM · #1218

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
it is fallacy to simply reject something on grounds that it is too complicated

Flew said again that his deism was the result of his... "own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself â�� which is far more complex than the physical Universe â�� can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source."

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I actually don't think it to be a fallacy at all.

Make up your mind.

02/16/2010 10:08:41 PM · #1219

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Yes, but what about the scientific theories that haven't been proven yet?

Those would be called "Unproven Theories"......8>)

There is usually, by this point in the evolution of society and human knowledge some genuine basis for most theories. Not too much in the way of, "The world is flat." coming along these days.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

If it hasn't been proven, we still assume that it can be proven in the future.

Um....no. We assume nothing, work towards evaluating the pros and cons, and in the case of the proponent of the theory, hope it works out.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

The difference is that when scientific theories prove to be true, all we get is more security in human intelligence.

And the validation of the theory often brings advances in other ways that were dependent on the theory's veracity. We gain knowledge......it's not quite so simplistic.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

When (and for some people, IF) Christianity proves to be true, those who believed it will get Salvation.

Here's another of those differences........ONE theory, nothing about it yet proven on any level......and it's the entire basis of a way of life? That really isn't logical if you use any sort of set of practical set of standards for a scientific method. The two simply aren't comparable.

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

02/16/2010 10:18:31 PM · #1220

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Here's the thing... Science isn't religion, and religion isn't science. However, religion can be just as logical as science can. Logic can be applied to pretty much anything. I don't care if you don't think religion isn't scientific, but I do care if you call science logical while claiming that religion is illogical. Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it is void of logic.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

02/16/2010 10:34:34 PM · #1221

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Well when conclusions don't flow from logic what else should be declared? From a scientific perspective what value does it hold in discussing the possibility of god as oppose to say unicorns?

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

02/16/2010 10:40:27 PM · #1222

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

God doesn't force people to reject him, but he will use those who have already rejected him for his purposes. The people had their chance, and they rejected God.

Originally posted by RayEthier:

...Hmmmm, kinda throws a wrench into that "Forgive and Forget" thing I heard so much about.

Well, that's not really a biblical concept anyways. God doesn't forget anything.

OK, having said that maybe you can explain this to me:

Hebrews 8:12 (NIV)
12 For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.â��

Ray

02/16/2010 11:20:34 PM · #1223

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Oh, that. Don't take me so literally. When I said "all fallacies are not created equally" I meant that you might consider it a fallacy but others do not. Personally, if I labelled the above argument with the appropriate atheist moniker, I'd think it was a "God-of-the-gaps" argument rather than ID specifically. I actually don't think it to be a fallacy at all. I agree, that when considering the existence of God, one must "take into consideration" the fact that we cannot currently explain the origin of DNA of the first reproducing species. I'm not saying it is proof, but I am saying that it needs to be discussed and not simply dismissed in the manner that is often done here (by people such as yourself) with a non-challant declaration of "fallacy!".

Well when conclusions don't flow from logic what else should be declared? From a scientific perspective what value does it hold in discussing the possibility of god as oppose to say unicorns?

From a scientific perspective? Very little. I've never put God in the realm of Science. I am just fine with a Scientist carrying out his experiments under the assumption that God does not exist. However, it bears remembering that when the Scientist goes home he leaves his one-world job and enters a two-world reality.

Does that make any sense?