| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/16/2010 11:30:44 PM · #1226 |
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 [quote=yanko] 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!". |
Originally posted by yanko:
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? |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
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 the Scientist goes home he leaves his one-world job and enters a two-world reality.
Does that make any sense? |
Why would the scientist world differ from one environment to the next? ... or are you suggesting that the type of work he performs renders him one dimensional, devoid of any appreciation of his surroundings. I seriously doubt that believers and non-believers alike alter their perception of reality based solely on their surroundings.
Maybe I am totally misunderstand what it is you are trying to advance ...
Ray
Message edited by author 2010-02-16 23:31:23. |
|
|
|
02/16/2010 11:38:47 PM · #1227 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
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 |
God is omniscient, he knows everything, therefore he can't NOT know (i.e. forget) something. When this passage says that God, "will remember their sins no more" it's basically saying that God will not hold our sins against us. In other words, our sins are as good as forgotten, but since God is omniscient he can't forget.
Message edited by author 2010-02-16 23:46:41. |
|
|
|
02/16/2010 11:43:06 PM · #1228 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
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 |
Where is this whole argument going? Are we trying to corner God into some immoral action? or are you trying to change Johnny's conception of God? The first is impossible under the Christian system (ie. God is not measured against some independent standard of morality, God IS the standard of morality. God's actions are "good" by definition not by comparison.). |
Actually, I was not concerned in either of the two scenarios you allude to. Rather, my query was relating to Johnny's response to my question and the seemingly contradiction contained in Hebrews. I am merely curious as to how one explains this dichotomy.
NOTE: NO need to address this one Doc...I see Johnny has already addressed it.
Ray
Message edited by author 2010-02-16 23:46:26. |
|
|
|
02/17/2010 12:48:17 AM · #1229 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Why would the scientist world differ from one environment to the next? ... or are you suggesting that the type of work he performs renders him one dimensional, devoid of any appreciation of his surroundings. I seriously doubt that believers and non-believers alike alter their perception of reality based solely on their surroundings.
Maybe I am totally misunderstand what it is you are trying to advance ...
Ray |
Ya, maybe I'm not being clear. Basically I'm saying that we have so much success with Science we assume it is applicable to our whole life, when it isn't. I just illustrated with the Scientist (as a job). It's fine with me that he not inject God into his work (in other words, he should always look for natural answers until they just can't be found), but I'd feel sorry for him if he went home and tried to apply Science to loving his wife or how he ought to live.
Perhaps I read too much into Richard's phrase "from a Scientific perspective". It just seemed to imply that no other perspective mattered. Maybe he wasn't saying that at all. |
|
|
|
02/17/2010 12:51:00 AM · #1230 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
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. |
So if someone is not fit to put forth a valid argument and we call them on it, we are committing ad hominem? You misunderstand ad hominem then. |
Be reasonable. If someone is not fit to put forth a valid argument, couldn't the argument be easily shown invalid through rational thought? I declare ad hominem because you haven't spent one moment contemplating what he is saying (or what someone else is saying through him), but rather only declared him to be senile. |
|
|
|
02/17/2010 05:38:07 AM · #1231 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... I just illustrated with the Scientist (as a job). It's fine with me that he not inject God into his work (in other words, he should always look for natural answers until they just can't be found), but I'd feel sorry for him if he went home and tried to apply Science to loving his wife or how he ought to live. |
Why would you feel sorry for him? |
|
|
|
02/17/2010 08:53:17 AM · #1232 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
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. |
So if someone is not fit to put forth a valid argument and we call them on it, we are committing ad hominem? You misunderstand ad hominem then. |
Be reasonable. If someone is not fit to put forth a valid argument, couldn't the argument be easily shown invalid through rational thought? I declare ad hominem because you haven't spent one moment contemplating what he is saying (or what someone else is saying through him), but rather only declared him to be senile. |
You're not listening. I never once discussed any argument he put forward. I said exactly that his last book was not co-authored bit ghost written while he was in an advanced state of aphasia, a fact supported by a corroborating source. |
|
|
|
02/17/2010 09:22:14 AM · #1233 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
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. |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Here's the thing... Science isn't religion, and religion isn't science. |
Hold onto that thought as you'll need to remember this.....
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
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. |
You're making some assumptions, and trying to tie the two things together and you cannot.
Let's just discuss your religion issue as it pertains to logic. You may, perhaps, use logic to justify your religion when you move forward from an unptrovable given, but that process in and of itself isn't logical.
When you have processes that are validated, proven, and continue on in a linear manner, then that's logical. If you try and rest your theory on something you cannot prove, it will always be subject to the possibility that it's wrong. That's a logical step. If you create a theory based on something that you want to be true, sooner or later, it has to be proven in order for it to be logical.
|
|
|
|
02/17/2010 09:45:53 AM · #1234 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
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 choosing to assume 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. |
I would question whether the more fundamentalist flavors of Christianity are even capable of being internally consistent and/or logically coherent, but let's set that aside as I don't disagree with your general description above. The problem is that you don't appear to see how problematic the above process is for the generation of reliable truth claims.
One can certainly use logic to develop a consistent theology out of an inconsistent source, but that does not mean that it is reasonable to do so. If you remove the possibility that your underlying assumption may be false - that is, that the Bible is inerrant - then you will necessarily bend all available evidence to support that assumption. Evidence that does not support or appears to contradict that underlying assumption will be misinterpreted or ignored as needed to maintain the assumption.
One may be able to develop a logically consistent interpretation of all evidence given the underlying assumption, but if that assumption does not accurately reflect reality, then the framework developed will not be reasonable no matter how logical and consistent it might be.
For example, the process that you describe could just as easily describe the approach that fans of Star Trek take to rationalize all the apparent inconsistencies in the different stories from the tv shows and movies. Trekkers start from the assumption that the shows and movies "in-errantly" describe the Star Trek universe and the lives of the characters. Then, after taking this leap of faith, they use logic to rationalize any apparent inconsistencies between the stories that make up the Star Trek canon. The end result is a logically consistent "theology" of Star Trek.
The difference, of course, is that nobody actually believes that the underlying assumption is an accurate reflection of reality. (Well, almost nobody. ;) To do so would be unreasonable, given what we know about the source of the Star Trek stories and the nature of the physical universe.
Many people do want to claim that the underlying assumptions of Christianity (or Islam/Hinduism/[insert religion of choice here]) are reasonable. This may have been true in earlier times when our knowledge of the universe and the source of the Biblical stories was much more limited. However, as our knowledge of both increases it grows ever more and more unreasonable to accept those underlying assumptions, no matter how logical the framework developed from those assumptions might be.
Message edited by author 2010-02-17 09:48:02.
|
|
|
|
02/17/2010 10:53:56 AM · #1235 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
For example, the process that you describe could just as easily describe the approach that fans of Star Trek take to rationalize all the apparent inconsistencies in the different stories from the tv shows and movies. Trekkers start from the assumption that the shows and movies "in-errantly" describe the Star Trek universe and the lives of the characters. Then, after taking this leap of faith, they use logic to rationalize any apparent inconsistencies between the stories that make up the Star Trek canon. The end result is a logically consistent "theology" of Star Trek. |
This is one of the better analogies I've seen to describe the pattern of truth-inventing involved in "the leap", not least because Alex and I have conversations I try to have conversations with Alex like this all time about inconsequential and pleasant fictions like Star Trek, etc. |
|
|
|
02/17/2010 11:14:37 AM · #1236 |
| Just as long as you guys don't start trying to tell me that elves and dwarves are NOT real... Or that "there can be only one" is fiction... Or, goddess forbid, there aren't really vampires. We all KNOW there are vampires. (Bob Costas. Just sayin') |
|
|
|
02/17/2010 11:51:36 AM · #1237 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
For example, the process that you describe could just as easily describe... a logically consistent "theology" of Star Trek. |
That's just scary... I thought of the exact same analogy in the second paragraph (before I got to yours). :-O |
|
|
|
02/17/2010 12:10:55 PM · #1238 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
For example, the process that you describe could just as easily describe... a logically consistent "theology" of Star Trek. |
That's just scary... I thought of the exact same analogy in the second paragraph (before I got to yours). :-O |
Parallel geek-processing in action. |
|
|
|
02/17/2010 12:18:11 PM · #1239 |
Me: Wait... did you hear that? Data just used a contraction!
Him: What?
Me: Data just said "it's"! Here, I'll roll it back.
Him: Oh God...
Me: I know! Why would he do that?
Him: Because Brent Spiner isn't an android?
Me: No, it's got to be something else. Where are they right now?
Him: On a sound stage in California.
Me: Come on. They're next to that Y-Class nebula. Maybe that has something to do with it.
Him: Can we just watch the show?
Me: But not even Geordi noticed. What's going on in this place? I'm sure it's the nebula. Apparently it affects organic brains as well as positronic ones.
Him: I'm going upstairs.
Me: I'll let you know if he does it again.
Him: You do that.
|
|
|
|
02/17/2010 12:44:55 PM · #1240 |
I'm going to speak frankly (and we'll see where that gets me). I think Shutterpuppy's post is quite reasonable and I think the human mind works like this where it uses information that supports a framework and ignores or changes information that does not. Christians are unlikely to be any different on this regard. However (we all know that was coming), two points:
1) I think the internal consistency of Christianity is greatly underappreciated by the members of this thread. If we assume the "worst case scenario" of multiple authors with their own agenda written over centuries, I have to say it's pretty amazing how consistent the worldview is. Sure, we can point to frayed edges, but the tapestry is, for the most part, very intricate and very intact. There are a number of issues that do not have obvious solutions, but it is disingenuous to BOTH say they don't exist or act like they obviate the whole framework.
2) As I have often pointed out, we are ALL very likely to fall under the influence of how our brain operates. So I don't find it very fruitful to browbeat our oppponents for doing something we likely do ourselves.
|
|
|
|
02/17/2010 12:53:03 PM · #1241 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
1) I think the internal consistency of Christianity is greatly underappreciated by the members of this thread. If we assume the "worst case scenario" of multiple authors with their own agenda written over centuries, I have to say it's pretty amazing how consistent the worldview is. |
And I would argue:
1) That Christianity (in general and as a whole) is not nearly as internally consistent as its adherents believe; and
2) That it is entirely expected and not at all amazing that it is internally consistent as it is.
ETA: Without specifically promoting the contents, I would refer to this blog for an interesting exercise on the supposed internal consistency of Christianity (although the author has, of late, been doing a lot of not specifically related politics posts): Failing the Insider Test
From the homepage: "Beliefs are not justified if they cannot pass the Outsider Test. That is, they must make some degree of sense even from the outside. This blog has been my prolonged argument that Christianity fails the insider test since I deconverted in April 2008."
Message edited by author 2010-02-17 13:02:20. |
|
|
|
02/17/2010 12:56:43 PM · #1242 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
2) As I have often pointed out, we are ALL very likely to fall under the influence of how our brain operates. |
Exactly, and that is why, if your goal is to develop a body of knowledge that accurately reflects reality, you will need a process by which the adverse tendencies built into the mechanics and influences of our brains can be mitigated.
That process is science and the scientific method. |
|
|
|
02/17/2010 01:38:36 PM · #1243 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
2) As I have often pointed out, we are ALL very likely to fall under the influence of how our brain operates. |
Exactly, and that is why, if your goal is to develop a body of knowledge that accurately reflects reality, you will need a process by which the adverse tendencies built into the mechanics and influences of our brains can be mitigated.
That process is science and the scientific method. |
The problem is the scientific method only provides data, it does not interpret. Humans do the interpretation and that's where things go back to getting sticky. Also, reiterating an oft said point, it doesn't matter how good the tool is if it's the wrong one for the situation. The best hammer in the world is not going to help you if you need a pair of needle-nosed pliers.
|
|
|
|
02/17/2010 01:41:21 PM · #1244 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think the internal consistency of Christianity is greatly underappreciated by the members of this thread. |
I disagree, and would also ask why it is that we're supposed to have this appreciation for a systemwe don't necessarily agree with......
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If we assume the "worst case scenario" of multiple authors with their own agenda written over centuries, I have to say it's pretty amazing how consistent the worldview is. Sure, we can point to frayed edges, but the tapestry is, for the most part, very intricate and very intact. There are a number of issues that do not have obvious solutions, but it is disingenuous to BOTH say they don't exist or act like they obviate the whole framework. |
Once again, the intricacy of the framework isn't much relevant if the premise is suspect, and/or unable to be verified.
I guess what I don't understand is why a few of you keep trying to insist on some kind of acceptibility and provenance which is not only unattainable, but is for the benefit of those of us who really don't buy into it in the first place.
It's faith, it's belief, you have every right to have faith in and believe whatever you like.......you just cannot offer it up to others who share your beliefs and/or faith as logical or reasonable if you have to base it all on an unproveable given.
|
|
|
|
02/17/2010 01:43:45 PM · #1245 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
From the homepage: "Beliefs are not justified if they cannot pass the Outsider Test. That is, they must make some degree of sense even from the outside. This blog has been my prolonged argument that Christianity fails the insider test since I deconverted in April 2008." |
But of course complexity can prevent an outsider from understanding at first and truth can be paradoxical or even antithetical to our instinct. Quantum mechanics is unlikely to pass the outside test, and is an electron a wave or a particle? Can something exist in two places at once? (We don't need to have a discussion, BTW, about Quantum Mechanics, the point is the "Outsider Test" is not as robust as the bloggist might speculate.
|
|
|
|
02/17/2010 01:45:50 PM · #1246 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Tell me you never wanted more than this...and I will stop talking now. |
Interesting tagline......especially considering the thread.
One of the biggest issues that I have with religions is this sense of thinking that you have to spread the word.
Why isn't it okay to respect the right of people who do not share your faith to *not* have to tell you they don't want to hear it?
Having someone come onto my property, knock on my door, and tell me I need to live their way is, to me, one of the most invasive attitudes I could conceive.
ETA: Okay.......I want more than this.....can you guarantee it and prove it?
Message edited by author 2010-02-17 13:47:19.
|
|
|
|
02/17/2010 01:50:28 PM · #1247 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Quantum mechanics is unlikely to pass the outside test, and is an electron a wave or a particle? Can something exist in two places at once? |
Anything subject to objective demonstration passes the outsider test. Faith, by definition, cannot. Scientific premises may be confirmed or disproven at any time, but faith is as eternal as the imagination permits. |
|
|
|
02/17/2010 01:50:39 PM · #1248 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Tell me you never wanted more than this...and I will stop talking now. |
Interesting tagline......especially considering the thread.
One of the biggest issues that I have with religions is this sense of thinking that you have to spread the word.
Why isn't it okay to respect the right of people who do not share your faith to *not* have to tell you they don't want to hear it?
Having someone come onto my property, knock on my door, and tell me I need to live their way is, to me, one of the most invasive attitudes I could conceive. |
Jeb, you must clearly see that your being here on this thread denotes your complete willingness to proselytize your own world view. It's a bit of the kettle/pot syndrome I'm afraid. And I'm sure you are going to qualify what you do as ok for such and such a reason, but it doesn't look like that from this side at all. You are happy to live and let live...UNTIL you see something you don't agree with (eg. people knocking on your door), then you are perfectly willing to give them an earful about what you think and how they should live and let live (ie. live your way).
You don't think you've gotten in trouble on this site, outside Rant, for sharing your opinion in a way others find to be strong and overbearing?
|
|
|
|
02/17/2010 01:58:57 PM · #1249 |
Originally posted by Shutterpuppy:
Christianity (in general and as a whole) is not nearly as internally consistent as its adherents believe |
Whatever "consistency" exists should hardly be surprising after a council gathers all related materials, picks a few in concordance (most based upon one or two earlier works), and rejects or modifies the rest to agree.
ETA- fixed quote
Message edited by author 2010-02-17 14:00:31. |
|
|
|
02/17/2010 02:01:45 PM · #1250 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Tell me you never wanted more than this...and I will stop talking now. |
Interesting tagline......especially considering the thread.
One of the biggest issues that I have with religions is this sense of thinking that you have to spread the word.
Why isn't it okay to respect the right of people who do not share your faith to *not* have to tell you they don't want to hear it?
Having someone come onto my property, knock on my door, and tell me I need to live their way is, to me, one of the most invasive attitudes I could conceive. |
Jeb, you must clearly see that your being here on this thread denotes your complete willingness to proselytize your own world view. It's a bit of the kettle/pot syndrome I'm afraid. And I'm sure you are going to qualify what you do as ok for such and such a reason, but it doesn't look like that from this side at all. You are happy to live and let live...UNTIL you see something you don't agree with (eg. people knocking on your door), then you are perfectly willing to give them an earful about what you think and how they should live and let live (ie. live your way).
You don't think you've gotten in trouble on this site, outside Rant, for sharing your opinion in a way others find to be strong and overbearing? |
Amen to that. I was about to respond to this, and first refreshed to find out Doc had beat me to it. In my opinion, Jeb, you have an immense blind spot with regards to your own attitudes and behavior. You are so absolutely convinced of who you are, of what you represent, and of the *rightness* of it all, that you do not realize that simply feeling that way puts you on level footing with any other proselytizer.
R. |
|
