| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/19/2010 01:12:21 PM · #1351 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It makes no sense to argue within the Christian framework with someone who is outside it. |
That's a wonderful thing to say, and thank you for doing so. It allows for the consideration that such conversations are dreary stuff for "outsiders", and it admits that Christianity, as with all religions, is a closed system, impenetrable, unassailable, and unintelligible outside of indoctrination. |
This wasn't the reason I said that. |
I have no doubt of that.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If there is no God, then who cares about whether babies go to heaven or not? |
I think the point is to throw the inconsistencies into as sharp a focus as possible, then have you argue against them. It's the easiest way to show how hollow it all is.
I'm wondering why the sudden concern with arguing from the perspective of your belief. You're correct to assume that it will ultimately be futile, because the specific articles of your faith won't withstand scrutiny, but you seem to have been happy to do so until now. If you don't argue from within the framework, as you say, in a thread concerned with science vs. theology, what else is there for you to say? |
|
|
|
02/19/2010 01:12:32 PM · #1352 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If Shannon will not take the time or effort to reveal the background for his knowledge of scripture . . . |
Why is his background relevant? If he gets scriptural references or interpretations incorrect - in your view - then you can certainly challenge him directly on those points. I really don't get your obsession with this point.
(And I am beginning to suspect that Shannon continues to keep it a secret at least in part because he knows it drives you so crazy that he does.) |
It probably reveals some intentions in the conversation. Are we truly talking or is Shannon just there to be right no matter the cost? I find it much more satisfying to know where people are coming from. Of all the people on Rant it seems I most often misunderstand Shannon's replies (which leads to frustration on both sides). Either he is just a poor communicator, or it matters that I know nothing about where he is coming from. I'm guessing it's the latter and I'm getting tired of his unwillingness to share. Certainly that's his option, but then it's my option to cut the conversation short. Are we peers who have different views on a topic of interest? or am I just a plaything for his amusement?
|
|
|
|
02/19/2010 01:14:09 PM · #1353 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Are we peers who have different views on a topic of interest? or am I just a plaything for his amusement? |
Must... not..... engage... obvious....... mental.... image......... |
|
|
|
02/19/2010 01:15:49 PM · #1354 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Can an electron be in two places at once? When you approach it a certain way, the answer is "yes" which is quite paradoxical. Perhaps there is a way to understand the phenomenon without saying the electron is truly in two places at once, but it is complicated and requires a lot of background understanding. |
Ya know......it'd be considerably less annoying, and insulting, if you guys would quit acting like you have to dumb it down, and come up with what seem to be more and more irrelevant and obtuse analogies, and just answer the questions.
What it comes acroos like to me is that you simply cannot give good answers, so rather than just say, "Um.....I really don't have an answer.", you throw in some verse of scripture, make a strange analogy, and then offer that up as your answer.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2010 01:21:06 PM · #1355 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I find it much more satisfying to know where people are coming from. Of all the people on Rant it seems I most often misunderstand Shannon's replies (which leads to frustration on both sides). Either he is just a poor communicator, or it matters that I know nothing about where he is coming from. I'm guessing it's the latter and I'm getting tired of his unwillingness to share. Certainly that's his option, but then it's my option to cut the conversation short. Are we peers who have different views on a topic of interest? or am I just a plaything for his amusement? |
What does that have to do with whether you can reasonably answer the question? You are the self-appointed champion of the Christian side, why then would you have any issue with someone asking the questions who is decidely NOT a Christian?
I'm not sure I understand the stance that you must find all points, and parties of the conversation "satisfying". That samcks of the elitism/chosen aspect. That attitude always seems to be lingering near the surface. That's one thing most "Outsiders" find objectionable.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2010 01:23:37 PM · #1356 |
| To be fair, Jason says he doesn't have all the answers, or even good answers, all the time. You can't accuse him of arguing his point. That's what everyone does. |
|
|
|
02/19/2010 01:26:38 PM · #1357 |
Originally posted by Louis:
To be fair, Jason says he doesn't have all the answers, or even good answers, all the time. You can't accuse him of arguing his point. That's what everyone does. |
Okay.....that's fine, but I don't accept, "You wouldn't understand, it's outside your area of understanding.".
|
|
|
|
02/19/2010 01:44:36 PM · #1358 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I find it much more satisfying to know where people are coming from... am I just a plaything for his amusement? |
I'm coming from a position of skepticism, although I do enjoy watching the jazz hands...
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Either God is all knowing (Predestination) or he isn't (Free Will). These are absolutes. You can't have a little free will or an all knowing God can't know almost everything. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
There are limits to your free will. We cannot will ourselves to be someone else. We cannot will a change in our genetics. We cannot will where we were born (although we could change where we live after). My explanation takes this into consideration. |
TA DAAAA!!!!! |
|
|
|
02/19/2010 01:47:44 PM · #1359 |
Read this on another forum, and thought it apt for this thread:
"For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false."
-- H L Mencken
|
|
|
|
02/19/2010 02:06:48 PM · #1360 |
At least Doc and johnny appear to understand that Christianity is hopelessly non-sensical to anyone standing outside the faith that does not accept the basic underlying assumptions that 1) God exists, 2) the Bible accurately describes God, and 3) the Bible's description of God is not contradictory. This is a big step up from the position of previous posters that these three faith-based premises are, or should be, somehow independently verifiable to the non-believer.
My frustration is with the idea, promoted by even Doc, that as long as those three premises are accepted Christian theology is somehow obvious and consistent to the insider. This manifests in the type of statement where the non-believer is told that of course they don't understand, but it would be perfectly logical to them if they just accepted God/the Bible/etc. Standing as one who was a part of the faith for more than half of his life, and who continues to have many close friends and family who are involved in and deeply committed to their respective faiths, I call bullshit.
Even if you accept those three premises - and I did - the logical inconsistencies with the faith do not simply disappear. Anyone who is educated and honest about their faith, knows these inconsistencies and confusions exist. Some people, like me, find their existence too much to ignore and begin to look for more consistent and reliable answers elsewhere. Some people choose to ignore or retreat to a type of willful ignorance about the problems in order to preserve their faith. And some people, I would suspect Doc included, make the decision to remain deeply committed to their faith, despite their knowledge.
Choice two is cowardly and unconscionable, but I see honor in both choice one and three. But for those who have made the third choice, to take the stance that "it all makes sense if you are on the inside," when they know perfectly well that it ain't necessarily so, is disingenuous and disrespectful of the debate and their intellectual sparring partners.
There are problems for Christian theology, even for the insider. The very nature of theological study should make this obvious as it involves a broad, concerted and diverse attempt to understand, reconcile and illuminate the believer's understanding of God and the requirements of faith. An attempt for which there are perpetually ongoing points of disagreement at the most fundamental levels - the nature/existence of Original Sin, the role of faith/works in salvation, the nature of the relationship between God and Christ, and the very meaning of "salvation" just to name an obvious few. |
|
|
|
02/19/2010 02:18:39 PM · #1361 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Louis:
To be fair, Jason says he doesn't have all the answers, or even good answers, all the time. You can't accuse him of arguing his point. That's what everyone does. |
Okay.....that's fine, but I don't accept, "You wouldn't understand, it's outside your area of understanding.". |
I wasn't saying this Jeb. I was saying, "Don't dismiss things if the answer is complicated and takes some work."
If someone is told that an electron can exist in two places at once and they scoff, "that's impossible! Look at it, it's obvious it's logically contradictory!" and they go away, they are missing out on a truth. The truth is complicated and the truth probably takes some willingness to learn other bits of knowledge before it will even make sense, but it is still truth.
I just reject trying to walk some line where people reject something in one breath because it's too complicated and then something else in the next because it's too simple. I'm not accusing you of doing this, but you were certainly reacting to the fact that the answer is complex.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2010 02:26:11 PM · #1362 |
SP, I rather take the position that Christianity makes as much sense as anything else. No position is unassailable. Those here who think they own a cornerstone on truth are fools. I've never found the source of this quote, but I've always enjoyed it. "To believe is absurd, to not believe, even more so." I realize you would flip that around in your own view, but there is an intellectual difference, in my mind, between picking from the "right" and "wrong" view and the one that makes more sense over the one that makes less sense.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2010 02:34:19 PM · #1363 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
SP, I rather take the position that Christianity makes as much sense as anything else. |
I will merely say that, even accepting your assertion that "Christianity makes as much sense as anything else," that is a pretty low bar for a worldview making such grand truth claims. Indeed, under your lights you are betting your eternal soul on a philosophy that does no better than any of the other choices available.
It's your choice to make, of course. |
|
|
|
02/19/2010 02:40:56 PM · #1364 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
SP, I rather take the position that Christianity makes as much sense as anything else. |
I will merely say that, even accepting your assertion that "Christianity makes as much sense as anything else," that is a pretty low bar for a worldview making such grand truth claims. Indeed, under your lights you are betting your eternal soul on a philosophy that does no better than any of the other choices available.
It's your choice to make, of course. |
Well, Pascal has words for that. His wager still makes sense, as the Christian lifestyle is generally considered pious enough that even if it turns out that another religious system is the truth I will still get some decent attention and avoid the worst fates. :)
Even under Science my delusional thinking provides a sense of purpose, a moral compass, a support network, and a coping mechanism. These have all shown to lead to a happier, healthier, longer life. I can't lose!
Message edited by author 2010-02-19 14:45:41.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2010 02:48:01 PM · #1365 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Even under Science my delusional thinking provides a sense of purpose, a moral compass, a support network, and a coping mechanism. These have all shown to lead to a happier, healthier, longer life. I can't lose! |
And, of course, none of which - a sense of purpose, a moral compass, a support network, and a coping mechanism - require the acceptance of fantasy to acquire. ;) |
|
|
|
02/19/2010 02:52:16 PM · #1366 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Even under Science my delusional thinking provides a sense of purpose, a moral compass, a support network, and a coping mechanism. These have all shown to lead to a happier, healthier, longer life. I can't lose! |
And, of course, none of which - a sense of purpose, a moral compass, a support network, and a coping mechanism - require the acceptance of fantasy to acquire. ;) |
No, I never said it did. But it doesn't mean I can't reap those benefits.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2010 02:52:45 PM · #1367 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
SP, I rather take the position that Christianity makes as much sense as anything else. |
I will merely say that, even accepting your assertion that "Christianity makes as much sense as anything else," that is a pretty low bar for a worldview making such grand truth claims. Indeed, under your lights you are betting your eternal soul on a philosophy that does no better than any of the other choices available.
It's your choice to make, of course. |
Well, Pascal has words for that. His wager still makes sense, as the Christian lifestyle is generally considered pious enough that even if it turns out that another religious system is the truth I will still get some decent attention and avoid the worst fates. :)
Even under Science my delusional thinking provides a sense of purpose, a moral compass, a support network, and a coping mechanism. These have all shown to lead to a happier, healthier, longer life. I can't lose! |
LMGTFY... |
|
|
|
02/19/2010 03:27:35 PM · #1368 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Either God is all knowing (Predestination) or he isn't (Free Will). These are absolutes. You can't have a little free will or an all knowing God can't know almost everything. It's like being a little pregnant. Either you are or you aren't. There is no in between. |
I'd disagree with some of this. There are limits to your free will. We cannot will ourselves to be someone else. We cannot will a change in our genetics. We cannot will where we were born (although we could change where we live after). My explanation takes this into consideration.
|
I never thought Free Will could change the laws of physics. In the theological discussion, it comes down to, "Do we have a choice?" If Free Will exists, we do. If Predestination exists, we don't.
The examples I gave were attempts to show where anger and frustration demonstrate the lack of Predestination in biblical accounts. But then that flies in the face of the concept of an all knowing God.
Message edited by author 2010-02-19 15:42:39. |
|
|
|
02/19/2010 03:34:16 PM · #1369 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
The expamples I gave ... |
I used to be a pample, but gave it up... |
|
|
|
02/19/2010 03:44:32 PM · #1370 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
The expamples I gave ... |
I used to be a pample, but gave it up... |
See, my Mac at home spell checks everything I type, makes me look smarter than I am. My work Windows machine doesn't. ;-) |
|
|
|
02/19/2010 03:55:23 PM · #1371 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If someone is told that an electron can exist in two places at once and they scoff, "that's impossible! Look at it, it's obvious it's logically contradictory!" and they go away, they are missing out on a truth. The truth is complicated and the truth probably takes some willingness to learn other bits of knowledge before it will even make sense, but it is still truth. |
It's an interesting point, and it brings to mind obvious analogies between cutting-edge physics and religion, with the relatively few people who can understand all this being cast in the role of "priests" and the rest of us having to either deny what we can't perceive or accept it on blind faith because we're told it's true...
It seems to me that the further and further "out there" science reaches, the closer we are coming to the true, inscrutable face of God.
R. |
|
|
|
02/19/2010 03:59:15 PM · #1372 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It seems to me that the further and further "out there" science reaches, the closer we are coming to the true, inscrutable face of God. |
I can see the attraction of this view. I would posit, however, that it is a face that resembles not one wit the small and petty deities that our human ancestors invented to give them comfort and ward off the terrors in the night. |
|
|
|
02/19/2010 04:08:12 PM · #1373 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It seems to me that the further and further "out there" science reaches, the closer we are coming to the true, inscrutable face of God. |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
I can see the attraction of this view. I would posit, however, that it is a face that resembles not one wit the small and petty deities that our human ancestors invented to give them comfort and ward off the terrors in the night. |
AMEN!!!!
|
|
|
|
02/19/2010 05:17:34 PM · #1374 |
As it happens, there's an article in today's Star that is incidentally about the physics of Star Trek. A physicist and his son, also a physicist, have determined that travel at near light speed would result in a fatal dose of radiation in about a second. They added that, for example, the notion of "warp speed" in Star Trek is impossible, because it would be deadly. In reader comments in "New Scientist" on a report of the physicists' presentation to the American Physical Society, Trek devotees said flatly that the physicists were wrong.
Belief has nothing to do with reality.
Message edited by author 2010-02-19 17:19:31. |
|
|
|
02/19/2010 05:23:27 PM · #1375 |
Originally posted by Louis:
As it happens, there's an article in today's Star that is incidentally about the physics of Star Trek. A physicist and his son, also a physicist, have determined that travel at near light speed would result in a fatal dose of radiation in about a second. They added that, for example, the notion of "warp speed" in Star Trek is impossible, because it would be deadly. In reader comments in "New Scientist" on a report of the physicists' presentation to the American Physical Society, Trek devotees said flatly that the physicists were wrong.
Belief has nothing to do with reality. |
Religion is one thing, but don't mess with Star Trek. ;-) |
|
