|
Ok, ok, and chocloate Sno-Cones.Chocolate Sno-Cones?How about Eostre, the original bunny girl? Plus, she has chocolate.Turtles and elephants? Throw in a few badgers and maybe a wolverine and I'm down. Oh, and some kind of sexy fertility goddess or something. And Sno-Cones.Have we figured out if there's a god yet?Um, which one? ;)
^_^ Cheers!
I'm not picky...
;)
So far no one's dsputed the existence of Great Atun, the Turtle on Whose Back the World is Carried.
** spoiler omitted **
Yay! Where's my prayer book and masseuse/priestess?
|
|
Yay! Where's my prayer book and masseuse/priestess?Ok, ok, and chocloate Sno-Cones.Chocolate Sno-Cones?How about Eostre, the original bunny girl? Plus, she has chocolate.Turtles and elephants? Throw in a few badgers and maybe a wolverine and I'm down. Oh, and some kind of sexy fertility goddess or something. And Sno-Cones.Have we figured out if there's a god yet?Um, which one? ;)
^_^ Cheers!
I'm not picky...
;)
So far no one's dsputed the existence of Great Atun, the Turtle on Whose Back the World is Carried.
** spoiler omitted **
Eostre has blessed you very recently, Derek. Don't get greedy. ;-)
So far no one's dsputed the existence of Great Atun, the Turtle on Whose Back the World is Carried.
"See the TURTLE of enormous girth!
On his shell he holds the Earth.His thought is slow but always kind;
He holds us all within his mind.
On his back all vows are made;
He sees the truth but mayn't aid.
He loves the land and loves the sea,
And even loves a child like me."
Have we figured out if there's a god yet?
Of course. That was the easy part.
I have erred. I thought that “A Civil Religious Discussion” was one thing, when it is, apparently, another. I thought that we understood that we were on different sides. I thought when Jeremy asked about superfluous parts, he was asking for clarification on why/how Christians explained/believed that. I did not think it would become another episode of “Defend Your Religion.”
And here come the, “SEE! Another Christian fanatic who thinks he can post whatever misguided drivel he wants and doesn't think we enlightened masses have the right to call him on his obsolete mythology!”
That's not the point I'm making. I'm saying that I didn't think this forum was “Defend Your Religion.” I thought that y'all were looking for answers from a Christian POV so that you could better understand the enemy, all the while content that you are right and I am wrong. As I started with, “I have erred.”
Very well. A Reason to Have Faith
Would it not be just as fair for me to ask you to use the Holy Bible to disprove God? It's like asking for the ultimate home court advantage. I must accept your axioms, which don't include mine, and then prove mine.
Not quite. I have actually disproved a few conceptions of god popular among Christians with recourse to the Bible, but my challenge to you is to give me some reason why we (any of us, not just me) should treat the Bible with any more deference(emphasis added) than my fantasy about Dawkins, the Doctor, Catherine the Great, and pancake-making aliens from Zeta Reticuli. I don't think that's an unfair challenge at all.
But there it is: You want a reason to believe. Reason is the purview of your religion of science, faith is the purview of my religion of Christianity. You want me to operate in your realm to prove mine.
Here goes: Hill Giant brought up the point that Euclidean geometry is a poor approximation of the physical world. That was my point in using it; it's a poor approximation and still requires dozens of axioms (assumptions). The science of the physical world requires even more. My religion requires one assumption: God exists.
If God exists, then “in Him all things hold together.” (1 Colossians 1:17). Done.
Why don't protons' repulsive nature fling them out of the nucleus? “in Him all things hold together.”
Why don't the planets go whirling out into space? “in Him all things hold together.”
Ad infinitim, ad nasuem.
I am required to make one assumption. Science requires more than one. Occam's Razor states: "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem) and the conclusion thereof, that the simplest solution is usually the correct one.
I am saying that the entities in this case are the fundamental assumptions. As a Christian, I must make one. As a scientist, more than one is required. The simplest solution is, the one with fewer assumptions, is most likely the correct one.
This goes to Sebastian's point about me having to check the Holy Bible to make sure it isn't a cat. It's about the number of those base assumptions that must be made.
“Usually.” Yes, I might be wrong. I'll find out when I die.
There it is: A reason to have faith. And if that's not reason enough, but you're a gambling man, there's always Pascal's Wager.
Specifics:
Kirth Gersen
Well played. You ask for my training without any benchmark that you'd require to be able to authoritatively speak about radiometric dating. That leaves you the room to simply raise the bar beyond my education. I could have said I had a masters in chemistry and you'd reply, “and a master's in chemistry hardly qualifies one to talk about radiometric dating with the kind of authority you're claiming.” I could have said I had a doctorate in physics and you'd reply, “and the lack of post-doctorate work hardly qualifies one to talk about radiometric dating with the kind of authority you're claiming.” As I said, well played.
However,
There are B.S. degrees in all kinds of soft sciences -- I say that because it seems that yours is not in chemistry, physics, or geology (I'd guess computer science, but I might be way off) -- and a semester in intro chemistry hardly qualifies one to talk about radiometric dating with the kind of authority you're claiming.
You assume that they were semester courses. Incorrect, they were year-long courses.
You assume that they were intro courses. Incorrect, my AP scores placed me out of the 101's and permitted me to go directly to upper division course work.You completely ignore the bit about “various specific courses within those fields,” like organic chemistry, microbiology, nuclear physics.
Regardless of the clarification, you are obfuscating the point. You've already conceded that my mathematics about the derivative is correct. The only authority I'm claiming about radiometric dating methods is that they make use of the derivative. Is that incorrect?
If there is hand-waving in the calculus derivative (which you've agreed that there is), and radiometric dating methods use that calculus derivative, then there is hand-waving in those methods. That is the extent of the authority that I'm claiming.
I've tried to reconcile what I've personally seen with the study of geology and chemisty, and succeeded with no difficulty. I've also tried independently to reconcile what I've seen with a literal reading of Scripture, and I'll say this point-blank: I've seen only only two possibilities that fit the observations -- either the Earth is very old, and evolution is true, or else God is a trickster who did everything in his power to make it appear that evolution occurred over ages of an old earth.
As for the age of the world, how old is it? Is it the currently held 4.6 billion years, the 3.5 billion years it was when I was in HS, or the 2 billion years that scientists had proven back in 1969 when the lunar lander failed to sink through all the dust that wasn't there?
God is a trickster but physicists who try to tell me that 96% of the mass of the universe is invisible stuff that no one can detect but it's just gotta be there or all of our calculations are wrong are not tricksters?
451 scientists who get together and rewrite the definition of what a planet is can destroy the planet Pluto (and don't even need a Death Star to do it). They didn't discover some new fact, or uncover some unknown bit from existing data, they just rewrote the definition. 451 people on a planet of several billion. And we're just supposed to go along with it because they say so.
I am not more convinced by these things to believe that science has all the answers.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
My religion requires one assumption: God exists.
Even if that assumption is given, how does one go from "God exists" to "the Bible accurately describes the God that exists"?
Also, I'm not sure that having one assumption be "magic makes things work!" is really what Occam's Razor is about. Every event ever can be "explained" with that assumption.
Why do books fall when I drop them?
God.
Why can't I see in the dark?
God.
Why don't people regrow lost limbs?
God.
Pretty useless explanation for the physical world.
|
|
Ok I think Mykull you have the definition of religion a bit off.
Religion- the practice of ones theology
Theology- the study of god (wherever that takes you)
Science- the study of (and the workings thereof) the natural world
I would greatly hesitate to call science a religion. Most people think science is this atheistic entity out to destroy religion. It isn't in it's purest state it is NON-THEISTIC it takes no stand one way or another. It has no ability to measure god, it can't prove he is there and it cannot disprove he is there it takes no stand at all, and thats the way it should be.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Even if that assumption is given, how does one go from "God exists" to "the Bible accurately describes the God that exists"?
Also, I'm not sure that having one assumption be "magic makes things work!" is really what Occam's Razor is about. Every event ever can be "explained" with that assumption. /snip
Pretty useless explanation for the physical world.
As to the former question, that's a matter for comparative religion, nor is it a 1-post answer.
As to the latter point, without getting ears deep into Aristotelean causality, I'd argue that theology concerns itself with first causes whereas science concerns itself with later causes. The book falls because of gravity (science)... [chain of intermediate causes] ...gravity exists because God made it (theology). Science can tell us that natural laws exist and how they operate, but it can't necessarily tell us why they are such as they are and not some other way. Does science offer a reason why the speed of light is C and not C^3, or C-1/C, or what have you?
My religion requires one assumption: God exists.
Your Christianity greatly differs from the Christianity I have been exposed to. As I understood it, there are far more assumptions about god, and Jesus for that matter, that must be accepted. Many of those assumptions seem highly unlikely to me.
I could also say that fairies keep protons' repulsive nature from flinging them out of the nucleus? That is equally as simple a solution. Does its simplicity make it equally correct?
I'd argue that theology concerns itself with first causes whereas science concerns itself with later causes.
Is it possible religion is merely a place holder until science can explain 'first cause'? At one time, people did not understand why the sun moved across the sky. So someone made up the story that Apollo dragged it across the sky in his chariot. Now that we better understand the sun and the universe, we no longer need Apollo and his chariot.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Is it possible religion is merely a place holder until science can explain 'first cause'? At one time, people did not understand why the sun moved across the sky. So someone made up the story that Apollo dragged it across the sky in his chariot. Now that we better understand the sun and the universe, we no longer need Apollo and his chariot.
I could hardly claim an open mind if I didn't allow for that possibility. However, I doubt humanity will ever be able to do such a thing on its own, via observation. If we do, I think we will have become gods, or something very much like them. "A sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
As for assumptions, Christianity asks most of its adherents to accept some assumptions about God and Jesus based on common experience and authority. Those assumptions are founded on reason and observation--the theological discipline of apologetics. Science instruction does the same thing. Students are asked to assume certain scientific truths without personally verifying them by experiment, but underlying those assumptions is actual research. You don't have to have a Ph.D. in apologetics to grok Christianity, just like you don't have to be a scientist to grok science. The simple fact is that most of what people believe about any given topic, they take on authority rather than personal observation.
This isn't an answer to you, CF, but a general idea for the thread: it occurs to me to say that the best way to learn what Christianity teaches is to practice it for a few years. You'd get a much better understanding of it than you would by getting sound bites from people on a forum. You're going to miss a lot of the point of certain deeper aspects of theology, like apologetics, if you don't have the "Sunday School basics." And it's one thing to grasp the ideas intellectually, and quite another to grasp them practically.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
As to the former question, that's a matter for comparative religion, nor is it a 1-post answer.
I agree, but the original post claimed that "God exists" was the only assumption necessary for Christianity. That does not seem evident to me at all.
As to the latter point, without getting ears deep into Aristotelean causality, I'd argue that theology concerns itself with first causes whereas science concerns itself with later causes. The book falls because of gravity (science)... [chain of intermediate causes] ...gravity exists because God made it (theology). Science can tell us that natural laws exist and how they operate, but it can't necessarily tell us why they are such as they are and not some other way. Does science offer a reason why the speed of light is C and not C^3, or C-1/C, or what have you?
Generally speaking, I don't have a problem with a religious belief that doesn't contradict the evidence uncovered using the scientific method. If the assertion is that God set up the laws of gravity or the way molecules interact or the speed of light, that's not really a big deal. Those why questions are, to my understanding, outside of the scope of scientific inquiry to begin with. It's when people contradict evidence and careful study (e.g., the sun orbits the earth, evolution is impossible, the earth is 10 years old) and analysis based on a very literal reading of one single book that things start to get ugly.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
As for assumptions, Christianity asks most of its adherents to accept some assumptions about God and Jesus based on common experience and authority. Those assumptions are founded on reason and observation--the theological discipline of apologetics. Science instruction does the same thing. Students are asked to assume certain scientific truths without personally verifying them by experiment, but underlying those assumptions is actual research. You don't have to have a Ph.D. in apologetics to grok Christianity, just like you don't have to be a scientist to grok science. The simple fact is that most of what people believe about any given topic, they take on authority rather than personal observation.
Yes, but the underlying scientific assumptions can be recreated. That is why there is only one science, practiced around the world, and not multiple competing branches of science. In India, if they perform the same experiments as in the U.S. under the same conditions, they will achieve the same results. Same in China. Same in Russia. If the foundations of science were based upon getting people to buy into some faulty assumption, you would see a wide variety of sciences, each based upon a different set of faulty assumptions.
The underlying theological assumptions of Christianity cannot be recreated. They are not universal. No one showed up in India 2,000 years ago and claimed to be the son of god. When the son of god was allegedly killed in the Middle East, the Chinese didn't notice. That's because, unlike science, religion is based upon culture and tradition, not observations based upon the real world.
|
My religion requires one assumption: God exists.Your Christianity greatly differs from the Christianity I have been exposed to. As I understood it, there are far more assumptions about god, and Jesus for that matter, that must be accepted. Many of those assumptions seem highly unlikely to me.
I could also say that fairies keep protons' repulsive nature from flinging them out of the nucleus? That is equally as simple a solution. Does its simplicity make it equally correct?
You could join mine...String Theory invalidates Religion and Evolution which means everyone else is wrong. Life created the Universe from Outside the Universe and than means all Life is the same Supreme being. Just write "I am God-string theory proves it" on your bumper and self worship.
|
|
Because I found that these maybe relevant to the discussion between science and religion, as well as the issue that Christianity does require more belief then just that there is a G~D.
Frontline: From Jesus to Christ
As well as
...it occurs to me to say that the best way to learn what Christianity teaches is to practice it for a few years.
How many years did you practice Zoroastrianism? Wicca? Buddhism? Hinduism? Islam? Why should I only focus on Christianity?
Your right, don't. I didn't. Just stop when you find the truth....it occurs to me to say that the best way to learn what Christianity teaches is to practice it for a few years.How many years did you practice Zoroastrianism? Wicca? Buddhism? Hinduism? Islam? Why should I only focus on Christianity?
I could find truth in any of them.
|
|
I could find truth in any of them.Your right, don't. I didn't. Just stop when you find the truth....it occurs to me to say that the best way to learn what Christianity teaches is to practice it for a few years.How many years did you practice Zoroastrianism? Wicca? Buddhism? Hinduism? Islam? Why should I only focus on Christianity?
I disagree, you can find an interpretation of truth in any of them.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I disagree, you can find an interpretation of truth in any of them.I could find truth in any of them.Your right, don't. I didn't. Just stop when you find the truth....it occurs to me to say that the best way to learn what Christianity teaches is to practice it for a few years.How many years did you practice Zoroastrianism? Wicca? Buddhism? Hinduism? Islam? Why should I only focus on Christianity?
How can you say if you stopped before practicing them? Maybe yours is the interpretation of truth.
|
|
How can you say if you stopped before practicing them? Maybe yours is the interpretation of truth.I disagree, you can find an interpretation of truth in any of them.I could find truth in any of them.Your right, don't. I didn't. Just stop when you find the truth....it occurs to me to say that the best way to learn what Christianity teaches is to practice it for a few years.How many years did you practice Zoroastrianism? Wicca? Buddhism? Hinduism? Islam? Why should I only focus on Christianity?
Very possibly. In the end I think we will all be surprised at what is the actually truth not just what we think it is or let others tell us. Be they scientists or preachers.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Yes, but the underlying scientific assumptions can be recreated. That is why there is only one science, practiced around the world, and not multiple competing branches of science. In India, if they perform the same experiments as in the U.S. under the same conditions, they will achieve the same results. Same in China. Same in Russia. If the foundations of science were based upon getting people to buy into some faulty assumption, you would see a wide variety of sciences, each based upon a different set of faulty assumptions.
The underlying theological assumptions of Christianity cannot be recreated. They are not universal. No one showed up in India 2,000 years ago and claimed to be the son of god. When the son of god was allegedly killed in the Middle East, the Chinese didn't notice. That's because, unlike science, religion is based upon culture and tradition, not observations based upon the real world.
So... you're saying that the epistemological methods of science and religion are different? I'm on board with that. I disagree, however, that religion is not based on observation of the real world. It is based on observations of the real world, but people draw different conclusions based on the same observation. For instance, I'm a Calvinist because I observe that people will generally act in their own self-interest regardless of the harm that may cause to others, unless there's an overriding reason that is more aligned with their self-interest. That observation affirms Calvinist Christian teaching about the sinful nature of man. Is it true in every case (i.e., repeatable/reliably experimentally verifiable)? By no means. Nonetheless, it is one example of a religious belief formed by observation of the real world.
Notwithstanding, even science isn't as monolithic. There are many branches of what you might call pseudoscience whose adherents claim are the real thing and (so they say) can be experimentally verified. Now I'm not here to argue the authenticity of acupuncture or Reiki or Scientology or whatever... but you do, in fact, see a wide variety of "sciences," based on different sets of faulty assumptions. And even mainstream scientists disagree about what conclusions can be drawn from the same experimental observations.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Notwithstanding, even science isn't as monolithic. There are many branches of what you might call pseudoscience whose adherents claim are the real thing and (so they say) can be experimentally verified. Now I'm not here to argue the authenticity of acupuncture or Reiki or Scientology or whatever... but you do, in fact, see a wide variety of "sciences," based on different sets of faulty assumptions. And even mainstream scientists disagree about what conclusions can be drawn from the same experimental observations.
Mainstream scientists disagree about the conclusions drawn from the data, but they don't disagree with the scientific method itself. Also, there are more disagreements when a theory is new or still in the process of gathering evidence because no one has a good answer to describe all the observations.
The other stuff isn't really relevant. They are small splinter groups. The fact remains that there isn't Russian Science, where the laws of thermodynamics are different, or Chinese Science, where Hydrogen has 6 protons. However, there are large, institutionalized, religious organizations that dominate the political and cultural landscape in countries around the world, none of which share even the basic assumptions about god. If science were built upon the same foundation of hearsay and personal (unverifiable) experience as religion, there would be different forms of science in every country around the world, each of which would produce equally valid results.
The science of the physical world requires even more. My religion requires one assumption: God exists.
If God exists, then “in Him all things hold together.” (1 Colossians 1:17). Done.
Why don't protons' repulsive nature fling them out of the nucleus? “in Him all things hold together.”
Why don't the planets go whirling out into space? “in Him all things hold together.”
Ad infinitim, ad nasuem.I am required to make one assumption. Science requires more than one. Occam's Razor states: "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem) and the conclusion thereof, that the simplest solution is usually the correct one.
That's a really terrible argument, sorry. You have simply stopped counting when you got to one assumption while you crammed more inside and, one presumes, hoped we would not notice. Let's go through it step by step:
1) A god exists
2) It's the god described in the Christian Bible (actually there are dozens of axioms buried in this too, but you get the idea)
3) The Christian Bible is an accurate account of that deity (that is, it gets more right about the guy than the single fact that he exists)
4) That account has not been substantially altered over the centuries in such a way as to compromise that accuracy
5) The interpretation of the passage you put forward is the correct interpretation
I can keep going, but I trust the point is made.
I am saying that the entities in this case are the fundamental assumptions. As a Christian, I must make one. As a scientist, more than one is required. The simplest solution is, the one with fewer assumptions, is most likely the correct one.
That's most of the principle of parsimony, but not quite all of it. In the absence of good reason to prefer the more complex and assumption-laden explanation, the simplest is preferred. It's only an issue when the explanatory power of both alternatives is equivalent and the evidential weight is dead even. If we have reason to believe the simple answer is wrong, then we should discard it despite it being simpler.
Really it's sort of bending over backwards to rely simply on parsimony when we're considering any form of supernaturalism vs. naturalism. We have lots of reasons to think the supernatural is all make-believe even aside that naturalism is the most parsimonious alternative. One can grant that and sort of give believers a mulligan, but one doesn't have to.
There it is: A reason to have faith. And if that's not reason enough, but you're a gambling man, there's always Pascal's Wager.
That's worse. Sorry, but it really is. Pascal's Wager goes like this:
If Christianity is true, then one will end up in either heaven or hell. Christianity teaches that by belief in it, one can avoid hell. An unbeliever has neither heaven or hell to fear, if Christianity is false. But if Christianity is true, then a believer has hell to fear. Thus as a matter of prudence, he should believe to avoid hell. If he is wrong, he loses nothing. If he is right, he avoids eternal torture.
I just did that off the top of my head, but I think it's a fair summary. The problems with it are numerous.
1) It assumes a false dichotomy: It is entirely possible for Christianity to be false AND the unbeliever is still wrong because some other religion is true. What if it turns out Hinduism is true and all I'm doing by believing in Christianity is pissing off Shiva more and more?
I could be avoiding the wrong hell here. I will grant you that the Christian hell is pretty much the most awful thing ever imagined, but I'm not really eager to try out the others either. Being whipped by the Furies doesn't sound like a party, and I've been told there's some kind of Buddhist hell where one is violated by serrated pig penises. I want to skip that one too.
2) The wager assumes that all Christians go to Heaven. Not even all branches of Christianity teach that. In fact, if I pick the wrong variety then according to many of them I still end up in hell. What if I avoid the Calvinist hell but end up in the Catholic hell?
3) The wager assumes that the only variable with which a person could be concerned is their personal comfort in the afterlife. Even if I believed in an afterlife, that's not my only concern. It's certainly an important one, but being a party to a religion that preaches the righteousness of eternal torture is pretty hellish to my eyes. So it's go to hell and suffer forever in agony, or go to heaven and suffer forever in agony for knowing there's a hell. Maybe I'm crazy, but I do care a bit about the well-being of others and I do not think that eternal bliss can coexist for me with knowledge that others are suffering eternal torment.
Additionally, I would vastly prefer to believe an uncomfortable truth to a pleasant lie. I'm more interested in being right and having an accurate picture of reality than I am in being comfortable. That's how I roll. It's a values thing for me. So we cannot simply isolate this down to a self-preservation decision. I need evidence. To make a decision without it is to me to make a decision without any meaning or consequence. Since this is, by your own admission, a consequential decision, evidence is mandatory.
4) The wager assumes that opinion can be turned on and off like a switch. This is very naive and shows a real failure to understand basic human psychology. If one can just at a whim change one's opinion from one position to its complete opposite, the issue at hand must be one that you really have never much cared or thought about. That certainly does not describe how either of us has thought about these things. For better and worse (it's always both) people become invested in their positions if they care about being right at all. That's not the same as being an absolute dogmatist on the issue (though those of course exist too) and I can supply some things that would give me pause and cause to reconsider if you'd like.
5) How sincere can belief be if it's based on no more than self-preservation? Does the wager not sanctify base selfishness? Cowardice, even? I'm no He-Man (I have nipples, for one.) but I like to think I have some integrity. I don't think very highly of a deity who would operate his cosmos such that insincere flattery gets you eternal bliss but failure to kiss his posterior (even for pretend!) gets you eternal torture. That comes down to eternal torture either way again.
So you'll forgive me if I kick Pascal's corpse to the curb. I still need evidence. According to your own book Jesus was kind enough to provide it to Thomas. Well the world's got about four billion Thomases. We are told that God very much wants people to know him. We're told he can do anything and knows everything. Why is he so shy? Even if he made some suspect fashion choices in the Seventies and Eighties, he's surely had time to get a new wardrobe by now. Is he worried about being smelly? Something stuck in his teeth? Bad acne?
Speaking for myself, I am more than willing to accept the Bible (to use a specific example we are all somewhat familiar with) was based on observations when it was written. The apparent discrepancies between what the Bible seems to suggest and what we have a better understanding of now, for me, support this conclusion.
Speaking of simplicity of solution, the idea that the Bible was entirely made up by man tidies up any questions I may have concerning it. The more data I collect on the Bible, the more this theory fits.
And just for future reference, I have practiced Christianity. I was Roman Catholic. I have been baptized and confirmed. At one time, I even wanted to be a priest.
...it occurs to me to say that the best way to learn what Christianity teaches is to practice it for a few years.How many years did you practice Zoroastrianism? Wicca? Buddhism? Hinduism? Islam? Why should I only focus on Christianity?
No one ever seems to recommend one take a turn at Satanism. Come out into the woods and write your name in the black book. It'll be a gas! :)
What I find amusing is that pretty much all religions say don't be a jerk. Surprisingly, even Satanist.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
How many years did you practice Zoroastrianism? Wicca? Buddhism? Hinduism? Islam? Why should I only focus on Christianity?
I think you won't be surprised to learn that I have not, in fact, practiced any other religion that Christianity. I haven't because I haven't been interested in gaining a deeper understanding of their teachings, mainly because as a mortal being, I have to prioritize my lifetime. Gaining an in-depth understanding of every religion would take many lifetimes. I've gained a breadth of knowledge about comparative religion, a more significant depth in a single religion, and I'm putting all my spiritual eggs in one basket, so to speak. Nor was I suggesting that you focus on Christianity, nor that you should study Christianity at all unless you were interested in learning about it. Please don't read into my previous post some idea that just wasn't there.
What I did say was that for someone who is interested in learning what Christianity teaches, the best way to do that is to practice Christianity.
As to truth in multiple religions, I cite Blake: "Every thing possible to be believ'd is an image of truth." There's something to learn from every religion. Besides, nobody would believe a religion if it did not contain some grain of recognizable truth.
Mykull,
Thanks for your specific reply. I'll respond to your individual points below, but before that, there's something I feel the need to explain.
I thought that we understood that we were on different sides. I did not think it would become another episode of “Defend Your Religion.”
I certainly didn't share that "understanding." Moff and I, for example, are perfectly able to discuss science and religion without having to pick "sides" and be "against each other." And, therefore, we don't attack each other, and hence don't need to counterattack, etc. Your posts, on the other hand, have always implied that anyone who states disagreement with any of your statements isn't being civil. That's not a "discussion," in that case.
Whan someone asks Moff, or Erian, or almost any of the other Christian folks on the thread, "why do you think that?" they do not immediately assume it is an attack. Likewise, they do not misrepresent science (science which in no way needs to conflict with their faith, by the way) in order to "prove" that their answers are "better." If you asked me if science had a take on the existence of Heaven, I'd have to say, "No, that's far outside its scope. Maybe some other method can answer that one." I do not blatantly misrepresent religion in order to "prove" that its view regarding heaven is "wrong." Indeed, when I specifically had a religious question, I can ask Moff, and he'll answer me, and we're good to go.
By the same token, in no way have I tried to "prove" there isn't a God. In no way have I tried to "prove" that a God didn't have a hand in creating the universe. I have no problem with these concepts, and have no desire to try and disprove them. What I HAVE disputed -- at length -- are claims that the earth is <10,000 years old, and that evolution is impossible. That's because these are claims regarding physical science, a field in which I actually AM qualified to speak, and to recognize when it's being misrepresented.
Steven Jay Gould spoke about "non-overlapping magisteria" (NOMA). The Bible speaks of "rendering unto Caesar." In both cases, it's a simple deal: let religion answer metaphysical questions, and let science answer physical questions. My ire gets up when I observe the "hands-off" of religion, but you then go ahead and try and tell me that science is somehow wrong -- regarding physical topics -- and without value, and then misrepresent it in an effort to convince me this is so.
-------------
I am required to make one assumption. Science requires more than one. Occam's Razor states: "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem) and the conclusion thereof, that the simplest solution is usually the correct one.
Correction: The simplest solution that still accounts for the observations is the correct one. If I find a murder victim, the simplest solution is to say "there was no murder, nothing to investigate here." But that solution contradicts the observations.
You ask for my training without any benchmark that you'd require to be able to authoritatively speak about radiometric dating.
Benchmark: have studied enough about radiometric dating to actually understand not only how it works, but what the assumptions for the various methods are and (most importantly) what the calibration methods are. If you fail on that last point, that's it. The bar is set.
You've already conceded that my mathematics about the derivative is correct. The only authority I'm claiming about radiometric dating methods is that they make use of the derivative. Is that incorrect?
In the way you present it, yes, it is incorrect. I conceded that derivatives are used in part of the process -- but had a problem insofar as you are incorrect concerning the manner in which they are used, and certainly with regards to the larger statement regarding the method that you conclude from this assertion. Your presentation of that math, by the way, is what led me to believe that you've not met the bar (now clearly spelled out above).
As for the age of the world, how old is it? Is it the currently held 4.6 billion years, the 3.5 billion years it was when I was in HS, or the 2 billion years that scientists had proven back in 1969 when the lunar lander failed to sink through all the dust that wasn't there?
Hopefully, you and I can at least agree that there are limitations to human knowledge, yes? OK, science acknowledges those limits and therefore constantly seeks better information and better estimates, as you've outlined above. You act as if this is a bad thing... should we then take the first estimate -- no matter what the margin of error -- and stick with it even if it turns out that a better one can be made? Then, of course, you'd point out the margin of error again, and call it wrong. So it's wrong if estimates are refined, and wrong if it's not... heads you win, tails I lose?
God is a trickster but physicists who try to tell me that 96% of the mass of the universe is invisible stuff that no one can detect but it's just gotta be there or all of our calculations are wrong are not tricksters?
You must have been absent the day they detected it.
451 scientists who get together and rewrite the definition of what a planet is can destroy the planet Pluto (and don't even need a Death Star to do it). They didn't discover some new fact, or uncover some unknown bit from existing data, they just rewrote the definition. 451 people on a planet of several billion. And we're just supposed to go along with it because they say so.
They revised the definition to one more precise... they're not claiming that Pluto doesn't exist anymore. It wasn't "destroyed" -- and the definition was rewritten specifically BECAUSE of new facts discovered (namely, the existence of a large number of similar bodies outside Pluto's orbit... should they all be planets? Why? Again, you seem to be advocating that any assumption, calculation, or definition, once proposed, needs to be immutable and defended despite new evidence, which is exactly how to NOT improve our understanding of things.
Please don't read into my previous post some idea that just wasn't there.
My apologies.
What I find amusing is that pretty much all religions say don't be a jerk. Surprisingly, even Satanist.
Yeah but the definition of jerkishness varies so broadly that it's clearly just cultural attitudes talking. Every culture has codes of conduct which separate out certain acts and proclaim them jerkish. Sometimes there's overlap, sometimes not so much. There's enough values dissonance for everybody.
What I find amusing is that pretty much all religions say don't be a jerk. Surprisingly, even Satanist.
My impression of satanists from the only Tee-Vee segment I've seen about them is that they sound like Ayn Rand-ites who believe in magik. Too bad there aren't any satanists here to explain their side of things.
At one time, I even wanted to be a priest.
Sorry, they don't let poodles become priests. Not even male heterosexual ones.
|
|
What I find amusing is that pretty much all religions say don't be a jerk. Surprisingly, even Satanist.My impression of satanists from the only Tee-Vee segment I've seen about them is that they sound like Ayn Rand-ites who believe in magik. Too bad there aren't any satanists here to explain their side of things.
Well there are atheistic satanaists a la some guy whos name i can't remember then there are theological satanists.
Theological satanists believe satan was the creator god was the oppressor and was denying humans knowledge. Satan had them eat from the tree of knowledge, gaining, well, knowledge and with it free will. Rather than original sin, this is seen as a great gift to humanity. These Satanists still believe in the Abrahamic god, but see him as the deceiver and the antagonist and the bible as untruthful propoganda. It's been awhile since i researched this, but that's the crux of it IIRC.
What I find amusing is that pretty much all religions say don't be a jerk. Surprisingly, even Satanist.My impression of satanists from the only Tee-Vee segment I've seen about them is that they sound like Ayn Rand-ites who believe in magik. Too bad there aren't any satanists here to explain their side of things.Well there are atheistic satanaists a la some guy whos name i can't remember then there are theological satanists.
Theological satanists believe satan was the creator god was the oppressor and was denying humans knowledge. Satan had them eat from the tree of knowledge, gaining, well, knowledge and with it free will. Rather than original sin, this is seen as a great gift to humanity. These Satanists still believe in the Abrahamic god, but see him as the deceiver and the antagonist and the bible as untruthful propoganda. It's been awhile since i researched this, but that's the crux of it IIRC.
I remember, it's Anton LaVey or something. Those satanists sound pretty much like secular humanists, but have adopted a provocative name.
When the son of god was allegedly killed in the Middle East, the Chinese didn't notice.
Neither did the Romans, really. Just saying.
Today in church, the preacher mentioned they did not have an Easter egg hunt on the first Easter.
I can't imagine why not.
Until the Council of Nicaea in 325 Easter was celebrated on the Jewish Passover and it had traditionally been celebrated whenever the Jews celebrated Passover however many felt that the Jews of the time where not celebrating Passover on the correct date (something to do with how everyone was interpreting their calendars). Hence a separate practice became official here though this practice was already in use in some parts of the Christian world prior to 325.
|
|
I remember, it's Anton LaVey or something. Those satanists sound pretty much like secular humanists, but have adopted a provocative name.
That's the guy...you have LaVeyan satanists and theological satanists...both are distinctly different and the former doesn't even really fit the term satanism due to the fact that IIRC they discount the existance of deities.
What I did say was that for someone who is interested in learning what Christianity teaches, the best way to do that is to practice Christianity.
One interesting point reguarding Christianity (and most of the major religions), is that their are a number of flavors. Among Christians you have Calvanist, Methodist, Baptist, Catholics, and so forth. They all share some core beliefs, but interpert other areas very differently.
What I did say was that for someone who is interested in learning what Christianity teaches, the best way to do that is to practice Christianity.One interesting point reguarding Christianity (and most of the major religions), is that their are a number of flavors. Among Christians you have Calvanist, Methodist, Baptist, Catholics, and so forth. They all share some core beliefs, but interpert other areas very differently.
I don't know of any Christians who keep the Hebrew Bible commandments as Orthodox Jews do, though, which I don't understand. Jesus states very clearly that those who follow him must obey Jewish law.
Most Christians seem to feel that it's enough to be 'nice' or live what you feel to be the spirit of the law, but Jesus states that you must befanatically lawful. Maybe a Christian here will help me understand this. I don't mean this in a snarky way; it's something I really don't understand, and I would be interested to hear Christians' opinions.
|
I don't know of any Christians who keep the Hebrew Bible commandments as Orthodox Jews do, though, which I don't understand. Jesus states very clearly that those who follow him must obey Jewish law.
Most Christians seem to feel that it's enough to be 'nice' or live what you feel to be the spirit of the law, but Jesus states that you must be fanatically lawful. Maybe a Christian here will help me understand this. I don't mean this in a snarky way; it's something I really don't understand, and I would be interested to hear Christians' opinions.
A little bit of a misinterpretation, but regardless Jesus himself broke "the Law" quite a bit. Which really seemed to piss off the religious leaders.
For example, there was the time where the woman was caught in adultery. According to the Law, she was to be stoned to death. Apparently there was no question as to her guilt, yet not only did Jesus not stone her or even say that she should be stoned, but released her of her "crime".
In many ways, he was one of the biggest "law-breakers" of the time.
His point with the Matthew passage you linked had to do with some prophesy, but mostly pointing to the religious leaders that they had seriously lost the "point" of the Law. And instead of understanding what the point was, they mired themselves in legalism and the letter of the law.
Paul expanded on this concept with the meat offered to idols thing.
|
|
Jesus fought the Law and the Law won! ;-)
A little bit of a misinterpretation, but regardless Jesus himself broke "the Law" quite a bit. Which really seemed to piss off the religious leaders.
Oh, I don't know. Biblically speaking, it seems like Jesus died because some people felt he was being a bit of an @$$. Historically, it's probably pretty similar.
|
|
Oh, I don't know. Biblically speaking, it seems like Jesus died because some people felt he was being a bit of an @$$. Historically, it's probably pretty similar.Jesus fought the Law and the Law won! ;-)
A little bit of a misinterpretation, but regardless Jesus himself broke "the Law" quite a bit. Which really seemed to piss off the religious leaders.
"Will no one avenge me of one turbulent priest?"
-Henry II refering to Thomas a BecketHistory is full of authority dealing with outside thinkers rashly. While Henry didn't actually want Thomas killed, his words roused his supporters into action. History has lots of these comparisons.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Jesus fought the Law and the Law won! ;-)
A little bit of a misinterpretation, but regardless Jesus himself broke "the Law" quite a bit. Which really seemed to piss off the religious leaders.Oh noes!
They'z bringing alignment into me religion!
/jk.
Hmmm...what alignment do you think Jesus would be?
I probably shouldn't even make that joke should I, because someone, somewhere, is stupid enough to respond, and then we'll end up in some stupid debate about Jesus' alignment and whether he could/would kill goblin kids.
Sigh.
Actually, on that note, and at risk of adding further kindling to the potential topic, the main religious organization in my campaigns was usually the Trinity - composed of the Father (LN), the Son (NG), and the Spirit (LG). All other religions were viewed as cults of lesser gods and/or demons/devils. My alignment choices were based on campaign needs as much as anything else, and I don't mean to imply that they are correct or even reasonable. I've just never liked D&D's pantheism because it clashes so much with medieval Europe.
The word 'hell' is something added during translation. (Although I have heard people claim completely seriously that the Bible's true language is English, with the King James version being the literal truth, and that I'm wrong-headed for going back to the Hebrew...)
As I understood it, from the translation, and I couldn't read it myself, so take this with as much salt as your blood pressure can bear, the 'lake of fire' was supposed to sit at the side of the throne of God, in heaven, and those who were judged unworthy were cast into the lake of fire, to be burned up. The words 'there to suffer everlasting destruction' get used, in the translation, but the choice in translation could just as validly be interpreted to state that 'everlasting' meant 'no take backsies, once you're destroyed, there's no coming back, no forgiveness, no chance of coming back' instead of the more common interpretation of 'poked in the ass by pitchfork-wielding pagan-nature-god-looking dudes for all eternity.'
Where in the hell (pun intended) the bit about goat-headed red-skinned dudes with pitchforks came from, I have no idea. Sammael, aka Lucifer, aka Satan, was supposed to be the most beautiful of the angels, and the third of the heavenly host that fell with him were also angels, so, if 'demons' look like anything, they should look like really pretty people with wings. Satan was also given dominion over the earth, and, specifically, the skies, which means that a subterranean place full of fire doesn't really make much sense, either.
Gehenna (a really real place), Sheol (another really real place), Hades (the Greco-Roman underworld) and the Biblical 'lake of fire' have all gotten so hopelessly conflated that it's pretty much a moot scholarly exercise to try and untangle that mess.
IMO, it was all about control. Sometime in the so-called 'dark ages,' when it was fashionable to talk about 'divine right of kings' and the 'great chain of being,' to keep the serfs in their place, an afterlife that consisted of a quick and permanant fiery death probably sounded like a freaking *vacation* compared to the miserable, oppressive and unjust sort of life the average peasant had to endure. This made it's value as a 'stick' to convince people to follow the rules and pay their taxes pretty thin. Sexing it up with obsessive and grisly descriptions of torture, perhaps inspiring the gratuitious tortures of the Inquisition many years later, would make it more 'motivational' for the uppity peasants who might be thinking of not paying their taxes, or getting ornery about how their kids had all starved to death while the local ruler was throwing his sixth fancy dress party of the season, and sharpening their own very real pitchforks.
And, IMO, it misses the point. Does God *really* want us to respect his teachings because we want a shiny cookie at the end, or because we fear the painful stick? If fear of torture motivating one to do or say the right thing is all that is required to be 'good' and 'go to heaven,' that makes everyone who got waterboarded at Guantanamo a saint by default.
Somehow, I expect more. One should walk along the path Jesus blazed because they *want to,* with no expectation of reward, because they think it's the right path to take, and not just because they fear getting punished if they stray. But, I've been told I have unreasonable expectations, and even been shouted at for quoting Jesus, by Christians, being told that admonitions to 'judge not' or 'forgive your enemy' are *unrealistic* and foolish.
The concept of hell, as a place of fiery torment, IMO, set the faith back. People aren't rats in Pavlovian mazes. That sort of thinking, that people must be motivated by reward or punishment, and not by reason or enlightenment or faith, is reductionistic and diminishes both humanity and the Christian concept of free will.
We can choose to do the right thing (or the wrong thing) *without* carrots or sticks, and insisting otherwise goes against the story of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. It's lazy, and makes excuses for abusive behavior and dismissive and dehumanizing assessments of our fellow human beings (and, IMO, one can't dehumanize and hold in contempt another without dehumanizing and, on some level, having contempt for oneself).
Cue Whitney Houston, with 'the greatest love of all,' which is just the latest way to say, 'Do unto others.'
As always, add 'IMO' to the end of any sentence that starts with a capital letter.
Clearly Set you spent a significant amount of time crafting this post. I really enjoyed this post and have even gone back some pages and dug it up to read it again.