But have you ever seen a stagnant dog? Man, do they look content.
I'm purposely avoiding the evolution debate since as a Christian and a Biology teacher I can literally go on for days about such subject matter.
I wanted to touch back to what the OP said when quoting scripture. I was a little surprised that you didn't include with the quote from Romans a few lines from Romans chapter one. {New International Version} Romans 1:18-23 says "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them because God has made it plain to them. FOR SINCE THE CREATION OF THE WORLD GOD'S INVISIBLE QUALITIES - HIS ETERNAL POWER AND DIVINE NATURE - HAVE BEEN CLEARLY SEEN, BEING UNDERSTOOD FROM WHAT HAS BEEN MADE, SO THAT MEN ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE." {emphasis mine, apologies for the caps but I don't know how to make italics on these posts}. In other words, creation itself is evidence of God. The animals, the skies, the rocks, the weather, even ourselves show a design (and therefore a designer). Anyway, it continues ... "For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles." This explains why so many cultures have gods that are in the form of people & creatures. Isn't it foolish to praise/worship an object rather than the one who created it?
This chapter goes on to detail the three main ways God punishes the unbeliever - He "gives them over" to sexual impurity, to shameful lusts, and to a depraved mind. Verse 32 of that chapter concludes "Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."
The argument that it isn't fair for those who don't have access to the Bible or possess no knowledge of Jesus is flawed on many levels. First, there are the verses I've just reproduced here as well as the hundreds of verses that say people will be judged according to their understanding (the more you know, the more responsible you are for disobedience) and that all humans possess at least a minimal understanding of basic right/wrong and the existance of a supreme being. Second, though God encourages us to study scripture and spirit-filled believers should have a desire to do so, God never commands Bible reading as a strict requirement for entrance to heaven. We read scripture to better understand the character of God so we can better serve and please him, not so we can check it off our list of prerequisites for heaven.
Jesus said that He came that we "might have life and have it more abundantly". Christianity is sort of a "you don't know what you're missing" kind of thing. I don't hate those who don't share my beliefs, I feel sorry for them. They think they're living fulfilled lives when really they're missing out on so much.
One poster argued that religion was useless. I can't imagine thinking that way. I see my non-believing friends struggle with depression, bitterness, loneliness and discontent. I have suffered much in my life - abuse, loss, disappointment - including (but not limited to) an alcoholic & abusive father, permanent physical disfigurement, and the deaths of two of my children at a young age. I've had professing Christians disappoint and hurt me (to say nothing of non-believers). The list could go on and on but I can wake up each day with a happy spirit and can sleep peacefully at night. I don't worry about yesterday, today or tomorrow. When things don't go my way (and they hardly ever do) I can just relax knowing God has a plan for my life and whatever He wills will happen.
I didn't read the original thread that started this whole topic but it saddens me that people would be critical of others who don't share their faith. Though Christians are often guilty of that it doesn't mean that they are representing God (or His attitudes) in such cases. God is love. (cliche` but true). It hurts Him (and certainly doesn't do His image any good) when we behave in such ways.
"I feel sorry for them. They think they're living fulfilled lives when really they're missing out on so much."
That's the second time in the past few days I've read a believer feeling sorry for those who see otherwise.
Hate to sound like the commercial caveman here but, "That is so condescending."
I'm asking here... do you folks who bear such a sympathy start with the assumption that you're happier and more fulfilled than I am, without even asking me about my life first? Do I not pulse with passionate joy on a daily basis? Do you actually think that my skin will taste eternal fire, bubble and go black as the devil does terrible things to my self esteem despite the fact that, though I don't concern myself with your particular holy book of the many, I wind up leading a life of great virtue anyway, yet for my own reasons and those I was taught by an honorable woman?
Funny, when I see someone whose car has broken down on the side of the road, why is it only ever me that stops to help? Ever? Where are all those other people who should be helping alongside me? It's been explained to me that they are often either afraid or self concerned. When I find a lost dog and drive out of my way to return it to the owner and they grab it away from me quick so as not to have to pay a reward I never would have asked for... what do I spy but a crucifix on the wall in their hall. Clearly the affectations of being religious are not enough to mend the weeping world. It is the content of our character that defines us and our role in this merry play. Some noble and wonderful people are religious, and it brings them a great peace. Some noble and wonderful people are not religious, and I personally find peace in my own ways. I am doing fine. Thanks for asking.
The hubris of viewing me or my kind as somehow in deficit creates a playing field for future conversation that not only fails to be level, it's just insulting.
I don't hate those who don't share my beliefs, I feel sorry for them. They think they're living fulfilled lives when really they're missing out on so much.
And it's those who are so sanctimoneous about it who make others like the Jade so annoyed. I am not a Christian, but my faith provides me with a rich, deeply contented spiritual life--despite your protestations to the contrary. There are many paths to the same place, Lady Aurora.
The list could go on and on but I can wake up each day with a happy spirit and can sleep peacefully at night. I don't worry about yesterday, today or tomorrow. When things don't go my way (and they hardly ever do) I can just relax knowing God has a plan for my life and whatever He wills will happen.
I might also point out (help me out, those here who are Christian) that it sounds as if you've discovered Fatalism, not Christ. If you perceive that things hardly ever go your way, then perhaps you're looking at the world as a victim or a martyr, not as one who's found the rapure of the Holy Spirit.
Allow me to emphasize that I'm not trying to be insulting here, only to point out that in a "civil" discussion, it's easy to anger everyone else by starting with the assumption that you have all the answers and that they know absolutely nothing. If you intended it otherwise, accept my most humble aplogies.
I was not trying to say that people who don't share my faith don't ever experience happiness, joy, peace or any other positive experience. If it sounded that way, I do apologize as that was not my intent. Nor was it my intent to offend you, Jade. I'm sorry if my words came across as condescending or offensive (again, that was certainly NOT my intent). I'm sorry. My choice of words was wrong. Please forgive me.
But it does bring up a thought that has always puzzled me - if a person doesn't believe in a higher power (which I would call atheism) or doesn't acknowledge any higher power that might exist (which I would call agnosticism), then why be offended if someone who does have such faith thinks you're going to face eternal punishment? I'm not saying that you, Jade, fit in either of those categories - I'm just throwing that question out there to people who consider themselves agnostics or athiests. My sister-in-law is a Bhuddist. I don't claim to have much of a clue to what she believes but I get the distinct impression she doesn't believe we Christians are on the right track. If someone believes in reincarnation and is convinced my disbelief in their religion will cause me to come back in the next life as a worm - what do I care?
To Eric, I will say that I don't believe I'm fatalistic. I'm not trying to imply that my life is an endless set of disappointments. I've had what I'd characterize as a fairly hard life but I've also had probably more than my share of blessings. I do claim Murphy's Law though. :) Anything that can go wrong, usually does! I could always use more money, more friends, more time to pursue some activities/hobbies that I enjoy, etc. I've made mistakes in my past and most likely will make some today and tomorrow too but again, that doesn't consume my thoughts. My husband is active duty military and currently deployed. I love him and miss him dearly but I'm not pacing the floor with worry for his safety. I don't have much of a clue about what my future might have in store (I really should plan better probably) but I'm not worried about that either. Global warming? Terrorist Attack? Personal or family sickness? Political upheaval? Financial Disaster? Anything can and will happen but I don't waste time thinking about such things. I'm not saying that I don't have a savings account/retirement plan (sparse though it may be), have a written will (though it probably needs updating) or that I don't keep relatively up-to-date on world issues. I'm just saying when payday is still a week away and the cupboard is getting bare I don't stress out like others I know. I credit my faith with that. Maybe others (who also don't stress over the past, present, or future) have a different "tool". If that works for them - great! More power to you. This is what works for me.
The point I was trying to make originally (though I apparently did a poor job of expressing it) is that I consider faith a you-don't-know-what-you're-missing kinda thing. If you don't think you're missing anything - again, bully for you!
Weak example follows:
A few seasons ago (I think) on Survivor two players got in a heated debate because one was married and the other a young single man. Each had the opportunity to win a day with a loved one. Neither of these guys won time with their significant other but the married one made a comment to the effect that being reunited with one's spouse was much more significant than getting to spend time with one's mother (the single man's "loved one"). The single man was highly offended and argument ensued. The married man's point was that love between a husband and wife is completely different (implication - deeper, richer) than love between a mother and son. Whether you agree or not, the married man's argument was that the single man could not comprehend marital love because he had not experienced it yet. Does this mean that all marriages are blissful and ultimately fulfilling? Clearly not since there's a 50% divorce rate. But do some people enjoy a wonderful experience that someone who has never been married cannot comprehend? Absolutely. That doesn't make the single people stupid or less human in any way - it just means marriage is something that can't be understood without experiencing it.
It took my husband & I almost ten years to have children. Whenever we gave advice it used to really torque me when parents would respond "You don't understand. If/when you ever have children, you'll understand." But only after actually having children of my own to I come to agree with their wisdom. Having children does change one's perspective, one's lifestyle,... basically everything. In my opinion, parenthood is another of life's "you don't know what you're missing" experiences because it's hard to explain to a non-parent the joy and fulfillment children can bring to one's life. Scripture says that the things of God are foolishness to the unbeliever because one needs the Spirit to comprehend spiritual matters. That's not my axiom, it's God's. If that is offensive to someone, that anger or indignation is best directed toward the Author.
Hey, I'm not trying to start any flame wars. I'm just trying to have a civil religious discussion. :)
Lady Aurora,
Thanks for the insightful posts; certainly no offense was taken, I only wanted to head off the possibility. In any case, I hope your husband comes back swiftly and safely; I give great tribute to his bravery, and especially to yours for remaining sane at home during these times. If you can accept the blessings of one whom you might consider an infidel, then I wish you great happiness.
If it makes any difference, I myself am a Buddhist--no reincarnation, though (that's fundamentally a Hindu concept, not really a Buddhist one). Mostly, we try to live correctly (the Buddha's noble path is more or less similar to what Christ taught later on, as Erian can attest) in order to alleviate suffering. From your definition, it sounds like you'd call me an atheist as well; I like to think that everything is God, without the need for personification. In any case, the potential for deep spiritual fulfillment is there as well. Erian mentioned "Living Buddha, Living Christ," which is highly recommended for anyone who is curious as to similarities between Christianity and Buddhism.
Thanks again for your conversation, and for your contributions here.
My sister-in-law is a Bhuddist. I don't claim to have much of a clue to what she believes but I get the distinct impression she doesn't believe we Christians are on the right track. If someone believes in reincarnation and is convinced my disbelief in their religion will cause me to come back in the next life as a worm - what do I care?
There is nothing fundamentally incompatible, as I see it. But what's wrong with a worm? The Buddha taught that we're all one: you, your sister-in-law, and the worm. How then can she think ill of you?
Thanks Eric. I do indeed welcome encouragement regardless of the source :)
Just to clarify: Even though I made mention of Bhuddism next to my comment about reincarnation, I did not mean to imply that Bhuddists believed in reincarnation. My sister-in-law formerly considered herself a Christian and then converted to Bhuddism over disgust with the "hypocracy" of the church.
This always amuses me, BTW, why does everyone expect Christians (or more accurately - church attenders) to be perfect? If the church is full of hypocrits does that automatically mean that God is? Anyway, I don't think so. My sister-in-law thinks going to church is stupid and probably by association that we are stupid (or hypocrits or at least wasting our time) by attending church. That doesn't bother me in the least though. Several of my friends have strong feelings against the "church" but I don't go for their sake, I go for my own.
Anyway, so my sister-in-law converted to Bhuddism. I pray for her, since I believe she is misguided. Maybe she prays for me for the same reason! I would never say to her, BTW, "You're wrong. Your beliefs are silly and I believe you're heading for eternal damnation". Of course, she would never ask my opinion on such matters - being wise enough to avoid such a comment. It's not my place to judge anyone who doesn't share my beliefs. (That's the Holy Spirit's job). My job is to further my own spiritual journey - what the Bible calls "working out your own salvation". I am free to offer advice to others who profess to share my beliefs but not to those who do not. This is tricky for me such I'm such a big-mouthed, opinionated person. "Blessed is he who can bridle his tongue, for it is full of wickedness and venom".
Anyway, my example of someone who believes in reincarnation (be they Hindu or whatever) was simply an example which was poorly placed next to my Bhuddist example.
Perhaps a more appropriate example would be of my mother-in-law. She considers herself a born-again believer, just like me. We greatly differ in our beliefs, however, on how one reaches heaven. My mother-in-law truly believes I am destined to burn in hell. There are many reasons for this - I wear pants, jewelry, cut my hair, attend movies, dance, play cards (she'd stroke if she knew we play D&D), etc, etc. She actually refers to me as spawn of Satan (I'm not making this up!). She constantly tells me that I'm going to hell and she cries for me and pleads with me to change my sinful ways. At first I found this annoying but now I just ignore it. What do I care what she thinks about my eternal future? I think she's off her nut, personally. Still, I recognize that she is sincerely concerned for my soul and so I try my best to be gracious about it. I focus on the things we *can* agree on (it's a pretty short list) and avoid stirring up conflict by debating the things we don't.
The vast majority of my friends do not share my beliefs and that's okay. I pray for them but I don't judge their actions. Some of the things they do are not appropriate for me and that's okay. Sometimes we get in friendly debates about issues which usually end in our mutual agreement to disagree. I'm almost always interested in hearing their point of view and I appreciate their respect in hearing mine.
Bottom line, the world's a big place. There are all kinds of people with all kinds of different beliefs. How boring would it be if we all thought the exact same thing? Besides, scripture says that the Spirit reveals himself to each one differently. This means, IMO, that each one can learn from another - gaining new insight.
I thank each one of you for letting me voice my opinion and for sharing yours.
To Eric, I will say that I don't believe I'm fatalistic.
Fatalism doesn't mean pessimism. I'm a fatalist myself (I've also been accused of being a Taoist), however I came to it via chao-determinism (the belief that the universe is deterministic but so complex as to be unpredictable).
I pray for her, since I believe she is misguided. Maybe she prays for me for the same reason!
Not if she's truly a Buddhist; if so, she accepts that your path may differ from hers in name, but not in substance, and that as long as you do not hurt yourself or others, you are doing good. That's a fundamental difference between true Buddhism and radical Christianity: we don't assume a monopoly on truth. Life has many lessons to teach all of us, and if your God is truly eternal, then He can't be stuffed into a book-- even one as thick as a Bible.
Can't defend my sister-in-law one way or the other as I am fairly ignorant of her belief system. Just from her comments I had gotten the distinct impression that she *does* think we are pretty misguided (which as I said, is not a point of contention between us). However, I will clarify any impression I might have given about her in saying that she is *very* serious about her Bhuddism. She spends all her spare time at the local Bhuddist gathering place (sorry, can't remember the term for it right now - it's after 2 am) and has been studying for a couple years to be a Bhuddist nun. I therefore consider her pretty devout in her faith. Just like Christians come in various "flavors", I kinda assumed Bhuddists did too. Or, hey, maybe she just doesn't like us (a distinct possibility!) ;)
Can't defend my sister-in-law one way or the other as I am fairly ignorant of her belief system. Just from her comments I had gotten the distinct impression that she *does* think we are pretty misguided (which as I said, is not a point of contention between us). However, I will clarify any impression I might have given about her in saying that she is *very* serious about her Bhuddism. She spends all her spare time at the local Bhuddist gathering place (sorry, can't remember the term for it right now - it's after 2 am) and has been studying for a couple years to be a Bhuddist nun. I therefore consider her pretty devout in her faith. Just like Christians come in various "flavors", I kinda assumed Bhuddists did too. Or, hey, maybe she just doesn't like us (a distinct possibility!) ;)
Right on the nose. Like Catholics and Mormons, so are Zen Buddhists and Tibetan Buddhists. Of course, I'm a minimalist: What did the Buddha teach? Ignore the trappings. What did Christ teach? Ignore the rest of the Bible. I don't go to a temple or shrine. I practice in life, as the Buddha recommended. The main thing is, I'm pretty well against fanaticism in ANY religion: it takes a great message and perverts it in all kinds of ugly ways. I try to walk the middle path.
To Eric, I will say that I don't believe I'm fatalistic.Fatalism doesn't mean pessimism. I'm a fatalist myself (I've also been accused of being a Taoist), however I came to it via chao-determinism (the belief that the universe is deterministic but so complex as to be unpredictable).
That makes sense. Like feeding all known weather data into a supercomputer and asking it for a prediction: the computer crashes. In "work mode" I'm a pessimist (much of my value comes from a finely-honed ability to play Devil's advocate), but never a fatalist.
Incidentally, one of my best friends is a Taoist, who has used much the same way of talking about it ("I've been accused of being..."). I wonder if that's a holdover from the old Confuscianist-Taoist rivalry, or a more recent thing?
Hopefully our faith is constantly seeking understanding. As humans we strive to understand and according to Karl Rahner to ask a question is one of the most basic of human actions. But I find it alien for me when atheists ignore/avoid the basic question of meaning.
What does it all mean? The universe? My life? Our humanity? etc., etc., etc.?
As insulting as Steve Greer found it when the term 'organized religion' was bandied about, for which he received many sincere apologies, I think atheists are being quantified in broad strokes of generalization by people who know as little about them as lifetime atheists could ever know about the wonderment of knowing Jesus and taking him as their lord and saviour.
Why would anyone ever assume that atheists haven't given thought to the meaning of life? (though perhaps you mean those atheists who choose not to think about such things) I'm right here and you can ask me anyting, and I assure you that my mind is forever voyaging. I've given much thought on the matter since I was a lil Jade and I've arrived at answers that satisfied me; answers that work for me. I think the world, and our life here, is what we make of it. I don't see the cosmos as deterministic, more probabilisitic. I don't see a grand plan nor does any part of me require one in order to live by a code and do my best to stick to it. I believe in personal responsibility and kindness above all other things. I believe in walking the path and finding one's own specific answers, but fully respect those who prefer to approach such matters with a fist thick canon of two to seven thousand years of collected religious philosophies under their arm. I'm not interested in rituals, which I personally believe exist to make people feel safer, and more in touch with their place in the world. Nothing wrong with it... I'm just cut from a different cloth. I don't need there to be ghosts or psychic powers either (though I love to read and write about all things metaphysical). I'm okay with the everyday mundanity... that which I actually see, over and over and over again. There is heaven and hell in a salted peanut depending on how it goes down your throat.
There is heaven and hell in a salted peanut depending on how it goes down your throat.
I think the Jade has summed up the major issues absolutely beautifully there. Anyone who maintains that an atheist cannot be spritual, should meet this guy. Total respects, Jade.
I believe that religious debate leads to ruin.
I'll just let the Jade speak for me from now on.
But seriously, all the atheo/agnostics I know are very thoughtful, decent people. My wife (who's areligious herself) has told people on more than one occasion that I seek God more than anyone she knows, even though I'm an avowed atheist.
But seriously, all the atheo/agnostics I know are very thoughtful, decent people.
At the risk of offending those who believe that their religion is the only way to morality, I might mention that it's always seemed to me that much of what we consider "moral" is, in fact, pragmatic (e.g., if one goes around killing people, sooner or later it'll spark a feud and that person will get wiped out. If one commits adultery, his wife will ditch him and/or a jealous husband will put him out of his misery. Etc.). That being said, people who learn it by rote from a book may be less likely to have absorbed the difficult life lessons in the usefulness of morality than those who have to feel their way along as they go. In that case, many self-aware atheists would be MORE moral than many fundamentalists (notice the "many," which is not "all"). Of course, there are any number of lazy and/or self-destructive immoral atheists out there, too. I do tend to notice, though, that those who focus on Biblical quotes (or Qu'ran verses, or whatever) out of context seem to commit far more evil than those who focus on the overall "message" of love that Christ (et al.) taught... and the quotationists seem to commit far, far more evil than those who don't have a book to use as an excuse to hurt others.
I believe that religious debate leads to ruin.
If ruin is wrong. I don't want to be right.
|
But seriously, all the atheo/agnostics I know are very thoughtful, decent people.
At the risk of offending those who believe that their religion is the only way to morality, I might mention that it's always seemed to me that much of what we consider "moral" is, in fact, pragmatic (e.g., if one goes around killing people, sooner or later it'll spark a feud and that person will get wiped out. If one commits adultery, his wife will ditch him and/or a jealous husband will put him out of his misery. Etc.). That being said, people who learn it by rote from a book may be less likely to have absorbed the difficult life lessons in the usefulness of morality than those who have to feel their way along as they go. In that case, many self-aware atheists would be MORE moral than many fundamentalists (notice the "many," which is not "all"). Of course, there are any number of lazy and/or self-destructive immoral atheists out there, too. I do tend to notice, though, that those who focus on Biblical quotes (or Qu'ran verses, or whatever) out of context seem to commit far more evil than those who focus on the overall "message" of love that Christ (et al.) taught... and the quotationists seem to commit far, far more evil than those who don't have a book to use as an excuse to hurt others.
And of course, some of the most appalling things have been perpetrated in the name of God.
I personally don't think religion has much impact at all. In my parents' village, the vicar was a most turbulent priest who was bad-tempered and offensive a lot of the time. Likewise, bitter feuds have broken out amongst the church wardens over the nativity scene. Likewise, I had a buddhist girlfriend who would do all the genuflection at little statues, but totally screwed me (and not in a good way - well, not always) without a second thought. Yet great kindness is possible from those of any religious persuasion, including none. People are what they are - the religion is a cultural thing which is ignored for the most part in interpersonal dealings.
If ruin is wrong. I don't want to be right.
To each, their own.
Sorry for the long delay…laptop’s having HD problems so I’m on a borrowed PC…
As a scientist, I should point out that, technically, a "fact" is an observed datum (e.g., I am 6' tall). A "hypthesis" is what most people mean when they say 'theory': it's a guess as to what underlying principle fits the observed data (facts). A "theory" is a hypthesis that has withstood repeated testing.
No theory is ever "proven" in science; they only stand up to another test, get tinkered with if they don't quite fit, or get thrown out if shown not to work at all. Dismissing something as a "theory" with a sneer, as many scientifically illiterate folks do, makes no sense. Referring to a theory as a "fact" or "belief" is equally incorrect. Pure science accepts that man is not perfect, and therefore no theory is ever 100% correct-- they just get better and better at making accurate and/or useful predictions.
Definitely agree. My point in raising the question was to ensure we’re all talking from the same playing field here. I’ve too often found folks that lean on “science” (whether it is evolution, creation of the universe, etc.) as “fact” when they in truth don’t understand the theory and hypotheses upon which science depends. They generally believe something simply because an authority figure (such as a parent or mentor) or because a trusted institution (such as a school) told them it was “fact” (granted that often times the source was actually not stating this, but the hearer boiled the discussion down to “this is the truth”). In this regard, those who follow science blindly without understanding the centuries of development behind it can be just as dangerous, IMHO, as the “religious” that adhere to their beliefs simply because a preacher or church told them to do so. I don’t think a theory is a bad thing, and indeed am fairly “science-focused” myself, but I understand that science, as you say, is not perfect but rather ever-changing and improving. I’ll touch on some of the important areas, for me, in evolutionary theory later on…
I should clarify here. I'm using a very specific term when I say "revealed God," and it's a definition I'm pretty sure is backed up both by Thomas Shippey and by writings of Tolkien himself.
Yes, there is a God in Middle Earth -- Eru Illuvitar -- and yes, it is a direct renaming for the Christian Yaweh God, and yes Olorin (Gandalf) and the Valar are direct servants of God, *but*....
That is not technically a "revealed God." Why? There is no Middle Earth Bible, and there is no Middle Earth Jesus. God is considered (by some) to be revealed in this world, because of the Bible and Jesus' sacrifice for us.
Middle Earth shares no such comfort. They have neither a book nor a martyred prophet to assure them that they are "the chosen" of Eru, or that they have any way of winning.
Ah, I’d disagree then. The various tales found in the Silmarillion (though I do note the literary debates surrounding this work), such as the Ainulindalë, Valaquenta, Quenta Silmarillion, and the Akallabêth most definitely reveal the hand of Eru (and his servants) in forming the world, elves, men, etc. The Ainulindalë in particular points to the hope of e future world. And I’ve always seen these not simply as writings Tolkien created for us (or himself) but as the literal songs and legends of the people of Middle Earth, which they themselves would have known. Gandalf was very much a Christ-figure, assuring the Fellowship of their task, dying so that they might live, returning to life and in so doing giving new hope to Aragorn and the others, and he directly fought in battles (Hornburg, Minas Tirith) before personally leading the assault on the Black Gate. I’m sure the orcs that died to his sword, staff, and magic would not say he didn’t intercede…
This, of course, is all delving into literary theory and my own assumptions about Tolkien’s intent, and assuming my own understanding of authorial intent (always a sticky thing).
I see evolution at work everyday; I think people are foolish not to accept it.
This is a statement I deem to be dangerous and (possibly) indicative of not fully understanding the theory of evolution. Evolution is not fact, it has not been fully proven to explain creation from a primordial soup of non-sentient chemicals to humanity. There is strong theory to support aspects of microevolution, and I do not refute these. The observed evolution we see every day is, in fact, microevolution. The leap from chemicals to single-cell organism, to every form of life on the planet is very much dependent on hypothetical assumptions and conclusions. To rest one’s belief on these requires just as much faith as resting on creationism.
The "Aztec" gods also self-sacrificed so you could have a world to live in, as revealed in the Codices. Show them any gratitude lately? ...Which I suppose is my sarcastic way of saying the concept of divine sacrifice is not uniquely Christian.
Ah, Native American religion…one of my favorite topics in my studies, due largely to having Native ancestry myself. There is indeed evidence of self-sacrifice in various Native American religions. For the Aztec’s, this would be Nanahuatzin’s sacrifice so that the maize-based humans could live(similarly reflected in Mayan culture as the Popol Vuh recounts the gods, having failed in attempts to make the mud-man and wood-man, finally succeed with the True People made of maize). Of course, this theme is not unique to Christianity and Native Americans. For instance, by some interpretation of Vedic and Puranic literature Prajapati (who literarily evolves into Brahama in later Hindu works) continually self-sacrifices to sustain the entire universe. I do not show any of these gods gratitude because, as a Christian, I don’t believe they exist. I do see them as possibly that particular culture’s attempt at understanding the Divine, and in this way again see the Law Written on the Heart coming to all people from God. I do not insist that any Hindu (or any other belief or non-belief) accept my view as correct, any more than I would want Hinduism forced upon me.
Oh, since it's come up, I also wanted to address Lewis' question: that Jesus was either a) a liar, b) insane, or c) the Son of God.
I disagree that those are the only options. Among any number of other possible answers to Lewis' question, I would propose:
d) The events transcribed in the Bible are to some degree or another not entirely accurate to one degree or another, including: e) The dialog is not necessarily 100% word for word, particularly after almost 2,000 years of translation through multiple languages, f) The tale maybe grew in the telling, especially considering the Gospels weren't even written down immediately, but went through a few generations of oral transmission first, and there's not perfect agreement between the denominations on exact events (bodily or spiritual resurrection), g) None of it happened.
There is fairly strong historical evidence at least that a man named Jesus claimed to be the Christ in 1st century Israel and was killed. As for the time between the actual events and the writings of the Gospels, literary analysis places most in the range of 60-100 CE, in the very generation that walked with Jesus. Manuscript fragments date largely from 100 CE onward. Definitely not multiple generations of oral tradition, though definitely in the range of 30 years or so at least.
Various modern translations, such as the New American Standard Bible (NASB) have done much to correct the translation errors introduced in such works as the King James Version, building from those manuscript fragments not available during the KJV creation (and not hindered by a king interested in self-promotion).
I would again point to Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ as a starting point for anyone interested in further researching this. The book is by no means an iron-clad defense of Christianity (as Strobel is largely writing from a Christian perspective and thus is not an unbiased voice) but it at least provides a glimpse into other works of Christian apologetics, which can be the source of further investigation
One could argue that gravity isn't a fact, just a divine codependent unwillingness to let us go.
For those who letter-of-the-law it and think that fossils are a mischievous trick, that carbon dating isn't valid, and that the world is only six grand old... I don't feel I can participate in a serious discussion that isn't destined to devolve into rhetorical infinity loops.
Then again, quantum is very sloppy mathematically and often states things definitively that cannot be verified. I think those who dabble in proclaiming absolute knowledge over the unknown, regardless of how brilliant their system of thought is, are out of their depth.
Oh, you’ll not find me in this camp and I think we are agreed here. I do not think Satan put seashells on the tops of mountains to trick all us Christians and give "them Atheist Communist Nazis" (a term I’ve actually heard, emphasizing the speakers lack of understanding about these three very different concepts) a way to tear us down. Science is a good thing, as long as we do keep in mind its limitations.
But how far removed from the root rhinovirus does your new bug have to get before it's just not a rhinovirus anymore? If you go through 100 generations of them a month, and then give it 100,000,000 years, you've got 1,200,000,000,000 generations worth. If there's only a 0.01% difference each generation, you've still got many whole new bugs in that time. And the Earth is something like 4.6 billion years old
What I’m looking for is hard evidence of one species becoming another species. Evolution isn’t postulating that humans evolved from monkeys, but indeed that humans evolved from the same material that produced trees, rocks, and “air.” The probability of this happening spontaneously (i.e. without some external influence such as God) is very, very small, even over so long a period of time. Jerking along with punctuated equilibrium or creeping along with gradualism both do little to increase these odds. Again, I’m not rejecting evolution as a theory, but do not accept it as the proven, true way that all must believe or be fools.
So, is God omniscient, or is the Bible infallible? For this and a whole variety of other reasons that I'll get into if people are really interested, I can't see it working both ways.
I’d definitely be interested in hearing more, as I believe both are possible. However, one must understand the Bible as it is. It is not a history book, though it contains some historical events. It is not a work of fiction, though it contains some fictional events. Rather, it is a book revealing the gradual spiritual truth of God over time.
And that's what science is all about. As soon as one claims to have THE answer, he or she stops learning and becomes stagnant and dogmatic.
And to this I’ll give you an “Amen!” just because it sounds ironic…
I'm purposely avoiding the evolution debate since as a Christian and a Biology teacher I can literally go on for days about such subject matter.
We’re likely to go on for days anyway, and I bet you can discuss the topic more intelligently than I from a Christian perspective, so come on!
From your definition, it sounds like you'd call me an atheist as well; I like to think that everything is God, without the need for personification.
This would be more pantheism than atheism, I think.
I believe that religious debate leads to ruin.
Can you elaborate? From my experience, debate and dialogue cannot lead to ruin unless they devolve into fighting. They may challenge people to reexamine beliefs, truisms, etc. but I fail to see how such examination is ruin.
At the risk of offending those who believe that their religion is the only way to morality, I might mention that it's always seemed to me that much of what we consider "moral" is, in fact, pragmatic (e.g., if one goes around killing people, sooner or later it'll spark a feud and that person will get wiped out. If one commits adultery, his wife will ditch him and/or a jealous husband will put him out of his misery. Etc.). That being said, people who learn it by rote from a book may be less likely to have absorbed the difficult life lessons in the usefulness of morality than those who have to feel their way along as they go. In that case, many self-aware atheists would be MORE moral than many fundamentalists (notice the "many," which is not "all"). Of course, there are any number of lazy and/or self-destructive immoral atheists out there, too. I do tend to notice, though, that those who focus on Biblical quotes (or Qu'ran verses, or whatever) out of context seem to commit far more evil than those who focus on the overall "message" of love that Christ (et al.) taught... and the quotationists seem to commit far, far more evil than those who don't have a book to use as an excuse to hurt others.
From my first post in this thread, I think I’m clearly on the side of God imprinting morality in all people—it doesn’t come from the Bible, but rather is reflected therein (as it is in other religious works). I do agree that just as someone with book-learning out of college might have a hard time in the “real world” of business, so to can those who absorb religion without understanding. Christians are not called to blind memorization and obedience, but rather to reflection, reasoning (both with other and with God), and transformation.
Hmm, I think I’ve already said some of these things—evidence that I need to re-read the thread and catch myself up again…
The Bible can not be infallible as it is a FACT that the Catholic Church has a commitee that decided which books of the Bible should be in the Bible. Now can anyone show me where God, any God said religious figures have the right to decide what parts of His/Her message the rest of us gets to hear?
The Bible can not be infallible as it is a FACT that the Catholic Church has a commitee that decided which books of the Bible should be in the Bible. Now can anyone show me where God, any God said religious figures have the right to decide what parts of His/Her message the rest of us gets to hear?
I'm not sure I follow the logic here. If the act of coming together to agree on the documents for inclusion is fallible because those meeting together might make a mistake in what is included/excluded and are thus fallible, then that would seem to presume that the original documents before inclusion/exclusion were indeed infallible and simply tainted by later fallible decisions. However, if the authors of the various books could be considered infallible, then could not also the members of the Council of Trent (convened between 1545-1563) have included infallible selectors?
In general, the argument I hear against the infallibility of the Bible is more commonly that those who penned the words in the first place were human, and thus fallible. Therefore, inclusion or exclusion of scripture at the Council of Trent is secondary to the fallible nature of the author. The Council's actions, building from and later validated by works such as the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, and Codex Alexandrinus (all dating some thousand years prior to the Council), were simply an organizational blip in comparison. At least that's how I'd see it if I were questioning the infallibility of the Bible.
It should be noted also that the canon of books as established by the Council of Trent is not universally accepted thoughout the Christian faith. You will find variations from the Roman Catholic in Protestantism, Orthodox (and with further distinction between Eastern, Ethiopian, Syriac, Armenian, et. al. Orthodox), and Slavonic traditions.
Ah, I’d disagree then. The various tales found in the Silmarillion....
I love it! I went to a (very pleasantly civil) religious debate, and a scholarly discussion of Professor Tolkien's work broke out.
Okay, I really want to delve into this further with you, erian, but I have to go run some errands. I shall post more on this subject later.
There is fairly strong historical evidence at least that a man named Jesus claimed to be the Christ in 1st century Israel and was killed. As for the time between the actual events and the writings of the Gospels, literary analysis places most in the range of 60-100 CE, in the very generation that walked with Jesus. Manuscript fragments date largely from 100 CE onward. Definitely not multiple generations of oral tradition, though definitely in the range of 30 years or so at least.
Various modern translations, such as the New American Standard Bible (NASB) have done much to correct the translation errors introduced in such works as the King James Version, building from those manuscript fragments not available during the KJV creation (and not hindered by a king interested in self-promotion).
A very cogent response. But my only point in bringing up those other possibilities was to point out that there are more possibilities than the (to me) narrow set of options Lewis provides. From there, we can debate the possible truth of any of those statements, and any more that anyone else might suggest, but I always felt that addressing only the options Lewis presents unfairly limits the discussion and pre-loads it to be favorable to the outcome Lewis wishes -- that Jesus was the Son of God. All I am doing is proposing some other possible options.
As someone who would contest that conclusion, I feel my position can be argued without explicitly calling Jesus Christ insane or a liar.
I would again point to Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ as a starting point for anyone interested in further researching this.
I have Strobel's book on my bookshelf. I really must get around to reading that soon. I have not yet, merely because the To Be Read pile has grown beyond control.
I love it! I went to a (very pleasantly civil) religious debate, and a scholarly discussion of Professor Tolkien's work broke out.
Okay, I really want to delve into this further with you, erian, but I have to go run some errands. I shall post more on this subject later.
Sounds good. I've got a bit on my plate tonight (guests coming to visit), so might not be back to the conversation until tomorrow (or later if my darn HD doesn't come in on time...).
A very cogent response. But my only point in bringing up those other possibilities was to point out that there are more possibilities than the (to me) narrow set of options Lewis provides. From there, we can debate the possible truth of any of those statements, and any more that anyone else might suggest, but I always felt that addressing only the options Lewis presents unfairly limits the discussion and pre-loads it to be favorable to the outcome Lewis wishes -- that Jesus was the Son of God. All I am doing is proposing some other possible options.
As someone who would contest that conclusion, I feel my position can be argued without explicitly calling Jesus Christ insane or a liar.
Granted, Lewis started in the trilemma from the assumption that scripture was valid. A slight modification might include all options: (1) lunatic; (2) lie; (3) Lord. Lie, thus would cover both deception on the part of Jesus and deception of later authors. Are there any possibilities outside these three?
For Strobel, I'd definitely say don't stop there. He's a good read for an introduction to Christian Apologetics, but can be torn down (as can pretty much any argument on the metaphysical). His most often noted fault, as I've seen, is a failure to interview/cite opposing views in the work, thus predisposing the book toward the conclusion he favors as a Christian.
My thinking is if God is infallible, and His word is infallible,
how could man only tell you the part he wants you to hear. But in all honesty I am simply playing Devils advocate(no pun intended). I personally put my path in God's Hands a long time ago. I KNOW I have a friend in Jesus.
This is a statement I deem to be dangerous and (possibly) indicative of not fully understanding the theory of evolution. Evolution is not fact, it has not been fully proven to explain creation from a primordial soup of non-sentient chemicals to humanity. There is strong theory to support aspects of microevolution, and I do not refute these. The observed evolution we see every day is, in fact, microevolution. The leap from chemicals to single-cell organism, to every form of life on the planet is very much dependent on hypothetical assumptions and conclusions. To rest one’s belief on these requires just as much faith as resting on creationism.
So, do you reject the notion that a lifeform can be genetically dissimilar from its distant ancestors (one creature evolving from another)? Or is your contention merely the jump from non-life to life (an arbitrary distinction in my opinion)?
BTW When I say I see evolution, I don't mean just in living things; the process of natural selection is so intrinsic in so many different systems, it would greatly surprise me if it weren't occurring in animals.
What makes it intrinsic?
My thinking is if God is infallible, and His word is infallible,
how could man only tell you the part he wants you to hear. But in all honesty I am simply playing Devils advocate(no pun intended). I personally put my path in God's Hands a long time ago. I know I have a friend in Jesus.
I'd say (as above), that Infallible God, written into Infallible word by humans, could also be given Infallible organization by humans. If we assume infallibility in the authorship, why not in the organization?
Now, I should probably clarify my position on the infallible, inerrant, literal nature of scripture. I believe that the Bible (I use the Protestant Canon generally, though have also read the various books included in other canons) is a translation of God's action and will into words we humans can understand. It is not the only revelation of God (as noted above, even scripture says God is revealed in creation), is subject to human understanding/interpretation, and can only be fully understood with the assistance of God.
Thus we have differences of scripture specifics as to, for instance, how the disciple Judas died, what was the exact disposition of the money he received for betraying Jesus, and why a certain field was named "Field of Blood." It is not the historical minutia of the scripture that is infallible, but rather the spiritual truths as revealed by the Holy Spirit indwelling in a Christian. Scripture is inerrant in its purpose (revealing God) not in laying out physics, history, or politics. It is literal in that it is a direct word from God, not in that every story in scripture is literally true (as even Jesus taught in parables, not literal stories).
So, do you reject the notion that a lifeform can be genetically dissimilar from its distant ancestors (one creature evolving from another)? Or is your contention merely the jump from non-life to life (an arbitrary distinction in my opinion)?
BTW When I say I see evolution, I don't mean just in living things; the process of natural selection is so intrinsic in so many different systems, it would greatly surprise me if it weren't occurring in animals.
I don't fully reject either, but neither do I fully accept them as the only possible explanation. Until such time as we can clearly prove (via established hypotheses, tested and observed over time) one can derive life from nothing, I cannot accept it as the only possible explanation.
Ah, Native American religion…one of my favorite topics in my studies, due largely to having Native ancestry myself. There is indeed evidence of self-sacrifice in various Native American religions. For the Aztec’s, this would be Nanahuatzin’s sacrifice so that the maize-based humans could live(similarly reflected in Mayan culture as the Popol Vuh recounts the gods, having failed in attempts to make the mud-man and wood-man, finally succeed with the True People made of maize). Of course, this theme is not unique to Christianity and Native Americans. For instance, by some interpretation of Vedic and Puranic literature Prajapati (who literarily evolves into Brahama in later Hindu works) continually self-sacrifices to sustain the entire universe. I do not show any of these gods gratitude because, as a Christian, I don’t believe they exist. I do see them as possibly that particular culture’s attempt at understanding the Divine, and in this way again see the Law Written on the Heart coming to all people from God. I do not insist that any Hindu (or any other belief or non-belief) accept my view as correct, any more than I would want Hinduism forced upon me.
Can I just ask you why you don't believe they exist? I'm sure you are aware that besides the native American gods, the sacrificial king is a venerable figure in many world religions. In fact stories like those of Mithras, Osiris and Krishna bear a startling resemblance to the Christ story, and in some cases clearly predate it. I can understand atheism, and I can understand believing in Gods, but what is your justification for believing that only one God is real?
I don't want to offend you, and so far you have been a model of sincere and polite discussion AND put forward good reasons for your beliefs. So I am curious: Besides a deliberate choice to accept scripture in the face of the suspicious world-wide existence of self-sacrificial gods, what makes you sure that only your God exists?
Or perhaps, why is it necessary for Christain faith for YHWH to be the only real God?
However, one must understand the Bible as it is. It is not a history book, though it contains some historical events. It is not a work of fiction, though it contains some fictional events. Rather, it is a book revealing the gradual spiritual truth of God over time. Hmm, I think I’ve already said some of these things—evidence that I need to re-read the thread and catch myself up again…
Indeed, Erian, you have. Unlike you--whom I consider a Christian because your explanations reveal a follower of the teachings of Christ--many people follow the literal text of various passages and bear no thought to the message. They refer to themselves as Christian; I would argue that they should be called Biblists, as their faith is in the document, not in the spirit therein. You and I agree more often than not (you even noted that, as a professional scientist, I love the fact that science itself demands to be questioned!), but those who commit bigotry, intolerance, and evil in the name of a religion that they don't even seem to be following cause me to occasionally lapse in my otherwise compassionate and pacifistic world-view. In short, they scare me--not personally, but in terms of the suffering they spread.
I would again point to Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ as a starting point for anyone interested in further researching this. The book is by no means an iron-clad defense of Christianity (as Strobel is largely writing from a Christian perspective and thus is not an unbiased voice) but it at least provides a glimpse into other works of Christian apologetics, which can be the source of further investigation
Thank you for the first decent review of this book that I have yet seen. I've had many Biblists shove it at me as "proof" that will "force me to see the error of my ways and immediately convert" because "it scientifically proves (sic) that the Bible is right and everyone else is wrong!" An equal number of people tell me to throw it in the trash. I've studied the apologetics peripherally in Philosphy class; it would be good to revisit them in light of our conversations here.
Thanks again, Erian.
Granted, Lewis started in the trilemma from the assumption that scripture was valid. A slight modification might include all options: (1) lunatic; (2) lie; (3) Lord.
Perhaps he is/was all three. To insist that something as multi-layered as spirituality conform to logical positivism in an either/or fashion seems very... dry to me.
Maybe the Sacrificed God is a story that resonates with human beings in some sort of Jungian collective-unconscious way, and so when a person sacrifices themselves physically and spiritually in a particular way on behalf of a particular people (an act that could be described as "lunatic"), hagiographies build up from pre-existing ones of the same type, attributing other traditional aspects of the Sacrificed God story to the life of the person (the "lie") and reimagining them as a culturally specific instance of the Sacrificed God archetype (the person becomes the "lord").
This would mean Jesus Christ is the Sacrificed God in a real sense, the Sacrificed God of the people known as Christians. Osiris was the Sacrificed God of the Egyptians, Krishna is the Sacrificed God of the Hindu, Mithras of the Persians, Dionysus of the Greeks, etc. They are all the same god, but manifested in different individual instances. Maybe.
Oh crap I think I may have just convinced myself into neo-platonism!
Oh crap I think I may have just convinced myself into neo-platonism!
Is that like... when you can only be friends with girls when they're new?
Oh crap I think I may have just convinced myself into neo-platonism!Is that like... when you can only be friends with girls when they're new?
Close. It means I only just stopped eating out of the trough...
I don't fully reject either, but neither do I fully accept them as the only possible explanation. Until such time as we can clearly prove (via established hypotheses, tested and observed over time) one can derive life from nothing, I cannot accept it as the only possible explanation.
How else do you explain the fossil record?
I notice you use the phrase "life from nothing". Evolution isn't something from nothing, it's something from something else. Humans are made up the same stuff that makes up everything else in the universe. It's only the arrangement of those elements that make us unique.
What makes it intrinsic?
It's just there.
"At the time of Shakespeare and Marlowe, there were scores of playwrights trying to make a living in London. Name one."
Normally I use that question to illustrate why the past often seems better than the present, but it also illustrate natural selection in the realm of literature.
If you look at history, you see the process of natural selection at work in all elements of culture from pop music to language to religion. (Why does Jehovah look a lot like Jupiter? For much the same reason a viceroy butterfly looks like a monarch butterfly.)
Study game theory; you'll quickly see that simple rules can lead to complex permutation, many unexpected. Hell, look at games. 3.5 and Storyteller are not compatible, but they both show clear indication of descent from Gygax's original D&D, itself evolved from wargames. (How is a grid like an appendix?)
Natural selection is going on around us all the time, in culture, in science, in the way we work (If an editor isn't nature, red in tooth an claw, I don't what is. ;-)).
I don't have faith in evolution, I have unavoidable evidence.
It's just there.
"At the time of Shakespeare and Marlowe, there were scores of playwrights trying to make a living in London. Name one."
Normally I use that question to illustrate why the past often seems better than the present, but it also illustrate natural selection in the realm of literature.
If you look at history, you see the process of natural selection at work in all elements of culture from pop music to language to religion. (Why does Jehovah look a lot like Jupiter? For much the same reason a viceroy butterfly looks like a monarch butterfly.)
Study game theory; you'll quickly see that simple rules can lead to complex permutation, many unexpected. Hell, look at games. 3.5 and Storyteller are not compatible, but they both show clear indication of descent from Gygax's original D&D, itself evolved from wargames. (How is a grid like an appendix?)
Natural selection is going on around us all the time, in culture, in science, in the way we work (If an editor isn't nature, red in tooth an claw, I don't what is. ;-)).
I don't have faith in evolution, I have unavoidable evidence.
If you speak of something being intrinsic and by your own description so prolific in nature would it not have to have some sort of cause? "It's just there" seems a bit weak on the whole causality of the universe. (Sorry, just read the Summa Theologica.)
And I hate to play devil's advocate here but what you claim is "unavoidable evidence" another can see as coincidence. From my perspective you (myself, and many others) indeed believe in evolution and other scientific theories and postulates. We have an experience (in this case of witnessing "evidence") and some attribute it to a higher being, others as just dumb cosmic luck, etc.
You believe in and have faith in the theory of evolution. You must have faith in it because it is not fact.
You believe in and have faith in the theory of evolution. You must have faith in it because it is not fact.
Again, "evolution through natural selection" is the theory. Evolution (as evidenced by changes in the fossil record over time) is an observable phenomenon. Scientists provisionally accept a grandchild of Dawrin's theory for the origin of species (NOT the origin of "life" in general--let's keep those separate for now) because, so far, it's the only one that fits the observations ("God created fossils to fool people into being atheists so they'll go to Hell and Christians can laugh at them" doesn't count as a theory). Notice that I've called the current theory a "grandchild" of Darwin's; it'll hopefully get ironed out some more, and refined to provide better predictions. But at least it's a starting point for further inquiry, which Creationism is not ("this is the answer to everything and that's that, so shut off your brains and obey!"). I'll therefore argue forcibly that claiming Darwin's theory is "fact" is not at all scientific, but an act of faith. (Nor is "intelligent design" scientific, because it offers no avenues of new study: merely a refutation of an existing theory.)
You believe in and have faith in the theory of evolution. You must have faith in it because it is not fact.
Could you please give an example of a "fact?" The only things I can think of that are 100% unavoidably true in all imaginable situations are logical (a priori) truths like "B=B", "a car is a car" or "no married man is a bachelor." Everything else requires trusting the evidence of your senses. I guess you could call that faith, but that would be a very skeptical way to view knowledge, and incidentally makes religious faith even less justified as there is not even any sense-evidence for it.
Could you please give an example of a "fact?" The only things I can think of that are 100% unavoidably true in all imaginable situations are logical (a priori) truths like "B=B", "a car is a car" or "no married man is a bachelor." Everything else requires trusting the evidence of your senses. I guess you could call that faith, but that would be a very skeptical way to view knowledge, and incidentally makes religious faith even less justified as there is not even any sense-evidence for it.
Facts are typically agreed upon understandings and explanations of experiences. Evolution, natural selection, these explanations fit our observations of what is presented to us and so many of us agree upon their validity. Much like how many people of the Middle Ages believed the world was flat because based on what they observed it was a fact that the world didn't "bend." We may be right, we may be wrong.... but we need to be comfortable with the idea that we may be wrong. Only then can we be more comfortable with our belief (this is true for religious belief as well).
And there are millions of pieces of sense-evidence for religious faith. Many theists claim to have a religious experience during prayer, meditation, and worship. There are quite a few "miraculous" healings on record. For me to close myself off to how we understand the universe through science is just as foolhardy for me to close myself off to how we understand the universe through spirituality and religion.
|
|
And there are millions of pieces of sense-evidence for religious faith. Many theists claim to have a religious experience during prayer, meditation, and worship. There are quite a few "miraculous" healings on record. For me to close myself off to how we understand the universe through science is just as foolhardy for me to close myself off to how we understand the universe through spirituality and religion.
I don't think a religious "feeling" constitutes evidence for anything much. And the examples of miraculous healing are not, I suspect, very rigourously examined to provided evidence either way. I heard about a woman who seemed to send her cancer into remission my eating a macrobiotic diet - but I'm still a sceptic in terms of cause and effect.
Notwithstanding, I appaud your openminded stance. But the phenomena you mention would require a more rigorous approach of investigation to really prove them either way. Evolution has been extensively studied, and nothing yet can really be said to disprove it. Studies in paleontology and genetics seem to bolster it, under lab conditions and subject to academic scrutiny. That isn't the case for the "paranormal", for want of an expression, which you are discussing. They tend to discrete events which are usually not repeatable. As such, I remain sceptical, much more so than about the ability of science to explain the world.
A religious experience is very personal but not necessarily any less valid. I understand that when it comes to science we use public scrutiny as a litmus test. But science and religion do not necessarily contradict each other. The scientific method is a way of finding out more about our universe. Religion is a way to understand the meaning behind the universe.
Just because we have found that certain groupings of protons and electrons form particular elements and behave in a particular fashion and organized them in a nice chart doesn't mean that God cannot or does not exist.
Just because species evolve through natural selection and seemingly random mutations either survive or die off does not mean that a divine being cannot or does not exist.
A healthy skepticism is a good thing -- especially for those who believe.
And I hate to play devil's advocate here but what you claim is "unavoidable evidence" another can see as coincidence. From my perspective you (myself, and many others) indeed believe in evolution and other scientific theories and postulates. We have an experience (in this case of witnessing "evidence") and some attribute it to a higher being, others as just dumb cosmic luck, etc.
"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action." Evolution is too common to be coincidence.
As for the divine intervention, er I mean, "intelligent design", that's easy enough to prove: Show me a sitution which contains all the components necessary for natural selection, and yet it doesn't occur due to nonintervention. (Or "Why does God prefer Shakespeare over all the other Elizabethan playwrights?")
I believe that understanding evolution is important to our understanding of all complex systems, but don't take my zeal as an attack on religion. I'm not saying there is no God, I'm saying God doesn't micromanage.
And, yes, I am willing to discard evolution if and when someone produces a more accurate theory.
A religious experience is very personal but not necessarily any less valid. I understand that when it comes to science we use public scrutiny as a litmus test. But science and religion do not necessarily contradict each other. The scientific method is a way of finding out more about our universe. Religion is a way to understand the meaning behind the universe.
Why shouldn't personal experience be exposed to the litmus test of public scrutiny?
I've noticed that a lot of the problems between Religionists and Scientists comes down to two things: desperation and arrogance.
I say desperation, because in the increasing scope of scientific thought, there is very little gray area, very little wiggle room for the ideas of religion to exist. It used to be that heaven could exist in the sky--but later science charted the sky and there was no place for heaven there. Bit by bit science deconstructs the sacred, asking questions and providing answers. Religionists feel under seige, which though it is not the intent is certainly the effect. They are desparate to put down the assault so they are free to believe what they want without having to throw up their hands and toss out things like logic and reason. They poke holes in the stranglehold that science now has on the truth, trying to provide gray areas of uncertainty, to effectively say "Hey, look, my ideas are no dumber than yours--in fact either way could in fact be true!" They just want the room to agree to disagree rather than be totally argued out of a lifestyle. I feel kind of bad for them, having once been there, because there is no convincing arguement. Religion just doesn't cut it next to science. Science already has a dead-bang case, a chain of evidence from the swirling storms of energy billions of years ago in which the universe was born right down to the present day and their case just gets better every day.
By contrast the Scientists suffer from frustrating arrogance. The claim is that all theories are under constant reassessment but such is not even close to the case. There is no funding to be had rediscovering the wheel. There's no money to fund science aimed at testing the foundational concepts--concepts born way back when science was not conducted nearly as responsibly as it is now. So do theories go untested because all the data continually supports them, or because there's no one willing to spend their lives conducting the scientific equivalent of audits on the respected scientists of yore? Everyone wants to be on the cutting edge, to be famous. The checks and balances just aren't there.
Likewise, one cannot begin to be taken seriously in scientific circles until one has completed an advanced degree. Interesting theories proposed by real estate agents or dentists are summarily dismissed as not coming from "real scientists". Of course, once one has gone through the tremendous indoctrination required to be listened to, and has become qualified to be listened to, there's a lot less likelyhood that he'd rock the boat. He has a lot more invested in maintaining his reputation. If he pursues ideas that are considered "fringe" science or worse, "pseudoscience", his reputation (and all the time and money that's gone into it) is shot. The trouble being that there's no serious opportunity for an audience with the scientific commuity, to be heard, to speak one's mind as the loyal opposition. Religionists who want their ideas tested, who want to investigate them and apply rigorous thinking to their beliefs are brushed aside. This can be infuriating to people with good minds who feel their ideas threatened, but have no representation nor ability to defend themselves.
This has lead to no end of troubles--from Intelligent Design to archeology. Religionists see scientists as monomaniacal attackers, looking to tear down truth out of sheer bitter mean spiritedness. Scientists see religionists as wild-eyed kooks looking to prop up their lies and fairy tales by trying to subvert science and reason as some kind of hustle, or shell game. And so here we are today...