Atheists/Agnostics Get Highest Scores on Religion Quiz

[Danjew]

His opinion is deserving of disdain.

That's sweet of you to say

[Dr. John Zoidberg]

The Mormons are getting involved now! It's WWIII or IV or something.

This argument has the same level of factual basis as a Team Edward vs Team Jacob fight. Or perhaps who would win in a fight, Kirk or Spock.

Insanity.

[Blue Eyes White Dragon]

Seriously. Danjew has a lot of pentup anger towards Jesus.

Yes he does.

[Danjew]

This argument has the same level of factual basis as a Team Edward vs Team Jacob fight. Or perhaps who would win in a fight, Kirk or Spock.

Insanity.

I agree. I am arguing about how a fictional character is a jerk. Feels like :horse:.

[Danjew]

Yes he does.

Meh, I could care less. It seems to me that Christians just can't stand anyone calling Jesus, not divine, human with faults, and apparently arrogant. Anysuch talk like that means that my opinions are not worthy of respect and worthy of disdain. :shrug:

I guess thats what I get for not presupposing Jesus' divinity/goodness.

[The Borg]

How do you know they didn't hate their families or themselves?

Because we wouldn't be discussing this otherwise. Christianity would've gone nowhere in a hurry.

[Danjew]

Because we wouldn't be discussing this otherwise. Christianity would've gone nowhere in a hurry.

I don't think this logic is sound. If only it disappeared that fast

[Paul Brand]

really? what's so incredulous about someone inserting their own life experiences into a biography of someone else? People have a natural tendency to color things from their own perspective. Especially in an age where only very few people could read and write and there is not a lot of records like we have today that could be followed up upon to test for consistency.
I was being semi-joking in my post, but I think my main point was serious.

I was semi-sure you were semi-joking, so I said something that would work either way.

To the extent that you were serious, I don't have too much to add, other than what I've already said. Taking Jesus' comment hyper-literally doesn't make any sense.

I think most scholars agree that the Gospels were written before well before 100AD, although some think John was written a bit later, but still probably before 100AD. The synoptic Gospels may have borrowed content from another Gospel (called Q), which is no longer in existence.

I think one needs to explain how Christianity grew and spread, and I think the disciples of Jesus are the best explanation. That doesn't necessarily mean the disciples were right in what they claimed about Jesus, nor does it necessarily mean that they wrote the Gospels. Tradition teaches that a lot of the content in the synoptics came from Peter, even though Peter didn't write those Gospels. However, I'm not an historian, and I'm not an expert on the issue of ancient church history.

[Hugh Jass]

I was semi-sure you were semi-joking, so I said something that would work either way.

To the extent that you were serious, I don't have too much to add, other than what I've already said. Taking Jesus' comment hyper-literally doesn't make any sense.

I think most scholars agree that the Gospels were written before well before 100AD, although some think John was written a bit later, but still probably before 100AD. The synoptic Gospels may have borrowed content from another Gospel (called Q), which is no longer in existence.

I think one needs to explain how Christianity grew and spread, and I think the disciples of Jesus are the best explanation. That doesn't necessarily mean the disciples were right in what they claimed about Jesus, nor does it necessarily mean that they wrote the Gospels. Tradition teaches that a lot of the content in the synoptics came from Peter, even though Peter didn't write those Gospels. However, I'm not an historian, and I'm not an expert on the issue of ancient church history.


I wasn't taking him literally. Even to make a point, I think using strong words like "hate" is not needed. Of course I don't know the original word from the original version of the story, so maybe hate was a bad translation. Or something.

[Blue Eyes White Dragon]

That's sweet of you to say

Imagine your reaction to someone's derogatory comments about Moses, Elijah and Yahweh.

[Paul Brand]

Meh, I could care less. It seems to me that Christians just can't stand anyone calling Jesus, not divine, human with faults, and apparently arrogant. Anysuch talk like that means that my opinions are not worthy of respect and worthy of disdain. :shrug:

I guess thats what I get for not presupposing Jesus' divinity/goodness.

I respect a lot of people's opinions who disagree with me, and I respect a lot of your opinions, and I often agree with you. But, I can't think of a better word than obtuse when describing your persistency in attributing the writings of the Gnostics (i.e. Gospel of Thomas) as being Christian teaching, or your opinion that Jesus necessarily meant what he said in a literal sense, when he said to hate your mother and father. You clearly want to see Jesus in the most negative light possible.

[Foodie]

Through the promptings of the Holy Ghost.

If you don't understand what I mean by that, see:
Verses 7 - 9 http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/9/7-9#7
Verse 2 http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/8/2#2
Verse 46 http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/84/46#46
Verses 22-23 http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/6/22-23#22
Verse 22 http://scriptures.lds.org/en/gal/5/22#22

Or from a Sunday school lesson manual:
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=e26f9207f7c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=32c41b08f338c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

What sensation do you experience when you get a "feeling" prompted by the Holy Ghost?

In the particular case you described, did you and your wife receive the revelation simulataneously?

[Blue Eyes White Dragon]

Meh, I could care less. It seems to me that Christians just can't stand anyone calling Jesus, not divine, human with faults, and apparently arrogant. Anysuch talk like that means that my opinions are not worthy of respect and worthy of disdain. :shrug:

I guess thats what I get for not presupposing Jesus' divinity/goodness.

You are entitled to your beliefs. However, your disrespect of others beliefs is what makes your remarks worthy of disdain.

It is not your belief (or lack thereof) that is worthy of disdain, it is the manner in which you express them.

[Paul Brand]

I wasn't taking him literally. Even to make a point, I think using strong words like "hate" is not needed. Of course I don't know the original word from the original version of the story, so maybe hate was a bad translation. Or something.

I think it's more about historical context and different rhetorical styles, than translation. I don't see any reason to dispute the translation. But even then, I think the problem maybe more that Jesus' rhetoric is more similar to modern day rhetoric than we expect. For some reason, a lot of people (both Christians and otherwise), read the Bible as if it would never resort to inexact language, sarcasm, hyperbole, metaphor, etc. Don't read the Bible as if it is the inerrant, infallible word of God (whatever that means). Read it like you would read any other ancient literature.

[Foodie]

I think it's more about historical context and different rhetorical styles, than translation. I don't see any reason to dispute the translation. But even then, I think the problem maybe more that Jesus' rhetoric is more similar to modern day rhetoric than we expect. For some reason, a lot of people (both Christians and otherwise), read the Bible as if it would never resort to inexact language, sarcasm, hyperbole, metaphor, etc. Don't read the Bible as if it is the inerrant, infallible word of God (whatever that means). Read it like you would read any other ancient literature.

Re bolded: If one were to consider the Bible from the same perspective as Iliad, for example, your advice is very reasonable. But given the Bible's special importance, and the meaning one would be looking to glean from it, I don't think that it's possible.

[Paul Brand]

Re bolded: If one were to consider the Bible from the same perspective as Iliad, for example, your advice is very reasonable. But given the Bible's special importance, and the meaning one would be looking to glean from it, I don't think that it's possible.

I probably should have qualified my comment, but I'm referring more to how one interprets literary and rhetorical style. We can't remove the Bible from it's context because of any special attribution it has.

[Danjew]

Imagine your reaction to someone's derogatory comments about Moses, Elijah and Yahweh.

I would say everyone is entilteled to their opinion and just because I happen to disagree, that doesn't make their opinions not worthy of respect or worthy of disdain.

[Entropy]

I probably should have qualified my comment, but I'm referring more to how one interprets literary and rhetorical style. We can't remove the Bible from it's context because of any special attribution it has.

Yeah, it's just too bad that most of it's context is woefully out of date and inapplicable to today's society.

[Danjew]

I respect a lot of people's opinions who disagree with me, and I respect a lot of your opinions, and I often agree with you. But, I can't think of a better word than obtuse when describing your persistency in attributing the writings of the Gnostics (i.e. Gospel of Thomas) as being Christian teaching, or your opinion that Jesus necessarily meant what he said in a literal sense, when he said to hate your mother and father. You clearly want to see Jesus in the most negative light possible.

I never claimed the Gnostic bible was a teaching that Christians of today consider valid, all that I use the Gnostic bible is to help me understand what the historical Jesus character was, if he ever existed. I don't consider the cannon any more valid as a historical document than the Gnostic bible just because Christians happen to accept one and not the other.

Why is it such a problem for you that I glean my view of Jesus based on what he actually said vs. what you interpret his words to mean. I am not trying to view him the most negative light. I am viewing him as he is written to be and based on what he supposedly said. I have already stated earlier that he said and did many good things as well. I just am not going to reinterpret every verse of the NT to make Jesus all nice and fluffy like you are willing to do. Really saying anything to the affect of Jesus not being a great wise and basically good spiritual leader means to you that I am seeing him the worst possible light. If that is the case then so be it. I can't really understand how a person claiming to be G-d and that all those people who don't follow him are going to hell can be seen as anything other than being arrogant unless you assume he is indeed G-d.

So what is the problem with me not accepting him as G-d and then following the logic that states if he wasn't then he was likely very arrogant?

[Danjew]

You are entitled to your beliefs. However, your disrespect of others beliefs is what makes your remarks worthy of disdain.

It is not your belief (or lack thereof) that is worthy of disdain, it is the manner in which you express them.

Where have I said I disrespect others beliefs or opinions?

Sounds a bit hypocritical of you to claim that I don't respect others beliefs when you had earlier claimed my beliefs are worthy of disdain :shrug:

[Danjew]

I think it's more about historical context and different rhetorical styles, than translation. I don't see any reason to dispute the translation. But even then, I think the problem maybe more that Jesus' rhetoric is more similar to modern day rhetoric than we expect. For some reason, a lot of people (both Christians and otherwise), read the Bible as if it would never resort to inexact language, sarcasm, hyperbole, metaphor, etc. Don't read the Bible as if it is the inerrant, infallible word of God (whatever that means). Read it like you would read any other ancient literature.

You keep making this point, but I just don't see what makes your interpretation of his words any more valid than my interpretation, other than the fact that you happen to disagree with the message my interpretation of his words happens to convey.

[QMO]

What sensation do you experience when you get a "feeling" prompted by the Holy Ghost?I apologize if this seems redundant, but:
Through the promptings of the Holy Ghost.

If you don't understand what I mean by that, see:
Verses 7 - 9 http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/9/7-9#7
Verse 2 http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/8/2#2
Verse 46 http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/84/46#46
Verses 22-23 http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/6/22-23#22
Verse 22 http://scriptures.lds.org/en/gal/5/22#22

Or from a Sunday school lesson manual:
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=e26f9207f7c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=32c41b08f338c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD
If those sources didn't answer your question, then I guess I didn't understand what you wanted to know.
In the particular case you described, did you and your wife receive the revelation simulataneously?It wasn't an instantaneous thing for me, and I don't think it was for my wife, either. But the time periods overlapped.

[Foodie]

I apologize if this seems redundant, but:

If those sources didn't answer your question, then I guess I didn't understand what you wanted to know.
It wasn't an instantaneous thing for me, and I don't think it was for my wife, either. But the time periods overlapped.

I wanted to know what sensation YOU experienced, not what is written about what one ought to experience or what was experienced by someone else.

During the time that it took to receive the revelation, did you wife and you discuss the issue, or did you only seek guidance from above?

[sweetiepie]

You could say it is like childhood myths, except with a lot more depth. Depth is important though. Consider how stupid teenage "relationships" are compared to mature adult matrimony. I might add they're also both basically made up.
It's not made up, I can reach out and touch the other person in the relationship. Can't do thath with god.

The other person is real. The relationship is made up. All of the rules, rituals, and special interactions associated with beginning, ending, and maintaining relationship are made up. The extra meanings that come from along with being in a relationship, those are made up. The intense feeling that someone is special to you, is made up. The choice to unconditionally put your beloved above all others is quite absurd when evidence suggests that you could just as well have married most others.

In short, there's no difference between being in a relationship, and thinking that you are in a relationship.

[Paul Brand]

Yeah, it's just too bad that most of it's context is woefully out of date and inapplicable to today's society.

That's too broad a generalization.

It's not really that hard to understand most of Jesus' teachings. The one's discussed so far aren't that hard, and most are much easier to understand. There are harder ones such as the parable of the dishonest manager. That one throws me for a loop. But, most of Jesus' teachings come down to love God, love your neighbor, and love your enemy. I recognize most of us aren't English majors or Biblical scholars, but it's not that hard to get the gist of most of Jesus' teachings.

Now, there are some tricky nuances in some of the parables that we won't be quick to catch on to. Does it make a big difference? Not usually. But, we can still benefit from these nuances with some scholarly help.

[Descalzo]

I see no indication that this verse is supposed to mean anything other than what it says, because I have no reason to twist and turn Jesus' words to make him look like a man with no imperfections or a man that has no inconsistencies.

But you do have a reason to twist and turn Jesus' words to make him look like a jerk.

It absolutely blows my mind that you, Danjew, can believe that Jesus actually meant for people to hate their families. The only way anyone could believe that is if they were actively trying to find problems with Jesus' teachings! I mean for crying out loud, look at the way He treated His own family! Look at the enormous amount of verses dedicated to love.

The hyperbole explanation of the 'hate your brother' speech is the only explanation that makes any sense in the context of every other thing (or indeed any other thing) that He said.

Given the rest of Jesus' teachings (and those of his disciples), hyperbole is the only interpretation that makes sense.

Seriously. I don't think even Ayn Rand would believe that Jesus (or, if you prefer, whoever ghostwrote the Gospels) intended that speech to be taken literally.

I hope you appreciate how much it costs me to write this post. I've learned before not to take sides against you, Danjew. But it's not you vs. Wasp this time, so I think I'm safe.

[Descalzo]

Why not? If I told you that I thought that Obama was telepathically communicating with me, telling me secrets and guiding my life, you'd think I was insane, at least I hope you would.

I'd think you were making up a story to show how ridiculous the Mormons are.

[Descalzo]

So what is the problem with me not accepting him as G-d and then following the logic that states if he wasn't then he was likely very arrogant?

This is, in fact, the one thing I respect most about your opinions on Christianity: you don't patronize it. You recognize it for the dichotomy (or trichotomy, or whatever) that it is. Either He was who he said He was, or He wasn't. Or he didn't exist. You've eliminated the fist, so you are sticking to your guns on the second (or sometimes you make it sound like you believe the third (it's hard to tell)).

Meh, I could care less. It seems to me that Christians just can't stand anyone calling Jesus, not divine, human with faults, and apparently arrogant. Anysuch talk like that means that my opinions are not worthy of respect and worthy of disdain. :shrug:

I guess thats what I get for not presupposing Jesus' divinity/goodness.

FWIW, I have immense respect for your opinions in pretty much everything you've ever posted, on every subject, even when we disagree, except your interpretation of his 'hate your brother' speech. Like I said, it blows my mind.

[Descalzo]

I don't think I've ever done that except to say that there is no "proof" of his existence, nor do I think there ever can be. If I've been more specific than that in the past, my apologies. There is no "scientific" language to be used in the argument (yet?...) one way or the other. This is a two way street though (or is it two one way streets?). Religion should have nothing to say about science, and yet it does.

And I have no idea what that color means, I think it's a mormon thing to make you feel better about making fun of people or something.

I think you missed a color there.

Seriously, though, I wasn't trying to be a jerk or make fun of you. Sorry. I was trying to be funny and it didn't work. I apologize.

I agree that religious opinions have no place in scientific studies. I would be ashamed of any Latter-Day Saint 'scientist' that would falsify or hide scientific findings simply because of his beliefs. I am ashamed of my fellow Christians who want to insert Intelligent Design into science classes and textbooks.

[Danjew]

But you do have a reason to twist and turn Jesus' words to make him look like a jerk.

It absolutely blows my mind that you, Danjew, can believe that Jesus actually meant for people to hate their families. The only way anyone could believe that is if they were actively trying to find problems with Jesus' teachings! I mean for crying out loud, look at the way He treated His own family! Look at the enormous amount of verses dedicated to love.

The hyperbole explanation of the 'hate your brother' speech is the only explanation that makes any sense in the context of every other thing (or indeed any other thing) that He said.

Given the rest of Jesus' teachings (and those of his disciples), hyperbole is the only interpretation that makes sense.

Seriously. I don't think even Ayn Rand would believe that Jesus (or, if you prefer, whoever ghostwrote the Gospels) intended that speech to be taken literally.

I hope you appreciate how much it costs me to write this post. I've learned before not to take sides against you, Danjew. But it's not you vs. Wasp this time, so I think I'm safe.

Well looking at all the times Jesus accuses others of being hypocrites it seems to me like he is just projecting. He wants to preach love and compassion, and he does, yet he can't shake the urge to be respected as such a great leader that he makes himself look divine. When he doesn't get this from people he preaches to he just can't handle it. So much so that he wants his own followers to hate the family members who oppose his way of life.

I see the way Jesus acted replayed in the words and actions of many many others who wished so hard to convert the Jews but ultimately failed and as a result became so mad that they wouldn't accept them that they end up saying some of the worst things imaginable, like to hate ones own family, etc.

It begins with Jesus as I explained, it then moves to Mohammed who early on respected the Jews and wanted them to join his movement. He understood that one reason the Jews rejected Jesus was because he thought it was necessary to give up most of the traditional Jewish practices. So Mohammed incorporates them into his new religion, which is why in many ways Islam is very similar to Judaism in terms of custom. He felt he gave the Jews a lot to make them convert, but when they also rejected him he became enraged, likened the Jews to pigs among other things.

Moving forward you have Martin Luther in a similar scenario who at first believes that as long as he takes all the paganism out of the Catholicism and forms a new more faith based Christianity then the Jews would surely join. When they reject Protestanism he turns very vile towards the Jews. See this http://www.humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronography/documents/luther-jews.htm for a glaring example. I could quote some of it but just reading it again makes me want to throw up.

This scenario replays itself over and over again. For every leader who wishes to turn the Jews away from their ancestral faith and ends up losing the battle their initial words of peace, love and mercy happen to always to turn to anger, hatred, and fury. I am not out to make Jesus look like anything he hasn't made himself look like. He looks just like Mohammed, Luther, Shabbatai Tzvi, Jacob Frank, etc, they are all the same. The initial agenda, the failed attempt and then the contemptuous remarks and attitudes about the Jews. I am just calling them as I see them.

[Danjew]

This is, in fact, the one thing I respect most about your opinions on Christianity: you don't patronize it. You recognize it for the dichotomy (or trichotomy, or whatever) that it is. Either He was who he said He was, or He wasn't. Or he didn't exist. You've eliminated the fist, so you are sticking to your guns on the second (or sometimes you make it sound like you believe the third (it's hard to tell)).



FWIW, I have immense respect for your opinions in pretty much everything you've ever posted, on every subject, even when we disagree, except your interpretation of his 'hate your brother' speech. Like I said, it blows my mind.

Thanks for the kind remarks.

I enjoy reading the majority of your posts and you always seem fair and thoughtful on these issues.

[Hugh Jass]

The other person is real. The relationship is made up. All of the rules, rituals, and special interactions associated with beginning, ending, and maintaining relationship are made up. The extra meanings that come from along with being in a relationship, those are made up. The intense feeling that someone is special to you, is made up. The choice to unconditionally put your beloved above all others is quite absurd when evidence suggests that you could just as well have married most others.

In short, there's no difference between being in a relationship, and thinking that you are in a relationship.
Tell that to sean archer

In any form, my lover will tell you I love her, as she will say that she loves me. Its not the same because you can't ask god if he loves me and get an independently verifiable answer.

[Noddy]

Both passages are about relative importance. Both Testaments are very clear we are to honour our parents. Following Christ means rejection of their family for many. It's not something people explictly seek out. Rather it is a consequence of doing the right thing.

This has nothing to do with a call to arms. Jesus teaches the exact opposite.

sez you

♪ onward christian soldiers ♫

NSFW http://www.hymnsite.com/lyrics/umh575.sht

1. Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
with the cross of Jesus going on before.
Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe;
forward into battle see his banners go!

Refrain:
Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
with the cross of Jesus going on before.
2. At the sign of triumph Satan's host doth flee;
on then, Christian soldiers, on to victory!
Hell's foundations quiver at the shout of praise;
brothers, lift your voices, loud your anthems raise.
(Refrain)

3. Like a mighty army moves the church of God;
brothers, we are treading where the saints have trod.
We are not divided, all one body we,
one in hope and doctrine, one in charity.
(Refrain)

4. Crowns and thrones may perish, kingdoms rise and wane,
but the church of Jesus constant will remain.
Gates of hell can never gainst that church prevail;
we have Christ's own promise, and that cannot fail.
(Refrain)

5. Onward then, ye people, join our happy throng,
blend with ours your voices in the triumph song.
Glory, laud, and honor unto Christ the King,
this through countless ages men and angels sing.
(Refrain)

[Noddy]

i came across something i read a long time ago.. it was a speech by Bertrand Russell about "Why I am not a Christian". It's really phenomenal and the strength of his arguments in 1927 are impressive.


?

There've been many impressively strong arguments. Many well before 1927.

[Paul Brand]

sez youYour attribution of the hymn to Jesus is mistaken.

[Noddy]

You certainly do interpret him differently. I just don't think your interpretation is deserving of much respect.

i think both of your interpretations deserve equal respect although i dont disagree

[Noddy]

Your attribution of the hymn to Jesus is mistaken.

That your interpretation of Jesus' teachings are different to others is not
and an example

(but i'm sure you knew that)

[Danjew]

i think both of your interpretations deserve equal respect although i dont disagree

I have a feeling your comments support my interpretation. Therefore I don't understand why you feel interpetations that agree with your mentality deserve no respect.

But to make sure, what do you think this passage says about Jesus as a character?

[Noddy]

I agree. I am arguing about how a fictional character is a jerk. Feels like :horse:.

Oh, the irony.

(much like your G_d)

[Danjew]

Oh, the irony.

(much like your G_d)

Is that really irony?

[Paul Brand]

That your interpretation of Jesus' teachings are different to others is not
and an example

(but i'm sure you knew that)You are sure I knew what?

Even pacifists use war metaphors without promoting war, so no, I don't understand your argument that a 19th century hymn is evidence that Jesus told his followers to take up arms.

[Noddy]

I'd think you were making up a story to show how ridiculous the Mormons are.

rofl
you dont need to make up stories


10. Tithing
While tithes are not uncommon among religion, rarely are they mandatory. LDS theology states that in order to make it to the highest kingdom of heaven, you must pay a full and honest tithe.

D&C 119: 3-6
3 And this shall be the beginning of the tithing of my people.
4 And after that, those who have thus been tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever, for my holy priesthood, saith the Lord.
5 Verily I say unto you, it shall come to pass that all those who gather unto the land of Zion shall be tithed of their surplus properties, and shall observe this law, or they shall not be found worthy to abide among you.
6 And I say unto you, if my people observe not this law, to keep it holy, and by this law sanctify the land of Zion unto me, that my statutes and my judgments may be kept thereon, that it may be most holy, behold, verily I say unto you, it shall not be a land of Zion unto you.

9. Pleasure in Life
This is one of the most famous pieces of LDS doctrine. It’s also the cause of many myths about Mormons. Basically; no coffee, no drugs, no tobacco.

D&C 89: 5-13
5 That inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him.
6 And, behold, this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make.
7 And, again, strong drinks are not for the belly, but for the washing of your bodies.
8 And again, tobacco is not for the body, neither for the belly, and is not good for man, but is an herb for bruises and all sick cattle, to be used with judgment and skill.
9 And again, hot drinks are not for the body or belly.
10 And again, verily I say unto you, all wholesome herbs God hath ordained for the constitution, nature, and use of man—
11 Every herb in the season thereof, and every fruit in the season thereof; all these to be used with prudence and thanksgiving.
12 Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly;
13 And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.

8. Spirits
This one is very unique to the LDS faith. Basically, everyone on earth now was a spirit in the pre-existence. When we die, our spirits are separated from our bodies and if we were good they go to “spirit paradise.” If we were bad they go to “spirit prison.” The spirit world exists as a place for spirits to go while awaiting the second coming.

D&C 138: 8-14
8 “By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
9 “Which sometime were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.” (1 Peter 3:18—20.)
10 “For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.” (1 Peter 4:6.)
11 As I pondered over these things which are written, the eyes of my understanding were opened, and the Spirit of the Lord rested upon me, and I saw the hosts of the dead, both small and great.
12 And there were gathered together in one place an innumerable company of the spirits of the just, who had been faithful in the testimony of Jesus while they lived in mortality;
13 And who had offered sacrifice in the similitude of the great sacrifice of the Son of God, and had suffered tribulation in their Redeemer’s name.
14 All these had departed the mortal life, firm in the hope of a glorious resurrection, through the grace of God the Father and his Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ.

7. Modern Revelation
Almost everyone who knows anything about the Mormon religion knows they have a prophet. What many don’t know, is anything that the prophet says in official capacity is considered official canon.

D&C 43: 2-9
2 For behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, that ye have received a commandment for a law unto my church, through him whom I have appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations from my hand.
3 And this ye shall know assuredly—that there is none other appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations until he be taken, if he abide in me.
4 But verily, verily, I say unto you, that none else shall be appointed unto this gift except it be through him; for if it be taken from him he shall not have power except to appoint another in his stead.
5 And this shall be a law unto you, that ye receive not the teachings of any that shall come before you as revelations or commandments;
6 And this I give unto you that you may not be deceived, that you may know they are not of me.
7 For verily I say unto you, that he that is ordained of me shall come in at the gate and be ordained as I have told you before, to teach those revelations which you have received and shall receive through him whom I have appointed.
8 And now, behold, I give unto you a commandment, that when ye are assembled together ye shall instruct and edify each other, that ye may know how to act and direct my church, how to act upon the points of my law and commandments, which I have given.
9 And thus ye shall become instructed in the law of my church, and be sanctified by that which ye have received, and ye shall bind yourselves to act in all holiness before me—

6. Jesus visited the Americas
The Book of Mormon is a book of LDS scripture that takes place during the same time as the Bible and takes place on the American continent. It follows the stories of two tribes who descended from the family of Lehi. After Jesus’ resurrection LDS people believe he visited the peoples of the Americas.

3 Nephi 11: 7-12
7 Behold my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, in whom I have glorified my name—hear ye him.
8 And it came to pass, as they understood they cast their eyes up again towards heaven; and behold, they saw a Man descending out of heaven; and he was clothed in a white robe; and he came down and stood in the midst of them; and the eyes of the whole multitude were turned upon him, and they durst not open their mouths, even one to another, and wist not what it meant, for they thought it was an angel that had appeared unto them.
9 And it came to pass that he stretched forth his hand and spake unto the people, saying:
10 Behold, I am Jesus Christ, whom the prophets testified shall come into the world.
11 And behold, I am the alight and the life of the world; and I have drunk out of that bitter cup which the Father hath given me, and have glorified the Father in taking upon me the sins of the world, in the which I have suffered the will of the Father in all things from the beginning.
12 And it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words the whole multitude fell to the earth; for they remembered that it had been prophesied among them that Christ should show himself unto them after his ascension into heaven.

5. The Nature of God
While most religions believe in God, the LDS religion believes in God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit as separate beings. They also believe that God, Jesus and resurrected beings have bodies of “flesh and bone.”

D&C 129:1-5
1 There are two kinds of beings in heaven, namely: Angels, who are resurrected personages, having bodies of flesh and bones—
2 For instance, Jesus said: Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
3 Secondly: the spirits of just men made perfect, they who are not resurrected, but inherit the same glory.
4 When a messenger comes saying he has a message from God, offer him your hand and request him to shake hands with you.
5 If he be an angel he will do so, and you will feel his hand.
D&C 130: 22-23
22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.
23 A man may receive the Holy Ghost, and it may descend upon him and not tarry with him.

4. Priesthood
In the LDS religion any worthy male can be given the priesthood and is given specific duties. Black people were not allowed to have the priesthood until 1978. Females are not allowed to have the priesthood.

D&C 107: 1-5
1 There are, in the church, two priesthoods, namely, the Melchizedek and Aaronic, including the Levitical Priesthood.
2 Why the first is called the Melchizedek Priesthood is because Melchizedek was such a great high priest.
3 Before his day it was called the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God.
4 But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood.
5 All other authorities or offices in the church are appendages to this priesthood.
Official Declaration – 2, 1978
Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

3. Multiple Heavens
In LDS doctrine there are three heavens: the Celestial Kingdom, Terrestrial Kingdom, and Telestial Kingdom. The Celestial is the highest, where God and the ones who followed his law reside. The Terrestrial is the middle, where people who followed the Law of Moses reside. The Telestial is the lowest, where the ones who followed carnal law reside.

D&C 76: 94-98
94 They who dwell in his presence are the church of the Firstborn; and they see as they are seen, and know as they are known, having received of his fulness and of his grace;
95 And he makes them equal in power, and in might, and in dominion.
96 And the glory of the celestial is one, even as the glory of the sun is one.
97 And the glory of the terrestrial is one, even as the glory of the moon is one.
98 And the glory of the telestial is one, even as the glory of the stars is one; for as one star differs from another star in glory, even so differs one from another in glory in the telestial world;

2. Forgiveness
In LDS theology you can be forgiven for any sin, save two. First, denying the Holy Spirit, and second, murder. Also, God is infinitely forgiving, until the second coming. After that, you end up where you end up, no matter what. There are no second chances. Period.

D&C 76: 43-45
43 Who glorifies the Father, and saves all the works of his hands, except those sons of perdition who deny the Son after the Father has revealed him.
44 Wherefore, he saves all except them—they shall go away into everlasting punishment, which is endless punishment, which is eternal punishment, to reign with the devil and his angels in eternity, where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched, which is their torment—
45 And the end thereof, neither the place thereof, nor their torment, no man knows;
D&C 18: 42
18 And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come.
D&C 76: 111-112
111 For they shall be judged according to their works, and every man shall receive according to his own works, his own dominion, in the mansions which are prepared;
112 And they shall be servants of the Most High; but where God and Christ dwell they cannot come, worlds without end.

1. Multiple Worlds and Multiple Gods
This deserves some explanation. Mormons believe that God created multiple worlds and each world has people living on it. They also believe that multiple Gods exist but each has their own universe. We are only subject to our God and if we obtain the highest level of heaven we can become gods ourselves.

D&C 76: 24
24 That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.
D&C 93: 10
10 The worlds were made by him; men were made by him; all things were made by him, and through him, and of him.
Moses 1: 33
33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.
D&C 76: 108
108 Then shall he be crowned with the crown of his glory, to sit on the throne of his power to reign forever and ever.
D&C 131: 1-5
1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;
2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];
3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.
4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.
5 (May 17th, 1843.) The more sure word of prophecy means a man’s knowing that he is sealed up unto eternal life, by revelation and the spirit of prophecy, through the power of the Holy Priesthood.

[Lucy]

Semantics, not many people claim to literally hear voices coming from G-d, angels or any other spiritual force. At least I have never met anyone who claims to have actually heard these things. I was just commenting on HJs post in which he says people who claim personal revelations are crazy and he even said hearing voices. That is all I wanted to mention on that post. I really don't mind all that much what people claim to have heard, felt or seen. I might find it interesting though.
Danjew, I'm surprised you've never met anyone who claimed to have had a personal revelation from God. The first person who made that claim to me was my childhood rabbi. He told our confirmation class that God had spoken to him. In later years God stopped talking to him and he had a crisis of faith. Yeah, a little weird for a Jew, but true story. I once took a ride frmo a cab driver who told me about her visions of the Virgin Mary. Not exactly God, I suppose, but divine inspiration. Mary appeared to her (visually and audibly, iirc) and gave her guidance in difficult situations. Mary had given her sound advice, and in the couple of cases she told me about, I agree, the advice was good. I can't say I knew her well - I only knew her for the duration of that one cab ride, but if you didn't assume her visions were evidence in-and-of themselves of insanity, she seemed perfectly sane. (and her driving was fine.) A couple of posters here have spoken of divine contact, too. I've also met nuts on streetcorners who have SEEN GOD, but I don't think their testimony discounts the testimony of apparently sane people who have felt the divine. :shrug:

[QMO]

I wanted to know what sensation YOU experienced, not what is written about what one ought to experience or what was experienced by someone else.I'm sorry, then. I could find no way for me to put into words what I experienced in that particular instance. Those sources really do as good a job as you could want. Better than I feel I could do at the moment.

I'm becoming convinced you're not really looking to understand me. For example, the question below strongly suggests that either you're fishing for something, or that you've set me up in your mind as a fake stereotype of a person.

During the time that it took to receive the revelation, did you wife and you discuss the issue, or did you only seek guidance from above?Of course, my wife and I discuss major decisions. Whether revelation's involved or not. We also discuss most minor decisions, since they usually affect both of us.

[Foodie]

I'm sorry, then. I could find no way for me to put into words what I experienced in that particular instance. Those sources really do as good a job as you could want. Better than I feel I could do at the moment.

I'm becoming convinced you're not really looking to understand me. For example, the question below strongly suggests that either you're fishing for something, or that you've set me up in your mind as a fake stereotype of a person.

Of course, my wife and I discuss major decisions. Whether revelation's involved or not. We also discuss most minor decisions, since they usually affect both of us.

I'm not looking to set you up, I'm just trying to understand, and I appreciate the compilation of links you provided.

Specifically, I'm interested in learning how it's possble to distinguish divine inspiration from artifacts of human interactions, in this particular case the workings of your subconscious mind based on your discussions with your wife.

I would say that the divine nature of you revelations would have been much more convincing if you and your wife asked for guidance, and didn't discuss the issue until both of you received the requested guidance, with the guidance ending being the same for both of you.

Again, I'm not trying to set you up, or criticize, just to understand. The bottom line is that your faith seems to help you get the answers you are looking for, and that's great.

[Entropy]

That's too broad a generalization.

It's not really that hard to understand most of Jesus' teachings. The one's discussed so far aren't that hard, and most are much easier to understand. There are harder ones such as the parable of the dishonest manager. That one throws me for a loop. But, most of Jesus' teachings come down to love God, love your neighbor, and love your enemy. I recognize most of us aren't English majors or Biblical scholars, but it's not that hard to get the gist of most of Jesus' teachings.

Now, there are some tricky nuances in some of the parables that we won't be quick to catch on to. Does it make a big difference? Not usually. But, we can still benefit from these nuances with some scholarly help.

So that explains why there's generally one accepted interpretation of the bible and everyone is essentially in agreement as to what the message is. Thanks for clearing all that up, you might want to let the rest of the world know that there's nothing to argue about anymore.

[Entropy]

I'd think you were making up a story to show how ridiculous the Mormons are.

So you think they're ridiculous? ;)

[Paul Brand]

So that explains why there's generally one accepted interpretation of the bible and everyone is essentially in agreement as to what the message is. Thanks for clearing all that up, you might want to let the rest of the world know that there's nothing to argue about anymore.That generalizes too broadly, and mis-represents my comment in the process.

[Entropy]

I think you missed a color there.

Seriously, though, I wasn't trying to be a jerk or make fun of you. Sorry. I was trying to be funny and it didn't work. I apologize.

I agree that religious opinions have no place in scientific studies. I would be ashamed of any Latter-Day Saint 'scientist' that would falsify or hide scientific findings simply because of his beliefs. I am ashamed of my fellow Christians who want to insert Intelligent Design into science classes and textbooks.

Ain't no thang. Sorry I went off more than I should've about a link. I think a lot of people do have problems with these terms and they are thrown about without a second thought quite a bit. I like to think I'm not guilty of it is all.

Agreed on that last bit though. Likewise I hate it when "science" talks about "disproving" god's existence.

[Entropy]

That generalizes too broadly, and mis-represents my comment in the process.

How so? Isn't the problem that we're talking about right now a difference in interpretation of a message that you said was quite clear? Maybe it's only those few parables that you mentioned that allow the confusion in that leads to all the strife and conflict about his teachings? How many people have been killed because of the parable of the dishonest manager?

Somebody with more knowledge on the topic should bring up all the out of context things like women on their period and slaves again. Maybe we can nail down what the message is once and for all.

If you want to say that his message boils down to "love", then I can accept that. The problem is that people get so confused on the details that they apparently can't get to that message. Do you have any insight as to why that might be other than a problem with interpretation and context? As Danjew said, just because someone's interpretation is different than yours doesn't mean you can just discount it because it seems ridiculous. Way too many messages can be brought up that seem contradictory or outrageous or out of context, that it becomes very difficult to support one interpretation over the other... and this is between people of the same faith, not even somebody on the "outside" like Danjew.

[Hugh Jass]

Who cares if Jesus was a nice guy or a mean guy? I mean, none of those magic tricks actually really happened anyways, so who cares?

[Blue Eyes White Dragon]

Who cares if Jesus was a nice guy or a mean guy? I mean, none of those magic tricks actually really happened anyways, so who cares?

:lightening bolt:

[Entropy]

Who cares if Jesus was a nice guy or a mean guy? I mean, none of those magic tricks actually really happened anyways, so who cares?

You can actually get some good messages out of it.

You can get those same messages in a million other places too, but let's not talk about that right now. Video games is a good one. Yeah that's right. Video games. Thanks Final Fantasy, with your tales of virtue and sacrifice!

[Entropy]

:lightening bolt:

You wish.

[Danjew]

:lightening bolt:

Hey Zeus is throwing lighting bolts now, huh. Very loving message indeed. :-P

[QMO]

I'm not looking to set you up, I'm just trying to understand, and I appreciate the compilation of links you provided. Thanks.
Specifically, I'm interested in learning how it's possble to distinguish divine inspiration from artifacts of human interactions, in this particular case the workings of your subconscious mind based on your discussions with your wife.Mostly practice. Sometimes it's unmistakeable, sometimes it's very difficult to tell.

In my experience, when it's difficult to tell, there is one of two causes:
1- I'm not living my life in accordance with what I already know to be true, and so am not receptive to receiving more truth.
2- (related to #1) I want what I want more than I want to know the real answer, so my own feelings/desires crowd out the answer.

Often the most difficult part is not understanding the answer, but following it. In this particular example, my job search would likely have been over months ago, had we not been counseled to stay put.
I would say that the divine nature of you revelations would have been much more convincing if you and your wife asked for guidance, and didn't discuss the issue until both of you received the requested guidance, with the guidance ending being the same for both of you.I guess that's reasonable enough from your perspective. From our perspective, it was pretty clear. And, after all, since the instruction concerned only my family, whether anyone else can tell if it's real is irrelevant.

Again, I'm not trying to set you up, or criticize, just to understand. The bottom line is that your faith seems to help you get the answers you are looking for, and that's great.I would not word it that way, as that may suggest that I use my faith to justify to my own decisions to myself.

It would be more clear and more accurate to say that I get the answers I need, whether they're the answers I wanted or not.

[Blue Eyes White Dragon]

You wish.

Can't you people tell the difference between cartoon lightening bolts and real ones?

[The Borg]

You keep making this point, but I just don't see what makes your interpretation of his words any more valid than my interpretation, other than the fact that you happen to disagree with the message my interpretation of his words happens to convey.

There is also a parallel verse:
He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.

Both writers obviously felt that what was taught at this event (that is, if it was the same event) was important, and it seems to match up quite well with the first commandment and Deut 6:5 (considering Luke's version as a hyperbole). So, why does Luke use a hyperbole and Matthew doesn't? :shrug:

Perhaps it had to do with the intended audience where, in general, Matthew was focused toward the Jews and Luke to the Gentiles. I don't know the answer, I'm not an expert in the use of contemporary literary styles to know exactly why the authors used different styles to report the same event. FWIW, Moses uses different styles as well in reporting events. The same events described in Exodus & Numbers don't always match up with what he said in Deuteronomy.

[r. mutt]

I looked up the quiz and took it, and got all of them correct with only one semi-guess. Score one for the agnostics.

Jesus, there are 81 pages in the thread...what ARE you people talking about?

[magillaG]

I looked up the quiz and took it, and got all of them correct with only one semi-guess. Score one for the agnostics.

Jesus, there are 81 pages in the thread...what ARE you people talking about?

Just like every system tends probabilistically but inevitably towards greatest entropy, every religious thread tends slowly towards the same general discussion, which can go on forever.

[Noddy]

Is that really irony?

No, not really. Funny coincidence? What is it?

Your comment to PB reminded me of a cartoon showing a group of priests mocking the religious beliefs of some native peoples.

[Noddy]

I have a feeling your comments support my interpretation. Therefore I don't understand why you feel interpetations that agree with your mentality deserve no respect.

But to make sure, what do you think this passage says about Jesus as a character?

He (Jesubus) seems a nasty piece of work but to clarify my response I pose a few questions to you:

Why was Humpty Dumpty sitting on the wall?
Why did he have a great fall?
and, most importantly, why was he obese?

[Noddy]

Furthermore

[Swan]

I once took a ride from a cab driver... I can't say I knew her well - I only knew her for the duration of that one cab ride
Well, unless she drove you from the east coast to the west coast, or vicea-versa, then I would venture to say that you didn't know her well. :-P

[Swan]

Furthermore
Funny stuff, Noddy.

You should've put that in a spoiler so that I could have said something like, "Funny stuff. I'm so glad I clicked on that spoiler."

[Hugh Jass]

who here thinks scientology is BS?

ok, good, we all do.

now, scientology is no more BS than any other religion.


Yet, why do we all feel justified in mocking it?


Because it is worthy of our derision. That's why.

Not, what is so different between scientology and any :qunq: mainstream :qunq: religion?

Nothing

[Baron Von Raschke]

Well whether or not you believe the whole story I think most people agree at least agree that Jesus was a historical figure. I am not an expert on scientology but I don't think they have anything like that.

[magillaG]

who here thinks scientology is BS?

ok, good, we all do.

now, scientology is no more BS than any other religion.


Yet, why do we all feel justified in mocking it?


Because it is worthy of our derision. That's why.

Not, what is so different between scientology and any :qunq: mainstream :qunq: religion?

Nothing

I would argue that Christianity or Judaism, for example, have millennia of brilliant people thinking about them, and also great works of literature and art associated with them.

When I think of scientology, I think of Battlefield Earth and Tom Cruise.

Even if some sort of humanistic and scientific atheism is correct: mocking religion is sort of like Albert Einstein mocking Isaac Newton for what he got wrong.

Historically, humanism grew out of religious thought. Even scientific investigation was probably positively influenced by philosophical tendencies caused by Western religion.

One is maybe a little more justified in mocking religious institutions.

Additionally, all anybody on this board seems to do is make up straw men religious beliefs, and then make fun of them in ways that are, occasionally, funny, but often are simply lame, or even vaguely misanthropic. This is because straw men are generally not very funny. It is much funnier to make make fun of true things.

[Swan]

I would argue that Christianity or Judaism, for example, have millennia of brilliant people thinking about them, and also great works of literature and art associated with them.

When I think of scientology, I think of Battlefield Earth and Tom Cruise.

Even if some sort of humanistic and scientific atheism is correct: mocking religion is sort of like Albert Einstein mocking Isaac Newton for what he got wrong.

Historically, humanism grew out of religious thought. Even scientific investigation was probably positively influenced by philosophical tendencies caused by Western religion.

You are maybe a little more justified in mocking religious institutions.

Additionally, all anybody on this board seems to do is make up straw men religious beliefs, and then make fun of them in ways that are, occasionally, funny, but often are simply lame, or even vaguely misanthropic. This is because straw men are generally not very funny. It is much funnier to make make fun of true things.
Wow, that bolded sentence would not have caused me nearly as much confusion if you had only italicized the word "institutions." Because without having done so, it seems as though you are saying to Hugh Jass that he is more justified in mocking religious institutions (or religion in general).

And I was like, why, exactly? Who is this Hugh Jass character and why does he warrant such power to deride? :confused:

Italics, folks. Use them. They are your audience's best friend.

P.S. Good post, by the way. I feel that I should mention this after my critique of the above sentence.

[Baron Von Raschke]

Good critique, Swan.

[Swan]

Thanks, dude. :tup:

[Noddy]

Even if some sort of humanistic and scientific atheism is correct: mocking religion is sort of like Albert Einstein mocking Isaac Newton for what he got wrong.


Save the important distinction that scientists use rational inquiry and the scientific method as opposed to faith and woo.

[Dr. John Zoidberg]

We use straw men?

[magillaG]

Save the important distinction that scientists use rational inquiry and the scientific method as opposed to faith and woo.

Perhaps Shakespeare laughing at how primitive Chaucer and Dante are is a better analogy.

In any case, the whole notion of what "rational inquiry" means is heavily influenced by Western religion.

[magillaG]

We use straw men?

I believe so.

I am not an expert in religion, though.

Why don't you go read Summa Theologica by Aquinas, or City of God by Augustine, or even a book aimed at a mass audience by CS Lewis, and tell us where you find the motivation for flying spaghetti monster lampoon. I'm sure it would make the joke funnier to me.

[Swan]

We use straw men?
No. Straw men don't exist.

Trust me on this.

[Baron Von Raschke]

:lolup:

[Swan]

Save the important distinction that scientists use rational inquiry and the scientific method as opposed to faith and woo.
And what was the state of science, and the scientific method, two millennia ago when Jesus walked the center of the universe?

[Hugh Jass]

And what was the state of science, and the scientific method, two millennia ago when Jesus walked the center of the universe?

jesus walked the what now?

[Swan]

jesus walked the what now?
The ground that you and Noddy will be buried in and never resurrected from. :-)

[Kool-Aid Man]

Well whether or not you believe the whole story I think most people agree at least agree that Jesus was a historical figure. I am not an expert on scientology but I don't think they have anything like that.
I think most people agree that L. Ron Hubbard was a real person too.

[Hugh Jass]

L. Ron Hubbard's "direct revelation from god" is no less credible than anyone else's

[Hugh Jass]

The ground that you and Noddy will be buried in and never resurrected from. :-)

taking some liberties with tenses there, eh?

[magillaG]

L. Ron Hubbard's "direct revelation from god" is no less credible than anyone else's

How do you determine if a direct revelation is credible or not?

[Hugh Jass]

How do you determine if a direct revelation is credible or not?

exactly my point.

they are all equally credible.

I was appealing to everyone's innate sense of doubt and suspicion towards scientology, because most people don't take it seriously. For the same reasons that no religion should be taken seriously.

[magillaG]

exactly my point.

they are all equally credible.

I was appealing to everyone's innate sense of doubt and suspicion towards scientology, because most people don't take it seriously. For the same reasons that no religion should be taken seriously.

You didn't really answer the question with any thought.

Why, exactly, are they all equally credible?

[Hugh Jass]

You didn't really answer the question with any thought.

Why, exactly, are they all equally credible?

because they can all be distilled to this:

"A supernatural being did it."

when we introduce that into the argument, it is impossible to argue against that that couldn't have happened, by the very definition that a supernatural being can accomplish any task. While perhaps an interesting mental exercise, we don't normally afford such liberty in other areas where humans are concerned with truth. Such as with someone on trial for murder. No one would believe someone who said that they saw a demon appear and that the demon framed them for murder. And because the demon is supernatural, left no physical evidence. Most people would, rightly so, not believe that person's testimony.

Christians' evidence is that Q document, right?

[Danjew]

Yet, why do we all feel justified in mocking it?


Because it is worthy of our derision. That's why.

Can someone say circular reasoning?

We feel justified to mock it because it is worthy of being mocked. Why is it worthy of our derision exactly?

I think the reason people here have no problem mocking it is because they have no positive attatchment towards it. Does that mean it deserves to be mocked?

[magillaG]

because they can all be distilled to this:

"A supernatural being did it."

when we introduce that into the argument, it is impossible to argue against that that couldn't have happened, by the very definition that a supernatural being can accomplish any task. While perhaps an interesting mental exercise, we don't normally afford such liberty in other areas where humans are concerned with truth. Such as with someone on trial for murder. No one would believe someone who said that they saw a demon appear and that the demon framed them for murder. And because the demon is supernatural, left no physical evidence. Most people would, rightly so, not believe that person's testimony.

Christians' evidence is that Q document, right?

If the only part about Christianity a person finds interesting or focuses on is the conjecture that a supernatural being has done something- not a conjecture every Christian makes, necessarily- then I would think that person would probably justifiably see no difference between scientology and whatever small parts of Christianity filter through the filter of "a supernatural being did it."

However, that is the real claim- that the only thing interesting about religion is the conjecture that a supernatural being might have done something.

The obvious and justified counterclaim, of course, is that then the only thing interesting about humanism or science is that it claims no supernatural being does anything, or at least systematically ignores that possibility.

I personally don't believe either the claim or the counterclaim.

[Hugh Jass]

Can someone say circular reasoning?

We feel justified to mock it because it is worthy of being mocked. Why is it worthy of our derision exactly?

I think the reason people here have no problem mocking it is because they have no positive attatchment towards it. Does that mean it deserves to be mocked?

it's worthy because our logical abilities tell us that it's hogwash.

[Hugh Jass]

If the only part about Christianity a person finds interesting or focuses on is the conjecture that a supernatural being has done something- not a conjecture every Christian makes, necessarily- then I would think that person would probably justifiably see no difference between scientology and whatever small parts of Christianity filter through the filter of "a supernatural being did it."

However, that is the real claim- that the only thing interesting about religion is the conjecture that a supernatural being might have done something.

The obvious and justified counterclaim, of course, is that then the only thing interesting about humanism or science is that it claims no supernatural being does anything, or at least systematically ignores that possibility.

I personally don't believe either the claim or the counterclaim.

if humanism and science ever permitted "something supernatural happened" as a reasons, we would not have gotten very far. But it's very definition, humanism and science do not look to supernatural explanations because they cannot be explained or reproduced by anyone.

sure religion says lots of other stuff, but the entire authority of it's credibility is placed with something that by its definition can't be verified.

[Hugh Jass]

ugh, please excuse the awful spelling coming from my droid

[Danjew]

it's worthy because our logical abilities tell us that it's hogwash.

Would you say the same of a couple who claims to be soul mates?

Just because it may be illogical or not supported by a logical foundation, I don't think that by definition means it is is worthy of being mocked. Just because there is no logical foundation for the existence of souls or by the fact that many people make the same claim and end up getting divorced later shows that this claim is not very solid, I still don't think such people who make that claim are worthy of being mocked.

[magillaG]

if humanism and science ever permitted "something supernatural happened" as a reasons, we would not have gotten very far. But it's very definition, humanism and science do not look to supernatural explanations because they cannot be explained or reproduced by anyone.

sure religion says lots of other stuff, but the entire authority of it's credibility is placed with something that by its definition can't be verified.

We hear religious people on this board talk about how they verify the claims of religion all the time. What you must mean by "cannot be verified" is "cannot be verified by the methods of science." And, as you point out, by definition science does not look to supernatural explanations. So this isn't really saying very much.

I like a lot of your posts, but reducing all of religion to a basic claim that cannot be "verified" (what you mean by that is not clear, I guessed above) and "lots of other stuff" is pretty absurd.

I might as well summarize science (and many people on this board often do in response to the sort of statement you are making) as "science says a lot of other stuff, but the entire authority of it's credibility is placed with something that by its definition can't be verified." Of course, by this they mean that science assumes methodological naturalism, which they often confuse with philosophical materialism or naturalism, and by verify they often mean "prove", which science doesn't seek to do. So they don't really get the claim of science exactly right, and they try to apply a method of verification that science doesn't really claim to do.

However, it is the perfect response to the sort of claim you are making, because this is exactly what you are doing to religion.

[RichieGB]

We hear religious people on this board talk about how they verify the claims of religion all the time. What you must mean by "cannot be verified" is "cannot be verified by the methods of science." And, as you point out, by definition science does not look to supernatural explanations. So this isn't really saying very much.


:rofl:

[magillaG]

:rofl:

Please, then, when the laughter subsides, try to tell me how to set up an experiment that tests whether QMO is really getting direct revelation from God when he decides not to move from his house.

I'm not saying that the method of verification is very appealing to me. I prefer a verification standard that will give me things any independent observer must agree on. I would personally be more inclined to try to understand his mysterious feeling to not move in terms of brain structure, for example. But to say that the claims are not verified is simply untrue.

[JohnLocke]

Please, then, when the laughter subsides, try to tell me how to set up an experiment that tests whether QMO is really getting direct revelation from God when he decides not to move from his house.

I'm not saying that the method of verification is very appealing to me. I prefer a verification standard that will give me things any independent observer must agree on. I would personally be more inclined to try to understand his mysterious feeling to not move in terms of brain structure, for example. But to say that the claims are not verified is simply untrue.

The spaghetti monster spoke to me with the message that if I don't giraffing pass my next exam, WWIII will be the result.


While maybe not non-verifiable in your book, such an explanation is very un-satifsying to those who don't believe in the spaghetti monster god (heathens!).

[JohnLocke]

The obvious and justified counterclaim, of course, is that then the only thing interesting about humanism or science is that it claims no supernatural being does anything, or at least systematically ignores that possibility.

I personally don't believe either the claim or the counterclaim.

I think this is very wrong. I think science assumes neither god exists nor doesn't exist.

People who often "worship science" may believe god doesn't exist but that is because they place logic before emotion and faith. I have never seen anything even remotely come close to logical a proof of god without an emotional/faith arguement, so skepticism in the existence of god makes sense for someone who "worships science." If you think you have such an arguement, let me know. I'd love to read it.

[Buck]

"Worshiping" is uniquely religious -- only religious people do that.

In fact, all following items are uniquely religious:

"faith", "praying", "worshiping", "repenting", "rapturing" ...

[Noddy]

Please, then, when the laughter subsides, try to tell me how to set up an experiment that tests whether QMO is really getting direct revelation from God when he decides not to move from his house.


That's the point, there isn't, (and what a trivial matter for the creator of the universe.) And on balance QMO ( and the dood who seems pretty convinced that god put some gas in his tank, yet another trivial matter for the creator of the universe) has convinced himself of something due to preconceived notions and in all likelihood a childhood indoctrination of superstitious beliefs.

I'm not saying that the method of verification is very appealing to me. I prefer a verification standard that will give me things any independent observer must agree on. I would personally be more inclined to try to understand his mysterious feeling to not move in terms of brain structure, for example. But to say that the claims are not verified is simply untrue.

Of course it's not because it matters whether or not what we believe to be true to be actually true (so far as logic, reason and science can reveal it).

and to be acceptable to most scientifically minded, claims need to be independently verifiable (and repeatable). Otherwise the simple and most likely answer is that it's in your head ( where your soul is ).

[RichieGB]

Please, then, when the laughter subsides, try to tell me how to set up an experiment that tests whether QMO is really getting direct revelation from God when he decides not to move from his house.

I'm not saying that the method of verification is very appealing to me. I prefer a verification standard that will give me things any independent observer must agree on. I would personally be more inclined to try to understand his mysterious feeling to not move in terms of brain structure, for example. But to say that the claims are not verified is simply untrue.

The laughter came from the silliness of what you said. You totally tried to trivialize rational thought - and I'm not supposed to laugh at it?

[magillaG]

The laughter came from the silliness of what you said. You totally tried to trivialize rational thought - and I'm not supposed to laugh at it?

Perhaps I misunderstood you.

I think that when we reduce religion or science to purely statements about whether or not God exists, then this does trivialize rational thought.

If we reduce 2000 years of religion to "God did it", then we we also end up reducing 400 years of science to "God didn't do it."

I think it is entirely appropriate to have religious thought that is motivated by science. However, the statement "God didn't do it because supernatural beings cannot exist" is not much of a thought.

[RichieGB]

However, the statement "God didn't do it because supernatural beings cannot exist" is not much of a thought.

I really think you're improperly characterizing the points that a few of the more rational agnostics/atheists on this board are speaking to.

[magillaG]

I think this is very wrong. I think science assumes neither god exists nor doesn't exist.

People who often "worship science" may believe god doesn't exist but that is because they place logic before emotion and faith. I have never seen anything even remotely come close to logical a proof of god without an emotional/faith arguement, so skepticism in the existence of god makes sense for someone who "worships science." If you think you have such an arguement, let me know. I'd love to read it.

Science is the closest thing I have had to a religious epiphany. QMO talks about hearing God tell him to stay in his house. I've never had anything like that, but learning science made me feel like the order of the universe was whispering to me. So I really don't understand your characterization of science as putting logic before emotion.

[magillaG]

I really think you're improperly characterizing the points that a few of the more rational agnostics/atheists on this board are speaking to.

I'm sure I am. I am not trying to include everybody. I also think I am accurately characterizing some of them. What does the flying spaghetti monster do but reduce all religion to the simple claim of "God did it." I cannot count how many times I have seen that characterization on this board.

[magillaG]

That's the point, there isn't, (and what a trivial matter for the creator of the universe.) And on balance QMO ( and the dood who seems pretty convinced that god put some gas in his tank, yet another trivial matter for the creator of the universe) has convinced himself of something due to preconceived notions and in all likelihood a childhood indoctrination of superstitious beliefs.



Of course it's not because it matters whether or not what we believe to be true to be actually true (so far as logic, reason and science can reveal it).

and to be acceptable to most scientifically minded, claims need to be independently verifiable (and repeatable). Otherwise the simple and most likely answer is that it's in your head ( where your soul is ).

Some claims are true because we make them true. We decide to create a better future. Historically, that is part of rational inquiry, too.

[JohnLocke]

Science is the closest thing I have had to a religious epiphany. QMO talks about hearing God tell him to stay in his house. I've never had anything like that, but learning science made me feel like the order of the universe was whispering to me. So I really don't understand your characterization of science as putting logic before emotion.

Pretty weaksauce. The logic of science isn't built on emotion (at least not ideally). The fact that you experiece them together doesn't matter. Of course you do. You're human.

[RichieGB]

I'm sure I am. I am not trying to include everybody. I also think I am accurately characterizing some of them. What does the flying spaghetti monster do but reduce all religion to the simple claim of "God did it." I cannot count how many times I have seen that characterization on this board.

As an atheist, I certainly can't be objective in saying this, but I think that the FSM = God thing is at least a decent comparison (albeit silly and a bit pointless). But let's be clear - are you talking about reducing religion or are you speaking to an argument consiting of "God didn't do it because supernatural beings cannot exist"? Because those are two very different things.

[JohnLocke]

I'm sure I am. I am not trying to include everybody. I also think I am accurately characterizing some of them. What does the flying spaghetti monster do but reduce all religion to the simple claim of "God did it." I cannot count how many times I have seen that characterization on this board.

I have never seen a single claim for a religion not based on faith/emotion. Nor have you supplied one.

[JohnLocke]

Perhaps I misunderstood you.

I think that when we reduce religion or science to purely statements about whether or not God exists, then this does trivialize rational thought.

If we reduce 2000 years of religion to "God did it", then we we also end up reducing 400 years of science to "God didn't do it."

I think it is entirely appropriate to have religious thought that is motivated by science. However, the statement "God didn't do it because supernatural beings cannot exist" is not much of a thought.

I'm not even sure I know what's being talked about anymore. I personally am not trying to reduce anything down nor am I trying to trivialize anything. I don't think science and religion are in any way incompatible. What I do believe is that there is no way to prove god rationally. I also believe that while there may be no way to disprove the existence of god, I think that is a very unsatisfying for a non-believer to hear since there are an infinite number of things that could be made up that can't be disproved. I see no reason nor can I come up with any logical reason to believe in the existence of god. There may be /faith reasons but I personally don't put any stock into that. I have no problem if other people do.

[Noddy]

Some claims are true because we make them true. We decide to create a better future. Historically, that is part of rational inquiry, too.

The actual truth is independent of what we would like to be true.
Making up truths to make a better future has historically been part of rational inquiry? I'd like to read a bit more on this, can you direct me to a link please?

[Noddy]

I'm not even sure I know what's being talked about anymore. I personally am not trying to reduce anything down nor am I trying to trivialize anything. I don't think science and religion are in any way incompatible.

science and religion are completely incompatible
(unless you think creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the science classroom)

[JohnLocke]

science and religion are completely incompatible
(unless you think creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the science classroom)

Completely untrue. I don't even think creationism is incompatible with evolution unless the person believes in a literal interpretation of the bible.

Who says god couldn't have created us through evolution?

[magillaG]

Pretty weaksauce. The logic of science isn't built on emotion (at least not ideally). The fact that you experiece them together doesn't matter. Of course you do. You're human.

I see scientific discovery as a creative endeavor motivated by the human need to understand. I think that scientific knowledge reflects both some sort of objective reality, and the nature of human beings.

Scientific judgment is supposed to be independent of individual prejudice. However, what science itself is important because it is relevant to us as human beings. So if I am trying to evaluate whether the big bang hypothesis is true, then I have to leave my personal hopes and fears at the door. But i walk through that door because, as a human being, I care about the beginning of the universe.

[Buck]

Remember a single golden rule when dealing with religion:

Religion is not qualified to opine on anything.

For a very simple reason -- religion does not research/study on anything.

With that said, questions such as "the origin of universe", "origin of humans", "morals, values, worldviews" ... are all irrelevant to religion.

Religion should do nothing but staying inside churches, mosques ... and just pray there.

[magillaG]

The actual truth is independent of what we would like to be true.
Making up truths to make a better future has historically been part of rational inquiry? I'd like to read a bit more on this, can you direct me to a link please?

I am saying that part of rational inquiry is thinking about what we ought to be doing, and then doing it. See ethics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics).

Your characterize the search for truth as passive. Truth is something that is revealed to us. I disagree with that characterization. I think that truth reflects an objective reality, but any discovery of truth is itself also an act of creation and imagination, and any statement of truth reflects that too. It involves more than simply logic, reason and experiment.

[magillaG]

I have never seen a single claim for a religion not based on faith/emotion. Nor have you supplied one.

What about the quote from Augustine I posted earlier that claimed that reason and experience must always supersede any particular interpretation of a Biblical passage.

[Noddy]

Completely untrue. I don't even think creationism is incompatible with religion unless the person believes in a litereal interpretation of the bible.

I dont think incompatible means what you think it means.


Who says god couldn't have created us through evolution?

I dunno but there's no need for a god hypothesis so out with it.

[JohnLocke]

I dont think incompatible means what you think it means.



I dunno but there's no need for a god hypothesis so out with it.

post corrected.

[JohnLocke]

What about the quote from Augustine I posted earlier that claimed that reason and experience must always supersede any particular interpretation of a Biblical passage.

Please repost. If you are paraphrasing it in this post, then that is a very good look to take on religion in general but how is that evidence of anything? It's just an attitude.

[Lucy]

Well, unless she drove you from the east coast to the west coast, or vicea-versa, then I would venture to say that you didn't know her well. :-PWell, that's why I told you it was just a cab ride. My point was that she wasn't obviously insane or anything.

I have never seen a single claim for a religion not based on faith/emotion. Nor have you supplied one.Religion speaks about how to live, and about ethics, and about how to cope with various situations. It creates structure in our lives (celebrating the seasons, and life passages) and builds community and fellowship. I know many people who are happy and kinder people because of the influence of religion. I suppose you can call that "based on emotion", but human beings are creatures of emotion, and it is foolish to ignore that aspect of our lives.

[QMO]

...Yet, why do we all feel justified in mocking it?...As much as I don't think it's true, I don't feel justified in mocking it.

Just so you know.

[sweetiepie]

L. Ron Hubbard's "direct revelation from god" is no less credible than anyone else's
This is totally wrong. I once read Battlefield Earth and I can tell you, it was not written by a man that was touched by God.

...Of course it's a lot easier to call somebody else crazy. A better question is what you would do if you knew for sure that God exists. Or if you not only knew it to be a case, but you built a whole system of thought and emotion, which was as good or better than it's absence.

[sweetiepie]

Likewise, you can very reasonably tell which "gods" are less likely than other gods. Occam's razor will slice off the more absurd Gods first, and it will slice away given part of God before it slices away the whole God concept in its simplest form.

[JohnLocke]

Likewise, you can very reasonably tell which "gods" are less likely than other gods. Occam's razor will slice off the more absurd Gods first, and it will slice away given part of God before it slices away the whole God concept in its simplest form.

Okay, let's see you do that.

[JohnLocke]

Well, that's why I told you it was just a cab ride. My point was that she wasn't obviously insane or anything.[/quote

I don't believe in the concept of insanity.

[quote]
Religion speaks about how to live, and about ethics, and about how to cope with various situations. It creates structure in our lives (celebrating the seasons, and life passages) and builds community and fellowship. I know many people who are happy and kinder people because of the influence of religion. I suppose you can call that "based on emotion", but human beings are creatures of emotion, and it is foolish to ignore that aspect of our lives.



You don't need to convince me. I have already accepted the flying spaghetti monster into my heart and into my soul. Have you? I haven't gotten many converts recently but am trying hard.

[Hugh Jass]

This is totally wrong. I once read Battlefield Earth and I can tell you, it was not written by a man that was touched by God.

...Of course it's a lot easier to call somebody else crazy. A better question is what you would do if you knew for sure that God exists. Or if you not only knew it to be a case, but you built a whole system of thought and emotion, which was as good or better than it's absence.

How do you know it wasn't written by god himself, via the penmanship of L. Ron Hubbard? I agree with you that it's all hogwash, but for sake of logical argument, how can you :qunq: prove :qunq: that it wasn't written by god? Because god, by definition, can do anything. It really is no more insane and crazy than anything in the Bible.

How do we know we are better off from having religion around?

[SirVLCIV]

You don't need to convince me. I have already accepted the flying spaghetti monster into my heart and into my soul. Have you? I haven't gotten many converts recently but am trying hard.

Hail Eris!

:yawn:

[sweetiepie]

How do you know it wasn't written by god himself, via the penmanship of L. Ron Hubbard? I agree with you that it's all hogwash, but for sake of logical argument, how can you :qunq: prove :qunq: that it wasn't written by god? Because god, by definition, can do anything. It really is no more insane and crazy than anything in the Bible.
The Bible is appealing because somewhere in its thousands of pages hogwash are a few really good stories, characters, and lines which appeal to almost anyone, and which can grow to fill your mind/heart/soul. Battlefield doesn't have the same thing going for it. It's stupid. It's uninspired. God can do anything, but he can't inspire uninspired writing.

How do we know we are better off from having religion around?How do we know we're better off with anything? We don't want to lose it.

[Loner]

I don't believe in the concept of insanity.

Srsly? When there's so much evidence for it?

[Dr. John Zoidberg]

The Bible is appealing because somewhere in its thousands of pages hogwash are a few really good stories, characters, and lines which appeal to almost anyone, and which can grow to fill your mind/heart/soul. Battlefield doesn't have the same thing going for it. It's stupid. It's uninspired. God can do anything, but he can't inspire uninspired writing.

How do we know we're better off with anything? We don't want to lose it.

If you could hold off on the unwarranted attacks against Mr. Hubbard, I would greatly appreciate it. To each his own, I say.

[Hugh Jass]

The Bible is appealing because somewhere in its thousands of pages hogwash are a few really good stories, characters, and lines which appeal to almost anyone, and which can grow to fill your mind/heart/soul. Battlefield doesn't have the same thing going for it. It's stupid. It's uninspired. God can do anything, but he can't inspire uninspired writing.

How do we know we're better off with anything? We don't want to lose it.

I like the part where god wanted child sacrifice, that was my favorite

[Descalzo]

I like the part where god wanted child sacrifice, that was my favorite

Which part was that?

[JohnLocke]

Srsly? When there's so much evidence for it?

I'm not really all or none on this, but don't take away my trolling.

[Roger Wilco]

What the hell is everyone talking about anyways? What is the point of all this? Why do you athiests give a damn what some fairy tale book says or doesn't say? I don't give a damn.

[Hugh Jass]

What the hell is everyone talking about anyways? What is the point of all this? Why do you athiests give a damn what some fairy tale book says or doesn't say? I don't give a damn.

so your cool with people like say, the president of the USA, believing in all this end times stuff, and they believe that other non-judeo christian religions are bad?

Or putting wrong ideas in scientific textbooks?

[Lucy]

Which part was that?Ummm, that part we read every year on Rosh Hashanah, where God asks Abraham to sacrifice his only son, Isaac, whom he loves, and Abraham says "yes, sir!"

Even if God didn't actually want Abraham to go through with it, just the request (and the agreement) is pretty creepy. Abraham argued with God about taking out a whole city of strangers, but kill his own son? He was apparently okay with that.

In the spirit of Kierkegard (sp) I offer the following version:

A shepherd had chased a strayed sheep up into the hills, in a "high place", held holy by many. He was having a bad day, and was tired, but didn't want to lose his prize ram. All of a sudden, he hears the noises of another party. He is close to the ram, but is distracted by the scene of a man and a youth carrying woood up the hillside. All of the sudden, the man siezes the youth, and ties him up, talking to himself like a crazy person, as the youth cries out for mercy. The shepherd suddenly realizes that the man intends the youth as a sacrifice, in this traditional place of sacrifices. He quickly startles the ram, and drives it into some bushes, then calls out to the man, "look, God has provided a sacrificial animal for you. See how fine a ram he is?" The crazy man sees the shepherd and his ram for the first time, and a look of relief and disappointment crosses his face. He unbinds his son, and sacrifices the ram. Meanwhile, the shepherd helps the youth escape while the man is distracted.

Tradition tells us that Isaac never spoke to his father again after that day. But no one tells us what befell the generous and quick-thinking shepherd.

[Roger Wilco]

so your cool with people like say, the president of the USA, believing in all this end times stuff, and they believe that other non-judeo christian religions are bad?

Or putting wrong ideas in scientific textbooks?

I had no idea that this argument in this thread was meant for the sole purpose of changing the presidents view on the end of times or his other insane beliefs. Or that this forum was meant to end adding wrong ideas to textbooks.

Sorry I had no idea this thread would have an impact of that magnitude or that the president of the USA or that the editors of scientific textbooks were all listening to this riveting and compelling debate on the negative effects of adding such things to textbooks.

Stop trying to fool yourself. You love talking about religion because you feel the need to preach your moral values to others. You never really got over your Christian tendencies, you just redirect them.

[Hugh Jass]

I had no idea that this argument in this thread was meant for the sole purpose of changing the presidents view on the end of times or his other insane beliefs. Or that this forum was meant to end adding wrong ideas to textbooks.

Sorry I had no idea this thread would have an impact of that magnitude or that the president of the USA or that the editors of scientific textbooks were all listening to this riveting and compelling debate on the negative effects of adding such things to textbooks.

Stop trying to fool yourself. You love talking about religion because you feel the need to preach your moral values to others. You never really got over your Christian tendencies, you just redirect them.

uh, nice try, troll. When have I ever mentioned "moral values"?

[billyinvegas]

I had no idea that this argument in this thread was meant for the sole purpose of changing the presidents view on the end of times or his other insane beliefs. Or that this forum was meant to end adding wrong ideas to textbooks.

Sorry I had no idea this thread would have an impact of that magnitude or that the president of the USA or that the editors of scientific textbooks were all listening to this riveting and compelling debate on the negative effects of adding such things to textbooks.

Stop trying to fool yourself. You love talking about religion because you feel the need to preach your moral values to others. You never really got over your Christian tendencies, you just redirect them.

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/2/nicepost.gif

[Roger Wilco]

uh, nice try, troll. When have I ever mentioned "moral values"?

:shrug: maybe not moral values but you definitely have a moral judgement that believing in religion is wrong, which I agree with, I just don't see what exactly you are trying to prove in this thread. It seems tedious and pointless.

[Hugh Jass]

:shrug: maybe not moral values but you definitely have a moral judgement that believing in religion is wrong, which I agree with, I just don't see what exactly you are trying to prove in this thread. It seems tedious and pointless.

I never thought of my stance as a "moral stance" against religion.

Pretty much everything is pointless, though. Why should this thread be any different?

[Danjew]

Ummm, that part we read every year on Rosh Hashanah, where God asks Abraham to sacrifice his only son, Isaac, whom he loves, and Abraham says "yes, sir!"

I don't think he goes to Rosh Hashanah services, let alone opened a Machzor.

Even if God didn't actually want Abraham to go through with it, just the request (and the agreement) is pretty creepy. Abraham argued with God about taking out a whole city of strangers, but kill his own son? He was apparently okay with that.

In the spirit of Kierkegard (sp) I offer the following version:

A shepherd had chased a strayed sheep up into the hills, in a "high place", held holy by many. He was having a bad day, and was tired, but didn't want to lose his prize ram. All of a sudden, he hears the noises of another party. He is close to the ram, but is distracted by the scene of a man and a youth carrying woood up the hillside. All of the sudden, the man siezes the youth, and ties him up, talking to himself like a crazy person, as the youth cries out for mercy. The shepherd suddenly realizes that the man intends the youth as a sacrifice, in this traditional place of sacrifices. He quickly startles the ram, and drives it into some bushes, then calls out to the man, "look, God has provided a sacrificial animal for you. See how fine a ram he is?" The crazy man sees the shepherd and his ram for the first time, and a look of relief and disappointment crosses his face. He unbinds his son, and sacrifices the ram. Meanwhile, the shepherd helps the youth escape while the man is distracted.

Tradition tells us that Isaac never spoke to his father again after that day. But no one tells us what befell the generous and quick-thinking shepherd.

Our tradition also tells us that Isaac was a full grown adult and consented to the act. I am not sure where he gets the idea that Isaac never spoke to Abraham after the event either.

But I agree that the story is problematic.

[Danjew]

I never thought of my stance as a "moral stance" against religion.

Pretty much everything is pointless, though. Why should this thread be any different?

Don't you think that religion is wrong though? If you do then why isn't it a moral stance?

I don't think this thread is pointless. Repetetive, but not pointless.

[Hugh Jass]

Don't you think that religion is wrong though? If you do then why isn't it a moral stance?

I don't think this thread is pointless. Repetetive, but not pointless.

I think it's wrong, sure, but I don't think anyone is a bad person for their religious beliefs.

I see everything as pointless - it's my job to create meaning in this sea of meaninglessness we find ourselves in. There's no external meaning in anything.

[The Obese Dog]

I had no idea that this argument in this thread was meant for the sole purpose of changing the presidents view on the end of times or his other insane beliefs. Or that this forum was meant to end adding wrong ideas to textbooks.

Sorry I had no idea this thread would have an impact of that magnitude or that the president of the USA or that the editors of scientific textbooks were all listening to this riveting and compelling debate on the negative effects of adding such things to textbooks.

Stop trying to fool yourself. You love talking about religion because you feel the need to preach your moral values to others. You never really got over your Christian tendencies, you just redirect them.


EVERYONE preaches their moral values. Some people just do it more obnoxiously. I do it online in discussions on the internet. The least obnoxious place, imo.

[Entropy]

I had no idea that this argument in this thread was meant for the sole purpose of changing the presidents view on the end of times or his other insane beliefs. Or that this forum was meant to end adding wrong ideas to textbooks.

Sorry I had no idea this thread would have an impact of that magnitude or that the president of the USA or that the editors of scientific textbooks were all listening to this riveting and compelling debate on the negative effects of adding such things to textbooks.

Stop trying to fool yourself. You love talking about religion because you feel the need to preach your moral values to others. You never really got over your Christian tendencies, you just redirect them.

:shrug: maybe not moral values but you definitely have a moral judgement that believing in religion is wrong, which I agree with, I just don't see what exactly you are trying to prove in this thread. It seems tedious and pointless.

Does somebody have a gun to your head making you read and post in this thread, or are you here for some amusement too?

[Entropy]

I like the part where god wanted child sacrifice, that was my favorite

I like the part where he wants a bunch of people murdered and then later decides that he doesn't want anybody murdered anymore.

[Danjew]

I think it's wrong, sure, but I don't think anyone is a bad person for their religious beliefs.

I feel the same way about beliefs I don't agree with as well.

I see everything as pointless - it's my job to create meaning in this sea of meaninglessness we find ourselves in. There's no external meaning in anything.

Thus by contributing you in effect make this thread meaningful, so how could it be meaningless.

I am not sure what you mean by external meaning.

[Danjew]

Does somebody have a gun to your head making you read and post in this thread, or are you here for some amusement too?

I didn't see this response to those saying practically the same thing, such as discussing the character of Jesus.

[Danjew]

I like the part where he wants a bunch of people murdered and then later decides that he doesn't want anybody murdered anymore.

Now for this I don't know what you are referring to.

[Kool-Aid Man]

Don't you think that religion is wrong though?
Religion is wrong, but not because it's a bunch of facts that aren't true. Similarly, science is right, but not because science is a bunch of facts that are true. Religion and science aren't collections of assertions, they're two diametrically opposed methods of sorting through multitudes of observations in order to make sense of them all and help us to understand and influence our environment.

Among the differences in the methods, the most important one is this: The scientific mindset says that a good theory must be based off experiments and observations which can be repeated by anyone, anywhere, at any time. No one has to take anyone's word on anything, no one has to take anything on faith.

That's why it's possible (but unlikely) to use rational scientific inquiry and conclude that some supernatural being controls everything. And it's possible to have blind religious faith in a scientific theory. It's not about the conclusions, it's about how you come to draw those conclusions. I have a hundred times more trust in the scientific method than the religious method.

[Danjew]

Religion is wrong, but not because it's a bunch of facts that aren't true. Similarly, science is right, but not because science is a bunch of facts that are true. Religion and science aren't collections of assertions, they're two diametrically opposed methods of sorting through multitudes of observations in order to make sense of them all and help us to understand and influence our environment.

Among the differences in the methods, the most important one is this: The scientific mindset says that a good theory must be based off experiments and observations which can be repeated by anyone, anywhere, at any time. No one has to take anyone's word on anything, no one has to take anything on faith.

That's why it's possible (but unlikely) to use rational scientific inquiry and conclude that some supernatural being controls everything. And it's possible to have blind religious faith in a scientific theory. It's not about the conclusions, it's about how you come to draw those conclusions. I have a hundred times more trust in the scientific method than the religious method.

I think that is a fair assesment and position to take.

[Hugh Jass]

I feel the same way about beliefs I don't agree with as well.



Thus by contributing you in effect make this thread meaningful, so how could it be meaningless.

I am not sure what you mean by external meaning.

I mean there is no meaning in anything except for that which people imbue to it from themselves. I give this thread meaning, to me. Someone else might find it meaningless.

[Entropy]

I didn't see this response to those saying practically the same thing, such as discussing the character of Jesus.
What? I only meant that if he thought it was pointless, why read any of it. Obviously other people think other bits are not pointless. The only thing I've found to be pointless in these conversations are the people that chime in just to say that nothing can or will ever change and we should all just bury our heads in the sand.

Now for this I don't know what you are referring to.
Which part are you missing? The part where god does want somebody murdered or the part where he doesn't want anybody murdered?

I should clarify that in some cases I include god killing people as murder, since there is probable cause and intent... as well as "evidence".

[Hugh Jass]

remember when god killed the Egyptian infants?

classic.

[Entropy]

remember when god killed the Egyptian infants?

classic.

Righteous.

[Danjew]

remember when god killed the Egyptian infants?

classic.

Curious as to why you care about G-d's character at all? Or lets put it this way:

Who cares if Jesus was a nice guy or a mean guy? I mean, none of those magic tricks actually really happened anyways, so who cares?

He (Jesubus) seems a nasty piece of work but to clarify my response I pose a few questions to you:

Why was Humpty Dumpty sitting on the wall?
Why did he have a great fall?
and, most importantly, why was he obese?

Why is it ridiculous to try to discuss the Character of Jesus and to whether he was nice or naughty, but totally rational to bring up the same points about G-d?

I think both are subject to criticism, as you point out for G-d, but why is it silly for me to do so about Jesus? I think it is a reasonable position to take to say the G-d was a bad character for the reasons you listed above and I don't think your opinions about this subject are worthy of derision.

[Entropy]

Curious as to why you care about G-d's character at all? Or lets put it this way:

Why is it ridiculous to try to discuss the Character of Jesus and to whether he was nice or naughty, but totally rational to bring up the same points about G-d?

I think both are subject to criticism, as you point out for G-d, but why is it silly for me to do so about Jesus? I think it is a reasonable position to take to say the G-d was a bad character for the reasons you listed above and I don't think your opinions about this subject are worthy of derision.

Besides, they're the same thing anyway right?

[Danjew]

Besides, they're the same thing anyway right?

According to some yes. Not according to me though. I think they are clearly different characters and personalities.

[magillaG]

Religion is wrong, but not because it's a bunch of facts that aren't true. Similarly, science is right, but not because science is a bunch of facts that are true. Religion and science aren't collections of assertions, they're two diametrically opposed methods of sorting through multitudes of observations in order to make sense of them all and help us to understand and influence our environment.

Among the differences in the methods, the most important one is this: The scientific mindset says that a good theory must be based off experiments and observations which can be repeated by anyone, anywhere, at any time. No one has to take anyone's word on anything, no one has to take anything on faith.

That's why it's possible (but unlikely) to use rational scientific inquiry and conclude that some supernatural being controls everything. And it's possible to have blind religious faith in a scientific theory. It's not about the conclusions, it's about how you come to draw those conclusions. I have a hundred times more trust in the scientific method than the religious method.

I think Christianity contains both of these approaches. The orthodox view in the Latin church, at least, has been that these two approaches have to agree with each other. (I less familiar with Eastern Orthodox Christianity.) For example, the enlightenment probably got started with Descartes, who was trying to use reason alone to prove the existence of God so that those who did not initially have faith in God could be converted (or so he claimed.)

Of course, at times certain denominations can seem like they leave no room for reason and evidence, and even reduce faith to a determination to not doubt despite any reason or evidence to the contrary.

[Hugh Jass]

Curious as to why you care about G-d's character at all? Or lets put it this way:





Why is it ridiculous to try to discuss the Character of Jesus and to whether he was nice or naughty, but totally rational to bring up the same points about G-d?

I think both are subject to criticism, as you point out for G-d, but why is it silly for me to do so about Jesus? I think it is a reasonable position to take to say the G-d was a bad character for the reasons you listed above and I don't think your opinions about this subject are worthy of derision.

go ahead, criticize away. I wasn't one of the posters getting offended at your depiction of Jesus. I actually supplied you with data to support your assertions. I was just saying that mostly because I think Jesus was a mixed bag, that he's not all forgive and play nice like some people say he was.

[Danjew]

I think Christianity contains both of these approaches. The orthodox view in the Latin church, at least, has been that these two approaches have to agree with each other. (I less familiar with Eastern Orthodox Christianity.) For example, the enlightenment probably got started with Descartes, who was trying to use reason alone to prove the existence of God so that those who did not initially have faith in God could be converted (or so he claimed.)

Of course, at times certain denominations can seem like they leave no room for reason and evidence, and even reduce faith to a determination to not doubt despite any reason or evidence to the contrary.

On the micro level I think religions can have elements of both views, but I think almost by definition that this can not be the case on the macro level for any religion. It all ultimately boils down to faith, which flows contrary to the scientific method.

[magillaG]

On the micro level I think religions can have elements of both views, but I think almost by definition that this can not be the case on the macro level for any religion. It all ultimately boils down to faith, which flows contrary to the scientific method.

In Christianity at least, I think that faith and reason are both integral parts of the religion. It is part of the macro view. Faith is required as a starting point for reason, but reason must also ultimately support faith. I do not think you can separate the two.

ADD: For example, John's gospel refers to Jesus as Logos. I'm not sure how much more you can make reason an integral part of Christianity.

[Danjew]

go ahead, criticize away. I wasn't one of the posters getting offended at your depiction of Jesus. I actually supplied you with data to support your assertions. I was just saying that mostly because I think Jesus was a mixed bag, that he's not all forgive and play nice like some people say he was.

The bolded was exactly my point as well.

Maybe this post was suited for Noddy and others who did have a problem with my posts then.

[Danjew]

In Christianity at least, I think that faith and reason are both integral parts of the religion. It is part of the macro view. Faith is required as a starting point for reason, but reason must also ultimately support faith. I do not think you can separate the two.

I never said reason was seperable from faith, just the scientific method is at the macro level. It is incorrect to say that faith is required as a starting point for the scientific method, or at least not the type of faith religious people speak about. The faith of science is based on the currently observable whereas the faith of religion is based on the revealed traditions of old.

[Hugh Jass]

In Christianity at least, I think that faith and reason are both integral parts of the religion. It is part of the macro view. Faith is required as a starting point for reason, but reason must also ultimately support faith. I do not think you can separate the two.

ADD: For example, John's gospel refers to Jesus as Logos. I'm not sure how much more you can make reason an integral part of Christianity.


Just by talking about reason doesn't mean they are using reason.

[magillaG]

I never said reason was seperable from faith, just the scientific method is at the macro level. It is incorrect to say that faith is required as a starting point for the scientific method, or at least not the type of faith religious people speak about. The faith of science is based on the currently observable whereas the faith of religion is based on the revealed traditions of old.

I agree it is probably not accurate to say that faith is required for science. Science and western religion have very different standards of verification and evidence, and saying that science requires faith seems to gloss over that.

However, science does require hope, often without evidence, that a given aspect of the universe can be understood. People often think of science as something learned at school that is already figured out, but science is also pursuing what is not understood yet. The latter aspect of science has a very different character than the former, in my opinion.

I have also heard the argument, which I think has a lot of truth, that science is analogous to religion in this sense: I cannot really prove a physics theory from the ground up in the same way that I can build a mathematical system from the individual axioms. Instead, I have to accept an entire theory, and then simply test parts of it for consistency. This has a similar structure to the idea of faith- we accept the approach that God exists, but once we do that we ought to be able to use reason to test that approach for consistency (which will mean something very different than testing a science theory for consistency, of course.)

I'm also not sure that I agree with that the contrast between recent observables for science, and ancient traditions for religion, is as stark as you make it out to be.

[Danjew]

In Christianity at least, I think that faith and reason are both integral parts of the religion. It is part of the macro view. Faith is required as a starting point for reason, but reason must also ultimately support faith. I do not think you can separate the two.

ADD: For example, John's gospel refers to Jesus as Logos. I'm not sure how much more you can make reason an integral part of Christianity.

Probably by having observable evidence by which it can substantiate its claims.

What about the story of doubting Thomas. He apparantly was given physical evidence of the resurrection, why isn't that evidence available for anyone that doubts?

[magillaG]

Just by talking about reason doesn't mean they are using reason.

That is correct.

Why would you think they weren't using reason? Was Descartes not using reason just because he believed in God, for example? What about Newton?

[magillaG]

Probably by having observable evidence by which it can substantiate its claims.

What about the story of doubting Thomas. He apparantly was given physical evidence of the resurrection, why isn't that evidence available for anyone that doubts?

Augustine's argument is that our reason is broken due to original sin. By submitting to God, our reason is fixed. Once reason is fixed, our belief in God ought to be compatible with reason. I am pretty sure Augustine wondered whether new generations of thinkers might not be able to come up with evidence for God. Remember that Western Christians spent a decent amount of time trying to do this. (I'm not as familiar with Jewish thinkers, although maybe Spinoza might fall in this category?) Again, I think it is not unreasonable to say the entire enlightenment started this way.

Maybe Christianity's attempt to merge reason and faith failed. But that doesn't mean both aren't still integral parts.

[Hugh Jass]

That is correct.

Why would you think they weren't using reason? Was Descartes not using reason just because he believed in God, for example? What about Newton?

I was just saying that just because the author of the book of John talked about Jesus being "logos" doesn't mean that makes it so. It's like saying "I put a lot of reason and logic into this, and my conclusion is that an invisisble pink unicorn seems to be running the show here." Like that is supposed to give their argument more credibility or something.

[Dr. John Zoidberg]

There is some really ridiculous shit being thrown against the wall in this thread.

[magillaG]

I was just saying that just because the author of the book of John talked about Jesus being "logos" doesn't mean that makes it so. It's like saying "I put a lot of reason and logic into this, and my conclusion is that an invisisble pink unicorn seems to be running the show here." Like that is supposed to give their argument more credibility or something.

Of course not. It evidence for a very strong hellenistic influence on Christianity, though probably not sufficient evidence. What more do you expect from a paragraph post on an online web board?

[Harry]

There is some really ridiculous shit being thrown against the wall in this thread.
Are you not entertained? Is this not why you are here?

[Dr. John Zoidberg]

Are you not entertained? Is this not why you are here?

http://dudelol.com/DO-NOT-HOTLINK-IMAGES/ARE-YOU-NOT-ENTERTAINED.jpg

[Danjew]

I have also heard the argument, which I think has a lot of truth, that science is analogous to religion in this sense: I cannot really prove a physics theory from the ground up in the same way that I can build a mathematical system from the individual axioms. Instead, I have to accept an entire theory, and then simply test parts of it for consistency. This has a similar structure to the idea of faith- we accept the approach that God exists, but once we do that we ought to be able to use reason to test that approach for consistency (which will mean something very different than testing a science theory for consistency, of course.)

I'm also not sure that I agree with that the contrast between recent observables for science, and ancient traditions for religion, is as stark as you make it out to be.

The problem with the above is that while science is falsifiable, religion is not. How would you go about using reason to test a religious approach? Is there any example you could give me that would show how using reason to test a particular faith would show that faith to be false? If not then how could you in any sense claim to be using reason to test that faith at all?

[Danjew]

Augustine's argument is that our reason is broken due to original sin. By submitting to God, our reason is fixed. Once reason is fixed, our belief in God ought to be compatible with reason. I am pretty sure Augustine wondered whether new generations of thinkers might not be able to come up with evidence for God. Remember that Western Christians spent a decent amount of time trying to do this. (I'm not as familiar with Jewish thinkers, although maybe Spinoza might fall in this category?) Again, I think it is not unreasonable to say the entire enlightenment started this way.

Maybe Christianity's attempt to merge reason and faith failed. But that doesn't mean both aren't still integral parts.

Here is another quote from Augustine: "There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity... It is this which drives us to try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not wish to learn."

Also there was a very important school of Jewish thought which many Jews follow today which some call Rationalist Judaism, people like Rambam (Moses Maimonides), his son Avraham ben Rambam, and Saadia Gaon to name a few.

[Paul Brand]

Here is another quote from Augustine: "There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity... It is this which drives us to try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not wish to learn."

Is Augustine at least not partly right? What is the point in learning the secrets of nature that are beyond our understanding? There are secrets of nature that are not beyond our understanding, and the quote doesn't address this.

I'm also interested in learning what the context is. Everything is context based, and I think it is likely that there was a particular motivation behind the quote. The only way to understand Augustine, is to understand what stimulated his thought process.

[Paul Brand]

The problem with the above is that while science is falsifiable, religion is not. How would you go about using reason to test a religious approach? Is there any example you could give me that would show how using reason to test a particular faith would show that faith to be false? If not then how could you in any sense claim to be using reason to test that faith at all?

Some parts of religion are falsifiable. You can, for example, falsify the relevance of a hermeneutical approach that leads toward a literal 6 day creation, 6000 years ago.

You can't falsify the Golden Rule, however, but many of us accept it anyway, including many atheists.

[Hugh Jass]

the golden rule is pretty logical and religion likes to claim that it invented it, but in reality it existed before religion came around.

[Entropy]

Is Augustine at least not partly right? What is the point in learning the secrets of nature that are beyond our understanding? There are secrets of nature that are not beyond our understanding, and the quote doesn't address this.

Are there secrets of nature that are beyond our understanding? I would not have thought so.

[magillaG]

The problem with the above is that while science is falsifiable, religion is not. How would you go about using reason to test a religious approach? Is there any example you could give me that would show how using reason to test a particular faith would show that faith to be false? If not then how could you in any sense claim to be using reason to test that faith at all?

I completely agree that the sort of verification employed in science is very different from religion. I think that there is a certain similarity of structure which I suspect may be able to be understood in an historical context.

I think that PB's quote about falsifying a 6 day creation is a good example.

I think there are philosophical examples, too. I think, for example, that many philosophers would say that the problem of evil essentially says that the God of Christianity cannot exist, which I think is intimately connected to the idea of an omni-everything being. This isn't a scientific-type falsification by experiment, but it is using reason to examine faith, causing one to eventually give up faith.

I think many posters on this board could be characterized as people who used reason to falsify faith. Faith in God and a rational world prompted the West to investigate that world using science. Eventually many people used these results to motivate a philosophical argument that God does not exist. Again, this is a different sort of falsification than science would do. But the question is not whether the Christian tradition allows reason to undermine faith in the same way experiment can undermine scientific theory. The question is only whether the entire Christian framework allows reason to ultimately cast down faith if the two are not consistent. I think it does.

I agree with PB about being curious about the context for your quote of Augustine.

[Paul Brand]

the golden rule is pretty logical and religion likes to claim that it invented it, but in reality it existed before religion came around.

Why do you say the golden rule is logical? I can think of plenty of instances where I am individually better off disregarding the golden rule (assuming indiviudal happiness is a reason to do certain things). Ayn Rand, for example, would say that adherence to the golden rule is evil. I don't agree with her, but she has a lot of admirers for her Moral Objectivism (which is really far from objective). Also falsification is a different issue than whether something is logical based on a set of non-falsifiable axioms.

This is really messy and fuzzy stuff, if you merely rely on scientific standards of evidence. Normative behavior is not something science does well in addressing. Science is better at addressing how nature works, rather than how nature ought to operate.

BTW, why are you interested in the origins of the golden rule? I don't think it has anything to do with my comment. Did you think that if an idea originated outside of religion, it cannot be used in a religious context? (I'm also not clear what the origins are, or how you would know that the golden rule predates religion, which originated before recorded history).

[Paul Brand]

Are there secrets of nature that are beyond our understanding? I would not have thought so.

I don't think there are aspects of nature, which are beyond are our ability to understand. It would be very remarkable if what you think is true.

If you can convince me you are right, I'd probably have fewer doubts about the existence of God. One of the suprising results of science is that the universe is comprehensible. This isn't something one would automatically expect.

[Danjew]

I completely agree that the sort of verification employed in science is very different from religion. I think that there is a certain similarity of structure which I suspect may be able to be understood in an historical context.

I think that PB's quote about falsifying a 6 day creation is a good example.

That's fine, you can falsify historical claims, but you cannor falsify theology. There are many Orthodox Jews who don't accept the 6 day creation story but still uphold Orthodox Jewish faith and theology, showing that historical claims are quite different than theology.

I think there are philosophical examples, too. I think, for example, that many philosophers would say that the problem of evil essentially says that the God of Christianity cannot exist, which I think is intimately connected to the idea of an omni-everything being. This isn't a scientific-type falsification by experiment, but it is using reason to examine faith, causing one to eventually give up faith.

I think many posters on this board could be characterized as people who used reason to falsify faith. Faith in God and a rational world prompted the West to investigate that world using science. Eventually many people used these results to motivate a philosophical argument that God does not exist. Again, this is a different sort of falsification than science would do. But the question is not whether the Christian tradition allows reason to undermine faith in the same way experiment can undermine scientific theory. The question is only whether the entire Christian framework allows reason to ultimately cast down faith if the two are not consistent. I think it does.

I agree with PB about being curious about the context for your quote of Augustine.

The quote was from Dawkins book TGD. The book says that "(quoted in Freeman 2002)". I will try to look into this to see if I can find the context as well.

Also I don't think Christianity allows for reason to cast it down. I am of the opinion that if that was the case then it would have already been cast down. The reason it hasn't is because religion is defined as unfalsifiable. The concepts of a particular religion can have people be skeptical of its claims and even reject it on their own reasoning skills, but there will always be realm for those to retreat in which no reasoning will ever be able to cast it down, and this is the realm of faith.

[The Borg]

Some parts of religion are falsifiable. You can, for example, falsify the relevance of a hermeneutical approach that leads toward a literal 6 day creation, 6000 years ago.

That is definitely not the nail in the coffin for dismissal of a 6-day creationism theory, but that may not be what you were intending. Your example would be better conveyed that under a theistic evolution creation theory one can falsify the relevance of a.....

Probably a better example would be the revelance of a hermeneutical approach that leads to literally hating one's own family. :tup:

[magillaG]

That's fine, you can falsify historical claims, but you cannor falsify theology. There are many Orthodox Jews who don't accept the 6 day creation story but still uphold Orthodox Jewish faith and theology, showing that historical claims are quite different than theology.



The quote was from Dawkins book TGD. The book says that "(quoted in Freeman 2002)". I will try to look into this to see if I can find the context as well.

Also I don't think Christianity allows for reason to cast it down. I am of the opinion that if that was the case then it would have already been cast down. The reason it hasn't is because religion is defined as unfalsifiable. The concepts of a particular religion can have people be skeptical of its claims and even reject it on their own reasoning skills, but there will always be realm for those to retreat in which no reasoning will ever be able to cast it down, and this is the realm of faith.

I would be suspicious of anything Dawkins says about religion. His biology is good, but my understanding is that he has very little understanding of theology.

I 100% agree that religion is not falsifiable in the same sense that science is. However, neither is anything else, really. I'm just saying that the Christian tradition is that reason and faith must be compatible with each other, with neither exactly subordinate to the other.

Again, aren't we seeing that Christianity has been cast down in the minds of many people? There are still many people left who disagree with this judgment- but it is because they disagree, not because the basic framework isn't that reason and faith don't have to be compatible.

[Blue Eyes White Dragon]

Here is another quote from Augustine: "There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity... It is this which drives us to try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not wish to learn."

I think this is falsely attributed to Augustine. Here is what he really said:

But by this may more evidently be discerned, wherein pleasure and wherein curiosity is the object of the senses; for pleasure seeketh objects beautiful, melodious, fragrant, savoury, soft; but curiosity, for trial's sake, the contrary as well, not for the sake of suffering annoyance, but out of the lust of making trial and knowing them. For what pleasure hath it, to see in a mangled carcase what will make you shudder? and yet if it be lying near, they flock thither, to be made sad, and to turn pale. Even in sleep they are afraid to see it. As if when awake, any one forced them to see it, or any report of its beauty drew them thither! Thus also in the other senses, which it were long to go through. From this disease of curiosity are all those strange sights exhibited in the theatre. Hence men go on to search out the hidden powers of nature (which is besides our end), which to know profits not, and wherein men desire nothing but to know. Hence also, if with that same end of perverted knowledge magical arts be enquired by. Hence also in religion itself, is God tempted, when signs and wonders are demanded of Him, not desired for any good end, but merely to make trial of.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/augustine/confess.xi.xxxv.html

[Blue Eyes White Dragon]

Freeman (2002) was not quoting Augustine, he was interpreting and twisting.

[Blue Eyes White Dragon]

not because the basic framework isn't that reason and faith don't have to be compatible.
a triple negative oh my

[Hugh Jass]

I would be suspicious of anything Dawkins says about religion. His biology is good, but my understanding is that he has very little understanding of theology.
.


being "good" at religion is about as important as being really good at a role playing game for your Playstation. Fun to get into it, but really has no bearing on anything else in the real world.

why do some people get impressed if someone has say a PhD in Theology, but they don't hand out PhD's in Final Fantasy. They are really about just as important as eachother.

[Paul Brand]

That is definitely not the nail in the coffin for dismissal of a 6-day creationism theory, but that may not be what you were intending. Your example would be better conveyed that under a theistic evolution creation theory one can falsify the relevance of a.....

Probably a better example would be the revelance of a hermeneutical approach that leads to literally hating one's own family. :tup:

I was struggling with how to word it. You can falsify the belief that the earth is 6000 years old, but I didn't want to say that you can falsify the interpretation that says that the Biblical writers thought that the earth was relatively young.

I'm also struggling with what you are trying to say. Can you clarify?

[Blue Eyes White Dragon]

Proper reason and faith support one another. In no way can they contradict one another.

Now certainly bad science can contradict good faith and bad faith can contradict good science. But if we are of sound reason and of good faith then reason and faith will complement one another.

[Kool-Aid Man]

Ayn Rand, for example, would say that adherence to the golden rule is evil.
Why do you say that? I think she would say to treat others the way you wish to be treated, it's just that she has an unusual idea of how she would like to be treated.

[Blue Eyes White Dragon]

being "good" at religion is about as important as being really good at a role playing game for your Playstation. Fun to get into it, but really has no bearing on anything else in the real world.

why do some people get impressed if someone has say a PhD in Theology, but they don't hand out PhD's in Final Fantasy. They are really about just as important as eachother.

It's sad you feel this way. Play station is a fantasy. Theology is understanding your place in the real world.

[Kool-Aid Man]

I don't there are aspects of nature, which are beyond are ability to understand. It would be very remarkable if what you think is true.
I don't think it matters very much whether or not the universe can ever be 100% understood. As i said science is a process, not an endpoint. Even if physicists ever come up with the Grand Unified Theory that identifies the rules everything must obey, science will still be needed, because there will still be thousands of interesting subjects that can still be explored. People bring up string theory all the time as an example of a model that can't be verified by science. I don't know enough about string theory to know if that claim is fair or not. But if it is, it just means there's something we can never know for sure, and I'm perfectly comfortable knowing that there are unknowable things.

[Entropy]

Are there secrets of nature that are beyond our understanding? I would not have thought so.

I don't there are aspects of nature, which are beyond are ability to understand. It would be very remarkable if what you think is true.

If you can convince me you are right, I'd probably have fewer doubts about the existence of God. One of the suprising results of science is that the universe is comprehensible. This isn't something one would automatically expect.

I have no idea what you just said.

[Danjew]

I have no idea what you just said.

:iatp:

[Kool-Aid Man]

I 100% agree that religion is not falsifiable in the same sense that science is. However, neither is anything else, really. I'm just saying that the Christian tradition is that reason and faith must be compatible with each other, with neither exactly subordinate to the other.
Reason is limited. You can use perfectly sound reason to discuss imaginary topics, but it doesn't make any of your conclusions meaningful in the real world. I could make a perfectly reasonable argument that Gandalf is a more powerful wizard than Dumbledore, and would easily win in a fight. But it wouldn't mean anything.

Reason means very little, without evidence. Reason and evidence together lead to truth.

[oirg]

I have no idea what you just said.

I think that Paul missed the word "not" is the second sentence of yours that he quoted.

[QMO]

...I have already accepted the flying spaghetti monster into my heart and into my soul...Somehow, I don't believe you.

Just sayin'.

[magillaG]

Reason is limited. You can use perfectly sound reason to discuss imaginary topics, but it doesn't make any of your conclusions meaningful in the real world.
I'm not saying here that Christianity is necessarily correct. Only that reason is not placed clearly subordinate to faith.

I do think a scientific theory is more convincing than a particular conjecture about the nature of God. Augustine was saying essentially the same thing 1700 years ago. (He was talking about ancient astronomy, not modern science, though.)


I could make a perfectly reasonable argument that Gandalf is a more powerful wizard than Dumbledore, and would easily win in a fight. But it wouldn't mean anything.

Well, duh. Gandalf is an angelic being. Dumbledore may be able to do magic, but he is still just a man.

[QMO]

the golden rule is pretty logical and religion likes to claim that it invented it, but in reality it existed before religion came around.That's an interesting thing to have faith in.

Just how long to you think religion's been around, anyway?

[Entropy]

I think that Paul missed the word "not" is the second sentence of yours that he quoted.

Ahhh, that might be it.

[Entropy]

That's an interesting thing to have faith in.

Just how long to you think religion's been around, anyway?

Since after we created a spoken and written language. I think it could be argued that what amounts to the golden rule existed before that.

[QMO]

being "good" at religion is about as important as being really good at a role playing game for your Playstation. Fun to get into it, but really has no bearing on anything else in the real world.

why do some people get impressed if someone has say a PhD in Theology, but they don't hand out PhD's in Final Fantasy. They are really about just as important as eachother.I think you're wrong to equate being "educated" about religion with being "good" at religion.

Similarly, I would think it strange if you equated having a degree in programming with being skilled at video games.

[Paul Brand]

I have no idea what you just said.

Sloppy editing. I had the words "I don't think", and when I read it I realized that it said the opposite of what I intended to say, so I attempted to strike out the word "don't", and accidentally cut the word "think" instead. I've edited my post accordingly.

[Paul Brand]

Why do you say that? I think she would say to treat others the way you wish to be treated, it's just that she has an unusual idea of how she would like to be treated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_(ethics)

Some Ayn references contained within the link. I'm not saying that Rand thinks we shouldn't be kind to others. Her focus is more for inward benefit than benefiting those around us. She thinks we should do kinds things because it benefits ourselves. This is not consistent with the motivation of the Golden Rule (at least within the Christian framework) that makes personal sacrifice for the benefit of others a virtue, something that Rand thinks is an evil motivation.

[Entropy]

I don't think there are aspects of nature, which are beyond are our ability to understand. It would be very remarkable if what you think is true.

If you can convince me you are right, I'd probably have fewer doubts about the existence of God. One of the suprising results of science is that the universe is comprehensible. This isn't something one would automatically expect.

I get the first part now, but I'm still reading the second part as a contradiction.

You'd have fewer doubts about god's existence if there were no aspects of nature beyond our understanding? Do you think the comprehensibility of the universe is a result of science, but just not universal? What isn't something that one would automatically expect?

My thought is that if we were designed (by a god, presumably), then we were designed in his image (what else would a god make?). Even if we weren't designed by a god, we obviously have an insatiable appetite for curiosity which I would say does more good than harm. I believe, in either case, we are here to eventually understand our universe. Every bit of it. With enough dedication and time to do so, and assuming we don't kill each other off in the meantime, I don't see how it could be otherwise.

I also like the idea that the definition of the universe would be all that is comprehensible, and if anything we to be discovered that wasn't, well, it wouldn't be part of our universe. There's probably some circular reasoning in there...

[Harry]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_(ethics)

Some Ayn references contained within the link. I'm not saying that Rand thinks we shouldn't be kind to others. Her focus is more for inward benefit than benefiting those around us. She thinks we should do kinds things because it benefits ourselves. This is not consistent with the motivation of the Golden Rule (at least within the Christian framework) that makes personal sacrifice for the benefit of others a virtue, something that Rand thinks is an evil motivation.
The motivation behind the Golden Rule is simply to be treated nicely by others. You do that by treating others nicely. It isn't about personal sacrifice.

[Paul Brand]

I get the first part now, but I'm still reading the second part as a contradiction.

You'd have fewer doubts about god's existence if there were no aspects of nature beyond our understanding? Do you think the comprehensibility of the universe is a result of science, but just not universal? What isn't something that one would automatically expect?Science is successful because the universe is comprehensible. Logic, structure, order, are characteristics of intention, and thus mind and intelligence. It's a question of what one would expect given certain paradigms. There is no reason to think that a universe originating out of arbitrary randomness should be comprehensible. I think the universe is not simply arbitrary, but intended.

"The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible." - Albert Einstein

My thought is that if we were designed (by a god, presumably), then we were designed in his image (what else would a god make?).Image of god probably originates with pagan idols. That humankind is an image of god flips upside down certain pagan concepts. Even if we weren't designed by a god, we obviously have an insatiable appetite for curiosity which I would say does more good than harm.I would certainly agree. I believe, in either case, we are here to eventually understand our universe. Every bit of it. With enough dedication and time to do so, and assuming we don't kill each other off in the meantime, I don't see how it could be otherwise. That's a noble and hopeful ideology. But, your vision seems rather teleological, which seems strange to me.

[Paul Brand]

The motivation behind the Golden Rule is simply to be treated nicely by others. You do that by treating others nicely. It isn't about personal sacrifice.

Within the Christian context, it does imply personal sacrifice, and not just for the sake of getting a slap on the back in return. We don't receive back what we give (time, money, possessions etc.) to the poor. It is unlikely that I ever will be poor in my life, and unlikely that I will ever receive, for example, unemployment cheques that are greater in size than what I have paid. Am I treated more nicely by others because I give to the poor? Very little. I know plenty of people who give very little to the poor, and many of them have more friends than I do.

Now, scientifically, we do give to the poor, probably because we have the ability to empathize with others, to experience what others experience in their trauma. We don't want to see others in distress because it harms us.

On the other hand, this doesn't go nearly far enough. We don't have much empathy for those we don't come into contact with. The Parable of the Good Samaritan is a good example of having empathy for those outside of our community. The Samaritans and the Judeans didn't often see eye to eye. While we have empathy for others, we also have tribalistic tendencies that overpower our empathy for those in other tribes.

And furthermore, we need to distinguish what is normative and what is positive. With science, we can explain why people have certain tendencies to behave certain ways. However, science cannot tell people how they ought to behave. Normative behavior is not falsifiable. The Golden Rule is not falisifiable.

[Entropy]

Science is successful because the universe is comprehensible. Logic, structure, order, are characteristics of intention, and thus mind and intelligence. It's a question of what one would expect given certain paradigms. There is no reason to think that a universe originating out of arbitrary randomness should be comprehensible. I think the universe is not simply arbitrary, but intended.

"The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible." - Albert Einstein

That's a noble and hopeful ideology. But, your vision seems rather teleological, which seems strange to me.

So are you saying you think it is comprehensible or not? Or it is comprehensible, but meta-incomprehensible? :headasplode: !

I had to look up "teleological". I'm not sure that I agree with the "purpose" described in that philosophy. The only purpose is that which we create for ourselves, in our own minds. In that sense, we could make something purposeful, but I don't think anyone would have to agree on it. It's almost as though we are able to comprehend the universe, but that comprehension is not required to be universal among all people. Each can have their own unique understanding of the world, much like each can have their own unique interpretation of anything; color, emotion, a story, etc... The purpose is their own, with tons of overlap to be sure, but individualistic in necessity, as we are unique individuals.

[Paul Brand]

So are you saying you think it is comprehensible or not? Or it is comprehensible, but meta-incomprehensible? :headasplode: !Don't let nuance explode your head!

I don't, for example, think we can make observations beyond the particle horizon. I do think that the universe is amazingly comprehensible, yet still highly mysterious.

I had to look up "teleological". I'm not sure that I agree with the "purpose" described in that philosophy. The only purpose is that which we create for ourselves, in our own minds. In that sense, we could make something purposeful, but I don't think anyone would have to agree on it.I think the idea that the whole universe is within our comprehension, seems teleological. I know it's not necessarily teleological. Your post suggested to me that the universe was somehow intended to be understood. I wonder if Paul Davies might venture down that path, even though he is an atheist. A belief in teleology is somewhat uncommon amongst non-theists, but it something I do consider from time to time (i.e. teleology from a non-theistic perspective).

It's almost as though we are able to comprehend the universe, but that comprehension is not required to be universal among all people. Each can have their own unique understanding of the world, much like each can have their own unique interpretation of anything; color, emotion, a story, etc... The purpose is their own, with tons of overlap to be sure, but individualistic in necessity, as we are unique individuals.When you say "we are here to..." that to me is a telological statement. Maybe not necessarily what you intended.

[Harry]

Within the Christian context, it does imply personal sacrifice, and not just for the sake of getting a slap on the back in return. We don't receive back what we give (time, money, possessions etc.) to the poor. It is unlikely that I ever will be poor in my life, and unlikely that I will ever receive, for example, unemployment cheques that are greater in size than what I have paid. Am I treated more nicely by others because I give to the poor? Very little. I know plenty of people who give very little to the poor, and many of them have more friends than I do.

Now, scientifically, we do give to the poor, probably because we have the ability to empathize with others, to experience what others experience in their trauma. We don't want to see others in distress because it harms us.

On the other hand, this doesn't go nearly far enough. We don't have much empathy for those we don't come into contact with. The Parable of the Good Samaritan is a good example of having empathy for those outside of our community. The Samaritans and the Judeans didn't often see eye to eye. While we have empathy for others, we also have tribalistic tendencies that overpower our empathy for those in other tribes.

And furthermore, we need to distinguish what is normative and what is positive. With science, we can explain why people have certain tendencies to behave certain ways. However, science cannot tell people how they ought to behave. Normative behavior is not falsifiable. The Golden Rule is not falisifiable.
I think you're expanding the Golden Rule way beyond what it actually means. Treat others how you want them to treat you. It isn't about keeping score how much you donate to the poor and receive back. It's more about treating the poor the way you would want to be treated if you were in that situation.

[Entropy]

Don't let nuance explode your head!

I don't, for example, think we can make observations beyond the particle horizon. I do think that the universe is amazingly comprehensible, yet still highly mysterious.

I think the idea that the whole universe is within our comprehension, seems teleological. I know it's not necessarily teleological. Your post suggested to me that the universe was somehow intended to be understood. I wonder if Paul Davies might venture down that path, even though he is an atheist. A belief in teleology is somewhat uncommon amongst non-theists, but it something I do consider from time to time (i.e. teleology from a non-theistic perspective).

When you say "we are here to..." that to me is a telological statement. Maybe not necessarily what you intended.

I think instead of the universe being understood, it is more that humans are capable of creating purpose/pattern/comprehension. And no, I did not intend for "we are here..." to imply an inherant purpose.

[Paul Brand]

I think you're expanding the Golden Rule way beyond what it actually means. Treat others how you want them to treat you. It isn't about keeping score how much you donate to the poor and receive back. It's more about treating the poor the way you would want to be treated if you were in that situation.I agree, but how is this not sacrificial?

[Harry]

I agree, but how is this not sacrificial?
For a religious person, it brings you closer to God so it's a plus?

[Paul Brand]

For a religious person, it brings you closer to God so it's a plus?

I suppose it brings you closer to God in the sense that God's nature is inherently sacrificial. But I don't think that makes one's efforts any less sacrificial.

What about for a non-religious person, do you think the Golden Rule implies a certain level of sacrifice?

If I lost faith in God, I would still adopt the Golden Rule (as an ideal at least, not that I'm particularly good at achieving it). I think I do good things because I want to help others. It's possible that my desires are affected by my understanding of God. I think the Good Samaritan illuminates darkness in myself that I might not have seen as clearly if I wasn't taught it.

[Harry]

I suppose it brings you closer to God in the sense that God's nature is inherently sacrificial. But I don't think that makes one's efforts any less sacrificial.

What about for a non-religious person, do you think the Golden Rule implies a certain level of sacrifice?

If I lost faith in God, I would still adopt the Golden Rule (as an ideal at least, not that I'm particularly good at achieving it). I think I do good things because I want to help others. It's possible that my desires are affected by my understanding of God. I think the Good Samaritan illuminates darkness in myself that I might not have seen as clearly if I wasn't taught it.
For non-religious, it's also based on selfishness. Whether that is the good feeling from treating others nice or the hope and expectation that others will act likewise. Or a combination. Or the desire to make the world a better place. I guess I don't see living by the Golden Rule as always being a sacrifice. Sometimes there may be a sacrifice, at least in the short-run, but not always.

[sweetiepie]

Okay, let's see you do that.

Well. I suppose you'd start by breaking potential Gods into categories. Those we know pretty well (Jesus, Buddhist deities, Thor, etc.) those we don't have any contact with, and those we have contact with but no straight answers on.

The first category is the easiest because
1. many of them resemble each other but are also claim an exclusive existence.
2. the gods have interactions that can be scientifically verified to varying degrees.
3. they deal with people for some purpose, even if it's just to fool with them, and their existence is implicitly on the line.
4. books. some of which are lame, some of which are plagiarized, some of which include unjustifiably immoral stories.


You can also cut things partially, like not taking the bible so damn literally, or that maybe some non-God inspired words slipped in there.


Other considerations of God just involve having a story that rationally justifies our existence.


The simplest God concept is just the notion that something might have willfully created this universe. This is totally possible, as we go about creating microcosms all the time.

[Buck]

Do you think religious people know what they are talking about?

"God is a Golden/Silver Rule."
"God can not be understood"
"God has moral values and worldviews"
...

[Paul Brand]

For non-religious, it's also based on selfishness. Whether that is the good feeling from treating others nice or the hope and expectation that others will act likewise. Or a combination. Or the desire to make the world a better place. I guess I don't see living by the Golden Rule as always being a sacrifice. Sometimes there may be a sacrifice, at least in the short-run, but not always.

Good feelings can be helpful in reinforcing sound ethical decision making. I would see that as a good thing. It might add some nuance with regard to how sacrificial, sacrificial giving is (I would still contend it is sacrificial in how I understand the word), but the good that is done is unchanged, and if givers benefit too through being happier, all the better. It does beg the question, why not more giving, if everyone is better off for it?

I seem to recall this stemming off of Ayn Rand. I don't know how much you know about Ayn Rand, but I think your political posts tilt toward the center/center-left, while Rand is strongly libertarian. Based on what I've read and heard about her, I don't find anything I find compelling. You don't have to be a Christian to have the belief that it is virtuous and ideal to help those who have less, but it seems to me that Rand believes otherwise, that the self is of utmost importance, and that we belittle our self-worth when we value the interests of others more than we value our own interests.

Capitalism is largely based on this premise, along with the premise, that everyone is maximally better off when we value self-interest above all. I'm not a complete disbeliever in capitalism, but I don't see pure capitalism as being a terribly efficient system without sound regulation, controls, access to accurate information, etc.

I think capitalism is efficient to a degree, because individuals are more motivated by the maximizing of self interest, then they are motivated by charitable giving. This can benefit society to the extent that their profit margins are linked with how much they are actually helping others. However, it's not maximally efficient, because self-interest doesn't always correspond well with social interest. Maximizing one's self interest can often lead toward oppression of others, being dishonest about one's financial condition, convincing people to buy products and services they don't really need, lying about competitors, disregarding small and unprofitable markets, even if the relative need is greater amongst those markets. The list of inefficiencies is endless.

I think society has the resources to almost entirely eradicate poverty, yet we don't come close to it. I think we should be motivated to eradicate poverty. This doesn't necessarily mean blindly giving to the poor, and I think there are some interesting mechanisms, such as micro-financing, which helps others help themselves, supplying credit to others so that they can run profitable small business, and when they repay the loan, that money can go to helping other small businesses. I'm sure there are many other ways to help others. The free markets don't make a lot of room for micro-financing because it isn't very profitable.

I can't help but strongly disagree with Rand's views on charity and altruism. Her views lack nuance, and I think we are missing a lot of potential with ideological extremes, which seems to be a growing influence in countries like the US.

[Noddy]

I would be suspicious of anything Dawkins says about religion.

Why? He, like most of us, was raised in a predominantly religious society. Indeed, he describes himself as having had "a normal Anglican upbringing."

His biology is good, but my understanding is that he has very little understanding of theology.

_This___drives___me___wild_.

A relative ignoramus stating that Richard Dawkins' 'biology is good' in an effort to discredit him. How sneaky.

It is my understanding that your understanding of Richard Dawkins' understanding of Biology and Theology is based on ignorance.

Theology is the study of a god or, more generally, the study of religious faith, practice, and experience, or of spirituality.

Richard Dawkins makes sound rational arguments. (BTW I've read all of his books (save the one on Science writing) they're wonderful.)) What about Dawkins have you learned from unbiased (or at least 'non religious' sources?) ( I've learned that his detractors are ignoramuses )

I 100% agree that religion is not falsifiable in the same sense that science is. However, neither is anything else, really. I'm just saying that the Christian tradition is that reason and faith must be compatible with each other, with neither exactly subordinate to the other.

So much for the Christian Tradition then no?

Again, aren't we seeing that Christianity has been cast down in the minds of many people? There are still many people left who disagree with this judgment- but it is because they disagree, not because the basic framework isn't that reason and faith don't have to be compatible.

faith and reason are antonyms. Faith and reason are completely incompatible. Reason ftw.

[Noddy]

Originally Posted by Noddy
He (Jesubus) seems a nasty piece of work but to clarify my response I pose a few questions to you:

Why was Humpty Dumpty sitting on the wall?
Why did he have a great fall?
and, most importantly, why was he obese? Why is it ridiculous to try to discuss the Character of Jesus and to whether he was nice or naughty,

I thought I was clarifying why your and PBs views were equally valid. The historical Jesus (IF he existed) is different from the hayzoos of the Christian tradition ( and different to the Judean and Islamic traditions again ) So my point is that peoples views of mythical/fictitious characters are equally valid. I hope now that my point is crystal clear.

[Noddy]

Maybe this post was suited for Noddy and others who did have a problem with my posts then.

see above. no problems per se

[Noddy]

Science and religion aren't friends
By JERRY COYNE - USA TODAY

Original link
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-10-11-column11_ST_N.htm

Found by me here
http://richarddawkins.net

Religion in America is on the defensive.

Atheist books such as The God Delusion and The End of Faith have, by exposing the dangers of faith and the lack of evidence for the God of Abraham, become best-sellers. Science nibbles at religion from the other end, relentlessly consuming divine explanations and replacing them with material ones. Evolution took a huge bite a while back, and recent work on the brain has shown no evidence for souls, spirits, or any part of our personality or behavior distinct from the lump of jelly in our head. We now know that the universe did not require a creator. Science is even studying the origin of morality. So religious claims retreat into the ever-shrinking gaps not yet filled by science. And, although to be an atheist in America is still to be an outcast, America's fastest-growing brand of belief is non-belief.

But faith will not go gentle. For each book by a "New Atheist," there are many others attacking the "movement" and demonizing atheists as arrogant, theologically ignorant, and strident. The biggest area of religious push-back involves science. Rather than being enemies, or even competitors, the argument goes, science and religion are completely compatible friends, each devoted to finding its own species of truth while yearning for a mutually improving dialogue.

As a scientist and a former believer, I see this as bunk. Science and faith are fundamentally incompatible, and for precisely the same reason that irrationality and rationality are incompatible. They are different forms of inquiry, with only one, science, equipped to find real truth. And while they may have a dialogue, it's not a constructive one. Science helps religion only by disproving its claims, while religion has nothing to add to science.

Irreconcilable

"But surely," you might argue, "science and religion must be compatible. After all, some scientists are religious." One is Francis Collins, head of the National Institutes of Health and an evangelical Christian. But the existence of religious scientists, or religious people who accept science, doesn't prove that the two areas are compatible. It shows only that people can hold two conflicting notions in their heads at the same time. If that meant compatibility, we could make a good case, based on the commonness of marital infidelity, that monogamy and adultery are perfectly compatible. No, the incompatibility between science and faith is more fundamental: Their ways of understanding the universe are irreconcilable.

Science operates by using evidence and reason. Doubt is prized, authority rejected. No finding is deemed "true" — a notion that's always provisional — unless it's repeated and verified by others. We scientists are always asking ourselves, "How can I find out whether I'm wrong?" I can think of dozens of potential observations, for instance — one is a billion-year-old ape fossil — that would convince me that evolution didn't happen.

Physicist Richard Feynman observed that the methods of science help us distinguish real truth from what we only want to be true: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."

Science can, of course, be wrong. Continental drift, for example, was laughed off for years. But in the end the method is justified by its success. Without science, we'd all live short, miserable and disease-ridden lives, without the amenities of medicine or technology. As Stephen Hawking proclaimed, science wins because it works.

Does religion work? It brings some of us solace, impels some to do good (and others to fly planes into buildings), and buttresses the same moral truths embraced by atheists, but does it help us better understand our world or our universe? Hardly. Note that almost all religions make specific claims about the world involving matters such as the existence of miracles, answered prayers wonder-working saints and divine cures, virgin births, annunciations and resurrections. These factual claims, whose truth is a bedrock of belief, bring religion within the realm of scientific study. But rather than relying on reason and evidence to support them, faith relies on revelation, dogma and authority. Hebrews 11:1 states, with complete accuracy, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." Indeed, a doubting-Thomas demand for evidence is often considered rude.

And this leads to the biggest problem with religious "truth": There's no way of knowing whether it's true. I've never met a Christian, for instance, who has been able to tell me what observations about the universe would make him abandon his beliefs in God and Jesus. (I would have thought that the Holocaust could do it, but apparently not.) There is no horror, no amount of evil in the world, that a true believer can't rationalize as consistent with a loving God. It's the ultimate way of fooling yourself. But how can you be sure you're right if you can't tell whether you're wrong?

The religious approach to understanding inevitably results in different faiths holding incompatible "truths" about the world. Many Christians believe that if you don't accept Jesus as savior, you'll burn in hell for eternity. Muslims hold the exact opposite: Those who see Jesus as God's son are the ones who will roast. Jews see Jesus as a prophet, but not the messiah. Which belief, if any, is right? Because there's no way to decide, religions have duked it out for centuries, spawning humanity's miserable history of religious warfare and persecution.

In contrast, scientists don't kill each other over matters such as continental drift. We have better ways to settle our differences. There is no Catholic science, no Hindu science, no Muslim science — just science, a multicultural search for truth. The difference between science and faith, then, can be summed up simply: In religion faith is a virtue; in science it's a vice.

But don't just take my word for the incompatibility of science and faith — it's amply demonstrated by the high rate of atheism among scientists. While only 6% of Americans are atheists or agnostics, the figure for American scientists is 64%, according to Rice professor Elaine Howard Ecklund's book, Science vs. Religion. Further proof: Among countries of the world, there is a strong negative relationship between their religiosity and their acceptance of evolution. Countries like Denmark and Sweden, with low belief in God, have high acceptance of evolution, while religious countries are evolution-intolerant. Out of 34 countries surveyed in a study published in Science magazine, the U.S., among the most religious, is at the bottom in accepting Darwinism: We're No. 33, with only Turkey below us. Finally, in a 2006 Time poll a staggering 64% of Americans declared that if science disproved one of their religious beliefs, they'd reject that science in favor of their faith.

'Venerable superstition'

In the end, science is no more compatible with religion than with other superstitions, such as leprechauns. Yet we don't talk about reconciling science with leprechauns. We worry about religion simply because it's the most venerable superstition — and the most politically and financially powerful.

Why does this matter? Because pretending that faith and science are equally valid ways of finding truth not only weakens our concept of truth, it also gives religion an undeserved authority that does the world no good. For it is faith's certainty that it has a grasp on truth, combined with its inability to actually find it, that produces things such as the oppression of women and gays, opposition to stem cell research and euthanasia, attacks on science, denial of contraception for birth control and AIDS prevention, sexual repression, and of course all those wars, suicide bombings and religious persecutions.

And any progress — not just scientific progress — is easier when we're not yoked to religious dogma. Of course, using reason and evidence won't magically make us all agree, but how much clearer our spectacles would be without the fog of superstition!

Jerry A. Coyne is a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at The University of Chicago. His latest book is Why Evolution is True, and his website is www.whyevolutionistrue.com.

[magillaG]

Why? He, like most of us, was raised in a predominantly religious society. Indeed, he describes himself as having had "a normal Anglican upbringing."



_This___drives___me___wild_.

A relative ignoramus stating that Richard Dawkins' 'biology is good' in an effort to discredit him. How sneaky.

I'm not saying his biology is good to discredit him. I meant exactly what I said- he is a good biologist. I believe what he says about biology.

Also, I am ignorant about many things, but not about science. I am also not ignorant about the philosophy of science, or about the interface between science and religion, as far as laypeople go. I think that should be pretty clear from my posts to somebody who is not, himself, ignorant of science. So I'm not sure why you put that comment in there, except to be obnoxious.


It is my understanding that your understanding of Richard Dawkins' understanding of Biology and Theology is based on ignorance.

Theology is the study of a god or, more generally, the study of religious faith, practice, and experience, or of spirituality.

Richard Dawkins makes sound rational arguments. (BTW I've read all of his books (save the one on Science writing) they're wonderful.)) What about Dawkins have you learned from unbiased (or at least 'non religious' sources?) ( I've learned that his detractors are ignoramuses )

I read, for example, this review (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching). As I understand it, Terry Eagleton is an atheist. (Can you be a distinguished professor of literary criticism and NOT be an atheist?)


So much for the Christian Tradition then no?

Maybe.


faith and reason are antonyms. Faith and reason are completely incompatible. Reason ftw.
I'm sure you can make up a definition of faith, and make of a definition of reason, both of which have about as much in common with their historical understanding as the Thor comic book does with viking myth, and then convincingly argue for that. I just don't see the point.

[Descalzo]

For each book by a "New Atheist," there are many others attacking the "movement" and demonizing atheists as arrogant, theologically ignorant, and strident.


Does Dawkins really not see himself as arrogant, theologically ignorant, and strident? I mean I can see how we miss our own arrogance and ignorance, but I thought he was being strident on purpose.

Yes, I had to look up strident. It means Loud and harsh; grating.

[Danjew]

I thought I was clarifying why your and PBs views were equally valid. The historical Jesus (IF he existed) is different from the hayzoos of the Christian tradition ( and different to the Judean and Islamic traditions again ) So my point is that peoples views of mythical/fictitious characters are equally valid. I hope now that my point is crystal clear.

Thanks for clarifying. I appreciate it.

[Danjew]

Does Dawkins really not see himself as arrogant, theologically ignorant, and strident? I mean I can see how we miss our own arrogance and ignorance, but I thought he was being strident on purpose.

Yes, I had to look up strident. It means Loud and harsh; grating.

I don't agree. I think he is just very passionate about his beliefs. I don't agree with many of his conclusions but simply because I disagree I don't think he is being ignorant or arrogant any more than any fundamentalist Christian (not to say that Dawkins is a fundamentalist). He just says things that make people uncomfortable, that is all. Being harsh yes, but rightfully so in his own determination. I don't have any problem with him at all. I think he is clearly very educated about which the subjects he speaks and is not arrogant. I used to think that when I first heard him speak/read his work, but now I think that is simply unfounded.

[Noddy]

I'm not saying his biology is good to discredit him. I meant exactly what I said- he is a good biologist. I believe what he says about biology.


You’re actually supposed to say “Dawkins is a very good biologist but...", or even better “Dawkins is an excellent biologist but ..." this gives you even more undeserved credibility among the credulous and it sets up the knock down much better. It’s a more effective delivery. PB uses it perfectly. Based on what I perceive to be your style (or, perhaps more accurately your MO) and motivation I’m not certain that you are sincere although you could well be parroting.

He is a world renowned evolutionary biologist. He was well known before TGD. And I don’t believe you actually know what ‘he says about biology’ nevertheless I hope you realize that whether or not Dawkins is a good biologist is independent of your beliefs.


Also, I am ignorant about many things, but not about science. I am also not ignorant about the philosophy of science, or about the interface between science and religion, as far as laypeople go.

may i suggest you aim higher?


So I'm not sure why you put that comment in there, except to be obnoxious.


I’m not trying to be obnoxious much as it appears you may not.


I read, for example, this review (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching). As I understand it, Terry Eagleton is an atheist.

Wrong. Now, if you can read that and honestly think that this review by 'Terry Eagleton' is unbiased then I fear there’s no hope.

A quick search on him confirms…

“he has, in the course of reengaging academic theology in the last decade, made numerous defenses of the theistic world view.”

Again I think it’s possible that you won’t think twice about posting a link to a lot of words. The link provides the façade of authority with little fear that people will read it. (I am, unfortunately, going to have to let your reference to an ethics link as a counterpoint of an earlier post slide.) Although having read the review I'm increasingly wondering if you're parroting ignoramai.


I'm sure you can make up a definition of faith, and make of a definition of reason, both of which have about as much in common with their historical understanding as the Thor comic book does with viking myth, and then convincingly argue for that. I just don't see the point.

Let me start from the very beginning. Searching on the definition of the word ‘definition’ we find:

de•fine (d -f n )
v. de•fined, de•fin•ing, de•fines
v.tr.
1.
a. To state the precise meaning of (a word or sense of a word, for example).
So in the context of using words to communicate we humans have learned that words mean things and their meanings are most often quite specific. Most of us have learned that we can not go around making up definitions for words. Communication would not be possible. If I say to you ‘I’m going to take my dog for a walk’ when I really mean ‘you have a great big booger hanging from your nose’ – how are you to know? Now let’s look at the definition of faith

Searching on faith yields:
(web definitions)
• religion: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality" (wiki)
Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.[1][2] The word faith can refer to a religion itself or to religion in general.

And searching on reason results in the following:

1. To exercise the rational faculty; to deduce inferences from premises; to perform the process of deduction or of induction; to ratiocinate; to reach conclusions by a systematic comparison of facts. [Webster]

Reason is the opposite of faith. Take that on board. God speed.

[Noddy]

Does Dawkins really not see himself as arrogant, theologically ignorant, and strident? I mean I can see how we miss our own arrogance and ignorance, but I thought he was being strident on purpose.

Yes, I had to look up strident. It means Loud and harsh; grating.

He does not. Nor do I and many others.

People react quite passionately when you question their belief that they're going to be reunited with dead grandpa in heaven. Death's a b!tch. They use words intended to dismiss and discredit.

(and good for you for looking up a definition, right on. :tup:)

[magillaG]

You’re actually supposed to say “Dawkins is a very good biologist but...", or even better “Dawkins is an excellent biologist but ..." this gives you even more undeserved credibility among the credulous and it sets up the knock down much better. It’s a more effective delivery. PB uses it perfectly. Based on what I perceive to be your style (or, perhaps more accurately your MO) and motivation I’m not certain that you are sincere although you could well be parroting.

He is a world renowned evolutionary biologist. He was well known before TGD. And I don’t believe you actually know what ‘he says about biology’ nevertheless I hope you realize that whether or not Dawkins is a good biologist is independent of your beliefs.



may i suggest you aim higher?



I’m not trying to be obnoxious much as it appears you may not.



Wrong. Now, if you can read that and honestly think that this review by 'Terry Eagleton' is unbiased then I fear there’s no hope.

A quick search on him confirms…



Again I think it’s possible that you won’t think twice about posting a link to a lot of words. The link provides the façade of authority with little fear that people will read it. (I am, unfortunately, going to have to let your reference to an ethics link as a counterpoint of an earlier post slide.) Although having read the review I'm increasingly wondering if you're parroting ignoramai.



Let me start from the very beginning. Searching on the definition of the word ‘definition’ we find:


So in the context of using words to communicate we humans have learned that words mean things and their meanings are most often quite specific. Most of us have learned that we can not go around making up definitions for words. Communication would not be possible. If I say to you ‘I’m going to take my dog for a walk’ when I really mean ‘you have a great big booger hanging from your nose’ – how are you to know? Now let’s look at the definition of faith

Searching on faith yields:
(web definitions)
(wiki)


And searching on reason results in the following:



Reason is the opposite of faith. Take that on board. God speed.

Look, I have looked at some of your other posts, and as far as I can tell, you are a pretty nice guy. I don't know what it is about this particular topic that makes you so nasty. You don't even appear to realize you are being so nasty. Your views on this utterly bore me, though. The fact that your understanding of what the words "faith" and "reason" seem to come down to a webster's dictionary google, and "flying spaghetti monster!" pretty much sums it up. I'd prefer it if you didn't engage with me on this topic anymore. You are free to think that I believe that my beliefs can influence what is true, or that I am not really posting what I think, or whatever other remarkably stupid views you seem to want to assign to me. I'll even let you have the last post on this. But I am done with you on this topic. Thanks.