Why you believe what you believe I

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

brownjenkins:

"however, i accept mine as just a "theory" (i.e. it may or may not be true)... there is no "faith" involved... i'm calling it a guess

those of the religious persuasion tend to rely on faith (i.e. their stance is unprovable, but true in their minds)

that's a big difference"

you are going to have to clarify the difference between reliance on the "unprovable" and reliance on a "guess", Dude! I think it a distinction without a difference!

the key word is reliance

good science does not rely upon anything as an ultimate truth... everything is open to question

a good example is ptolemy's geocentric theory of the solar system... he relied upon the "truth" provided by the vatican that the earth was the center of the universe... and he came up with a theory that was actually quite good at predicting the movements of the planets known at that point in time, eventhough the "truth" it was based upon was completely wrong... later solarcentric theories were developed and found to be much more effective... theories that came about from those who were willing to discard accepted "truths"

this is the difference: admitting that god is unprovable let's one take the next step and realize that whether or not a creator exists at some point in our universe's history, be it 6000 years ago or 15 billion, inserting that creator is basically saying "science stops here, so don't bother looking any further"... something that is ultimately counter to what science is all about

[Elfhelm]

Personally, I don't see why it's an either/or between creationism and theism. Why can't the universe have always existed? Why did God have to create the universe in order to live up to the definition of being God? Is every word of a book wrong because one sentence is superceded by science? Is there another way to read beyond believing every word? I have my own answers to these questions, of course. More than anything I am amazed that the obvious answers are rejected by so many people. It must be that they feel lonely.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Personally, I don't see why it's an either/or between creationism and theism. Why can't the universe have always existed? Why did God have to create the universe in order to live up to the definition of being God? Is every word of a book wrong because one sentence is superceded by science? Is there another way to read beyond believing every word? I have my own answers to these questions, of course. More than anything I am amazed that the obvious answers are rejected by so many people. It must be that they feel lonely.

i agree... i'm all for alternatives... in fact, if there is a god, i'd be much more inclined to assume his personality, form and intentions are nothing like anything humanity has guessed at so far

the key for me is not to look for answers, but to always continue to question... and to search for new questions

on the bible specifically, as i've said earlier, i think it contains more than a few "good words"... and with me, the fact that they are "good words" has more weight than who's attributed as the source

[EarthBound]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

the key for me is not to look for answers, but to always continue to question... and to search for new questions

Life is so full of questions which insist upon delving up more questions that at some point it feels good to just blaze a trail, make a camp, and declare "oasis" from question.

While it would be easy to attribute this phenomenon as "lazy-induced", it is part of our human psyche. to pitch a tent, or build a castle, lay some bridges (insert preferred metaphor of your choice), etc. as much as it is our lot to question how, why, and what.

Many of our leading physicists are as fervent in their preaching as your local preacher is extolling Christ. Which is fair point to make, I believe. (can give examples if needed)

There is the matter of self-righteous behavior which can intercede the most docile soul once a person believes they 'know' an answer, but this is hard to avoid . . . even the proclamation of "I question everything therefore I become exempt" would be a suspect statement, IMHO.

Hmmm....back to a point, any point ("Someone please make her give a point!" they scream) is that possible answers (theologies) are tried on for personal taste, practicability, and comfort and is much a NEED as it is to question.

For myself, I love, believe on, and trust God and his Son, Christ. But I still hope to build a spaceship and soar the heavens in search of chocolate, the perfect cup of joe, and affordable game consoles…LOL

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by EarthBound

Many of our leading physicists are as fervent in their preaching as your local preacher is extolling Christ. Which is fair point to make, I believe. (can give examples if needed)

good point... those in science who take the big bang theory as unquestionable gospel are just as mistaken as those who insist upon creationism

There is the matter of self-righteous behavior which can intercede the most docile soul once a person believes they 'know' an answer, but this is hard to avoid . . . even the proclamation of "I question everything therefore I become exempt" would be a suspect statement, IMHO.

i always try to question everything, but i am far from exempt

Hmmm....back to a point, any point ("Someone please make her give a point!" they scream) is that possible answers (theologies) are tried on for personal taste, practicability, and comfort and is much a NEED as it is to question.

another very good point... many years back i was more likely to argue that all religion should be thrown out the window... i'm nowhere near as idealistic these days... it doesn't bother me that other's hold certain beliefs... i just try to make them see and understand that there are alternatives that are just as valid to another individual as their beliefs are valid to themselves (those that believe in a different kind of god, or those that don't really buy the whole idea at all)... and that in some areas like science, god is better left out of the equation, day to day at least

For myself, I love, believe on, and trust God and his Son, Christ. But I still hope to build a spaceship and soar the heavens in search of chocolate, the perfect cup of joe, and affordable game consoles…LOL

it doesn't sound all that bad when you put it that way

[Elfhelm]

In my opinion, there are many other archetypes in the New Testament along with The Christ. Mary Magdalene is one of the archetypes, too. In fact, the common misconception of Mary Magdalene, not the actual biblical one, is one of the strongest archetypes in western mythology. And then there's the mother of God and the process of baptism and a sacrifice to obtain forgiveness and the list goes on. When you dig into it, the pagan roots are so thick they almost choke out the historical facts.

So I'm not inclined to stake my tent there. I haven't stake a tent anywhere, yet, and I'm not sure I want to. I wouldn't call someone lazy for staking their tent somewhere, but for me it's the journey, not the destination.

[EarthBound]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

So I'm not inclined to stake my tent there. I haven't stake a tent anywhere, yet, and I'm not sure I want to. I wouldn't call someone lazy for staking their tent somewhere, but for me it's the journey, not the destination.

It's a misnomer anyway to think our beliefs ever static, since with time ticking away with a perceived "beginning to unknown destination"(at least unto current status) we can certainly "imagine" something other that a linear timeline, but not exactly are we able to tread any other path, eh.

I digress, since the discussion of timelines has popped up before.


I think it would be important to point out that as a Christian the journey does not end with heaven, but begin anew and different. It is a journey full of hope, suspicion, compassion, love, and most things human, eh.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

In my opinion, there are many other archetypes in the New Testament along with The Christ. Mary Magdalene is one of the archetypes, too. In fact, the common misconception of Mary Magdalene, not the actual biblical one, is one of the strongest archetypes in western mythology. And then there's the mother of God and the process of baptism and a sacrifice to obtain forgiveness and the list goes on. When you dig into it, the pagan roots are so thick they almost choke out the historical facts.

So I'm not inclined to stake my tent there. I haven't stake a tent anywhere, yet, and I'm not sure I want to. I wouldn't call someone lazy for staking their tent somewhere, but for me it's the journey, not the destination.

you should read the power of myth if you haven't already

[Elfhelm]

busted!

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

busted!

[Rían]

A quick question to throw into the mix, until I have some time later this afternoon -

Brownie, do you think you are/should be the highest moral authority in your life?

[inked]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

the key word is reliance

good science does not rely upon anything as an ultimate truth... everything is open to question

I beg to differ. Science relies on uniformity, empiricism, and logic. If any of those principles are false, the whole edifice of science proper fails. If the universe, nay, just the laws of physics are not everywhere equally applicable, we can say nothing reliable on the movement of oceans or blood cells or atom or whatever the fundamental building blocks of matter may be. If uniformity be true but empiricism not, then we obtain no reliable results. If logic be not universal, there is no need for what we discover to be true for Terra to apply to the Moon or Mars, much less Andromeda galaxy or the effluence of the Big Band ( a very famous rock group who premiered after the decoupling of matter and energy).

Reliance is faith, good sir. The object to which it is directed is indeed material, but it remains faith.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

a good example is ptolemy's geocentric theory of the solar system... he relied upon the "truth" provided by the vatican that the earth was the center of the universe... and he came up with a theory that was actually quite good at predicting the movements of the planets known at that point in time, eventhough the "truth" it was based upon was completely wrong... later solarcentric theories were developed and found to be much more effective... theories that came about from those who were willing to discard accepted "truths"

Ptolemy preceded the Vatican by centuries, so your timeline is in error. However, Ptolemaic astronomy describes celestial motion from an earth-based perspective which was the universal experience of mankind. The Vatican erred in thinking it the only mode of description and erroneously equating that model with Scripture. Nonetheless, Ptolemy's model is the one you and I use when speaking of sunrise, sunset, moonrise, moonset, and the rising or setting of stars, asterisms, constellations, and planets! Ptolemy's system is not wrong. NASA could use it to plan space travel. HOWEVER, it is not the simplest system. The Copernican model turns out to be that. It is more easily assimilated to mathematics and the improved understanding of science that resulted from persons who dared to differ from the ACCEPTED SCIENCE of their day. You confuse the accident of parallel scientific and religious beliefs with causation. It is regrettable that science as such was hampered by adherence to non-observational and re-interpretive passage of truth held on authority alone. But what we regard as the result of science in a pure form was actually the product of astologer/astronomer/alchemist practitioners, not scientists as we take the word. Science grew out of alchemy as astronomy grew out of astrology. But when the modes were fused and not defined as we use the words, it is false to characterise them by modern definition. So, in point of fact, the heliocentric model had been proposed in Greece millenia before Galileo, but it took the development of observation beyond the merely visible (eg, the telescope) to provide significant data to challenge the the science and religion of the time.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

this is the difference: admitting that god is unprovable let's one take the next step and realize that whether or not a creator exists at some point in our universe's history, be it 6000 years ago or 15 billion, inserting that creator is basically saying "science stops here, so don't bother looking any further"... something that is ultimately counter to what science is all about

I think you err in saying that the presence if a Creator is in any way inimical to science. My understanding, and that of lots of Christians, is that the creation is a mode of self-revelation of the Creator and worthy of study as such and for its own sake. No more does His Presence stop science than the Big Bang does. Now, it may be that there are limits to human ability to investigate or understand, but those be true regardless of either God or Big Bang. I think the dichotomy false.

I personally think that should mankind obtain the ability to pierce the Big Bang, they will hear "Let there be..."! But all the science between here and that moment will redound to the glory of Him in Whom we live and move and have our being!

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Brownie, do you think you are/should be the highest moral authority in your life?

ultimately, yes i am... i make my own moral decisions and have to live by them... my current worldview is a result of a lifetime of reading, interacting with people, making good and bad choices... future events might very well change that worldview... but my morals will always have to make "real world" sense to me... and by that i mean good for myself and those around me with the long-term in mind, not just what seems good at any given moment

it's also the way i'd like to see others, like my kids, develop... while i certainly shape their morals at the moment, i look forward to a time when they can make all their decisions for themselves... maybe even better ones than i've made at points in my life

[Rían]

So if you have decided that it is good to live by "love your neighbor" for whatever reason(s), and your neighbor has decided it is good to live by "eat your neighbor", then you have no problem with his decision, because everyone should be their own highest moral authority?

[Rían]

And also, does this mean that you have a bias against believing Christianity to be true? IOW, because you think you should be your own highest moral authority, and the Bible claims that God is (and rightly should be) our highest moral authority, does that mean that you are unable to fairly evaluate Christianity's truth claims because you don't WANT them to be true?

[inked]

But of course there are mythic elements in New Testament reality! Have you people not read Tolkien? The Eucatastrophe is the myth made Man in Jesus of Nazareth and incorporating and redeeming and renewing the whole Creation! (Cf, Letters, throughout)!

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

I beg to differ. Science relies on uniformity, empiricism, and logic. If any of those principles are false, the whole edifice of science proper fails. If the universe, nay, just the laws of physics are not everywhere equally applicable, we can say nothing reliable on the movement of oceans or blood cells or atom or whatever the fundamental building blocks of matter may be. If uniformity be true but empiricism not, then we obtain no reliable results. If logic be not universal, there is no need for what we discover to be true for Terra to apply to the Moon or Mars, much less Andromeda galaxy or the effluence of the Big Band ( a very famous rock group who premiered after the decoupling of matter and energy).

Reliance is faith, good sir. The object to which it is directed is indeed material, but it remains faith.

no doubt those are the basic principles of science... but at the core, they too are subject to change... even the assumption that all laws are equally applicable may be wrong... at one point the idea that time itself might not be a constant would have been considered insane... and quantum physics has shown us that there may very well be different "laws" at the atomic level

reliance, even on theory, is important to science... but by it is by it's very nature it's a "flexible reliance"... faith, by it's very nature, is not flexible

Ptolemy preceded the Vatican by centuries, so your timeline is in error.

the pope then

However, Ptolemaic astronomy describes celestial motion from an earth-based perspective which was the universal experience of mankind. The Vatican erred in thinking it the only mode of description and erroneously equating that model with Scripture. Nonetheless, Ptolemy's model is the one you and I use when speaking of sunrise, sunset, moonrise, moonset, and the rising or setting of stars, asterisms, constellations, and planets! Ptolemy's system is not wrong. NASA could use it to plan space travel. HOWEVER, it is not the simplest system. The Copernican model turns out to be that. It is more easily assimilated to mathematics and the improved understanding of science that resulted from persons who dared to differ from the ACCEPTED SCIENCE of their day. You confuse the accident of parallel scientific and religious beliefs with causation. It is regrettable that science as such was hampered by adherence to non-observational and re-interpretive passage of truth held on authority alone. But what we regard as the result of science in a pure form was actually the product of astologer/astronomer/alchemist practitioners, not scientists as we take the word. Science grew out of alchemy as astronomy grew out of astrology. But when the modes were fused and not defined as we use the words, it is false to characterise them by modern definition. So, in point of fact, the heliocentric model had been proposed in Greece millenia before Galileo, but it took the development of observation beyond the merely visible (eg, the telescope) to provide significant data to challenge the the science and religion of the time.

the example, or whether you term a discovery "science" or not, is not as important as the idea behind it... the problem, as you said is "adherence to non-observational and re-interpretive passage of truth held on authority alone"... which is exactly what i'm getting at... whether the source is the religious or scientific communities... every "law" is only true until a better perspective comes along

I think you err in saying that the presence if a Creator is in any way inimical to science. My understanding, and that of lots of Christians, is that the creation is a mode of self-revelation of the Creator and worthy of study as such and for its own sake. No more does His Presence stop science than the Big Bang does. Now, it may be that there are limits to human ability to investigate or understand, but those be true regardless of either God or Big Bang. I think the dichotomy false.

it all depends upon the beliefs of the person... many these days see god as the source of the "big bang"... since we haven't theorized past this point, saying god was or wasn't there before isn't a huge problem

however, many others believe that the earth and humanity was created some 6000 years ago, and their time is spent debunking things like fossils and stellar observation... good, because all science is improved by a challenge... bad, because energy could better be spent elsewhere

which is why i conclude that "god" is ultimately irrelavent in a physical sense... while one can certainly explore the concept in a philosophical sense... which i admit has it's own benefits... even if god does exist, it tells us nothing about the here an now... or anything we can observe... it is just another name for all the things we can not observe and adds no understanding to how things act and react in the world around us

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by inked

But of course there are mythic elements in New Testament reality! Have you people not read Tolkien? The Eucatastrophe is the myth made Man in Jesus of Nazareth and incorporating and redeeming and renewing the whole Creation! (Cf, Letters, throughout)!

But inked, there are people who think Robert Johnson sold his soul to the devil in exchange for become the world's greatest guitar player. That doesn't mean it's true. If even in our own day people believe such things, isn't the waterwalking more likely to be mythic than historical. Not that I mind mythical things. I just believe in knowing the difference between a hen and a handsaw.

[inked]

Elfhelm,

To borrow from Dorothy L. Sayers, I think we must take hint from the Gospels that certain of the "miracles" pertain to the unsullied humanity of Christ and that not all are to be taken as pertaining solely to his Godhead! But, I do not wish to hijack the thread since brownjenkins is on the hot seat. What say you?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

So if you have decided that it is good to live by "love your neighbor" for whatever reason(s), and your neighbor has decided it is good to live by "eat your neighbor", then you have no problem with his decision, because everyone should be their own highest moral authority?

i'd only have a problem if they invited me over for dinner

we live in a big world with many societies having developed somewhat to completely isolated from one another over a majority of humanity's existance... ten's of thousands of years

as i've said before, morals are relative... some societies function in a way where violence towards one another is a part of their daily life... they are that way because it works for them... it's not a problem to them, but it is to me

that's where compromise comes in, as opposed to "my absolute truths or the highway", there are certain "moral" paths that more developed societies have come to realize are beneficial for their own survival... and they tend to be more peaceful... when cultures clash they come up with compromises to accomodate differing moral views as best as possible to benefit both sides in the long run... and after coexisting for a while (sometimes a long while), they come to resemble each other more and more... in fact, you see this change even among the more violent instances in history where the "my absolute truths or the highway" approach is taken... the conquerer takes on some of the moral aspects of those they have conquered

your example is a bit too extreme to imagine "real world", but...

while my neighbor might be use to eating people, when he realizes that the result of such an action might result in the loss of his own life he will think twice... and as a gesture of understanding maybe i'll let him fry up my goldfish