Why you believe what you believe I

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

... whether the source is the religious or scientific communities... every "law" is only true until a better perspective comes along

So there is nothing that is true? If so, how can that be a true statement if nothing is true?

What are you judging something against to determine if it is "better" than the previous "law"?

(ps - I just realized that these last few posts may have come off as flippant; I don't mean them to at ALL. They are sincere questions.)

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

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?

of course!

everyone has a bais... but i would not say that effects my ability to try to judge things objectively... i could just as easily say that you being christian could not be a fair judge either... but i don't believe that, so i won't say it

as far as what i want... i'm totally cool on whatever is true... if, after death, i find myself to be wrong and the christian's right (or the hindu's, or the muslims)... i'll have no regrets... i lived my life in the only way that made sense to me... anything else would be insincere, and that can't be the "right" way

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

So there is nothing that is true? If so, how can that be a true statement if nothing is true?

What are you judging something against to determine if it is "better" than the previous "law"?

everything is an approximation of the truth... and you judge it by how well it fits observation and if it predicts any better than previous "laws"

but, in the end, we are limited by human perception... i gave an example earlier of colorblindness... to my father green and red are the same color... imagine if humans had developed in such a way that all humans saw this way... would green and red cease to exist is separate colors?

obviously, science can look at colors in ways other that visual and sense different reflections of wavelengths of light... but our perception would be changed... would we be looking to distinguish these in the same way if not for the ability of at least some humans to perceive the distinction?

might there very well be important elements/forces in the universe that we are missing in a similar way because none of us can observe them... does something not exist just because we have not found it yet?

[inked]

That would be my contention, brownjenkins. God exists despite the inability of science to have discovered Him. Nice sort of "the absence of evidence is evidence" if I take your drift!

[Elfhelm]

But is God "The Creator"? I would disagree that science has not discovered God. Many famous scientists have stated that they are theists. That isn't the issue, in fact, that does not fall within the realm of science. The issue most people have is with a Creator who is distinct from the creation.

Last night I was watching "A Brief History of Time" and Stephen Hawkings described his meeting with the Pope. Apparently, the Pope accepts the Big Bang theory and evolution. (I guess he is slipping down the slope from fantasyland toward scientific fact.) But he told Hawkings not to meddle in the moment of the Big Bang for that is God's work and beyond human understanding. Hawkings said he was glad that the Pope wasn't paying attention to his lecture at the Vatican that day for he lectured on the implausibility of a Creator.

[Elfhelm]

Hawkings also said, in response to Einstein's statement that God doesn't play dice, "God does play dice, and sometimes He throws them where they can't be seen".

[inked]

I am Anglican because the Pope can err, even when speaking ex cathedra! He is the bishop of Rome and as likely to err in matters as any bishop (of which ECUSA and ACA can provide multitudinous current exemplars ).

But the "God does play dice, and sometimes He throws them where they can't be seen" statement is quite good suggesting as it does the limitation of human ability to understand and moving beyond the "man is the proper measure of man" sensibility of most folk who believe in scientism rather than science per se.

Elfhelm, I need some explication:"But is God "The Creator"? I would disagree that science has not discovered God. Many famous scientists have stated that they are theists. That isn't the issue, in fact, that does not fall within the realm of science. The issue most people have is with a Creator who is distinct from the creation."

That many famous scientists are theists is interesting but that doen't mean that science per se has discovered God, does it? The next sentence is unclear in meaning to me unless it means "the discovery of God is not the province of science" in which case we agree! The Christian contention is that God is distinct as having been the Creator but intimately merged in His Creation by maintaining its existence and being immanent within it, and, most particularly, one with it in the Incarnation in which the process of being zygote to birth recapitulates evolutionary creation, if you wish, and in which humanity attains fullness in the second Adam, Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ.
That sinless humanity united to the eternal Deity "not (to quote St. Athanasius) by the conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by the taking of the Manhood into God".

I am not sure which fantasyland you have in mind that the Pope may be slipping down from into what scientific fact. Enlighten me as to your intent, please.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

I am not sure which fantasyland you have in mind that the Pope may be slipping down from into what scientific fact. Enlighten me as to your intent, please.

i think he addresses an important point... "where do you place your god?"

as i stated earlier, there is quite a huge difference between holding the belief that god was the instigator for the big bang (or something similar) and then basically "let things happen"... the view that i'd think most scientists hold today who are believers... and holding the biblical account to be true (and not metaphor) that god actually created the planet we live on and all flora and fauna that inhabits it individually

the first view coexists pretty peacefully with science... whether "reality" or not, it doesn't really interfere, or effect in any way, what we call science

the second view makes god a "force", much like gravity or energy... a force which is limitless in it's power to effect the world around us... this throws a monkeywrench into any scientific research since one could claim, as many religious-minded do about something like fossils, that what we see has not developed from the past but is in fact "just the way god created it"

this second view could very well be true, i cannot prove for certain that god did not create the universe in it's current state 6000 years ago, or last week for that matter... but it is a pointless consideration, because it adds nothing to our ability to try to understand the past or predict the future

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

of course!

everyone has a bais... but i would not say that effects my ability to try to judge things objectively... i could just as easily say that you being christian could not be a fair judge either... but i don't believe that, so i won't say it

I just wanted to point out an area where you might have a bias, for your own information, in case you hadn't thought of it before

Personally, I think most atheists have it backwards - they say that Christians are biased and atheists aren't. They say that Christians accept Christianity because of some pie-in-the-sky vision of heaven, while atheists are not fooled by these silly desires and are entirely objective. However, IMO, most atheists are MORE biased and influenced by desires when they reject Christianity; they avoid Christianity like the plague because it means that they have to drop the (false) belief that they are their own god, and that there is no higher judge of their hidden actions and thoughts than themselves, and there are no eternal consequences to their actions.

Brownie, have you ever thought along those lines? Have you ever thought of all the uncomfy (but wonderfully right and fair) ramifications of Christianity, like the ones I mentioned? If so, has that influenced you against the evidences (not PROOFS - there is no proof for ANY worldview at this point in time) for Christianity? If not, what do you think of those things? Would you prefer that there is no God? Why or why not?

Can't comment on the rest right now - been down with a cold, and cleaning up the house after the visiting relatives! Keep it going, guys, I'll jump in whenever I can. There's lots I still want to ask you, brownie, but it might have to wait until next week when the kids are back in school.

(EDIT - I meant the "atheist" brand of non-Christians when I wrote "non-Christians", so I changed my post to reflect what I had really meant.)

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I just wanted to point out an area where you might have a bias, for your own information, in case you hadn't thought of it before

Personally, I think most non-Christians have it backwards - they say that Christians are biased and non-Christians aren't. They say that Christians accept Christianity because of some pie-in-the-sky vision of heaven, while non-Christians are not fooled by these silly desires and are entirely objective. However, IMO, most non-Christians are MORE biased and influenced by desires when they reject Christianity; they avoid Christianity like the plague because it means that they have to drop the (false) belief that they are their own god, and that there is no higher judge of their hidden actions and thoughts than themselves, and there are no eternal consequences to their actions.

well, i try to avoid terms that generalize like "most" most of the time... though if you look through my old posts, i'm sure i've been a hypocrit on more than one occasion

i think there is a pretty wide spectrum of people out there... extremes on both sides, those that completely reject and avoid christianity (or any other religion) and those who are extremely orthodox about their given beliefs and reject even considering that their views may not be 100% correct... these tend to be the most vocal, and as such, the most noticed

i would say though that "most" people (see, i did it ) fall somewhere in the middle... they believe or don't believe in any given faith, but the believers are willing to be flexible on specifics that the more orthodox followers are not (i.e. interpretation of scripture )... and the nonbelievers are willing to see the "philosophical" positives of any given religion, without necessary buying the "god" part of it (which is where i fall)

a very important specific example on this... while i do not agree with certain christian stances on things like birth control and homosexuality, i do not think they are all just "crazy zealots"... i think they have "real world" reasons behind their beliefs which they hold because they think it is good for themselves and for society, some valid (at least from their own pov... which is all that counts in the end ), others maybe a result of a bit of over-generalization or a belief in a "golden age in the past" that never really was... but most of all, i think the root of the problems tends to be tradition vs. change

people don't like change for the most part, plain and simple... and they will often convince themselves that something is bad for that very reason alone... a human trait which pops up among believers and non-believers alike

that said, i don't necessarily see it as essential that everyone toss aside their beliefs... just that they leave them open to reconsideration... and that they realize that other's reasons behind their own beliefs are just as valid, even if radically different

Brownie, have you ever thought along those lines? Have you ever thought of all the uncomfy (but wonderfully right and fair) ramifications of Christianity, like the ones I mentioned? If so, has that influenced you against the evidences (not PROOFS - there is no proof for ANY worldview at this point in time) for Christianity? If not, what do you think of those things? Would you prefer that there is no God? Why or why not?

i think about the effects of different worldviews all the time... i took a few comparative religions courses and have read and seen many programs on it... and obviously i've read agnostic/athiest philosophical povs as well... i think the philosophies of all the world's major religions have some interesting insights on humanity, christianity included... and there is not too much i find "uncomfy" about the christian god concept, especially the jesus part

if i had to point to a few they would probably be the "original sin" idea... i've never though that it was a very positive way to start life and i'd like to think we start as more of a clean slate at birth

i'm also not too keen on "belief in god" being the key prerequisite to salvation... as i said a while back, the idea that some buddhist could live a perfectly moral life and die and go to hell, while a lifetime criminal could confess to god on his deathbed, sincerely even, just doesn't sit right with me

so i guess those would be my major biases to buying the "whole of christianity", as opposed to just following the parts i agree with

[Ragnarok]

Originally Posted by Shelob's Hubby

How can you explain music and art without a soul?

I beg to differ about music...

Music creation, whether you want to label it composition or improvisation, is really to get out of your own way. It is really there all the time, if you will only let it happen to you.

I cannot honestly say that I ever wrote anything, it is just stuff that already exists, reflected through me, so it looks a little bit different than if it was reflected through you.

There is nothing new, it is only a matter of what you like. You can make an incredible pasta sauce out of garlic, olive oil, tomatoes and basil. You can mix the whole thing together in a pot, but you had no part in the coming to existence of the ingredients or their individual qualities or their effect on us, so what did you create?

Nothing! You have simply discovered that if you make this combination, it tastes good. Music is the same thing. If you mix this with that it sounds good. It is discovery.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Ragnarok

Nothing! You have simply discovered that if you make this combination, it tastes good. Music is the same thing. If you mix this with that it sounds good. It is discovery.

as a musician myself, i have to agree

though i do like "soul music"

[Rían]

OK - here's a set of three triple questions for you, brownie :

1. Looking back at last year, what are 3 of the most important/life changing events that took place for you?

2. What are 3 of the worst things you've ever done - things that you would be utterly ashamed for people to find out? (and you don't have to tell us - just think about it, and maybe use abbreviations or something)

3. What are 3 things that are really, really beautiful to you?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Wow, this thread is a great idea! Kudos to Rian for thinking it up. I'd like to sit in the hotseat for a while, but unfortunately, I won't have time. But anyhow, keep it up, Mooters!

[Elfhelm]

bj, I think you understood the question I was asking, yep. I'm not sure you answered it, though, except perhaps to say you don't know.

inked, yes, I'm saying that God is not a subject of science. It is a subject of philosophy. The methods of science are also subjects of philosophy. Both can and should be debated, and no answer should be made into dogma.

Rian, I don't think you understand how non-Christians think. For instance, I am not a Christian, though I try to follow Jesus.I do not believe I am my own God, and I do believe there are consequences for my actions. I also do not believe anyone can be entirely objective, nor is it an ideal frame of reference in my book.

There are many non-Christians who are theists, and many like myself who try to follow Jesus. I can only speak for myself in saying that I don't think Jesus wanted me to accept dogmatic statements from church leaders in lieu of fact. I believe he challenged the church leaders and their dogma beginning when he was 12 years old and for the next 20 years. I don't have any more faith in the church leaders of today than he did in his day. Now, as then, they condone acts which are obviously evil. So I tell the tree by its fruit, which is all anyone can do.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Rian, I don't think you understand how non-Christians think. ... There are many non-Christians who are theists, and many like myself who try to follow Jesus.

I should have specified "atheists" in my statement - that would have made it more accurate. It's just that most non-Christians on the Moot are atheists, from what I can tell. I need to be more accurate in my language. Thank you for pointing out my error - I'm going to go back and edit the post.

I can only speak for myself in saying that I don't think Jesus wanted me to accept dogmatic statements from church leaders in lieu of fact.

I agree. However, people need to be careful what they consider to be "fact", IMO. Much of what is considered "fact" is really just opinion or conjecture which happens to be popular at the moment.

I believe he challenged the church leaders and their dogma beginning when he was 12 years old and for the next 20 years.

He certainly did!

I don't have any more faith in the church leaders of today than he did in his day. Now, as then, they condone acts which are obviously evil. So I tell the tree by its fruit, which is all anyone can do.

No one is perfect, and there were some church leaders that Jesus approved of. We ALL need to sincerely and boldly seek out truth and try to do what we think is right, IMO, and NOT just unthinkingly go along with opinion, whether from the church pulpit or the world pulpit.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Wow, this thread is a great idea! Kudos to Rian for thinking it up. I'd like to sit in the hotseat for a while, but unfortunately, I won't have time. But anyhow, keep it up, Mooters!

Nice to see you, Gwai! I miss you. How are things in Russia?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

as i stated earlier, there is quite a huge difference between holding the belief that god was the instigator for the big bang (or something similar) and then basically "let things happen"... the view that i'd think most scientists hold today who are believers... and holding the biblical account to be true (and not metaphor) that god actually created the planet we live on and all flora and fauna that inhabits it individually

the first view coexists pretty peacefully with science... whether "reality" or not, it doesn't really interfere, or effect in any way, what we call science

I really think you don't understand scientists that are Christians. You seem to think that they think their job is to sit back at say, as an answer to any question, "Well, God did it!" I think the proper job of a scientist who is a Christian is to eagerly and diligently find out about things, like Edmund in E. Nesbit's wonderful story, "Kind Little Edmund (or the Caves and the Cockatrice)" in her great and hysterically funny fairy tale collection "The Last of the Dragons".

from E. Nesbit's "Kind Little Edmund"
Edmund loved to find out about things. Perhaps you will think that in that case he was constant in his attendance at school, since there, if anywhere, we may learn whatever there is to be learned. But Edmund did not want to learn things: he wanted to find things out, which is quite quite different. ... Edmund went to school, of course, now and then, and sometimes he could not prevent himself from learning something, but he never did it on purpose. "It is such a waste of time," said he; "they only know what everybody knows. I want to find out new things that nobody has thought of but me." ... He played truant whenever he could, for he was a kind-hearted boy, and could not bear to thnk of a master's time and labour being thrown away on a boy like himself - who did not wish to learn, only to find out ...

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

OK - here's a set of three triple questions for you, brownie :

1. Looking back at last year, what are 3 of the most important/life changing events that took place for you?

i don't know about the last year... it wasn't all that dramatic

i'll give you one of the more important things from the past... i've mentioned the story here before i think, but from 18-23 i dated/lived with a girl who i was deeply in love with... and probably still am to this day in many ways... the details are unimportant (and too long for me to get into right now), but, in the end, it didn't work out... i was very depressed and nearly lost myself in overindulgence

i considered moving back home where i grew up (about two hours away from boston), but decided to stick it out where i was... i still had a few friends and was playing in a band at the time

after that i spent about six years unattached... there were short relationships here and there, but i really had no desire to get into another committed relationship... i guess i figured it would never be as good, or maybe i feared that if it was, it would end badly again

anyway, at some point along the way... and i can't really point to a single event, though it was around 2-3 years after the breakup... i realized that, after being depressed for quite a while i was past it... and it wasn't because i had found someone else... i had somehow learned to be happy with myself for it's own sake, and not be so dependent upon what was happening in my life and around me

i guess in many ways it was just living on my own and doing well, and appreciating my ability to make new friends and start over if i had to... i wasn't thinking about "what might have been", or "if i had just done this right"... i just accepted my choices for what they were... no regrets... i knew inside that if ever again i lost everything in life, i'd have the ability to go on, without falling into depression... and while there were certainly many down points after this realization... promising relationships that just didn't work out... deaths or disappearances of good friends... i never felt that same depression and regret again

2. What are 3 of the worst things you've ever done - things that you would be utterly ashamed for people to find out? (and you don't have to tell us - just think about it, and maybe use abbreviations or something)

i'm not one to be ashamed... i accept my shortcomings... they're as much a part of who i am as my positive traits... i totalled my father's car when i was 16, driving way too fast down a back road after having too much to drink at a party my band played at... and while never "hooked" on anything (other than cigarettes), i don't think there is a single illicit substance i have not done at least a few times... in fact, until i had kids, i never put much mind into taking care of myself

i can also be thoughtless from time to time... hurting people i care for, not so much by doing something intentionally, but by failing to notice something that is important to them... i'm very easy going and live and let live, and sometimes i have the mistaken assumption that everyone feels the same way

3. What are 3 things that are really, really beautiful to you?

other people first and foremost... i probably take pleasure in personal relations more than anything else

a great book, play or painting can be pretty nice too

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I really think you don't understand scientists that are Christians. You seem to think that they think their job is to sit back at say, as an answer to any question, "Well, God did it!" I think the proper job of a scientist who is a Christian is to eagerly and diligently find out about things, like Edmund in E. Nesbit's wonderful story, "Kind Little Edmund (or the Caves and the Cockatrice)" in her great and hysterically funny fairy tale collection "The Last of the Dragons".

everyone's different, and i really try not to lump people into one category or another... i.e. christian/non-christian scientist

how do you feel about my point above to inked... that he decided to pass on

see post 928