|
|
I am a Christian (Catholic) and have been so for the entire 16.5 years of my existence. My family, though not devout, does semi-regularly attend mass and a Catholic College (Notre Dame) is one of my options for the year after next.
Anyways, to the point... My pastor, last Wednesday, gave a sermon about questioning faith and how it is a good thing because it makes us grow. Well, I am hitting that questioning phase quite hard.
Here's my issues...
 The Bible was assembled some 300 years after the scripture was "written." The Bible was written by some 40 people over a period of 1500 years. There is bound to be some contradiction, especially when multiple people are telling the same story.
The Bible, as it is known today, was actually assembled some 300 years after Christ's death where a meeting was held to determine which scripture should be placed in and what shouldn't.
So, in reality, was it not man who determined which scripture to add and which to keep out?
Years later, during the Protestant Reformation, the Apocrypha (part of the Catholic Bible) was removed by Protestants because it's not what they wanted to believe in.
I could go on, but I think that's in a nutshell.
[b]The Old Testament is just that ... Old! Leave it to the Jews to live by the Old Testament. The OT is simply lineage and ancient Jewish law, things that were shattered by Jesus' New Covenant.
However, we, as Christians, have picked and chosen a few OT laws and tried to apply them to today. The one that sticks out in my mind is homosexuality.
But realize that just as the Bible calls homosexuality an "abomination" the eating of shellfish and other "unclean" animals from the ocean is called an abomination.
Leviticus 11:9-12
Deuteronomy 14:9-10
Also, if you continue reading in Deut. you will see that unclean women (women who have just given birth) are not allowed to enter a temple either 33 days or 66 days after giving birth, if it is a boy or girl (respectively).
So why have we chosen those laws to be unfit? Are they not good enough? Why exactly do we pick and choose what we want to believe.
Instead of focusing on the "good life" we focus on the bad. We focus so much on what you shouldn't do that we fail to really tell people what they should do. We focus too much on the "live a bad life and go to Hell" rather than "live a good life and go to Heaven".
It's sort of the opposite of what Jesus' intention was, I'm sure.
Since man is flawed, religion is flawed. Let's face facts. Religion is a man-made institution, and because man is flawed, then that means religion is flawed as well. That doesn't make it untrue, but it is not an absolute truth. The Church provides a wonderful support system.
You're going to Hell!. The Bible tells us not to judge, but what do we do? We praise some and condemn others. It's part of human nature, and it is "wrong" according to the Bible, so who's right (on earth) is it to say who is and isn't going to Heaven. Nobody's!
As for me - who knows?
This is my questioning phase. I will always believe in God, but I am starting to go about it a different way.
I'm sorry if this was slightly unsupported and thrown together, if I had more time I would thoroughly go through, and if anyone would like to build upon or argue my points, please do, because I am looking for answers. I am looking for diversity.
God bless!
Well, see, a lot of the issues behind the bible being incomplete comes from our inability to be certain of what in the bible was part of the original writing and what was added or changed later. It's impossible for anyone to even be certain that the bible came from any source other than men who wrote a book for money, and gain some cult-type followers as a result, similiar to common-era things, such as scientology. Perhaps it began as a story, something meant to enthrall young children, a tale meant to entertain, and it blossomed from there.
There's no way to be certain of its' origins or lineage.
And as for the reasons as to why we don't use all the biblical laws, we can only assume the msot obvious thing...we don't feel like it.
Even before protestantism rose, (long before it), people were abandoning the teachings of their religion for an easier (more fun) way of life. When they find it convienent, as a whole, they pull something back in, or take something out.
It seems like a giant, disgusting battle to see who can be mroe easily corrupt.
And I am not sure whether to feel saddened or liberated.
Not sure why my tags didn't work, I have them arranged right!
I sort of know your feeling, moving from Catholocism, to Atheism, back to Catholocism, and finally to Deism.
| SlugDragon wrote: |
Even before protestantism rose, (long before it), people were abandoning the teachings of their religion for an easier (more fun) way of life. When they find it convienent, as a whole, they pull something back in, or take something out.
It seems like a giant, disgusting battle to see who can be more easily corrupt. |
This is perhaps true for some people. For others the reality is different. I will give my own story since it is the one I know best, but it is by no means atypical.
I was raised Catholic. When I say 'raised' I mean that I was educated in single sex catholic primary and then in a single-sex catholic secondary school run by the Salesian order of Monks/Clerics. My father was a devout Catholic as are/were his whole side of the family. My mother was from a more secular background but, like many non-Catholic parents, agreed to raise me as a Catholic.
Nowadays I am best described as an atheist. I did not turn away from Catholicism (in my late teens) for a more fun or easier way of life - it would have been much simpler, in many respects, to stay Catholic. It hurt my father and grandparents deeply when I told them. My father died years ago, and my Grandfather is close to death (he is 99 and has terminal cancer). Even now I think it would be one of his dearest wishes for me to 'regain my faith' and I have even considered (and reluctantly rejected) lying about it so he can die thinking it to be the case.
I renounced my Catholicism (if that is the correct phrase) because I had spent a long time and a lot of effort thinking my way through what I had been taught and what I believed to be true. My education gave me a pretty thorough knowledge of Catholic catechism/dogma so my contemplation was pretty well informed. I was unwilling to do what I perceived many others to do then (and do now) which is to 'pick and mix'. By the age of 17 I probably knew a bit more than you about the history and theology of the Catholic church but I shared many of the questions you have expressed.
My conclusion was that I could not accept the scriptures as anything other than allegories/stories. I did not believe that there was a loving God and I could not accept that Jesus was anything other than a Jewish prophet of a renegade sect of Judaism. Though I found (and still find) much of value in the core message of Christianity, the institutions and dogma were, to me, driven, motivated and sustained by materialistic concerns and internal politics.
I am not suggesting that you will, or even that you should, come to the same conclusions as I did - faith is a personal matter and I have no desire to 'convert' anyone. I would point out, however, that not everyone who rejects religion is driven by selfish desire for more freedom/pleasure/ease. To reject your upbringing, as I and many others have done, requires a great deal of introspection and deep thought and is not done lightly - it is always easier to belong than to stand apart. Even today there is a certain 'stigma' attached to being an atheist and it is certainly not an 'easy' option. It is also difficult to accept that there will be no afterlife and that death is final and ultimate.
I have no particular message for you as you examine your beliefs and I wish you well, whatever conclusions you arrive at, but do not think that atheism is an easy path and is, somehow, a cop-out - it isn't.
Damn! You are only 16 Soulfire??? While I had some serious issues with your take on Christianity a year ago, I never found any of your posts, even then, to reflect the maturity of a 15 or 16 year old. I never would have guessed it. It kind of makes sense in that your opinions have evolved and grown before our very eyes, but I’m still in a state of shock!
You are extremely mature for your age.
I think I'm sensing a futer atheist.
| Quote: | | [b]The Old Testament is just that ... Old! Leave it to the Jews to live by the Old Testament. The OT is simply lineage and ancient Jewish law, things that were shattered by Jesus' New Covenant. |
Not really, the bible is contradictory on that.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/otlaw.html
| Quote: | | But realize that just as the Bible calls homosexuality an "abomination" the eating of shellfish and other "unclean" animals from the ocean is called an abomination. |
The new testament dose as well.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:26-28;&version=47;
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:9-10;&version=47;
| The Conspirator wrote: | | I think I'm sensing a futer atheist. |
i don't think so. Just an intelligent theist.
Soulfire's reflection seems to be genuine and sincere - as opposed to the usual "period of uncertainty" stories i see bandied about. He has correctly identifed numerous problems with the dogma associated with his beliefs. But at the same time, he has not become so discouraged by them that he rejects the "good stuff" out of hand.
Taking something as complex as Christianity and boiling it down to its core, raw essence is not a trivial undertaking. Different people will distill it down to different fundamentals. The base fundamentals Soulfire has boiled Christianity down to are not the same as those that i have, and probably not the same as those you have, but that makes them no less valid. Atheism is not the only conclusion that can be arrived at by challenging Christianity.
Anna and i have defended Soulfire against the attacks of militant atheists (jerks, really) in the past, and we have also clashed as opponents in debates. This time, i'm going to throw out a challenge. It's an idea that he has probably considered in the past, but maybe not explicitly. i'm going to follow that up by offering suggestions on where to go from here depending on what he answers:
Where does "right" come from? Is something "right" because God says so, or does God say it's "right" because it is? Or to put it another way, is there an objective morality that determines rightness and wrongness, or does God's word decide what is right and wrong?
Try to look at it from this perspective: is rape wrong because... well, it's wrong? Because of the harm is causes and the violation of the person of the victim? Or is it just wrong because God says so?
Try answering this: if God said "rape is ok", would that make it ok? If the answer is no, then you believe that there is an objective morality. If the answer is yes, then you believe that there is no objective morality, that what is right and wrong is determined only by God's word (this is known as divine command theory).
Basically, there are two possibilities here. Either God is the source of morality (as in divine command theory), or he is a messenger telling us of certain universal moral truths that exist.
If he is the source, then what you have to do next is devote your efforts to determining precisely what God's message is. Your goal should be to analyse the scriptures (after first determining what the true scriptures are). If you choose this path then you will have to find a way to resolve the difficulties with scripture and determine the underlying message.
If he is the messenger, then you can still consult scripture (God would be the perfect messenger, so you can trust that any moral truths he gives you would be accurate, provided you can determine them accurately from scripture). However, you are no longer bound to do that. You may engage in secular study - perhaps using scripture as a guide - because it will be possible to get closer to God that way. If you choose this path, then you no longer need the dogma of the various churches, and you no longer have to struggle with the vagaries of scripture that's questionable whether or not it actually came from God. With this path, you follow the voice in your heart and see where it leads.
Which path sounds more like the correct path to you?
You have brought up pretty much every point I have wondered about during my life. One difference between me and you is that now I call myself an agnostic rather than a Christian. People who don't doubt the existence of God are only blinding themselves to the truth.
Can I ask why you will ALWAYS believe in God? Is it out of fear, or maybe you have experienced something I have not?
Interesting, I always wondered what makes an athiest and the answers here seem to be a disillussionment with dogma. In other words because you lost sight of the Devine behind human wrought religion you've concluded that the Devine must not exist.
All religion is made in the image of Humankind. It is the way different humans have struggled to grasp an idea of an unknowable Devine Enity. Not all of those humans have chosen the same path to that relationship with God. What works for some does not make sense to all, nor should it. When you say that you will always believe in God Soulfire, I;m hoping that you will maintain your own personal relationship with God. Maybe He won't be the fearsome vengeful God of others. Maybe after you have searched out your own meaning of God you will be more comfortable in His preasence, talk to Him when you are troubled and Give Him Thanks when your life is eased.
It's quite the different thing to have faith in religion then it is to have faith in God. Hope this helps a little.
My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.
Albert Einstein
I’m coming from a very different direction, Tex, but yet a parallel direction. Intellectually I’ve always known what made materialistic atheists tick since I was one, but the real mystery to me was how anyone could disbelieve in God while knowing clearly about the spiritual, psychic and immaterial nature of the universe.
It’s finally dawned on me that the noisy lunchroom in my head that has formed since I began to experience what Catholic’s call “locutions”, is actually all that anyone can pick up. Anyone who thinks they are getting something better is deceiving themselves, I think.
No matter where I search, in any direction in infinity, I can’t find anyone but putz’s and nut cases. I’ve had to seriously alter my theological views to accommodate this, and it has brought me to a new state of panentheism.
I now literally believe in a singular Incarnation of God, the consciousness of Absolute Infinity swapped out to the middle of all time streams, leaving its protected haunts at one end of infinity and entering the peril of a mad sleeping nightmare universe. I think the Jews are right, Jesus clearly isn’t this guy, but I do think that God is a guy now, and not a transcendental force. I think God has really gone incognito and incommunicado, which is part of the reason why things have gotten so very out of hand.
What if God was one of us, just a stranger on the bus, trying to make his way home. I think this is what God really is.
It's a really, really strange feeling to challenge something I've been taught as absolute truth for the entire time of my life. And yet, there is some sort of bond that I still hold on quite tight to with Christianity. Perhaps it is a morphed version of Christianity.
There's something out there, I can feel it -- and although I may not be able to explain it the best, I know God exists and I can't ever see myself not believing in God, it's just all of the attatched junk that has been added to religion that is making it (or has made it) invalid.
Frihost has actually played a large part in my "liberalization" if you will, though I still identify slightly better with conservatives. My friend's pastor (whom I have talked to about some of this) seems to dodge the question. I feel like he is just twisting my arm and saying "believe what I tell you is truth." He is totally divine command theory -- that the Bible is the only and absolute truth.
I, however, differ slightly. I believe that parts of the Bible are true, documented history, but I also believe that some stories must be taken as allegories... stories that instruct proper moral conduct. I have to say that the values that religion has given me are nothing I will complain about, ever.
In regard to morality...
In my opinion, there are moral objectives. I believe, however; in the principle of overridingness, that is that some moral objectives can be overriden.
For example, we will use this moral objective: It is always wrong to lie.
During the Nazi holocaust, many people lied to German soldiers about hiding Jews in their home to save their lives.
In my opinion, lying to save someone's life makes it okay.
I believe my teacher referred to it as situationalism.
Some moral objectives:
- It is wrong to take an innocent [human] life
- It is wrong to lie
- Honor promises and contracts
- It is wrong to torture
And there's a few more, but those came off the top of my head.
| Soulfire wrote: | | It's a really, really strange feeling to challenge something I've been taught as absolute truth for the entire time of my life. And yet, there is some sort of bond that I still hold on quite tight to with Christianity. Perhaps it is a morphed version of Christianity. |
I know the feeling, though it never seemed to be all that weird to me. When it came to religion my house was a bit of a no man's land. My mom's side of the family was mainly catholic, and my dad's was born-again, though neither of them were particularly religious themselves. Religion in general really wasn't discussed at home, but when I would go to one of my grandmother's house(one was catholic, the other born-again) they would start talking about religion.
The problems started when I would say something I heard from the other when I was at the other's house and would get told off for speaking heresy(Especially when I brought up the fallibility of the pope). Which was quite confusing for an 8 year old, to say the least.
After 9 years, I'm still confused when it comes to religion. Perhaps there is no God, perhaps it's a female, perhaps it is both, or neither. Maybe there are many different Gods, hell, while we're at it does God have to be a conscious being? Since the only thing that seems to be constant in the world is change, perhaps that is God, or just maybe there is no God, and in the end all human beings, no matter their accomplishments, will fail to achieve anything that will last or is of any magnitude to be anything but insignificant in the universal scheme of things.
My personal belief is that there is a God, and that Jesus was his messenger. As for objective morality, it exists, but I can't define it. Given time perhaps I could, but an exception could always be found, and the cost of doing one thing over another could be debated. In the end, we all know what it is(but who's to say we all know the same thing?), and we all know that the work of men is never without flaw, which would seem to be a good motive for creating an infallible being(Something to say "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.", albeit more discretely). Honestly I find it easier to just accept something as absolute in life, I really can't rationalize my beliefs, sometimes I feel they just act as a crutch.
Well Soulfire, I agree and I also agree with a lot of what you have said so far. Having come in the opposite direction to some people here, I believe that Christian doctrine does stand up to rigorous examination.
About the interpretation of the bible and if things should be allegories or not, I think it is important to keep in mind what context they were written in. So for, example, if it is poetry, it is natural to read it as a poem. Song of Songs isn't a command, it's a celebration of love, for example.
Morality is an interesting one. I do believe in right and wrong. It is something that I cannot prove, but when I see cruelty being carried out I can't help thinking that it is wrong... and would try to stop it. If I only believed in what can be confirmed by science then I would not believe in right and wrong.
You can actually find the exact situation you talked about - lying to save someone's life in the Bible. In an example very similar to yours, Rahab, who was a prostitute, lied to save the lives of Israeli spies:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua%202%20;&version=31;
For which she is listed as one of the most faithful people in the Old Testament (in Hebrews 11). Have you ever had a chance to read any books by CS Lewis?
If you're serious about it, thinking about these things takes a lot of time and effort. There some things you probably don't want to know about, and on the other hand there are some things which are so much better than you ever expected. Using your brain and asking difficult questions is hard. But it is rewarding in the end, and it is the way that you grow to become a mature Christian.
Your statement about the difficulty of challenging that which you have been taught your whole life is one of the things that brought me to the conclusion that there is no god/are no gods. I figured, as a later article in 'Wired' magazine put it, (Article: The New Atheism, this quote not exact) that any religion that felt the need to blind it's prospective followers really couldn't be a true thing.
In example,
The Crusades. Anyone refusing to commit to Christianity was slaughtered.
And what happens a few generations later to all those people who converted to save their lives? Well, first, they taught their children that this new thing was truth, and, naturally, the children believed it, and so on, and so on, until Christianity has blossomed as a result of bloodshed, torture, and force. After all, how often can you say a missionary truly converts a person as opposed to those times where people become Christian for social matters, etc., etc. (church functions, outreach programs, etc. inspiring people with guilt).
It seems as if Christianity has rarely been able/allowed to spread fairly. Granted, this is with any religion, but it seems as if those mainly involved in the discussion are dominantly Christian.
Besides, as less educated, but equally correct in theory, students of religion say, 'Religion is basically a form of religion where you can do anything you want and still go to a nice place. That's why it has attracted so many people' (Dr. John Pritchard).
I humbly suggest that the phenomenal growth of Christianity was not as violent as you make out. The fastest growth happened in the first half a millenium after Jesus death. Far from being violent themselves, many Christians were martyred and persecuted for their faith.
Also, you might like to consider that many of the places, such as Byzantium and Antioch, fought over during the crusades were considered Christian, so not really spreading Christianity in the way you suggest.
About social considerations, today Christians are constantly confronted by other world views, as Soulfire demonstrates so well. The dominant world view is not Christianity, and any Christian living in the world has to deal with it, so I think the question is best asked the other way around. How many people have questioned the materialistic world-view that permeates our "modern" society?
When you read that Galileo was a martyr (which he wasn't) in Wired, did you question it? Did you question, when you read the what Harris said, who it was who ran the campaigns against slavery? Here in England it was the Quakers who started the movement, and the Evangelicals who eventually got it accepted. Did you question why such emotive language was being used?
Did you question when you read religion comes up against a materialistic worldview, it is certainly not the materialistic worldview which always wins out? Did you wonder about love and in morals? Or did you try to put it historical context, and think whether it is true that science has not been changed by religion (which it certainly has)? For example, our current best models do not have a deterministic universe as described by Aristotle, and certainly quantum mechanics doesn't follow Aristotle. Our ideas of time, and even that the universe can have a beginning in a Big Bang - are distinctly Judeo-Christian elements. I haven't even mentioned Goedel's theorem, catastropic change, so it doesn't seem hard to think of contradictions to this claim - none of which were dealt with at all in the article.
The Wired article annoyed me in the way that some violent politician's speeches do - so many half truths, one or two blatant wrong ones - mixed with militant rhetoric. It is hard for a questioning person to accept.
| nopaniers wrote: | | About social considerations, today Christians are constantly confronted by other world views, as Soulfire demonstrates so well. The dominant world view is not Christianity, and any Christian living in the world has to deal with it, so I think the question is best asked the other way around. How many people have questioned the materialistic world-view that permeates our "modern" society? |
I'd have to quibble a bit here np. It depends what you mean by dominant world view. In many respects the dominant world view IS Christianity. The only Superpower (at the moment) is certainly very anxious to proclaim it's Christianity from what I can see. Couple that to the fact that much of Europe is Christian and, although numerically what you say is true, in real 'domination' terms (by which I mean being in a position to impose) I think Christianity is still right up there.
| Quote: |
When you read that Galileo was a martyr (which he wasn't) in Wired, did you question it? Did you question, when you read the what Harris said, who it was who ran the campaigns against slavery? Here in England it was the Quakers who started the movement, and the Evangelicals who eventually got it accepted. Did you question why such emotive language was being used? |
I would certainly agree about Galileo. My reading is that he was an arrogant twit who pushed his luck too far and got his fingers burned. I think Koestler's 'Sleepwalkers' is the best account of this period in history I have read and Koestler certainly has little sympathy for Galileo.
| Quote: | | Did you question when you read religion comes up against a materialistic worldview, it is certainly not the materialistic worldview which always wins out? Did you wonder about love and in morals? Or did you try to put it historical context, and think whether it is true that science has not been changed by religion (which it certainly has)? For example, our current best models do not have a deterministic universe as described by Aristotle, and certainly quantum mechanics doesn't follow Aristotle. Our ideas of time, and even that the universe can have a beginning in a Big Bang - are distinctly Judeo-Christian elements. I haven't even mentioned Goedel's theorem, catastropic change, so it doesn't seem hard to think of contradictions to this claim - none of which were dealt with at all in the article. |
Woa...can you expand on that statement that our ideas of time (-space - I'm assuming, I hope not presumptuously) are Judeo-Christian?
| Soulfire wrote: | | Anyways, to the point... My pastor, last Wednesday, gave a sermon about questioning faith and how it is a good thing because it makes us grow. Well, I am hitting that questioning phase quite hard. |
Well, in line with many others here, I would never have guessed you are as young in years as you now say - you do seem to express yourself well and with unusual maturity, so congratulations for that.
As to questioning things - I am sure that it is good. As you may have noticed I am of the questioning type; just haven't had much time free of late to think on these things. If you go through this questioning with a high degree of openness and honesty with yourself, it will shake some of your beliefs and strengthen others. My experience of others going through this suggests that you may find yourself a stronger believer in the core of your faith, with less reliance on trivia and ephemera (I doubt that you will lose your already strong faith; it may just morph a bit).
Good luck with the journey - it's likely to be a long and fruitful one that may last the rest of your life, so don't rush it. Do it for yourself, on your own timescales.
Read and ntoed in response to my somewhat headstrong crusade post.
Also, I am anti-Galileo, as I did a report on him for school many years back, and found that he was not the best of people.
Another thing, in response to the new Scientology outbreak at VT.
Isn't it also that Christian missionaries also convert when people are weak; at a time of crisis?
| SlugDragon wrote: | Read and ntoed in response to my somewhat headstrong crusade post.
Also, I am anti-Galileo, as I did a report on him for school many years back, and found that he was not the best of people.
Another thing, in response to the new Scientology outbreak at VT.
Isn't it also that Christian missionaries also convert when people are weak; at a time of crisis? |
Taking advantage of people at their weakest is not something that is unique to any one group or religion. Nor is it necessarily an indication of a conscious desire to take advantage of them. Any group that goes there to "convert" people may well be sincere in their belief that they are helping them.
Put it this way. Imagine you were a sincere Pastafarian. Imagine you really, truly and honestly believed that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster was the best way for a person to find peace and happiness.
You see these images on TV of all those people hurt and suffering, and you want to help. We all want to help. It breaks my heart to see those students on the news - they're like a thousand kilometers away, in another country but they could just as well be the students at my own university (just substitude that godawful maroon and orange for some dignified maroon and grey) - but we're all largely powerless.
But wait a minute! You could maybe help a little! You might be able to offer them some kind of relief from their suffering by telling them about this wonderful thing you know - the Flying Spaghetti Monster - and maybe they too will be touched by His Noodly Appendage and find happiness! You might be able to help them out!
That thinking isn't evil or selfish. And it's not about trying to take advantage of their weakness. It's an honest and sincere attempt to help. Is it misguided? To those of use who don't believe in FSM, surely. But to those that do?
Or, maybe they really are just cynically trying to exploit the suffering of the students to swell their congregation. Sometimes it's not that easy to determine who the real villians out there are. Just, take caution when passing judgements like that. i'm not saying you're wrong. Just be careful. You may be condemning an innocent and sincere attempt at helping the only way they know how.
I'd go along with that.
There are certainly some politco-religious/missionary activities that I would be the first to criticise, even condemn. There are lots of bad examples throughout history. It still happens, of course - some recent US Foreign foreign aid being made conditional on no condoms being purchased with the money is, for example, to me deplorable (as are some UK decisions so let's not make this national or denominational).
On the other hand it cannot be sensibly denied, and should be openly acknowledged, that many many Christian bodies and individuals (and other religious people and bodies) have done and still do a great deal of good work in both their own communities and in the world in general. An acquaintance of mine has twice flown into countries at (or near to) war. I won't go into detail because I don't want to sidetrack this into a political debate about specific instances. In both cases her aim was to act as witness, help in any way she could and, ultimately, act as a human shield as far as possible. She does this from deep religious conviction, which I do not share. All I can say is that she puts to shame the actions and efforts of most people I know (including myself).
In general terms I am of the opinion that people are responsible for things in proportion to their ability to change them; and they should be judged by their actions. We could most of us do more to change the world for good. She, out of whatever motivation, does more than most.
| Bikerman wrote: | It depends what you mean by dominant world view. In many respects the dominant world view IS Christianity. The only Superpower (at the moment) is certainly very anxious to proclaim it's Christianity from what I can see. Couple that to the fact that much of Europe is Christian and, although numerically what you say is true, in real 'domination' terms (by which I mean being in a position to impose) I think Christianity is still right up there.
|
By dominant world-view I mean the one you see when you turn on your TV, radio, film, or read a newspaper. I believe you posted statistics on churchgoers in a previous thread which backs me up on this  . When it comes to 'domination' terms, the Wired article starts by describing the new atheism as condemning respect for others' beliefs. I kid you not! That contrasts with loving your neighbor as yourself, and loving your enemies and doing good to them.
| Bikerman wrote: | | Can you expand on that statement that our ideas of time (-space - I'm assuming, I hope not presumptuously) are Judeo-Christian? |
Yes, of course. I was thinking of Newton's introduction of linear time. See, for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time#Linear_time
I was also thinking of Big Bang theory, which was opposed by Hoyle because (to quote wikipedia):
| Quote: | | An atheist, he found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be philosophically troubling, as many argue that a beginning implies a cause, and thus a creator (see kalam cosmological argument). |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle
Therefore he gave the theory the derogatory name "Big Bang". I am not saying we should necessarily agree with either theory, only that the relationship between science and religion has been/is far more complex (and complimentary) than the article would have us believe.
One woman I knew spent a large part of her life being a nurse in hospitals in (from memory) Cambodia, and Africa. I totally agree with Bikerman when he says that people's actions are important - and that there are many good and honest. She undoubtedly inspired people to wonder about her belief and what drove her.
So I've been reading the posts, and there's quite a bit to digest. I really like a lot of this discussion, and I've talked with some people and did some soul searching, so to speak.
What I aspire to be is an intelligent theist, and more precisely an intelligent Christian. I have belief in God, and I have belief in Jesus, but the Bible begins to get muddy in places.
Man has changed religion too much from what it was originally supposed to be, especially more conservative people who want to apply the laws on one nation (Israel in the OT) to the entire world.
What I don't like is people who cram religion down other peoples' throats -- and that is never how I want it to be. Religion, or more important, spirituality is about self-finding. One must go through the process of questioning and searching for answers.
No more arm-twisting and saying "just believe." That's unnecessary.
| nopaniers wrote: | | By dominant world-view I mean the one you see when you turn on your TV, radio, film, or read a newspaper. I believe you posted statistics on churchgoers in a previous thread which backs me up on this . When it comes to 'domination' terms, the Wired article starts by describing the new atheism as condemning respect for others' beliefs. I kid you not! That contrasts with loving your neighbor as yourself, and loving your enemies and doing good to them. |
The important words, I think, are 'respect for'. That is not the same as condemning other's beliefs. To that extent I have some sympathy with the point - although 'condemning' is far too strong a word, I would prefer 'questioning'.
We can freely question political views, economic views and just about any other views expressed by a person. When it comes to questioning their religious views, however, there is a different standard applied. We should 'respect' those views, no matter how illogical or way-out. I do not agree. I think religious views should be treated the same as any other view. That does not mean being intolerant, bigoted or even insensitive. It does mean that I refuse to 'respect' views which I find illogical or even offensive. Respect means, variously:- To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem.
- To avoid violation of or interference with: respect the speed limit.
I do not think that I should show deferential regard for religious views or avoid violating or interfering with them. I think that is the general point being made. I would, however, certainly hope (and would hope you agree) that I am not insensitive in questioning such beliefs and that I am not unreasonable in the way I do so.
I think it is unhelpful to consider theories of that time in a religious context for the simple reason that, at that time, religion was a universal and therefore there are no alternative reference points. To say that the notion of linear time is Judeo/Christian is, I believe, a logical fallacy illustrated by:
a) Christian belief is that time is linear
b) Scientific belief is that time is linear
c) Therefore b is based on a
| Neopaniers wrote: | I was also thinking of Big Bang theory, which was opposed by Hoyle because (to quote wikipedia):
| Quote: | | An atheist, he found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be philosophically troubling, as many argue that a beginning implies a cause, and thus a creator (see kalam cosmological argument). |
Therefore he gave the theory the derogatory name "Big Bang". I am not saying we should necessarily agree with either theory, only that the relationship between science and religion has been/is far more complex (and complimentary) than the article would have us believe. |
But the reaction of people to theory does not imply anything about the dependence of that theory on a system of beliefs surely? The fact that Hoyle was an atheist and found BB troubling does not imply that the theory was therefore inspired by or a result of non-atheist thinking. I remain to be convinced of the thesis that current scientific theory owes a great deal to Judeo-Christianity.
That being said, I would accept that there is possibly a case to be made that the emergence of empirical science itself owes something to the religious background during which it came about. I would define this as being around the time of Keppler/Galileo (in the renaissance sense, rather than going all the way back to ancient Greece). It is true that a different culture, such as India, did not see the emergence of such empiricism at the time, and that part of the reason may be concerned with the religious underpinnings of that culture. I think it is going way too far, however, to attribute modern theory to Judeo-Christianity.
| Neopaniers wrote: | | One woman I knew spent a large part of her life being a nurse in hospitals in (from memory) Cambodia, and Africa. I totally agree with Bikerman when he says that people's actions are important - and that there are many good and honest. She undoubtedly inspired people to wonder about her belief and what drove her. |
In this there is no difference in our opinions...I concur completely.
| Soulfire wrote: | So I've been reading the posts, and there's quite a bit to digest. I really like a lot of this discussion, and I've talked with some people and did some soul searching, so to speak.
What I aspire to be is an intelligent theist, and more precisely an intelligent Christian. I have belief in God, and I have belief in Jesus, but the Bible begins to get muddy in places.
Man has changed religion too much from what it was originally supposed to be, especially more conservative people who want to apply the laws on one nation (Israel in the OT) to the entire world.
What I don't like is people who cram religion down other peoples' throats -- and that is never how I want it to be. Religion, or more important, spirituality is about self-finding. One must go through the process of questioning and searching for answers.
No more arm-twisting and saying "just believe." That's unnecessary. |
I think your aspirations are entirely sensible and laudable.
In general terms I believe that one of the most pernicious influences in society is certainty. As soon as someone is certain that they are correct then there is no possibility of compromise. This is one reason that I regard the refusal of science to talk of 'certainty' as a strength and not a weakness.
That does not make me a relativist in everything, however. I believe that scientific theory is more 'valid' than other 'theory', but only in the realms of science where such theory is applicable. That realm does not include politics, religion, jurisprudence and other social constructs/organisations/systems. Even where science does apply, the assumption that a theory is 'correct' is always balanced by an implicit understanding that it will be rejected if shown to contradict experiment or observation.
In religious terms I see no problem with a person having a deep and sincere faith. The problem comes when the next step is made and that faith is then seen as being exclusively correct in theological and sociological terms. Many faiths have a tendency to lead to this - Christianity should not be singled out - but I see it as profoundly negative. People can be certain of their own spiritual beliefs without the need to assume that other beliefs are therefore misguided or wrong. Where a religion builds up the notion of exclusivity then I believe that religion is acting in a malign way and should be questioned. I believe that the argument that scripture dictates this approach are subjective and questionable, just as other assumptions from scripture over history have been questioned and ultimately abandoned.
I completely fail to see why the ultimate nature of reality is somehow fundamentally intractable to empirical analysis. What is the real difference between “scientific” empiricism and, say, detective work? Bikerman, everything you said here was just a long string of false dichotomies.
As to religion supposedly getting more respect than politics, you can’t be serious? As the old saying goes, “Never bring up religion and politics in social occasions.” Especially with strangers, so the proverb goes. I’ve always made a point of violating this myself.
While there are none around here, the worst violators of giving no respect to other forms of religion are the fundamentalist non-denominational Protestant Christians. They are nothing more than cults loosely based on Christianity, like David Koresh’s Branch Dividians. However, it is a shockingly huge percentage of the American populous, and they hate anyone that is not like them. They are so insecure about their cult that they can’t stand to be around anyone that is not a mirror image of themselves and vitriolicly attack all other forms of Christianity, claiming that they are the true Christians and that the majority of the world’s Christians, going all the way back to the council of Nicea, are demonic imposters.
Good luck, Soulfire.
| Bikerman wrote: | | The important words, I think, are 'respect for'. That is not the same as condemning other's beliefs. |
I respect anyone who honestly tries to make a valid answers to these questions, like Soulfire is, whether or not they agree with me. There are fundamental difficulties which all humans face. Hopefully we can all humbly and honestly disagree if we're Christian, muslims, athesists, Buddhists, or anything else.
| Quote: | | I would, however, certainly hope (and would hope you agree) that I am not insensitive in questioning such beliefs and that I am not unreasonable in the way I do so. |
No, and I certainly didn't mean to imply that you were! However I reserve the right to disagree with you.
| Quote: | To say that the notion of linear time is Judeo/Christian is, I believe, a logical fallacy illustrated by:
a) Christian belief is that time is linear
b) Scientific belief is that time is linear
c) Therefore b is based on a |
.
I think you mean to say that linear time was introduced by Christians into science. That linear time was a Judeo/Christian notion, I think, is well established.
That is not the reasoning, nor the point. The reasoning is that a well known Christian known as Isaac Newton, who wrote extensively about Hebrew prophesy (such as the future return of the Jewish people to Israel) and on Hebrew theology, had a large and well thumbed library, introduced this idea into science. I read that he had a profound interest in all things Jewish. His view did not come in a vaccuum, but overturned other pre-existing notions of time - including those of the Greeks, and their early Christian followers, which could be interpreted as science.
| Quote: | | But the reaction of people to theory does not imply anything about the dependence of that theory on a system of beliefs surely? The fact that Hoyle was an atheist and found BB troubling does not imply that the theory was therefore inspired by or a result of non-atheist thinking. |
No, indeed. It is an unhappy coincidence from an atheist's point of view - that the position being pushed by one of their most prominent exponents turned out to be incorrect. It should be a lesson to people repeating the old 1800's slogan "scripture [will turn out to be] false and will have to be ultimately abandoned". Science has had a strange habit of making liars out of people claiming to know it's future.
| Quote: | | I think it is going way too far, however, to attribute modern theory to Judeo-Christianity. |
In the past two quotes you obviously unintentionally misinterpreted me as making an argument about cultural influences. I didn't have that in mind at all. The point is: Whenever science and religion disagreed on a given topic, religious views have not always given way to the scientific one of the time. Indeed, science has been changed by many views which were previously considered Judeo-Christian
| Quote: | | next step is made and that faith is then seen as being exclusively correct in theological and sociological terms. |
In which group one obvious category is militant atheists Christians are told to be blameless, doing good to even our enemies. It's quite a radical idea- and takes some getting used to when you first decide to follow Jesus. Like the militant atheists, however I fully agree with exclusivity however. Two logically opposed theories cannot be correct at the same time. I think it's illogical to suggest they can be.
| nopaniers wrote: | Good luck, Soulfire.
| Bikerman wrote: | | The important words, I think, are 'respect for'. That is not the same as condemning other's beliefs. |
I respect anyone who honestly tries to make a valid answers to these questions, like Soulfire is, whether or not they agree with me. There are fundamental difficulties which all humans face. Hopefully we can all humbly and honestly disagree if we're Christian, muslims, athesists, Buddhists, or anything else. |
Indeed, I concur absolutely. I have also, despite my own lack of belief, been trying to encourage Soulfire, not turn him away from his faith, just to give honest perspective from the 'other side'. I hope that is clear to him (so I'm making it clear now lest you think otherwise Soulfire!). | Quote: |
| Quote: | | I would, however, certainly hope (and would hope you agree) that I am not insensitive in questioning such beliefs and that I am not unreasonable in the way I do so. |
No, and I certainly didn't mean to imply that you were! However I reserve the right to disagree with you. |
Absolutely and I welcome the debate since it is always courteous and normally informative.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | To say that the notion of linear time is Judeo/Christian is, I believe, a logical fallacy illustrated by:
a) Christian belief is that time is linear
b) Scientific belief is that time is linear
c) Therefore b is based on a |
.
I think you mean to say that linear time was introduced by Christians into science. That linear time was a Judeo/Christian notion, I think, is well established. |
Hmm I would not really accept that. We need to be specific about meanings here. (I could not get the wikki link to work). Linear time has a couple of definite and at least one implied meaning. Let's make sure we are on the same one. The implied meaning is as opposed to cyclical or otherwise non-linear progression. One definite meaning is in computation theory (a linear time algorithm is one where the time is proportional to the input). I think we can dismiss that one. The other meaning and the one I assume we are referring to would be the concept of linear time as opposed to the Leibniz' view of time - as something which does not flow and is not an entity, just part of the measuring system.
This dichotomy is better described, I think, as absolute vs relative time. The general concept of time passing in a linear manner pre-dates any Judeo-Christian input and dates back to Sumeria around 2000BC. Let's progress with that assumption | Quote: |
That is not the reasoning, nor the point. The reasoning is that a well known Christian known as Isaac Newton, who wrote extensively about Hebrew prophesy (such as the future return of the Jewish people to Israel) and on Hebrew theology, had a large and well thumbed library, introduced this idea into science. I read that he had a profound interest in all things Jewish. His view did not come in a vaccuum, but overturned other pre-existing notions of time - including those of the Greeks, and their early Christian followers, which could be interpreted as science. |
My point was that Newtons breakthrough was the result of the earlier work of Kepler and Galileo. That is to take nothing away from Newton, just to say that 'cometh the time, cometh the man'. The synthesis of Kepler's 'almost' theory of gravity was inevitable. (I hope you don't mind a slight digression here whilst I quote something astonishing from one of my heroes in science - Kepler). How about this for a theory of gravity 100 years before Newton. It still gives me goosebumps. | Kepler wrote: | | If two stones were placed anywhere in space near to each other, and outside the reach of a third cognate body, then they would come together, after the manner of magnetic bodies, at an intermediate point, each approaching the other in proportion to the other's mass |
Isn't that just breathtaking?
Anyway, to resume. My point was that the breakthrough was due. I think the quote above shows that to be the case. Now, what are the chances of a non-Christian making the breakthrough? Effectively zero. Why? There were no non-religious philosophers or mathematicians of note in that era. Everybody was religious - there was no other choices (if you wanted to live). The fact that Newton was a Jewish scholar is not really important...it was inevitable that this breakthrough would happen and it was inevitable it would be a Christian who made it. We cannot, therefore, attach any significance to the fact that it WAS a Christian who made it since it is a statistical near certainty to start with. That was my point.
| Quote: | | No, indeed. It is an unhappy coincidence from an atheist's point of view - that the position being pushed by one of their most prominent exponents turned out to be incorrect. It should be a lesson to people repeating the old 1800's slogan "scripture [will turn out to be] false and will have to be ultimately abandoned". Science has had a strange habit of making liars out of people claiming to know it's future. |
I agree but my point was that when scripture and science disagree then science will win and religion will back off slowly. The fact that Father Georges-Henri Lemaître 'discovered' the big bang is interesting and Pope Pious XII was a fan of the theory even in the early days since it was deemed compatible with 'creation ex nihilo' - the biblical creation from nothing - but there was no clash between science and religion here, just a clash between an atheist physicist and a religious one.
I do not deny that the Church has, in the past, been responsible for significant advances in science. Bacon, Napier, Kepler - all important figures in science. My main point was that whenever scripture and science have clashed (ie on matters which can be tested) then science will inevitable give an answer and theology has a choice - deny or retreat. I can't think of a counter example but I'd be happy to consider any you can come up with.
My secondary point would be that the Church influence on science has been both positive at times, and, for long periods, very malign. The obsession with Neo-Platonic 'stasis' from the time of Christ until the middle ages was a disaster in terms of scientific advance. By 1500 we knew less, scientifically, that the Greeks did in 500BC. 2000 years of stagnation.
Was this entirely the fault of the Church - no. The Church, however, must accept some responsibility since it was in almost total control of civil, political and academic life during that period.
I am not, I think, being unreasonable here. I have repeatedly defended the Church against the claims made about the Galileo incident and pointed out that he was certainly no martyr for science but rather a pompous prat who pushed his luck too far and forced the Pope into the action taken (which was incredibly moderate considering). He was sentenced to 3 years 'formal prison' which consisted of a stay in 2 Grand Villas where he was housed in "an apartment richly furnished and covered with silks" according to a visitor at the time. I do not attach huge blame to the Church for this - many do. Neither do I deny that at around this time men of learning were treated differently than most others by the Church. Galileo was repeatedly told that he could publish and lecture on the heliocentric system AS LONG AS he did not proclaim it to be literal truth and was content to follow the double-think of the time (which drew a distinction between divine truth and physical truth - the latter being useful for making maps and other worldly tasks, the former being held to be a 'deeper' truth). Nobody seriously supposes that thinkers of the time thought the world was flat any more do they? The fact that the theologians declared it so did not alleviate the need for good maps for sea-fairing which were based on the Greek observations and fully included a spherical earth.
Anyway, I digress, sorry. That period of history is a particular interest of mine and I have read quite a bit on the subject.
Were where we?
| Quote: | | In the past two quotes you obviously unintentionally misinterpreted me as making an argument about cultural influences. I didn't have that in mind at all. The point is: Whenever science and religion disagreed on a given topic, religious views have not always given way to the scientific one of the time. Indeed, science has been changed by many views which were previously considered Judeo-Christian |
If I misinterpreted or misconstrued you then I apologise. I would still like to hear of an example to support this thesis. Can you cite an example of science and scripture clashing where the theology won out? The counter examples that spring to my mind would be shape of the earth, movement of the earth, position of the earth, age of the earth, linguistics (tower of Babel), origin of man, age of man, origin and age of universe, existence of Noah's ark, occurance and date of a world-wide flood.
Can you site a counter case where a scriptural 'fact' has been challenged by science and won out?
| Quote: | | In which group one obvious category is militant atheists Christians are told to be blameless, doing good to even our enemies. It's quite a radical idea- and takes some getting used to when you first decide to follow Jesus. Like the militant atheists, however I fully agree with exclusivity however. Two logically opposed theories cannot be correct at the same time. I think it's illogical to suggest they can be. |
That is true in science for sure, but, as I said, science has no concept of 'truth' in the way that religion does. There are often competing theories in science and may the best theory win. The difference is that science will ultimately test and reject as part of the process.
I don't think the notion of spiritual 'truth' is as clear cut. Religious truths have changed fairly consistently over the last few centuries - see above. Religious truths are matters of faith (by definition) and faith is, again by definition, the acceptance of something which does not rely on logical proof. It is therefore not a case of being illogical because the theories are not based on logic to start with (otherwise they would not be theological). There is always the opportunity to do some scriptural reinterpretation - the Jesuits are really good at it by now  Sorry, I meant that in fun, not as a cheap shot. They *really* are good - I know, trust me!
PS - edited to correct some spelling errors.
The problem here is that Bikerman is using an entirely different definition of religion than you, nopaniers. You are referring exclusively to your own liberal theological notions, while Bikerman is focusing primarily on conservative theological notions, which are notoriously flawed an unreliable.
Bikerman, if you stick to the liberal theological notions which nopaniers is exclusively referring to, your argument evaporates. It is easy to find fault with the lowest common denominator of a group. A fair debate focuses on the best of the opposition and not on the worst of it, especially when the person that you are debating has no affiliation with the riff raff of Christianity that you are trying to focus on.
| Quote: | | Where does "right" come from? Is something "right" because God says so, or does God say it's "right" because it is? Or to put it another way, is there an objective morality that determines rightness and wrongness, or does God's word decide what is right and wrong? |
We aready know what is right and what is wrong. It is as if we have that prewired into us. It doesn't take a theologen to determine that. Heck, it doesn't even take religion to tell us what is right and wrong.
Personnally, I don't care for religion. Just something about being caught up in trying to remember a set of rule to be a guide in life. Religion is dead. I do not consider Christainty to be a religion, but a reletionship. It's a relationship with Christ Jesus. If you study for yourselves the source book for Christainity you can find out what it's about. I'm not going to say much more on this but I will leave you with a challege.
Personnally read the Bible for yourself actually figure out God's charactor and His reason for doing what He does. You have to decover this for yourself, it becomes a personal journey. Christainity is a Personnal relationship with Jesus Christ not religion.
Love God, love people, drink coffee.
www.socialoutcast.co.nr
"Widipedia is not research"
I forgot on thing. You know that guilt feeling when you know you've wronged someone? That's how you know you've done something wrong. So why is that people try to hide from this feeling of being ashamed just as Adam in the Garden of Eden did when he disobeyed God?
It seems that we are only trying to do it on our own. We are trying to intellectualize our thoughts into "logic" and "philsophies".
With Love-
www.socialoutcast.co.nr
socialoutcast, have you ever considered reading some Karl Barth? I particularly like his sticking to reading texts how they were intended by their authors, and image of Jesus at the tangent between God and man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Barth
| socialoutcast wrote: | I forgot on thing. You know that guilt feeling when you know you've wronged someone? That's how you know you've done something wrong. So why is that people try to hide from this feeling of being ashamed just as Adam in the Garden of Eden did when he disobeyed God?
It seems that we are only trying to do it on our own. We are trying to intellectualize our thoughts into "logic" and "philsophies".
With Love-
www.socialoutcast.co.nr |
Do you think that this feeling is somehow linked to religion? Us atheists also feel guilty as well, I promise. The trick is not to do anything to feel guilty about - ie try not to wrong people. This is a principle of ethics and moral philosophy. Why do you think people are hiding from guilt? I promise that I don't feel any guilt about being an atheist...not a twinge. Why would I?
| socialoutcast wrote: | | Quote: | | Where does "right" come from? Is something "right" because God says so, or does God say it's "right" because it is? Or to put it another way, is there an objective morality that determines rightness and wrongness, or does God's word decide what is right and wrong? |
We aready know what is right and what is wrong. It is as if we have that prewired into us. It doesn't take a theologen to determine that. Heck, it doesn't even take religion to tell us what is right and wrong. |
Orly?
So... people who think that it's right to fly planeloads of innocents into civilian buildings are... what?... genetically flawed?
Those who think it's wrong to eat cows have a different genetic makeup ("prewiring") to those who think it's just fine? Civilizations that believe in sharing wives/husbands are made up of a different species than those that believe in monogamy?
| socialoutcast wrote: | | It seems that we are only trying to do it on our own. We are trying to intellectualize our thoughts into "logic" and "philsophies". |
If you believe in a creator god, then you believe that we were given brains and the capacity to use logic and philosophy by that creator god, no?
| Indi wrote: | Orly?
So... people who think that it's right to fly planeloads of innocents into civilian buildings are... what?... genetically flawed?
Those who think it's wrong to eat cows have a different genetic makeup ("prewiring") to those who think it's just fine? Civilizations that believe in sharing wives/husbands are made up of a different species than those that believe in monogamy? |
In short, perhaps? I'm sure you of all people have heard the nature vs. nurture argument. Just as I can't say for sure we have this "prewiring" you can't say we don't.
And not a different species, no, just different genes. You have different genes than I, but that does not make us different species.
| Soulfire wrote: | | Indi wrote: | Orly?
So... people who think that it's right to fly planeloads of innocents into civilian buildings are... what?... genetically flawed?
Those who think it's wrong to eat cows have a different genetic makeup ("prewiring") to those who think it's just fine? Civilizations that believe in sharing wives/husbands are made up of a different species than those that believe in monogamy? |
In short, perhaps? I'm sure you of all people have heard the nature vs. nurture argument. Just as I can't say for sure we have this "prewiring" you can't say we don't. |
i cannot claim that there is no genetic component. But that's not what i said. What i said was - and i can assert this with certainty - there cannot be only a genetic component; there must be a "nurture" element. That contradicts the claim made by socialoutcast.
| Soulfire wrote: | | And not a different species, no, just different genes. You have different genes than I, but that does not make us different species. |
Not so! As a matter of fact, if you had a population that all had a similar genetic profile that was different from other populations (like, for example, a population that was genetically wired to be monogamous vs. one that was not), they would be a separate species... or at the very least a subspecies.
Therefore, if it is true that we are "prewired" to have certain morality, and different populations have moralities unique to them and them alone, then different human cultures would be equivalent to different human species... or subspecies at the very least.
I'm not a biologist but I know a few and their opinion in general terms is the same as mine and the same as the one Indi expresses above.
There is certainly a genetic component to many human characteristics - physical and mental - but it is very easy to overstate the significance of this and understate the significance of environment. Recently the media announced the discovery of a 'Fat Gene'. All across the US and UK overweight people could be heard saying that they knew all along that their weight problem is genetic and now it had been proved. Nonsense. The gene concerned is thought to regulate the absorption of fat, true. The root cause, however, remains the same as it has always been - too much consumption for the activity level of the particular individual. Whilst the gene may mean that some people are more prone to put on weight than others it is still ultimately a matter of choice whether you tailor your diet and exercise accordingly. No gene can alter the fundamental truth that if you eat more calories than you burn you will put on weight, if you don't you wont.
| Indi wrote: | Not so! As a matter of fact, if you had a population that all had a similar genetic profile that was different from other populations (like, for example, a population that was genetically wired to be monogamous vs. one that was not), they would be a separate species... or at the very least a subspecies.
Therefore, if it is true that we are "prewired" to have certain morality, and different populations have moralities unique to them and them alone, then different human cultures would be equivalent to different human species... or subspecies at the very least. |
And I am still in disagreement with you. It's the human species. Pretty simple, eh?
| Soulfire wrote: | | Indi wrote: | Not so! As a matter of fact, if you had a population that all had a similar genetic profile that was different from other populations (like, for example, a population that was genetically wired to be monogamous vs. one that was not), they would be a separate species... or at the very least a subspecies.
Therefore, if it is true that we are "prewired" to have certain morality, and different populations have moralities unique to them and them alone, then different human cultures would be equivalent to different human species... or subspecies at the very least. |
And I am still in disagreement with you. It's the human species. Pretty simple, eh? |
Ah, and because it's simple, it must be true, eh?
No, but you're making it more complicated than it should be.
By your logic, and I may be misunderstanding this, you and I are different species because our genes are not the same?
| Soulfire wrote: | No, but you're making it more complicated than it should be.
By your logic, and I may be misunderstanding this, you and I are different species because our genes are not the same? |
Um... no -_-... on so many levels.
First, i did not claim that morality was completely hardwired. In fact, i think that's a stupid claim... because it leads to things like different (moral) cultures being different species. (Which is what you're objecting to, and rightly so, because it's stupid. But it's not my idea.)
Second... i said it quite clearly: "...if you had a population that all had a similar genetic profile that was different from other populations (like, for example, a population that was genetically wired to be monogamous vs. one that was not), they would be a separate species..." What part of that reads as every little genetic difference means a new species?
Third, if you and i had different moral wiring (ie, genes), we would be a different species (or subspecies) if and only if we belonged to different populations that all shared the same, unique genetic traits. In other words, if there were a definable population that all had the same moral standards as you, and another, separate population that all had the same moral standards as me (and morals really are entirely genetic), then you and i would belong to different species (or subspecies at the least).
Observe: from Wikipedia's page on subspecies (emphasis added by me, to be used shortly): | Quote: | In the context of large living organisms like trees, flowers, birds, fish and humans, a species can be defined as a distinct and recognisable group that satisfies two conditions:
- Members of the group are reliably distinguishable from members of other groups. The distinction can be made in any of a wide number of ways, such as: differently shaped leaves, a different number of primary wing feathers, a particular ritual breeding behaviour, relative size of certain bones, different DNA sequences, and so on. There is no set minimum 'amount of difference': the only criterion is that the difference be reliably discernable. In practice, however, very small differences tend to be ignored.
- The flow of genetic material between the group and other groups is small and can be expected to remain so because even if the two groups were to be placed together they would not interbreed to any great extent.
|
So now consider two human populations, one with the genetic moral coding to be promiscuous (there's no concept of marriage or pair bonding at all) and one with the genetic moral coding for monogamy. Comparing them to the points from Wikipedia:- The two populations would be distinguished both by their DNA (because they have different moral genetic coding) and by their "particular ritual breeding behaviour".
- The two populations would not interbreed because members of one would demand marriage and settling down before breeding while members of the other would object and screw who and when they wanted to.
Thus, the two would be separate species.
If you have two different populations with different moral genetic coding that does not preclude them interbreeding (say, one thinks gambling is wrong and the other doesn't)... then they will be two different subspecies.
Now, let me make this clear (again), because there seems to be some confusion about my stance on all this. THIS IS NOT WHAT I BELIEVE. In fact, i think this is all stupid. But if you assume that morals are entirely genetically encoded (ie, "prewired"), then this is what you end up with.
Consider this: God is the Great Genetic Engineer who is trying to evolve a species that is better suited to be abl to encased a soul in flesh rather than just a feral animal with no real soul, or perhaps some generic collective pre-soul thing, but still not individuated souls, or worse yet, demons in form. I think that there are genetic factors that predispose some to being better able to hear the still small voice. That is precisely why there was a Chosen Race, it is all about genetic engineering.
| Bikerman wrote: | | The implied meaning is as opposed to cyclical or otherwise non-linear progression. |
Yes, that is the notion of time that I meant. Discussing whether the universe can be simulated in O(n) time we can leave for another day.... although for the record, I think it can not be (more likely a polynomial in n). Which leads me to some interesting questions. Sorry, it's late and my mind is wandering.
| Quote: | | My point was that Newtons breakthrough was the result of the earlier work of Kepler and Galileo. |
The Christian worldview far from being over-run by science, has frequently been confirmed by it. I totally agree about Kepler being brilliant. He was a Lutheran by the way, who desired to become a minister. The guy was really amazing, and clearly Newton's work on gravitation follows on from Kepler's. It was Kepler's thesis that the heliocentric view was supported both theoretically and theologically. His theological view, that there should be geometrical order in a universe created by God - is something which is now backed by a lot of evidence. The relationship between science and religion is not so simple as science steamrolling religion. That's just not supported by the evidence.
| Quote: | | My main point was that whenever scripture and science have clashed (ie on matters which can be tested) then science will inevitable give an answer and theology has a choice - deny or retreat. I can't think of a counter example but I'd be happy to consider any you can come up with. |
Science and Christianity have often been complimentary, not antagonistic. Of course Christians don't agree with atheists, but atheism is far from science (and I would suggest that many atheist philosophies are in contradiction with science - for example take the claim that religion is detrimental). There are many examples of people misusing science like this in the past:
- Social Darwinism, eugenics and the subsequent political policies. We do seek to eliminate people who are weak, or of an 'inferior' race.
- The Soviet Union collapsed, and Christianity is on the rise in Eastern Europe. Far from being the 'opium of the people' and the Marxist 'scientific' view of history as being inevitable, it is now very clear that it is not. This happened not only under Stalin, but also under Kruschev in the late 50's and early 60's. In all some 20 million people (not all Christian) died under the atheist regime, who believed that their view of the world was scientific.
| Quote: | | My secondary point would be that the Church influence on science has been both positive at times, and, for long periods, very malign. The obsession with Neo-Platonic 'stasis' from the time of Christ until the middle ages was a disaster in terms of scientific advance. By 1500 we knew less, scientifically, that the Greeks did in 500BC. |
I don't think the church is perfect (as, ironically, the bible teaches) but I definitely don't blame the church for everything that you seem to.
Science requires surplus wealth, so when there's a choice between eating and playing with telescopes most people would prefer to eat. When the European countries (as was also the case with the Moors, Indians and Chinese) did get wealthy - in Europe's case by colonialism - all of a sudden they had a lot more money and science advanced again. Surplus money has a much bigger influence on science than religious belief. In most periods of history, and in most of the world today, people simply had more important things to worry about than science.
It's also naive to project our views of science onto the past, and indeed onto the future. When our resources are running low, or if our politicians accidently nuke the planet, people might not take such a rosy view of science. Then we will be worried why people let science out of control without considering the hearts of the men and women who controlled it.
If anything the church was a positive influence on scientific development. You yourself keep saying that all scientists were Christians. Is this because there were no other religions in the world? No. It was the church where the intellectual traditions were maintained and advanced, and what science there was, was done under the patronage of the church. Here in the UK universities like Oxford and Cambridge were set up. It was until the end of the 1800's that the church was the primary support of scientists by which time almost all the work we've been discussing had already taken place.
| Quote: | | Galileo was repeatedly told that he could publish and lecture on the heliocentric system AS LONG AS he did not proclaim it to be literal truth and was content to follow the double-think of the time (which drew a distinction between divine truth and physical truth - the latter being useful for making maps and other worldly tasks, the former being held to be a 'deeper' truth). |
The heliocentric system is not the literal truth. Today it has been replaced by special and general relativity. Science, in my humble opinion, should never be presented as a literal truth. It should be presented in an honest way, with reference to the experiments which support or refute.
And that most people regard spiritual truths as more fundamental, consider why eugenics is not practiced today. Being "scientific" will not convince anyone to something immoral. I certainly believe that religious truths are more fundamental than scientific ones.
| Quote: | Nobody seriously supposes that thinkers of the time thought the world was flat any more do they? The fact that the theologians declared it so
did not alleviate the need for good maps for sea-fairing which were based on the Greek observations and fully included a spherical earth. |
The vast majority of theologians did not. This (apparently) was number 1 on the Historical Society of Britain's list of people's misconceptions about history. It was introduced as atheist propaganda last century by White and Draper - although you could argue it was earlier mentioned in fiction, by Irving. They did this for obvious motives too - to discredit Christianity. There are tens of thousands of church fathers who believed in a spherical earth, compared to around five minor figures who disagreed. For example St Augustine argues about the antipodes:
| Quote: | | But as to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours, that is on no ground credible. And, indeed, it is not affirmed that this has been learned by historical knowledge, but by scientific conjecture, on the ground that the earth is suspended within the concavity of the sky, and that it has as much room on the one side of it as on the other: hence they say that the part which is beneath must also be inhabited. But they do not remark that, although it be supposed or scientifically demonstrated that the world is of a round and spherical form, yet it does not follow that the other side of the earth is bare of water; nor even, though it be bare, does it immediately follow that it is peopled. |
Or, as you say in maps and Encyclopedias produced in monestaries, we have ample evidence that they believed the world was round. Another very prominent example is in the writings of Bede, and in the debate which continued about the antipodes (the debate questioned: if there were people who lived on the opposite side of the world if they could have the same genetic origin). Another famous example is the Etymologies, a famous encyclopaedia written by the bishop of Seville, clearly teaches that the world is round.
| Quote: | | That is true in science for sure, but, as I said, science has no concept of 'truth' in the way that religion does. |
Or indeed, the concept of truth that most people accept. Science is, contrary to what you seemed to suggest before, only a theory. It is not the literal truth. It is a theory that can be, and often is, swept away by a large change.
| Quote: | | The difference is that science will ultimately test and reject as part of the process. |
We will all die long before science has the answers (and more than that, we know that it can never have all the answers we want) to the questions we want to answer. And that will only lead to more questions. As much as I love science, it is the wrong tool for the job here.
We have to make decisions in a situation where we do not have complete knowledge. Christians acknowledge this, as do scientists.
| Quote: | | Religious truths are matters of faith (by definition) and faith is, again by definition, the acceptance of something which does not rely on logical proof. It is therefore not a case of being illogical because the theories are not based on logic to start with (otherwise they would not be theological). |
That's a neat play on words . Theological does not mean not illogical. All logic proceeds in small logical steps from assumptions. Theology does that, so it is logical. That you don't accept the assumptions just means that you're not a Christian. I don't accept your assumption that there is no God. That doesn't mean that I think you are illogical even though your assumption is flawed.
I have recently been doing a lot of thinking about where the boundaries of logic and science lie. Before I would have said there are no boundaries, but I now believe that that is an extremely naive view. That is something that I have found that Christians understand a lot better than atheists - for example Alister McGrath. I've found a lot of what I just assumed were details before - for example the underpinning of the philosophy of science - to be much more significant than I first thought.
I don't think people reinterpret as much as you think, considering I directly read the words of 2000 years ago and agree with what I read. Certainly the central tenents of my faith have not changed from the views expressed:
| Quote: | | You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honour and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being. |
| Quote: | | There is no-one righteous, not even one; there is no-one who understands, no-one who seeks God. All have turned away. |
| Quote: | | Man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgement. |
| Quote: | | Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. |
| Quote: | | In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. |
| Quote: | | Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him. |
I'm sure you can google those verses in context which would give you a better view.
| Quote: | | There is always the opportunity to do some scriptural reinterpretation - the Jesuits are really good at it by now |
I'm a realist. People are fallible. Our views are not always absolutely correct, as the bible teaches. However, I do not believe that changing views on heliocentric to relativistic models will change one thing about the orbit of Earth, any more than I think if someone changes their beliefs about religious views that will change the nature of God.
I'll have to trust you on the Jesuits. I am a protestant, so I agree that some Catholics sometimes need a little scriptural reinterpretation - or indeed in some cases any interpretation at all . It is ironic that I agree with you on tradition, but I do so because I think Christianity is about following Christ, not about rituals.
I agree with Soulfire and socialoutcast. Morality is not something that comes from a purely rational basis. It is built into our consciences. We know it when we do things which are wrong, whether we like to admit it or not. That is not something distinct to one particular race, not Europeans, or Chinese, Zimbabweans or Indians, or even New Zealanders. Even little children cover their mouths with their hands when they lie. Of course you can train yourself to lie without giving any sign of it, but it definitely not natural.
Quakers take it to an extreme, and believe in listening carefully to God's Holy Spirit ministering to their hearts. Personally I wouldn't go so far, but if anyone wants to explain to me why since I became a Christian my soul jumps with joy at good, then be my guest.
PS. No, the simplest view is not always the correct one
I don't believe that morals are hard wired into our brains at all. At least not from birth as some seem to imply. Morals are taught from a very early age. If we had morals hardwired into our brains, an instinct for morality if you will, then there wouldn't be so many varying social taboos throughout different cultures.
Ypu might argue that every culture sees some of the major issues of right and wrong the same, but I'd have to disagree. I think we have all heard of cultures where some very major taboos in our culture are seen as natural functions of life or even spirituality. Canabalism, necrophelia, beastiality, and incest are major western taboos that are common in other parts of the world not as aberrations but as common events with no stigma.
Even in the western world there are people with differing moral values. One can believe that as long as you do not physically harm a person that you are not being cruel to them, while others believe that you must not abuse anyone physically, mentally, emotionally, or spiritually in order to avoid being cruel.
These traits are not hardwired either before or from birth. We are indoctrinated into the social norms of our societies and slowly we are learning from the mistakes of our past (hopefully). I still wonder sometimes that is there was still a pristine culture untouched by the modern world out there if we would be able to leave it alone. Maybe if they didn't have anything we desired. No doubt if they did though there would be someone who would want to "bring civilization the savages" and yet another culture will die. No doubt who ever did it would not see it as a bad thing.
| Quote: | | Canabalism, necrophelia, beastiality, and incest are major western taboos that are common in other parts of the world not as aberrations but as common events with no stigma. |
These things are wrong. We don't have to be politically correct and say that everything that has been practised by every culture is morally the same. They're not. It is wrong to kill and eat someone else. It is wrong to have sex with your sister, with a corpse or with a dog.
no one person can say what is right or wrong
even if nopaniers, u believe that these practices are immoral
u cannot alone determine them to be wrong
although in most cases i believe you to be correct about said practices
that does not mean u are right
there are many common acts performed around the world which u wouldnt do on the basis or immorallity
and there are things that u do that other ppl wouldnt on the same grounds
|
