• Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Bear Bibeault
  • Paul Clapham
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Knute Snortum
Sheriffs:
  • Liutauras Vilda
  • Tim Cooke
  • Junilu Lacar
Saloon Keepers:
  • Ron McLeod
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Tim Moores
  • Tim Holloway
  • Carey Brown
Bartenders:
  • Joe Ess
  • salvin francis
  • fred rosenberger

Bible Study

 
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Jim: I would agree with Joe that that Europe in general probably has more believers than Map suggests. ... Sounds like a substatial overstatement to say "only the USA has a high percent of believers" though. Intensity of belief was not previously the topic, was it?
Depends on how you define "believer". Under some definitions we can get as much as 100%, I am sure. In J.A.Perry's "Twelve stories of Russia" there is a relevant dialog. During a wedding celebration a groom claims that if you throw a spoon in the air, it will imminently fall down. "Because in Russia everything falls". However, when he is offered a bet on conditions that if the spoon will stay in the air, he will have to stay away from vodka for the rest of his wedding, he decides that he wouldn't bet on such conditions.
On the diagram we see that in some countries percent of "strong believers" is as high as 90+, while in other it's around 20. If we lump everybody in one category, it will only conceal the truth. I agree that my wording wasn't accurate, though.
 
Wanderer
Posts: 18671
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Re: vague innuendo: fair enough, Joe. I retract my comments about that. I was miffed at your remark about arrogance, and interpreted other parts of your post in a less than positive light. My bad. You're right, it is an interesting question with a number of possible explanations, and worth consideration. Cheers...
[ October 20, 2003: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I'm going to get out of this conversation as well. Already we've started with irrelevant statistics. Map, this URL says NOTHING about whether people believe in God, only whether they consider religion important. Those are different questions.
Joe, this URL said: "Six-in-ten (59%) people in the U.S. say religion plays a very important role in their lives. This is roughly twice the percentage of self-avowed religious people in Canada"
I don't know why I bother.
I also wonder. "we've started with irrelevant statistics" -- we were at the end of the second page, hardly a start... I considered this question very tangential, I only gave this link upon your request. Frankly, I am more interested in watching Eugene's progress on his path to unite faith and logic.
[ October 20, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
The question that I entertain is not "Is there God?", but how to become God


Oh gosh. I just realized... Eugene wants to be Q!
Joe
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
[Joe]: I come to believe more and more that it requires quite a remarkable bit of arrogance to be a true atheist.
Jim: Oh dear. Will I be able to qualify as a true atheist I wonder? Maybe if I come up short in the arrogance deparment, I can borrow some from some other rancher here who has a surplus he could afford to lose. :roll:
Jim, if you are certain there is no God, as opposed to questioning whether one exists, then yes I believe you're arrogant.
It's my opinion, certainly, but it seems supremely arrogant to me to think that all of this (waving arms to encompass the entirety of the Universe) was simply random events. Agnosticism is a different matter - it's normal to doubt that which you cannot see. But to think that you have Creation figured out, that you could understand how this all works without a Creator, then yes, I think that's arrogant.
I was agnostic for a long time, until I realized (for me!) that agnosticism was simply skirting the issue. Issues in my life caused me to finally take a stand, and my stand is that there is a God.
Besides, there's a pragmatic side to it... if there is no God, when I die I'm gone and I'll never know. But if I deny God, and I'm wrong, then I've got a lot to answer for when I die... >grin<
In the end, it's not that serious, and it's a purely personal issue. I would not think less of you or more if you were agnostic, atheistic, monotheistic or pantheistic. If you act morally and with benevolence towards others, you can worship doorknobs for all I care. Who said arrogance is necessarily a BAD thing? It's just another character trait, and God knows I've got a few quirks of my own.
Anywho, like I said, I'm outta this one. You think the Good vs. Evil thing can get out of hand? That's small potatoes compared to this one. And unlike the Good vs. Evil question, I don't really need any further input on this one... my mind is firmly made up.
Joe
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Joe, this URL said: "Six-in-ten (59%) people in the U.S. say religion plays a very important role in their lives. This is roughly twice the percentage of self-avowed religious people in Canada"


But it doesn't address the question, Map. It doesn't say that these people believe in God or not, so it's irrelevant. Many non-religious people believe in God (me, for one).
Joe
 
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Posts: 18671
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Map, I agree that the percentage of "believers" will depend on how high we set the threshold of "belief", and I'm sure we could get a lot of different numbers depending on how the questions are asked. Looking back, I don't think it really matters much. We first got onto comparative statistics in this thread as a result of this exchange:
[Map]: The book has some interesting statistics on why people said they believe in God (the main reason that the world is too complex and too beautiful for them to accept any ordinary explanation of its creation)
[Joe]: And why is a belief in God not "ordinary", Map? Since some 90% of the known world tends to practice some sort of theism, it seems to me that proposing the LACK of God is the less ordinary state.

I think that rather than going into statictics, this point may be better addressed by refining what is meant by "ordinary". I think Map probably meant the word as something like plain, boring, mundane, as opposed to divinely inspired. Not that the idea of the Big Bang is boring, except in comparison with the idea of a wondrous deity taking a personal interest in things. Maybe that's not what Map meant, but that's how I took the statement, and if I'm right, no statement about popularity or probabiliy was intended, and the stats on various religions are beside the point and can be dropped.
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
"we've started with irrelevant statistics" -- we were at the end of the second page, hardly a start...


Different meaning of "started" - perhaps a better phrasing would have been "the irrelevant statistics have begun already". Anyway, you believe there are tons of atheists out there despite what seems to me to be pretty overwhleming dissent, then I'm okay with that. I'm not here to convince you of the validity of MY personal view of God, that's for certain! God is far too personal a subject.
I just wanted to chime in with my own view that trying to find out the logic of God by arguing the semantics of the Bible is an interesting but probably fruitless endeavor.
And if you don't agree, then ignore me! Let this thread return to its previously scheduled discussion. Unite faith and logic. I'm glad I don't need that particular fusion - it would seem to take something away from each.
Joe
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Joe, I believe yous usage of the word "religious" is non-standard.
American Heritage Dictionary:
"re�lig�ious adj. Abbr. rel. 1. Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity."
Different meaning of "started" - perhaps a better phrasing would have been "the irrelevant statistics have begun already".
For me this implies that it will continue. Speaking about generosity of spirit...
Anyway, you believe there are tons of atheists out there despite what seems to me to be pretty overwhleming dissent, then I'm okay with that.
Where on the Earth did I say it? That's a very twisted paraphrase on my views. That's fine with me, I just wanted to remind an old saying:
"People who live in glass houses should not throw stones".
[ October 20, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Sorry, Map, but the standard American definition is more:
2: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances
Rarely would an American consider someone religious who does not have a church (or mosque or temple, or whatever) that they belong to. This is simply an issue of common usage, not of dictionary definitions.
Instead, the term "spiritual" is typically used to denote someone who believes in God while professing no particular religious affiliation, whereas "religious" deals with people who are indeed affiliated with some religious order. Note that religious people can also be spiritual, but spirituality is typically the term used to identify belief in God without any particular religious denomination.
And that's it, really. I have no more to say on the matter.
I do not believe myself more "right" or "better" than anyone because I believe in God. I do not consider atheists to be stupid, or bad, people. I do think atheism requires hubris, or arrogance. I believe faith probably does as well, but since it's a belief in something larger than oneself, I think it's a different type of arrogance. And maybe that's arrogant in itself .
In any event, please, don't let me step on your toes. You can't convince me otherwise, so I shouldn't think I can convince you.
THAT would be arrogant.
Joe
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
People who beleive in God aren't necessarily religious. And people who said "religion plays a very important role in their lives" do not necessarily believe in God... Shaking my head. Maybe. Maybe this is the standard American definition of "religious"...
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
People who beleive in God aren't necessarily religious. Shaking head


Map, let me be VERY clear on this point: A person can have a profound and unwavering belief in God and have no religious affiliation whatsoever.
Joe
[ October 20, 2003: Message edited by: Joe Pluta ]
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Jim: I think that rather than going into statictics, this point may be better addressed by refining what is meant by "ordinary". I think Map probably meant the word as something like plain, boring, mundane, as opposed to divinely inspired.
You probably missed one of my posts, I'll repeat it here for not to make you search

"ordinary explanation" is an ambiguous construction, sorry for that. I used the word "ordinary" as a synonym for "natural" and as an antonym of "supernatural". In my understanding, the essence of the concept of "God" is that it is some kind of supernatural force, not ordinary. You can use any other name if you like them better. I meant "ordinary explanation" in the sense "explanation that doesn't mention any unordinary, supernatural reason or forces".


"boring, mundane" bears certain negative attitude, while I intended "ordinary" in neutral sense. Something observable, it can be quite exciting, yet cannot be accounted for a creation of the Universe.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1340
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
God created humans to appreciate His work and to worship Him. That's really weird and bit arrogant. However if I was God I'd have the right to be arrogant because I invented it.
Humans created in the image of God, the supreme being and creator of the universe, Earth and all life? That's a wee bit arrogant too IMO.
God has a special place to go when we die made just for us if we're all nice boys and girls? More arrogance
PS. has anyone ever read the Preacher comic series by Garth Ennis? A dissolusioned preacher with a special power (the voice of God) goes on a quest to find God, not in a metophorical sense, but to actually, physically find him. Great reading, best comic I ever read.
[ October 20, 2003: Message edited by: Richard Hawkes ]
 
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Posts: 18671
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Re: standard definitions of "religious": heck, they're both pretty common and standard in the US; one must look to the context to figure out which is meant. If a person is drawing a distiction between organized religion and "spirituality", then "religion" probably means definition number 2. If they just say "religious" without more context though, it could very well mean #1. In any event it's reasonably clear what Joe means when he uses the word, and I wouldn't call it non-standard. Though perhaps not quite as standard as he thinks it is.
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Map, let me be VERY clear on this point: A person can have a profound and unwavering belief in God and have no religious affiliation whatsoever.
Ok, you understand "religious" as someone who shares a certain system of beliefs with at least several other human beings, right? As opposed to someone with strictly personal beliefs. I was using the word "religious" to designate anybody who believes in any kind of God. So which usage is more typical? (this question is addressed to other native speakers of English)
The last question is withdrawn upon reading Jim's post.
[ October 20, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
Though perhaps not quite as standard as he thinks it is.


It's actually very standard in my circles, but that's different. But I do think the difference between religious and spiritual is becoming more mainstream than perhaps it once was. I think that not too long ago, to be spiritual but a-religious (to coin a phrase) was sort of looked askance at, perhaps equated with crystals or Nature Worship. These days, spirituality as a precept outside of religious affiliation has gained much more acceptance. Especially since those who practice it do not look askance on religion. Amazingly, there are many spritual people who believe in religion, too!
(And just in case anyone misses the significance of all the smilies, that last sentence was DEFINITELY meant to be toungue-in-cheek.)
And now I am out of here. Need sleep, and gotta get my lovely wife to bed. She's asleep on the couch, as she is wont to do these days (easier for her to fall asleep at this point in the pregnancy). I hope nobody has taken too much offense, and in the wonderful words of Dave Allen:
"Goodnight, and may your God go with you."
I guess the atheists travel alone .
Joe
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Ok, you understand "religious" as someone who shares a certain system of beliefs with at least several other human beings, right?


Yeah, Map. We call that system of beliefs a "religion". Hence the term "religious". To have faith without an organized religion is called "spirituality".
Goodnight!
Joe
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Good night, Joe!!!
Thanks for interesting conversation!
Ok everybody, now when Joe left we can talk what we think about him.
 
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Posts: 18671
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
But I do think the difference between religious and spiritual is becoming more mainstream than perhaps it once was.
Agreed, this usage seems to be on the rise. There's an increased awareness of the need to make this distinction, and while there's a nice separate word for "spiritual", there's not really a good term for the other side of the coin, so it's sort of gradually taking over the term "religious". My perception, anyway. As Joe notes, it depends what circles you travel with; some people may give a very different account of what's "standard".
As another perspective, I had one friend who insisted she didn't believe in anything that could be referred to as God, but that she was very "spiritual". I never did get a good understanding of what this really meant. Whatever it was seemed too fuzzy to mean anything to me.
"Goodnight, and may your God go with you."
I guess the atheists travel alone .

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I was taught a gentleman does not discuss the details.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Ok, you understand "religious" as someone who shares a certain system of beliefs with at least several other human beings, right?
I think, I will call it 'XYZ society', rather than giving it a name 'religious'.
I was using the word "religious" to designate anybody who believes in any kind of God.
I think, you are right. For a religion to exist, there has to be a deity.
The last question is withdrawn upon reading Jim's post.
Basic problem of 'arrogant' socialist
[Jim]I had one friend who insisted she didn't believe in anything that could be referred to as God, but that she was very "spiritual".
She is very much right. Sprituality has nothing to do with God or religion.
Just poking my nose
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 820
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
[Joe]: I come to believe more and more that it requires quite a remarkable bit of arrogance to be a true atheist.
Jim: Oh dear. Will I be able to qualify as a true atheist I wonder? Maybe if I come up short in the arrogance deparment, I can borrow some from some other rancher here who has a surplus he could afford to lose. :roll:
Jim, if you are certain there is no God, as opposed to questioning whether one exists, then yes I believe you're arrogant.
<snip>
Anywho, like I said, I'm outta this one. You think the Good vs. Evil thing can get out of hand? That's small potatoes compared to this one. And unlike the Good vs. Evil question, I don't really need any further input on this one... my mind is firmly made up.
Joe


How is this any less arrogant than atheism? You say that to say "there is no god" is arrogant. The opposite surely applies - "there is definatly a god" is just as arrogant.
Thing is that a large percentage of the world (me included) seem to have some problems accepting that we could be wrong.
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe King:
How is this any less arrogant than atheism? You say that to say "there is no god" is arrogant. The opposite surely applies - "there is definatly a god" is just as arrogant.


Arrogant in a different way, Joe... I think I covered that in the post itself. And it's just my opinion that NOT believing there is Something greater than us that created all this is more arrogant than believing there is.
And it's JUST MY OPINION.
Joe
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 3404
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Stephen Hawkings must be arrogant, then.

A Brief History of Time by the most famous modern physicist,
Stephen Hawkings is worth a mention.
It does overlap the Christian belief but does it with respect and no attacks within the five traditional arguments for the existence of God.
The cosmological argument: the effect of the universe's existence must have a suitable cause.
The teleological argument: the design of the universe implies a purpose or direction behind it.
The rational argument: the operation of the universe, according to order and natural law, implies a mind behind it.
The ontological argument: man's ideas of God (his God-consciousness) implies a God who imprinted such a consciousness.
The moral argument: man's built-in sense of right and wrong can be accounted for only by an innate awareness of a code of law--an awareness implanted by a higher being.
And while being a very successful book commercially, it is also one of the most unread books in literature considering it's quite a slim book.
Science is a few years away from proving the existence of black holes.
But Stephen Hawking may never get a Nobel Prize.
regards
[ October 21, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]
 
HS Thomas
Ranch Hand
Posts: 3404
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Albert Einstein never believed in a personal God, either. Arrogant!
"Albert Einstein's reaction to the consequences of his own general theory of relativity appear to acknowledge the threat of an encounter with God. Through the equations of general relativity, we can trace the origin of the universe backward in time to some sort of a beginning. However, before publishing his cosmological inferences, Einstein introduced a cosmological constant, a "fudge factor," to yield a static model for the universe. Einstein later considered this to be the greatest blunder of his scientific career.
Einstein ultimately gave grudging acceptance to what he called "the necessity for a beginning" and eventually to "the presence of a superior reasoning power." But he never did accept the reality of a personal God.
Why such resistance to the idea of a definite beginning of the universe? It goes right back to that first argument, the cosmological argument: (a) Everything that begins to exist must have a cause; (b) If the universe began to exist, then (c) the universe must have a cause. You can see the direction in which this argument is flowing--a direction of discomfort to some physicists."
regards
 
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Posts: 18671
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Why such resistance to the idea of a definite beginning of the universe?
As I recall, the cosmological constant also served to prevent (possible) later collapse of the universe. Maybe that was what concerned him.
 
HS Thomas
Ranch Hand
Posts: 3404
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
If Life is an ordered process since the beginning of Time (the Big Bang?), perhaps those black holes should come into use if the universe does collapse seeing that man has begun to study what happens to things that disappear down black holes ? The current consensus seems to be the force would be so big that anything would be ripped to pieces - forget time travelling to a distant galaxy. But who says that this is not in God's plan ? It could even be in the Bible we just don't understand it.

(There is some controvery re: Einstein's cosmological constant in that he was more plagiarist than scientist.)

regards
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Albert Einstein never believed in a personal God, either. Arrogant!


I never said lack of belief in a personal God was arrogant - I said atheism was arrogant. And as to whether Einstein and Hawking could be called arrogant, well yes, actually. Most geniuses are, especially physicists (Bardeen being a notable exception).
I'm not certain why you point to someone who has a gift in a certain area of scientific endeavor (such as physics) and somehow confer upon that person a better understanding of theological points. Einstein's personal life was not one to emulate, while Hawking himself has admitted his own arrogance (besides, if anyone has a right to doubt the concept of a benevolent God, I think it would be Stephen Hawking).
By the way, I've read not only ABHoT, but also The Universe in a Nutshell, The Theory of Everything and Black Holes and Baby Universes. I also own a copy of Einstein's original General Relativity. I believe both men are extraordinary contributors to 20th century science, and unparalleled scientific minds.
At the same time, you miss two other giants: Richard Feynman and John Bardeen, lesser known geniuses of the 20th century (Bardeen is the only person to have won TWO Nobel prizes in physics, while Feynman invented the time-space diagramming that bears his name). Both gentlemen believed in God.
Finally, an atheist believes there is no God and neither Einstein nor Hawking were atheists. Einstein and Hawking both fall in between, with Einstein believing in an impersonal God and Hawking at least allowing for the possibility. Neither one ever absolutely stated that there is no God.
Joe
 
HS Thomas
Ranch Hand
Posts: 3404
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

besides, if anyone has a right to doubt the concept of a benevolent God, I think it would be Stephen Hawking


I wondered about that, too. His disabilities are extra-ordinary to say the least with decreasing speech and body functions and all that's left is his mind. If it hadn't been for the dedicated care of his wife who is a strong Christian and has said without her faith in God, she could never have the inner resources to take care of him the way she did , we may never have had a Stephen Hawking. (He currently lives/is married to his nurse of the last 5 yrs so perhaps his work is almost done).
regards
 
Richard Hawkes
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1340
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
My previous boss in Cambridge met Hawkings a few times. [gossip]He said that when he got (frequently) agitated with people he tried to run over their feet with his wheel-chair[/gossip]
 
HS Thomas
Ranch Hand
Posts: 3404
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Joe Pluta : I'm not certain why you point to someone who has a gift in a certain area of scientific endeavor (such as physics) and somehow confer upon that person a better understanding of theological points.


SH was raised within a scientific background (SH mentors were his mother, a Communist Party member and Bertrand Russell, a well known atheist and his mind about God was made up early on ) and therefore when questioning the Universe (as all man do in whatever capacity they have), men of Science use Science. In this respect, ie in their work, they were atheists IMHO. Science does not acknowledge the presence of God. It doesn't have a constant for God.
But they are man, too, who did not deny outright the existence of God.
They must have theologised about the existence of God but did not let it drive their work.
{Unless, like Jim pointed out the cosmological constant theory was put together by Einstein out of a fear that the Universe would collapse. ]
To explain the Universe in God terms they'd have to start from God beyond the Big Bang. Philosophy and Theology are not adequate for this purpose. it's main purpose, seems to me, is to provide the necessary restraint. These are the rules that mankind as a whole should try to live by and is the closest thing we have to describing what is God-like in us.We are all prisoners of conscience. But these rules are not Absolutes. (Well, some are).
"Let he who is without sin throw the first stone".

It's curious, but when men first went into Space the astronauts recounted that it felt as though they were closer to experiencing God. You don't hear of such comments from modern day astronauts. The wonder has diminished somewhat through the eyes of media, satellites. We've almost all been there now in some way. Seeing a 3D film on space travel was another mind-shifting experience, I must admit. Science will always have to push the boundaries again and again. In Science ,there are so many ways to get from A to B and so many constants that are not constant when taking an alternative approach.
Philosophy and Theology are similarly afflicted as they are after all creations of man.
Believers think/know that they have a God constant ,which no mathematics can prove and which is always constant. That knowledge is not acquired within the bounds of science and science cannot lead to it.
The God constant doesn't take you places. I think a God world will be a very still place with no time-space boundaries, good for doing God-like things. Think mind travel .

By the way, I've read not only ABHoT

The first edition is about all I've tried to read. And that was when it came out first. The second edition is a book on the film about the book I believe. I've got some catching up to do.

Richard Feynman : Is he readable from a GOD POV ?
What books on theology have you read that you'd recommend, Joe?
Or any atheits ? A debate requires both sides to be read.
regards
[ October 22, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]
 
HS Thomas
Ranch Hand
Posts: 3404
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Richrd Hawkes : [gossip]He said that when he got (frequently) agitated with people he tried to run over their feet with his wheel-chair[/gossip]


I've read that he can really be cantankerous. Well, who wouldn't be. He has had this disease for 32 years which progressively got worse.
Most people with the disease die after 5 years on average. To his doctors, just on that basis , he is a miracle.
regards
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by HS Thomas:
Richard Feynman : Is he readable from a GOD POV ? What books on theology have you read that you'd recommend, Joe?


Feynman (probably one of the most traveled of the 20th century geniuses) believed that moral questions could not be answered by science. So his conversations would usually be about one or the other, but rarely both.
Me, I have a Catholic upbringing and I stopped reading theology in college. My morality is eclectic and based on experience, not study.
Joe
 
author and iconoclast
Posts: 24203
43
Mac OS X Eclipse IDE Chrome
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator


Besides, there's a pragmatic side to it... if there is no God, when I die I'm gone and I'll never know. But if I deny God, and I'm wrong, then I've got a lot to answer for when I die... >grin<


This is known as "Pascal's Wager," having been first articulated by the selfsame Blaise Pascal who invented structured programming... er, wait, no. But It was Pascal, anyway. here's an interesting page, one of many on the Web, discussing the inherent fallacy it represents.
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Ernest Friedman-Hill:
here's an interesting page, one of many on the Web, discussing the inherent fallacy it represents.


Not to impugn you in any way, Ernest, but that has to be one of the silliest websites I've ever read.
Pascal's wager is in valid because Christianity inflicts untold harm on the world. Ooooooooooooookay. In fact, we have a moral duty to stamp out Christianity, before it causes more damage!
I'm no apologist for Christianity, but this is a little overboard, not to mention having absolutely nothing to do with the concept of whether there is a God or not. To use Pascal's Wager as a premise for a rabid tirade aainst Christianity - all I can say is Wow!
And of course, I said the whole thing tongue in cheek anyway. You guys take this stuff WAY too seriously...
Joe
 
HS Thomas
Ranch Hand
Posts: 3404
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator


Quote from EFH's link:

"Christianity, in its Roman Catholic form, would also have us believe that the main problems of the world are not whether innocent people get killed in wars but whether husbands use condoms when making love to their wives. It seems far more important for the Catholic Church to set rigid rules against abortion than to humanely allow for abortion in cases where the mother's life seems to be in danger and in cases of rape. This attitude of enforcing forced pregnancies on women who could ill afford it is a direct descendent of the misogynist outlook present in the bible and further elaborated by the teachings of the fathers of the church. Women, in fact, had been consistently one of the main victims of this religion of hate clothed underneath empty words of love."


While it isn't done quite to the same extent as yet, but governments are trying to instill a sense of moral responsibility in women to have more babies in light of a declining population.
Women may be considered victims again, perhaps ?
JP : My morality is eclectic and based on experience, not study.


An eclectic faith would describe most people's faith but they also tend to share their views, the majority even self-organise into groups. It seems to be a law of human nature or nature even. A faith with no purpose (no organisation) would be deemed of less value in some respects. Would that bother you, Joe ? Experience alone cannot be the guiding principle,
methinks, but defining that which is sought which leads to re-defining of the self. Which leads to more sharing - like - do other people share the same experiences.
regards
[ October 22, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Would WHAT bother me?
My only position on this whole thing has been that there is a God. I think I was pretty clear that I profess no specific religious affiliation. If you folks want to go off on a rabid religion-bashing rampage, have fun! But don't try to suck me into comparisons of Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Judaism, or into discussions of the morality of Taoism, or whether Mormons oppress women, or the Amish oppress their horses. You want to pick no people's religion, leave me out of it.
Being a-religious, I think of the line from Sweet Home Alabama: "Watergate does not bother me, does your conscience bother you?"
Joe
 
HS Thomas
Ranch Hand
Posts: 3404
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

"Watergate does not bother me, does your conscience bother you?"


If I'm interpreting that phrase right, that's a good position to take.
I was just trying to get a handle on this "eclectic morality". I said
eclectic faith, I know. But is there any real difference? Other than that one suggests more activism than the other.

From the following it seems you cannot choose a word to describe morality without the possibility that someone already has turned it into a religion.
"The Eclectic Church" who have this on their main page:
"True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. People who are hungry and out a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made. (FD Roosevelt)"
and they have their version of the Lord's Prayer.
"Our Father, may your name always be sacred
among the peoples of this earth.
Lead us into your Kingdom of Love so that your will might be carried out on this earth as it is throughout the heavens.
Continue to aid us in earning our daily bread and be with us while we do so.
Forgive us as we forgive those around us, helping us to always forgive others so we might be worthy of your forgiveness.
Lead us away from things that will offend You, and things that will offend others we may encounter.
Deliver us from the evils of this world: bigotry, hatred, and oppression --- and deliver us from failure with our lives in Your eyes and in our own eyes.
Father, we know that Your Kingdom is in Your Love, Your Power is in Love, Your Glory is in Loving --- Help us to always Love! ---------------------Amen.
We pray this prayer in the Name of Jesus, Buddah, Mohammed, Moses, and all those who have sought to promote your Gospel of Love and Peace!"
And Amen to that.
regards
[ October 23, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]
 
HS Thomas
Ranch Hand
Posts: 3404
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I must learn to post in smaller attention spans:
Would WHAT bother me ?
I was suggesting that you cannot have/sustain faith without dialogue.
Who would you talk to unless you mean an inner dialogue with your conscience.

Thanks for your response,Joe.
regards
 
It's a tiny ad only because the water is so cold.
Sauce Labs - World's Largest Continuous Testing Cloud for Websites and Mobile Apps
https://coderanch.com/t/722574/Sauce-Labs-World-Largest-Continuous
  • Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
Boost this thread!