Balancing The Two

[Cris]

B,

What lack of factual credibility are you referring to?

The lack of facts that force you to believe on faith rather than evidence.

I can admit to you that I have no physical evidence of God, but I do have faith.

Isn’t that a rather silly thing to do?

…do you admit that you don't know if God exists or not? If you say he doesn't exist, then I'll assume you have faith too.

The suggestion makes no sense. It is like asking whether you believe that Sherlock Holmes doesn’t exist. Both Holmes and God are fictional characters so of course they don’t exist. One doesn’t need faith to believe that fictional characters do not exist.

 

[b0urgeoisie]

What people choose to believe must lie outside the two fundamental paradigms. Besides you use the bible as if it were fact.

That is not my intention. I could not decide on your behalf that the Bible is factual. I can in the context of my argument uses biblical passages. So long as I am not trying to prove the Bible with the Bible.

BTW,
this "People who won't allow for a supreme being allow for all kinds of other irrational thinking. " this not good for your argument. You implicitly imply that allowing for God is irrational. By definition, scientific conclusions are rational, and therefore does not allow for a God is currently denied by Christianity.

I believe in God. - That is irrational.
I believe that God is rational but with my limited knowledge I cannot explain Him.
I believe others should not be forced to believe. But, I think if you choose not to believe you should allow for the possibility. The same as you allow for other irrational traditions. People recognized the value of art before they could analyze it mathematically.

 

[the preacher]

B:
Perfect as the wing of a bird may be, it will never enable the bird to fly if unsupported by the air. Facts are the air of science. Without them a man of science can never rise.
Ivan Pavlov (1849 - 1936)
religion has no facts only fantasy, so stick to one or the other, as all ready been said, you cant be a man of science, if you have religion draging you down.
what you've got to do is decide, do you want level mountains, (with science) or move mountains (with faith).
science has done more for the development of western civilization in one hundred years than Christianity could in two thousand.

 

[b0urgeoisie]

Why not? There doesn’t appear to be any rules that stop religionists forcing their ideas on those who don’t want to believe, in fact it is a basic requirement of Christians to preach and convert others.

There is a clear distinction between sharing ideas and forcing belief or non-belief.

That’s enforceable by law I believe. But why is that an issue here?

What law? It is an issue because we both share the same concern. You would never allow me or any other person to limit you because you choose not to believe. I expect to be free to believe and free to enjoy life to the best of my ability.
The purpose of this thread was to invite persons who are both educated and religious to share their thoughts. Criticism is OK too. But, remember that the purpose of this thread was never to prove or disprove God or any mechanism of spirituality.
I believe that for a person to be whole he/she (with apologies most of my posts will assume masculinity) must investigate more than just logical pursuits. They should answer questions pertaining to spirituality. The answer should be their own. I cannot say what your answer should be. But I think you should have one.
I believe the same of art. You should have a way to express yourself artistically. Or at least know that you choose not to do so.
Because, atheism is a decision. It is a statement the same as any religion. If you don't care or are undecided you are not an atheist. If you believe there is no god you assert that you have knowledge of such. It is very unscientific to do so.
The reason science is great is you accept that you may be wrong and hold that your entire paradigm is contingent on the weight of current evidence. Linus Pauling (I choose not to check the spelling on his name.) died still convinced that the key to genetic coding lay in a protein structure. He won two TWO TWO Nobel prizes. He died after Watson and Crick published their findings. Because science allows you to hypothesize and gather evidence.
My theory was : I believe that there may be a god. I think he may have a nature that is X.
My experiments include: I believe that the nature of God suggests that if I asked God His answers would be Y.
I found Y to be true. Therefor I believe X to be true. It is logical then for me to accept something that appears illogical.
My conclusion should not be important to you. That is why the gross bias iin the experiment is not important. You are free to say what you like about my conclusion or your own. You are not free to force me to accept your conclusion as my own. Just as I can share without forcing. I have never told anybody "believe or..." I have many times told people "I believe....you should consider exploring....for yourself and come to your own conclusions."
There are people today on both sides who are eager to force their beliefs. In every country of the world people try to create legislation that forces there agenda on everyone. Efforts to ban this or remove that. Do you think everyone is so stupid that, on something that is very personal, they will need to be told what to think?

 

[Pete]

When I studied law it became very apparent that a strong ability to use logic was essential. Science is a similar discipline. Religion is incompatible with both. If your religious beliefs are strong then you cannot be a logical thinker and will fail at both law and science. If you ever become logical then logic dictates that you must reject religion. Determine where your strengths are and choose accordingly.

All that logic dictates is that your conclusions follow from your premises.
In life, premises boil down to fundamental beliefs, values, and axioms.

Cris, can you provide a logical defense that your own fundamental beliefs and values are better than a fundamental belief that the Universe exists for a consciously chosen purpose?

 

[Cris]

Pete,

All that logic dictates is that your conclusions follow from your premises.

Hmm OK good enough for this discussion. But the intention is that the hoped for conclusion is as close to truth as possible based on available evidence, right? And of course being fully aware that inductive reasoning always includes a statistical risk of error.

In life, premises boil down to fundamental beliefs, values, and axioms.

Doesn’t that depend on how you define fundamental beliefs and values? I would hope that any premises I form in life remain based on facts as is required in the making of valid premises. So I’m not sure what point you are trying to make here.

Cris, can you provide a logical defense that your own fundamental beliefs and values are better than a fundamental belief that the Universe exists for a consciously chosen purpose?

You are assuming that the term “fundamental belief” used here twice in different contexts is equally weighted and where each form the basis of valid premises. But that isn’t true is it? While my beliefs and values are based on factual conclusions the concept of a universe with a consciously chosen purpose is simply idle speculation, is it not?

I see no meaningful contest here.

 

[thefountainhed]

Cris:

Welcome back, it's been a while.

Hmm OK good enough for this discussion. But the intention is that the hoped for conclusion is as close to truth as possible based on available evidence, right? And of course being fully aware that inductive reasoning always includes a statistical risk of error.

The problem with this statement is the implication that truth is realizable outside each paradigm. One cannot get "close"r to the truth because the truth exists indepently within each paradigm. Thus, given a set of rules, a conclusion reached within the ruleset is only true within the given ruleset and not necessarily outside of it.

Within a given faith, if the fundamental rule is the existence of a God, then this is a truth within said paradigm. The same would imply for a conclusion reached using logical axioms. As one cannot provide a ubiquitous set of axioms that comprise of all rules in the physical world, we cannot say that a given truth is universal.

While my beliefs and values are based on factual conclusions the concept of a universe with a consciously chosen purpose is simply idle speculation, is it not?
No, this is a statement of value. It is relative.

 

[Pete]

the intention is that the hoped for conclusion is as close to truth as possible based on available evidence, right?

I see truth as a side issue.
To think logically is to assume the truth of some premises, and deduce conclusions consistent with the premises.
By introducing the concept of evidence, you are stepping beyond pure logic, and assuming other values, specifically the value of (objective) evidence.

And of course being fully aware that inductive reasoning always includes a statistical risk of error.

Of course. But not forgetting Hume's problem of induction.

I would hope that any premises I form in life remain based on facts as is required in the making of valid premises.

I suggest that for any premise you present, I can show that it is based on underlying premises, or is a fundamental belief. I think that I use the term 'values' to mean some part of our worldview that determines which beliefs we choose to accept.

While my beliefs and values are based on factual conclusions the concept of a universe with a consciously chosen purpose is simply idle speculation, is it not?

I happen to agree, but I acknowledge that that is due to my own fundamental beliefs and values that:
1) Objective reality exists
2) My perceptions are a reasonably accurate reflection of reality
3) Induction is a valid method of drawing factual conclusions
4) Testable utility is a reasonable measure of value

I hesitate to affirm that this list is any more or less valid or valuable than any other internally consistent set.

(I made that set up on the spot, so it might not be complete, or in simplest form)

 

[Pete]

My experiments include: I believe that the nature of God suggests that if I asked God His answers would be Y.

I think the problem might be objectivity.
Is Y directly observable by others, or only to yourself? If only to yourself, then how do you know that your experience can be relied on?

It is natural to believe that our subjective experiences reflect an objective reality, but I think it is important to always remember that it is an unreliable reflection. If the reflection can't be independently confirmed, I would be reluctant to draw strong conclusions. Of course, your values may differ.

 

[water]

The problem with this statement is the implication that truth is realizable outside each paradigm. One cannot get "close"r to the truth because the truth exists indepently within each paradigm. Thus, given a set of rules, a conclusion reached within the ruleset is only true within the given ruleset and not necessarily outside of it.

Within a given faith, if the fundamental rule is the existence of a God, then this is a truth within said paradigm. The same would imply for a conclusion reached using logical axioms. As one cannot provide a ubiquitous set of axioms that comprise of all rules in the physical world, we cannot say that a given truth is universal.

Yes -- the holistic explanation of meaning: One cannot understand the claims a certain theory makes without understanding a significant portion of the theory of which they are part. Elements of a system -- the terms in a theory -- receive meaning from being inter-related with eachother.

We therefore cannot say that a truth is universal -- as any claim we make is part of a certain theory or paradigm, and makes sense only within this theory or paradigm.

 

[davewhite04]

Hello Cris,

The lack of facts that force you to believe on faith rather than evidence.

I don't need faith to actually learn valuable lessons from the Bible, the Bible is full of wisdom, facts if you like. Not scientific theories though, more to do with human behaviour and such.

Isn’t that a rather silly thing to do?

Not really, why? I'm humble enough to admit that there is someone greater than I, are you?

The suggestion makes no sense. It is like asking whether you believe that Sherlock Holmes doesn’t exist. Both Holmes and God are fictional characters so of course they don’t exist. One doesn’t need faith to believe that fictional characters do not exist.

Well Sherlock Holmes is a creation of Sir Conan Doyle, and he based the character on a real life professor he knew. Perfectly logical explanation. Now can you tell me who came up with the character God? And proove he is ficticious... Billions of people would be interested if you could Sherlock

Dave

 

[davewhite04]

you cant be a man of science, if you have religion draging you down.

Have you even heard of Sir Isaac Newton?

Dave

 

[Jan Ardena]

thefountainhed,

Since I hinted at the point that some religions may not be seeped in the supernatural, let's assume that you refer to religions that are based on the supernatural. And for argument sake, let's take as the whipping boy, Christianity:

Christianity isn't seeped in the supernatural, the religion, by virtue of its name, is seeped in the personality of Jesus, who on occasion performed supernatural events. Christianity, like any other bona-fide religion, is a way of life as exampled by Jesus. But his life did not only consist of supernatural events, he did practical things and he spoke practically. He was able to perform seemingly supernatural events due to his spiritual position, which was due to how he lived his life.

The very foundation of Christianty, the belief in an omnipotent, omnipresent God, who cannot be experienced in the physical, and whose being cannot be proved within the physical world, is at odds with the whole basis of science: conclusions based on observation.

This is a tricky one. An omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being (God), can actually be experienced within everything, because He would ultimately be the source of everything. There couldn't be anything else, otherwise he would not be omnipresent.

The point of religion is to eventually understand that you, the personal self, are part and parcel of Gods Self or personal energy, and everything else, is also part of this being. Regulate your life to these principles and you will realise.

The point of science (modern) is to understand how this physical reality is also a part of this omnipresent being, even if they only see this being/thing as the universe.

My point being that the physical reality we observe is different from the reality of self and identity, so they can never clash.
It is when they try and usurp each others positions, by stating "God created everything and no more needs to taught" or "God does not exist therefore abolish all religion", conflict ensues.

Jan Ardena.

 

[Pete]

Christianity isn't seeped in the supernatural, the religion, by virtue of its name, is seeped in the personality of Jesus, who on occasion performed supernatural events.

Without Christ's divinity and resurrection (two undoubtably supernatural things), there is no Christianity.

An omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being (God), can actually be experienced within everything

Only if you equate God with everything, then add conscious omniscience and omnipotence.
The difficulty is that God's omniscience and omnipotence are apparently untestable, since he also appears to be capricious.

 

[b0urgeoisie]

I think the problem might be objectivity.
Is Y directly observable by others, or only to yourself? If only to yourself, then how do you know that your experience can be relied on?

It is natural to believe that our subjective experiences reflect an objective reality, but I think it is important to always remember that it is an unreliable reflection. If the reflection can't be independently confirmed, I would be reluctant to draw strong conclusions. Of course, your values may differ.

Three points
1. I explained that I accept that my whole experiment was bias. I can't do any better. I can not take logic any further into an illogical or irrational pursuit.
2. Objectivity is no longer held as a possible state. Most modern methods of philosophy accept that fact. It is impossible to remove your own experiences from your perspective. Subjectivity is all we have. We can try to shave down some obvious and gross bias. But, ultimately we can only judge from our perspective.
3. I believe Y is observable by others. But not the Y outcome of my experiment. But, only if persons choose to apply the experiment themselves. But, to each his own. (pardon the cliché)

 

[b0urgeoisie]

Einstein, Albert (1879-1955) *
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is
blind.
_Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium_ (1941) ch. 13


God does not play dice with the universe.


Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age 18.


"Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival
of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet"


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and
I'm not sure about the former.


"Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that
created them."
- Albert Einstein


5. ". . . true religion was never a narrow thing. True religion concerns man and the entire universe in which he lives. It concerns his relationships with himself and his fellow men, with his environment, and with God his creator. It is therefore limitless, and as boundless as that eternity which it teaches lies ahead of every son of God. . . . Here is the spirit of true religion, an honest seeking after knowledge of all things of heaven and earth."
~ Henry Eyring (1901-19)
mathematician, physicist, PhD., Doctor of Science
from Science and Your Faith in God

 

[b0urgeoisie]

Einstein, Albert (1879-1955) *
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is
blind.
_Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium_ (1941) ch. 13


God does not play dice with the universe.


Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age 18.


"Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival
of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet"

"Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that
created them."
- Albert Einstein

I found those with a google search of Einstein. I admit to the nearly unforgivable sin of "cut and paste"

The following public announcement has been brought to you by "Larry the Cable-Guy" and by the letter "W".
Lord I apologize for cuttin 'n' pastin. And be with starving Pygmies down in New Ginnie

 

[Jan Ardena]

Without Christ's divinity and resurrection (two undoubtably supernatural things), there is no Christianity.

Then what you describe would not be Christianity in accordance with its name. If you love or have deep respect for someone, their birth and death would not be the cause of such affection, it would be the very person, themself.
His birth and death were consistent with a person of his magnitude.
His whole life was spent teaching people how to get to his level.

Only if you equate God with everything, then add conscious omniscience and omnipotence.

You would have to be conscious to be omniscient and omnipotent.
Why don't you regard consciousness as (at least) part of the everything?

The difficulty is that God's omniscience and omnipotence are apparently untestable, since he also appears to be capricious.

What do you mean by untestable?
Has anybody tried?

Jan Ardena.

 

[thefountainhed]

Jan,

thefountainhed,
Christianity isn't seeped in the supernatural, the religion, by virtue of its name, is seeped in the personality of Jesus, who on occasion performed supernatural events. Christianity, like any other bona-fide religion, is a way of life as exampled by Jesus. But his life did not only consist of supernatural events, he did practical things and he spoke practically. He was able to perform seemingly supernatural events due to his spiritual position, which was due to how he lived his life.

Mostly true, except the overriding principle in Christianity is the belief in Jesus Christ as the son of God, and the way to salvation (ultimate goal for a Christian) is in accepting this fact and living one's life accordingly. To believe in Jesus as the son of God implies a belief in the supernatural-- the acceptance of a idea which is unprovable because it is not evident in nature unless you share a faith...

This is a tricky one. An omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being (God), can actually be experienced within everything, because He would ultimately be the source of everything. There couldn't be anything else, otherwise he would not be omnipresent.

This is a circular argument. You assume that God is omnipresent and in that assumption, draw the conclusion that he must thus be everywhere. The conclusion is however unreachable as you have not shown that this procalimed omniprescence and ominscience is factual.

The point of religion is to eventually understand that you, the personal self, are part and parcel of Gods Self or personal energy, and everything else, is also part of this being. Regulate your life to these principles and you will realise.

This may perhaps be the point of religion as seen by you but I cannot concur.

The point of science (modern) is to understand how this physical reality is also a part of this omnipresent being, even if they only see this being/thing as the universe.

This is clearly not the point of modern science, as within science, this omnipresent being cannot be accepted as no evidence shows its presence.

My point being that the physical reality we observe is different from the reality of self and identity, so they can never clash.
It is when they try and usurp each others positions, by stating "God created everything and no more needs to taught" or "God does not exist therefore abolish all religion", conflict ensues.

I am sorry but that barely made sense to me. What do you mean by a differentiation between physical reality and the reality of the self? You are not arguing from the philosophical standpoint that reality is subjective, are you? I think that would present major problems in the belief of a God.

 

[Jan Ardena]

thefountainhed,

Mostly true, except the overriding principle in Christianity is the belief in Jesus Christ as the son of God, and the way to salvation (ultimate goal for a Christian) is in accepting this fact and living one's life accordingly.

The overiding principle in Christianity is to come to the understanding that you and every living entity is a son of God. This primarily requires faith in accepting Jesus as the son of God. Having accepted that, one accepts Jesus as the role model for life and starts to live accordingly. During this period one begins to understand the truth of Jesus' teachings, as all his teaching are enfused within the experience of life itself, not that it is separate knowledge.
Science is a part of day to day living, likewise art, and philosophy. Each life enrichening, but not life itself.

To believe in Jesus as the son of God implies a belief in the supernatural-- ...

Yes it does, but just believing isn't enough to understand, which is why we have teachers like Jesus who through his example can show how to live a successful life, free of anxiety and fear.

the acceptance of a idea which is unprovable because it is not evident in nature unless you share a faith

Plus, live according to the example set by great souls.

Are scientists trying to find out if God exists?

This is a circular argument. You assume that God is omnipresent and in that assumption, draw the conclusion that he must thus be everywhere. The conclusion is however unreachable as you have not shown that this procalimed omniprescence and ominscience is factual.

If it is circular, therefore illogical, then it has to be.
Because it is illogical to us, it does not mean that it is universally illogical, to c laim that would be nothing short of arrogance.
We can live our lives as logical as we can, then there comes a point where logic does or can not apply.
Music is both logical and illogical and it works best when the two are in connection. If it was purely logic it would lack variety resulting in dull boring notes. It it was performed without logic, it would be an unintelligable noise with no end in sight. You put the two together you get great music, which can communicate on different levels and manifesting itself in the physical reality. This is art, which is also knowledge.

This may perhaps be the point of religion as seen by you but I cannot concur.

It really doesn't if you concur or not, it is what it is, just as science is what it is, art and philosophy also. The point of religion is not what he or she thinks, it is how it is described in the scripture.

This is clearly not the point of modern science, as within science, this omnipresent being cannot be accepted as no evidence shows its presence.

It doesn't matter whether or not it can be accepted, nor does it matter that no current evidence shows His presence. If God exists then He exists. Just by accepting He doesn't, or not finding evidence is not enough to claim He doesn't exist.
What i don't understand is, why do atheist scientists think that there should be physical evidence of God other than the universe itself?
Would they expect to find?

I am sorry but that barely made sense to me. What do you mean by a differentiation between physical reality and the reality of the self?

The observer and the observed are two different positions.

Jan Ardena.