My Introductional Post.

[ZAV]

Yaz-

Dawkins what?? That's foolishness, Zav. Perhaps you first encountered the idea while reading Dawkins, but people were making that observation long before he ever came along.

Spidergoat is right. Religious scientists, like artistic scientists and bungee-jumping scientists, tend to compartmentalize their thinking and behavior.

When they are in the lab, they pursue narrow and highly technical research projects employing the concepts and methods relevant to their research problem. They talk the language of their specialties with their collaborators and they think in those terms.

When they are at church or in the temple, they practice their devotions or their prayers or their meditations, employing the concepts and methods derived from their religious tradition. They talk the language of that tradition with their fellow religionists and think in those terms.

While there are certainly a few individual exceptions, what they don't typically do is devote a whole lot of thought to bringing these widely divergent parts of their lives and their thinking together and weaving some larger philosophical theory around them in hopes of binding everything into one.

We see exactly the same kind of thing happening when (as often happens) scientists are interested in and dabble in the creative arts. They do science in the lab, and then paint or play their musical instrument at night or on the weekend. When they are being arty, they will typically be hanging around with an entirely different crowd and be talking and thinking in a very different vocabulary.

An evangelical Christian accountant is going to be thinking and working in terms of generally accepted accounting principles when he's down at his financial firm. When he's at church, he's probably not going to be thinking about accounting at all.

When Dawkins said they compartmentalise, he didn't mean exactly what you said. Its pretty obvious from his writtings that he thinks that "Relifious Scientists" can't possibly have ever applied their Scintific thinkign to their Religious beleifs. Ever. And its precicely because if they did they'd have to give up their Relgiion becaue Religion can never, ever be compatable with Science. That s also thwe implicastion that Spidergoat and Mr. Taylor tend to be aiming for. I know this is not True however sicne I cn citw specific examples such as Dr. Ferancis Collins, and some even go so far as to write whole books about how the Science they belive in is in no way contradictory, but is instead supportive of their beelifs. The Compartmentalisation Theory Dawkins proposed is based on the Draper-White conflict Model, tht says that Science and Relgiion are two opposing forces. In dawkisn mind, you can't be both Relgiiius and Scientific at the Same Time. it's not just the language and methodology, tis the beelifs themselves he, and Spidergoat, were speakign of.

As for yoru latr post aboru me being a mere apologist and this devolving, I still don't think you are beign fair. I'm not just hurlign insults and aspologetics here, I've been polite, and I do think you give too much credit tot heout and out Atheists liek Spider. I mean, really, if I had come here, declared relgiion bunk and all Religiosu peopel midnless simplerons and how Science is superior to relgiion in evert way and shoudl be used insetad ou'd not think I had an attitude problem. Meanwhile, sayign thatthis enture thouht proccess is itself wrrogn and challengign it is somehow a massive atttiude problem.

I really think you are a bit biaed here.


As for evidence, I did promise 12 essays. I am not going to give evidence peicemeal, as then itgets lost int he shuffle. All you have to do is wait the two weeks for me to get back and I will show you what I mean. My posts thusfar hve only been intorductory.

 

[ZAV]

Mr. Taylor-

And that's my whole point. You can assure all you want, but if you don't say what those facts are, or if you present something which isn't a fact and pretend it is, your assurances are no use to me.[.quote]


I've done more than assure already. EG,I already disproved the Elohim cobbler. As i said, i will post the full essays upon my return in two weeks. All you really have to do is wait. However, if you absolutely refuse to accept that any religious idea could ever be Rationally held, then all that you will see in my essays is Apologetics, which to an Atheist like you will mean "Just excuses not real logic". That's one of the problems I see on the net too often to begin with, that people refuse to accept that another part can rationally old a contradictory view to their own.

That’s not a critism of Atheism, but of Humanity, as the same applies to Christians, or heck even political discussions.

But in this case my prediction is that even if I present a solid case it’ll be your solemn endeavour to shoot it down simply so you can maintain the status quo of yoru own beliefs. I would love to be proven wrong, and I don’t think this of every poster. Still, your attitude doesn’t seem amenable.

So what is the new and improved definition of the word "faith" that you're promoting?

This is why I doubt you will listen to what I say objectively and honestly. I am not presenting a new and improved definition of Faith, I am pointing out that the people who used the term Faith in the past did not mean belief without Evidence and that you can’t project the useful modern Atheist view of what Religious Faith is onto the past as if this is exactly what Saint Paul meant when he wrote his Epistles, or what St. Augustine meant when he wrote the City Of God.

My definition of Faith isn’t new and isn’t mine, it’s the standard one you find in a Dictionary. There are actually six definitions, not just one. If you think all Faith when discussing Religion has always meant belief without Evidence then you simply aren’t going to be capable of understanding the actual History of Religion as that’s not what the authors who used the word meant by it.


Saying mine is “New and improved” in a sarcastic way is also Ironic since I’m the one Yaz see’s as having an attitude problem, but don’t you think this sort of glib attitude is preventative of thinking about matters logically?

 

[spidergoat]

... And its precicely because if they did they'd have to give up their Relgiion becaue Religion can never, ever be compatable with Science. That s also thwe implicastion that Spidergoat and Mr. Taylor tend to be aiming for. I know this is not True however sicne I cn citw specific examples such as Dr. Ferancis Collins, and some even go so far as to write whole books about how the Science they belive in is in no way contradictory, but is instead supportive of their beelifs.

Collins claims, that there are questions science cannot answer:

Why is there something rather than nothing?
Why am I here anyway?
What happens after I die?
Is there a God?

[Source]

Therefore his faith in God cannot be based on science, according to his own words.


---

Curiosity is a fine thing and I have to encourage any wellspring for it. However, the defining feature of Collins' faith, and that part of it that makes it objectionable, is that he uses it to wall off parts of the human world from curiosity. The human genome project was a technological exercise, a sustained, disciplined effort to apply developing tools to a specific, narrow problem. It opens up new avenues for science, but in itself was not a demonstration of scientific competence. His administrative ability led the work to a conclusion, not his scientific skill set.

And what has he done with it afterwards? Declared the genome a divine artifact, decreed that certain domains, such as human behavior and morality, are exempt from scientific scrutiny, and proposed a succession of freakish Christian dogmas as substitutes for reasoned analysis. At this point, where the real science takes over, his faith only gets in the way.[P Z Meyers]​

 

[michael_taylor]

disproved

You mean something different by that than the definition I was using.

to an Atheist like you will mean "Just excuses not real logic".

It doesn't matter how rigorous the logic is, if it isn't based on facts. For example, it is logical to say "black is white" if you are laboring under the misapprehension that the word "black" is a synonym for "snow." My point was not that the main problem was your logic, but that the assumptions the logic relies on are not supportable by observations of reality, and therefore are not facts.

How far would you follow a line of reasoning which was predicated by "assuming every human is simply an animatronic vehicle piloted by squirrels" ? Not far at all, because there is no evidence for the squirrels, and all of the squirrel and person related evidence we do have is either neutral or contradictory towards that assumption.

Similarly, if you build a chain of reasoning based on an assumption that gods are real, it is that assumption which is in doubt, and going on about how carefully crafted you logic is makes no difference whatsoever.

maintain the status quo of yoru own beliefs. I would love to be proven wrong, and I don’t think this of every poster. Still, your attitude doesn’t seem amenable.

That's a bit rich coming from you. Of course it's very easy to cry "cheat" every time another player scores a point, but if you then unequivocally demonstrate your own total inability to point to which rule they broke, people will just think you're clutching at straws because you know there isn't one. What else would they think?

So all you have to do to dispel any doubts is to show that your assumptions are factual.

Faith in the past did not mean belief without Evidence

Oh? So what was their evidence then? If faith didn't mean "without evidence" it must necessarily mean "with at least some evidence". So simply tell me what that evidence was and I will stand corrected.

 

[Yazata]

When Dawkins said they compartmentalise, he didn't mean exactly what you said.

Dawkins is your obsession, not mine. I just pointed out that the idea of people compartmentalizing their lives didn't originate with him.

Its pretty obvious from his writtings that he thinks that "Relifious Scientists" can't possibly have ever applied their Scintific thinkign to their Religious beleifs.

If people really want to pursue this, it might be best to inquire into what 'scientific thinking' is, into what it is that 'religious beliefs' are supposedly beliefs about, and then finally into what relevance or application the first might have to the second. I'm not sure whether there's a whole lot.

And its precicely because if they did they'd have to give up their Relgiion becaue Religion can never, ever be compatable with Science.

That might be too strong a conclusion in my opinion and it needs additional argument.

But the fact that some scientists can be quite religious doesn't establish that science and religion are logically, methodologically or factually compatible either. That conclusion would need additional argument too.

The point of the compartmentalization observation is simply to note that individuals can employ very different methods, assumptions and concepts in different areas of their lives. The fact that many people do this doesn't imply that those methods, assumptions and concepts must all be logically or factually consistent.

 

[Yazata]

At least some people do that, as eventually, there arises the need to see one's whole life as one, and not chopped up into times.

Oh yeah, I agree that many people think about it occasionally. Many of them do it in a superficial fashion that probably wouldn't stand up to very much philosophical scrutiny. But some people who don't have much formal philosophical or religious training do produce ideas that can get kind of profound. Einstein's religio-philosophical speculations, for example, were an interesting if not always successful attempt to come to terms with some important issues.

Some Buddhist books that work on this premise:

Work as a Spiritual Practice: A Practical Buddhist Approach to Inner Growth and Satisfaction on the Job

Awake at Work: 35 Practical Buddhist Principles for Discovering Clarity and Balance in the Midst of Work's Chaos

'Right livelihood' is one of the ethical factors of the Eightfold path. It's easier to pull everything together consistently with Buddhism maybe, since Buddhism is less transcendental and more this-worldly than some other traditions. (I like that.)

That's ironic, since Buddhism has a reputation for spacy transcendentalist 'otherworldliness' here in the US. I don't think that most Americans know what Buddhist meditation is about and they imagine that it's something that perhaps it's not.

I have both of them, and I bought them specifically to help me make sense of work.

I could be better at that myself. I can usually make sense of it intellectually as well as anything else, that's not really my problem. My problem is retaining my precepts and mindfulness in the midst of it. It's kind of an emotional maelstrom out there.

 

[ZAV]

Spider-

Collins claims, that there are questions science cannot answer:

Why is there something rather than nothing?
Why am I here anyway?
What happens after I die?
Is there a God?

[Source]

Therefore his faith in God cannot be based on science, according to his own words.


---

Curiosity is a fine thing and I have to encourage any wellspring for it. However, the defining feature of Collins' faith, and that part of it that makes it objectionable, is that he uses it to wall off parts of the human world from curiosity. The human genome project was a technological exercise, a sustained, disciplined effort to apply developing tools to a specific, narrow problem. It opens up new avenues for science, but in itself was not a demonstration of scientific competence. His administrative ability led the work to a conclusion, not his scientific skill set.

And what has he done with it afterwards? Declared the genome a divine artifact, decreed that certain domains, such as human behavior and morality, are exempt from scientific scrutiny, and proposed a succession of freakish Christian dogmas as substitutes for reasoned analysis. At this point, where the real science takes over, his faith only gets in the way.[P Z Meyers]​

However, Collins does not say that Science contradicts Faith. Tht said, othrs disagree with Collins, who is, again, not a Theologian. I used him as an example, not asan absolute measure. Proof texting is hardly beneficial.

 

[ZAV]

Mr. Taylor-

You mean something different by that than the definition I was using.

Actually you did not use the Elohim argument as I recall.

It doesn't matter how rigorous the logic is, if it isn't based on facts. For example, it is logical to say "black is white" if you are laboring under the misapprehension that the word "black" is a synonym for "snow." My point was not that the main problem was your logic, but that the assumptions the logic relies on are not supportable by observations of reality, and therefore are not facts.

But what evidence doyou have that Theologians begin with premises that are not supported by facts?

That's the thing, while you castigate Theologians for never basing their astartign assumptiosn on observed facts, you have no actual evidence to support this outside of Propaganda written by other Atheists. The trouble is, Theologians do often rely onn observable Evidence as a Starting point. All you have to do is read a book by one, like Rowan Williams or Dallas Ward. You see, the assumption that Theologians begin with premised hat are themselves never supportd by evidenceis just not True in itself.


You are the one saying black is white because you think Black is another word for snow.

How far would you follow a line of reasoning which was predicated by "assuming every human is simply an animatronic vehicle piloted by squirrels" ? Not far at all, because there is no evidence for the squirrels, and all of the squirrel and person related evidence we do have is either neutral or contradictory towards that assumption.

Similarly, if you build a chain of reasoning based on an assumption that gods are real, it is that assumption which is in doubt, and going on about how carefully crafted you logic is makes no difference whatsoever.

Youknow, just because a lot of Atheist online say there are no Rational arguments for a god to eist and tfollow up with a claim tjat Theologians nevwer question God's existance at all doesn't make it True. It is also not True that Theologians never advance arguments for God's existance, or never doubt it. Just cause you claim that Theologians start off assumign gods exist and never question it doens't make it True, and just because you proclaim that they never base their statemnts ob facts is not True either.

That's a bit rich coming from you. Of course it's very easy to cry "cheat" every time another player scores a point, but if you then unequivocally demonstrate your own total inability to point to which rule they broke, people will just think you're clutching at straws because you know there isn't one. What else would they think?

Except I did point out massive flaws in the Elohim argument, and the rest I have been perfeclty reasonable on. I didn't cry Cheat, I simply stated that I don't think you are rational or objective enougbh to really look at what I am actually saying. Yoru goa will be simply to disprove anythign that doens't fit yoru narrow perspective.

So all you have to do to dispel any doubts is to show that your assumptions are factual.

OK, and here goers.

1: I assume that Theologians actally do on occassion question if God exists and often out forward arguments for God's existance.


2: Aquinas, Des carte, and Tillich all postulated both the nature of God and arguments for their beelif based on Logic and Reason ad observed evidence.


Now lets see if you can admit that Theologians don't just start with baseless claims an if you can then join a proper discussion.

Oh? So what was their evidence then? If faith didn't mean "without evidence" it must necessarily mean "with at least some evidence". So simply tell me what that evidence was and I will stand corrected.

That is actually a false Dichotomy. Our English word "Faith" comes from the Latin word "Fidese' and means "To Trust". One can Trust even if there is no Evidence, but it is foolish to think Trust is only Trust if it has no evieence.


Faith can be given even if no evidence is offred, but Faith is not defined as beleif without evidence and oftentimes Faith is based upon it.

Faith is simply another word for Confidence or Trust, irrespective of any other consideration.

 

[ZAV]

Yaz-

Dawkins is your obsession, not mine. I just pointed out that the idea of people compartmentalizing their lives didn't originate with him.

I'm not obsessed ith Dawkins, he's just been quoted a lot on these forums.

If people really want to pursue this, it might be best to inquire into what 'scientific thinking' is, into what it is that 'religious beliefs' are supposedly beliefs about, and then finally into what relevance or application the first might have to the second. I'm not sure whether there's a whole lot.

If you can wait fo the reelvant essay, then you'll see what I mean.

That might be too strong a conclusion in my opinion and it needs additional argument.

But the fact that some scientists can be quite religious doesn't establish that science and religion are logically, methodologically or factually compatible either. That conclusion would need additional argument too.

The point of the compartmentalization observation is simply to note that individuals can employ very different methods, assumptions and concepts in different areas of their lives. The fact that many people do this doesn't imply that those methods, assumptions and concepts must all be logically or factually consistent.

All Scientisst are Religious, as no one lacks Religion.

That said, we both knwo that in terms of Dawkins and SPidergoats ideas, that wasn't what was meant.

 

[spidergoat]

Spider-
However, Collins does not say that Science contradicts Faith.

No, we wouldn't say that because he can't be bothered to apply it to faith. What's the scientific explanation for the reanimation of a dead and rotting corpse?

 

[ZAV]

Spider, I know you havent' read Theology and think its the same as Evangelical Christian apologetics, but do you understand why I find som of these statements you make tedious?

 

[Repo Man]

All Scientisst are Religious, as no one lacks Religion.

That is your opinion. Definition C for Dogma from Merriam Webster: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds.

Here is an opinion for you; based on what I've read so far, your opinions are completely unworthy of consideration. Goodbye.

 

[Aqueous Id]

reanimation of a dead and rotting corpse?

Hah! Anything but tedious. On the mark, with a little jolt here and there to keep our foggy brains firing on all cylinders.

 

[Yazata]

But what evidence doyou have that Theologians begin with premises that are not supported by facts?

I'm still curious how theologians claim to know about the triune nature of the godhead or about Christ's human and divine natures. What is the evidence upon which those doctrines are based?

2: Aquinas, Des carte, and Tillich all postulated both the nature of God and arguments for their beelif based on Logic and Reason ad observed evidence.

Aquinas' five ways weren't particularly evidenced-based.

1) and 2) were Aristotelian variants on the first-cause argument. 3) was an assertion that a necessary being must exist to explain contingent beings. 4) was the claim that a perfect being must exist as a standard against which less-than-perfect beings are compared. 5) was the idea that there must be "some intelligent being... by whom all natural things are directed".

These are the kind of theological arguments that deliver up abstract philosophical functions, not the much more literary and mythic sort of personal god that one sees depicted in the Bible or the Quran. That's why Aquinas made a sharp distinction between 'revealed' and 'natural' theology.

Descartes wasn't a theologian. He did produce a couple of arguments for God's existence, but neither was evidence based.

In his third 'Meditation', he produces an argument similar to Aquinas' fourth way, arguing that we have the idea of infinite perfection and that such an idea couldn't have been spun from the resources of our finite and imperfect minds, experiences or evidence. The cause of such an idea must itself be perfect, meaning that God must have placed it in each of our minds a-priori, "like the mark of a craftsman stamped on his work". Later in the Fifth 'Meditation', Descartes produces a version of Anselm's ontological argument that's also built around our idea of perfection.

Tillich (who I kind of like) seems to have re-defined 'God' as something like 'Ultimate Being'. That's fine with me and I'm rather sympathetic to that approach. (It's reminiscent of Spinoza's.) But it doesn't seem to have a whole lot to do with the theistic religious tradiions or with their gods and revelations. And once again, it's spun out of philosophy and doesn't really seem to be evidence-based.

 

[Repo Man]

Hah! Anything but tedious. On the mark, with a little jolt here and there to keep our foggy brains firing on all cylinders.

 

[Aqueous Id]

You know if there is a Great Beyond, you should get 50,000 frequent flyer miles for this alone. Brighten the world, I think that's the first commandment.

Drink a beer might be #2, and thou shalt not drive drunk is #3.

 

[wynn]

Oh yeah, I agree that many people think about it occasionally. Many of them do it in a superficial fashion that probably wouldn't stand up to very much philosophical scrutiny. But some people who don't have much formal philosophical or religious training do produce ideas that can get kind of profound. Einstein's religio-philosophical speculations, for example, were an interesting if not always successful attempt to come to terms with some important issues.

Indeed. But people who don't have much formal philosophical or religious training are also not able to successfully transmit their profound ideas to other people.

Many motivational speakers seem to have "really found the real thing" and their enthusiasm is contagious - yet their ability to effectively help others to change their lives is limited, and I think this is to a large extent because neither those motivational speakers nor their clients have much training in philosophy or religion. So when people try to follow their advice and fail, there is a great danger that they will end up believing themselves to be stupid, lazy, doomed, which, of course, only makes their situation worse, and "positive affirmations" can't help against that.

'Right livelihood' is one of the ethical factors of the Eightfold path. It's easier to pull everything together consistently with Buddhism maybe, since Buddhism is less transcendental and more this-worldly than some other traditions. (I like that.)

From what I understood, every religion, and especially the theisms, are supposed to focus precisely on how to go about everyday life.
The formal spiritual/religious practice is supposed to be merely a concentrated session of preparation for that. Ie. in formal practice, one contemplates and learns the principles by which one is then to go about for the rest of the time.

That's ironic, since Buddhism has a reputation for spacy transcendentalist 'otherworldliness' here in the US. I don't think that most Americans know what Buddhist meditation is about and they imagine that it's something that perhaps it's not.

It's strange how there came to be this idea that "spiritual/religious life" is one thing, and "everyday life" is something else, there being little or no connection between the two.

I could be better at that myself. I can usually make sense of it intellectually as well as anything else, that's not really my problem. My problem is retaining my precepts and mindfulness in the midst of it. It's kind of an emotional maelstrom out there.

Yes ...

I just read in a talk the other day:

It's dangerous out there because it's dangerous in here. The mind so quickly picks up through its greed, anger and delusion the ideas out there that foster greed, anger and delusion.

 

[michael_taylor]

Theologians do often rely onn observable Evidence as a Starting point.

Not when they are discussing the existence or non-existence of a god they don't, because such a thing is impossible. It is antithetical to the concept of evidence.

just because you proclaim that they never base their statemnts ob facts is not True either.

If you're sure of that you must know what those facts are. Why haven't you availed yourself of the opportunity of revealing them for people to check? All the time and effort you've spent in attempted diversions, and you couldn't take a moment to give the single thing which holds the greatest utility and authority on matters of fact?

I don't think you are rational or objective enougbh to really look at what I am actually saying. Yoru goa will be simply to disprove anythign that doens't fit yoru narrow perspective.

Being rational or objective about something is only relevant when you have evidence. It doesn't matter how rational or objective someone is, if the evidence is absent they cannot appraise the accuracy of a statement. Give the evidence and then you will be in a better position to judge the rationality or objectivity of the responses to it. Until you give evidence, there is only one rational response, which is the one I have given, which is to ask for the evidence upon which your assumption is based.

If by "narrow perspective" you mean "observations of the universe " or "things with evidence for them", I agree.

1: I assume that Theologians actally do on occassion question if God exists and often out forward arguments for God's existance.

And you think that's possible without evidence?

2: Aquinas, Des carte, and Tillich all postulated both the nature of God and arguments for their beelif based on Logic and Reason ad observed evidence.

Example?

That is actually a false Dichotomy. Our English word "Faith" comes from the Latin word "Fidese' and means "To Trust". One can Trust even if there is no Evidence, but it is foolish to think Trust is only Trust if it has no evieence.

It would not be foolish to think "Trust is only Trust if it has no evieence" if the word "trust" meant trust in something which has no evidence. If (in this context) faith is trust in a god or gods (or any other supernatural claim), the word "faith" means "trust in something for which there is no evidence", because there is no evidence for the existence (or non-existence) of gods.

 

[spidergoat]

Spider, I know you havent' read Theology and think its the same as Evangelical Christian apologetics, but do you understand why I find som of these statements you make tedious?

Not sure. Maybe you have bought into the notion that the basis of theology lies in a realm that empiricism cannot touch?

 

[Aqueous Id]

If by "narrow perspective" you mean "observations of the universe " or "things with evidence for them", I agree.

Wow. You can hear a pin drop after a statement like that. Well said.