Going a bit off topic, but what about when the NT contradicts itself. Then you have to ignore some of it, don't you?
Worldview and Religion
- Thread starter BenTheMan
- Start date
Going a bit off topic, but what about when the NT contradicts itself. Then you have to ignore some of it, don't you?
JM,
The essence of my point is that for many people there is no need to adopt a theological position of any type, the issue is simply not relevant to them. It is not that they haven’t chosen, since that would imply they have considered the issues to some extent but that the issue is of no interest to them. That is also different to the common lay interpretation of agnosticism where one is considered to have not made a decision, but even there the implication is that the issues have been considered.
For many people the issue of whether to choose a religion or be religious is of significant importance to them and they will spend a great deal of time stressing over the issues. I think this is the essential context from which you began this thread and which seems evident from your statement –
“I am a lapsed Catholic, and have been struggling with the following question: Should one's religion dictate one's worldview, or should one's worldview dictate their theology?”.
My simple point is that for many a theological position is irrelevant for them. In computer terms it is a NULL option, as opposed to positive, negative, or zero.
Agreed, that’s what I said. They are deliberate positions adopted in regard to the study and understanding of theistic religions. Whether the positions are rational or irrational or pro or anti is largely irrelevant, they are nevertheless deliberate positions. One might argue that materialism does not necessarily have to consider theism but in practice one who deliberately adopts such a position would be almost certain to have considered the theist concepts. It’s a minor point.
I think that is an oxymoron. If one stands at a T intersection and does not go left or right, that is clearly the absence of making a decision regarding those two options. In this sense one would not be taking a position regarding left or right.
The essence of my point is that for many people there is no need to adopt a theological position of any type, the issue is simply not relevant to them. It is not that they haven’t chosen, since that would imply they have considered the issues to some extent but that the issue is of no interest to them. That is also different to the common lay interpretation of agnosticism where one is considered to have not made a decision, but even there the implication is that the issues have been considered.
For many people the issue of whether to choose a religion or be religious is of significant importance to them and they will spend a great deal of time stressing over the issues. I think this is the essential context from which you began this thread and which seems evident from your statement –
“I am a lapsed Catholic, and have been struggling with the following question: Should one's religion dictate one's worldview, or should one's worldview dictate their theology?”.
My simple point is that for many a theological position is irrelevant for them. In computer terms it is a NULL option, as opposed to positive, negative, or zero.
Last edited:
What would such people be going along with? I am not aware of any atheist-specific traditions.
Defining one's religion with solely the New Testament is a tricky thing. People in America quoted the New Testament to sanction the persecution and enslavement of blacks. And it is hard to reconcile the inconsistencies already mentioned, so something else is clearly needed.
JM,
I think that what has happened is that past world views have created religion. If we look back at the history of religions, of the thousands of god concepts, and non theistic supernatural systems, what we tend to see is an interpretation of natural events that have defied objective explanation at the time and man in his state of infinite curiosity has proposed creative and imaginative explanations, which at the time have seemed quite plausible, given past limited knowledge of how nature truly behaves. The large number of explanations simply reflects the vastly varying cultures that have developed independently of each other and the richness of man’s imagination.
So should we take any of these offerings and use them to impose a worldview? Which one should we choose? Doesn’t this come down to which religious concept appears to be the most reflective of actuality, i.e. truth? To me one choice would be the need to explore each concept and attempt to determine any truths behind the proposals. Alternatively I think a better and more obvious method would be to carefully examine the world and seek to discover cause and effect. Once facts are determined then perhaps a theological position may or may not arise. Is there any other more reasonable alternative?
In this way an objective worldview should determine any theological position or perhaps none.
Exploring this point from a different perspective. BTW the issue of “should” is somewhat of a problem – but I’ll come back to that.
I think that what has happened is that past world views have created religion. If we look back at the history of religions, of the thousands of god concepts, and non theistic supernatural systems, what we tend to see is an interpretation of natural events that have defied objective explanation at the time and man in his state of infinite curiosity has proposed creative and imaginative explanations, which at the time have seemed quite plausible, given past limited knowledge of how nature truly behaves. The large number of explanations simply reflects the vastly varying cultures that have developed independently of each other and the richness of man’s imagination.
So should we take any of these offerings and use them to impose a worldview? Which one should we choose? Doesn’t this come down to which religious concept appears to be the most reflective of actuality, i.e. truth? To me one choice would be the need to explore each concept and attempt to determine any truths behind the proposals. Alternatively I think a better and more obvious method would be to carefully examine the world and seek to discover cause and effect. Once facts are determined then perhaps a theological position may or may not arise. Is there any other more reasonable alternative?
In this way an objective worldview should determine any theological position or perhaps none.
Well ben, ones worldview can be based on faith, which I equate to willful ignorance, or reason. There will always be some level of ignorance regarding nature no matter what we do. Some facts:
The universe exists.
It apparently began (at least this cycle, if indeed it does cycle).
It runs according to knowable physical laws.
So. Given such a simple set of initial conditions, a worldview based on faith imposes an entirely unwarranted set of derived results from essentially nothing. Reason would dictate that we just say "we don't yet know, may never know, but will apply logic and reason to try to tease out the answers".
Your previous statement regarding questions that science can't answer, such as "what happens after death" is incorrect. Science can say for certain that, without a functioning brain, there is no consciousness and that there is no evidence or reason whatsoever to suspect anything other than oblivion after death.
A worldview that substitutes superstition for reason "just because we don't know yet" is, from the standpoint of intellectual integrity, unsupportable.
The universe exists.
It apparently began (at least this cycle, if indeed it does cycle).
It runs according to knowable physical laws.
So. Given such a simple set of initial conditions, a worldview based on faith imposes an entirely unwarranted set of derived results from essentially nothing. Reason would dictate that we just say "we don't yet know, may never know, but will apply logic and reason to try to tease out the answers".
Your previous statement regarding questions that science can't answer, such as "what happens after death" is incorrect. Science can say for certain that, without a functioning brain, there is no consciousness and that there is no evidence or reason whatsoever to suspect anything other than oblivion after death.
A worldview that substitutes superstition for reason "just because we don't know yet" is, from the standpoint of intellectual integrity, unsupportable.
Superluminal---this is far from being proven. It could be that a full theory of quantum gravity is too difficult for us to understand.
Surely not. In the absence of scientific evidence, it is always reasonable to make a leap of faith. The contradiction comes when one refuses to acknowledge scientific fact, when it is at odds with prior belief---this is a violation of intellectual integrity. When someone refuses to ask a question because they are scared of the answer, or because the question is at odds with their faith, this is a violation of intellectual integrity.
If, for example, someone could show me evidence that the Ekpyrotic Universe scenario of Turok and Steinhardt was provable, I would have to admit that God could not have caused the Big Bang. (If you're not familiar, the Ekpyrotic Universe is a sort of ``bouncing'' cosmology, that seems to be consistent with all of the data. Check it out on wikipedia, or PM me if you want more details. But basically it predicts an infinite line of universes.)
But I think to assume that science has all of the answers is a bit naive---like I said, things like quantum gravity may just be too difficult for us to understand. This would, I believe, constitute a limit on human understanding of the universe, and a breakdown of logic. But this is exactly what God is!
By your tone, however, you surely don't agree.
Well who said God was restricted by Physical laws. Physical laws are confined to this universe. This universe is a creation of God. That does not mean that God is confined to the laws he created for this universe.
I cannot see when you draw these conclusions from?
Never is such a unwise word to use in relation to ones future beliefs. Maybe "i cannot see myself prescribing too" might be a more appropriate choice of words.
Man can attempt to "analytically test" God but God cannot be tested /confirmed by such tests. God cannot be proven or disproved.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
My reply was in relation to the statement made by bentheman
If Ben had said I have trouble believing God would do these things then you post would have some validity. But tom said He simply had trouble believing in the virgin birth and Jesus walking on water.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
I don't think it matters, as long as a religious viewpoint remains personal, and it is not forced upon others. It's the expression of religion that is my issue, not how someone comes to hold their beliefs.
However, I would prefer to think people look around, and formulate their beliefs from what they see, so I tentatively vote for the latter. But that sounds more like science; drawing conclusions from observations.
If God interacts with this universe, he must do so in a way that is consistent with physical law. Otherwise we cannot trust any science, we cannot trust any logic, and it is only by God's grace that hydrogen and oxygen react to form water, for example. Submitting our universe to the whimsy's of a Creator is surely not consistent with our understanding of this universe.
I agree with this statement, and perhaps you mistook my point. At one point in time, natural phenomena like lightning and storms were attributed to God's vengance. But now we know how these things happen, and can (to some extent) predict them. Does this mean that we can predict God? No---it just means that God was never really causing the events in the first place.
Ideally yes. But this is seldom the case
I think that is part of the flawed mental process; religious people decide how they think the world should work, and then try and bend facts and others to their way of thinking. Scientists observe.
I don't think this is always necessarily true. In general, people who are identified as mystics have a tendency to hold their particular beliefs because of personal experiences that they have spent a great deal of their time thinking about.
This is usually where religious beliefs in general come from, because the vast majority of people don't regularly have these experiences, and so they listen to those who seem to hold an insightful view of the world. Chances are, no matter what the belief, it started with some kind of mystic or shaman way back when who took some psychotropic drug, or had some kind of vision while in a deep trance.
Why so? If God created the universe and set the laws then he can bend the laws whenever he deems it necessary. The bible records incidences were such things happened.
True in relation to God you cannot trust science. But you can use science to assist you in everyday living. The laws of the universe can usually be relied upon. That’s if one knows what the actual laws are.
With your understanding of the universe.
Yes we know lightning is a natural event. But it can also be used by God as a tool. Who knows if a lightning strike that hits a person was purely a natural event, or a natural event slightly modified by God to bring about the desired effect.
Well as a Christian i believe i can discern some of the future actions of God, because God inspired scriptures foretells such action. I understand you do not believe this.
Wether God actually causes an event or uses a natural event for His purpose makes no difference to me.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
Thinking is philosophy. Philosophy isn't science. Some things are counter intuitive for instance, so philosophical models based on subjective experiences are hardly robust.
To say that ``the laws of the universe can usually be relied upon'' is a bad answer---how usual? One cannot answer this question, so ``usual'' is arbitrary.
But it does to ME. If any of what you are saying is true, there is no reason to trust science.
Possibly, but that does not excuse substituting superstition.
Now there's a leap. You have the exact handle on "what god is"? Pretty cool.
Quite. I never said that "science has all the answers". What I said was that substituting superstition (or leaps of faith) just because we don't yet know (or even may never know) is intellectually bankrupt.
Come on Ben. So far, the laws of the universe have held to our best ability to test and apply them. We clearly don't have the "ultimate truth" and never will IMO. But "usually" is an understatement when describing the frequency that known physical law holds true. You're not being very honest here.
Which it isn't.
Right. No reason at all.