ScaryFacts
Posts: 337
Joined: Aug. 2006
|
Let me clarify something several of you asked about. When I said coming to AtBC was the final nail in the coffin of literalism for me, I wasn’t meaning to indicate I was a complete literalist until I came here in August. Twenty years ago, after getting out of Fundy U I was certainly a hard-core literalist in the “Day-Age” tradition. College students typically see things as black/white so I fit into that nicely.
Then I got out into the “real” world working with “real” people and I began to see more possible variety of interpretation for many things.
When you are a pastor and you truly care about the people you are ministering to, debates about literalism, homosexuality, creation v. evolution really don’t come up very often. You spend much more time helping a guy repair his marriage after an affair or helping the truly poor or getting a prostitute off drugs.
Ten years ago when Darwin’s Black Box came out I didn’t have much interest in reading the book, but I read several detailed reviews in Christian periodicals and they seemed to make sense. Without doing the research myself, it seemed Behe had reconciled creation with science.
By this time I also began to see how some passages fundies taught were literal were likely allegorical—which wasn’t a big deal for me since the Bible uses allegory on a regular basis. I began to see the first three chapters of Genesis as obvious allegory, though I don’t recall ever discussing it with anyone. Again, it just didn’t seem that important compared with the other things I was doing.
I think AFDave refers to this as “comfortable oblivion”—I figured Behe et al had done the hard work of reconciling science with an evangelical view of the Bible so I didn’t worry about it.
This past summer I read a book on the evolution of conscious thought and I first began to understand how RM+NS worked (at a very basic level) and that’s what brought me to AtBC. The big change for me when I got here was realizing how baseless and overtly dishonest many of the leaders in the creationist movement truly are.
| Quote (Russell @ Jan. 04 2007,07:41) | | It's pretty clear that "Christianity" means very different things to different people who claim to subscribe to it. For that matter, words like "religion", "faith", "God", etc. are so fuzzily defined that discussions like this never really get anywhere. |
You may be right, but I tend to think the discourse can be positive for anyone wishing to explore new areas of the spiritual. You guys and gals tend to be logical and methodical and will tell me an idea is crap if it is.
| Quote (Russell @ Jan. 04 2007,07:41) | | Science thrives on precision - both in the narrow sense of measurements and in the broader conceptual sense of framing questions. I've never had the impression that was much of a priority in religion. In fact, to be frank, it seems to me usually the opposite: that religion thrives on never being pinned down, on always being able to say to any logical contradiction: "but that's not what I mean". |
One of the things I am trying to do in my life know is to present (mostly for my own benefit) the reasons why I believe the things I do. While they may not be precise in the quantitative sense, they do fall, I believe, more into the realm of “investigative proof” where one can say their faith is “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
| Quote (Louis @ Jan. 04 2007,10:36) | | What do you mean by "god" and "religion"? I would argue that science has shown that many definitions of "god" have no basis in fact. Note the word MANY not the word ALL. It is possible to imagine a god concept which is consistent with what we currently know about science for example. |
My understanding of God is based on the traditional Judeo/Christian deity as pictured in the Old and New Testaments. While there will always be some debate on every specific characteristic of this god, the broad strokes a pretty well agreed upon: Omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence.
| Quote (Louis @ Jan. 04 2007,10:36) | | "Religion" based on faith or revelation alone falls into that category of epistemological methods that are anathema to reason and thus science. |
If the Bible is reliable (as I believe it is) Christians should not only have the revelation (Bible) but also consistent objective evidence of God working in real ways in their midst. I will write more on this, but if you go here you can see the type of things I am talking about:
http://whorechurch.blogspot.com/2006/12/miracle-of-ice-cream-cake.html
| Quote (Louis @ Jan. 04 2007,10:36) | | Skeptic, and any other religious person reading, I apologise for my initial cynical skepticism, it was entirely unwarranted. It won't happen again. |
For the record, I was no way offended. And skepticism is good—faith without question isn’t very strong faith.
| Quote (afdave @ Jan. 04 2007,10:56) | Contrary to the majority viewpoint here, I consider myself to be an intellectually honest Christian and, since I have been lumped in with the AiG people (rightly so) I would be interested in hearing why Scary Facts thinks I am not (and they are not) ... maybe start with ONE of your biggest specific gripes. (I already have heard your speel, Deadman)
It is particularly interesting to hear that SF says he used to be a Biblical literalist, but is no longer since coming to AtBC. I would be interested in what key items he found at ATBC changed his mind. |
David I was not trying to single you out as intellectually dishonest. I think those who take a literalist view of scripture are either:
1. Ignorant – In the real sense of the word: They just don’t know how many impossible to reconcile ideas are in the Bible
2. Intellectually Dishonest/Deluded – Because of their world view they cannot grasp the inconsistencies produced by literalism
3. Lying – They know the things they are saying aren’t true, but they continue to say them for sake of money, ego, power, etc.
I’m not going to place you, as an individual, into any of these three because I just don’t know which you would fit into. If there is a fourth option I would be happy to entertain it.
Why do I say they must be intellectually dishonest? The evidence for common descent, ancient earth, local (versus global) flood, etc. is overwhelming.
| Quote (Louis @ Jan. 04 2007,10:58) | | If however your god hypothesis is not open to falsification on current evidence then there's a different discussion we can have. If your god hypothesis is not open to falsification at all, then that's yet another conversation. It all depends on what you mean by "god" |
First, I don’t have a “god hypothesis” – I am just like everybody else, trying to figure some things out. The definition of god is a moving target (as you noted) so coming up with a way to “falsify” god is not going to happen. Man would just come up with a new god consistent with whatever falsified the old god. Kinda like when Coke tried that new formula.
| Quote (Louis @ Jan. 04 2007,10:58) | | Also, just what do you mean by denial? |
Not you, Christians. (see above)
| Quote (Louis @ Jan. 04 2007,10:58) | | What I DO care about is that, if we are going to claim that X is part of reality, we have some reasoned, evidenciary basis for doing so. There are many, hopefully obvious reasons, for why that is. And no, it really isn;t because I am prejudiced against god, a philosophical materialist, or any number of asinine straw objects I know a decent bloke like you won't resort to! |
I agree completely. I want to come up with a way of looking at spirituality consistent with the evidence I have—mostly personal—from my own life. You can accept it or reject it, it matters little to me, but I want to see if I am just deluded or if the weight of the evidence produces a “reasonable” belief.
| Quote (Louis @ Jan. 04 2007,10:58) | | If you are claiming that your god is something we don't/can't fully understand then sorry chum but that's really not cutting any mustard. It's the argument from personal incredulity and the argument from mystery added together. It proves, demonstrates and illuminates nothing. Saying something is mysterious or unkowable by fiat is the end of inquiry not the beginning. Perhaps your not saying that, perhaps you mean something different by "denial", enquiring minds want to know! |
A couple of things:
First, when I recommended we have a thread it was not to prove or disprove any hypothesis—I’m not sure I would be the one to define it and I don’t think we have yet looked enough at extra-Biblical evidence to make any predictions, etc.
Second, if the Judeo/Christian picture of God is substantially correct then we ought to be able to learn much about him. What I mean when I say “I don’t expect to ever completely understand God” is more like “I know much about quantum mechanics, and I’m confident I can learn more, but I don’t think I’ll ever completely understand it.”
| Quote (Louis @ Jan. 04 2007,10:58) | | Yours in hopeful anticipation of a genuinely excellent discussion with a genuinely rational and intelligent human being ;-) |
If I find one, I’ll let you know. I don’t have any here with me today.
Edit: Just for clarity - I didn't mean there aren't any rational and intelligent human beings at AtBC, I was talking about "here" as in "my den" i.e.: I'm not a rational or intelligent human being. Sorry I wasn't more clear the first time.
| Quote (Russell @ Jan. 04 2007,11:16) | What's interesting to me is that someone so (apparently, at least) reasonable and rational as "Scary Facts" could have, until quite recently, been a co-religionist with afdave. The transition between flat-out wrong and fully open to the light of reason and the discipline of science (two different, though related, things, by the way) seems so radical, it's hard to fathom.
|
Which is why I wrote the above.
| Quote (Russell @ Jan. 04 2007,11:16) | | (Likewise, incidentally, the reverse transition: from sensible, rational, reality-based community member to flat-out fundamentalist. I wonder, for instance, about afdave's new boyfriend, Sanford. Maybe he wasn't much of a scientist, as opposed to technical tinkerer, before his conversion. Either that, or I have to ascribe it to a radical psychological or neurological breakdown. Generally, I'm pretty skeptical of the story you see over and over in fundamentalist literature: "I was a convinced atheist/secular humanist/evolutionist/whatever until one day...") |
People adopt or reject a philosophy not because of reason but because of emotion. Typically they have a deep seated need to have the psychological pay off that particular philosophy offers. Maybe his mother died and on a sub conscious level he needed to believe she went to heaven. Who knows.
| Quote (Russell @ Jan. 04 2007,11:16) | | Elsewhere in this forum I have described a position I call "insomesensism". I like to think that for religious people who are open to any and all science, or for that matter for religious people who just don't care about science, but do humanitarian work, their religion is "in some sense" true. Frankly, I can't figure out how some of what I think are the basic tenets of Christianity can be true. But who cares? I'm not trying to convince or unconvince anyone. I like to think it's a good exercise in philosophy and humility for me to remind myself that I may be wrong, and believers may be right, about Christianity "in some sense" that I just completely don't get. That's "insomesensism" from the perspective of the nonbeliever; that's how a nonbeliever can view a believer with not just tolerance, but respect. The other side of "insomesensism" is on the part of the believer: without trying to figure out how a nonphysical god could sire a human son, or other such seemingly scientifically dubious propositions, a believer might just note that he/she is a product of a culture that is organized around this religion, that culture is - thus far anyway - viable and valuable and productive of all sorts of wonderful things, and so that religion must "in some sense" be true. Or, again from the believer's perspective, perhaps he/she might just have a strong religious "feeling", and - knowing that the feeling is real, just as love of another human can undoubtedly be real without having anything to do with correct/incorrect, accurate/inaccurate, right/wrong - he/she might conclude that there must be something to it; it must "in some sense" be true. |
As I have said elsewhere I had certain experiences while taking the Judeo/Christian path that lead me personally to believe the God of the Bible exists. That doesn’t mean I’m write or that the experiences I’ve had were caused by a Christian deity. Possibly I was mistaken, mislead or there is some other option—like a previously unknown common consciousness.
Just to be clear…
When I suggested a thread I wasn’t secretly trying to convert the atheists by my rapier wit logical argument. I just wanted to have a place where we could discuss spiritual issues as related to science. I am personally disgusted when a Christian says “Oh, I’m here just to learn” when in reality they are planning the whole time to convert those who haven’t asked for their religious input.
Edit: That was supposed to be "right" not "write"
|
? It seems your point is to assume Christianity is superior to other religions is silly. I agree. You need to read my posts. 
and I may well not find your brand of belief objectionable by any measure--though I'll reserve my right to disagree as the discussion plays out--but if this is the measure we're applying, then--among the world's major religions, which distinctly conflict on all sorts of detail, not to mention more major matters--they can't all be "correct," regardless of how many people have believed them, for how long, and how "good" most of those people have behaved toward each other.
) and patently ignorant jerkoffs that so far are limited to one current example (for me, since I'm a pretty tolerant guy, *cough*). 
