On the issue of authority: we all rely on it; we all take things by faith. I'm not just appealing to authority; I've clearly and repeatedly said that the 'evidence' behind authoritative quotes like Darling's is out there in quality writings to be investigated. While respecting your wishes to hear what I think, there is behind some of your questions a demand for me to systematically set out the evidence which I simply can't fulfil just now, and don't think I'll ever be able to, certainly for as long as any of our patience lasts. I've got trains to book, a life to organise (and try and live!) And it would frankly be a waste of all our time; it's all been set out far more comprehensively and articulately by others who've been able to devote time to it than I could manage. Hence my consistent urge to invest your considerable curiosity and debating energies in reading it. We all arrive at our faith positions in different ways; you guys want to explore evidence in a very rational, logical way; but that is a limited domain of human knowledge and experience; lots of people, perhaps being more attuned to the emotional, intuitive dimensions of our lives, wd just not be able to identify with your concentration on the former approach, and as a way of considering the mystery of God, would find it very one-sided.
I probably will come back to some of your questions though, because they do interest me. Oh dear. You'll probably think I haven't said much today. Sorry. Got to go book a train. We'll keep talking.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.JPG)
31 comments:
- Having grown up an atheist, McGrath during his degree studies in molecular biology came to realise his former understanding of the place and proof of evidence had been 'dangerously superficial'. He wrote a multi-volume work 'Scientific Theology'. Read it? Any thoughts?
- To explore: atheism is a faith position; soft agnosticism wd be the best way to describe someone not sure, exploring the evidence.
Hi Bruce,
You really are not providing any evidence to believe here. Even the bible warns against placing wieght on your emaotions. I wish I could remember the verse, but you are supposed to place it on the certainty of the resurrection. Haven't "scientific Theology", but this is an oxymoron, as god has not yet been demonstrated. I'm probably already familiar with some of the content, but if you get me a copy, I'm confident that I can pull it apart for you. As I've said before, I am not remotely swayed by anything I have read by mcgrath.
Dont try and pretend atheism is a faith. It is a lack of belief. Question, can you touch the physical world? Have you ever seen a supernatural phenomenon? You bible is full of examples afterall. Atheism is no more a point of faith as is belief that faries dont exist. This is a very poor and easily noticeable tactic that tries to equate belief systems. To those who dont think too deeply about it, it may then appeare that there is a 50:50 chance that god exists. However, it doesn't work that way. It is a question of probability and you have nothing more than feelings - I keep asking you to show that these are more than based in the physical. Basically, it seems like your whole belief system is one based in personal incredulity. That is just no reason to believe anything.
Again, the easy to see through tactic of nit picking definitions dont work here either. Surely everyone is technically agnostic, even believers. There are however degrees of agnosticism, so again the attempt to seek parity in probability fails miserably
Why dont you come along to the brights tonight http://brights.meetup.com/118/
must do some work now
Billy
Forgot to ask, Could someone please explain how emotion is actually evidence? If you want to see the irationality of emotion, try working with 9 women whose menstrual cycles are synchronised
Billy
PS Jonathan I will try and come back and engage with your Friday comments. Just feel a bit swamped by the feedback I suppose.
On the subject of Theology, here is a nice piece by one of your favorite Athiests: "A dismally unctuous editorial in the British newspaper the Independent recently asked for a reconciliation between science and "theology." It remarked that "People want to know as much as possible about their origins." I certainly hope they do, but what on earth makes one think that theology has anything useful to say on the subject?
Science is responsible for the following knowledge about our origins. We know approximately when the universe began and why it is largely hydrogen. We know why stars form and what happens in their interiors to convert hydrogen to the other elements and hence give birth to chemistry in a world of physics. We know the fundamental principles of how a world of chemistry can become biology through the arising of self-replicating molecules. We know how the principle of self-replication gives rise, through Darwinian selection, to all life, including humans.
It is science and science alone that has given us this knowledge and given it, moreover, in fascinating, over-whelming, mutually confirming detail. On every one of these questions theology has held a view that has been conclusively proved wrong. Science has eradicated smallpox, can immunize against most previously deadly viruses, can kill most previously deadly bacteria. Theology has done nothing but talk of pestilence as the wages of sin. Science can predict when a particular comet will reappear and, to the second, when the next eclipse will appear. Science has put men on the moon and hurtled reconnaissance rockets around Saturn and Jupiter. Science can tell you the age of a particular fossil and that the Turin Shroud is a medieval fake. Science knows the precise DNA instructions of several viruses and will, in the lifetime of many present readers, do the same for the human genome.
What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the smallest use, anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false. If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and sonar-guided whaling vessels work! The achievements of theologians don't do anything, don't affect anything, don't mean anything. What makes anyone think that "theology" is a subject at all?" Richard Dawkins
It raises some interesting points
Billy
Bruce-
"lots of people, perhaps being more attuned to the emotional, intuitive dimensions of our lives"
Relying on emotion and intuition is all well and good, but they are very often wrong. Saying that you "feel" something to be true can only really apply to you. Empathy gives us some idea of how others think and feel, but ultimately a lot of the time we're just guessing, relating what people do to ourselves and making assumptions based on that. And saying that you "feel" something like an omnipotent, omniscient, interventionist loving/vengeful God to be true is in many ways unhelpful, especially since I could easily turn round and say: "I don't feel that to be true". Deadlock.
And Bruce, the disadvantage of reading up on the "evidence" from others is that Billy and I could go into loads of detail discussing something, only for you to turn around and say "well, I don't believe that anyway", or "that's not MY God".
PS- I welcome your feedback on the Friday comments, when you have the chance. I have no sympathy for you feeling swamped; it's your own fault for starting a debate!
Bye for now,
Jonathan.
Hi Billy
I know the answers to your questions
it's not that I'm keeping them from you it's just that some things you have to find out for yourself
it wouldn't mean much to you coming from me.
I would be interested to read your scientific 'first cause' theory.
Jimmy,
What things do you know the answers to?
I'm also interested to know why you think first cause arguments are evidence not only for god, but out of all the gods that mankind has believed in, your god. You are taking a god of the gap approach here. Why do earthquakes happen? - God makes them? How do salmon know where to spawn? God tells them, How do crystals form? God makes them - etc. Not a good basis.
If you want to talk first causes, then where did god come from? This is where your argument becomes inconsistent. Basically a theistic first cause is an argument from ignorance. It is not evidence. There is also much bad design in nature too. If a rationalist does not know for sure, we say so, that is no problem, but to say god is the first cause because you cant imagine any other way is a poor reason to believe in a god who is supposed to be relational and supposedly intervenes in human activities.
So, before we go any further, why is the first cause argument evidence for god? Seeing "MADE BY YAHWEH" written in the constellations in every known language would be positive evidence. You are basically saying the fact you cant understand something is evidence. That is a problem with faith, it stifles imagination and progress - look at poor old Galileo and how the pope gave him a death threat for teaching that the universe was different to how it is described in the bible.
Billy
By the way, if you believe god is the first cause, that is for you to demonstrate. I am here asking for evidence, please provide some if you have it
Billy
PS, what about ugly women?
Bruce,
Forgot to ask concerning "scientific" theology. You keep saying that the supernatural can not be tested, but testing is the basis of the scientific approach. How then do you reconcile this with mcGraths' "scientific" approach? By the way, citing him like that looked like another appeal to authority to me.
Billy
Hi Billy
another tantrum about what you assume my reasoning of 'first cause' to be although expected and like all assumptions inaccurate is not what I asked.
so I will ask again-
I would be interested to read -your- 'first cause' scientific theory.
Jimmy,
Tantrum? Well I never. Funny you think challenging theology is a tantrum. Anyway, the best model at the momoent is the Big Bang theory - but I assume you know this. Like all theories, it can be modified as new evidence comes to light.
You have two outstanding question to answer now. What about ugly women? And why are arguments about first causes evidence for not just god, but your god?
Try not to be evasive
Billy
Hi Billy
you will know that the Lord said to Samuel - 'Man looks on the outward appearance but the Lord looks on the heart'.
I personally would not consider the outward appearance of any woman to be ugly.
God is from everlasting to everlasting without beginning and without end. In the physical universe we can trace back to 'first cause' beginning - but to God the physical universe sprang from and will return to 'eternal cause'
jimmy, do you have evidence that god actually exists? I know what the bible says, but is there any evidence that it is true?
Do you think we shouls accept anything because a book says so? Why dont you follow the Koran? Why do you reject Allah?
Billy
PS, all else being equal, who who would you choose to date between Jessica Biel and Margaret Thatcher?
I also asked if god creates beauty, is he also responsible for deformity (ps 139:13). Could you answer that one for me?
Hi Billy
You keep asking for evidence you're like a man examining a horse but not sure what it is because it doesn't have the word 'horse' imprinted on it somewhere. I'm satisfied with the evidence God has given me and I think that is all anyone with faith can say. You have faith that the big bang happened although you don't know why it happened or what was before it or what led up to it, I thought you might have given some info on this in your explanation of 'first cause'
but as the answers to these questions are in the Bible it would be difficult for you.
You keep going on about Allah don't you know that Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same God. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet Billy.
It is true there is suffering in the world but at the end of the day we are all marked for suffering and death. God's way of confronting this was to identify utterly with the human condition in the suffering and death of Christ. A man whose face was marred more than any man.
Jimmy,
I feel that I need to point out that you although the Jews and mulims worship the same god as you, they have very different views on him. The koran condemns christians and jews to hell. The Torah condems jesus as a blasphemer and Christians as heretics. Jesus (jn 14:6) says that he is the only way to god, so muslims and jews are off to hell. Those two religions also put emphasis on deeds and not grace. Therefore, you dont believe that Allah is God, because "Allah" will let you burn in hell for all eternity. So, Why dont you follow Allah?
"You keep asking for evidence you're like a man examining a horse but not sure what it is because it doesn't have the word 'horse' imprinted on it somewhere."
Come on Jimmy, do you really think that is a reassonable statement. It seems to me you dont have any foundation to your belief. You expect peolpe to just accept. Why? How do you know you are not wrong? After all, if Islam is right, you're going to burn in hell for all eternity. Why do you reject Mohammed. Why do you reject peter pan as evidence that fairies exist?
Who created God?
You seem to think that because it's in yhe bible it must be true. However, the bible tells us that the sun enters the sky through windows, that rabits chew the cud, that bats are fowl, that insects have 4 legs, that life suddenly appeared on earth in its current form.
Here's a wee thing for you to ponder. Who was the father of Joseph? Matthew 1:16
and Jacob was the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Luke 3:23
Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli
Many more where that comes from.
Why are you here if yu are satisfied with your faith and are not willing to give evidence? I think some of your earlies comments were aimed at picking a fight. That wont work. Are you intolerant of atheists?
Billy
Now Jimmy, do you really think this is reasonable
You have faith that the big bang happened although you don't know why it happened or what was before it or what led up to it, I thought you might have given some info on this in your explanation of 'first cause'
but as the answers to these questions are in the Bible it would be difficult for you.
Again, how do you know the bible is true? You claim that there is no answer as to the why or the how. There are answers out there concerning those things. The problem though is not the answer as such, but the means by which you derive it. Do you know how your computer works? If you dont, do you say - "well I cant explain it, so it must be magic." Of course you dont (I hope) Why then do you have this attitude concerning first origins?
One fault with your claim is that you are saying you cant think (or refuse to think) how the universe could have a natural explanation. All that shows is your intellectual deficiencies (no insult intended) It does not show that God is there. So, the universe is hard to undersyand, so you think it must have a creator. Rather than derive possible qualities or the creator through obseving the universe, you then change your thought process and insert a self existant creator. What is your justifiaction for this existental import? Christians often argue that the universe looks designed, so it must be. When asked about the origins of a creator, they say he always existed. I find this as little more than intellectual lazyness and nothing more than arbitralily setting up your own rules (with out justification) so that your argument becomes self fulfilling, but logically flawed.
So, Thatcher or Biel, who do you choose and why?
Billy
Hi Billy
unfortunately you seem to be under the impression that all relgious people believe and practice the most extreme fundamentalism.
Don't you know that 99.9% of relgious people respect the faith of others and would see it as their duty to defend the right of people to worship God in accordance with their own belief and tradition.
There is something also you should know about knowledge, if your knowledge does not teach you how little you know then you need to drink a deeper draught.
I find the 'Origin of Faeces' interesting how that faeces evolved by the creator trinity of time, natural selection and survival of the fittest to a stage where it was able to make it's own faeces. Perhaps we shouldn't condemn our faeces to the horrors of sewage but preserve them in a vault then if we are wiped out they could evolve to replace us. After all they contain so much more human information than prehuman slime so they wouldn't weary the 'time god' time would be half way there already.
Jimmy,
"unfortunately you seem to be under the impression that all relgious people believe and practice the most extreme fundamentalism"
Care to back up this statement? Are you really saying that jews respect palistineans or vice versa? Are you saying the Taliban tolerates Christianity? Are you saying there is no religious tension in India, pakistan, nothern Ireland, Iraqi, Iran, America .... In fact, choose a country.
Now Jimmy, I want you to realise this I NEVER SAID WHAT YOU ARE CLAIMING I BELIEVE I was pointing out that you are wrong about Allah=Yahweh. Do you think Muslims will go to hell? Do muslims think you and Jews will go to hell. Answer the question and admit you are wrong.
And questioning what you believe is my philosophy. I wouldn't be goodat my job if my attitude was that I must always be right.
As for the rest of your post, you really seem to have some issues there. You sound bitter and angry about something. I think you really need to sort something out. If you cant behave like a mature (secular) adult, it's probably best you keep quiet until you can.
Billy
PS, who is the father of joseph?
PPS what did Jesus say about respect? Im not even a christian, but I can show you respect.
PPS Thatcher or Biel?
Hi Billy
Jacob is the Father of all Jews.
In your nitpicking of the New Testament if you come across anything that changes the core message or doctrine or should effect a change in the nicene creed then there are people who know much more about the New Testament than I do who would be interested to hear about it.
You really shouldn't take your knowledge of religion from the media,there are countless acts of kindness each day between people of faith that unfortunately don't make good copy.
You also don't seem to differentiate between the political exploitation of religion and people who have a genuine faith in God.
I'm curious as to why you have resorted to ad hominem.
Do you want me to be quiet and go away?
I'm also curious as to why you'd want me to tell you if I'd like to date an octogenarian.
I'd be interested in your opinion of my take on the 'Origin of Faeces'
Hi Jimmy,
I am not asking you to go away, just to be polite. Now were do you think I personally attacked you?
Answer the question about Biel or Thatcher and I'll give my reasons for asking.
If you pick all the little nits in the NT, then it all adds up to a very fishy smell about the validity of the bible. You seem to have so much confidence in it, then surely it must be sound. Surely you think it's authority is beyond question. Did you know that Matt says Jesus was born in the reign of Herod, butluke says he was born under the goverorship of quirinius (about 9 years after the death of Herod). That would make the slaughter of the innocents a lie.
What has jacob got to do with the father of Joseph? Are you saying that you accept the bible's accuracy on this point, but it doesn't matter elsewhere?
Why does Boaz appear in the genealogy of Jesus - his wife was a moabite, and they could never enter the congregation of god (neh 13:1-3). Tell me, which son of David was the ancestor of Jesus?
Have you read the virgin birth prophecy in context? Can you tell me how a prophecy concerning someone else 730 years before Jesus is actually about Jesus. What about Micah 5:2? can you tell me how that is about Jesus, when it is actually about the Assyrians?
Taliking of prophecies, was this one fulfilled?"Jeremiah 36:30
Therefore thus says the Lord concerning Jehoiakim king of Judah, he shall have none to sit on the throne of David." Jer 36:30
Apparently not:
"So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his stead." 2 kin 24:6
In al likely hood, the prophets were spin doctors and propaganda ministers that wrote god into events that concerned them at the time - to be later rewritten by later "prophets" Jeremiahs failed 70 year prophecy being another example (it was only 49 years) jer 25:9-12.
Would you like some more examples?
Why are you now saying that I am calling all religious people nasty? Where did I say that? How does correcting your severly misinformed and wildely innacurate statement become a statement that all religious people are nutters?
Can you please read what I am actually saying.
You claim god=allah
I point out serious theological differences.
You then say 99.9999% of religious people respect each other
I point out that this is not so.
You then accuse me of thinking you all kill each other.
Please pay attention, and anser the original question concerning why you are not a Muslim.
In case you didn't pick it up, I thought your "origin of faeces" was the puerile ranting of someone who has no evidence for his own position. Are you a creationist by any chance - I love taking them on
Billy
Jimmy, which version of the Nicene Creed do you follow, and what do you make of the "filoque" controversy surrounding it?
Regarding the filioque clause
To me personally as Christ breathed on the apostles and said to them 'Receive the Holy Spirit'
it would appear that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son
But I'm happy with all and every version of the nicene creed.
This difference of opinion hardly negates the fact that the Holy Spirit is 'God from God' this would be accepted by all who held to any version of the nicene creed.
Unfortunately, The filoque clause did split the church. In fact the creed itself was the result of a very human power struggle.
talking of the spirit, did you know the main trinity supporting verse of the bible is not found in most of the earliest known manuscripts. it is I John 5:7-8 (KJV)
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. And there are three that witness on earth, the Spirit, the Water and the Blood and these three agree in one."
In fact, it doesn't appear in any greek manuscript earlier than the 15th century.
The bible isn't really about the trinity at all. Take out this verse and you have a real problem supporting it
Billy
Hi Billy
I would have expected you to know that the doctrine of the Trinity is understood from the body of scripture.
Jimmy, I'm affraid you are wrong. maybe you could give a verse that actually mentions the trinity (again the trinity evolved through power struggles). I think you will find that all the others are eith binatarian or triadic. You also havea lot of other questions to answer.
Billy
Hi Billy
I've already answered this question.
Here's one for you
In beleaving 'Time' to be the creator of life on Earth are you not worshipping the creature instead of God the creator of all things including time.
According to Romans 1:25 could the theory of evolution be no more than a sophisticated form of idolatry?
Jimmy, answered what question? I asked about Thatcher, Micah 5:2, jeremiah's prophecy and for a trinitarian verse to name but a few.
Jimmy, what do you actually know about evolution? Time did not create anything. Why do you think it is idolatry? Do you not know that people will abandon evolution if a human and dinosaur are found fossilised in situ together? So much for idols!
Another question. Do you believe in a 6 day creation and a flood?
OK, another one, Jesus told the high priest at his trial that he would see him return. He died without that happening - and the events described in revelation means that he cant see him return - ever! How do you explain that (and the many other refererences to the return of jesus in his own generation).
Billy
Hi Billy
I was wondering if you saw yourself as a sinner in the sight of God?
Ps
Psalm 24 is worth reading
Jimmy, I dont believe in god, so I dont consider myself a sinner in his sight. In fact, if he existed, I would would condider your god a sinner in the sight of man kind.
What has psalm 24 got to do with anything. Dont you realise that I hold the bible to be little more than a book of myths, bad history, failed prophecies, bad morality, failed prophecies, contrived prophecies and political agendas, so, can you give me a reason to believe that there is a god? can you also answer the challenges and questions that I put to you.
Here's another one, why would you so demean yourself as to think of yourself as morally inferior to a god who kills babies and punishes the children for the deeds of parents?
Billy
PS the God delusion is worth reading
PPS note the focus on deeds, not grace in ps 24
Post a Comment