Saturday, 17 November 2007
All channels engaged?
I and one or two other Christians have been engaged in blog discussion with a few atheists of late - see also Jonathan's 'Musings...' blog linked on the right - and it prompts me to reflect on the deeper dynamics and issues in considering human response to the universal question of God. One of our atheist friends has a pretty hefty arsenal of biological and bible data which he readily deploys in constructing his arguments. The amount of 'knowledge' on display can look impressive. How much of it is accurate, comprehensive and reasonably deployed is sometimes debatable, but that is not to dismiss it; I recognise it needs to be engaged with. What I'm mulling just now though is what limits the impact of this kind of 'information' in undermining faith - in a person of faith. And my basic response would be that there is a dimension, the spirit, through which a human being, if willing - a point I recognise as controversial for the atheist - is enabled to appreciate something of the reality and presence of God in a way that the intellectual information/misinformation doesn't threaten. I'm not at all dismissing the place and role of the intellectual stuff; but I'm trying partly here to convey to atheists a sense of its limitations to a person of faith. I believe this realm of spirit is fundamental to our make-up as human beings - part of the fullness of my humanity. At the root of the power of the bible's communication - like much literature, art and music - is its frequent appeal to this side of me, appealing to emotion and intuition (though not at the expense of mind) - often through potent imagery eg Psalm 23 'The Lord is my shepherd...' A criticism sometimes levelled at the religious is 'you're blinkered, trapped in dogma, open your mind!'; one of my questions to atheists is, are you truly open to the variety of 'channels of our humanity' through which truth, and perhaps even God, might communicate to you?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.JPG)
95 comments:
I think people who only operate by what they can read or are able to jam into their minds can be just as likely to be blinkered and trapped in dogma.
There needs to be a balance of mind and spirit.
God is all for knowing about things, but there is a whole other level to life that is not written and can only be experienced.
There is an element of trust involved in allowing things to happen that you may never be able to physically see or feel.
For some people this comes easily and tapping into it is almost like breathing, but then the "book learnin" is something that feels clumsy or out of reach for them.
I really admire people who are able to come somewhere close to striking that balance.
Bruce, Lalalian (great name BTW)-
Firstly, as always Bruce, thanks for plugging my blog! Now, onto business.
I think one of the main difficulties I personally have with this concept of "the spirit" is that it is so weakly defined. If I asked both of you to define it, I would get two different answers. Lalalian- your comment suggests that you believe mind and spirit to be separate.
Can I ask you both, then, what does "spirit" mean to you?
At the risk of sounding cynical- would you both concede that perhaps some of the reason that the religious fall back so heavily on the concept of the spirit is because it is so hard to see God at work in the physical world?
Bruce- you suggest the Bible appeals to your emotion and intuition. But these are heavily grounded in the brain and its workings. How does that relate to the spirit?
Guys, you have to demonstrate that spirit is a valid way of seeing the "truth" the fact that you talk of "truth" in terms of spirit. It seems you just assume it? Why is the "human experience" evidence of anything other than the fact that we are conscious beings - this is a massive gap in your thinking. You need to show why christian "spirit" is more true than muslim or buddist "spirit" to them, they are just as convinced as you about absolute truth, but do you credit their understanding of spirit as evidence of absolute truth?
Can people be mind washed?
Can Derren Brown make people believe?
I suggest that it is a delusion.
Just because you believe something does not make it true.
My challenge is for you to show that "spirit" reveals something absolute about truth, or accept that there is no foundation to yoour claims, and that you have nothing more valid than any other belief system.
If you doubt my biology or bible knowledge, then there is another challenge for you - if you thing something is wrong, then demonstrate it. Dont say something might be wrong. That shows your presuppositions, and it is misleading.
Care to discuss internal telomeric sequences in chromosome 2 as an argument against design?
There is an element of trust involved in allowing things to happen that you may never be able to physically see or feel.
I would call it is blind irrational faith that is open to delusion and abuse.
You can skip around the hard facts all you want by arguing about "spirit", but at the end of the day, you believe in Yahweh, not Zoroaster etc. Unless you can justify why, then all you are really doing is taking Pascal's wager.
Billy
Thanks for your comments folks; I see Lalalian is from Australia so Lee (on Jonathan's blog) shd drop by and say hello.
I'll just reply to one point just now, Billy asking if I'd 'care to discuss internal telomeric sequences in chromosome 2 as an argument against design?' Er no, not particularly, as Beat said in another context, it's not my field. To my mind you'd have a far more fruitful discussion on such specialist points of biology in relation to religion with a biologist who's a believer. I'll look out for one for you.
Oi, achei seu blog pelo google está bem interessante gostei desse post. Gostaria de falar sobre o CresceNet. O CresceNet é um provedor de internet discada que remunera seus usuários pelo tempo conectado. Exatamente isso que você leu, estão pagando para você conectar. O provedor paga 20 centavos por hora de conexão discada com ligação local para mais de 2100 cidades do Brasil. O CresceNet tem um acelerador de conexão, que deixa sua conexão até 10 vezes mais rápida. Quem utiliza banda larga pode lucrar também, basta se cadastrar no CresceNet e quando for dormir conectar por discada, é possível pagar a ADSL só com o dinheiro da discada. Nos horários de minuto único o gasto com telefone é mínimo e a remuneração do CresceNet generosa. Se você quiser linkar o Cresce.Net(www.provedorcrescenet.com) no seu blog eu ficaria agradecido, até mais e sucesso. If is possible add the CresceNet(www.provedorcrescenet.com) in your blogroll, I thank. Good bye friend.
Bruce, I didn't really expect you to get involved with chromosome 2. My point, which has been just illustrated, is it is a fallacy to claim that I may be wrong, when you presumably do not know what the point of the telomeric sequences is. It suggests a closed mind, that you already "know" life must be designed, or in the case of the bible, that if I challenge it, I must be wrong, because you believe the bible to be right.
I think the approach that you dont feel able to respond, so you wont, is intellectually stifling. If you do want to argue that life is designed and not evolved, you have to engage with such things. The fossil record is a much simpler indicatin of evolution though.
However, for now, I'd rather you addressed the other points on the thread
Billy
How annoying, I just tried to publish a comment and it’s disappeared, have to rewrite and get on to Blogger complaints!
Billy, this issue has come up before, so a few points. No dispute with you that intellectual freedom is good, but I‘ll make responses when and how I want to. I don’t see the fallacy you refer to - I said nothing about telomeric sequences. As I’ve said before, I think it’s reasonable to express opinion without backing it up on the spot - happens all the time in life. Sorry if you disagree; even with moderation on I’ve been allowing you plenty of scope to have your say. Life choice and balance: I don’t want my life to be dominated by blog comments and responses, so I respond in my own time and way to points of interest I think it’s worth my while responding to (as opposed to someone else or a book on the topic). Doesn’t mean I’ve a closed mind, just not interested enough and/or feel it’s a better investment of time and effort on both our parts for you to engage with a person or reading matter with expertise on the topic with whom/which you can engage in depth. I’ve too many qs and thoughts of my own I’m more interested to tackle and express, and other things to do - sorry! I’ll try and refer you to reading matter I consider useful where I can.
Hope that clarifies, have a good day.
Bruce, A few comments make me wonder if you actually read what I said carefully:
"No dispute with you that intellectual freedom is good, but I‘ll make responses when and how I want to."
Where in my last post did I demand a response???????? I even go on to say
"However, for now, I'd rather you addressed the other points on the thread. In otherwords, the TOPIC of THIS THREAD, not telomeres.
"I think it’s reasonable to express opinion without backing it up on the spot - happens all the time in life."
Not when by your own admission that biology is not your field. You cant just effectivly say, "I am not qualified to comment on it, but it may be wrong". That is the fallacy!
"even with moderation on I’ve been allowing you plenty of scope to have your say".
What exactly is this supposed to mean?
As for the rest of the post, see above.
If you happen to be referring to my questions about "spirit" as being irelevant, then I am affraid you are sadly mistaken. If you want to know why you hold on to faith that you percieve as true - the subject of this thread, then it is harder to think of a more relevant question than "how valid is "spirit" in terms of viewing reality?" If it is purley subjective, it can not make claims about absolute truth. If you can not demonstrate it is valid, then it forced the honest person to consider other posibilities - one I offered is mental conditioning. Like it ot not, it is most definately relevant
Billy
And yes, losing posts is most annoying
Billy
Re the fossil record
I expect you will know a lot more about this than me, I've often wondered if God may have created the earth and creatures on the earth a long time before he created human beings.
What is the record of human fossils and how old are they?
I ask this out of personal curiosity.
Jimmy,
You wont find any modern human fossils older than about 200 000 years old. The earliest known fossils of anything are around 3500 000 000 years old if that is any help.
Billy
Hey Billy, you make some fair points. I'm human; not everything I write is always perfectly fair and accurate, I acknowledge that, apologies where I wasn't. It's true you didn't demand a response; I'd just clarify I meant I'll respond to the points on this thread when I choose to.
A wee overview here: in my post I expressed an opinion clearly directed at you that I recognise was a little unwise as it's stirred up an argument. I want to appeal to a wide readership and this particular discussion is of limited interest, so I'll be more careful in future. This is also why I moderate comments now: I don't want my blog to be a free for all debating ground about God. Reading a slew of comments holds me back from progressing with my own thoughts and ideas, and could put off a lot of readers. Jonathan's Musings blog has now become a good forum for this; I'll visit it when I can, and wd rather pursue most debate there.
Re my view about your handling of biology and bible data: first, you're right I'm not currently qualified to comment on the accuracy of some of the data - the biology stuff in particular - you use. More qualified on the bible stuff, but can't tackle it in detail right now. Main point: my view is not actually blind or groundless, it's been formed by a lifetime of my own reading and exploration - I just can't lay out right now all the reasons I hold it - time issue again.
It is my conviction that while you are a prolific commentator, your comments and data are shaped round your worldview which is not definitive, and the problem is that on this blog there is not a dissenting voice with similar knowledge and time and inclination to express it. Doesn't mean a very strong opposing case couldn't be made.
I nowhere say your or J's questions about "spirit" are irrelevant; I commented on their level of interest to me. They are of interest and I will try to return to them - but in the context of my own interests and concerns.
I hope this sounds reasonable to you.
I'm having a look for an internet article, or a book, that presents an alternative view of religion and biology to yours - not to rile you(!) but to offer something meaty to engage with. I'll get back.
I just typed 'religion biology' in google. 14900000 pages guys! Just scanning first page, these 2 links looked interesting:
1. interview with a Ph.D professor, Christian and evolutionist.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/
evolution/miller.html
2. a list of books.
http://www.amazon.com/
s?ie=UTF8&keywords=Biology&rh=
n%3A22%2Ck%3ABiology&page=1
Re the Lost Comments- Before publishing a comment I always highlight it, right-click and hit "Copy", so if it gets lost I can just paste it back in.
Bruce- you still haven't said how you define spirit and what it means to you.
Sorry Jonathan, it'll have to wait; I've been on blogger since 10 today more or less, far too long already. In light of my google alert, if you're impatient to engage with the topic, why not look up some material on the net?
Hi Bruce,
Thanks for trying to find someone to engage with on the biology front. However, I have done this a lot on line and no one makes a valid case against evolution. The trouble with online stuff is that you come across so many loonies, that it is often hard to find anything that might be challenging. the best christian sites (if I can call them that) are cleary agenda based and make statements about upholding the authority of the bible. Folk like Dembski and Behe have tried (and failed miserably) to demonstrate design, arrogant as it may sound, there is no valid alternative to evolution - anyway, we are getting back off topic.
Billy
Bruce, I replied to your similar post on Jonhathans blog. I'll reproduce part of it here should anyone be interested
"I couldn't find the interview that you link to, but if it is Ken Miller as the link suggests (I have posted a video by him repeatedly on your site), he clearly shows why creationism is not science. His views on evolution are scientific ones - I have never heard him propose a mechanism for god to influence evolution, and if he ever did, it would not be science."
Billy
Oh and thanks J for the publish comment point - yes I'll do that now.
Billy the Ken Miller interview shd come up by putting the two link halves together. If not, put religion biology in google and it shd be near bottom of first page.
Billy
If the oldest modern human fossils are about 200,000 years old would that not suggest that modern humans appeared on the scene about then?
The Bible is a relatively new book, the first books of the Bible being written about 3,500 years ago, but people believed in God and worshipped long before there was a Bible.
Human beings having a spirit and having the capacity for a spiritual connection with God is an ancient truth.
But I'm not sure if this could be proved if testimony is discounted.
The Bible teaches that people are made up of five parts
spitit, soul, mind, heart and body.
"The Bible teaches that people are made up of five parts
spirit, soul, mind, heart and body".
The Bible also teaches that bats are birds and that rabbits chew the cud.
How are heart and body separate? And surely spirit and soul are the same thing? Mind is part of the body too. What's the point you're trying to make?
Jimmy,
People follow all sorts of religion. Your argument is equally valid/ invalid for all of the. Jonathan makes a good point too
Billy
"but people believed in God and worshipped long before there was a Bible".
No, people believed in GODS. Strictly you're right about the Bible, but the OT has been around for much longer. In any case, I read somewhere that perhaps the OT God came about from an amalgamation of two separately-worshipped deities.
Jonathan, Billy, responding to your qs about spirit. I'm not especially adept and to be honest - like a lot of people I think! - only to a degree interested in defending, defining, demonstrating my view about spirit, which is by its nature very difficult to discuss in this analytical way. I'll share a little of my own approach and experience, that may be the best I can do just now. I think that reason, logic and rational thinking are only part of the way truth can come to us. When I, say read Ps 23 with an attitude of openness and trust as Lalalian alludes to, the truth of a Presence who is good and greater than I is communicated to me in a way - via the faculty of imagination - in a way that can give me a sense of inner peace, comfort, largeness and of being cared for that chimes with a deep part of me that isn't accessed through rational left brain thought. See too John 3:1 -8 Jesus' words about spiritual new birth. Billy, the question of how to discern truth among the different faiths is a separate one and I won't address just now.
Just typed 'spirit reason faith logic' in google. 1690000 pps.
Here's one to start, but you can explore the issue to your heart's content.
www.ex-atheist.com/
spirit-of-jesus-christ.html
Billy you may have a point about the challenge of finding quality stuff online that really engages you, though looks to me from cursory glance like plenty of good stuff there. You can't beat a good well-selected book though, of which it seems easy to find an Amazon list of relevant ones.
Bruce, the problem is that for every Psalm 23, there is an Ezekiel 5:17. I think the problem is cherry picking the bits you want. I cant imagine how someone can read the nasty stuff that god does and claim that he loves you. I think people have an image of what they want god to be and focus on that - the bits that contradict it are ignored or waved away as "beyond my understanding".
I can get the same fuzzy feeling thinking of custard. I dont see how this reveals anything about the truth. Other people read the bible and find god to be scary. Both believe, both are different - both cant be right, and you have no way to differentiate between the two. Both views are purly subjective and may actually reflect the personality of the individual involved.
Anyone care to justify why this approach is valid?
Regarding books, probably the top "design" authors are Dembski and Behe. These qare to be honest pathetic attempts and at best pseudoscience. Neither understand evolution and Behe is ignorant of the scientific literature surrounding his claims. Actually, at the Dover county intelligent design trial (which the creationists were soundly defeated in), Behe was presented with about 300 scientific papers that he claimed did not exist. He also wanted to re-define science to include astrology. Ken Miller played a big role in destroying the creationist cause here.
Not to put too fine a point on it, creationists are wing nuts, and I have not come across anything to seriously challenge evolution, and neither has anyone I know.
Just typed 'spirit reason faith logic' in google. 1690000 pps.
And I wonder how many different views are represented. You will probaly find many saying things like the bible is reliable because it is the word of god, therefore the bible is reliable. One of my favorites was a site that claimed we dont need scientific evidence of the flood, because Noah and his family were eye witnesses - AYE RIGHT!
Billy
Billy, there are an awful lot of google pages there, and note the four concepts I typed in are pretty open; it's not like I typed in 'defences of creationism' or 'proof bible is reliable and word of God' or anything like that. I'm afraid that in light of this, your last paragraph in particular gives the distinct impression of a mind made up and not really open to further exploration. To the extent this is the case, it severely limits my motivation to discuss the topic further. I think anyway I'll be transferring most further comment on this kind of topic to Jonathan's blog. It's hard to see many readers being interested in much more of this, Christian, atheist or other. Cheers though.
Bruce,
The authors I mentioned are the best creationists have to offer - they fail miserably. It it is not that my mind is closed (although it may be convienent for you to think so), bur creationism fails. Sorry if you dont like that, but it is true - unless anyone can prove otherwise, and the stars of creationist psuedoscience have failed. If anyone bothers to watch Ken Miller on you tube, they will see why creationism is not even science, so perhaps you shold do a bit of investigation before making accusations.
Billy, there are an awful lot of google pages there, and note the four concepts I typed in are pretty open; it's not like I typed in 'defences of creationism' or 'proof bible is reliable and word of God' or anything like that.
I never said you did! What I said was that most articles you find are like that! Bit of a difference between what I said and what you heard!
I just typed in your criteria, and the first article was basically using the bible to validate itself - that was exactly what I was getting at! Let face it, you are going to pick up articles that say faith is not reason etc - your number of hits really proves nothing. Many articles n doubt argue against your point too. As lee often points out, truth is not a democracy. If it were, christianity would definately be wrong since most of the world rejects it
Billy
I haven't actually expressed a view on creationism and evolution - and I don't intend to get bogged down in that one! A few crossed wires here I think. You're entitled to your opinion; think we may just have to agree to disagree for just now.
Hi Bruce…
I’m always late on the scene… call me a coward, I only seem to turn up when the fighting has die down and I see who is winning!
Bruce wrote:-
I see Lalalian is from Australia so Lee (on Jonathan's blog) shd drop by and say hello.
Hello Bruce, Hello Lalalian
Thank you Bruce for the invite, though I’m only an "English import" to Australian… not a True Blue yet (my son is though).
I’ll wait until the next ashes series before I think about citizenship – let the gods decide and all that.
Barmy Army or the Aussie BBQ… let the battle commence.
Hi Jonathan, Hi Billy
I only just find the time to write on Jonathan and JC’s blog – and now I find you guys are hiding out here as well?
I hope I don’t get dragged into the debate too much… argh... its happening already!!!
Muuusssttt nnooot tyyypppe any more.
Damn… too late, I’ve passed the event horizon – no escape now.
Bruce wrote:
I'm not at all dismissing the place and role of the intellectual stuff; but I'm trying partly here to convey to atheists a sense of its limitations to a person of faith.
Excellent stuff.
For the record, I have stated several times on Jonathan’s blog that I feel I have a pretty good idea on the limits of the “intellectual stuff” - if by this you mean science.
That is, science covers only what can be measured. If it cannot be measured it is outside of science. (Please correct me if I am wrong – I repeat this so much without anyone challenging me, I begin to doubt myself)
However you can “push the boundaries” by using what you do know about science to “limit” the possible solutions/ideas for the “currently unknown”.
I personally use Occam’s razor to cut out the nonsense at this point – though this is a philosophy of course, and NOT a science.
Bruce, do you agree or disagree to it?
Bruce wrote:
one of my questions to atheists is, are you truly open to the variety of 'channels of our humanity' through which truth, and perhaps even God, might communicate to you?
Good question… I think my answer is “yes” – are you open to the experiment results?
As you know… I feel if it can be measured then I will believe it. If an idea (theory) offers predictions that can later be measured – I will have “faith” in that idea/theory.
My "faith" in such a theory though will change if a future measurement falsifies it when I will be forced to reject it (and every good theory tells you how it can be falsified so you do not have to 2nd guess.)
My “faith” therefore is based on reason and experimentation – how about the theist?
I personally feel that the God of the bible can be tested – even if I do not know or understand the mechanism of His this interactions with man or the universe. I do not have to understand it though… I only need to test the claim and observation. (As my example of the electron on Jonathan’s Blog demonstrated I hope.)
My reason for saying that the “God of the bible is testable” is because Christianity makes many claims for what God can do and the bible is rather clear on what He has done in the past.
So some claims that religion make can be tested by science, even if the mechanism is not understood – prayer is a great example (which is a thread over on Jonathan’s blog so I will stop there)
A challenge?: Can any theist show an interaction by God which a theist can “detect” and they can also provide positively evidence to an independent observer (lets say a court jury for sake of argument – a jury made up of Christians if you like)?
Probably not (I would like to hear it though)… the problem is “proving it” to the court.
The theist of course wants to blame the court (or science) – but it is not the courts fault (or science) if the evidence is weak or subjective.
No evidence – no conviction… that’s the law.
Innocent until proven guilty seems a good idea in a court of law – would you agree? It is not for the jury to prove the man is guilty now is it. So why should the science prove the interaction from God? Science merely shows it has not seen any interaction – it is not closed to the idea of some “weird interaction” (just look at “dark energy” – like it or not, science accepts the measurements) - it is just that the theist “cry fool” but it is they that do not understand the scientific method.
It may sound like a strange question I posed in my “challenge”, but I ask it because some claim that God’s interactions cannot be tested (Bruce?) – if they cannot be tested, then how does the theist know they are not being tricked by their mind (or desires)?
I say, the easiest people to trick are those who want to be tricked… think about it.
So Bruce, it is not that, as an atheist, I am not “truly open to the variety of 'channels of our humanity'” – I reckon my education trying to understand Quantum Mechanics and relativity has opened my mind to a lot of weird stuff - it just that I know I can be “tricked” and so I test when I observe and look for the simplest explanation.
Have you ever seen a good magician?
My father was/is a bit of an amateur magician, and I remember fondly a time when he “fooled” a friend of mine with a simple trick (who went on to do a PhD in physics so not stupid). Of course, my father told him it was a trick but my friend still could not explain how the trick was done… so much for physics eh?)
How about an optical illusion? Do you really trust your mind? I don’t… it has been proven wrong too many times.
The key phrase I added in my “challenge” is “positively prove to an independent observer” – this “removes” the personal “feelings” – (indeed how to you “prove” a feeling? This is a similar issue with those who claim to have seen ghosts or aliens) – the “feeling” is not directly testable as far as I know.
However, regularly I have “personal feelings” such as I feel tired or hungry – does this mean such feelings are without natural explanation?
Of course not. If I do not eat for a day, I feel hungry – simple right?
If science could show a more natural explanation for phenomena – would you choose “alien invasion fleet” or the planet Venus being observed in the night sky?
(I heard a lecture once where the astronomy suggested that the best time for an alien invasion fleet to attack the Earth would be when Venus is up – they get some many calls from people who think they have seen a UFO they ignore them… so that is when I would attack!)
Lee
(Failing not to enter another debate – which according to Bruce should continue on Jonathan’s blog anyway?)
PS
Billy wrote:
As lee often points out, truth is not a democracy
I vote for that!
And thanks for the credit… I do repeat myself often but I now notice that you beat me to it on Jonathan’s blog (damn)
You wrote:
Scientific truth is not a democracy
I had not noticed this when I wrote my comments:-
Science isn’t a democracy, it is not how many people you have following your idea that counts – it is how much evidence you have to back it up.
Great minds?
And you are right Billy, more people do NOT follow Christianity and do, so with the democracy “voting method” – Jesus loses… why is that?
Hi Lee, good evening in Oz. Thanks for your comment and I will be reading it and attempting some kind of reply soon - as well as catching up on Jon's blog. Just to let you know I'm not ignoring you! G'day mate (sounds good coming from me right?)
G'day Bruce!
Off to work now... trying not to watch the football on the TV
Lee
Lee, read your long comment. This reading, reflecting and then replying business is time-consuming, so I will say very little of my own response today. Except that I see a little misunderstanding of what I may have said thus far on the Musings blog. My only point just now is that I think if you, Billy and Jonathan read a little basic literature exploring a possible relationship between science and faith/religion, you would find there are other ways of looking at it than yours. It strikes me your approach is narrow and limited - your whole test-experiment-evidence model. We need to consider other models about how God might interact in and through natural processes, from the tiny to the huge. But also some insight re the difference between the fundamental questions addressed, methods used, and insights that can be gleaned by science and religion. It may sound quaint, but I keep recalling the saying that God gave me two ears and one mouth. That is what motivates me to seek out and explore knowledge and understanding on the net and in books before pronouncing. I've felt quite frustrated by some of the reluctance I perceive to seriously engage with material outside the discussion and your three's opinions.
I realise just pointing out there are millions of google pps might not cut it for you - it was just to show there's a lot to explore out there. They're not all Christian sites obviously - so I don't follow the democracy point. You may have to search a little to find the stuff that scratches where you itch. Mind you, I've found so far that the 1st entry is often good! I put 'relationship science faith' in google today. 1st entry, wikipedia - surely a respected, unbiassed site we can all consider and not just dismiss? How about we all have a look at it in a little depth before pronouncing further? Seek to understand more before we speak?
Note, this is broad, overview stuff, not Christian opinion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Relationship_between_religion_and_
science
Also, I've scanned the Ken Miller interview I mentioned before - Christian and evolutionist, and copy here 2 sections I thought may provoke some thought.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/
evolution/miller.html
Now, what I don’t find useful to speculate about are the exact physical, chemical, or biological processes that could be attributed to God, or identified as God working His magic in the world. I think both Western religious tradition and scripture itself tell us that God is very subtle and He can use many ways to accomplish His ends...
I think the biggest difference, and the most direct way to pinpoint that difference, is to say that creationists inevitably look for God in what science has not yet explained or in what they claim science cannot explain. Most scientists who are religious look for God in what science does understand and has explained. So the way in which my view is different from the creationists or intelligent design proponents is that I find knowledge a compelling reason to believe in God. They find ignorance a compelling reason to believe in God.
Cheers just now, Bruce
Golly, I am feeling confrontational today. This will probably only interest Billy, Lee and Jonathan, but anyway, need to get this off my chest...
I'm just comparing a couple of approaches from Billy and from me in this thread:
Billy: The trouble with online stuff is that you come across so many loonies, that it is often hard to find anything that might be challenging. the best christian sites (if I can call them that) are cleary agenda based and make statements about upholding the authority of the bible.
and later...
Bruce: Just typed 'spirit reason faith logic' in google. 1690000 pps.
Billy: And I wonder how many different views are represented. You will probaly find many saying things like the bible is reliable because it is the word of god, therefore the bible is reliable. One of my favorites was a site that claimed we dont need scientific evidence of the flood, because Noah and his family were eye witnesses - AYE RIGHT!
and then, as just posted, my approach: I type 'religion science faith/religion' in google, first entry wikipedia, a widely respected resource, and a broad overview and in-depth site, and I encourage us all to have a look and broaden our understanding. Now I ask you all, as 'independent observers' (Lee) which attitude and approach looks more genuinely open-minded and exploratory to you?
This is not to get at Billy, but I feel I have a serious point.
Need to be brief
It strikes me your approach is narrow and limited - your whole test-experiment-evidence model.
That is science though, anything else is not science.
We need to consider other models about how God might interact in and through natural processes, from the tiny to the huge.
Like we keep saying, if it leaves a trace, it is testable.
I've felt quite frustrated by some of the reluctance I perceive to seriously engage with material outside the discussion and your three's opinions.
Produce some independantly verifiable evidence - which will need to be non subjective in nature. Like you keep getting asked, what differentiates you subjective view from the hindus'? What makes subjectivity valid in seeking claims about truth? You have yet to justify your position.
I realise just pointing out there are millions of google pps might not cut it for you - it was just to show there's a lot to explore out there.
We do know. Lee has even been reading the bible - dont you find it strange that so many sites are needed to explain away embarassing things like rape and stoning of criminals in the bible. Then there are all those sites claiming genesis is literal vs those that claim it isn't. Not very encouraging for an outsider looking in.
You may have to search a little to find the stuff that scratches where you itch.
Yes, and we would get many equally disatisfying christian responses. Wouldn't it be easier if God spoke? Can you understand why this alone is enough to make you doubt he exists?
Ken Miller is a good scientist, but it doesn't mean that approch enters his thinking about god. The bible also talks of creation, not evolution.
I think both Western religious tradition and scripture itself tell us that God is very subtle and He can use many ways to accomplish His ends...
So, what's the difference between subtle and non existant? Actually, how do you know he is being subtle? Did he tell you? If so, that's not very subtle. Look at the proud boasts etc he makes in the bible, look at the cities he allegedly destroyed, or the flood- etc - not very subtle. It seems some more theological cherry picking is going on to ignore the fact god is absent.
I think the biggest difference, and the most direct way to pinpoint that difference, is to say that creationists inevitably look for God in what science has not yet explained or in what they claim science cannot explain
In other words, ignorance and wilful ignorance.
I think the biggest difference, and the most direct way to pinpoint that difference, is to say that creationists inevitably look for God in what science has not yet explained or in what they claim science cannot explain.
But, that's still not science, which is Lee's point!
I type 'religion science faith/religion' in google, first entry wikipedia, a widely respected resource, and a broad overview and in-depth site, and I encourage us all to have a look and broaden our understanding.
Bruce, would it suprise you to learn that Universities do not endorse Wikipedia? Many article also contain statements questioning the neutrality of sites. Anyone with an account can edit it. If I wanted to, I could change the name of the son of god to mickey mouse, and it would stay that way until it was re-edited.
Now bruce, It it the voice of experience talking when I say there are lots of loonies out there, and I did actually say that was true for ALL sides. Two points you can take from that
1. I have wasted too much time reading fundie nut bag sites
2. I am capable of seeing dogatic propaganda from non christian sites - that includes muslim as well as atheist sites.
I feel the open minded issue is a very anoying one. Theists always claim there is something wrong with us - like we are not open minded - or we dont really want to know god. I think it feeds tyheir delusion. All we want is some real evidence, and you are not providing any. David Ike can claim he is the son of god all he wants, but without evidence, who is going to believe him? Are you open to the possibility that he may be?
You also look at challenges in terms of god. How is that open minded?
Finally, if god is real, we are off to hell, so, do you really think we are being closed minded. If we did not want him to exist, would that make him not exist? I think as a theist you have more of a problem with openess here - Allah will send christian to hell. Are you open to him being god? If not, why not? Justify why you are right and muslims are wrong. What evidence can you produce that a muslim cant? Think about it, and you may begin to see why we reject subjective feelings as evidence.
Billy
Hi Bruce,
I’m rushing to get to work, so have only quickly read your reply – thank you, its looks like you are trying to get me to think… and I will.
I will read the sites that you gave me, just a couple of points quickly if I may before my full reply.
You wrote:
wikipedia - surely a respected, unbiassed site we can all consider and not just dismiss?
first entry wikipedia, a widely respected resource, and a broad overview and in-depth site
I will consider wikipedia as a source to be taken with care. You sound like you are trying to sell me a majority view though (remember what I said about the correct answer to not open to a majority vote)
Also, if I am not mistaken, wikipedia is free to any nut-case to write what they want… not really a peer reviewed paper?
which attitude and approach looks more genuinely open-minded and exploratory to you?
A theist seems only open minded to evidence that confirms what they already think they “know”. So is it open-minded or merely being selected?
Open minded to new ideas, or wish full thinking that since it is unknown?
I don’t know yet… I need to read the source.
Must go… late as always.
Lee
Hi Bruce,
Lee, read your long comment.
Sorry, I do go on a bit… I need to learn how to be more concise. However I do not just want to type “agree” or “disagree” without some form of explanation.
This reading, reflecting and then replying business is time-consuming, so I will say very little of my own response today.
You’re telling me… I had to write the rubbish in the first place! Now that takes time.
Hope you have more time soon though since I am more interested in your personal response to my questions and thoughts, and not just a re-direction to some web site (interesting as they maybe). I am hoping for an exchange of ideas and not a “Goggle it” challenge.
I realise you might not want a debate on science – but you have raised the debate by asking is there a place for religion in science – I say no.
I do not think we need to get into anything deep.
I understand if time is limited, so as always – take your time in responding.
My only point just now is that I think if you, Billy and Jonathan read a little basic literature exploring a possible relationship between science and faith/religion, you would find there are other ways of looking at it than yours.
Why? Explain to me first where my simple thinking on science is wrong. (Oops – how I’m not seen as being confrontational here)
Do I really need to read “basic literature exploring a possible relationship between science and faith/religion” when the “faith and religion” part in your statement ignores evidence and is not empirically driven – therefore is NO relationship with science.
Why? Well Bruce, just lookup the scientific method, you like wilki, so here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method - tell me what you think, or if you have any questions.
So just because you can find a theist who calls themselves a “scientist” and they offer ideas to justify their position means nothing to me in a scientific sense – as I have said before, I believe there can be no such thing as a “true” scientist who is also a theist. (A deist is another matter but even then…).
This does not mean a theist cannot do good work in science in certain fields, but fundamental they feel they “know” the answer which cannot be challenged or falsified by any experiment – therefore, not science – not a scientist.
I know you must think these are strong words, and possibly arrogant on my part (Hell, some of the people I am claiming are not “true” scientists have PhD’s and are professors of physics departments) but I stand by my opinion, until you (or any of these so-called theist “scientists”) tell me how they test and aim to falsify their “God hypothesis” – they are holding onto something unscientific – they enter into any problem “knowing” the answer which they will not challenge.
It strikes me your approach is narrow and limited - your whole test-experiment-evidence model.
We call it science, and why is it limited?
In 300 years it put man on the moon and have visited moons around other planets – in the 1500 years after Jesus was supposedly nailed to the cross what advances did the religious make to their knowledge and understanding of the world?
It we can test it and prove it, I’ll believe it… if I cannot test it, and with no positive evidence – I doubt it. Please tell me why this worldview is wrong?
We need to consider other models about how God might interact in and through natural processes, from the tiny to the huge.
OK... can you give me some specific examples?
I've felt quite frustrated by some of the reluctance I perceive to seriously engage with material outside the discussion and your three's opinions.
I could seriously engage in anything that can be measured… why should I include anything else?
Do you really want to discuss fairies or the invisible blue unicorn? For what purpose?
They're not all Christian sites obviously - so I don't follow the democracy point.
It means it doesn’t matter how many people could have told the captain of the Titanic his ship wasn’t sinking… it was sinking, he is going to get wet – no matter if the captain or the majority may believe everything is OK. Time to move to the lifeboats my friend.
A fact is a fact… a horse is a horse – no matter how many people believe it is a dog.
Science is not a democracy…
Do I need to say anymore?
How about we all have a look at it in a little depth before pronouncing further? Seek to understand more before we speak?
Sure, I’ll print it off and give it a read – always open to new ideas so long as they can be proven. However, you must agree to read up on the “scientific method” – try the link I gave you above – so you understand a little where I am coming
Now, what I don’t find useful to speculate about are the exact physical, chemical, or biological processes that could be attributed to God, or identified as God working His magic in the world.
No problem – as I said before I do not need to speculate about that, I do not need to start from understanding the mechanism, merely observing it – explanation comes later. (I gave you an example of the “simple” electron – I really did hope this would help explain my stance.)
… creationists inevitably look for God in what science has not yet explained or in what they claim science cannot explain.
They also chose to ignore the evidence - what science has already explained and proven, i.e. the Earth and universe are a lot older than 6,000 years. But yes – they will also look to find God in the places science has not yet explained fully.
Good luck to them…
Most scientists who are religious look for God in what science does understand and has explained.
I’ve heard something like that – doesn’t make sense to me of course. I do not have a full understanding of the Christian faith/church but I thought it was important that Adam and Eve “sinned” and Jesus died on the cross to “forgive” those sins?
How can you be a Christian and NOT believe in Adam and Eve, the flood and miracles? You tell me…
Can you explain this position to me please?
So the way in which my view is different from the creationists or intelligent design proponents is that I find knowledge a compelling reason to believe in God.
I find the universe is an AMAZING place… and the more I learn about it, the more amazed I am… so in that respect I agree, the more knowledge I gain, the more impressed I am with the universe…
The problem is, I just do not see any place or evidence for God… I’ve looked, as a scientist, and found nothing. Billy and Jonathan have also looked in the more spiritual fashion – and there they too have failed to find any God.
Interesting stuff
They find ignorance a compelling reason to believe in God.
Ignorance is blessed as they say.
Lee
Golly, I am feeling confrontational today.
You can attack my ideas all you like and I do not take it personally, I could just be wrong – so carry on, carry on dear boy!
This will probably only interest Billy, Lee and Jonathan, but anyway, need to get this off my chest...
Better out than in…
I'm just comparing a couple of approaches from Billy and from me in this thread:
Careful Bruce… you could be playing with fire. Never forget Bannockburn!!!
Now I ask you all, as 'independent observers' (Lee) which attitude and approach looks more genuinely open-minded and exploratory to you?
I hear what you are saying Bruce, but I think I know where Billy is coming from also.
(How about that for sitting on the fence – agree with everyone!!!)
However, (shouting support from the fence)
once you have hit yourself on the thumb with a hammer – you know it hurts – you do not need to hit yourself on the thumb with a mallet to test if the feeling will be any different.
If Christianity had ANY independent eyewitnesses for the miracles written in the bible – I would NOT need to go looking for it on the internet. The story would find me… on the news, papers, books, everywhere.
If the Christian had proved the benefit of prayer towards the outcome of an event then we would have all prayed for England the other night (well, apart from Billy maybe)
It would be quite easy to construct a scientific test on prayer – and they tried one once, it failed and no Christian wants to repeat it and now they ignore the experiment… why is that?
A scientist would not ignore the results; they would repeat the experiment, with more care and greater precision to see if the new results compare with the old.
So on the subject on who is being “open-minded” – let’s try a little test:-
QUESTION:
Billy (and any atheist here):
What positive experiment/observation/result would you require to start to believe in God?
Bruce (and any theist here):
What positive experiment/observation/result would you require to start to not believe in God?
Since I asked the question, I’ll go first, but you might already know my answer – personally, to start to believe there is something about this God character – it would take a miracle. An event that has no natural explanation.
Luckily for me, many miracles are mentioned in the bible – and so, as I have already mentioned - how about an independent (non-Christian) written piece of evidence from an eyewitness that supports any of the miracles mentioned in the bible – this would be good enough for me to start believing in God (and the bible).
I’ve gone into the details before many times (including Jonathan’s site) and I am shown the same old stuff – straps of nothing.
I’ve seen more evidence for stories that “sound Christian” yet come from dead pagan religions – the bible seems more a collection of copied stories than anything original. This should not be the case for a book written by God.
The bible has little in it that is original when it comes to miracles: virgin births, wise men, crucifixion, resurrection, Adam and Eve, etc etc etc
Why is that? If you can reject all the other religions that discuss the same type of miracles so easily – why accept the bible?
If you do not accept the bible – then what evidence do you have for your theistic God?
God has provided no evidence… so why should I believe in him?
OK… that’s enough for the evening
See ya
Lee
QUESTION:
Billy (and any atheist here):
What positive experiment/observation/result would you require to start to believe in God?
Facetious answer- Richard Dawkins being struck by a bolt of pink lightning just as he's reading the passage from the God Delusion about the OT God being vindictive etc.
Real answer- essentially the same as Lee's (sorry for the lack of originality). It would have to be something miraculous. Obviously that's a wide-ranging answer, but you get what I mean.
God clearly speaking to me would be impressive, but not concrete proof, since I know about mental illnesses. God clearly speaking to me AND others- that would be pretty hard to deny. And by CLEARLY SPEAKING I mean a proper voice, saying things that I couldn't know, NOT a vague feeling.
Bruce et al, since the focus of the debate currently seems to be looking at the writings of others, I'll soon be posting a link to an essay on the origins of the Bible. Would be interested in your opinions on it.
Facetious answer- Richard Dawkins being struck by a bolt of pink lightning just as he's reading the passage from the God Delusion about the OT God being vindictive etc.
Praise the LORD!!!
Lee
Real answer- essentially the same as Lee's
Thanks Jonathan.
So it seems you are open-minded to evidence FOR a God.
You have given reasonable evidence that you would accept for a God (creator of the universe) - you are not closed to the idea at least.
So what about the theist?
Lee
Billy (and any atheist here):
What positive experiment/observation/result would you require to start to believe in God?
Yeah, same as wot Jonathan and Lee said. You could get some amputees and divide them into groups. one lot get no prayer, one lot get christian or jewish or muslim, prayer to john travolta or whatever prayer for healing, and see who grows a new limb.
Telling me and others what will happen tomorrow would work to.
Billy
I love it when everyone agrees with me. No time to comment today folks, and I'm away this weekend; but - though it might not sound quite so scary coming from me as from Arnie...
think you've guessed it... 'I'll be back.'
Billy
How does this future event grab you
Romans 14:9-12
Hi Bruce
I love it when everyone agrees with me.
I've not disagreed have I?
But sorry - if you think we are "ganging up" or anything – I’m not.
You know it is not about the majority vote anyway so it shouldn't matter.
It is your blog, so you can invite more theists - but whether they will agree with you is another thing (Ask a theist about God and their “experience” with God and they seem to differ for some reason?)
No time to comment today folks, and I'm away this weekend
Hope you enjoy it and you have time to think about my question - I feel I am open minded - since I know what will change it.
So it will be good to know what will make you change your open-minded view.
Cheers
Lee
"So it will be good to know what will make you change your open-minded view".
Indeed, especially since Jimmy has stated on my blog that he cannot think of anything that will change his mind. It will be interesting to see what your answer will be.
Jimmy,
Have I missed something? What has your quote to do with anything?
Oh... and Prove it!!!
Lee
Hi Bruce,
Is there a reason why you have moderation on?
It does slow the debate down some what?
If you do not like what someone says, could you just not delete the comment?
Your blog, your rules of course...
Lee
Indeed, no disrespect to Bruce but moderation does slow things down. Some mornings I log on and find that Billy and Jimmy have posted four or five comments debating between themselves. Conversations like that wouldn't happen under moderation. But that's just my preference.
Jimmy
"9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. 11It is written:
" 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord,
'every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will confess to God.' "[a] 12So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.
"
AND? Did you know that the Isaiah quote is actually God speaking, and not Jesus. Jesus appears quite late on in revelation and Paul says that it is the christians who will sit in judgement.
What do you make of this failed prophecy?
Matt26: 64"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
When did the Priest see this happen?
Billy
Hey guys. I've got an overdue application to complete so I'm afraid no more expanded response from me till that's done. Lee, don't worry my 'I love it when everyone agrees with me' comment was meant to be droll; guess I shd have added :) or something. It's ok I don't feel ganged up on! It's the ideas here that are the battleground here, I think we'd all agree. Why I moderate now: I don't want my blog to be primarily a debating ground, though happy for that to be part of its role; I actually think moderation, while slowing down the debate, works to improve the quality of comments, maintain informed intelligent discussion and mitigate degeneration into insults(!)- which in turn helps not to turn off other potential readers. I haven't yet had time to read any of the long comments since Thurs, let alone reply, and it seems more productive to me to digest and respond intelligently first before you guys come back. J's blog isn't moderated so if you want to have unrestricted debate probably best to pursue it on one of his threads. Meanwhile, I hope you've all been able to have a look at one or two of those informative-looking sites! Cheers for now.
Anyway, as you see, when I'm at my computer the flow isn't slowed too much! I don't properly read all comments before publishing, just scan to check they're not abusive or anything.
Hi Bruce,
J's blog isn't moderated so if you want to have unrestricted debate probably best to pursue it on one of his threads.
I would not say there is a “restricted debate” here on your blog – since I have no intension to be abusive I hope I do not give any reason to not post my comment. I don’t even mind a slow debate – the only problem I see is that when responding, I might be making a similar comment to someone else who is still awaiting "moderation".
Anyway… it’s not a real problem.
Meanwhile, I hope you've all been able to have a look at one or two of those informative-looking sites!
Did you get a chance to read up on the scientific method?
Hey, it is a funny old world isn’t it?… I was listening this morning on the train to a weekly podcast I download regularly and guess what one of the topics discussed was? Religion in science.
The link is below; the episode is an interview with Neil deGrasse and called “Communicating Science to the Public”
http://www.pointofinquiry.org/?p=137
A full information on the episode can be got from the website, but assuming you do not know who this guy is (I only know his face from documentaries myself, and not the name)
“Neil deGrasse Tyson is one of America’s leading spokespersons for science. The research areas he focuses on are star formation, exploding stars, dwarf galaxies, and the structure of our own galaxy, the Milky Way.”
You should take a listen if you can, the guest sounds like a bright man and I think he agrees a little with both our views on certain topics, and raises some interesting points when discussing in particular religion in science, and refers to a question he raised to the Christian “scientist” Francis Collins.
The whole episode is interesting, but if you only have a “few” minutes spare just fast forward to 32:30. This is the part of the show that covers what we have been discussing recently – a little.
See what you think…
Look forward to your views and ideas.
Lee
Cheers Lee, this application form has been a long one, including a theological questionnaire, hence my absence. Should be posting it soon today though so hope to be back later today... been missing it too!
Re moderation and the possibility of saying something similar to Billy w/o knowing it... think of it as a bit like the gospels, different takes on the same event...
Bruce- don't forget about the question about what it would take for you not to believe in God.
Hi Bruce,
this application form has been a long one, including a theological questionnaire
Weird application then… what are you applying for that requires a theological questionnaire? I thought getting a mortgage was bad.
Re moderation and the possibility of saying something similar to Billy w/o knowing it... think of it as a bit like the gospels, different takes on the same event...
Not sure how to reply to this one… should I thank you that you for thinking my writing is divine?
Anyway, so long as you do not mind reading the same thing twice… at least it shows we are not copying.
Lee
PS
Meanwhile, I hope you've all been able to have a look at one or two of those informative-looking sites!
I read both of them on the train today... I am not surprised by what I read.
Care to discuss?
Just to say, evening in Oz - how far ahead are you timewise? - I've finally read all comments on this thread and am about to begin a reply on a new post. I'll 'keep you posted'. And not sure I'd call your writing 'divine' Lee, though you're articulate enough. Last time I checked, 'divine' was a kind of fair trade chocolate - oh yes and also refers to the Lord.
Bet you wish I was as quick in my responses to the debate as in issuing wisecracks. Cheers, be back soon.
Hi Bruce,
Just to say, evening in Oz - how far ahead are you timewise?
About 10 years behind, but 11 hours in front this time of year I think. It is 21:30 here on a Thursday.
Bet you wish I was as quick in my responses to the debate as in issuing wisecracks
Is that what they are called nowadays? Only kidding…
Take your time, I write a lot but please just try and answer the tough questions... the easy ones are, well - easy.
Lee
I've just started reading the wikipedia 'relationship between religion and science site I mentioned' earlier in this thread, and I have to say guys, just reading the first two paragraphs, this site clearly opens up a range of perspectives that as far as I can tell from all the comments I've read thus far on all threads, you 3 atheists simply haven't absorbed or got to grips with. Billy have you properly looked at the site? The sole basic view I've read from you guys is that you will only consider belief in God if you encounter evidence that fits in a 'testable scientific experiment' model. I'm saying this now, since, with all the time you appear to have to write blog comments, strikes me it'd be a good idea to invest some in getting to grips with, and then showing in your comments an awareness of, these various issues. Wd help create a much better platform for discussion, for which I'd be a lot more motivated. Note there are lots of links on this site, including - just one - your scientific method one Lee.
Bruce, the latest post on my blog deals with evidence and subjectivity, might be useful to read if you want an insight into my view on such things.
Just to add, I can get quite passionate, involved and sometimes confrontational when discussing the issues on the table, but I'll try and remain friendly...! I appreciate the good humour already here...
Bruce,
We have already told you why science is not compatible with religious faith.
We arte aware of the arguments, but as we have already pointed out to you on numerous occasions, they are not compatible.
We also pointed out that wikipedia is far from definitive - do you disagree?
This is interesting:
The sole basic view I've read from you guys is that you will only consider belief in God if you encounter evidence that fits in a 'testable scientific experiment' model.
So are you saying that we have to believe in god before we believe in god?
Why should we do it your way? Can you give an answer with out refering to the bible - as we dont believe it anyway?
Billy
Hi Bruce,
I've just started reading the wikipedia 'relationship between religion and science site I mentioned' earlier in this thread,
Just? I thought you already read it?
just reading the first two paragraphs, this site clearly opens up a range of perspectives that as far as I can tell from all the comments I've read thus far on all threads, you 3 atheists simply haven't absorbed or got to grips with.
Not so sure… I doubt the writer of the thread has any idea what it means to perform good science. And I would bet a dollar the writer is a theist.
But again… read up on the scientific method and take a listen to the podcast I gave you. (just follow the link) 10 mins of your time with this podcast will help you understand my position.
Science is about what you can measure… and if God interacts with mankind in any useful way, God can be measured and tested.
Please explain how I am wrong on this idea?
The only people who ignore that are the people who HAVE to ignore it to explain their lack of evidence.
I follow the evidence... live by it... die by it.
I do not ignore it.
The 2nd website you gave is even more interesting, and proves I feel my point with regards to “true” scientists
ActionBioscience.org: Can science prove or disprove the existence of a higher being?
Miller: No, it can’t. The existence of a supreme being simply is not a scientific question.
You see?
Miller has his filters turned on "ignore the evidence against God" - not science, we do not ignore evidence, even if we do not like it.
Miller pushes religion outside science so he can perform his work… just like Billy and I said they would need to do.
This second web-site reinforces our argument.
The problem Miller (and any "scientific" theist) has to explain is if God interacts in the world in anyway, why cannot these interacts be tested? If man can notice the interacts, why cannot science?
Miller just has his shields up - Funny that. Won't say I told you so... but I did you know.
Notice also, Miller accepts evolution (and believes it was God method of choice?) but does not ask the question WHY an all-powerful God would choose a clumsy and wasteful method as evolution?
Millions have to die for the animals and plants we have today. If it is God's choice, then God is weak or evil...
And what does this mean for Adam and Eve and the original sin? Noah and the flood? Tower of Babel... erm any story in the bible?
And why did Jesus have to die if not sins occured?
Most importantly though… can you please answer my very simple question:
What positive experiment/observation/result would you require to start to not believe in God?
You asked if I felt you were more open minded than Billy… so here is your chance to show me.
Is there anything or nothing?
Can you rationalise your belief?
Thanks
Lee
Hi Bruce,
Just to add, I can get quite passionate, involved and sometimes confrontational when discussing the issues on the table
Is this a warning?
We will not like you if you are angry?
You don’t turn green and go AAARRRrrggghhh and split your trousers of anything?
It’s all that gamma radiation eh?
I don’t take anything personal, to me it is just a debate so you can get as “confrontational” as you like… just try and attack my argument first.
but I'll try and remain friendly...
Me too
I appreciate the good humour already here...
My humour might cut to the bone sometimes (or just be very, very crude) but that is as worse as I get.
(I think).
However, I live the other side of the world, so you are safe.
Lee
Bruce wrote:
The sole basic view I've read from you guys is that you will only consider belief in God if you encounter evidence that fits in a 'testable scientific experiment' model.
Billy wrote:
So are you saying that we have to believe in god before we believe in god?
I heard something similar talking to another theist on a different thread (Mark - remember him?)
He wrote that the reasons I do not believe in the bible and what is written within is that I do not believe in God.
But then added that only by reading the bible would I believe in God?
Erm? So yeah… first step, believe in God… then believe in the bible, then the bible is evidence for God?
Rubbish…
However, back to Bruce’s point…
you will only consider belief in God if you encounter evidence that fits in a 'testable scientific experiment' model
And I keep repeating, please give me a useful interaction from God that cannot be tested or have a natural explanation?
I think I am being reasonable, tell me why I am not - give me an example.
“feelings” can induced by drugs… we have “uppers” and “downers” so just because God makes you feel “good” means nothing to me…
Just take these pills and see me in the morning!
Lee
Ido find the use of people like Miller as an argument thsat faith is compatible with scientific thinking to be nothing more than a fallacious argument from authority. When you look at it cafefully as Lee has done, there is no substance to the claim.
I have come across a few folk recently making claims like well "x" believes this and "x" is a (insert -ologist here). This does not deal with the issues, and I often feel it is an avoidance strategy.
Billy
At the moment we're at loggerheads here folks. I've read the whole central wiki religion and science site - hope to go on in due course to read some of the links - and I'm sorry, but it plainly reads as informed, broad horizons, multiple perspectives type material in a way that, with respect, everything I've read from you guys simply does not. I will listen to the podcast Lee and come back in due course to answer your qs. However, speaking as a non-scientist, to the extent to which I see little to no evidence - a word you all love - of intelligent, open engagement with a range of perspectives as outlined on this site, it mitigates against meaningful dialogue. RD's approach - basically I think yours -is given a brief paragraph here, in a wider context - an example of why I respect the site. I simply don't see how you can just dismiss it as likely 'written by a theist' Lee.
More of a Spidey fan myself BTW - either way, yes I think you're safe in Oz. Now I must finish my new post and get on with other things.
Hi Bruce,
Last post, then bed for me
I simply don't see how you can just dismiss it as likely 'written by a theist' Lee.
I was making a bet on religious side of the writer, that is all, I am open to be proven wrong and I lose a dollar.
My main comment though was that I "doubt the writer of the thread has any idea what it means to perform good science."
Am I wrong on this?
Science is purely based on what can be measured... anything that cannot be measured is not within science.
Can we at least agree to that? Or do you wish to re-define what science actually is?
but it plainly reads as informed, broad horizons, multiple perspectives type material in a way that
It read nice enough… but it does not change my point.
Religion has NO place in science if their claims cannot be measured and tested. It is that simple.
Please tell me where I am wrong on this... am I really this stupid?
Help me out if I am, I will change my mind.
However, speaking as a non-scientist, to the extent to which I see little to no evidence - a word you all love - of intelligent, open engagement with a range of perspectives as outlined on this site, it mitigates against meaningful dialogue.
I am open to talk about anything, but please explain what are you asking for?
You claim that God cannot be measured and test... fine - then by your definition God cannot be within science... it has NOTHING to do with science.
I say that God's interactions, if there are any, can be tested and therefore religion and God can come within science.
I am missing your point... it is late here. Maybe sleep would be a good idea.
Lee
Bruce, does it seem informed because it tells you what you want to hear. I'm sorry, if you dont like this truth, but if it is not testable, it is not part of scientific thinking by definiion - end of story, full stop, the end, amen.
I think you are resorting to the theists favorite trick of throwing blame and accusations about when you are challenged. If it is not testable, it has no place in scientific thought. Why is this so hard to grasp? You can be religious and a scientist only up to the point where you start introducing the untestable god hypothesis into your thinking. Then it is no longer the scientific method! I may be labouring this somewhat, but it appears that you do not grasp this esswential difference - or are unwilling to do so
Billy
Lee said "Or do you wish to re-define what science actually is?
That reminds me of a sad excuse fior a christian scientist called Michael Behe. In order to get creationist mythology into science classes he tried to redefine science to include astrology. You can read the trial by googling Kitzmiller vs Dover county - or watch Ken millers video as we keep suggesting
Billy
Bruce,
On the subject of open mindedness, you do realise you are restricting your arguments for god entierly to arguments for your god?
Billy
Good morning Bruce,
At the moment we're at loggerheads here folks.
OK... if we are, and we wish to continue the debate - maybe we should both take a step back and define our positions. So we can both clearly see what is being discussed.
Are you saying that religion HAS a place in science? Or are you saying science has NO place in religion? Or something else?
My position is clear on the matter of what science IS – and I have repeated it several times now. In short, it is what you can measure.
Now some theists say that for this reason God and religion are OUTSIDE science (I quoted Miller to you earlier who states just that)
Do you agree with this position?
Other's like myself say that the God of the bible is WITHIN science - that is God's interactions can be tested by science.
So do you agree with me, that the God of the bible is WITHIN science?
I'm not sure if there is any "grey area"... but please explain to me if you think so.
Science is very "black and white", it is not open to "debate" - the experimental results win EVERY debate. (Actual, of course their are debates, look up the Great Debate - however it is decided on evidence NOT opinions which is my point)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Debate
Must go to work now
Lee
Ok Lee et al, I'll post comment a bit at a time just to get back in the discussion and show I'm engaging, at least to give Lee something to chew on in his sleep if he's still up and reading on a Friday night in Oz!(a moot point?) Trying to drill down to one of the crux issues here... let's clarify, I agree with you about what science is; the key question really is about whether the scientific method is an adequate way to detect or discern the reality and presence of a being like God - if he should exist ie I'm not assuming a priori for the sake of discussion that he does. And my and mainstream religious opinion is that it is not adequate. It is excellent for what it is appropriately applied to - physical matter and processes - but wholly inadequate in itself and on its own to tackle religious/spiritual questions and possibilities. It is not that religion has no place in science, it is that they are different domains of human enquiry; though can still have a relationship (ain't that romantic?). The main religion science wiki page gives a very good introduction to these issues. A good quote just to get you thinking along these lines, from a book called 'A long way east of Eden' by Pete Lowman: 'rediscovering God isn't like discovering whether a particular subatomic particle exists. Rather, it is like learning to know, and love, a person. Above all, it is relational'.
Now this needs unpacking and expanding on. For now I'm just trying to encourage you to begin to think about the possibility of God outside the tightly, and I wd say unjustifiably restricted bounds of the scientific method. Cheers.
For all our sakes I'm outlining the key atheist concerns that have cropped up so far; we need to be methodical and deal with them separately, so: expectation of testable experimental evidence for God within the scientific method framework; need for a 'miracle' to believe in God; no 'independent verifiable witnesses' eg of Jesus’ miracles; Bible stories are plundered pagan stories; reliability of the Bible, apparent conflicts and contradictions; questions about ‘fulfilled prophecy'; view that belief in Christianity is true is wholly subjective - why believe it instead of other religions?; creation evolution design; morality and God, moral problems in the Bible; what wd it take for you not to believe in God?
Any I've missed?
Billy, can you tell me where I have 'restricted my arguments for god entirely to arguments for my god? I'm focussed on the science faith q just now, haven't even touched the q about other religions. Looks to me like you're trying to muddy the waters.
Hi Bruce,
I'll post comment a bit at a time just to get back in the discussion and show I'm engaging, at least to give Lee something to chew on in his sleep if he's still up and reading on a Friday night in Oz!(a moot point?)
Yep... I'm still up thanks - but it is too late to comment in full, and after wine on a Friday night it is not a good idea to write too much.
I agree with you about what science is;
Excellent… at last some common ground. I'll drink to that! Cheers.
the key question really is about whether the scientific method is an adequate way to detect or discern the reality and presence of a being like God
Now here I need you to tell me. Since I have always been a non-believer, I do not know God as well as you… I blame my parents of course.
Science, in short, covers only what can be measured… so do you think God’s interactions with mankind and the universe can be measured at all?
If yes, then the scientific method is perfect to detect and discern the presence of God.
If No, and you feel both God and His interactions cannot be measured – then God is indeed outside science. You are free to believe in God and science cannot have a say whether this is right or wrong.
Of course, this leads you to a problem I feel. If science cannot measure God’s interactions, then how can you be certain that God is actually interacting in anyway? The mind does play tricks you know…
Also, if you believe the bible (and as a Christian, I assume you do) God has on many occasions interacted with mankind and the world in major ways – these types of interactions can certainly be noticed and measured.
Quick question, do you believe in the power of prayer at all? If so, this can be tested, if not - then way not?
OK… it is late – time to go.
You have, as always give me something to think about – and I also hope I have done the same for you.
Don’t forget the question I gave you about what it would take for you to change your mind about God… it is rather important I feel – if you disagree, then please tell me why.
I will come back to your other comments when I can.
Cheers
Lee
Bruce, in general, you cite the morality of your god as evidence, the reliability of your book and the assumption that your God can not be teasted - all rather christian biases and not directes at the more open minded question of "is there a god?".
Whether god is testable or not does depend on your definition of him - however, as we keep mentioning the bible makes plenty of tesable claims - I feel that this is often ignored and challenge you to argue that god is not testable with out using the bible to back up your claim. If you think science has no claim to studying god (and I disagree) you have to concede there is no rational evidence for him then.
If you want to claim that using "spirit" to identify god is valid, you have to demonstrate that it is. If you cant, then there is still no evidence for god.
Billy
BTW how do you reconcile saying that god is out with science, but there is room for religion in science?
There is of course no room for religiobn - especially if you claim god is not testable. This seems somewhat inconsistent to me.
Billy
Hey folks, I'm trying to follow the two ears one mouth principle and catch up with various posts and comments a bit before posting properly today; however, as it's late in Oz and Lee may want something to ponder over before bed(?)... just a few of my initial responses to your qs, that I'll expand on:
L Can God's interactions be measured? B We need a new image. Think of a great work of art eg a symphony. L If science cannot measure God’s interactions, then how can you be certain that God is actually interacting in any way? B how can you be 'certain' listening to a symphony you're in the presence of inspired art and genius? Most people embrace and enjoy it as such without analysing it this way - I think there's a parallel. L God has on many occasions interacted with mankind and the world in major ways – these types of interactions can certainly be noticed and measured. B indeed; clearly interpretation is happening, but that doesn't a priori invalidate the possibility of the activity of God through earthly happenings, as with the inspiration of a genius behind great music.
More later.
Sorry, not to misrepresent Lee's last q, I should have prefaced it as he did: 'Also, if you believe the bible (and as a Christian, I assume you do), God has on many occasions...'
Bruce, your symphony confuses me? appreciation of music is a matter of taste - Beethoven Rocks, Gershwin sucks, and no amount of analysis will change that. The nature of the evidence for god should be locical and not a matter of taste - otherwise, what truth is there in such claims?
Billy
Hi Bruce,
however, as it's late in Oz and Lee may want something to ponder over before bed
Missed your post last night, sorry... contrary to popular rumours I’m not always on the internet late at night, but no worries - got it now on this lovely sunny morning.
Isn’t Christmas great - must put the tree up soon?
L Can God's interactions be measured?
B We need a new image. Think of a great work of art eg a symphony.
I thought we were talking science?
OK… analogy then I guess? I’ll go with it and see where it takes us.
L If science cannot measure God’s interactions, then how can you be certain that God is actually interacting in any way?
B how can you be 'certain' listening to a symphony you're in the presence of inspired art and genius? Most people embrace and enjoy it as such without analysing it this way - I think there's a parallel.
OK… firstly – It can be tested if I was actually hearing the music by asking the 20,000 other people in the arena if they heard the same music and the same artist.
An independent observer, not at the concert, could interview us all after the event – compare observations. If 20,000 people agree – this would be pretty good confirmation that the music I “thought” I heard really did happen.
Add to this the recording of the music and images on video tape that could be reviewed later by anyone who did not believe the first independent interviewing.
So… the music (sounds and event) can be tested. I’m sure you will agree to this?
As for the “interpretation” of whether the music was “inspired art”? Well… beauty is in the eye of the beholder right?
Also, and here is the important bit.
You have to prove that the only way a great piece of work can be written is by the inspiration of God.
Firstly, is that the claim made by all artists? That God inspired them?
Of course, before Darwin the vast majority of people “believed in God” (at least outwardly to the general public) so such a claim might not be uncommon.
Lets look in the last 100 years… do all the artists in the last 100 years claim inspiration from God?
This is your claim right?
(I think with some investigation your claim will fail. Care to test it?)
As Billy wrote:
appreciation of music is a matter of taste - Beethoven Rocks, Gershwin sucks, and no amount of analysis will change that.
I think Iron Maiden rocks… their early work at least – their latest stuff bores me… is it me getting old or musical taste is open to interpretation?
I like Mozart, plenty of notes… but the singing grates me – it’s just my personal taste.
However, whatever mine or your personal interpretation – if I took you too an Iron Maiden concert – I’m sure you would agree you had an “experience” – you would have had an “interaction” with Iron Maiden, even if it is only the ringing in your ears for the next 3 days.
Similar with God… we should be able to test the interactions – the bible is clear on this – and people should agree on this experience.
Unless you claim God’s interactions will ALWAYS be unique for each individual? It is only in the individual’s mind and never “seen” collectively by a group?
L God has on many occasions interacted with mankind and the world in major ways – these types of interactions can certainly be noticed and measured.
B indeed; clearly interpretation is happening, but that doesn't a priori invalidate the possibility of the activity of God through earthly happenings, as with the inspiration of a genius behind great music.
Lets break this down...
“clearly interpretation is happening”?
Are you saying the bible writers were merely “interpreting” the observations when they wrote them down in the bible?
Clear writings such at the sun and the moon remaining still in the sky for 24 hours is merely interpretation?
3 hours of darkness, earthquakes and dead saints getting up and walking around are merely interpretation?
Fine... I'm happy with that.
Then what actually happened? Can you believe anything in the bible? It seems that you are saying it is ALL interpretation and NO miracle happened at all?
Weird… not the Christian view I know of.
“that doesn't a priori invalidate the possibility of the activity of God through earthly happenings”
I told you, I have no problem with the idea that God could interact with the world – none what so ever. I do not even need to understand why or how.
However the “fact” of any interaction could and should be measurable. Tell me why it cannot?
Unless you are claiming that God’s interactions are merely inspirational? God gave the composer the inspiration to write the great piece of work? (Right?)
Is that all God can do? (No interaction “outside” the mind of the individual”?)
This is the only piece of “evidence” you have provided so far.
I suppose God also gave Dr Harold Shipman the inspiration in his work as well? Or do you not want to take that claim for God? Only the “nice things”?
Cheers
Lee
Hi Bruce,
Did you get to listen to that podcast I shown you - not the whole show, just the section I pointed you to?
I'm interested what you think about the Francis Collins question and answer.
Cheers
Lee
Hi Bruce,
I'm sure I posted a couple of comments... hope they didn't get lost of failed "moderation"?
Cheers
Lee
Lee,
Here are some atheist composers: Bartok, Beethoven, Berlioz, Bizet, Brahms, Debussy, Delius, Mozart, Paganini, Schubert, Schumann, Strauss, Tchaikovsky, Vaughan Williams, Verdi and Wagner.
I'm sure there are quite a few suprises there.
Been to see Maiden twice - both times were awsome.
No offense intended, but shine Jesus shine never did it for me
Billy
Hi Billy,
I'm sure there are quite a few suprises there.
All of them? I like some of these chaps... some have written pretty good music.
Erm... and they didn't need belief in a God or any interactions from a God?
Been to see Maiden twice - both times were awsome.
Beat ya... 4 times.
However my experience was not that great - so you win.
First time Bruce D had a cold...
2nd time was with Blaze (who is normally great) but he was "not allowed" to be himself with Maiden
3rd time they mainly played they new 8 min long ballads...
4th time, they did the same thing. I got bored...
They are playing in Melbourne soon, but unless they promise to play only the old stuff I'm not going (The poster hints this will be the case)
Lee
Lee, saw them last December, they played their whole new album and some oldies - fear of the dark, aces high, iron maiden, the trouper etc. The only downer was that they didn't play the number of the beast (this probably isn't the place to say how good that song is).
The first time I saw them, they were supported by some guys from Judas priest. It was wierd seeing some baldy guys headbang
Billy
Lee, I listened to the podcast from 32:30 to 42 min. Main point was his interest in the persistence of religious belief in 7% of the scientific community, as I took it. Probably best to pursue further discussion on my new post!
Bruce,
Piece of I ron Maiden trivia; Adam Julians' Brother was in a band called the Almighty that supported Iron maiden.
Billy
Uuuuhm... Wow!
You guys are all pretty hard core.
I've had a couple of crazy weeks that prevented me from coming back to read and comment further, but now I'm not really sure where to start because I've skimmed a few comments and this is like some kind of trippy epic novel that winds it's way through the centuries...
Weh-hey - Lalalian's back! I imagined you'd take one look at all this and run for cover. Good of you to drop by again, just look what you started (or at least, co-started!) Our man in Oz, Lee, has you'll see been pretty vocal. All in good spirit. Don't worry if you can only drop by occasionally, nice to have at least one female commentator apart from anything else. G'day!
Hi Billy,
Hope Bruce doesn’t mind the chit-chat about Maiden, but music was mentioned so it is the price that now should be paid.
Lee, saw them last December, they played their whole new album and some oldies - fear of the dark, aces high, iron maiden, the trouper etc. The only downer was that they didn't play the number of the beast (this probably isn't the place to say how good that song is).
I remember when “fear of the dark” was a new?
And that is why I think I stopped seeing them… I’m getting too old and I guess it is the “old stuff” I want to see… with just a few from the new album – but mainly the “classics”.
The new stuff just goes on and on and on… great for listening at home or car, but not when I am standing at a concert.
The first time I saw them, they were supported by some guys from Judas priest. It was wierd seeing some baldy guys headbang
I think that was the last time I saw them… weird?
The support was Halford (from the singer Rob Halford – you might know already that I am a big fan of Judas Priest.) The moment for me was the short, fat, bolding dwarf singing the chorus to “Nailed to the Gun”… it is a moment that stays in the memory.
Piece of Iron Maiden trivia; Adam Julians' Brother was in a band called the Almighty that supported Iron maiden.
The Almighty was the support when I first saw Maiden… (1992?) funny old world –saw them a couple of times, I was a fan.
Erm… who is Adam Julian BTW?
===================================
Hi Bruce,
Lee, I listened to the podcast from 32:30 to 42 min. Main point was his interest in the persistence of religious belief in 7% of the scientific community, as I took it.
Thanks for listening…
Was that the main point BTW? Maybe, but don’t forget also he goes on to discuss the reasons why religion has no place in science and that the theist scientist (Francis Collins in the example given) pushes God outside science to maintain his belief and that he rejects (without reason) any possibility that God could have a natural solution. A very unscientific position to take – stating you know the answer before you have any evidence to validate your position.
This was the reason why I asked you to listen… shame you missed it.
The point about the 7% of scientists being religious was also interesting, and I thought you would appreciate that. It could be a whole new debate… and I think he is right that we should test the scientists first if we wish to understand why some people have faith and others do not. It is obviously not because someone is “stupid” but it is interesting that the “higher up” the ladder you go in science, the less theists you have – why is that? However - let’s stick with what we have for now.
On a different not, Neil deGrasse (the chap in the podcast) was on a documentary I was watching last night – “The Universe”, an America documentary on the History Channel, from what I saw, if you can get over the America accents, it is an interesting show giving the history behind the Big Bang theory not just the science (my one complaint from what little I saw was that they missed out Tycho Brahe and gave all the measurement credit to Kepler – but I am sad like that.)
Probably best to pursue further discussion on my new post!
You are probably right… onward with the debate.
==================================
Hi Lalalian, Welcome back!
You guys are all pretty hard core.
I’ll take that as a complement… thanks
but now I'm not really sure where to start because I've skimmed a few comments and this is like some kind of trippy epic novel that winds it's way through the centuries...
Just pick a point that interests you and make a comment. If it has already been discussed, don’t worry – I always seem to repeat myself anyway at some point. You will begin to notice if you stick around.
this is like some kind of trippy epic novel that winds it's way through the centuries...
Cool… maybe we should write a book or maybe a movie? – but we would need a lot of the “special mushrooms” for that true “trippy” effect.
Bruce wrote:-
Weh-hey - Lalalian's back! I imagined you'd take one look at all this and run for cover.
And I would not have been surprised… I think I would have done when I saw the amount of rubbish written by me.
Our man in Oz, Lee,
Sssh… I’m undercover.
has you'll see been pretty vocal. All in good spirit.
I have haven’t I… Oops. I get like that. Sorry. Hope you do not mind?
And it is all in good fun from me… I am “detached” from the subject matter so it is just a debate for me – something to keep the mind active. I can learn so much.
I really hope I do not offend anyone due to my “detachment” though since it is never my intention.
Lee
Hi Bruce,
The comments below were “lost” and so I am re-sending.
A little out of date now, but what the heck.
==============================================
Hi Billy,
Hope Bruce doesn’t mind the chit-chat about Maiden, but music was mentioned so it is the price that now should be paid.
Lee, saw them last December, they played their whole new album and some oldies - fear of the dark, aces high, iron maiden, the trouper etc. The only downer was that they didn't play the number of the beast (this probably isn't the place to say how good that song is).
I remember when “fear of the dark” was a new?
And that is why I think I stopped seeing them… I’m too old and I guess it is the “old stuff” I want to see… with just a few from the new album – but mainly the “classics”.
The new stuff just goes on and on and on… great for listening at home, but not when I am standing at a concert.
The first time I saw them, they were supported by some guys from Judas priest. It was wierd seeing some baldy guys headbang
I think that was the last time I saw them… weird?
The support was Halford (from the singer Rob Halford – you might know already that I am a big fan of Judas Priest.) The moment for me was the short, fat, bolding dwarf swinging the chorus to “Nailed to the Gun”… it is a moment that stays in the memory.
Piece of Iron Maiden trivia; Adam Julians' Brother was in a band called the Almighty that supported Iron maiden.
The Almighty was the support when I first saw Maiden… (1992?) funny old world –saw them a couple of times, I was a fan once.
Erm… who is Adam Julian BTW?
==============================================
Hi Bruce,
Lee, I listened to the podcast from 32:30 to 42 min. Main point was his interest in the persistence of religious belief in 7% of the scientific community, as I took it.
Thanks for listening…
Was that the main point? Maybe, but don’t forget also he goes on to discuss the reasons why religion has no place in science and that the theist scientist (Francis Collins in the example given) pushes God outside science to maintain his belief and that he rejects (without reason) any possibility that God could have a natural solution.
A very unscientific position to take – stating you know the answer before you have any evidence to validate your position.
This was the reason why I asked you to listen…
The point about the 7% of scientists being religious was also interesting, and I thought you would appreciate that. It could be a whole new debate… and I think he is right that we should test the scientists first if we wish to understand why some people have faith and others do not. It is obviously not because someone is “stupid” but it is interesting that the “higher up the ladder” you go in science, the less theists you find – why is that? However - let’s stick with what we have for now.
On a different not, Neil deGrasse (the chap in the podcast) was on a documentary I was watching last night – “The Universe”, an America documentary on the History Channel, from what I saw, if you can get over the America accents, it is an interesting show giving the history behind the Big Bang theory not just the science (my one complaint was that they missed out Tycho Brahe and gave all the measurement credit to Kepler – but I am sad like that.)
Probably best to pursue further discussion on my new post!
You are probably right… onward with the debate.
=======================================
Hi Lalalian, Welcome back!
You guys are all pretty hard core.
I’ll take that as a complement… thanks
but now I'm not really sure where to start because I've skimmed a few comments and this is like some kind of trippy epic novel that winds it's way through the centuries...
Just pick a point that interests you and make a comment. If it has already been discussed, don’t worry – I always seem to repeat myself anyway at some point. You will begin to notice if you stick around.
this is like some kind of trippy epic novel that winds it's way through the centuries...
Cool… maybe we should write a book or maybe a movie? – but we would need a lot of the “special mushrooms” for that true “trippy” effect.
Bruce wrote:-
Weh-hey - Lalalian's back! I imagined you'd take one look at all this and run for cover.
And I would not have been surprised… I think I would have done when I saw the amount of rubbish written by me.
Our man in Oz, Lee,
Sssh… I’m undercover.
has you'll see been pretty vocal. All in good spirit.
I have haven’t I… Oops. I get like that. Sorry. Hope you do not mind.
And it is all in good fun from me… I am “detached” from the subject matter so it is just a debate for me – something to keep the mind active. I can learn so much.
I really hope I do not offend anyone due to my “detachment” though since it is never my intention.
Lee
Hooray... we are back in action
You found one of them then? Weird...
I suppose they will all turn up after Christmas... post is always late at Christmas.
Lee
Hi lee, I forgot this thread was stll going on. Adam went to Bruce's church for a while
Hi Billy,
Cool... the brother of the almighty at church?
I think thread died when posts got lost... that and it is difficult to keep up with posts
Post a Comment