Recently I've watched a couple of BBC series on large scale natural and geological phenomenon: 'Earth: the power of the planet' and 'Ten things you didn't know about...(tsunamis, earthquakes, avalanches). I love learning about the natural world and science; I'm a sucker for 'Life in Cold Blood', occasionally 'Horizon', and another excellent recent one, 'Atom'. And not surprisingly in the context of recent blog discussion, I find myself constantly reflecting on how religious faith, including my own, meshes with the captivating fields of knowledge these kinds of programmes open up.
It was a scene from the volcano episode of 'Power of the planet' the other day that crystallised an insight that had been simmering for some time. The presenter, Dr Iain Stuart - a congenial Scotsman - was discussing the volcanic activity that sustained and gave birth to Iceland. A scene of him contentedly soaking with locals in a warm geyser pool gave way to a computer-generated model of the extraordinary structure which lies beneath the island. Shooting up from the earth's core is a colossal funnel of lava, like a giant molten tree trunk; and it is of course the point where this plume hits the surface of the ocean that has produced - well, Iceland.
Now this is of course basic geology which anyone with a background in the subject would probably be quite familiar with. But for someone without such prior learning, the image was spell-binding - as indeed have been many images, facts and figures in the whole series. I've always had a hunger for knowledge about the natural world, and contrary to one popular stereotype, have never found my religious faith instilling any kind of fear or reluctance to glean more. In fact, the growing inner freedom of spirit faith nurtures seems if anything to sharpen this hunger. While it is pleasant enough to view pretty pictures of Iceland's landscape, I am intrigued by the bigger picture, the inner workings, what lies under the surface.
And I try to bring the same exploratory approach to faith. I'm struck by the parallels between religious and scientific knowledge. In both cases, full-blooded appreciation is only gained through a questing spirit that is prepared to 'get under the skin' of what is apparent, to dig deep for understanding. No great progress in science would have been possible without this drive to think outside the box, push past preconceptions and conceive physical reality in fresh ways. And no progress can be made in grasping and savouring spiritual realities without a similar attitude and approach. And it seems that one of the starting points, as Rob pointed out, is being prepared to take seriously the fact that there are different ways of gleaning knowledge, of which the scientific method is only one. A grade one class in epistemology would I reckon tell you that. 'Oranges are not the only fruit' as Jeanettte Winterson observed in a very different context. To quote from the opening of Chapter 6 of 'Science and its limits', (The Limitations of Science: What Can It Not Tell Us): '... if knowledge is restricted to scientific knowledge, we will thus be sheltering ourselves and our beliefs from the relevant portions of reality' p97. Sobering stuff - and I can't deny being curious to know what my atheist friends make of it.
Finally: it's been one heck of a weather day. Scotland's been through the washing machine. 'Heather the weather' must have been waxing lyrical.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.JPG)
34 comments:
Bruce, I disagree with you comaring science with faith (surprise surprise). If a scientific theory does not work, we bin it. However. it appears that believers try to explain things inside the box of their faith.
Also, could you validate the use of "other sorts of investigating reality" How do you know and how do you test them - especially outwith the box of faith (which in this case must surly not be a reasonable one).
Interested in geology? Try this book
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Land-Mountain-
Flood-Landforms-Scotland/dp/184158357X
Personally, I think geology/paleontology provides a problem for the idea of the fall: disasters and disease predates mankind. Would be interested in your thoughts here, which are in line with Jonathan's sin or selection? post
http://musingsofastrangemind.blogspot.com
/2007/12/sin-or-selection.html
In fact, the growing inner freedom of spirit faith nurtures seems if anything to sharpen this hunger.
Does that mean that you are free to consider the possibility that there is no god?
And no progress can be made in grasping and savouring spiritual realities without a similar attitude and approach.
Is this not pre-suppositionalist to say the least?
A grade one class in epistemology would I reckon tell you that.
I smell a potential strawman, but would you care to elaborate?
if knowledge is restricted to scientific knowledge, we will thus be sheltering ourselves and our beliefs from the relevant portions of reality' p97
Getting really fed up with this strawman. I have not measured you - I "know" you exist though (or do I - philosophically, you cant refute the claim you dont exist - but that's philosophy's problem). God however does not appear at the openings of supermarkets etc.
You talk of faith and science being compatible. Care to mention an example of where faith has improved a theory?
Science constantly forces those who are willing to look at evidence to re-write their theologies. Let's face it, the bible did not give us evolution, the spherical earth, the age of the eath or heliocentrism. Scientists showed these theologies to be wrong. Some accept this evidence at a price. They have to come up with a convoluted and untestable theolgy. Othrs get round this by denying the fact - and yes, there really are a small number of christians who refuse to believe the earth is not flat
Bruce-
firstly, a bit of nitpickery. My copy has that quote on page 92, not 97. If our versions are slightly different, would it be possible for you to give the name of the relevant section within the chapter as well? Makes it easier to find. Thanks.
"And it seems that one of the starting points, as Rob pointed out, is being prepared to take seriously the fact that there are different ways of gleaning knowledge, of which the scientific method is only one"
But once again you didn't mention what they were, so commenters are forced to respond in generalities. I know what you probably mean, but I'm loath to go into detail about it for fear of being off the mark.
"To quote from the opening of Chapter 6 of 'Science and its limits', (The Limitations of Science: What Can It Not Tell Us): '... if knowledge is restricted to scientific knowledge, we will thus be sheltering ourselves and our beliefs from the relevant portions of reality' p97"
I won't go too deeply into this since you haven't given your views on the rest of the chapter.
The full quote is this-
"But if any part of reality lies outside the boundaries imposed on science by its methods, that part of reality will be beyond the competence of science; if knowledge is restricted to scientific knowledge, we will thus be sheltering ourselves and our beliefs from the relevant portions of reality"
In theory, perhaps. But this is a very wide-ranging statement. To make the most obvious point, God could theoretically be outside the scope of science. But any interactions he had with the physical world would fall within the scope of science.
I won't go into more detail yet, until you post the next part of the book review.
Billy said-
"You talk of faith and science being compatible. Care to mention an example of where faith has improved a theory?"
I'd also be interested in hearing of such an example.
And as for the weather, Bedford has also been battling wind and rain. I'm told weather is not an issue in Bradford, apparently most major weather systems avoid the place. The "atmosphere" is nasty. :-)
Bruce wrote:
is being prepared to take seriously the fact that there are different ways of gleaning knowledge, of which the scientific method is only one.
Please name some other methods then that have added any value to the knowledge mankind has gained these last 400 years? Or maybe just a better methond than science - this is what you are hinting at.
You have stated many times that there are different methods of “gleaning knowledge” so what are they?
Of course, someone could just make up any old story, a really nice tale that hints at some nice morals ideas… this would be known as fiction.
How do you know that the bible is not just such fiction?
How do you test the bible and your faith in it?
'... if knowledge is restricted to scientific knowledge, we will thus be sheltering ourselves and our beliefs from the relevant portions of reality'
What “relevant portions of reality”? Tell me more please…
I will be “sheltering” myself from wishful thinking and nonsense… care to tell me why I am wrong?
Science tests their ideas – how do you test your faith?
and I can't deny being curious to know what my atheist friends make
Did you really think you needed to ask?
Lee
Hi Bruce, I know you are busy, but it shouldn't take long to answer this question of mine
"Care to mention an example of where faith has improved a theory?"
Please put answer here() - I hope that I didn't leave too much space there :-)
Seriously though, this is a very important point if your claims have any truth to them
Thanks all of you for your comments. Hopefully you'll see in due course the benefit of comment moderation in engaging with me on these topics: the natural restricting and honing tendency it has on comments means I should be able to read - and hopefully respond - to all of them. 5 comments, or even 50, is for me rather more manageable than 325 (or more likely, about 500 by now, thinking of your God and Absolutes post J.
So a brief response to your q Billy: first, I've a feeling my conception of what faith involves may be different from yours. For me it at least involves a basic attitude and approach incorporating an openness to (at least the possibility of) a realm of reality beyond what can be accessed through the physical senses and the scientific method.
At least that's one way of putting it! Another way might be to say something like 'Jesus loves me this I know...'. Don't diss that; I'd say a concept can be expressed with various levels of sophistication.
(Come on Bruce, get to the point...!!)
A suitably large conception of faith wd I think show there are bigger issues behind your q than are at first apparent. But my first thought is of someone like Newton or Einstein. The great leaps forward, the scientific revolutions they instigated, were seeded not by deductive logic or empirical observation, considerable though their abilities on these fronts no doubt were - but by highly significant intuitive insights.
And a very fruitful discussion could be opened up by considering the relation and relevance of such 'insight' means of knowing, to faith.
Bruce-
"Another way might be to say something like 'Jesus loves me this I know..."
At the risk of dissing you, for anyone out there who doesn't know, the second half of that phrase is "...because the Bible tells me so".
It's fair to point out, and probably not unknown to many. I admit I was reluctant to include it, J, for the obvious reason that it is likely to draw an instant put-down from atheists (which any reasonable and vaguely informed person wd be able to judge pretty unfair - it's a Sunday school hymn after all). The reality is of course, as I'm confident you will to some extent appreciate, that a Christian's grounds for believing Jesus loves him or her are rather more substantial than this quaint line might suggest. Although there's still a weight of meaning behind it.
Right, I should be finishing this news 24 resurrection script.
So a brief response to your q Billy: first, I've a feeling my conception of what faith involves may be different from yours. For me it at least involves a basic attitude and approach incorporating an openness to (at least the possibility of) a realm of reality beyond what can be accessed through the physical senses and the scientific method.
Your definition still does not answer my question. How has any scientific theory been enhanced by faith in the supernatural?
If it is supernatural, then by your claim it can not be tested (we disagree). It therefore canot be included in a scientific theory.
So, the question still remains unanswered.
At least that's one way of putting it! Another way might be to say something like 'Jesus loves me this I know...'. Don't diss that; I'd say a concept can be expressed with various levels of sophistication.
That does not make it true though - and Jonathan has already pointed out the real reason you believe that.
This is a good way to test your pre-suppositions. Assuming he exists, how do you know he loves you? How do you know he is not actually evil in a way that is beyond human comprehension and is actually working to the greater evil? Care to take the challenge?
The great leaps forward, the scientific revolutions they instigated, were seeded not by deductive logic or empirical observation, considerable though their abilities on these fronts no doubt were - but by highly significant intuitive insights.
No, they actually performed experiments. The tackled known problems and gave then physical explanations. They worked within the parameters of physical investigation.
So, how has christian faith ever improved our understanding of a theory?
PS, I hope you are not implying Einstein was a theist.
(which any reasonable and vaguely informed person wd be able to judge pretty unfair - it's a Sunday school hymn after all).
So, anyone who disagrees with this is unreasonable?
The reality is of course, as I'm confident you will to some extent appreciate, that a Christian's grounds for believing Jesus loves him or her are rather more substantial than this quaint line might suggest. Although there's still a weight of meaning behind it.
Care to take the evil god challenge then? He does kill lots of people in the OT you know, so to say that he loves you seems somewhat unreasonable after all
Hi Bruce,
But my first thought is of someone like Newton or Einstein. The great leaps forward, the scientific revolutions they instigated,
Bad examples on the faith argument I think.
Both very clever…true - both spoke of religion.
One was a theist, one was not.
The theist gave up when it got too difficult and said “I don’t know how this happens, so God did it” and probably hindered science and mathematics for a long time after because of this arrogance. (Well, if Newton cannot answer, it really must be God then…)
His faith, in the end, got in the way of him, and of science. (Newton may have “invented” calculus, but it is not his version that we use today - Newton tried to keep his work secret – he nearly destroyed Hook because he thought, wrongly, that he was being copied.
Add to this the amount of time Newton wasted trying to predict the end of the world by reading bible prophecies? If only he focused on science and maths and not the bible. Think where science could have been. Newton published more work on the bible than science I believe.
As for Einstein, well… what a guy – but theist no. Faith in god? No… So what’s your point? Einstein liked to use the phrase “God” to explain the universe?
Also, more importantly since we are talking about faith.You still have not answered my question about it.
If faith is so great at finding the truth, why is it when people use only their faith they get different answers, they get different conclusions, they follow different gods and religion?
All religions cannot be right, but it is faith that brought them to their conclusions.
Faith has a problem... it doesn't seem to wrong.
Seems to me faith itself is useless as a means of finding truth… care to discuss?
Lee
The theist gave up when it got too difficult and said “I don’t know how this happens, so God did it” and probably hindered science and mathematics for a long time after because of this arrogance.
Yes, this is still a common attitude - particularly amongst Americans.
Lets not forget how the faith of others lead to Gallieo shutting up under pain of death. Faith often hinders progress, because anything that challenges its dogma must be denounced.
I'm sure Bruce will tell me that's not his particular idea of faith, but he still has to demonstrate how his bran of faith actually enhances any scientific theory.
Bran of faith? Is this a new kind of cereal?
Billy, your equation of faith with dogma is highly suspect. You and Lee appear rather dogmatic in your own views on science at times it must be said.
One of my main problems with your views on faith, the bible etc is that they exhibit the failure I implicitly critique in my post: an insistence on superficial assessment, failure to explore non-scientific dimensions of reality, or at least the possibility of them, with the same probing-ness you apply to science.
You seem to me to apply a 'let's look at the pretty geysers' parallel attitude and approach, which you'd be loth to do with science.
My last point was pretty tentative but I think relevant; the right brain inspired flashes of insight that seeded scientific revolutions have it can at least be said something in common with insight into spiritual reality.
You have similar styles of response - point by point rebuttal, and you're even starting to sound alike; eg. 'care to discuss'? Nothing wrong with that; I'm just getting the impression of a bit of a double act, brothers in arms...
I'll return to your earlier comments.
Billy, your equation of faith with dogma is highly suspect.
Want a bet? Why was gallileo silenced? Hint: christian dogma based on the "authority" of the bible said the earth was the centre of the universe.
Why are young earth creationists in denial of evolution? Why is Jimmy in denial of evolution? (because the bible does not mention a word about it and that's all he needs to know)
Care to concede the point?
You and Lee appear rather dogmatic in your own views on science at times it must be said.
No, we have a correct definition that you try to bastardise and cant support. It is like you saying that mamals can have 6 limbs, when by definition they have no more than 4.
One of my main problems with your views on faith, the bible etc is that they exhibit the failure I implicitly critique in my post: an insistence on superficial assessment,
How about some substance instead of groundless accusations. I really do feel that you have nothing in your locker here and that you are blindly holding on to a faith that you seem unable to justify - that aside....
failure to explore non-scientific dimensions of reality, or at least the possibility of them, with the same probing-ness you apply to science.
And I suppose having once being a christian does not count! I see no evidence whatsoever that you are open minded enough to consider you might be wrong. HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO ASK YOU TO JUSTIFY BELIEF IN A SUPERNATURAL PARADIGM AND GO IGNORED.
With respect, you seem to be burying your head in the sand here.
Correct me if I am wrong, but you have somehow changed me acknowledging faith means different things to different people into me saying this is how all faith is - mind you, none of them have any rational way to decide who is right.
Now you seem to have shifted from science to supernaturalism as a means of understanding. I actually asked you how supernaturalism has ever enhanced a scientific theory, so please dont be evasive - you suggest they are compatible, so please demonstrate so or concede!
You seem to me to apply a 'let's look at the pretty geysers' parallel attitude and approach, which you'd be loth to do with science.
It may only seem that way to you because you fail to engage at depth - care to take the evil god challege - for the upteenth time of asking?
Your accusations ate not evidence for your position.
You have similar styles of response - point by point rebuttal, and you're even starting to sound alike; eg. 'care to discuss'? Nothing wrong with that; I'm just getting the impression of a bit of a double act, brothers in arms...
And your problem with that is?
Two against one, maybe you should critically evaluate your position. If you say the moon is made of cheese, would we both not have the right to challenge you on this - and we would both be right.
I suggest you spend more time thinking and supporting your case rather than insult us! It definately makes it look like you are struggling.
I just knew I'd pressed all the right buttons there.
'Insult' is a bit strong for what I said. I actually rather like double acts.
But where you really disappoint me is in claiming the moon is not made of cheese. I thought I'd at least got that one right.
I just knew I'd pressed all the right buttons there.
'Insult' is a bit strong for what I said.
No buttons pressed - just disapointed in what you wrote. It is insulting to accuse someone of naievity in their approach - eapecially someone who did all he could to keep believing (I can hear some of your readers questioning this statement already)
Hi Bruce,
Bruce wrote:
Bran of faith? Is this a new kind of cereal?
Well, I guess it keeps you regular – ensures you have nice and solid sh… should I change the subject?
your equation of faith with dogma is highly suspect.
Well I am still waiting for you to explain faith to me and how it helps finding truth – why when using it people get different conclusion.
I doubt it is a dogma view though, all you have to do is show our view is wrong and we will change it. It is that simple… that is not dogmatic. “Pragmatic” maybe, but I’ve never been good with words so I could be wrong.
You and Lee appear rather dogmatic in your own views on science at times it must be said.
Yeah… I really am aren’t I…. I am so dogmatic - I am so demanding and strict that all assumptions HAVE to be tested, repeatedly. That we cannot be certain on any positive result, we can only falsity. However the more positive results some has gives me more and more reasons to believe it is true.
I am SO dogmatic on the scientific method that I will shout up and tell others when they are wrong about the method…
Though I always end with – “I could be wrong… tell me I am wrong and I will change my view”
So in the end… am I really dogmatic at all?
Does your definition of dogma cover me being “dogmatic” about the Earth being a sphere going around the sun? I’m suppose I am more than a little “dogmatic” about that then most things… but even here, you could prove me wrong and I will change – so nope, not even here.
I need you to help me out then Bruce…
Show me where I am dogmatic; to do this you have to show me I am wrong and why it is likely that I am wrong. Reasons to doubt. If I am wrong I will change my view (Oops, this means I’m not dogmatic)
Maybe this is just a mud throwing game - Maybe you just don’t like how I point out and argue (with reasons) why religion has no place at the frontiers of scientific discovery – well, by my “dogmatic” definition religion it cannot be there, it already “knows” the answers, and these answers from the theist cannot be falsified, and most certainly should not be questioned and challenged… Why? Well, because the theist has faith that they are right and we all know how tried and tested faith is at finding the real truths about the universe. Don’t we? (Well, I am waiting)
Am I wrong? Tell me how to falsify God… tell me God is not the final answer? Nope – you cannot of course. God for you IS the final answer in your religious book – OK, show me how you know this, and please explain why most people don’t agree with you and have a different opinion on who and what God is.
Another area you may want to throw more of this “dogmatic” mud is on my opinion and values on evidence.
I demand it before making a conclusion; you say I should have faith as well (or look for some other form of evidence.) – then once again, show me that faith adds any value to pursuit and advancement of knowledge - you might be on to something if you can show it.
Show that I am rejecting good evidence for no rational reason (or just plain wrong dogmatic reasons) some evidence that the majority hold and agree on that I am rejecting (though we all know science is not a democracy – it will at least make me think)
One of my main problems with your views on faith, the bible etc is that they exhibit the failure I implicitly critique in my post: an insistence on superficial assessment, failure to explore non-scientific dimensions of reality, or at least the possibility of them, with the same probing-ness you apply to science.
Bruce, you are doing it again.
Can you tell me anything about these “non-scientific dimensions of reality”?
Please… just give me a few pointers how YOU know about them.
More importantly, how you have tested your assumptions on them?
Oh my dogmatic view on testing again… why don’t I just have faith and believe what anybody tells me? Well, you don’t – you reject other gods for some reason other than faith don’t you?
So please tell me more about this “non-scientific dimensions of reality” and I will tell you more about the type of food the blue invisible unicorn at the bottom of my garden prefers to eat :)
You seem to me to apply a 'let's look at the pretty geysers' parallel attitude and approach, which you'd be loth to do with science.
I do not understand what you are saying here – sorry. Can you please re-phrase or expand?
My last point was pretty tentative but I think relevant;
…but I still don’t understand it. Call me Mr Stupidhead
the right brain inspired flashes of insight that seeded scientific revolutions have it can at least be said something in common with insight into spiritual reality.
Bruce, if someone was motivated to investigate the forces of the solar system because of their belief in God – then great. Newton did a pretty good job as we know.
This does NOT make his belief in God anymore true – it was merely a motivation (and ultimately it made him to stop looking, so in the end, it was also a hindrance.)
If ONLY Newton thought… “WOW, this solar system is amazing – I wonder how it works” and this was Newton’s only motivation, then maybe he would not have stopped looking, and maybe left some better clues for those that followed him and inspired them to work harder looking for the solution.
If your best argument is to say God is a motivation, then this is getting sad.
You have similar styles of response - point by point rebuttal, and you're even starting to sound alike; eg. 'care to discuss'?
It is just easier for me to do a “point by point rebuttal” – I am sorry I don’t have an English degree in writing or anything.
I do it to ensure I do not miss any key points made in the original comment.
I answer every issue with a rebuttal (or agreement) – would you prefer I miss “difficult questions” that you raise?
Nothing wrong with that;
Thank you.
Maybe you should try the “point by point” approach as well – you will not have such a long list of unanswered questions which you have “missed” or “forgotten” (or just ignored?).
I'm just getting the impression of a bit of a double act, brothers in arms...
Billy… who’s your daddy?
I'll return to your earlier comments.
I am of course still waiting…
Lee
Hi Bruce,
Looks like Billy beat me and replied first.
I just knew I'd pressed all the right buttons there.
Of course, you throw mud, we response with logic and reason.
OK… we may cut a little closer to the bone, but people in glass houses and all that…
'Insult' is a bit strong for what I said.
I took it as another attempt to “insult” in a “friendly way” but this is what happens sometimes.
I actually rather like double acts.
Little and Large? Morecambe and Wise? Cannon and Ball?
But where you really disappoint me is in claiming the moon is not made of cheese.
Well I did see a documentary about it; I think it was called Wallace and Gromit or something.
I thought I'd at least got that one right.
The trick is to question… to test… don’t just have faith in the answer – challenge it.
(Oh and don't just believe in children stories like Wallace and Gromit because your let you watch it)
Lee
Reality.
Some years ago I used to go to an indoor market and talk to a Muslim man who had a stall there.
One day while talking to him I had a sense of witness or if you like a spiritual insight that within this man was the Holy Spirit.
This caused me to reappraise my own assumptions regarding the Muslim religion.
Trying to explain this to an atheist would be even more difficult than trying to explain the colour blue to someone who was born blind.
Someone born blind would accept that there was colours but an atheist has to deny all other investigative colours except the black and white of empiricism.
People do experience spiritual insights and these insights are a valid form of investigating reality.
It is an interesting thought that if the spiritual is a reality then an atheist would be in denial of reality.
Interesting strawman Jimmy.
Keep em comming. I'm still waiting an answer Re Mohammad and his 9 year old wife by the way
PS, the last one was me
Can I just clarify we all share the same definition of straw man argument: an unfavourable misrepresentation of the opponent's argument or aspect of it, enabling it to be easily shot down.
Just checking.
Can I just clarify we all share the same definition of straw man argument: an unfavourable misrepresentation of the opponent's argument or aspect of it, enabling it to be easily shot down.
A weakened or inaccurate potrayal of your opposition's point of view that is set up for dismantling.
In Jiimy's cas, this "atheist has to deny all other investigative colours except the black and white of empiricism.
"Trying to explain this to an atheist would be even more difficult than trying to explain the colour blue to someone who was born blind.
Someone born blind would accept that there was colours but an atheist has to deny all other investigative colours except the black and white of empiricism"
Sounds like a strawman to me.
Hi Bruce,
Can I just clarify we all share the same definition of straw man argument: an unfavourable misrepresentation of the opponent's argument or aspect of it, enabling it to be easily shot down.
Straw Man: Arguing against a position which you create specifically to be easy to argue against, rather than the position actually held by those who oppose your point of view
Yep… sounds good.
I got this from the following site:
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/
logicalfallacies.asp
The page outlines their 20 twenty logical fallacies – I see rather too many of them on these blogs.
Lee
Hi Jimmy,
Jimmy wrote:
One day while talking to him I had a sense of witness or if you like a spiritual insight that within this man was the Holy Spirit.
This caused me to reappraise my own assumptions regarding the Muslim religion.
Good for you…
Did you get the “feeling” that Islam was following the right God or the wrong God?
Did you get the “feeling” that “all gods are really the same god”?
Did you get the “feeling” that all the contradictions between the Koran and the bible were merely “God’s little joke” – you know, the kind of joke people have died laughing at over the centuries?
Do you think you could explain this “feeling” to Bruce so he agrees with you?
Do you think you could explain this “feeling” is every Muslim and Christian you met so that they agree to you?
Why do you “feel” you cannot explain this “feeling” to those who do not already believe you (or who will NOT take it on faith that you are right)?
Trying to explain this to an atheist would be even more difficult than trying to explain the colour blue to someone who was born blind.
So you do not even try? How insulting…
You could still explain the colour blue to someone who is blind– just because they are blind does not mean they do not understand the physics behind the electromagnetic waves or the biology of the eye. They will have a different understanding maybe, since they have not experienced it directly. Is it any less of an understanding than you have?
Have you ever “seen” Radio waves? Have you ever “seen” Infrared light? Have you ever “seen” Ultraviolet… X-Rays.. Microwaves… the list goes on.
Do you understand what these are even though you have not seen them?
Someone born blind would accept that there was colours
You are damn right they could… and there is no reason why they could not learn more about them than you currently understand it - so what is your argument?
but an atheist has to deny all other investigative colours except the black and white of empiricism.
Is that it? That is your argument?
Sorry Jimmy – see above.
You have used so much straw in your argument you are a fire hazard.
Be careful with those matches – you might take an eye out.
People do experience spiritual insights and these insights are a valid form of investigating reality.
If they are valid?
Then answer the questions I have repeatedly asked - direct questions on faith and its value (both here and on Jonathan’s blog.)
They been ignored by both you and Bruce. Why?
If your claim is that I do not understand the value of faith, then fine – I don’t, I freely admit that (I don’t understand the value of the chocolate fire guard either)
However, show me the value of faith in finding “truth” about the universe. That is the problem you have. I am able to understand this, if you could show it. Don’t shout and insult me because you cannot show what you believe in.
My questions once again… (Cut and paste from this thread)
How do you test the bible and your faith in it?
Science tests their ideas – how do you test your faith?
If faith is so great at finding the truth, why is it when people use only their faith they get different answers, they get different conclusions, they follow different gods and religion?
All religions cannot be right, but it is faith that brought them to their conclusions.
Faith has a problem...
Just wishing it does not make it so…
So come Jimmy, stop saying I do not understand, and start explaining its value – start showing its value. Maybe then I will understand.
It is an interesting thought that if the spiritual is a reality then an atheist would be in denial of reality.
The key word is IF…
If God was a lie, then the theist is in denial of reality.
WOW – how easy it is to make an empty argument.
Can you back up any of your arguments Jimmy – answer the questions given, if you cannot, your faith is useless in finding any “truth”.
Oh – and this last “argument” you used makes me laugh, coming from someone who denies evolution but cannot explain why (other than, of course, it does not appear in the bible but this argument has already been shown false. There is much not in the bible that you believe it)
You really do have to laugh…
Lee
Damn... looks like I just missed the nightly update on this thread - two new posts have just appeared, but not mine :(
Oh well
Lee
Some years ago I used to go to an indoor market and talk to a Muslim man who had a stall there.
One day while talking to him I had a sense of witness or if you like a spiritual insight that within this man was the Holy Spirit.
This caused me to reappraise my own assumptions regarding the Muslim religion.
Two things spring to mind here.
1) you have no evidence that your feeling was right (I wonder if he thinks you are off to hell?)
2) Wouldn't most christians condider this blasphemy? - dont you just love the problem solving inability of theology?
People do experience spiritual insights and these insights are a valid form of investigating reality.
How?
Bruce-
I've started work on a response to the "four challenges" in chapter 7 of "Science and its limits". Since you've seemed very enthusiastic about the book, I hope this will provoke some good discussion with frequent comments, as much as time allows.
In the meantime, you may remember you made some comments on the "Atheism and me" that were actually about the thread itself. I've responded to your points, so would appreciate your opinion on what I said.
My response to chapter 7 of Science and its limits is now up on my blog. Be warned, it's a big one!
Jonathan,
Like it...
Lee
Bruce-
while I think of it, when are you going to finish your review of the God Delusion?
Questions questions... if I critique TGD further, which I may well do, it'll likely be in stages, as seems worthwhile and the interest takes me. One of the problems of this kind of debate is simply sustaining interest to be honest; I don' think Rob wd mind me pointing out that one of the reasons he stopped was he just got bored. This kind of battleships style intellectual debate over the greatest q there is, in the knowledge it has been pored over long and hard. But I'll contribute as I can...
Hi Bruce,
if I critique TGD further, which I may well do, it'll likely be in stages, as seems worthwhile and the interest takes me.
I thought it interested you to be challenged on your faith? Being asked the difficult questions and all that?
One of the problems of this kind of debate is simply sustaining interest to be honest; I don' think Rob wd mind me pointing out that one of the reasons he stopped was he just got bored.
Yeah – whatever… bored right – that must be it.
This kind of battleships style intellectual debate over the greatest q there is,
Battleships? At least you said “intellectual” – I feel clever now.
As for the greatest question… maybe 200 years ago. Now it is just a bit of fun isn’t it? Something to discuss and debate with friends?
in the knowledge it has been pored over long and hard.
Any answers from the theist camp then that can hold up to a little challenge? Erm...
But I'll contribute as I can...
I look forward to it, but I would welcome some real attempts at answering the questions put towards you. Not just attacks on me, just challenge the argument.
If this is the “greatest question” and has been “pored over long and hard” it should be easy for you to answer some of our questions right?
I have to admit also to be getting a little bored but while I am learning I am happy… not learnt much new from the theist camp though.
Must go… sorry if I sound a little short, I’ve been up since 3am after doing a night shift and so having gone past 8pm here it is a little late.
See ya
Lee
Post a Comment