Back after a bit of a break with a new radio script to get you talking (if anyone's still reading :))...
Commentator:
'And welcome to the blue riband event of these games: the race of life. It's Topbloke in lane 3, Smallfry in lane 5.
(starter gun) And Topbloke’s off to a blistering start in lane 3 with everything going for him, looks, talent, charisma. Picks up speed round the bend with the plush job and nice house. Smallfry meanwhile slow out of the blocks with self esteem issues, has a lot of catching up to do.
And Topbloke’s cleared the first hurdle superbly, conflict at work but his natural charm has carried him through. Smallfry struggling to keep up and really smacking those hurdles, problems on all fronts and looks to be right out of this.
Out of the bend and Topbloke is flying - promotion, bonuses, company car, and he accelerates down the back strait with the beautiful wife and four lovely kids. Smallfry still trailing badly.
Oh, but Topbloke’s slowing a bit as they enter the final bend, a spot of complacency creeping in - and he hasn't taken that hurdle well, bad row with the wife has knocked him for six.
And late in the day Smallfry is coming through as he starts to look for spiritual meaning in life, well what about this?
So it’s neck and neck down the home strait oh and Topbloke's clattered that last hurdle, lost his job, confidence, and nowhere to turn. And Smallfry has just discovered an incredible overwhelming love and is storming through and looks like he's gonna win this and it’s absolutely astonishing!...
Oh my goodness me, and with a rumour coming over the wires that he’s… found God, well, I just can’t wait for the interview.'
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
.JPG)
kindling ideas
Mean streets of Bradford
Recent Comments
Blogs
- Valley boy
- The Long Walk Home
- The Freethought Cafe
- The Dole Brothers
- Strawmen Cometh
- Stephen Law
- St Silas Women
- Ruth Gledhill, Times Religion
- novus lumen
- Musings of a strange mind
- musings of a restless bishop
- Maths teacher goes to the movies
- lost horizons
- jgc::digital scrapbook
- Gadgetvicar
- Faith on fire
- digital journal
- creative tails
- church marketing sucks
- Billy's blog
122 comments:
Interesting that he finds god when things are not going well for him. Why do you thing vulnerable people convert? Comfort blanket?
Bruce if anyone's still reading
Where are the pretty pictures... what is it with this reading?
The olympics and god now (thanks to Billy) makes me think of the triple jumper... Edwards... Jonathan Edwards I think the name was.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
tol/sport/more_sport/
athletics/article1991114.ece
Oh and of your post - I don't get it.
So was topbloke a Muslim or Jew or Christian or non-believer?
Or doesn't it matter?
It does sound a little like good old Job from the bible... maybe God was just testing him now he has "nowhere to turn"
Lee
billy,
i thought you had warned me about psychological interpretations of belief - i mean one can accuse either theists or atheists of seeking a comfort blanket...
one less thing to worry about - for the athiest - nothing to worry about for the theist - its a tight choice but at least we get to live with our decisions...
Bruce says that the lagging athelete has found god - what does this mean - what is happening to him - can we break down this event of what it is to find god ?
That might interest lee - billy do you think most people who find god define that god as people like dawkins does.
Billy what exactly is this god that dawkins doesnt believe in ?
i thought you had warned me about psychological interpretations of belief - i mean one can accuse either theists or atheists of seeking a comfort blanket...
Atheists dont use an absence of an invisible friend as a comfort blanket. I believe I actually pointed out that peple put their own spin on matters of faith - if you want to hate gays you ignore some bible verses, if you want to esteem them, you ignore other verses - I think that's what I was getting at.
one less thing to worry about - for the athiest - nothing to worry about for the theist - its a tight choice but at least we get to live with our decisions...
This doesn't make any sense. care to elaborate?
Bruce says that the lagging athelete has found god - what does this mean - what is happening to him - can we break down this event of what it is to find god ?
I know what he is getting at. As I said needy people find god (and allah and a multitude of other religious pshychological crutches). Forgot about JE Lee - praise no god! - nah, that doesn't work as a comfort blanket for me.
billy do you think most people who find god define that god as people like dawkins does.
Really, and how does Dawkins define god? Have you read any Dawkins since you last told me that you hadn't (yet had very strong opinions on his philosophy - which even he would have disagreed on)? Were you just told what to think about him then.
No matter how you define god and try the "that's not my god" dodge, the is still no evidence that he exists. Lets look at some definitions - to some he is a young earth god acceptance of evolution is not tolerable. To others he is a father figure who only does good. To others he is a punisher of sin where you have to gain his acceptance. Others state that he accepts you regardless. Some say their god will send every one to hell who is not like them. Spme say that god will even let virtuous non believers into heaven, so you tell me Rob, what is your god? Why are the other views wrong(believers views). And finally, What evidence can you present?
Billy what exactly is this god that dawkins doesnt believe in ?
If you had read him, you would know - all of them - including all 2500 versions of the god of the bible. Also, Dawkins does not believe in any god who is not compatible with Darwinism. So if your version of god is incompatible with that, he definately does not believe in your god, and the "that's not my god" dodge is not a rebuttal.
Oh and Rob, any thought on why vulnerable people convert?
one can accuse either theists or atheists of seeking a comfort blanket...
I wonder what my comfort blanket is, and what it is comforting me against?
one less thing to worry about - for the athiest - nothing to worry about for the theist - its a tight choice but at least we get to live with our decisions...
Does this hold water - after all – why would I worry about an all-loving God?
Funny though, this all-loving God is precisely what the Christian claims to believe in, but then fears God and his wrath – strange.
Oh, and I can feel comforted by my non-belief in fairies, golems, Zeus and Woden as well with your logic?
As for comfort about nothing to worry about, the theist has a lot to worry about I think – they just ignore the problem - have they got the right god, are they praying correctly etc etc so maybe in a way you are right. I don’t have to worry about this at all – but it is a strange comfort… neither do I worry about an alien invasion, why should I?
Bruce says that the lagging athelete has found god - what does this mean - what is happening to him - can we break down this event of what it is to find god ?
That might interest lee
It does interest me… just not sure where to take the conversation yet.
What has this athlete found and why?
Lee
Sorry Rob, Billy, Lee, I try to check into my blog daily but don't want to hinder the discussion, so if you'd rather it proceeded unhindered it might be better to have on Billy or Lee's (Straw man) blog. Up to you though. Meanwhile I'll try and get round to responding to points about the post. Currently busy trying to get it fit for playing on the radio...
billy,
the reason for asking about dawkins god is i want to make sure - from someone who has clearly read him in depth - that im getting the right picture
dawkins seems to pick up on the classical cartesian division of spirit and matter - god is a spirit of somekind - then he shows that the scientific techniques used to understand matter ( falsificationalism as far as i can see) - dont accomodate the existence of "spirits" - so he ends up with what appears to me to be dressed up materialism - "clap your hands there are no gods" - which is good in some way
you could also argue that the religious techniques used to understand spirit ( whatever they are - hermenutics ( if you can call tradition and its evolving reinterpretation that ) - dont accomodate the relevance of matter - and you can end up with a dressed up idealism - "clap your hands there are gods" - which is good in some way
What im saying is you can spin in either direction - and depending on your own particular persuasion you can find enough people to agree with you.
I think the whole debate is founded on a very narrow premise - cartesian dualism - which is a very unrewarding philosophy ( find its internal inconsistency in the epiphenomenalism debates of a huxley and co )
Or you could just watch "what the bleep do we know" and you get all this as a 3 minute cartoon
- i thought this was an original thought - but no such luck
i have to be honest about this debate - or what was this debate - i think everyone is (was )playing with pidgeon holes
what is my god billy ? if i knew he would no longer be my god - just another lie to crush someone else with ........
ramble ramble ramble
I will read the comments properly soon - at the moment I just need to prepare a training session on basic bike maintenance believe it or not - but I have been watching the Dawkins Darwin series with interest too...
Rob,
Dawkins's main objection is that the evidence that you might cite is not verifiable and can not be considered as evidence. I dont think he would say that science has shown there is no god - just that one is extremely unlikely. This is something religious people fail to get to grips with.
As for supernaturalism, he just does not think the evidence is good enough.
The best thing though is to read him for yourself. I haven't even read half his books
Bruce suggested to speed things up, we could carry on at my blog - or lees. Let me know what you think and what you would like to discuss
what is my god billy ? if i knew he would no longer be my god - just another lie to crush someone else with ........
So you don't know yourself?
Weird.
Let's keep it simple then... is your god a theistic god - one that interacts in the universe today and listens and acts to your prayers?
Or how about... did your God influence the writing of the bible at all? And what about other holy books?
Do you believe Jesus rose from the day after 3 days? Who or what was Jesus and why do you think that?
All simple ideas...
I don't want to 'crush' you or your ideas - just want to see if they are consistent with the world we see around us.
I think we should test our ideas - don't you?
Lee
PS
Good look with the bike session Bruce
Rob (or anyone else) Stephen Law (a professional philosopher) is starting a "book club" on his blog. The first book is The God Delusion
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/
2008/08/book-club-god-delusion.html
This may be a good opportunity to get tho grips with what Dawkins thinks
lee,
im half joking when i say "lies" to crush someone else with...
I said way at the start that i was relecutant to be drawn into a debate which essentially i refute its foundations...
the debate here seems to fluctuate between two extremes view of supposedly objective reality - which is right the atheists or the theists view of the world - there seems a lot of confusion and debate
Im not fond of "true ideas" - i think when you have a view of the world which you hold as true it neccesitates something else is not true - one ends up beating other people with the hard end of the stick and stroking yourself with the other.
So in my last series of quotes i merely set out the stall in favour of traditional theism which i see as viable a traditional atheism as long as you are using traditional models of argument - as soon as you let go of looking for the big ideas - I think you move this side of the second world war for a start.
There is something retarded about dawkins as there is about mcgrath - they are big men with big arguments which keep our eyes off the target. Im my humble opinion of course.
When you say verifiable - I am interested in - what shall we say - direct experience - how to deal and cope with everyday life - direct experience . The gospels of the nt to me present what i would call a counter strategy - they present soft virtues - rather like some forms of buddhism and taoism. Thats why I remain a practicisng christian.
I dont take sides in debates over the resurrection - how the bible was written - or even if there is a transcendental diety - i see these as noisy distractions from the actual practice of the christian life. They may be important for some people . I know i once thought they were for me. But life is for living.
If there is a god I dont think we can find him through intellectual puzzling. I suppose Im just reaffirming a postmodern belief in praxis or method - but the earliest christians were know as followers of the way. I am happy to continue in that vein.
If you can put your finger on it - youve lost it - somewhere between encapulastion and imagination - god lingers on - for me at least. It might sound weird but to me the gospel is about the love of my neighbour and the love of god ( whoever he is). I think hope is undeconstructable - that is the real foundation for religion.
Maybe a different approach is to look at the way we define god rather than to question whether he exists - Im just throwing stones in the air and seeing where they land. No great angle. Nothing to fear - nothing to control. That I suppose is a christian legacy. If you need to be atheist to do that - Im okay with that.
Im not the only one saying this - you can check out books like " what would jesus deconstruct " by Caputo. Christian theology didnt end with the enlightenment, nietzsche, dawkins or whoever. What is the real truth of the new testament. What is bound up in the culture of the time. I dont think belief in angels is a prerequisite for being a christian.
anyway must dash
best wishes rob
p.s. billy will check out the professional philosphers page - like to keep the professionals in a profession
p.s. billy will check out the professional philosphers page - like to keep the professionals in a profession
I only mention his profession cos you believers love a good argument from authority :-)
PS, I dont need the gospels to live by, so how does that make their message valid?
lee,
Anyway getting back to this olympic runner - the idea that he has "found god" - what does this mean. That is literally the sort of thing that interests me - meaning. What are the nuts and bolts of religious experience and how can it be harnessed or unleashed to our advantage. So what sort of thing can this mean ?
I suppose the context of bruces script is a classic take on why some people "turn to god". They then find it easier to whizz along coping with whatever they have to. There is a relish for living which keeps them going. There may be countless reasons for this - and i am sure they are different for everyone it happens to but in this article maybe bruce is pointing to a few.
Topbloke is pretty much following the standard approach to life - the classical model of amassing gaining conquering - it works well for some - especially the talented but even they seem to fall short eventually. Trying to control and suck the work in around you eventually doesnt work - there is a sort of basic problem - a human is very small and the universe is very large - ( see lees blog ) eventually the struggle cracks - too narrow a base for too big a project - topbloke rows with that wonderful wife - and soon his work colleagues will appreciate a heart attack because they can get promoted to his position - and his shallow children will look forward to his death so they can claim his inheritence.
I suppose the way of jesus in the gospels is very different - i read someone recently who called it a counter intuitive approach. Jesus says dont get it give it way - dont look to yourself - look to others - make yourself smaller - emptier and let the whole of life in. All of a sudden there is nothing to struggle against just something to go with. The stress drops off because there is nothing to be stressed with - it is all good. You dont hold anything against anyone and all of a sudden you find your not cutting yourself up with your own quest for power.
'He finds god' - this is where it gets very hard to describe - because to me we get on to the slippiest of all words - god. Every now and then I read a good definition and then strangely forget it. For me the god thing means hes not looking in on himself as the centre point of the argument - what does it matter if he has company car because his fulcrum of perception shifts outside himself - the divine spark of life is spread thick across and possibly beyond everything he sees
anyone else care to venture an idea to what it means to find god - billy how do you explain many converts actually resisting conversion - sometimes the christian approach is anything but a comfort blanket - its rather annoying to accept things the way they are and work with them - as opposed to just changing the channel with your remote....
I see if i can find a defintion of god in a book by someone clever.....
r.
billy how do you explain many converts actually resisting conversion - sometimes the christian approach is anything but a comfort blanket - its rather annoying to accept things the way they are and work with them - as opposed to just changing the channel with your remote....
How do you explain people who struggle not to deconvert and end up de-converting?
How do you explain people "finding god" in other religions?
People find all sorts of different gods. This does not mean that they have actually found a god, but have just found a coping mechanism. To be honest though, some folk I whow who have "found god" are not actually dealing with their issues, so I dont necessarily believe it is a good thing.
How do you know if they have found a god? You said yourself you cant put your finger on god.
As for your question, that would need to be addressed on a case to case basis.
I disagree with the standard lifestyle you assume. I dont think that is the way mot people live
Well well, everyone's on a bit of a roll. I must say I'm honoured Rob to have my very simple script unpacked so astutely - I certainly hadn't thought of all this stuff! I'd be the first to admit that it could actually easily send a wrong kind of message eg that God gives you a competitive edge or necessarily enables sudden 'success' in a worldly sense.
My colleague has suddenly started playing some loud music so I can't concentrate, but just to say also as I've missed the banter, I've decided to remove moderation just now and see how if it doesn't get too anarchic :)
V interested in your thoughts about God, Rob.
I'm reminded of Richard Holloway former bishop of Edinburgh saying for him faith is not a noun but a verb... or Rowan Williams saying to Richard Dawkins in the recent series on Darwin that in a miracle, 'nature is opened up to its own depths', to which RD replied 'I'm not exactly sure what that means'. It was a great wee exchange and demonstrated a key difference between the two sides: the approach to mystery, ambiguity, what we can't tie down.
I know I'm going to start annoying people and lunch is over so I'll stop there just now...
Need to get back into this bloggin g business...
"but just to say also as I've missed the banter, I've decided to remove moderation just now and see how if it doesn't get too anarchic :)"
Woohoo! Party-time! Let's go cccccrrrraaaazzzyyyyyy!!!
billy,
i disagree with the lifestyle as well - i dont think that is the way life is for most people - its just a sketch an attempt to capture something - if the net doesnt land recast somewhere else...
I dont think anyone can find god for anyone else - there is a personal dimension wherby the symbols and images have to be interpreted and "divinised" by themselves - the only paralell i have to this is the way children learn mathematics. They find their own shortcuts and learn how to count in their own way - they all however seem on the outside to be just counting.
However although everyone in a church may find something different inside a similar group of images - they are all sharing the same language - rather like everyone doing fractions in a primary school arithmetic class.
Now you say you dont need the gospels to live you life - what do you need - what sort of coping strategy do you use - this is closer - for me personally to the relevance of the christian faith than a set of abstract arguments.
The set of arguments usually attack a superstructre - something the christian faith is carried inside. It has been carried inside - judaism - platonic philosophy - scholasticism - european protestantism whatever . However the christian message perpetuates inside these forms - you seem to think atheism would destroy the christian faith - have you read vattimo or feuerbach - good old christian athiests ?
i quote you feuerbach - you might like him
" but for the present age, which prefers sign to the thing signified,the copy to the original, representation to reality, appearance to essence...truth is considered profane, and only illusion is sacred. Sacredness is in fact held to be enhanced in proportion as truth decreases and illusion increases, so that the highest degree of illusion comes to be the highest degree of sacredness"
The NT message is carried inside the mindset of hellenised judaism (to make the sort of sweeping generalisation that im fond of) - they believed in all sorts of things - miracles , angels , prophecy - at the crucifiction it says some of the jews were waiting to see if jesus would be taken up to heaven in a chariot like elijah. These things are hardly part of 3rd millenium lifestyles.
Christians take a spectral range as to how to debundle the NT - from those fundamentalists who insist you shouldnt to my good friend Mr fuerbach who says you can hang your angels with your fairies and you celestial teapots - the message drives on...
I think your right when you talk about individual cases of finding god - every person is unique and a conversion to christianity may be for the better - it may also be for the worse. The name doesnt guarantee safety in my opinion.
I don't claim to have found god - I claim to be searching - looking on a daily basis - thats pretty much at the core of christian teaching - give us our daily bread - as it is in the lords prayer.
one day at a time - as they say in alcoholics anonymous - i follow god as i understand him - fragile and limited though that understanding might be.
I think a lot of what you say is very relevant - hypocrisy and transcendental mania are not exactly my favourite pastime - but i think they were pet hates of jesus - perhaps you and he have something in common.
:)
r
p.s has everyone seen the universe video on lees strawman website.
p.p.s like the Rowan Williams quote - billy don't you know were all trying to find god in quantum theory now ! Blurry edges are a playground for sophistry !
here's a contemporary definition of god - as an example - now you know why i forget them...
"the name of god shelters an event, and the task of thinking about or meditating upon this name is to safeguard that event and release what is stirring there. The name of God is very simply the most famous and richest name we have to signify both an open ended excess and an inaccessible mystery.That is why I insist I do not "reduce" the event to religion when I speak of a theology of the event but on the contrary find a place to safeguard its irreducibility and unconditionality. The name of God is the name of one of humanity most famous fires, one that has inflamed humankind from time immemorial - which explains why,like every fire,it is also so dangerous. Affirming the eternal of the event that burns within the name of god is also a way to flag the consuming violence that is stored up in this name.
The name of God is one of the names that Derrida has in mind when he meditates upon the phrase sauf le nom , "safe the name", an expression that for derrida means both: let us keep this name safe, but also: God is everything save (sauf/except) the name, save or except what the name names explicitly, everything except the excess that exceeds what is explicitly named. The name of God names everything save the event that is sheltered by this name, which is an event that solicits and invites, calls and signals us, but is never finally named."
from spectral hermeneutics by john d.caputo - an essay in the book "after the death of god"....
long quote i know - not exactly a koan - god - think of everything that god entails - then drop that - its only an imitation - of the real and inconcievable - anyone got a different definition ? - swearwords only on jonathons blog please !
Hi Rob,
Your definition of god does not really mean much I'm affraid, and other theologians disagree with that definition. My problem with your god (well one of them) is that you seem to need no confirmation that what you have is a god. You have an unusual idea of him. Jesus seems to think that all you need to do i believe in him and you have found god. What is the foundation of your definition. Are you a pluralist?
How do I cope ? With the help of friends and my own internal resources. This does not mean that nothing bothers me - far from it, but it places the burden of dealing with a situation on me. When I used to rely on "god", things were worse. So, I dont need god - why do you need him as a coping mechanism? And if you see him as a coping mechanism, and muslims see allah as a coping mechanism, then what separates you from the infidel? Do you both have god? Or do you have a coping mechanism that does not require a god?
I was on a literal biblical fundamentalists blog recently, and they seem unable to comprehend life without god - they would see it as pointless and say "no wonder so many people commit suicide" (many who do actually believe in god or allah). I find that a really sad way to live - that you believe life is pointless without faith.
Woohoo! Party-time! Let's go cccccrrrraaaazzzyyyyyy!!!
I'll get the beers
Hi Rob,
Looks like I got a little behind on commenting... sorry about that – now moderation has gone, I’ve not got an excuse.
I still have to admit to not actually knowing where you are coming from on this little debate.
On the one hand you seem to say that you do not know God, indeed cannot even define God – yet on the next, you say you are a Christian?
Strange thought processing indeed to get my head around since there seems to be a contradiction somewhere.
You both ‘don’t know’ and ‘know all’ at the same time.
I don’t get it – which is it?
(And please don’t get all Quantum Mechanical on me... )
Now if you wish to say there is a ‘mystery’ in the universe and you wish to assign that mystery to a god then so be it – whatever makes you happy.
However all you will be doing (if you are honest) is creating a deistic god to ‘fill the void’.
If you claim a theistic god, as a Christian you would be – then you really do need to back it up with something a little more. For starters you have defined an attribute for God to distinguish this god from a deistic – in your own words, what is this difference?
As for myself - I don’t need to create a god to see me through the night... I enjoy the mystery and love hearing how the mystery is being chipped away at everyday by science.
Looking back over the last 400 years – these small chippings have revealed a lot.
One of the things if has revealed is that, via evolution, mankind is a problem solver – a builder of tools to solve problems. Can we agree?
A possible by-product of this is that mankind ‘needs’ to know the answers – requires the tools to resolve the problems.
Yet how can mankind answer questions like ‘life, the universe and everything’?
Well, (to steal further from Douglas Adams) man thinks ‘I make things, I solve problems, I create things... so what created us and the world? I know... it has to be another man – who is bigger and better than me... oh, he has to be invisible of course because I’ve never seen him – no one has”
And with this insertion of “invisible” the describing of god to be more and more illusive begins. Centuries later further words are used to push god further away from the knowable... any closer to the unknowable god would be completely useless as a solution.
Lee
PS
I’ve glad you liked the videos...
PPS
Bruce,
Great that you removed the moderation - you might want to think about adding verification though - up to you - it is suppose to stop auto spamming or whatever it is called.
And don’t forget you can still delete any comment you don’t like or is too close to the bone. Hope you don’t need to though.
billy
I'm glad you think my definition of god doesnt mean much - i would be worried if it did - it would be a sign - how can i put it - that the fire was out of control. I distrust Meaning with a capital M whether it is Dawkins or Mcgrath.
Im afraid I dont know what a pluralist is - I would claim to be a "Hyper-Realist" . I am interested in the way people construct meaning in their own lives and inside the larger structures of religions or tags of identity - atheist, buddhist, animal rights activist whatever.
There is a constant theme in these boards that somehow my approach is unusual - i only claim it is contemporary - not that it is common - and am willing to argue that it is essentially "christian"
Jesus seems to have hoped people would believe in god yet at the same time the god he followed led him to strange places - "my god my god why have you forsaken me". Their is an internal crisis at the centrepoint of the christian faith. Jesus goes wanders outside his conception of god in an attempt to follow his god. Mystery Confusion and Doubt are central to the christian faith - I dont want to exorcise these good friends.
God was also a commonly agreed belief inside the world in which jesus roamed - as were angels and fairies. The reconstruction of christian theology - an ongoing process since the end of the second world war - is in my mind largely a result of those common foundations being swept away by cultural pluralism and the self doubt of modernism and ideologies ( Ideas with a capital I kill - cf the gulag and the holocaust).
I think a lot of the attempts of some contemporary theologians is to shift the ideas of god in a perspective where they are useful - a movement away from the theist god to the deist god to be crude. From Newtons ghost to Einsteins dream of Nature as dawkins might put it. I say crude because this is a very old thought form - a bit of undigested beef in the communal gullet of mankind. I am all for moving this through.
Thats what I said about foundations of argument - I cant take off from cartesian dualism - splitting the world into spirit and matter - into a happy argument between religion and science - such a hard division of subject matter will never bring anything together - it will just create two camps barracking each other - which is where this debate always seems to end.
Personally I would rather try to find the eye of the needle which takes us to the next level - no matter how small and delicate it may be - it is the problem with being rich - of carrying cultural traditions - of being born into the christian tradition. An empty mind to percieve the world - emptyness which allows hope to surface and a hope which allows faith to be born in the small daily experiences of our lives. A truly christian response to the global noise of secularlism vs religion.
A lot of what you are talking about Lee is very interesting but these big empty bricks of thought that you move around are to me exactly that - the bricks look impressive they allow you to form consistent theories but the bricks themselves dont exist - they are merely relics - old arguments piling on top off each other - making us more dumb than when we started - Materialism is to me as much a sign as a Wizard Of Oz god that we have led ourselves up the garden path of stupidity in the name of knoweldge
Im off to stare at the sun...
best wishes
rob
http://miles-davis-mystery-mp3-download.kohit.net/_/577419
i found this track. Its called "mystery"
Hi Rob,
A lot of what you are talking about Lee is very interesting but these big empty bricks of thought that you move around are to me exactly that
I am trying to understand where you are coming from… if you claimed a deistic god I would have no problem with what you saying - god is unknowable.
Yet you claim to be a Christian – you surely know that is a theistic god (deistic+something else)- you therefore know something about God yet claim nothing. This is very odd
What is this something else that you claim? Saying that I am moving empty bricks of thought around is fine but it is you that is ‘full of nothing’ in that you don’t know what this something else is – but cling onto it so strongly.
the bricks look impressive they allow you to form consistent theories but the bricks themselves dont exist
I’ve no problem with that – in fact I could even agree with you – if we can agree to call these bricks models.
However I will have to add that not only are the theories consistent (unlike any theistic/Christian model that has been described to me) the model works and we are able to make predictions in the ‘real’ world. (Neither have the models been falsified.)
So my empty brick models are probably the best we are going to get – without wishful thinking.
Which until you tell me what you actually believe in is what I have to ascribe to your ideas.
Sorry if that sounds harsh.
old arguments piling on top off each other
Old arguments that don’t go away just because someone ignores them may I add.
making us more dumb than when we started
Are you talking about my empty brick models here?
Are you really claiming that today’s models make us more dumb that when society didn’t know what caused thunder, disease or apples to fall?
You have to be joking – I must have misunderstood you, could you please explain again.
Your words sound very nice, but I am missing your true meaning.
Im off to stare at the sun...
You’ll go blind…
I’ve got nothing put stars to look at out of my window right now.
So you can keep your single sun – I have billions of stars for my pleasure :)
See ya
Lee
and am willing to argue that it is essentially "christian"
By whose definition of christian?
"my god my god why have you forsaken me".
I wouldnt say he was lead - it was supposedly planned - and he is supposedly god.
Jesus goes wanders outside his conception of god in an attempt to follow his god.
Are you not a trinitarian then? I dont recognise this version of jesus - the one who is one with god.
( Ideas with a capital I kill - cf the gulag and the holocaust).
But isn't theism about capital letters?
a movement away from the theist god to the deist god to be crude.
This ignores the absolute theist nature of the bibhlical god. On what basis do you drop this concept?
such a hard division of subject matter will never bring anything together
One offers the other nothing. Why should we accept two forms of viewing reality?
I still see no evidence for your god. It seems that all you are saying is that it works for you, but as I said, that does not make it more true than a Muslim's god working for him. Can you add anything to your claim?
Billy I only said I was willing to argue that my ideas can be considered christian - i am sure there are many who would disagree with me - there are many whose idea of jesus is the sort of trinitarian superhuman you seem to mention.
I didnt know what a strawman was until i started reading these blogs but what I am saying is that the type of christianity which you are attacking is also being attacked from inside christianity. I for one have my reservations about it.
But then I am wary of all forms of thinking - all the clubs - atheism , christianity , islam. I think they are cultural phenomena which pull you in and pay you off. You get something you lose something - kinda what the st paul would have called a Demon.
I am intrested in keeping the doors of knowledge open - of being able to pass freely between systems - of not being locked down by ideas.
My response to this debate is essentailly physiological - not philosphical. I am trying to get out of the historical loop - to say the answer is not a thing but the absence of any thing and that everything can be something for nothing - these are crude and stumbling attempts to place people and groups at the centre of knowledge systems and not the periphery - that i will argue is an act of deconstruction into which the nt figure of jesus is not a stranger.
I dont think you can define christianity - I more than agree with you there - I think any part of it can be deconstructed and it can perpetuate. This even includes the idea of God. If god is a timebound cultural phantasm as you suggest then surely it is reasonable to assume it would have glazed over everyone jesus included. Your view of jesus is - without meaning to be insulting - is simply antiquitous.
What I am trying to show is that your arguments over theism over atheism are not the same as arguments between christianity and athiesm. The line blurs but while there remains one christian atheist you simply cant equate the two.
If you want to you are using generalisations - and generalisations can never be true. They might look pretty and give you a sense of perspective but at the end they are like towers made out of air - there is nothing to them
I am proposing not neccesarily a way of thinking but rather a way of doing which cuts between the arrogance of Intellectual paradigms. If it is percieved as a rather wispy way of thinking I can handle that. Mao said the same thing about the chinese doctors before he killed them. He liked clear real ideas - isms and more isms.
Lee what I am trying to say is that the argument between theism and atheism takes place on a historical platform which is itself subject to dispute.
You have to be able to split things into matter and spirit and I don't think things can be dismantled to such discrete events - cartesian dualism is just about as silly an idea as plato and his chairs. My inclination is not coming from quantum theory although I think you can find it there.
Is there a verifiable meddler in the universe - a spiritual entity projecting itself in from the outside. It sounds like a good question but its a nonsensical argument. If the agent is non physical how could it affect the physical because they are two different things - the definition of spirit is that it is separate from matter - it cant affect matter. The conclusion is implicit in the premise of the argument - thats all im saying.
The consequences of materialism may be logically consistent with a fallacious argument but there dim lifeless reality offers very little payback. An insolated shell of chemical reactions. It about as much the emperors new clothes as that celestial teapot. But I think all ideologies do that - I think in the end you get less than you pay for. So im not willing to pay the buy in to Atheism. Im busy trying to buy out of Christianity. Once bitten twice shy.
best wishes
Rob
Rob,
In what way am I generalising, and how can you possibly get a christian atheist?
If the agent is non physical how could it affect the physical because they are two different things - the definition of spirit is that it is separate from matter - it cant affect matter. The conclusion is implicit in the premise of the argument - thats all im saying.
That would mean your god could not create matter. Do you believe in a god who answers prayer and performs miracles or not? If yes, you refute your own claim.
The consequences of materialism may be logically consistent with a fallacious argument but there dim lifeless reality offers very little payback.
A lot of assertions that need to be justified there. Can you show materialism is fallacious and a dim view of reality? If you cant, then you are committing a fallacy.
Bruce Your blog has been ressurrected - it's a miracle :-)
billy ,
im no specialist im only observing that if spirit can have a material action then it must somehow be material and therefore not be spirit - its the obvious flaw in cartesian dualism and what i am saying is the standard arguments about whether theism can be verified rest on descartes
splitting things into two can be helpful in building impression - pictures - as lee says - but to get a watertight argument relies on your foundations of argument being agreed - something which i think is never completely possible - but eminently possible for cults such as dawkins' brights or catholic bishops
so i fall back on looking generally at ways of thinking - and wonder in amazement where clear thinking can take people - materialism in its purest terms - biological fatalism if you like is such a preposterously inhuman way to live - that only the abused, the proud or the fashionable could be lulled into it - its not somewhere that i could be led by reasonable argument - any more than i would be happy to follow the zeitgeist of nazism or maoism
im not saying that its arguments could not appear persuasive but historically our sense of argument is conditioned by the excesses and inadequecies of our own time period - im not saying ike descartes counter than original sin has blinded our reason - i am saying at times you have to make jumps in your thinking to avoid yourself - "god be merciful to me a sinner" - can this be interpreted in an intellectual areana
in the shifting sands of interpretation where do you build you house - what are the rocks in jesus's parable - nowadays you can believe what you want - so its a question of what you want to believe and what are its consequences
materialism is just silliness waiting to be seen - just like zeno of eleas thought is now silly and platos theory of forms and nietzsches pretend nihilism - and yes now 1st centuary christianity
i am all for going with the tide - but when are you getting smashed against the rocks ?
regarding atheist christians - i dont know exactly how they turned up - but yes you get them - and im not accusing you of generalising - im saying we all are - all arguments are just skating on the edge of a void - that why we create isms - to pretend they aren't - what do i really think we can hope for in terms of knowledge : artful illusion ?
lee,
There is a documentary i found through the website "pirate bay" called "what the bleep do we know" - managed to downloaded it with azureus - havent finished watching it but its about all the quantum thing - friend recommended it who has no angle on all this stuff...
Hi Rob,
I wonder if it is on youtube?
Could be interesting.
I just watched on the train a public lecture about dark energy and we know nearly nothing about that.
Interesting stuff.
Lee
Hi Bruce,
Looks like you have had your first silly post on "A physicist on values" thread.
As I said, you really should add that word verification
Cheers
Le
Bruce-
I echo Lee's suggestion. It's under "Settings" then "Comments".
Thanks guys, job done. Look forward to catching up on comments.
No worries... hope you also deleted the silly post on the other thread
Lee
Hi Rob,
im no specialist im only observing that if spirit can have a material action then it must somehow be material and therefore not be spirit - its the obvious flaw in cartesian dualism and what i am saying is the standard arguments about whether theism can be verified rest on descartes
Again you are contradicting yourself - you are setting up false dichotomies here. If spirit existed, why would it not be able to interact with matter?
Do you believe god interacts with matter? Can something that does not interact with matter create matter?
materialism in its purest terms - biological fatalism if you like is such a preposterously inhuman way to live - that only the abused, the proud or the fashionable could be lulled into it - its not somewhere that i could be led by reasonable argument - any more than i would be happy to follow the zeitgeist of nazism or maoism
That is not an argument against materialism. Comfort has nothing to do with truth - do you think otherwise? Materialism is not biological fatalism either
i am saying at times you have to make jumps in your thinking to avoid yourself - "god be merciful to me a sinner" - can this be interpreted in an intellectual areana
Why cant it? However, you make a leap in assuming you are a sinner. Why are you a sinner? What makes you so? What is the evidence of this absolute moral standard that you fail to equal? That is the essence of christianity - where is you evidence that you fail to equate to some metaphysical standard?
in the shifting sands of interpretation where do you build you house - what are the rocks in jesus's parable - nowadays you can believe what you want - so its a question of what you want to believe and what are its consequences
You seem to be going off in another tangent rob, and I'm beginning to forget what we are actually discussing here.
materialism is just silliness waiting to be seen - just like zeno of eleas thought is now silly and platos theory of forms and nietzsches pretend nihilism - and yes now 1st centuary christianity
Again you provide no evidence to back up that statement. On what basis is it silly? Surely silly is following something you cant see or verify?
i am all for going with the tide - but when are you getting smashed against the rocks ?
Argumentum ad populum fallacy.
regarding atheist christians - i dont know exactly how they turned up - but yes you get them - and im not accusing you of generalising - im saying we all are - all arguments are just skating on the edge of a void - that why we create isms - to pretend they aren't - what do i really think we can hope for in terms of knowledge : artful illusion ?
Even if that were true, it is no rational basis to believe anything on. Truth should be sensitive to enquiry. True knowledge should make successful predictions that can be utilised. Knowledge of aeodynamics builds better planes. What can musings of spirits build that is transferrable between people? Different people have different ideas of spirit, but anyone can study aerodynamics. It sounds like you are saying then that spirit is unknowable. In which case I would say that is the silly belief, not materialism.
PS, what is an atheist christian?
As I said, you really should add that word verification
I said that too. Does that mean we can apply for cult status? :-)
billy,
If spirit can act on matter it is itself somehow material - it has a material influence. It is not separate from matter. Isnt there some old argument about how mans spirit could influence the pineal gland and hence interface with the body and present the appearance of autonomous conciousness ? The problem is if it has material influence it is actually material.
What I am saying is that given your starting premis the unverifiableness of god may be a perfectly consistent conclusion for you.
I think the starting premis is to the best of my ability : cartesian dualism and the sole use of the empirical method. The combination of those leads you into monistic materialism. I dont think there is a flaw in the thinking only in the choice of such a foundation.
Most of the last blogs enteries I made refuted the solitary use of empiricism as being a cultural phenomena. You see a tide of progress - I see an ebb and flow of restrictive hegemonys disguised as truth.
The linearity of progress which Lee mentions is to me as much a ghost of christendom as anything. Anyone read John Gray's - straw dogs ?
I dont think we are any better off now - things are different. The worship of science is as blind as the worst excesses of christendom. It is as likely scientific progress will kill us as save us.
I think comfort has everything to do with truth - the emperors new clothes are mankinds favourite clothes - so stay warm and dont indulge your thoughts at the expense of your underwear...
To some degree I am more skeptical than you - You say anyone can study aerodynamics - can they ? - any aborigine or retard - sciencism is as much a progress of indoctrination as medieval catholicism.
If every one is shopping for god or truth I would be the one putting the goods back on the shelves - pushing the trolley and not knowing what the trolley is.
I find you are sceptical but not quite sceptical enough - your still clinging onto big ideas - its just they are not christian.
To make a cult you would have to agree that Athiesm with its attendent patronising parade of wise men is as foul and closeted invention as the type of Christianity you deride.
What does the figure of jesus say in the gospels ( notice my choice of words ) "the poor you have always with you"...
There will always be the poor and little groups preying on them and excluding them - petty groups of people in the know. Thats why I remain inside one of them - as a practicsing christian. There is nowhere to hide - best to be in the belly of the beast you are trying to dismantle.
To some degree Atheism and post modern christianity pull in the same direction - away from transcendence - away from the big bogeyman god who is merely a insititutional Urizen. But where the post modern leaves behind a sense of praxis the cult of atheism just enshrines another hierarchy.
It seems strange you seem to find so little value in "spiritual writings". But you do read them very literally - the only form of christianity you will see is the very worst. I just dont come across that - and as for make me a christian - wow every now and then I see where you are coming from.
Anyway I dont think we should be starting a cult. I think we should go to this church:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=A3CzptgIvcU&eurl=http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/digitalcontent/2008/08/guardian_video_viral_chart_6.html
best wishes
Rob.
P.S. A constructive line of debate for me would be to explore how christian wisdom can be deconstructed into contemporary thought forms - such as Atheism - but seeing as you dont seem to think there is any wisdom there are we the best people to hammer on about this ?
sorry that link didnt come off:
this is how its done :)
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=A3CzptgIvcU
and while were on that subject - here are some prospective aerodynamics students :
www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZfUY0E6o-w
If spirit can act on matter it is itself somehow material - it has a material influence. It is not separate from matter.
Assuming it is real, why? Do you believe god interacts or not?
Isnt there some old argument about how mans spirit could influence the pineal gland and hence interface with the body and present the appearance of autonomous conciousness ? The problem is if it has material influence it is actually material.
Not that I'm aware of. It was once thought to be the seat of the soul. This may be what you mean. Total rubbish though. Your entire mind can be influenced by drugs of electric shock - drugs can turn your conscious mind off. It is physical - where is the spirit?
What I am saying is that given your starting premis the unverifiableness of god may be a perfectly consistent conclusion for you.
I'm actually asking you if you can verify god exists.
Most of the last blogs enteries I made refuted the solitary use of empiricism as being a cultural phenomena.
Did you? Who proposed it?
I dont mean to be rude, but your posting are not very focussed. So I'm not going to comment on the rest, but will pick up on the question of wisdom.
What wisdom does christianity offer (that you can argue is wise) that no one else can gain?
Nor do i mean to be rude
But focus is easier if you only use one eye...
Empirical method is great if you can split the world into subject and object. But You use it as a singular epistemological approach and your virtue is to me only that you are consistent in your restricted conclusions.
I refute your methodology not your conclusions...
At the end of the day all you are saying is "religious faith" never built aeroplanes. Its a bit like saying philosophy never got the washing up done.
Can god be verified by empirical experiment ? perhaps the tooth fairy god of dawkins et all could not be. But I do not recognise that as the immanent god of the christian tradition. For god to interact with me he would have to be separate from me - maybe Calvinism is verifiable - at least when you are in hell, but certainly not Tillichs "ground of being" or the divine lover of Sufism.
Can you explain the world without a god - yes but you end up explaining away the same religious propensity that the christian faith accomodates - there is no less data in your system - just a different interpretation.
As for the matter and spirit debate I am saying such a division of the world is rubbish. So Im not going to tail end of someone elses argument - I'd rather look out for the rapture...
As for chistian wisdom - I have tried to give a flavour of a contemporary christian world view which can deconstructed to praxis - of humility, gentleness and self giving - it certainly helps gives me and my family focus. Which to me is close to a reasonable expectation of religion - tending the flame of hope.
In god I doubt
Rob.
p.s had a look on stephen laws blog - did buy a copy of dawkins book so i will read it along with uncle stephen - let you know if i get stuck.
bruce,
if your still reading your own blog - which would certainly be an act of patience:
i found a quote by rowan williams which i thought was pretty neat and sums up some of what i have been trying to say:
if you want god,then you must be prepared to let go of all - absolutely all - substitute satisfactions, intellectual and emotional. you must recognise that god is so unlike whatever can be thought or pictured that,when you have got beyond the stage of self indulgent religiosity,there will be nothing you can securely know or feel. you face a blank and any attempt to avoid that or shy away from it is a return to playing comfortable games...if you genuinely desire union with the unspeakable love of god, then you must be prepared to have your "religious" world shattered. if you think devotional practices, theological insights, even charitable actions give you some sort of purchase on god, you are still playing games.
thats my lordsday mediation !
trust your well
rob
Hi Rob
I refute your methodology not your conclusions...
You accept my conclusion but you reject my methodology??????? I dont belive you have refuted me - we agree materialism works? Do you have any evidence that your way has any insights into truth?
At the end of the day all you are saying is "religious faith" never built aeroplanes. Its a bit like saying philosophy never got the washing up done.
No, I'm really asking what does theology have to do with reality?
But I do not recognise that as the immanent god of the christian tradition.
Rob, you do know that immanence when used for god means one that acts in the world ?
So, when jesus performed miracles and said hie followers could do the same, or when god says he will give the gift of prophecy - or answere prayers .... you are saying that's not your god?
Can you explain the world without a god - yes but you end up explaining away the same religious propensity that the christian faith accomodates - there is no less data in your system - just a different interpretation.
You need evidence for an interpretation - what evidence do you bring?
As for the matter and spirit debate I am saying such a division of the world is rubbish.
First you said the division was real and that neither interact, so what exactly do you believe and why?
Do you deny your mind is physical - if so, why?
As for chistian wisdom - I have tried to give a flavour of a contemporary christian world view which can deconstructed to praxis - of humility, gentleness and self giving - it certainly helps gives me and my family focus. Which to me is close to a reasonable expectation of religion - tending the flame of hope.
That wasn't what I asked. Here it is again What wisdom does christianity offer (that you can argue is wise) that no one else can gain?
I like Stephen Law and his commenters are well informed. You can always ask stephen if you get stuck.
Cheers
Billy
billy,
i said i refute your methodology - i didnt said i had refuted your methodology - one might be construed as a public achievement which i have no interest in - I am saying as I have always said that in my opinion your approach is philosophically monoscopic.
Methodological arguments are rather wispy and delicate - my appeal to using different approaches to knowledge is historical ( empiricism is really a narrow offshoot of philosophy just as its child atheism is at present merely a supporting role on the world stage of belief ) and based on my observations of the natural world ( the apparent harmony of our world is the product of the mutual interdependece of opposing forces - a farmer or a physicist can tell you that).
Its not a watertight definition of knowledge - knowledge systems never can be. The only way to approach a watertight system is to operate in a reduced playing field - which is my basic response to most of the arguments you have presented. What is the difference between thinking and reflecting ?
Immanence refers to gods acts in the world ? - news to me - Immanence in my background refers to gods presence inside us - definitions may change - but the dissonace between god and his creation is a worn out hobby horse. I am saying empirical arguments don't work in a situation where the subject is the object.
You say things about verifying prayer through experiment - well you will get no real experimental outcome - one way or the other - maybe 5% in favour of prayer. The subject matter is too complicated to isolate discrete observable entities.
This no more makes god and prayer unscientific that it makes weather and other choatic systems unreal.
If you want to get into discussing medical trials and their limitations thats fine by me. But if you want to know why medicine has turned into a drugs industry look at their de-personalised methods of research. Its not just god that is threatened by your objectification - next time you get antibiotics from the doctor you dont need to ask why he didnt examine you - you don't matter - not compared with the empirical method you seem to love.
I think there is a fundamental difference between our approaches - I am trying to be reasonable and you seem to be to be trying to be right. Getting things right - knowing the truth - is a sure sign you have forgotten something or you are missing things out.
As for the wisdom question if I say christianity has a unique moral vision - you might say it is worthless. if I say its ideas are present everywhere - you may say you dont need it - which end would you like me start at ?
best wishes
Rob
p.s i didnt see the game yesterday - Did your boys in blue just get "lucky".
lee,
found the "what the bleep" documentary on you tube - part 1 at least - the cartoon i was talking about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSk51Lp-vHU&feature=related
rob
Hi Rob,
I'm in ahurry, so hope you dont think I'm being short with you.
I am saying as I have always said that in my opinion your approach is philosophically monoscopic.
And why would that be wrong?
my appeal to using different approaches to knowledge is historical ( empiricism is really a narrow offshoot of philosophy just as its child atheism is at present merely a supporting role on the world stage of belief )
Why does history of thought make something valid?
Historically, christians kept slaves. Is this an argument for slavery?
based on my observations of the natural world ( the apparent harmony of our world is the product of the mutual interdependece of opposing forces - a farmer or a physicist can tell you that).
What are these forces? I know most of the universe is hostile to life and sheep die of liver fluke infections.
Its not a watertight definition of knowledge - knowledge systems never can be.
Probably not, but you still have to validate a system and ask if it is truth sensitive and why. That is where theists arguments fail for me - science produces results in the real world. What about your theology? How do you know it reveals any truth?
The only way to approach a watertight system is to operate in a reduced playing field
I presume you mean consistent, that is a rather restriced way of seaching truths though?
I am saying empirical arguments don't work in a situation where the subject is the object.
Immanence is often assiociated with Jesus and his ministry in my experience. Why dont they work?
You say things about verifying prayer through experiment - well you will get no real experimental outcome - one way or the other - maybe 5% in favour of prayer. The subject matter is too complicated to isolate discrete observable entities.
Which then means there is no way for anyone to know if prayer has been answered. Do you agree or disagree?
This no more makes god and prayer unscientific that it makes weather and other choatic systems unreal.
The question was wether you believed god interacts physically or not, not whether the study of prayer is scientific or not. Scientifically, the answer is no it does not work. You then have to justify all your theological add ons to say that it does work inspite of the evidence to the contrary.
Its not just god that is threatened by your objectification - next time you get antibiotics from the doctor you dont need to ask why he didnt examine you - you don't matter - not compared with the empirical method you seem to love.
I fail to see the relevance of this. Having a semi medical background tends to get me looked at when I see my doctor.
I think there is a fundamental difference between our approaches - I am trying to be reasonable and you seem to be to be trying to be right. Getting things right - knowing the truth - is a sure sign you have forgotten something or you are missing things out.
Dont see how you reach this conclusion. I am actually asking if it is reasonable to believe the evidence of a theist and whether spiritual matters have any absolute truth to them.
As for the wisdom question if I say christianity has a unique moral vision - you might say it is worthless. if I say its ideas are present everywhere - you may say you dont need it - which end would you like me start at ?
Try defining wisdom first. Athough I would not expect you to present antyhing unique to christianity, I still want to see if you can.
Yes, I am happy with the score. Dont think you could call Mendes' goal getting lucky though. It was a beauty.
Billy
They say mendes goal was the turning point - must make of seeing it - " a piece of brillance" said strachan - that justifies defeat ?
The turning point is this argument is really as far as i can see about methods - you want to use empiricism as a solitary approach to knowledge.
I suggest that this is a rather limited approach. Most people dont want to use this method in isolation. Most people arent content with the answers atheism gives. It is a minority's approach to knowledge. As such I am keen to discover what insights it can offer and how this minority can be integrated alongside the majority.
I am convinced that dialogue with those who disagree with me is better than the smug congratulation of my fellows. That is the result of my christian education. Since jesus became the outsider and the outcast to his culture - I am haunted by the compulsion to preserve the infulence and voice of the minority and indeed to harbour the belief that somehow the voice of majority is not the whole picture.
That is one piece of christian wisdom which I think you might agree with - the hospitality ethic as i think its called.
But before i finish lets make sure i have answered your questions :
Having the right method at the right time is like having the right tool for the job. The history and contemporary practice of philosophy shows me their are other methods than simply empiricism.
Philosophically there is no real way to say we should use a variety of methods - other than a grandiose refletion of the commonplace approach - "variety is the spice of life"
However if we begin to look at the consequences of our choice of methods we might find reasons to include more than one. The only thing is we cant expect different methods to yield similar types of truths. Scientific truth is useful for many conceret things. Religious truth a far more delicate and personal offspring is clearly useful to many people. Religious truth is less about making objects - such as aeroplanes - and more about coping with life - like when aeroplanes crash.
I certainly agree there is no way to know scientifically if prayer has been answered but still more people in this country say they pray than dont - even if it is only occasionally. Like my wife' s grandfather - he was an avowed atheist who only prayed in battle !
My reason for mentioning modern western medicine is because it gives us an example of what happens when empiricism takes over - kinda of like the opposite example of when the catholic church was burning witches. With both you get a depersonalised and self perpetuating institution. Is this what actaully happens when one method of knowledge dominates all others ?
As for the uniqueness of christianity : really are you serious ? Can you show me another establisehd world religion which has a loser as its centrepiece. The crucifiction of jesus is still as offensive to some japanese as it is to all cultures which prize power and respect for their own sakes.
Lets do this visually. Think of the central image of christianity : a cross. Give the cross a contemporary interpretation - an electric chair ? and then you see how odd it really is.
The accursed is the acclaimed. The first is last. The rich are poor. The wise are stupid ? do you think Esquivel's liberation art could have been expressed so clearly through any other world religion.
Lord of the rings seems to be the most acclaimed set of films of recent years - yet its message is profoundly christian and Tolkein was a practising Catholic - where do you think his central dialogue power evolved from ?
Over to you
Rob...
Rob-
"Most people arent content with the answers atheism gives. It is a minority's approach to knowledge".
Atheism is an absence of belief, not a competing framework. It is not the opposite of religion, but the opposite of theism.
Do you in fact mean to suggest that most people aren't satisfied with rationalism, with materialism?
I've a lot of catching up to do, but thanks for the Rowan Williams quote Rob, I have at least read that...
Rob found the "what the bleep" documentary on you tube - part 1 at least - the cartoon i was talking about:
Thanks... I'll try and watch it at home if I have the time (or somehow download it onto my ipod but I've not found a good way to do this yet - answers on a postcard)
Lee
Billy I like Stephen Law and his commenters are well informed.
Nice little Jesus discussion going on over there at the moment. Worth a read if you have not already done so.
Lee
Hi Rob,
I have to admit that you have me a little confused still on this thread – but don’t let that worry you, I’m easily confused.
I have been trying to understand what it is you think about your God and your religion – the target seems a little ‘smokey’ and ‘undefined’ for me
How can you know that God exists when you cannot ‘put a finger’ on God.
Does God interact in the universe or not, and if so, how would you know?
What is God, if not in a physical (or unphysical) sense how about a logical sense. What defines God?
God might as well be the universe and the laws within it if you cannot give anything specific. Up until now this seems to be the case...
You are happy though with this it seems – but then call yourself a Christian, this is the step I cannot grasp. What defines a Christian God over another god? There must be something that makes God Christian? (Or is this now man defining God... yes I think it is, but isn’t this the point – God is manmade.)
Oh and please don’t mix up ‘atheism’ and the ‘scientific method’ – it could be rather frustrating.
One is the process of gaining knowledge about the universe – the other is, well not theism.
If you wish to suggest that the process is ‘rather limited’ then that is fine if you could please define these limitations. I can think of one – it is ‘what can be measured and so falsified’.
Can you think of others? Are they important? Is there an improved method/process that we should be using? What is it, and what is its value?
(No value for faith has ever been given on this blog in finding ‘truth’ BTW – still waiting)
There is of course philosophy – which I think is great for the realms that cannot be tested physically (out side science.) So ideas can be assessed logically.
So maybe here you are right, I don’t take the scientific method on its own – I do insert a little philosophy – Ockham’s razor – but doesn’t this in fact form part of the scientist’s ‘tool kit’ anyway and therefore is in fact part of the scientific method. Maybe – not important.
Moving on...
Your next argument was that ‘most people aren’t content with the answers atheism gives’ – well, I’m sure the hungry in Africa are not content with the lack of food sometimes – does this ‘content’ make any difference to the conclusions?
A fact is a fact – get on with it.
The ‘minority's approach to knowledge’ seems meaningless, it is a fallacy at best. The ‘majority’ of people on this planet thinks Christianity is a joke, does that mean the majority is right and so all the churches should be closed? What do you think?
Also, I would not waste my time trying to ‘integrate’ something that has been shown to work with something with no track record of gaining insights to the truth.
What would be the point?
If you think faith and religion (and Christianity in particular) has any ‘truth’ then you should be able to show it.
You can start easy if you like... since you mentioned him - how about Jesus?
What do you know about Jesus outside of the bible? Next to nothing?
This would be a bad start wouldn’t you say?
The strangest claim you made is that we ‘cant expect different methods to yield similar types of truths’... are there different type of truths now? How many do you want?
How about one ‘truth’... the right ‘truth’?
I am not saying we are anywhere near it at the moment, but shouldn’t we be all pointing the same direction if we are on the right path?
Contradictions is a sure sign something is wrong – this is what religion provides – a wealth of contradictions.
I’ll trust what can be tested and not shown to be false thanks.
The ‘scientific testing of prayer’ is something I always find interesting. It should be something that can be tested, but of course any failure could be put down to ‘God’s will’... but this not my problem.
The lack of positive results (or indeed any divine revelations today via prayer) is enough for me to be very, very sceptical.
However, here’s a question for you. Would you say the religiosity of people in, say, Africa is rather high? Debatable I know – but it does seem that the poor in such countries are very religious. Now why would the infant death rate be so high in such religious countries when compared to ‘atheistic’ countries in the western world?
Is it that prayers don’t work, but science does?
Oh, and not that you made such a claim, so it is just an open question, but if God is perfect and all-loving, why would God need to intervene at all? It should be as good as it gets – no need for prayer than to ask for intervention is there?
As for the uniqueness of Christianity – read your history books and your bible - the bible has nothing new in it.
Should I mention Christmas and Easter as two ‘steals’ from pagan religions?
3 days for a resurrection, I wonder where they got that idea from...
Now how about the ‘golden rule’ – can man (and not the son of God) also come up with similar ideas? Oh yes...
Your ‘established’ caveat is meaningless to me since if Jesus did exist, I doubt he would recognise what is now said in his name today – talk about evolution.
Thanks
Lee
jonathon,
Do i mean Billy' s atheism or your atheism :)
I think the survey I was refering to was looking purely at conceptions of god - so i would say atheism pure and simple. Do all Atheists follow on to materialism ? I dont know. I know the survey put the traditional christian god in the uk at about 20% of the population - then the practice of daily prayer only came in at 10%.
So half of the people who believe in a personal god cant be bothered to get personal with him !
Hi Rob,
They took mendes goal off you tube :-( You could try sportsound at radio scotland
That is one piece of christian wisdom which I think you might agree with - the hospitality ethic as i think its called.
But it's not christian specific. I think it may be good, but is it wise?
The history and contemporary practice of philosophy shows me their are other methods than simply empiricism.
But are they valid?
However if we begin to look at the consequences of our choice of methods we might find reasons to include more than one.
Such as?
Religious truth a far more delicate and personal offspring is clearly useful to many people. Religious truth is less about making objects - such as aeroplanes - and more about coping with life - like when aeroplanes crash.
Again, It seems like a physically based coping mechanism when you use it like that. It does not point to the existence of a god.
I certainly agree there is no way to know scientifically if prayer has been answered but still more people in this country say they pray than dont - even if it is only occasionally. Like my wife' s grandfather - he was an avowed atheist who only prayed in battle !
All that means is that some people in certain desperate situations pray. Surely you dont believe prayers to ganesh and allah are answered?
My reason for mentioning modern western medicine is because it gives us an example of what happens when empiricism takes over - kinda of like the opposite example of when the catholic church was burning witches. With both you get a depersonalised and self perpetuating institution. Is this what actaully happens when one method of knowledge dominates all others ?
Medicine is only concerned with curing. Bedside manner is something else entirely.
As for the uniqueness of christianity : really are you serious ? Can you show me another establisehd world religion which has a loser as its centrepiece. The crucifiction of jesus is still as offensive to some japanese as it is to all cultures which prize power and respect for their own sakes.
Is this the alleged popular loser who crowds flocked to see? Or the Loser who entered jerusalem like a pop star? I dont think the bible potrays him as a loser.
My question concerning uniqueness was in relation to wisdom, not particulars of jesus' life.
Lets do this visually. Think of the central image of christianity : a cross. Give the cross a contemporary interpretation - an electric chair ? and then you see how odd it really is.
Again, not what I was talking about, but let's call jesus Mithra or Odin or Thulis or Attis or Baal of Phoenicia or even quirinius of rome etc .... All similar stories
where do you think his central dialogue power evolved from ?
Some of the above gods for starters. Even Justin Martyr acknowledges that there is nothing new in the Jesus story.
Rob, The majority of the word are theists. Britain is not typical.
Buddhism is atheistic but not materialistic.
Lee, I've been watching the Jesus discussion - Like the theists' considered response that anyone who does not believe jesus existed is mad. He is a typical christian who has not actually realised the poverty of extrabiblical information concerning jesus
Lee,
lets play at this and see where we agree
scientific method is not an exclusive means of obtaining knowledge. You seem to point to philosophy and logic as means at arriving at grey areas - science can invent nuclear bombs but it cannot say what we should or would like to do with them.
So we have this grey area - morals meaning etc - a wispy arena where the truth we each manage to find may not be as robust and idea as say measuring the distance between the sun and the earth.
But falsificationalism can still cast a shadow - we can still look to hyopthesis and contradiction. We propose a view of the world and see what it accomodates and what it does not.
We begin to look for the a big picture which accomodates everything. Theism and Atheism are two such pictures. Atheism lets people down because most people cant quite shrug of the fact that their inclination to find answers or meaning is just a biological hoax and most people dont believe that god can allow suffering the way he does.
My only contention is that theism is as reasonable as atheism - for me it is easier to believe because the problem of suffering has never been that big a deal to me. There is a clear gap in the world and I choose to try and fill it - not whine on about why it is there - why might it not be there.
My way of filling it is to lead a christian life - its a practical response - looking after others - sharing and enjoying life with them - and trying to look out for my community as a large and the world as a whole - not rocket science. That life is to me the answer not the definitions and philosphical ideas it might often need to propel it to crystalise.
So I am not a hawk for Theism it is merely a framework within which I work and gaze at wonderingly like the rafters of a church when the sermon gets boring. My only contention as I say is that it is as rational a superstructure as any. Choice is fundamental - what do you want to believe ?
Once you get beyond the scientific method you enter a weirder landscape. Christianity offers one way to practically navigate through those mirky waters - I can only speak for myself - but if it didnt work for me I wouldnt do it.
I always think that a christian background immunises you to the problems of the NT. The jesus story poses many - all of the records are by people convinced by his message. Isnt that a good thing I mean at least it shows he made an impact :)
Have to go. Practice beats Ideology. Would like to say more about the formation of the new testament but my wife wants a lift to town.
Do the right thing
R.
Im not a trained philospoher so like you the best I can go on is such things as being reasonable coherent and rational - a loose ensemble but you get the picture. I maintain that theism is rational in that as a theory it accomodates the information at hand - sure it leaves a few ropey patches but it can make a smiley face out of the jigsaw of life. It caters for our inherent religiosity.
Atheists will claim this is a delusion. Theism is a response to the question why are we all here ? Atheism says the question doesnt need to have an answer. Two different ways of looking at the same problem.
What can be measured and falsified ? I would say what can be objectified and examined. Bedside manner is hard to objectify - but we know when someone has it.
My only argument is that the practice of the christian faith - the doing of it - is a reasonable response to the world as we can percieve it. Wither the practice of chrsitianity depends on theist framework is open to debate
I am wary of absolutes and Truth with a capital T. Its easy to see if planes fly a lot more puzzling to find they crash on sleeping little scottish border towns.
There is a gut response we all have - this isnt fair - this isnt nice - this angers me - whatever. So what do we do next ? Religion to me evolves if anything form the problem of suffering - suffering is its mother not its bastard son. If you drop outside the conceptual framework inside which christianity is usually presented - you can argue as people like big rabbi jonathon sacks will - that this indignation is actually faith - it is the first step in marrying and dedicating ourselves to the elimination of suffering - of becoming coworkers with god.
oops everthing after my initial is a mistake
I was a draft which was even more irrelevant than my intended response - hard to believe that is possible !
lee,
I assume your can work out a lot of these questions yourself :
Traditionally Theists bang on about god being all loving. But they also traditionally mention free will and original sin. The question is not to some jews where was god in auswitzsch but where was man - to quote britains chief rabbi.
But free will still leaves the inbuilt ageing process and the callousness of life ? Its a gap - but a gap which allows faith to flourish. Not a neccesarily a conceptual faith but definately a resolve to action at least. Theism isnt trying to absolve the confusion of life - but it offers a path through the mystery. Asked if its propositional solutions were enough for him to go on living a christian life in the face of worldwide suffering. Rowan Williams reply was simply "just" ,"just"...
Atheism on the other hand denies the question " what is the meaning of life" has any real human value. Which is one way to face the problems of suffering.Unfortunately a fact is not a fact until it is interpreted - or in the case of Atheism - not.
But the questions about Jesus. The new testament is an interesting historical problem. We have a group of individuals making extraordinary claims - what to make of this ?
Of course you can say it must be junk cause miracles dont happen but this is really just the flip side of saying it must be true because it is the word of god. It is an a priori agrument ?
Everyone has different views of the new testament. My only contention is that the story can be taken relatively simply. I am not even saying I believe it is literally true - but I think to deduce it is historically viable is not as many sound off simply lunacy.
If jesus was actually god incarnate the miracles would not be suprising - nor the resurection. Nature opening up to itself as rowen williams says. There may be some pious fabrication in the NT but to believe it is complete concoction I think is to misuderstand the literary forms of the times.
It is a long winding argument - I have read books on it for most of my adult life. "Jesus - Then and Now" is the one I recommend to the curious thinker.
I tend to distance myself from absolute conclusions but to say it is neccesarily implausible I think is a rather assumptious position.
Billy has said jesus never existed. This is a very extreme position. I would listen to arguments that the new testament does not portray the historical jesus but to say their is no historical figure at the root of the jesus tradition is just plain silly.
I dont usually go into this argument though. I think it can end up rather long detour. There is the jesus figure in the gospels. Fact is Fact as you say - so my response to the NT is primarily literary rather than historical. You read about this figure what do you do next. How many people watched ridley scotts "gladiator" and left with gripping historical dilemmas.
Im sorry if there are shades and nuances which avoid my approach being simply categorised - I am not trying to confuse you. I am strange as it may seem trying to remain rational - skeptical even.
If you read Giles Frazer in the guardian you can see a moderate christian position in full flow. Asked if he believed Jesus rose from the dead he simply says "I dunno I wasnt there".
The important thing to me is not what the new testamemt says but what you think about it. How can it act as a platform - a trampoline for life. That I think is all we can hope for from a hermenutic tradition. Sacred Texts to help us find our answers in a mirky and mysterious world. This might disappoint the fundamentalists - but as jesus said " the letter ( or traditional writigs ) kills , but the spirit gives life ). "
I am interested when you attribute the laws of nature to god. Gravity simply is - god is what is without explanation. I find this interesting and it may be closer to encapulating traditional Theism in contemporary terms than merely branding it supernaturalism as dawkins does. I dont really know. I am still thinking.
Best Wishes
Rob.
p.s. "established" caveat is meaningful to me. If their was a church of Odin or Orpheus on my doorstep and a school for my son attached to it - and a liturgy my family could understand when they have to bury me - then I might think. Established means a lot to me - who wants a lunatic fringe when you can get established madness ?
p.p.s I was only useing the statistics in a tongue in cheek fashion. Jesus is said to have been a minority of one before pilate.
Billy ,
"Medicine is only concerned with curing. Bedside manner is something else entirely"
So how can we know what a bedside manner is - no matter talk meaningfully about it. If take empiricism as our approach we can assume a good bedside manner is an intagible reality just
like god ? Can you tell me what makes for a good bedside manner ? Im talking about medicine as it is a good example of an arena where empricism has become the dominate method of knowledge.
I want to get this clear. Do you really advocate using just an empirical method. By this I mean a method which can split observable phenomena into subject and object with theoretically predictable results. ?
If you did many of your these arguments would appear invalid. Sure you could say a god didnt exist - but would you not also have to say that historical arguments and moral opinion are mere subjectivities. You cant complain about the god of the old testament on the basis of darwinism. The philosophy of history is hardly a hard science.
Indeed the only thing you can really be certain of is we make a really neat set of tools and can predict a reasonable range of natural phenomena with awe inspiring regularity?
Perhaps you can enlighten me ? What I am assuming you want to do is generate a methodology of knowledge in which empiricism is a dominant theme. Otherwise you wouldnt discuss the sort of general and largely subjective ideas that dawkins does the first chapter of his god delusion. Whether we should have given more support to the danish government over the anti islamic cartoons it was supposed to have allowed to have been published is not excatly hard science. It is reasoning.
But as soon as you or mr dawkins attempts to be reasonable you are no longer being strictly scientific - you are drifting onto a different set of methods. You can mimic science as much as you like but what you are presenting is not science but a shadow of science - you are in the otherworld of subjective argument - where subject and object blur and cry out for methods which will do both them and their observers justice. You have remember crossed over from scientific fact to mere opinion.
As long as you just say "scientific method" then I will have to ignore your opinons on history and morality and any form of subjective knowledge as just a noisey by product of evolution. You and Mr Dawkins are trying to have your cake and eat it.
Did manage to catch the game on BBC sport .The mendes goal seemed to be hit at a very high velocity. The rangers fans say it was a "good goal". The others ones say it was "lucky".
Better news is I made £40 on Kevin Keegan not being sacked - the national betting indexes dont really cater for how weird - and predictably unpredictable - it is here on tyneside !
R.
All I can say (just now) is, if blog commenting was an Olympic sport, it's a no-brainer who the medals would be going to (over here at any rate). Keep it up guys, I'll see what I can sort out for London 2012.
Oh Yes britain is not typical but its a doubters paradise.
Buddhism ? It interests me because some of its strands are practically atheist. I think the idea is they dont speculate on the nature of the gods either way. But your right it always seemed cute to me because it isnt materialistic.
Its a lot more centered than the garbled big god talk of a lot of christian theology. I like bertrand russells quote that they are the only true christians because they are the only ones who live like he intended.
One problem with Dawkins first chapter is he assumes you can cut pantheism and theism apart with a knife. For many people I know the two are interdependent.
He also says we should only use the world god for what he calls supernaturalism and not what he calls sexed up pantheism. Why ? Allowing god to be seen in nature and each other -immedietly in each moment - is one thing that stops me ditching christianity for zen buddhism ( my 2nd choice religion )
Science can have a centering effect on religion without having to uproot it. Call me a believer but I think Rationality can only benefit religion.
But remember you are not allow to reply to my subjective opinion - not until you admit your approach is not entirely emprical or kindly show me where your view of empiricism is wider than mine :)
best wishes
rob
p.s. one of my favourite quotes of buddhism is when some westerners cornered the theraveda guys for the first time. They asked them about the boddhisativas - the equivalent of western saints. The westerners were very proud of their question : were the boddisatvas real spiritual presences ,or historical peoples or archetypal reflections of our own concsciousness. The buddhist monks retreated for a while and after consulation with each other returned and replyed to the western group, they said simply :" yes"
lee,
i still havent watched the whole of down the rabbit hole - but i did like the cartoon at the start !
rob
Billy has said jesus never existed. This is a very extreme position. I would listen to arguments that the new testament does not portray the historical jesus but to say their is no historical figure at the root of the jesus tradition is just plain silly.
No I didn't. I am open to some real evidence. My position is that I am not convinced that the lived, but I do not rule it out. My position is that outside of the gospels there is no reliable evidence for him. There are also historical problems associated with the gospel naratives (like the existence of nazareth and protocol concerning the crucifixion. Add to that the shoehorning of jesus into prophecies, uncertainty over authorship and all those other gospels that were considered contradictory, it is certainly not unreasonable to doubt that he even existed.
If take empiricism as our approach we can assume a good bedside manner is an intagible reality just
like god ?
Why is it? Does bedsite manner reveal any truths? No, it doesn't. That's what we are discussing.
Do you really advocate using just an empirical method.
Basically yes. I would also say that some forms of logic an philosophy are valid though eg can an omnipotent god actually exist? Omnipotence is an impossibility - can he make a weight too heavy yo lift, or make a square circle? I see no reasont to include anything else, which is why I keep asking you tou show that there is something else and that there are valid ways to study it
but would you not also have to say that historical arguments and moral opinion are mere subjectivities.
What does the history of belief have to do with its validity? If god exists and I dont believe in him, he still exists. If he doesn't exist and you believe in him, he still does not exist.
Moral opinions are subjective unless you can show they are absolutes. Even cannabalism and human sacrifice has been considered moral in some cultures. Also, even if you could find an almost universally held moral belief through out history, that does not men that it is an absolute.
Indeed the only thing you can really be certain of is we make a really neat set of tools and can predict a reasonable range of natural phenomena with awe inspiring regularity?
Which in no way provides evidence for a supernatural claim.
Whether we should have given more support to the danish government over the anti islamic cartoons it was supposed to have allowed to have been published is not excatly hard science. It is reasoning.
That is subjective reasoning though. It is not based on some absolute that it is either right or wrong to do so. A muslim would have a different subjective opinion.
There is no truth identification strategy in the example that you gave.
But as soon as you or mr dawkins attempts to be reasonable you are no longer being strictly scientific - you are drifting onto a different set of methods.
I agree, but what has that to do with demonstrating the supernatural. These methods are subjective. Surely that wekens your subjective claim?
You have remember crossed over from scientific fact to mere opinion.
Yes, but I am a moral relativist which means there is no correct answer, which is more a problem for you than me. At least with reason, I can make judgements based on what would be the best outcome - not because I have deferred responsibility to the thinking of a desert dwelling tribe of nomads.
You and Mr Dawkins are trying to have your cake and eat it.
Dont think so, you are the one trying to mix the search for truth with how we look at resolving moral issues.
Are the dissenters on Mendes' goal wearing green and white?
I quite like Keega
billy,
you say you are open to evidence about the historical nature of jesus. But this evidence will not be scientifically emprical - so how do you rate it. Clearly as you say you use approved historical method. But this is not science. It may be a soft empiricism but it depends on reason and not experiment.
You are implying there are areas of truth which are open to reason - not scientific rigour. Why should theism not be one of these - if god is not as theists maintain a discrete measurable reality then he must be tested by reasoned argument - that is not scientific empiricism.
You are not relying solely on scientific method even if you claim to be - there is more - other scenarios of knowledge - you just automatically deny that the concept of god may be analysed by any other method than empiricism.
When do you decide to switch from scientific empiricism to philosophical empiricism. If you know why and when you are doing it - I can then propose that the idea of god should be examined on the basis of a reasonable hypothesis.
Regarding Jesus it would be nice to have independent evidence but we dont - so to be truely reasonable we should go from what we have. What is your actual opinion of what really happened and how firm do you think you can be in your opinions ?
The universal moral standard. It does actually exist - its just a rather solitary prohibative : incest.
Guy : ( phones up his work)
: I cant come in today boss
Boss : why ?
Guy : I'm sick
Boss: what do you mean your sick ?
Guy : I'm in bed with my mother
Could this be a joke to bring the whole world together in harmony ? is it universally funny ?
Best wishes
Rob
Hi Rob,
Wow... so much to catch up with, damn but no time tonight.
Hopefully tomorrow I will - sorry.
I will be back
Lee
Rob, why do you keep insisting I only use the scientific method?
I use reason too. Philosophy when it is consistent and can be shown to have relevance to a real world situation. Some things are just not philosophically viable - like the omnipotent god.
When it comes to jesus, we have to look at what is available - the gospels - doubtful authorship - and even most of the assumed authors can not be linked to jesus. The apocrapha - contradict many cannonical gospels. Josephus - written c.70 CE and apparently forged, Suetonius - doesnt even mention jesus, but some Roman called Chrestus. Tacitus - only comments on the etymology of the word christian - etc - not a lot there really. Is it reasonable to accept this?
The universal moral standard. It does actually exist - its just a rather solitary prohibative : incest.
Does it? For biblical literalists, Adam ad Eve were told to multiply - where did their sons get their wives from? I even remember the young conservative club claiming that incest should be legalised. So, it's not actually universally prohibited (ever been to stranrar? inbreeding capital of scotland).
PS, Liked the joke, but it was more PC than the version I know
Billy and I agree on the joke.
Jimmy
Billy,
I suppose you could crank the joke up...
But the phrase that springs to mind is the exception that proves the rule. I think its CSLewis's old argument that although their is relativity is moral standards there is no real direction inversion of moral standards which would say they are completely arbitary. This would fit both an atheist and theist hypothesis.
which I suppose is what we are arguing about now. A hypothesis and a set of obeservable data. The reason for my obsession with methods is to show this debate has to be conducted at the level of a reasoned argument.
Scientific method could be used to prove the existance of god if god was the sort of being given to exhibition style modern miracles just to keep us believing - ( i would cynically say this is modern medicine ) - but theists dont propose that type of god - their object of spectacle is infuriatingly subject dependent - all that stuff about faith...
So the argument about god can be contained by a soft philosophical empiricism but not by hard scientific method. I am interested in the shadow that science casts over the subject but it is a shadow....
must go . Ill post about the jesus history stuff later
best wishes
rob
But the phrase that springs to mind is the exception that proves the rule.
Surely an exception shows there is no rule.
Moral absolutes require to be demonstrated. I dont see how you can argue that they a) exist and b) exist solely because your god does.
I wrote a post on jesus http://basketofpuppies-
billy.blogspot.com/2008/09/convince-me-that-jesus-existed.html
Jimmy,
This is a historic moment. We agree on something. How are you keeping?
Billy
Jimmy, it's great to hear from you.
I'll be back to read comments soon I hope.
"Moral absolutes require to be demonstrated. I dont see how you can argue that they a) exist and b) exist solely because your god does"
Definately have to use the its not our god dodge here billy. If god did exist and he had moral absolutes my understanding of them would be too finite to create a moral dogmatism.
I say our god instead of my because I think again your views are a mis-representation of post war christian theology. I'm not asking you to respond to the febrile creation of my tormented mind - but you always seem to be arguing into the past - bit like if i started talking about aether....
Been posting on the stephen law site - thanks for the link. One guy made the analogy that christianity is like windows software - always being patched never being fixed - growing more bloated with each new generation.
Personally I think the main problem with morals is lack of ambition - our tendency to say thats good enough reasonable and crawl back in our shell. In that context I find the sermon on the mount interesting.
Rob,
Which particular post war theology :-) It comes back to a lack of evidence for moral absolutes whichever way you want to look at it.
Not been to stephen law's site for a few days. Glad you are enjoying it. I'll look out for you
billy,
Im not proposing moral absolutes - Im personally extolling my own appreciation for moral hunger.
Which post war christian theology - anyone which is "post war" in the sense of acknowledging that merely trying to perpetuate a state religion for its own sake is pointless.
Here at last is a term you can take literally !
Yes been very much enjoying stephens blog - good range of arguments - im on as big bad bob - would be happy to see you on there - The more the merrier.
Regarding the NT - I am not worried about its literal meaning - I only conclude that it is possible. I am more concerned about whether a contextual reading of the gospels can remain viable as a social foundation for education, charity and family life. To me christianity is a social tradition which hasnt happened yet - not a deadweight carcass to be ridiculed in the modern world.
Perhaps at times you will get the impression of me moving the goalposts - but as soon as I sense something is hard enough to be an obstacle - I will want to deconstruct it. To tend the flame of hope one must have hands as soft as a gun dogs mouth.
Ideological softness and fluidity are more important to me than fixed ism's. But that is an idea I evolved from my reading of the NT - jesus says opposite things at different times. Its having the right model for the job.
As such I find propositional arguments difficult as by default they are devoid of content. This ism against that ism is an abstraction which in my mind is wholly unproductive.
I read with interest dawkins comments on truth not neccesarily being in the middle of an argument. Sometimes that is the case. But not in this one - for me at least. Ill take constructive atheism or a reasonable theist anytime. Either end of the spectrum I am concerned these approaches merely fuel each other.
But i better stop before i really only start making sense to myself
r.
P.S i have toured through the mother joke and yes you could get a lot less p.c. jokes - but that would be abusing the freedom bruce has granted us !
bruce,
have you read giles frazer. I go to bed in horror thinking I have anything in common with a religious writer for the guardian !
here is his link though :
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content
/fraser/fraser.shtml
have been enjoying ship of fools website
best wishes
r.
billy,
I almost forgot Panentheism is probably the best label for the god i am getting at - but I will change it in the morning is it doesnt match my socks...
r.
This battle between rob and billy is absurd
Rob isn't actually making any coherent points he's just using as many obscure words as possible
Then Billy can't properly reply because he doesnt actually understand the meaning of the words that Rob is saying, so he has to bluff his way through
This is a christian blog, just accept that, if you're atheist that's fine...just read atheist blogs and stop constantly annoying the people who are trying to read and write these things
Billy is constantly asking people to explain christianity to make him believe, unfortunately there may come a point where people get fed up of explaining the glory of god to you...and people will just start ignoring you....which will be bad because realistically you're just kicking up a fuss for attention.....and of course there will be no one left for you to argue with if the believers of Jesus Christ are raptured in our life time, you may well be willing to agree by that point too
Then Billy can't properly reply because he doesnt actually understand the meaning of the words that Rob is saying, so he has to bluff his way through
Want a bet? What words do you think I dont actually understand?The problem is that Rob is not actually making coherent and internally consistent, and he is wandereing all over the place. Perhaps you could point out the focus in Rob's argument?
Now, if this stuff annoys you, I suggest you go elsewhere. Or you could try and explain your version of christianity to me (that I'm willing to bet differs considerably from Rob's version).
Oh and by the way, Bruce originally invited me to comment here - judge not and all that matey!
PS,
Sam, anytime you wish to justify these positions that Rob mentions regarding truth, feel free - or just carry on comming over as an intolerant christian
So both sides of the argument think Im incoherent ? ... I must be getting somewhere.
Billy I might try and keep up this debate with you on Stephen Laws site. My holiday time is up. I think our approaches are quite polarised so some more middle ground posts will probably keep us interested ? Im still keen to see how christianity can be encapsulated inside empiricism - even if it is an incongruent fit...
A farce ? Your right Sam Post Modern Christianity vs Empirical Athiesm makes for a debate fit only for a monty python sketch . Dawkins vs Derrida ? Derrida would see confusing himself as a victory...
This afternoon , I put up a letter I wrote last year about some of the central themes of christianity - it was a source for an arts project i undertook - maybe my approach is easier to see when I am not arguing. Its a bit of a read but its online any way :
http://dolebrothers.blogspot.com/
I will leave it to anyone who is interested to judge whether my version of christianity is different from Sam's.
As for this being a christian blog - I'm sure we don't have to be shy about being christians - so there are a few hecklers in the blog - least it stops it getting boring...
My favourite lines in this mornings hymns :
"O sabbath rest by Galilee !
O calm of hills above
Where Jesus Knelt to share with thee
the silence of eternity
interpreted by love "
What a lovely thought: "the silence of eternity interpreted by love" !
Im still keen to see how christianity can be encapsulated inside empiricism
I think the more relevant question is whether empiricism supports christianity - without the theological shifting of goalposts, as I say, you have not justified using theological paradigms (keeping up with the terminology sam?). Investigating the evidence for god - telological arguments, first cause arguments (still with us sam?) are by extention arguments that are relevant to christianity - unless you are talking about something else.
Analysis of prayer also falls under this umbarella.
Like I keep stressing, Empiricism is not the only way to look at christianity, but other ways such as logic - eg the impossibility of omnipotence can at least be demonstrated through the laws of logic.
BTW Sam, Rapture? Come on! Theologians cant even agree on this. My view is that jesus was an apocalyptic teacher who was supposed to return about 2000 years ago - feel free to chip in.
To be honest billy I always thought the standard proofs of god where typical examples of the sorts of things you could get away with inside a cultural hegemony.
Empiricism is to me yet another example of that - I'm interested but only as much as I am in all approaches to knowledge - and they each require a holistic a pinch of salt ( theology, logic, idealism, empiricism, theism, postmodernism and - and yes even atheism ). If that is pluralism, so be it - only madmen have a monopoly on the truth.
I'm interested in ideas more for their consequential value than as an end in their selves - looking at stephen's laws web site is interesting but jokingly, to me its the mental equivalent of pornography - except mental faculties are ascending instead of something else. Epistemological methods follow civilisations like their vices and drugs.
I am broadly skeptical. I am more interested in having the knack than being in the know - but from my postmodern theory of knowledge you might expect that. Practice beats principle.
I'll admit that empricism is curently one of the big boys - in the academic world at least - but really are we any better off ? Science is no more than a Saviour than a religion is. But if we are looking for a Saviour I would have to go with Christ ( and yes I probably have very complicated views of who or what that is - but hey thats me - im trying to juggle a lot of balls)
Traditionally theism presents a world view which responds to questions of meaning - why is there something here instead of nothing - atheism says it just is - theism gives us something to aspire to - atheism can give no real foundation for moral obligation. Under the gaze of empiricism the conventional proofs of god crumble into tokens - gestures and I am happier for it.
I could go on but my argument or evidence for theism is it is a hypothesis which better fits what we are - as humans. I could be deluded - but so what - if their isnt a god what would it all matter anyway.
So my evidence for god is simple - its a better working hypothesis than atheism. Ticks more boxes. It is a larger hypothesis - but as Ive said before i have no reason to cut myself on ockams razor. I like the big picture - holism and gestalt still dictate my approach to problem solving. The simplest solution can sometimes the stupidest.
Of course I could be juggling myself self to death in some sort of neo-hegelian fantasy of synthesis - but thats the risk i take. I reflect rather than think. In some ways I am still willing to swim with the tide...
Im trying to be a little more succint - Im summing up : time is running out. I have to go back to work.
Best wishes and thanks for your criticism - i would hope my ideas are a little more empirically aware - courtesy of our exchanges.
"that which does not kill us makes us stronger" :)
And there is my letter - the closest I'll ever get to a gospel message on the dole brothers site - If you ever want to dabble in some softer theology - I'll never make a preacher - I get lost in my own notes.
best wishes
Rob
Rob, you are way wrong if you thing science does not ask why is there something rather than nothing. Science goes further. It does not satisfy itself by saying god did it - it looks deeper.
Atheism does not need to provide anything, it is just an absence of a belief in gods. Evolution provides a moral basis, and I wiould argue that our cultral morality has very little to do with the ghastly standards of the OT and more to do with secular values that have occueerd in other cultures at various times.
The trouble with taking theism to its epistemological roots is that it ultimately fails to demonstrate an demonstrable reality
Im sorry Billy, but any theologian that disputes the scriptures and claims that they are wrong cannot call himself a godly man and is not qualified to open his mouth
If you know the glory of God for yourself then you can know that the Bible is God's textbook for living on earth and planning for eternity
The Rapture will happen bacuse God says it will and no amount of historians that have uncovered 400 year old texts that counter that will ever change it brother
Unfortunately the journey of discovery with your creator can only be undertaken on your own...you can have the gospel explained to you as many times as you like but you still have to make that leap for yourself...so you cant look to people like bruce, rob or sam to get you there
In the same way God will never be proven to exist in this earthly realm through science or experimentation...but dont get me wrong I am not anti-science, it is a brilliant tool for understanding and exploring this universe that God has created for us
In the end every action has a consequence....and there are actions that can have eternal consequences
Kenny
Hi Kenny, why are you not a muslim? Why do you not put your trust in the koran? If I said that I assume that islam is true because it says it is, would you accept that? If not, why do you ask me to just accept the bible?
I was once a christian. I found it an intellectually and experientially dissatisfying system (please dont ask me about it, as I get bored with people telling me I got this wrong or that wrong - I only mention it to show that puting you faith in the bible does not necessarily work)
To say that no theologian who disagrees with scripture is not godly is both a strawman and an example of the no true scotsman fallacy.
Many theologians do not believe there will be an actual rapture. Some theologians have very differing views on the gosplels, some beleive in literal creation, others in evolution, others are gap theorists. Some believe in hell, others are anhiallists - some even recognise the bible contains errors - do you dismiss them if they disagree with you.
There are a few verses that show jesus expected to return 2000 years ago )eg matt 26:64.
Kenny, here is a theological view on the rapture
http://www.cresourcei.org/secondcoming.html
Does it agree with yours?
Yes brothers the rapture is a complicated problem. But when you meditate upon the Lord's saying "the kingdom of heaven is inside you" I think the prayerful response is to perceive we will be raptured inwards - into the Lord and into ourselves - "in the blinking of an eye"...
The rapture might seem questionable Billy but only if you think about people floating up in the air - thats what happens at Carousel in the film Logan's Run. But a mass quantum vanishing will be much more frightening.
Billy do you believe in parallel realities? The Lord concerned if you think any harder your brain will possess you. You will lose contact with all the other Billys you are similtaneously.
Yes Demonic Possesion still exists - but it is much subtler than during our lords ministry.
Billy picture yourself in Logans run - do you want to be in the city making love with a computerised match in a technological one night stand or do you want to be out in the pool swimming laughing and watching that flashing light thing drop off your atheisised body ?
Sam we should pray together.
Andy
Hi Andy,
Preaching is not actually an argument. I only mentioned the rapture as an example of a theological difficulty. Obviously I dont think jesus is returning because I'm not even convinced that he existed. I certainly have a problem with verses like isaiah 7:14 referring to him too.
I haven't given paralell realities much thought, although at the quantum level, I wouldnt be surprised.
Got any evidence for daemon possession then?
You...
are possesssed by your brain...
Andy
are possesssed by your brain...
And that is evidence of demons because....?
Logan's run is a fantastic film....we should probably just turn this into a sci-fi blog....it seems to be all that billy talks about
From what I gather I do hope that your aggresive brand of atheism doesn't extend from the fact you didn't enjoy your time as a christian
I once watched a ben stiller movie, i didn't enjoy it, but that didnt mean that i began besieging ben stiller and telling him his brand of comedy is wrong and theres no proof that his humour exists
Hopefully rob can back up the ben stiller philosphy
we should probably just turn this into a sci-fi blog....it seems to be all that billy talks about
News to me, thanks for your outstanding contribution.
we should probably just turn this into a sci-fi blog....it seems to be all that billy talks about
Maybe you need to look up aggressive in the dictionary Sam. What's aggressive against asking questions - or do you think your beliefs are beyond questioning?
Let's suppose for the sake of argument that my experience did make me aggressive, my question would then be how does that nullify my position? Its like a game of spot the fallacy with you guys here.
I once watched a ben stiller movie, i didn't enjoy it, but that didnt mean that i began besieging ben stiller and telling him his brand of comedy is wrong and theres no proof that his humour exists
Oh, found another one, and a nonsequitir. All you would then be able to say was that a sense of humour was relative - you know, a bit like moral values - Keep up the high brow attacks guys :-)
PS, got any real evidence to back up your points guys - or are you just here to throw ad hominems about (better get that stanford dictionary of philosophy out Sam)
Billy,
I thought I said moral values were relative - jesus clearly condemns supposedly tidy and absolutised moral standards in the sermon on the mount...
To me and many other non fundamentalists - christianity is about the hunger to live a life you havent lived yet - about the desire for a god you cant describe and the expectation for a messiah that never comes...
There is a choice whether to response to paradox - some of it can be garbage - but some of it breaks the box wide open - as thought as true as untrue as the buddhists say.
Your attacks are only real to you - because you use emprical method as an absolute - perhaps these guys appeals to nonsense reflect the deep human desire to be nonsensical - to escape such rigid boxes as medieval theology and contemporary empiricism.
If you care to read Heraclitus you might get an idea why I consider empiricism to be anthropomorphic - it is one of the smallest things in the universe thinking about the biggest and getting lost in its own importance.
Thats my thoroughly post modern interpretation of your method - cute - reasonable - but at the end of the day not much fun.
ad hominens - are perhaps the last resort of people who think you are not being fully human - taht there is something comical about you - sure you can convince yourself - but get outside the cave and stop mistaking the shadows for the real shabang.
perhaps you should apply logic to koans - that would be a best seller I am sure.
boyakasha
and remember buddha loves you
rob.
Rob
I thought I said moral values were relative - jesus clearly condemns supposedly tidy and absolutised moral standards in the sermon on the mount...
I think we both agree they are relative (not every christian does though) Bruce has even tried to use the moral absolute argument in the past. Any way, I don't think Jesus actually said that god was not a source of absolute morality on the mound. Jesus also said that the law would always stand - it seems another one of those tricky bits of theology, that people are selective about to suit themselves.
Your attacks are only real to you - because you use emprical method as an absolute
I think you are misrepresenting my position here (again). If you can justify the use of other systems (As I frequently ask) I will adopt them. I think you are not dealing with the points I raise and trying to categorise me in order to dismiss them.
If you care to read Heraclitus you might get an idea why I consider empiricism to be anthropomorphic
That would still not mean there is any substance to your claims though. There may be problems associated with empiricism, but you have not shown there is any other way that backs upo your clam.
Where is your evidence rob? You just vaguely dance around this question.
ad hominens - are perhaps the last resort of people who think you are not being fully human - taht there is something comical about you - sure you can convince yourself - but get outside the cave and stop mistaking the shadows for the real shabang.
Very christian of them indeed, I'm sure Jesus is well pleased. Anyway, what shadows. I think my life is more real as an atheist than that of a christian. Can you or the chucklebrothers show otherwise?
"Where is your evidence rob?"
you mean your evidence - a specific empirical type of exvidence - i dont have that - I have my own - the living reality of the grand hypotheis of theism - shimmering like a house of cards on a stack of methods - fragile as life itself.
I think my life is more real as an atheist than that of a christian.
Thats fine by me. I must crack on as I said . I'm not sure how wish an atheist well : "may nature shower her bounties upon you and wonder walk with you". In whatever way I can - best wishes.
Rob
SamAndyKenny
(One word since you all sound the same)
How should a good Christian conduct themselves in open discussion?
Billy
Play nice with the children, they know not what they do :-)
I’ve lost patience just by reading the comments. I don't think they know how to have a discussion.
Lee
Lee, By the standard of comment, you are probably right
Sam,
you may be interested in another sams views on how to engage with atheists.
http://elizaphanian.blogspot.com/2008/02
/reasonable-atheism-central-post.html
I am happy to chat in a framework of mutual appreciation but billy seems to so little value in the christian tradition that in the long term there is little here for me - I might be happy to discuss how the christian tradition can still be of value to an atheist but only to someone who seriously thinks it might be..
regarding the ben stiller controversy
I quote the rev. biggie smalls :
"Its all good nigga"
" and if you dont know now you know "...
Rob I previously asked you what's so special about the christian tradition - you produced nothing, so you cant really claim that I am not interested.
Have you seen those lovely articles calling to put atheists in a concentration camp?
http://www.csama.org/csanews/nws200809.pdf
http://www.csama.org/csanews/nws200807.pdf
That's what I call love - not!
I blame you moderates by the way. Get your own house in order
PS, the other Sam - is he the whacko that thinks anyone who does not believe jesus existed is mad? He seems perfectly sane to me - not!
No I didn't know about the camps. And yes I will thoroughly oppose such nonsense.
But i have known of christians killed in camps under the guise of atheist ideologies:
http://www.godweb.org/
suicidebombers.htm
Don't we all have houses to put in order ? When has an ideology ever been immune to abuse ?
Rob..
Bob,
Noone bombs in the name of no god. Atheists are not a group as such. The problem here is that christian ideology is being used.
Dogmatic thinking in general is bad. Brainwashing is brainwashing.
PS, hitler was not an etheist - and neither were his storm troopers
brainwashing takes many forms.....
No one said it didn't
111 comments - the same number of friends I have on facebook, last time I looked!
I don't think I need to continue writing this blog - it seems to be writing itself :)
Long way to catch up, just got to Aug 26th or something, but I'll get there.
In answer to your Guardian writer q Rob - or shall we call you BBB - no, not aware of having read him.
Talk to you later - the office calls.
Oh dear... this one seems to be ending well.
Have we got onto the ‘nasty evil atheist kills people so there must be a God’ argument?
It’s insulting...
Lee
Bruce,
Query from my mum - does your mum have a sister called "cherry" - its an outside chance - but she was speaking to a couple at her church - who were on their way to bridge of weir to stay with " bill & gill ".
How many bill and gills are there in bridge of weir...
Do you have an aunt Cherry ?
Trust your well
Hi Rob, you're right on track, yes the Cherry in question is indeed one of my mother's sisters and they're up visiting - two sets of girl twins in their family. My mother's elder twin lives in Leeds.
Slightly off topic, but hey guys, the bible says something about sharing not only the gospel but our lives as well...!
And by the way, a jaunt to Newcastle is still very much on the cards sometime, just need to get things sorted out a bit, lovely vague phrase; sorry Lee, Australia is still a bit beyond my means good though the beer has always sounded tempting...
I'll tell my mum she will be pleased with her powers of deduction !
Would be good to see you anytime - I'm finishing up flooring my loft today - so we should have plenty of guestspace
best wishes
Rob
"Preach the gospel without
ceasing, and very occasionally use words..."
Francis Of Assisi
Of course I shouldn't really assume anyone else will be the slightest bit interested in the details of my family...!
Glad to be able to contribute to the cut and thrust of the debate.
Just read up to about midday 28 Aug. Enjoyed the stuff about empty bricks of thought being moved around! I feel like I've stayed behind in church after everyone's left - nice and peaceful.
Bruce Lee, Australia is still a bit beyond my means good though the beer has always sounded tempting...
It's getting close to being beyond my means... interest rates and petrol prices on the up and up - but that is what debt is for.
No worries as they say
Lee
Billy and Bruce
Thank you, I'm keeping fine.
This has been running through my head for a few days
'You should live as though you have a very short time to live -
because you have.'
Jimmy
Thanks for that quote Jimmy.
Not only that, it is the only life we've got
Lee
Post a Comment