This guy is a psychopath
The economic downturn is a test from god onto his people.
("I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world."
— Richard Dawkins
"Finding that no religion is based on facts and cannot therefore be true, I began to reflect what must be the condition of mankind trained from infancy to believe in errors."
— Robert Owen, reformer and philanthropist)
Bad economy: bad for you pocketbook, bad for your tummy, bad for your ego, good for your soul.
("Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."
— Napoleon Bonaparte)
Don't be anxious for what you should eat, what you should drink, what you should put on. Believe in god and he'll give it all to you. What?
("Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
— Epicurus (ca. 341-270 BCE), Greek philosopher)
He says if you're not Christian, this is a good time to come to Christ. Why is it that people are maybe most often roped into Christianity when they're down and out?
"Philippians 4: My god will supply all your needs, according to his riches and glory in christ jesus." (Are we not talking about nature here but putting the glory falsely into a god?)
Real need v. Perceived Need? Tell me that my need for food is a perceived need...
Please remember:
"If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like. … But on the other hand, if somebody says, 'I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday,' you say, 'Fine, I respect that.'"
— Douglas Adams, author of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
"The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion."
— Thomas Paine
Just a little fun with quotes, etc. Religion never ceases to give people who use their power of reason something fun to laugh at. I guess there comes a point when it's just not funny anymore.
Hey Shimco, you want to get in the tunnels this week? Hit me up.
I'm gonna go get the mail through Flying Spaghetti Monster who strengthens me.
The economic downturn is a test from god onto his people.
("I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world."
— Richard Dawkins
"Finding that no religion is based on facts and cannot therefore be true, I began to reflect what must be the condition of mankind trained from infancy to believe in errors."
— Robert Owen, reformer and philanthropist)
Bad economy: bad for you pocketbook, bad for your tummy, bad for your ego, good for your soul.
("Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."
— Napoleon Bonaparte)
Don't be anxious for what you should eat, what you should drink, what you should put on. Believe in god and he'll give it all to you. What?
("Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
— Epicurus (ca. 341-270 BCE), Greek philosopher)
He says if you're not Christian, this is a good time to come to Christ. Why is it that people are maybe most often roped into Christianity when they're down and out?
"Philippians 4: My god will supply all your needs, according to his riches and glory in christ jesus." (Are we not talking about nature here but putting the glory falsely into a god?)
Real need v. Perceived Need? Tell me that my need for food is a perceived need...
Please remember:
"If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like. … But on the other hand, if somebody says, 'I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday,' you say, 'Fine, I respect that.'"
— Douglas Adams, author of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
"The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion."
— Thomas Paine
Just a little fun with quotes, etc. Religion never ceases to give people who use their power of reason something fun to laugh at. I guess there comes a point when it's just not funny anymore.
Hey Shimco, you want to get in the tunnels this week? Hit me up.
I'm gonna go get the mail through Flying Spaghetti Monster who strengthens me.
14 comments:
i like those quotes man...good work....ill try and some to it a lil later.....i'm down to do hit the tunnel for sure though
-shimko
Wow. Well, you know I can’t leave that unchallenged in the marketplace of ideas. :) Though honestly, this will mostly just be questions as I try to understand your position more fully.
First, I’m curious to know why (in what is ultimately a debate about the problem of evil) you claim for the materialistic/naturalistic proponents a monopoly on reason? Men have been debating the problem of evil since they began to observe the nature of our world, and the character of that world has just as reasonably been used as proof of theism, as it has been used to deny it.
Here is what I mean: if you use evil to deny the existence of God then is not the equal, corresponding argument the incongruity of the existence of that which is good, beautiful, and perfect in non-theistic universe? You argue that God cannot exist because of evil, and I would argue that he must exist because of the presence of order, design, and goodness. Both are claims about ultimate reality based on the nature of the universe. Of course both cannot be equally valid, but can you agree that –because they are identical in the sense that they are both inferences from observation- they are equally reasonable platforms to begin a debate?
Another question about the presence of good/beauty/order in the world concerns man’s relationship to these qualities: how would we recognize and reverence it in a God-less world? And how also would we have a conception of perfection, if we can conceive of nothing that does not exist? Must not that which is perfect (though it is not observable in the natural world) exist? …these are just ancillary questions to round out the idea that there are valid, reasonable questions that are raised by the nature of the world – as the flip side to the argument that the nature of the world summarily, unquestionable refutes the existence of God. What is your opinion of them?
“Whence cometh evil” in a naturalistic universe? What I mean by that is…why do you recognize such a quality, what is the standard by which you became aware of it? This question then immediately raises a following question: what to do about it? From the Christian worldview, the power of evil has been defeated by the resurrection of Christ (the conquering of death), and will be ultimately eradicated by God [which, of course, explains (one of) the fallacies of Epicurus’ reasoning: for God has both power over evil, and will destroy it; His delay in doing so is not an indictment on his benevolence]. But I digress, because my question is: what is the naturalistic solution to evil? I realize that it must be contingent upon the definition, so would you explain both to me (definition/solution)?
Okay, this is less pertinent, but let me quickly defend John Piper, because his statements are not psychopathic if interpreted within the context of the Christian view of reality. Actually, I’ll not defend the man himself – because I don’t know a lot about him, and I don’t know if he embraces any aspect of the “prosperity gospel” (i.e. become a Christian and everything will turn out well for you), which I believe is a heretical doctrine.
So rather, let’s just say I’ll defend the Christian conception of the relationship between pain and man.
It’s very simple, and the perfectly logical conclusion from our conception of the universe. We believe that man is created with a purpose, that he is designed to know God, and to worship him. Life is an adventure. Life is the pursuit of this God, of truth, and only in this pursuit does man fulfill the yearnings of his soul.
The goal is antithetical to the goal of the materialist, for it is outside of man and man’s purpose if defined by his relation to the Divine. Thus, his goal cannot be simplified to become “pleasure” (which, though disguised under many other terms, is the only possible end/goal/purpose of an existence defined exclusively by SELF). Because of this, pleasure and pain are not end – but rather means to an end (the knowledge of God), and their ultimate value if derived from this purpose. Pleasure is not good in itself. Pain is not good in itself. But insofar as they push you toward God, instruct you, change you, morph you, enlighten you…they become good.
Really, it’s a redefinition of what is a benefit to man, based on a redefinition of what is the end of man. When the goal changes, the value that a man places on various circumstances change. Food becomes the highest, ultimate need, only if the ultimate goal is survival: “succeeding” is defined merely be maintaining your existence…breathing another moment…and the logical conclusion of that worldview is to do anything and everything possible just to maintain that existence.
But the Christian repudiates that idea. For him, the ultimate goal is to exist is a perfect love relationship with God – and his great concern is that his soul is of such a quality that this is possible. Everything else is subordinate to this, and even pain can be “counted as joy” because it is working toward this end, for “to be chained to an unhealthy body is a far less miserable fate than the companionship of an unhealthy…impure soul.” So, in an unexpected flip-flop of pleasure and pain….pain/difficulty/etc can become good, and treasured, when it is the means by which your soul is affected toward a greater end.
Ach! I’m sorry I didn’t mean take so long on this last point. It’s just that, what for you is psychopathic, is for me one of the most beautiful conceptions of life ~ that all is not as it seems.
One last note about the Dawkins quote, just because it's a misconception when applied to Christianity – though perhaps it may be true for other religions, I cannot say. Christianity does not pacify man into embracing ignorance, but rather the exact opposite. It could be defined as the passionate, unending, obsessive search for truth. The goal is not ignorance, but knowledge; achieved through “the thirst to know and understand a large and liberal discontent”. Life is to pursue the mystery, always questioning and striving….for the Christian should be the first to say that the unexamined life is not worth living.
Okay. I have to go make dinner. But I’m anxious to know if these questions and ponderings make sense, and what do you think?
Ok! Thanks for stoking debate, Hannah, I wish this would be more frequent on the blog and otherwise in my life.
And I’ll start it with a disclaimer (I should almost get this tattooed on my forehead, honestly):
I do not intend on being rude by any statement I make from here on out. I only wish to get my point across, and you should know that it is based only on fact; observable, provable fact. I am making the assumption, one that all scientific inquiry must make, that the theories presented must be based on something observable or that can at least be proved using reason/logic.
So…
Your perceived “claim for a monopoly on reason" on the behalf of atheists is based on not a debate about the problem of evil, but on the single issue that makes you a believer, that in some way you can say legitimately that there is a god, at all. I will tie this up at the end, but here’s why I don’t believe in god in the first place.
The existence of evil in and of itself (Epicurus), although arguably important in disproving god, is not total evidence of said nonexistence of a Judeo-Christian god. As a matter of fact, it’s might be impossible to definitively disprove the existence of something that is by definition “supernatural,” but in my opinion that disproves it right there.
However, any argument that a theist can make, any evidence they can try to disclose in a scientific manner, to prove existence of a god will and has been shot down using reason and logic.
If god created the universe, where did he come from? If theists see it as so unlikely that such an infinitely complex universe could have gradually evolved/emerged over time, using the same line of reasoning, god would have to be even more unbelievably complex to have created this universe. And so where did he come from? “He just… exists?” Then I can say, and just as logically, that SO DID the universe, and that it came to be over time. (I won’t say that, though, because in my opinion, the “big bang” or ideas like it can’t be totally proved either, it’s a toughie) Of course, I will always believe that using our abilities to perceive the evidence presented to us, we will never have an idea of how we came to be. However, if we are to ever achieve such an understanding, it will be through science (the use of reason, logic, observation, and experimentation) just as all of our current knowledge and technology has come to be. The idea of a god creating the universe is borne of the same mindset that led to “common sense” assuming the earth was flat. It goes something like, "we have no answer, we are unwilling/unable to find a reasonable/provable one, so lets make one up and put it in a book to teach people lessons about their world." Well, the flat earth idea was simply eventually disproved and done away with (well not simply, people died over it), just as the creationist idea (which is based on no evidence, just beliefs) will one day be definitively tossed out.
In addition, I do not even think it to be of great importance that we know, and right now!, how we came to exist in the very beginning. I am entirely satisfied in my current existence, moving forward in my own obsessive search through reason for truth and freedom, the application of which will lead to prosperity for all human beings. Religion does not bring peace to the world, just as government does not. Only true environmental sustainability (which will come through our understanding of the natural world around us, science, and which will never be “perfect” due to the impossibly of perfection) and education (the dissemination of that scientific knowledge) will lead to peace.
Man’s treatment of his peers is based on his understanding of the world around him and his perceived equality (ability to satisfy his basic needs) with those peers. Technology/education/and the instilling of values into our children will lead to this peace among individuals. Like I always say, we are just a bunch of humans, floating in space on this ball of resources together. The only important thing is that we efficiently allocate the resources that we have for the greater good of all. (and that means not just people but the entire earth, as what is good for the earth is good for us)
God, as described in the bible, has told us very little about science and technology. I won’t totally downplay the existence of valuable/relevant instructions in the bible, as I’m sure these do exist. However, many of it’s solution’s to problems of the time are obsolete, such as the Torah’s instruction for Jews not to eat pork, which was because of its high risk of disease transmission, which is now a non-issue with the advent of refrigeration. Many of the bible’s instructions are also downright detrimental to our existence, such as the instruction to be fruitful and multiply. Let’s get honest here, how many people can the earth really sustain? Tough to say, but I’m afraid based on my observation that we’ll find out the hard way. Although I assume it is true that not all adherents to Judeo-Christian religion believe this is relevant to what is now a more numerous population, many still practice this, especially the more orthodox of each religion. Anyway, my point is that the bible is an incomplete and outdated reference, and judging by the number of times god has instructed people to kill one another, etc, I’d say we should probably move right on along and start coming up with our own conclusions about the world around us that are based on things that make sense, and act on them to make the world a better place.
And after all, regarding the “moral values” presented in the bible and these are often questionable (especially in the Old Testament-multiple wives, murder, brutality, jealousy, debauchery, theft were all too prevalent in their application by god and his “disciples”) can we not decide for ourselves as mature and educated human beings what is right and what is wrong? The bible gives people the wrong reasons to do the right thing when perfectly good reasons actually exist, and this is one of the most important problems. The ten commandments (minus the ones about god himself) are obvious rules of engagement for a mature human being using their brain. (no god necessary, no assembly required, bibles not included) I’ll refer to the following quote as far as that goes:
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." – Albert Einstein – a purported Jew, but self-described “atheist,” who called the belief in religious superstition a childish fancy.
Did god move the human race past hunting/gathering to agriculture and an easier, more fulfilling life that allowed us to focus on other aspects of life than simply survival (food/water/shelter)? No, technological innovation did that, and it suppressed the inclination of man to kill or steal from one-another to survive. Did god give us the ability to record history through language? No, we created that over time, and we are better off for it because of our ability to pass to further generations the lessons that we have learned. And as a quick answer to: “Whence cometh evil” in a naturalistic universe? Ignorance. Ignorance of natural phenomena and an inability of individuals to provide for themselves and reconcile their situation due to said ignorance. And the answer to eliminating it: science/education. And we’re doing that every day. But to accept god as creator of the observable universe and heaven as our primary destination/goal is the maybe the most detrimental copout for science and humanity that we have seen yet.
My point is that not only can you not prove god in any way, shape, or form (and feelings in your heart do not count as proof), you don't even NEED god at all to live a good life. He has not, is not, and is not going to ever do anything for you. If you think otherwise, prove it! Prayer does not work, God does not do anything for you. Just think of the amputee that prays every day for a limb to be regenerated. It doesn’t happen. Scientific impossibility in this example removes the ambiguity as to whether or not prayer works. Yea maybe some folks pray for their cancer to go away and it does. That doesn’t mean the prayer did anything at all, just that coincidentally they prayed for what ended up happening. That’s why an amputee praying is wasting his voice and his time. His prayers will never be answered, not because god has a special plan for him, but because scientific impossibility doesn’t allow it to happen. However, science may one day come up with a way for that man to use a motorized prosthetic arm in some way to move forward as before. God will never do that for him. And if you claim that man’s creation of that invention that helps the amputee is a symptom of god himself or an answer to that man’s prayer, I call that outright silliness. Let’s cut out the middle man and realize that it is you and I that have the power to change our world, not god.
Also, to presume that you will go to hell if you don’t simply accept god’s existence and bow to him in praise, even if you live a good life (by the standards of the bible/Jesus or otherwise), is evidence of a jealous, terrible god which is undeserving of any such praise or gratitude. More silliness.
The thing that scares me is that even what you refer to as a Christian's obsessive search for truth, when based on a nonfactual foundation of supernatural entities/events (which by definition of that word cannot exist in nature), leads to the "satisfaction with not understanding the world" that Dawkins speaks about, because even though you think you have the answer because you believe does not mean that you indeed have the answer: knowing or even at least admitting you don’t know. You are making an assumption of existence of something that cannot in any way be proven and are then claiming to use real reason in search of all other truth. It’s like there are two separate halves of the “rational theist’s” head. I don’t see where the reasonable half could possibly shut off to allow for these obviously silly notions. So I’m not claiming a monopoly on reason, just that theists use reason selectively (but sometimes that they don’t use it at all), which is inherently incorrect and hinders true growth.
That’s it for me. And I’m sorry if I didn’t directly answer all of your questions, but I think my point is now very well laid out and understandable.
Oh, and evil, there is no such thing, really. The word is just a way to reconcile the sadness/pain brought by bad decision-making. (bad decision-making being a symptom of the real problem, you guess it, ignorance, which is defined as a lack of education or knowledge) It's like this, why can humans who kill for no reason or for jealousy be called evil, but not hurricanes which kill and destroy people's right to food/water/shelter/everything else or animals who kill humans to eat them.
Evil is just a word. Don't waste much time on it. Do you believe that people, if we can get past our current way of life and provide for ourselves equally throughout the world and to a degree maybe never before seen in history, would still kill and steal and step on each other's toes as we do now?
It's like people living in the ghettos of our big cities being led to crime due to their situation and inability to get by, a phenomenon which can also be seen/proven by the actions of once "good Christians" when faced with catastrophe (hurricanes, etc.) being unable to provide for their families and resorting to the same indecent activities.
Just trying to get by, man. But with suffering on such a large scale, especially when this suffering is created when technologies exist to change it, we can expect to see this "evidence" of the "inherent sinfullness" of humans.
Ok I'm really done now.
Crap, also, the idea of beauty/goodness is a contruct, and differs from one society to another.
And design, order etc. are essentially naturally occuring given the time and certain environmental conditions. Those things do not exist everywhere, which is why it appears that no other planet in our solar system (only one of very many) has life. Only more evidence in my mind that god didn't make it.
And also the idea of creation by god for man is very selfish and anthropocentric. The universe is just fine without us, because it makes no judgment as to whether or not we should be here in the first place. That is up to us, and that's kind of what I'm scared about. We have to get our priorities straight if we are to continue as a species, which is of course in our best interest, because experiencing life is generally desirable. (selfish, maybe, but we are here. It's just that the world/universe was NOT created FOR us that is important to understand) I love life!!
The life we live now is what we have, and to plan and live for the afterlife (no proof that it even exists) is to lose sight of the importance of this one for not only ourselves but our children that will come after we make our mark, positive or negative. Sustainability for humans is about all that matters. And of course, it's generally understood that what's good for us is good for the planet as a whole, and earth is indeed a closed system except for the sun's energy and the occasional satellite or rocket. This is ALL we've got! We can make it work!
That's what I'm talkin about.
AH I'm going to Mellow Mushroom and getting away from my computer right NOW!
BUT OH NO! I have a stupid fancy phone that accesses the internet! I cannot escape!
A Quote from Carl Sagan ~ "We succeeded in taking that picture [from deep space], and, if you look at it, you see a dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever lived, lived out their lives. The aggregate of all our joys and sufferings, thousands of confident religions, ideologies and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilizations, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every hopeful child, every mother and father, every inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every superstar, every supreme leader, every saint and sinner in the history of our species, lived there on a mote of dust, suspended in a sunbeam.
The earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that in glory and in triumph they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of the dot on scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner of the dot. How frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the universe, are challenged by this point of pale light.
Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity -- in all this vastness -- there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. It is up to us. It's been said that astronomy is a humbling, and I might add, a character-building experience. To my mind, there is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly and compassionately with one another and to preserve and cherish that pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known."
Right ho Cory! I'm of the identical mind about this kind of debate. It doesn't happen nearly enough, but truly, it's the zest of life. I'm so excited!
This post, however, isn't actually a reply. I just wanted to let you know that I saw your replies and I'll respond as soon as I can. I'm with my niece and nephew all day today so it may be a little while. I was entirely impressed with how quickly you responded and I knew I wouldn't be able to replicate it, but I didn't want you to interpret my silence as disinterest. I'll definitely get back to you...
And by the way, you're right about Naomi Wolf's Give Me Liberty (I just started reading it), it's incredible! She's a very effective communicator, and I'm learning so much about my relationship/responsibility to the freedom movement.
Peace.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Jung
I think this is what I was trying to say last night. Matt said I sounded like Jung and you sounded like Socrates. Funny enough he just took a test on this stuff this morning.
"Jung is considered as the first modern psychologist to state that the human psyche is "by nature religious" and to explore it in depth.[1] He emphasized understanding the psyche through exploring the worlds of dreams, art, mythology, religion and philosophy."
Okay, there are so many different thoughts in my head and I know it would be confusing to put them all down at once. So, I’ll just respond/question you about one issue, and save everything else in notes for later in the discussion. That way our posts will be (comparatively) shorter and more “dialoguesque”. Because the exchange will be more frequent, I think we’ll be able to track one another more coherently.
[On a side note, I hope you don’t mind that I ask so many questions. You see, I used to be concerned about "winning" arguments, but found this to be a complete dead end and pointless (among other negative things…). All I really care about now is dialoging unto discovery, and questions help me with this. I want to understand your worldview, your ideas, and how your support them, and then contrast that with my own to discover my biases, my error. Because of this, please know that my questions are not rhetorical, they are real questions provoked by curiosity. I want to understand.]
So, here goes….
The issue I’m anxious to explore first is this: what is the means to the end? There are two reasons I find this is fundamental. First, everything else in our discussion is contingent upon this initial decision. We will not be able to discuss (much less agree!) on the veracity of any evidence, unless we have openly defined the standard by which we measure that evidence. So, the questions become: what type of evidence will we allow to constitute as proof for the existence of God? How are you and I going to agree we will achieve the knowledge we seek? [I suppose that basically I’m asking: can we agree on an epistemology? Because if not… our discussion will have to begin there, rather than a question that builds upon it (i.e. does God exist?) Do you agree with this assessment?]
The second reason that this is fundamental is because the means/path/tool which we choose to find knowledge reveals some of our basic presuppositions about reality, about the way the world works. It does this because it evidences how we think man should interact with reality to learn about it – and that of necessity says something of how we think about reality.
[Side note: the interesting question than becomes, do your means to seek truth reveal assumptions about reality that harmonize or that contradict your stated, conscious view of reality? (It’s a hard question, and when applied to myself, I’m not entirely certain of the answer. Perhaps it will clarify in my mind during this discussion).]
Okay, from your post I deduced that you would allow for two ways to achieve this knowledge of God’s existence/non-existence: observation and reason. Is that correct? I’ll work off that conclusion for now, but if I’m wrong let me know! Here are my thoughts about both as they relate to the discussion and our presuppositions.
1) Observation
You defined this question of God’s existence as a scientific inquiry, and from that definition I deduce that you rely upon observation as the only thing that can produce fact. (I gathered that from your first paragraph, and also the second to last paragraph when you use the term “nonfactual” to describe the foundation of supernatural entities.) By your definition, fact can only come into being, exist, if produced by observation? [caveat: I realize that you also reference “reason”, which I’ll get to next - though I also wonder if you value it as an inferior tool because you qualified it with the term “at least”? Anyway, what I’m concerned with right now is your definition of “fact”. Is that based solely on observation?]
I think your choice of observation to produce knowledge is entirely consistent with naturalism, with the presupposition that the material world is everything. However, I think that because of its defined limitations, observation is unsuited to ARBITRATE here. (I’m not trying to cop out and say “it’s unsuited to prove God’s existence”, for I’m declaring that it’s even unsuited to disprove it. It is unsuited to solely define the parameters of this discussion). Science, by definition, is a discipline engaged in seeking to understand and explain nature – and the tools that it employs are in harmony with that end and goal. Those tools are therefore inadequate to extend to another discipline (positing something about reality outside of the material world). They cannot determine about the “super” natural because they differ in essence from nature.
I’m not saying that observation is unprofitable. Nature IS reality (whether entirely or just a part…) and observation informs us about that reality. But, if we’re trying to determine the existence of a further, “higher” reality that is supernatural, then the tools we apply for nature are insufficient. If we were confined to this epistemology an attempt to prove or disprove the existence of the supernatural would be impossible by definition. Observation cannot inform you (positively or negatively) about the immaterial.
Even if nature, through observation, gave absolutely NO evidence for the supernatural (which I don’t even believe, I’m just using an extreme example to illustrate the point…what I truly believe is that man can infer God’s existence from nature, but that’s a mental note for later in the discussion) the lack of that type of evidence in and of itself would not indict the veracity of a claim for the supernatural, because the evidence employed to disprove the claim is of fundamentally different (more narrow) essence, and therefore purpose. It is this very difference, narrowness, that makes reliance on observation so dangerous. For if God exists outside the world (as he must, or he wouldn’t be God, the supernatural), but we employ means that are limited to nature, then we have made impossible from the START (by definition) reaching an accurate conclusion. Really, reaching any conclusion.
I’m not haranguing on observation so that I can pave the way to introduce subjective evidence (i.e. “I feel God in my heart, therefore he exists”), and actually I think that observation is essential to understanding ultimate reality, because the natural world testifies to the spiritual one. I say this rather, because lack of satisfaction for the physical senses (i.e. “I must see see God standing in front of me before I believe in his existence”), should not be construed as proof of God’s non-existence, since the goal sought (knowledge of the supernatural) is of foreign substance to the demand for knowledge through the natural, scientific means. Scientific evidence is of itself insufficient to determine the nature of ultimate reality because by definition it is confined to exploring/explaining the material world.
2) Reason
My thought on your choice of reason is exactly flip-flopped from observation. I do think that it is a reliable tool to comprehend the immaterial world, but before we use it what I want to know is:
…upon what do you justify the use of reason to achieve truth?
The usefulness of reason is based on the assumption that man can apply his brain to information and by the use of logic arrive at right/accurate/true conceptions of reality. We both accept this presupposition. This presupposition, that reason is reliable, is exonerated by my worldview: that an intelligent God exists, who created knowledge/information, and gave man the ability to think.
I don't understand, however, how this presupposition of reason is exonerated by your worldview, which cannot explain information or intelligence and cannot explain the existence of a universal, immaterial law. If your worldview cannot account for it, then upon what basis do you to employ it? Can a man use logic to justify a worldview which cannot explain the existence (and therefore veracity) of the very thing which is employed to justify it? What I’m wondering is…when you presuppose that reason will arbitrate truth, are you borrowing my worldview?
Okay, that’s it right now about observation and reason as the means by which we’ll achieve our goal. Part of me wants to include some other thoughts, but ultimately I still think it best to stick to one main idea for a post and thus make it easier for you to respond. We can build on this with other strains of the dialogue as we go, if that’s agreeable with you.
Hey, as far as trying to move forward and further our own ways of seeing the world, accepting new truth and changing our own minds when we're wrong, I'm totally down with you. But we have to be playing by the same rules. My rules, and those of science, dictate the following:
There is no such thing as the supernatural. By definition it is "outside of nature," which is the reality in which I exist, which I don't and never will presume to fully understand.
So you are right in saying it is impossible, using scientific means, to either prove or disprove god's existence as you define it (supernatural). And that is my very point. There has never been anything, ever, that is supernatural. Everything in our reality is natural. The idea that god is supernatural is the same as saying that the trees coming to life in Lord of the Rings, or a sudden reversal of gravity when Harry Potter says so is supernatural. It was invented in someone's head, as supernatural things must all be.
If you apply the rules of science in everything else in life, but break those rules to say that god can neither be proven or disproved, you are missing the point.
(By the way I find through discussion with others that is it important to note that every time I mention god I am speaking of the Judeo-Christian one that: created heaven and earth and that we must praise and follow his rules and that will decide somehow whether we go to "heaven" or "hell" and do something with our souls when we die. I am not speaking of the way people sometimes use the word god to describe things that are AS YET misunderstood in nature/science or any other lesser used version of god. Those are not god in the sense that is important to the conversation we're having, and so to bring them up both defeats the purpose and brings up a version that is also less well accepted and should probably go by another name to clear things up)
Also, you say that you believe that people can "infer god's existence through observation of nature". The word infer, as you are using it, is defined as "to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises."
And I'd say that the conclusion of god's existence can in no way be logically derived from any facts or premises. So you can go into that one if you want, but remember my stance that to assume god as a creator or designer or guider of nature assumes that god is even more complex than the nature that he creates/designs/guides, which is illogical because it doesn't solve the problem of the complexity, it only moves it up a step to "where did god come from, then?" and is therefore very unreasonable and doesn't solve any problems. (Hence the idea that I strongly stand by that god has historically been a cop out for when we don't understand some aspect of nature yet through science)
You said, "if we’re trying to determine the existence of a further, “higher” reality that is supernatural, then the tools we apply for nature are insufficient."
Well where do theists even get the idea that it is logical, fair, or moves society forward in any way to create tools, based not on reality, but the supernatural (back again to the definition of supernatural "
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous., "
to prove a supernatural being. It's just creating MORE make-believe (these tools) to prove the old make-believe (god).
You also spoke about using science's "narrow" tools (a claim that is honestly offensive) being unable to reach an accurate conclusion about the world due to its use of observation of the natural world. Well I say to you this, if science precludes the ability to find things that are immaterial or supernatural, then that is the POINT. And that's just fine with me. Again, my disbelief in god doesn't slow me down or make my life any less fulfilled in any way, except that I have to argue for the use of reason with theists.
I don't know what else to say except, since the immaterial, spiritual, supernatural world is made up, you must create tools that go beyond reason and observation (the only reliable tools that we have) and use them to prove something that otherwise could never be proven. It is this in and of itself that to me disproves god, although like I said before, NOTHING can prove or disprove god, the flying spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorns, or anything else that was created by someone's mind.
I shouldn't HAVE to explain the "existence" of immaterial "law" as you state it, because there is no proof that it exists. Therefore of course reason is not good enough to explain the immaterial. It just isn't there.
Here:
One day, thousands of years from now, I should take a fantasy book and translate it to the prevailing language and ask people to believe in the gods described therein. I will tell them that whether or not they have seen or have any evidence of these gods, they exist because I have created these new special tools called "faith" and "belief" that make use of imagination and ignorance (but I won't tell them that last part).
This is how the bibles have come to rule the lives of many people in our world.
I think I'm pretty much done with this thread. Now every time I respond it will be to explain why the tools of the supernatural make no sense to explain anything in our natural world, which is all that we have. Any other world that you might bring up is one that is simply created in brains, and is totally insignificant to trying to move forward in the world that DOES indeed exist.
Why try to explain something that cannot be explained. It's just a waste of time.
And Hannah, I'm sorry if I seem rude. I like you as a person and for most of what you stand for (and after all, my perception of you is not what is important anyway, it is what you see in yourself and your goals and motivations)
And just to save some time, maybe check out this list of Atheist quotes, because even if I haven't read them, I'm sure I'll probably agree with every single one, because like I said before, atheism is just people assuming pretty much the same set of rules about perception of reality and nature.
My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit
who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our
frail and feeble mind.
-- Albert Einstein
google.com/videoplay?docid=3929535037535102662
Here is a thought provoking documentary (full) that i think everyone should watch. Its called Jesus camp. Its about a churches indoctrination of kids from a very young age. I watched it before i got interested in ron paul, and im watching it again now since a few things have changed for me. It is sure to stir your emotions regardless of what side of the faith fence you are on. Watch it!
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3929535037535102662
My bad guys! This is the real working link to jesus camp.
Hey, just because I know there's a responsibility to be very clear in a public arena, let me rewind - because I'm not sure we tracked one another. I'll not further any arguments, just clarify my previous post.
When I said that the tools employed by natural science were unsuited to solely define an exploration of the supernatural, I didn't mean to offer "supernatural" tools (i.e.faith/belief) as the alternative...I'm sorry it appeared that way.
I meant only this: that I can't impose the means of knowledge used in science onto metaphysics, because I don't think that all evidence-based claims are proven the same way. I think that metaphysics can reliably employ another tool of knowledge, namely: the universal, immaterial law of logic; and so I posit that knowledge of the supernatural can be derived from the tools that harmonize with the metaphysical discipline.
So, here's what I've just realized: I consider the existence of the supernatural a metaphysical question and you consider it a scientific one. The evidences these disciplines permit will only harmonize to a limited extent. So, I'm thinking it would be impossible to reach a conclusion from our separate definitions...
Peace Cory!
Hannah
Post a Comment