Life, The Universe, And Everything

[dano]

Buddy

Talk about angels, or one of those "Mother Theresa moments," or miracles or something!

 

I'm bored!

 

Speaking of Mother Theresa. Did you see where the people who are in charge of Sainting folks, figure now that she wrote all of those letters doubting God, that makes her even a better candidate?

 

GO FIGURE!

[webmdave]

The logical ambush is a common gambit here

 

As are not-so-thinly-veiled insults from apologist guests.

 

but it's not a real 'getting to know you' kind of tool

 

Which is to say, "All conversation must conform to my sensibilities, because I am the standard by which all the world is to be judged. And if there are those who WILL NOT conform to my image... they aren't worth acknowledging.

 

we both understand the care needed in avoiding language guaranteed to offend (and abruptly destroy the connection).

 

Which is as sickeningly self-righteous as anything I've had the forbearance to endure on this site .

 

Puke...

 

 

 

There weather here is beautiful, and so much more so because it is hundreds of miles away from "Dances with Angels."

[BuddyFerris]

Buddy I confess that I am struggling with my ego over here. It is trying to lay claim to something which does not belong to it. Please bear with me if I slip.

 

I'm inclined to think your motives are benign and not reptilian. The logical ambush is a common gambit here, but it's not a real 'getting to know you' kind of tool; more a trust breaker. At the same time, we both understand the care needed in avoiding language guaranteed to offend (and abruptly destroy the connection).

It took several readings of this before I understood. I think you have a strange way of communicating. Maybe I strike you the same way. I have no desire other than we should both gain. I have no interest in offending you or setting you up for offense.

 

Reasonable beginning, interesting conclusion. I'd actually like to hear how the process you describe brought you to the position you hold. Biology isn't my field, but I can follow the high level concepts (I hope). I have my own difficulties with some of the historical accounts and with many of the unaddressed issues.

Well I’d rather not rehash the evidence for evolution. I grow weary of it. I have a better idea I think. Let us explore together. There is much yet that I do not understand. I have book by a very astute theoretical biologist. It’s words are within my reach, but they exceed my grasp. If you would be willing to read it and tell me what you can glean, then I will read a book of your choosing and tell you what I can glean. How do you feel about that? I tell you though, I’m not offering you easy reading. This may take some time.

 

If you’d rather not, I’ll understand. And we can try to go through the evidence for evolution. For this was part of my path out of Christianity.

 

You'd love it here (Santa Barbara County CA); most of these houses don't even bother to have air conditioning! Sorta wish I lived here.

Man, all we have is hot right now. I hope you continue to enjoy it while you're there.

More than a generous offer; you're on. What's the book?

I'm sure I do seem to have a strange way of communicating, and I've gained the unfortunate reputation of being evasive. While I have no need to evade verbal conflict, and I'm not offended by its' appearing, I don't find heated exchange of any particular benefit. If I push the '____' button (you fill in the blank), I get mostly knee-jerk responses without benefit to either party, so I choose my words carefully in hopes of maintaining some connection to the thinking part of the other participants without causing offense. And I take a lot of flack for it.

Buddy

[Legion]

More than a generous offer; you're on. What's the book?

The book is "Life Itself" by Robert Rosen. I sincerely hope that you might see some things in there that I am missing. I warn you though he does touch on some mathematics. Large portions of it though are straight prose. I mostly just skim over the math. I hope that you will free to do the same. Even if all you glean from it is a vague impression, I'll be interested in hearing what that impression is.

 

Do you have a book that you would like me to read?

 

Listen Buddy, this is a place for ex-Christians. I hope you know what coming here entails. You are bound to catch some flack and occassional ribbing. Many of us are simply sick of Christianity. And you make a convenient target. Try not to take it personally.

[BuddyFerris]

And how do you go from here to a position where you're agnostic when it comes to science but think you're in certainty regarding your favorite religion?

 

Science might not have all the answers or have the absolute truths, and neither does religion. Science have the benefit of (and admit this) being an approximation of the "truth", or we can say "it's the best explanation we can do of nature." Science is modified when we see it is wrong. Religion on the other hand demands that you invent excuses and develop new fantasies when the old religious holy book doesn't fit reality. Religion doesn't change it's fundamental belief or it's holy scriptures even when reality and truth is glaringly contradicting it. That is a very large different in the core. Science knows it isn't perfect, but philosophically we haven't found any better way, and science try to find the best explanations and tries to find the truths. It's honest to that degree, even when a few scientists sometimes might not be. In religion your required to reject any attempt to question or finding the truth, this website is a perfect example, since we get attacked by holy warriors that tell us that we're immoral, sinners going to punished for eternity in hell, that we're the reason why every catastrophy happens to this country, and yet I have not repeaid it by going to a Christian website and flame. (I'd say I probably show a higher ethical standard then the Christians coming here, since I respect other people's belief more than they do). Religion does not encourage research or to find the truth. Science does.

 

Quantum physics might not be explained by super strings... who knows yet if that is a true model or not... but if it isn't, then it is scrapped. So far I haven't seen the false or wrong doctrines being removed from the Bible. "Hate your father and mother and follow me" said Jesus. I have asked visiting Christians on this website about that verse, and the most common explanation is that Jesus told this specifically to the Jews, not to the disciples. So why not remove it?

HanS,

Hadn't actually thought of myself as a science agnostic; probably fits after a fashion. On how I can be so certain regarding my faith, well that's what we've been talking about. I've been asked a bunch of good questions without being allowed a lot of room to answer, but it's been interesting. Tough crowd.

 

I'll grant you that science is generally honest, if begrudging, when proved wrong. I'll admit, even had you not requested I do so, that science has offered the best explanation of nature we've had so far and will probably improve on it quite a bit in the future. OK, I had to grit my teeth while writing that; I would much prefer the word description instead of explanation, but I'll let you have that one.

 

On the 'hating your father and mother' statement to which you refer, it might be worth rereading. Here's the passage in context: "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." I don't think he was speaking about some emotional feeling we're supposed to generate so that we dislike the listed people. I'm pretty sure he's showing a comparison of priorities in relationship so we can choose what comes first. This life and all that's in it, or something else.

 

I'm sure you get a lot of fire-and-brimstone vendors here; I'm really sorry that's the case. Hope I haven't left any of those kinds of tracks behind; I'd be disappointed if I had.

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

More than a generous offer; you're on. What's the book?

The book is "Life Itself" by Robert Rosen. I sincerely hope that you might see some things in there that I am missing. I warn you though he does touch on some mathematics. Large portions of it though are straight prose. I mostly just skim over the math. I hope that you will free to do the same. Even if all you glean from it is a vague impression, I'll be interested in hearing what that impression is.

 

Do you have a book that you would like me to read?

 

Listen Buddy, this is a place for ex-Christians. I hope you know what coming here entails. You are bound to catch some flack and occassional ribbing. Many of us are simply sick of Christianity. And you make a convenient target. Try not to take it personally.

OK, it's Amazon'd and on the way; should be there by the time I get home this weekend. I expect to enjoy it; the reviews are intriguing. I'll not suggest a book for now; perhaps another time I'll take you up on your offer. You needn't worry about my feelings; I haven't been offended yet, and I've tried not to push (at least not too hard) on the obvious hot buttons. For the record, I'm moderately sick of religion and church, so we have overlapping aversions.

Thanks again for the offer; quite a gentlemanly thing, uncommon.

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

... I don't exactly know what you mean by "modern thought may be incomplete or narrow enough to exclude useful knowledge." That is a broad and vague statement. For every successive age, human thought was sufficient at that time to keep our species alive on the earth. Therefore to say that "useful knowledge" is excluded is not really accurate. Useful in what sense? Sure a telephone would have been "useful" for Columbus, but he managed. I am not trying to elevate human thought unduly, just saying it was usually sufficient for the survival of the species so far.

True, human thought in every age has been sufficient to ensure survival of the species. If mere survival from age to age were sufficient in and of itself, there would be little point in the herculean labors mankind has invested in philosophy and science. It seems, though, that beyond survival, we reach for something more, continuously.

 

Your suggestion that a telephone would have been 'useful' to Columbus is an interesting offering, similar to what I've suggested before. It wouldn't have been particularly useful, even if the infrastructure were in place to support it. No one of his age was ready for it. The person who might dare to demonstrate it's use would probably have been burned at the stake for witchcraft. There are too many required pieces of understanding before a person or a culture can make that kind of advance.

 

Look at another example and then carry it into a modern context. Give a Bronze Age soldier a Huey helicopter gunship with the engine running. Visualize the terror in his eyes and the panic in the company as the blades spin around. How many generations of change are needed before his great, great whatever children can be comfortable with the Huey. Today, any high school grad with the NATOPS manual could probably get the thing off the ground. They have the intervening pieces.

 

Now in our modern context, consider the last few decades. We've seen more advances in science and medicine than the preceding millennium produced, and we have good reason to believe there's more where that came from. There's a good chance that our thinking will have to change more in the next decades than was required in the past.

 

You suggest not elevating human thought unduly. I suggest you miss elevating it at all. To the rationalist, human thought is the product of survival adaptations and little else, a description narrow enough to exclude useful knowledge on the subject. Perhaps it is much more.

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

Buddy

Talk about angels, or one of those "Mother Theresa moments," or miracles or something!

 

I'm bored!

...

Well, Dano, what can we offer to spice up your day? How about ... ok, you'll love this. I was praying one evening at a gathering, nothing special, just talking to God about stuff, when a picture pops into my mind. It's of a Navy C-12 (Beechcraft twin) parked on the ramp at some airport. The picture doesn't go away, so I figure I'll look around (no kidding, really weird; I may have said a word or two to God about it). I go up to the plane and open the forward compartment in the nose (never done that in real life) and take out the flight logbook and open it. On the first page I read is the name of a fellow I know and an entry for Aviation Safety Officer training with the instruction number after it. I haven't got a clue what this is about, but the fellow whose name is in the book has just come in at the back of the church, so I go tell him what I saw. He smiles and tells me he's leaving the next week for Naval Aviation Safety program training; he's gonna be the ASO on a project coming up.

 

Now why would that happen? Of what use would that be to the fellow?

Several questions come to mind regarding the picture (vision); is it consistent with the scriptural models? Does it avoid conflict with what I know of God's ways? Does it fit the purpose assigned to such things by scripture?

The answer to all three is yes. I'll let you figure out why that would happen and what use it might serve for the fellow.

 

Maybe that will keep you entertained for a few hours.

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

I have been on vacation for two weeks and have lots to catch up on. However, one thing remains unchanged from the beginning of this thread. Buddy, you still skirt the issues and give quasi answers if you offer any at all.

Quasi-welcome back, pal. You've got some catch-up reading to do. Read carefully; we've been using big words. :wink:

Buddy

[Ouroboros]

On the 'hating your father and mother' statement to which you refer, it might be worth rereading. Here's the passage in context: "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." I don't think he was speaking about some emotional feeling we're supposed to generate so that we dislike the listed people. I'm pretty sure he's showing a comparison of priorities in relationship so we can choose what comes first. This life and all that's in it, or something else.

So why doesn't the Bible explain it? Why is it placed there with the risk of being interpreted wrongly? Didn't God inspire the word after all, or did he intentionally want people to be confused? You can explain it, then why couldn't God?

 

I'm sure you get a lot of fire-and-brimstone vendors here; I'm really sorry that's the case. Hope I haven't left any of those kinds of tracks behind; I'd be disappointed if I had.

Not with me, you haven't. I think you and I had a fairly good conversation.

 

--edit--

 

I would much prefer the word description instead of explanation, but I'll let you have that one.

I assume that what you're referring to is that science can describe nature, while religion gives you the reason "why". Well, that's your prerogative.

 

So far I don't think there's one religin that really can explain the "why" without causing a cascade of more questions to "why". For instance why did God intentionally make Adam and Eve dumb enough not to understand the difference between right and wrong, and then plant a tree with a fruit that would give them exactly that ability, and then require them to understand the difference between right and wrong by demanding them not to eat from the same fruit that would give them that ability? It was clearly a setup. And I can only expect your answer is that God intentionally did this to prove that Free Will is what would cause the downfall of men, and Free Will in that sense is evil and will only lead to separation from God. Hence, Free Will was given to prove that Free Will is bad. Or maybe God was just plain stupid... maybe his omniscience hadn't kicked in yet?

 

Buddy, why is the "truth" about God not obvious? Why do we have to have religious interpretors to figure out what the Word of God really means? Is it because it's more important to God that we have a quest for truth rather than really knowing it? If so, then why isn't it enough to just have a inquisitive mind to be saved, why does one have to know the "absolute truth" to be saved when obviously God doesn't care about giving us any absolute answers? So in the in, maybe the answer is that I'm more saved than you, because I'm skeptic and ask more questions, and you are less saved because you don't search but just believe other peoples interpretations of the Word?

[Deva]

Now in our modern context, consider the last few decades. We've seen more advances in science and medicine than the preceding millennium produced, and we have good reason to believe there's more where that came from. There's a good chance that our thinking will have to change more in the next decades than was required in the past.

 

You suggest not elevating human thought unduly. I suggest you miss elevating it at all. To the rationalist, human thought is the product of survival adaptations and little else, a description narrow enough to exclude useful knowledge on the subject. Perhaps it is much more.

Buddy

 

So where does thought originate and what is human thought the product of? I suppose from your statement that you deny evolution and natural selection and attribute human thought and everything else to God. If so, why not just simply state that honestly? Maybe you already did earlier in the thread and I missed it.

 

Now please address this --how does this progression in human technological knowledge prove your position that there is a universal moral standard and it apparantly is the Christian God?

 

We finally agree on the fact that thinking will have to change more than was required in the past. It must because now we have the means to destroy ourselves with nuclear weapons and in other horrifying ways not available to us in the past.

[Ouroboros]

You suggest not elevating human thought unduly. I suggest you miss elevating it at all. To the rationalist, human thought is the product of survival adaptations and little else, a description narrow enough to exclude useful knowledge on the subject. Perhaps it is much more.

And perhaps the nose wasn't only "created" to give humans the ability to smell, but also to be a perfect fit and support for the glasses we wear.

 

And maybe the hair isn't only some vestigial feature, but was "created" so we can have innovative hairdo's.

 

And maybe the nails were "created" so women could paint them.

 

And maybe the skull was made to perfectly fit the hats.

 

I've noticed how the religious mind works backwards to explain the functionality of things. They want the mind to be "something more" because they just can't accept things for what they just are. Of some reason it is very hard for our minds to accept it is just a fragile product of nature.

 

What exactly do you mean when you say "narrow enough to exclude useful knowledge on the subject"?

[Deva]

What exactly do you mean when you say "narrow enough to exclude useful knowledge on the subject"?

 

Yeah, Hans, that statement seemed strange to me too. Trying to figure out what Buddy means by some of his statments is like trying to piece together a giant jigsaw puzzle. Its wearing me down to figure out the special meanings he is giving words. For example, what does "useful" mean in the above phrase?

 

Buddy is compelled to maintain that human thought must be elevated and cannot be produced by a natural means. Otherwise, how could we be special creations "in the image of God?".

 

Obviously he is arguing backwards. The Bible is true fact, it is the Word of God, and, by god, he is going to make it work, no matter what.

[dano]

Buddy

Talk about angels, or one of those "Mother Theresa moments," or miracles or something!

 

I'm bored!

...

Well, Dano, what can we offer to spice up your day? How about ... ok, you'll love this. I was praying one evening at a gathering, nothing special, just talking to God about stuff, when a picture pops into my mind. It's of a Navy C-12 (Beechcraft twin) parked on the ramp at some airport. The picture doesn't go away, so I figure I'll look around (no kidding, really weird; I may have said a word or two to God about it). I go up to the plane and open the forward compartment in the nose (never done that in real life) and take out the flight logbook and open it. On the first page I read is the name of a fellow I know and an entry for Aviation Safety Officer training with the instruction number after it. I haven't got a clue what this is about, but the fellow whose name is in the book has just come in at the back of the church, so I go tell him what I saw. He smiles and tells me he's leaving the next week for Naval Aviation Safety program training; he's gonna be the ASO on a project coming up.

 

Now why would that happen? Of what use would that be to the fellow?

Several questions come to mind regarding the picture (vision); is it consistent with the scriptural models? Does it avoid conflict with what I know of God's ways? Does it fit the purpose assigned to such things by scripture?

The answer to all three is yes. I'll let you figure out why that would happen and what use it might serve for the fellow.

 

Maybe that will keep you entertained for a few hours.

Buddy

 

 

Thanks for giving me something to work with.

 

Don't think I'm ignoring you by not making some kind of sarcastic response to you post right now, but I have others to insult besides you.

 

Be patient I'll get back to you.

[freeman]

On the 'hating your father and mother' statement to which you refer, it might be worth rereading. Here's the passage in context: "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." I don't think he was speaking about some emotional feeling we're supposed to generate so that we dislike the listed people. I'm pretty sure he's showing a comparison of priorities in relationship so we can choose what comes first. This life and all that's in it, or something else.

 

I'm sure you get a lot of fire-and-brimstone vendors here; I'm really sorry that's the case. Hope I haven't left any of those kinds of tracks behind; I'd be disappointed if I had.

Buddy

 

Buddy, you have had answers for everything (your words must be inspired by god) but have not taken any of the passages stated in this thread literally. So, if the bible is not literal, in most cases to you, what makes jesus literal? Have you yet read the book recommended to you by Jim Avro?

[BuddyFerris]

On the 'hating your father and mother' statement to which you refer, it might be worth rereading. Here's the passage in context: "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." I don't think he was speaking about some emotional feeling we're supposed to generate so that we dislike the listed people. I'm pretty sure he's showing a comparison of priorities in relationship so we can choose what comes first. This life and all that's in it, or something else.

So why doesn't the Bible explain it? Why is it placed there with the risk of being interpreted wrongly? Didn't God inspire the word after all, or did he intentionally want people to be confused? You can explain it, then why couldn't God?

 

That's one of the larger questions of the ages, HanS. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that the Bible faces the same problem a ship's captain faces. Everything the captain says is channeled into several paths. If he says to the XO at breakfast that the eggs were good, the XO tells the supply officer who doubles the egg order and tells the mess decks team to make sure the eggs on the line are hot. The supply clerk calls in his markers getting extra eggs in the next port, and a sister ship gets shorted because the logistics are messed up now. The cooks fix more eggs, because they need to use up what they have on schedule. Meanwhile, the sailors on the mess decks are complaining because there's a million eggs and no pancakes. All the captain had in mind was that breakfast was good that morning, nothing more.

 

The passage we're talking about is a simple one, spoken in the language of the time, telling them to choose what is going to be first in their lives. If we read the chapter, that's fairly clear. If we get hung up on one word and extract it from the context, we wind up with too many eggs, figuratively speaking.

 

... So far I don't think there's one religin that really can explain the "why" without causing a cascade of more questions to "why". For instance why did God intentionally make Adam and Eve dumb enough not to understand the difference between right and wrong, and then plant a tree with a fruit that would give them exactly that ability, and then require them to understand the difference between right and wrong by demanding them not to eat from the same fruit that would give them that ability? It was clearly a setup. And I can only expect your answer is that God intentionally did this to prove that Free Will is what would cause the downfall of men, and Free Will in that sense is evil and will only lead to separation from God. Hence, Free Will was given to prove that Free Will is bad. Or maybe God was just plain stupid... maybe his omniscience hadn't kicked in yet?

 

Buddy, why is the "truth" about God not obvious? Why do we have to have religious interpretors to figure out what the Word of God really means? Is it because it's more important to God that we have a quest for truth rather than really knowing it? If so, then why isn't it enough to just have a inquisitive mind to be saved, why does one have to know the "absolute truth" to be saved when obviously God doesn't care about giving us any absolute answers? So in the in, maybe the answer is that I'm more saved than you, because I'm skeptic and ask more questions, and you are less saved because you don't search but just believe other peoples interpretations of the Word?

There are many 'why' questions that I can't answer. My personal view on the truth about God is that it is obvious, at least initially, to pretty much everyone. Difficulties arise subsequent to that understanding when we get caught up in the 'eggs'. The captain didn't intend anyone to spend any particular effort on the 'eggs' comment beyond perhaps complementing the cook. He's moved on with the business of the ship underway and will be somewhat disappointed later to discover how much effort has been misapplied.

 

You may well be more saved than I, HanS.

Buddy

(Retired Navy; can you tell?)

[BuddyFerris]

...

What exactly do you mean when you say "narrow enough to exclude useful knowledge on the subject"?

When my daughter was in the 6th grade, she had a study hall teacher who spent a semester teaching them the Dewey decimal system, library science, categories of information and information systems, complete with regular tests. Not bad, actually, although a bit much for 6th grade. My daughter's opinion was that the library lady was thoroughly persuaded to the centrality of her field, that any reasonable person should agree with her, and that to go forward in life without the library skills would be a guarantee of failure. We laughed and moved on, but the illustration has been useful to us both. The library lady is an example of thinking that is narrow enough to exclude useful knowledge; she knew where to find art and artists in the library, but she knew little of the artist's world and nothing of what motivates an artist to create.

Buddy

[Sparrow]

Good morning, Sparrow.

1 - I came here for the conversation, not conversion. 2 - Feel free to participate.

 

1- Some conversation Buddy!! You make a statement, people disagree, tell you why they disagree, then ask you what you think – after which you either twist it to mean something else entirely, or ignore it.

 

By no standards is this a conversion.

 

2 – I tried to participate before, but you rudely and pointedly ignored me even after my most polite questions and statements, and judging by this reply, your strategy is that you either wait till someone is insulting – thereby allowing yourself to feign insult and a wounded attitude with a “how could you possibly speak to me like that when I was soooooooooo polite.???”, or sarcastically imply you’re talking to some low-brow (I’ll come back to this point later)

 

 

Buddy, what you are failing to understand it, even though you seemingly acknowledge it on some level, is that no matter what strategy you try here – it is extremely unlikely it hasn’t already been experienced by us here - nurmerous times before.

 

You are just number 9XXX in a list of christians who have come here for a “conversation”. You all say the same things, you all try differing variations of “I’m so wounded, how could you”, etc,etc, etc.

 

The truth is Buddy, and you can stop straight away with the “negative experience from christians” plea (yeah, we’ve heard this one numerous times before too), you’re all the same.

 

I'm well aware that the regulars here have experience with Christians, mostly negative from the accounts. I didn't come to change their opinion about Christians. I came strictly for my own benefit, intellectual and relational. If you would prefer that I not post here, try not responding on the thread. Should that be the consensus, I'll be out of folks with whom to swap thoughts, and will by default be gone.

 

Doubt that very much Buddy. You’re here for a reason and you’re not being very honest about it. Whilst it is surely possible that you may not even know why you’re here, I strongly suspect that you do.

 

I hope the conversation will be mutually beneficial; perhaps thought provoking, perhaps a way to pass time or a place to vent.

 

Like I said “Some conversation!” Conversations are two way things – an educated person like yourself should know this without being specifically told.

 

I'd prefer a little less adversarial, but otherwise, we're good. I don't need enemies, nor do I need to win. Like everyone else, I need to think and am provoked to do so by folks who think differently than I.

 

Buddy

 

No Buddy. You’re clearly not here for this. You have over fifty pages of thought provoking replies and conversations, and what has it resulted in? Nothing!

 

It’s a snake chasing it’s own tail. The same question has been asked, posed, answered, re-asked, re-worded, re-answered, etc, so many times.

 

Like I said some time back – don’t mistake stubbornness for tenacity.

 

Final word - about you’re attitude – a number of people here have remarked about your arrogance. Universities are a dime a dozen and every big town has one, so you’re not the only one on this forum who’s done post-grad’ studies, has a major and a PhD in something, so you stick that not-so-subtle snobbery some place else.

[Mankey]

...

What exactly do you mean when you say "narrow enough to exclude useful knowledge on the subject"?

When my daughter was in the 6th grade, she had a study hall teacher who spent a semester teaching them the Dewey decimal system, library science, categories of information and information systems, complete with regular tests. Not bad, actually, although a bit much for 6th grade. My daughter's opinion was that the library lady was thoroughly persuaded to the centrality of her field, that any reasonable person should agree with her, and that to go forward in life without the library skills would be a guarantee of failure. We laughed and moved on, but the illustration has been useful to us both. The library lady is an example of thinking that is narrow enough to exclude useful knowledge; she knew where to find art and artists in the library, but she knew little of the artist's world and nothing of what motivates an artist to create.

Buddy

Any artist still living can be interviewed. Some have been interviewed. Such books or magazines might even be in the library. In order to really understand an artists world and what might motivate an artist to create, one would need superpowers like experiencing the artists thoughts. So now you know the mind of God?

 

Thats all you got is faith. Nothing else.

 

Buddy:

To summarize: modern thought (particularly the popular version) may be incomplete or narrow enough to exclude useful knowledge.

You can not build your argument by complaining about the human condition. Human limitations in no way proves your superstition. Give us an example that actually demonstrates a divine external standard. You can't do it. You know you can't. Even if there is a creator it sure as hell doesn't operate the way you think, just by observation of the world. Your idol does not exist. If anyone is narrow minded it is you. You have no respect for parsimony when it comes to your prejudice that your God exists. You have no reason to believe what you believe. You can't even prove your God exists even to yourself....not rationally. Just faith. Faith is the truth of the deluded.

 

God damn old man. I may be just an ignernt hillbilly idealist but you aint proved shit. Even I can see that.

[Ouroboros]

That's one of the larger questions of the ages, HanS. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that the Bible faces the same problem a ship's captain faces. Everything the captain says is channeled into several paths. If he says to the XO at breakfast that the eggs were good, the XO tells the supply officer who doubles the egg order and tells the mess decks team to make sure the eggs on the line are hot. The supply clerk calls in his markers getting extra eggs in the next port, and a sister ship gets shorted because the logistics are messed up now. The cooks fix more eggs, because they need to use up what they have on schedule. Meanwhile, the sailors on the mess decks are complaining because there's a million eggs and no pancakes. All the captain had in mind was that breakfast was good that morning, nothing more.

And yet a ship seems to work better than that. So seeing it from that light, God is less capable of handling information that humans. How is that possible? The incompetent God who created a universe!

 

The passage we're talking about is a simple one, spoken in the language of the time, telling them to choose what is going to be first in their lives. If we read the chapter, that's fairly clear. If we get hung up on one word and extract it from the context, we wind up with too many eggs, figuratively speaking.

And yet, some have taken it literally. It's a very well used verse in some of the few thousand odd cults of Christianity where it's used to cut the members off from the rest of the family. It's used as a tool of control to manipulate and destroy families in the name of Jesus and hurt people by teaching false ideas. But I don't expect you to know what and how a extreme fundamentalist cult behaves, literally speaking.

 

There are many 'why' questions that I can't answer. My personal view on the truth about God is that it is obvious, at least initially, to pretty much everyone. Difficulties arise subsequent to that understanding when we get caught up in the 'eggs'. The captain didn't intend anyone to spend any particular effort on the 'eggs' comment beyond perhaps complementing the cook. He's moved on with the business of the ship underway and will be somewhat disappointed later to discover how much effort has been misapplied.

"Truth about God is obvious"? Well, only if your mind have the ability to fantasize about it. I used to be very certain that there at least were a God. Now, I have a hard time even imagine it. It's not like it was anything intentional to it, slowly the belief faded away and now, philosophically and logically, I haven't seen any argument that gives me a reasonable explanation how there could be a God (the Judeo-Christian kind). Any argument I hear there is at least one hole in it or more. If God existed he/she/it wouldn't be of the kind we most of the time talk about.

 

But yet Buddy, there's a big step from being a Deist to being a Judeo-Christian-Theist. It takes more than just a gut feeling that there might be a God out there who started the Big Bang. Somehow you believe that God inspired a book that is riddled with errors and problems, and yet you still believe that some things in that Book are absolutes. From your parallel with the boat and the problem with communication, are you absolutely certain that the story about Jesus death and resurrection is supposed to be taken literally, or if it was originally intended to be a spiritual story for a religion like the Gnostics, and it wasn't historically true at all. Maybe you interpret the Big Story of the Bible completely wrong? Maybe there was a Jesus, a sage, that had a small following, but no miracles really happened, and he wasn't the savior or the son of God, but followers made up the legend and myths over time and the story too a life on its own. (It does happen, don't tell me myths needs to have 200 years to develop, because there are modern day examples to prove the opposite - in our modern, high tech, highly educated world on top of that)

 

You may well be more saved than I, HanS.

Yeah, who knows. Right?

 

(Retired Navy; can you tell?)

I think I remembered that from one of the earlier posts, so it didn't surprise me at all.

 

You're absolutely right about the problems of communication, but you have to realize that you apply that problem of communication to a being that can take full control of the bits and bytes of the source code of the system. God never had a problem making you a believer did he? So why does he fail so much with the majority of the world? If you consider him as a business owner, he didn't implement procedures to handle when miscommunications occur. I have had business partners that do a better job to overcome this problem than God, and yet God is omniscient. Very unimpressive. Consider that the Catholic Church was in control of this information for 1,000 years, and no non-cleric person were allowed to learn, study or touch the Bible. It took God that long to implement freedom of his holy book, and mostly through a process that landed us here, where the majority of Europe now do not believe in these fairy tales. Either God is very incompetent or he experiments way too much, and if Hell is the punishment for the individuals that don't match his little rat-maze conditions, that he's quite immoral in human sense. After all the mad scientist have no responsibility to his lab rats.

 

Maybe the whole mess of different revelations of the many religions and denominations are just part of his experiment? Maybe he wants us to run around and he's measuring and probing to see our reactions? Maybe the Jesus trick wasn't more than one of the cheeses he placed somewhere just to see what happens next? How would you know if it wasn't like this? God does have the best resources to fool us if he wanted to do this, so honestly we wouldn't know.

[Vigile]

In order to really understand an artists world and what might motivate an artist to create, one would need superpowers like experiencing the artists thoughts. So now you know the mind of God?

 

I think what Buddy is saying is that god lives in that touchy feely place that cannot be catalogued.

 

It was interesing in the film Good Will Hunting, making a good point about those intangibles that cannot be found in books; such as how the Cistine Chapel smells. It proves something about the human experience, but it doesn't come anywhere close to even an insinuation that maybe, just maybe there's something more hiding in the nether reaches of special pleading.

 

See Buddy, I can be cryptic to.

[Ouroboros]

...

What exactly do you mean when you say "narrow enough to exclude useful knowledge on the subject"?

When my daughter was in the 6th grade, she had a study hall teacher who spent a semester teaching them the Dewey decimal system, library science, categories of information and information systems, complete with regular tests. Not bad, actually, although a bit much for 6th grade. My daughter's opinion was that the library lady was thoroughly persuaded to the centrality of her field, that any reasonable person should agree with her, and that to go forward in life without the library skills would be a guarantee of failure. We laughed and moved on, but the illustration has been useful to us both. The library lady is an example of thinking that is narrow enough to exclude useful knowledge; she knew where to find art and artists in the library, but she knew little of the artist's world and nothing of what motivates an artist to create.

Buddy

I see. you compare the scientist to this librarian, and think that scientists are narrow minded to the extent of excluding the possibilites of supernatural explanations to certain phenomenon. You're absolutely right, because they have to.

 

You can't prove the unprovable. Science is about finding the natural explanations of phenomenon, not invent unprovable fairy tales to explain them. For instance Newton didn't come up with a theory of gravity pixies that pulls objects to Earth. He didn't make a formula that calculated how many of these pixies were required for different objects, or make up some idea where pixies were attracted to certain objects more than others. Or maybe tha gravity pull should be explained in Jesus love power? Maybe the gravity pull is based on how much Jesus loves the object and Earth? I mean, you can't explain the world that way.

 

What you're asking for is basically to open up the view to all ideas that exists. To open up science to approve your religion, it also has to open up to all alternative religions or ideas. That would mean that Allah, Jehova, Brahman, and many other gods need to share the place as the creataors, and we could try to make a probability calculation for which god creator fits best to the observed phenomenon. I think the Hinduism could be a better candidate... What about Ahura Mazda? Why isn't that God part of your religion? After all he most likely predates Jehova, and you still have a small faithful group of believers somewhere in Persia, and maybe they're the only ones going to Heaven. IIRC the Zoroastrians are the ones who came up with the concept of Satan, demons and angels before the Jews, and salvation from sin... and Mithras (the savior who fight the evil, the sun god and the son of the high God, and even depicted with a halo around his head) later influenced some of the imagery of Jesus. So if these guys had the revelations from God first with the "news", then why not go to the root of the religion and believe in this original faith? I even think I read the Zoroastrianism is fairly universal when it comes to salvation too. So maybe they have the true revelation of God?

 

--edit--

 

Buddy, how do you figure the scientists are close minded and can't see alternative explanation, when you have locked yourself into a specific belief without allowing yourself to be open minded about which religion to be true or what interpretation of the Bible to be the correct one? Have you looked into Gnosticism, and do you consider their view of Christ and/or salvation to be wrong? Are you like the librarian by only trying to explain the universe, existence and life through the close minded and color glasses of your religion, and not allowing yourself to consider other faiths to have the answers? Just things for you to ponder.

[Sparrow]

What ..

Buddy

What you're asking for is basically to open up the view to all ideas that exists. To open up science to approve your religion, it also has to open up to all alternative religions or ideas. That would mean that Allah, Jehova, Brahman, and many other gods need to share the place as the creataors, and we could try to make a probability calculation for which god creator fits best to the observed phenomenon. I think the Hinduism could be a better candidate... What about Ahura Mazda? Why isn't that God part of your religion? After all he most likely predates Jehova, and you still have a small faithful group of believers somewhere in Persia, and maybe they're the only ones going to Heaven. IIRC the Zoroastrians are the ones who came up with the concept of Satan, demons and angels before the Jews, and salvation from sin... and Mithras (the savior who fight the evil, the sun god and the son of the high God, and even depicted with a halo around his head) later influenced some of the imagery of Jesus. So if these guys had the revelations from God first with the "news", then why not go to the root of the religion and believe in this original faith? I even think I read the Zoroastrianism is fairly universal when it comes to salvation too. So maybe they have the true revelation of God?

 

 

This is a good point HanSolo.

 

It never fails to amaze me why believers always try to rip something like “science” open so that it covers things it was never meant to cover. It’s like trying to use a wall-clock to cut down a tree or sail to the North Pole on a laser-printer. It’s like making a motor-mechanic responsible for psychology and publishing of children’s books. It’s weird.

 

The Christian seems so obsessed with having the legitimacy of “scientific approval” that they’re clearly, as we’ve seen with their attempt to include creationism in a scientific curriculum, to alter the very definition of science itself – all to make it fit.

 

Buddy’s’ whinge about science needing to be broader so it can include the “supernatural” and “undefined” is laughable. It’s a “let’s define the indefinable, by re-defining the definition of the definable” exercise.

 

Good catch HanSolo!

 

Spatz

[BuddyFerris]

...

Final word - about you’re attitude – a number of people here have remarked about your arrogance. Universities are a dime a dozen and every big town has one, so you’re not the only one on this forum who’s done post-grad’ studies, has a major and a PhD in something, so you stick that not-so-subtle snobbery some place else.

Sparrow,

This opportunity to vent has been brought to you by Christian number 9xxx who shows up here with several motives all of which are quite clear to you if not to others or even himself. Feel free.

 

I haven't deliberately ignored you or anyone else, pal, although I've let pass a number of posts that I thought I had addressed in responses to others. I did skip some that looked like rabbit trails which I'll admit I haven't gotten back to. I'll try to take the time tonight after work to track back to your specific questions and take a shot at answering.

 

My education is self-imposed and largely non-traditional. I've got some diplomas which look good on a resume but little formal classroom; it takes longer that way, but I get to pursue my interests as I please. I don't think I've suggested otherwise. For future reference, I am a low-brow commoner. (A high-brow is a person who can listen to the William Tell overture without thinking of the Lone Ranger.) PhD means 'piled higher and deeper 'in my world, and folks who rate the title don't use it unless they're bucking for a promotion.

 

Surprisingly, not everyone agrees with you. I may be hard to nail down to a position you recognize and can answer with stock objections, but that's not uncommon in human interaction. Neither of us may truly understand the other's position yet.

Buddy

[Ouroboros]

It never fails to amaze me why believers always try to rip something like “science” open so that it covers things it was never meant to cover. It’s like trying to use a wall-clock to cut down a tree or sail to the North Pole on a laser-printer. It’s like making a motor-mechanic responsible for psychology and publishing of children’s books. It’s weird.

 

The Christian seems so obsessed with having the legitimacy of “scientific approval” that they’re clearly, as we’ve seen with their attempt to include creationism in a scientific curriculum, to alter the very definition of science itself – all to make it fit.

 

Buddy’s’ whinge about science needing to be broader so it can include the “supernatural” and “undefined” is laughable. It’s a “let’s define the indefinable, by re-defining the definition of the definable” exercise.

And if we should include the ideas of supernatural explanations to natural phenomenon, then why can't religion return the favor by allowing and accepting science to be the explanations of natural phenomenon? Why? If science is demanded to be open minded, why can't religion also be? If evolution really does work and really does happen and really did happen, then why does religion demand science to drop it in favor of a fantasy story? If this world have to survive, then we have to play the game tit-for-tat, and religion have to extend the same courtesy it demands.