Subject:
|
Re: The Brick Testament - More Teachings of Jesus
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 23 Oct 2006 17:50:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4421 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
Science doesn’t just accept a “we don’t know.” Where is the hypothosis? Ah,
the origin of the universe isn’t testable and therefore unable to be
scrutinized by science, so where does that leave a scientist-- hiding behind
an ignorant shrug?
|
If, by “ignorant,” you mean “lacking knowledge,” then the answer is yes.
Science definitely accepts “we don’t know,” but it doesn’t posit that as a final
explanation, either. The correct framing is “we don’t know/we think it’s like
this/here’s how we’ll test it.” If a thing requires further testing, then we’ll
give a partial answer in the meantime and continue our research. If a thing is
untestable, then we get as close to it as possible and make a guess based on and
consistent with all available evidence.
| |
| |
I think that you need to realize, though, that at that point you’re just
witnessing, and any personal revelation, no matter how profound, is just
hearsay except for the person who experienced it first-hand.
|
Except “revelation” isn’t as sexy as you make it out to be. I can get a
revelation from anywhere. One never really knows if it’s from God or not.
|
Well, then it’s up to the receiver of the revelation to verify it. It strikes
me as the height of folly to receive a revelation--from a supposed God or
otherwise--and use that for a foundation of law or behavior without first making
sure that the revelation is legit. If you can’t even determine its source, on
what basis can you conclude that it’s of any value? And if you can determine
that it’s of value without proving that it’s from God, why bother with God at
all?
| |
| |
I agree, but in that case, you kind of have to cede that your arguments are
necessarily pretty weak, since they often come down to “There are no
“facts” (verifiable by science) in religion.” That’s okay as a statement
of witnessing, but it has no merit as an argument.
|
But when we are talking about the origin of the universe, I don’t want any
“witnessing” from scientists or atheists, either.
|
There’s a huge difference, though. Science makes statements of probability,
whereas religious statements are declarations of purported fact. Even when
science speaks in definitive terms, there is always the recognition that the
terms may be revised in accordance with future evidence--that’s how science
works.
| |
| |
But if you ask 1,000 self-professed Christians, somewhere around 1,000 of
them will claim to know Jesus’ interpretation, and close to 1,000 of them
will be different. How can the fate of one’s eternal soul be based upon
such a subjective and non-verifiable “truth?”
|
I don’t think it is.
| |
Or is a different “truth” “true”
for each person?
|
There is one Truth. We may never know it (insert blind men and elephant
analogy)
|
But we’re not talking about an elephant--we’re talking about the Ultimate Truth
of the Universe! Any God who’d judge our eternal fate based on a sample size
that is incomplete-by-design is unworthy of worship. Stacking the deck in that
fashion is willfully deceptive.
| |
| |
Then the Law is arbitrary and capricious and of no inherent value unless we
have independent verification of its value (ie., verification other than
personal revelation and God’s say-so).
|
I’m not sure I follow you here, but I’d say that yes, laws should be subject
to rational scrutiny.
|
Here’s my point: if the law has value with or without God, then why bother with
God? And if the law has value only because of God, then we need an independent
verification of its value before we can conclude that it’s worth following,
except in terms of a basic threat-versus-reward framework, which is a pretty
simplistic justification for any moral system.
Additionally, if God is subject to the Law, then God is not supreme. And if the
Law is subject to God’s whim, then the law is arbitrary. Or it may be
justified, but then we need to know the reasons why it’s “this” and not
“that” before we can assess its validity.
| |
But what does “God’s word” mean? That the Bible is inerrant? I believe that
the Bible is a collection of writings over thousands of years which
contextually describe the relationship between the People of God and God.
|
I agree. Therefore, to claim with any certainty to know anything about God’s
will is foolish. At best, you can say that you are strongly confident (for
whatever reason) of your interpretation of ancient and multiply-reinterpreted
writings.
| |
I’m not catching your drift. Are you suggesting that Jesus’ referring to God
as “father” is merely attribution?
|
Of course it is, unless the Gospels were penned by Jesus himself?
| |
That makes me wonder-- what are your thoughts/beliefs WRT the concept of
“conscience” Dave!?
|
Conscience (and “mind” and “consciousness,” while we’re at it) is a shorthand
way of referring to the apparent framework emerging from a series of chemical
reactions within our brain.
Any other questions?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
86 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
