Subject:
|
Re: The Brick Testament - More Teachings of Jesus
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 24 Oct 2006 01:33:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4268 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
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.
|
But in that case, science will really never know. My belief in God can be
viewed as a “best guess” scenario as well-- given the choice of believing that
the universe spontaneously came into being, or a Creator causing it to happen
(whose origin is unknowable), I chose the latter. I could use the Bible as
supporting 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?
|
Well, it’s like an idea. Put it into practice and see if it works.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
I disagree. Religion doesn’t deal in “facts” so much as declarations of faith.
I don’t care that Catholics believe in pergatory and the divinity of Mary; I
care how their belief system works out in their daily lives.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
I don’t believe God does that. Some may, and that is why you and I are not a
part of that group, Dave!
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
The Law comes from God. The Law instructs us to be good to each other, because
we are apes with free will and not simply programmed to follow instinct.
Without instinct, we have no way of knowing how to behave (unless we revert to
instinct voluntarily).
| |
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.
|
I can’t unpack this quickly enough to respond:-/
| |
| |
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.
|
Okay, I’ll go along with that.
| |
| |
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?
|
Well, I was wondering if you thought that the Gospel writers mistakenly recorded
that Jesus used the term, or if they made it up. I strongly believe that Jesus
used this analogy. There are other attributions which I might question, but
this isn’t one of them. How do I know that? Which attributes do I pick as
genuine and which ones don’t I? Hard to say because I don’t really know. I am
willing to be agnostic about attributed miracles to Jesus, because I already
believe Jesus to be uniquely special without the added embellishment (presumably
for emphasis). I can’t think of a reason why the Father analogy would be made
up (other than some conspiracy theory-type explanation which I would reject).
| |
| |
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.
|
I love it when you get clinical, Dave!
From where does the concept of “good” originate?
:-)
JOHN
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: The Brick Testament - More Teachings of Jesus
|
| (...) 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 (...) (18 years ago, 23-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
86 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
