Science and religion

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

To some extent I agree, but I think there is more to this. We certainly have our own reason to wade through the claims of others, or is this of no value when facing the claims of our parents? If our parents say "The sky is green, the ocean is blue" we accept the arbitrary difference? Hopefully not.

I imagine you had your own faculties of reason, and if those faculties noticed what seemed to be a problem, you asked your instructor. If your instructor's reply is unsatisfactory, you can read a book, ask another teacher, ect. Similarly, your patients have their own faculties of reason and can ask questions of you, or have a second opinion.

Also, isn't their a hierachry of concern? If someone says, for example, "I met a guy named James in England; he was a nice fellow." why should I reject this? I'm not sure I'd care enough to explore a rejection, and even if I did, what could I do? Go look for James? But if someone says "God is here!" or "God is there!" this is very serious, and important - worth a great deal of investigation, and careful consideration. Further, there is no reason to accept something until you are certain about it when the matter is so significant. For James, who care? For God, great care should be taken.

I agree about the hierarchy. But the problem is not only a question of testimony, but the fact that we cannot locate a Jesus or Mohammed, peace be upon them, to examine their person's, body and mind to see what they may be, -to have said what they said. We have plenty of evidence of people with schizophrenia hearing voices. We have plenty of evidence for true believers being gd nuts. We do not only have testimony, but testimony on testimony, and in the case of the old testiment we have separate hands and redactions too. The common thread to all religions is support of local morality. If religions were not good for people, then those following them would die out. This is happening in America.

Churches have to advertize, when, if they doing their job people would flock to them. In both open, and in subtle ways churches justify cruelty to themselves and others. And this has been a trend especially in the third world where the churches that preach that man has no right to justice on this earth are doing the best against those who preach justice. Why. Inevitably those which preach acceptence win because the other course leads to frustration. If the parish priest is preaching justice against the will of some guilded bishop, then failure is not an option, but a certainty. Even if you grant that all Jesus talked about transended this time, this place, and this reality; organizations, forms if you prefer, should work for justice, and be certain they are just. But, these preachers of the word, and these givers of testimony cannot hear what they are saying because they are condemned out of their own mouths. So what can anyone who wants to believe in God do but find God after their own fashion. Words are words, but if you tend to believe in a creator the evidence is everywhere. If you believe in a kind and benevolent God, then you provide your own evidence by being the hand of God. But, while I am still what I was raised as, a Catholic, I can no more follow their rules than the next. My church, like every other, puts God in church to imprison and manipulate God. They control, and if you cannot see the strings between their hand and their puppet, get some glasses. People do not need testimony to believe in God, but they do need testimony to believe in a certain kind of God. I cannot believe in a certain kind of God, so testimony is wasted on me.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

I doubt it. Paul's Gospel was the last written Gospel, much to late to influence the earlier works of Mathew or Mark, or even Luke. Not to ignore the influence of Paul and his Gospel - from that text, many concepts were adopted by mainstream Christianity which are not found anywhere else in the Gospels.

I think you are wrong here. There was no gospel of Paul. The Acts of the Apostles where Paul, the johnny cum lately of all Apostles, was the main star, was written by Luke, and luke also wrote the first Gospel. Pauls part in defining the new church against the backdrop of Judaism earn for him a prominant part in the services of the Catholic church even today. Paul was part Greek, and from that position he made Christianity palatable to the Romans. If you want to read about this period in exhaustive detail you can read James the Brother of Jesus, I think by Issenburg, I'll have to check the name.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

For James, who care? For God, great care should be taken.

How come? People make individualistic claims about God and about the world all the time. Every single presidential candidate, regardless of beliefs, panders to people by invoking God -- so do you need to even consider their statements at all?

When people make assertions about Jesus, I don't even pay attention let alone explore those assertions. Why? Because I'm Jewish, and Jesus is not part of my religion. He has great importance to other people, and I respect other people's belief systems insofar as I respect other people in general -- but as far as I'm concerned it's not relevant to me.

Little children, when they're preoperational (1-3 years old) and concrete operational (~ 4-10 years old) will often accept things on authority. And it's at THIS stage in our lives that we are first taught about God according to the religious tradition in which we're raised. Because of this, we enter our abstract operational phase, i.e. adolescence and adulthood, with points of view that we've never questioned. And that leads many of us to either irrationally accept or irrationally reject religious teaching, and convince ourselves through some process of rationalization that we're really exploring or verifying.

So I don't agree with you that an assertion about God MUST be something important that we have to investigate -- because by the time we reach the point of making this judgement at all, we're already biased by a long and complex process of being taught. If you're firm in your faith, then why would you bother to investigate some new claim about God? If I'm firm in my general indifference to claims about God, then why would I bother to investigate any further?

[Didymos Thomas]

Aedes -

How come? People make individualistic claims about God and about the world all the time. Every single presidential candidate, regardless of beliefs, panders to people by invoking God -- so do you need to even consider their statements at all?

You ask me why after I've given a post as to why...

Regardless, yes, people make claims all of the time, most of them are familiar. But, yes, I'd say when someone makes a claim about God, it is worth considering. If you've heard the claims before, and know better, might as well ignore them, but if not, might as well investigate.

When people make assertions about Jesus, I don't even pay attention let alone explore those assertions. Why? Because I'm Jewish, and Jesus is not part of my religion. He has great importance to other people, and I respect other people's belief systems insofar as I respect other people in general -- but as far as I'm concerned it's not relevant to me.

Jesus, as with any other figure, is as much a part of your religion as you make him. Jesus was a Jew who preached to Jews. But I think I see your point - if Jesus does not play a role in your considerations, why should you consider explaination that involve him? Good question.

The answer is that maybe you shouldn't. If Jesus does not fit the notions that you understand, then I see no reason for you to worry much about him.

So I don't agree with you that an assertion about God MUST be something important that we have to investigate -- because by the time we reach the point of making this judgement at all, we're already biased by a long and complex process of being taught.

The problem is that I am critical of that bias, and am advocating values that work to correct such bias. You spoke of an early irrational rejection/acceptence of religious teaching. At the time, I made a rejection. Without reconsidering the subject, I would have continued with various delusions. Deep consideration has proven fruitful thus far.

My problem is that if the belief, or even lack of belief, is made on an irrational basis, and a rational basis is not built, the belief is arbitrary, of no use. What good is a belief you do not understand?

If you're firm in your faith, then why would you bother to investigate some new claim about God?

What good is to be firm about something you do not understand? Isn't that just blockheadedness (and if that isn't a word, it should be)?
If I maintain that there is a giant flying spagetti monster that rules the universe, and that all other religous perspectives are wrong, what good is this?

If I'm firm in my general indifference to claims about God, then why would I bother to investigate any further?

If you're indifferent, why should you care? Because everything you do, and everything everyone else does, influences you and everything else.
But, I guess my question is, if you are indifferent, why are you discussing the matter with me?

Fido - I always do that, people say Paul, my mind registers John. I'm sorry, and you are right about his influence, ect.
You are also right about Luke writing the Acts, but even if we accept the early date for the Gospel of Luke (60-61), the non-canonnical Gospel of Thomas was written 50-55. Regardless, most scholars think that Mark was written prior to, and used as a reference for, Mathew and Luke. It's doubtful Luke's was the first Gospel.

[NeitherExtreme]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Well, I think that if by God or by natural processes the basic operations of the universe remain consistent, then we should judge all things rationally or no things rationally. If God operates inconsistently (like establishing laws of nature and then violating them with miracles), then we'll never know when to be rational and when not to. The third possibility is that it's our own reason that's faulty, and we must always question what we think we understand.

I think you hit on a few key points here, and some of them I still get confused by... (There are lots of views on God and miracles, so I'll just talk frome my own theistic/Biblical point of view.)

I would start by saying that I can't think of any reason (other than that it might offend me) that God could/should not create an ordered universe and then involve Himself in its affairs as time goes on. If such a God exists, then it is His own choice as to when and how He will act... And I wouldn't say that if he chooses to create exceptions to those laws that this would be "violating" them since He created them for His own purposes in the first place, and they do not rule over Him. And since I believe that one of His purposes in creating was to have relationship with humanity, I am not surprised if He uses His creation to relate to them. As far as how that affects our reasoning... well, I agree that that's kinda tricky. One thing though is that from a theistic point of view, logic/reason/mind is only a part of who we are. We can not live solely based on reason (and that's true no matter what your belief system is), it is a tool (and an important one) that we use as we go throughout our human experience. But it is both faulty and limited- and reason itself can tell us that. So to accept those limits with humility, and yet to use the tool (reason) in a healthy balance IMO is a worthwhile goal in life, no matter what belief system you start from. And notice I called it a balance, not a set rule, so it is not something that you can figure out once and be done. And you mention that we should question what we think we understand, which I agree with you that that is part of the balance, but it is also important to question our own skepticism (which itself is based on what we think we understand). So yeah, it's not an easy answer- and IMO it is something no one on earth will master, but it is something that everyone can work towards.

As far as my own little story, I'll start a new thread for that since theres a good conversation going on here already... Link:
http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum...nal-story.html

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Jesus, as with any other figure, is as much a part of your religion as you make him. Jesus was a Jew who preached to Jews. But I think I see your point - if Jesus does not play a role in your considerations, why should you consider explaination that involve him?

Here is a list of people who have claimed to be the Jewish messiah, most of whom were Jews preaching to other Jews. Jesus was preaching unorthodox beliefs to the people of a religion whose orthodoxy was well entrenched, so it's no wonder that only a small minority of people followed him. The world of Christianity, thanks to both Paul and Constantine, is almost completely populated by the descendents of converted pagans, not converted Jews. I happen to be born of a lineage that for the 2000 years since Jesus' lifetime has continued to follow the majority Jewish opinion that Jesus' story is not part of the Jewish religion. So questions of Jesus, while important, are external to my personal religious questions or beliefs. But that's ok, because I was listening to Bach's mind-boggling mass in b minor yesterday and some of my favorite art and literature comes from the Christian tradition, and I count you among the Christian people whom I respect.

My problem is that if the belief, or even lack of belief, is made on an irrational basis, and a rational basis is not built, the belief is arbitrary, of no use. What good is a belief you do not understand?

I agree; but at the same time I'm more of a skeptic than you about the degree of understanding that we can achieve.

But, I guess my question is, if you are indifferent, why are you discussing the matter with me?

Because it's fun, it's provocative, and it's interesting. I'm not indifferent to the subject. I'm just indifferent to God himself. If pressed on my views of life, morality, existence, the end of time, God is just not part of that. If pressed on my views about culture and Western thought, then God is very central to that, but this is just a truism that we can all agree on. Even sort of atheists (or at least people deeply critical of Christianity) like Nietzsche and Spinoza considered God questions important if for no other reason than that they were societally important and worthy of intellectual critique.

Originally Posted by NeitherExtreme

I would start by saying that I can't think of any reason (other than that it might offend me) that God could/should not create an ordered universe and then involve Himself in its affairs as time goes on. it is His own choice as to when and how He will act... And I wouldn't say that if he chooses to create exceptions to those laws that this would be "violating" them since He created them for His own purposes in the first place, and they do not rule over Him.

But then they're not really universal laws, are they? If they don't rule over everything, then they're not universal. Think of God as a landlord writing a lease that the universe has to sign: "All actions will be met by an equal and opposite reaction. The undersigned LANDLORD, however, reserves the right to enact an exception with no prior notice."

And since I believe that one of His purposes in creating was to have relationship with humanity, I am not surprised if He uses His creation to relate to them. As far as how that affects our reasoning... well, I agree that that's kinda tricky. One thing though is that from a theistic point of view, logic/reason/mind is only a part of who we are. We can not live solely based on reason (and that's true no matter what your belief system is), it is a tool (and an important one) that we use as we go throughout our human experience.

I agree that our reason has its limits. But I think we first have to accept that our basic sensory experiences have limits and our memory has limits; and we secondly have to accept that our reason is constantly under assault by irrational things going on in our minds (and we could all make a list). So let's accept that our reason is intrinsically limited first and foremost, before blaming apparent inconsistencies in the world on a deity.

[Didymos Thomas]

History, and your family history aside, Jesus is still as much a part of your spiritual life as you make him. You are right, you have followed the majority of Jews, and the majority of people in the world, in that you have not incorporated his teachings into your faith. You are one such person whom I respect. I guess my point is that we can talk about Jesus, Buddha, Baha u'llah, Moses, whichever religious teacher we want. If they (their tradition) offers religious teaching, we can talk about it and consider it. Here, on these forums, Jesus has been the most talked about figure of this sort. I see no reason to leave the others alone.

I agree; but at the same time I'm more of a skeptic than you about the degree of understanding that we can achieve.

Isn't it better to look, and find that you cannot know, than to walk blindly? I'm not sure there is much we can know; I'm not even sure if there is much to know - how much understanding can I expect us to find? But regardless of how much we can find, if we can do better than we are, we probably should.

I really do enjoy reading your input on these various subjects. Your replies are well informed and well considered. Thank you.

[Aedes]

Isn't it better to look, and find that you cannot know, than to walk blindly? I'm not sure there is much we can know; I'm not even sure if there is much to know - how much understanding can I expect us to find? But regardless of how much we can find, if we can do better than we are, we probably should.

In this process I think we learn a lot about ourselves, fundamentally. We don't just learn (or approach) truths, but we learn which subjects we need to accept intellectually versus which ones we accept in a visceral way. Things we love we love despite our intellectual explorations, because no amount of understanding can create love when it wasn't there before. Love and passion are something else, something that exists parallel to or outside of the intellect. And I think most people who believe in a religion have a relationship with it that is quite similar to love. It's not an academic subject. Studying it and understanding it is one way people appropriate it, or express that passion. But I don't think you can come to religious devotion unless you feel it, not know it.

I really do enjoy reading your input on these various subjects. Your replies are well informed and well considered. Thank you.

That's very kind of you to say, and I have very much enjoyed reading your perspective as well. And I appreciate your willingness to entertain and consider my viewpoint too.

[NeitherExtreme]

Originally Posted by Aedes

But then they're not really universal laws, are they? If they don't rule over everything, then they're not universal. Think of God as a landlord writing a lease that the universe has to sign: "All actions will be met by an equal and opposite reaction. The undersigned LANDLORD, however, reserves the right to enact an exception with no prior notice."

Is there any reason that what you're saying isn't reasonable? Other than that it might offend or confuse us, I haven't been able to think of one... From a Theistic standpoint those laws are for the natural universe, they are not laws for God.

Another way to look at it is to say that all that exists in the universe is not necessarily material, yet what is not material can still interact with what is material. And our science and reason (which is based on only the material) are simply not able to recognize what is impacting the material. Those things that are not material (usually called spiritual) may follow a whole set of universal laws that we simply can't measure.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by NeitherExtreme

Is there any reason that what you're saying isn't reasonable? Other than that it might offend or confuse us, I haven't been able to think of one... From a Theistic standpoint those laws are for the natural universe, they are not laws for God.

Whether it's inherently reasonable to a theist does not make it rational, because a theistic point of view holds reason secondary to God -- unless you feel that God is beholden to the laws of nature.

If our ability to understand life rationally is marginalized by the fact that apparent laws can be changed by God at his discretion, then our experiential understanding of the universe just crumbles apart. I mean how can you ever tell the difference between an ordinary new experience and a miracle? When is something simply different from what you've seen before (but still beholden to the laws of nature) and when is something a miracle by God?

I mean this by way of analogy, not offensively: People with schizophrenia have great difficulty distinguishing what is real from what is not real -- so they hear voices, they think that the radio or TV are talking directly to them, or that animals are talking to them, and the distinction between thought and experience gets blurred. Because of this, their thought becomes disorganized and they can have great difficulty functioning.

For us to presume that the universe does not submit to reason because some power ("God") can capriciously make exceptions to apparent laws -- yet we can never know when he's doing it -- means that we no longer have any basis to discriminate the rational from the irrational.

Those things that are not material (usually called spiritual) may follow a whole set of universal laws that we simply can't measure.

If so, then there's no point in even trying. Reason and empirical experience are then meaningless.