[news] Banksy's at it again!

[localzuk]

Semantics. This may not say you think that people are less intelligent but how else would you interpret your belief that people who believe in religion have weak minds? Including your friend who you respect so much?

 

Ok, weak may not be the right word for it. More 'unable to think freely for themselves'. Maybe 'limited' would be a more suitable word.

[Chris_Cook]

I can freely think for my self. All humans are limited, some just believe they arn't. What you are basically saying is you look down on the religious, and don't respect them as much as yourself. Have you ever considered you might be wrong about some things?

[localzuk]

I can freely think for my self. All humans are limited, some just believe they arn't. What you are basically saying is you look down on the religious, and don't respect them as much as yourself. Have you ever considered you might be wrong about some things?

 

Yup, I consider it constantly, and when evidence appears that I am wrong, I change my opinions - for example, my views on whether we should be in the EU have changed massively in the last year or so. Not to mention, if I don't know something, I would simply say 'I don't know', rather than ascribing it to a deity. So far, I've not seen any evidence to counter my views on religion though.

 

What you say is ironic really, as religion is predicated on the concept of there being an infallible being that it is impossible to disprove the existence of, which leads me to think that someone who believes in that being is unable to think clearly for themselves, as logic dictates that something should be backed up by evidence before believing it exists.

 

As I said earlier though, this is just my opinion on it.

Edited December 17, 2011 by localzuk

[SYNACK]

I can freely think for my self. All humans are limited, some just believe they arn't. What you are basically saying is you look down on the religious, and don't respect them as much as yourself. Have you ever considered you might be wrong about some things?

 

Good points, everyone is limited and has to be so our universally puny minds can deal with the amount of input, stuff like vision is shaped in perception as our brains can't process all the data and simply don't have enough data for full situational awareness anyway, this is why those illusion puzzles work so well. In effect we are all 'wrong' most of the time, or at least not entirely right. Acceptance of this is the contention and finding ways around our deficiencies to get closer to the objective truth is important through thought tools like science.

 

As Socrates said: "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.", this is a point that seems lost on some of the more hardcore religions and as such I do pitty those that fall into that trap. Beleif that you know all the answers to the point that you are unwilling to search for them in anything other than pre-ordained sources seems like sticking one's head firmly in the sand which I find sad, verging on dangerous when those views are forced on others. It seems like a psycological limiter on progress, a big fat anchor causing developmental drag. Some of this drag can be attributed rightly to ethical constraints but definatly not all of it. I don't so much look down on the practice but I do morn the loss to the whole of humanity with so much intelligence tied up in a knot that could be exploring the same things in different ways and stumbling over more impressive and useful facts helping everyone to understand more about reality as a whole.

[Chris_Cook]

Its good to hear that. I too frequently consider that I'm wrong (because I am wrong daily) Personally my faith isn't completely unfounded. I and others who've studied it in far greater depth find that the bible is valid and true (and that it has un-palatable bits that take work to get through and understand). It seems to me that there is a design behind creation/the universe. I love exploring the world around me and am a curious person. What I see leads me to worship God more and more. There's such a fantastic world all around us. I'm here and in the job i'm in because I love progress, change, new technologies, new ideas and so on. Not because I want to stop them.

 

Christianity and christians don't claim to have all the truth at the moment. We believe that when we get to heaven we will come face to face with the truth (God) and see him in his full glory.

 

The family of churches I belong to encourages people to explorer the bible, study it, and come to a logical thought out belief, not just an unfounded one based on what someone else tells us. Truth is though, most of what people learn has come via someone else, teachers, parents, school, the internet, encylopedias, comedians, TV, I could go on but you get the picture. How much of what we think/believe have we actually seen and investigated ourselves, face to face?

 

There is an interesting quote I heard, I think it was by Albert Einstein, it went something like 'The truth isn't dependant on our ability to stomach it'. There is a truth out there (reality) that just is, and its utterly independent of our point of view or opinion. I guess that works both ways though.

 

Also, Anchors have uses, ask any sailor. Drag is also useful on occasion. Cars need brakes. If we go down a road, we need to make sure we are doing the right thing, and that we have a way of stopping and coming back if we decide we need to.

 

What makes you think all of reality is visible with our eyes, or measurable with science?

[witch]

What makes you think all of reality is visible with our eyes, or measurable with science?

 

And who's to say that God isn't measurable - we just don't have the science to do it yet?

[localzuk]

And who's to say that God isn't measurable - we just don't have the science to do it yet?

 

Well, Christianity says it isn't. The Bible states that God can hide himself (Proverbs 1:28 - "Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me".

 

That's kinda my point. Even though Chris_Cook says that Christianity doesn't preclude exploration and discovery, it does in many ways do exactly that.

[witch]

they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me".

 

 

Note the use of the word 'early' That may mean that God can only be discovered in the fullness of time - maybe when we have the science?

[localzuk]

Note the use of the word 'early' That may mean that God can only be discovered in the fullness of time - maybe when we have the science?

 

Or, it could be a mistranslation. That was the King James version, the 'English Standard' version says 'Then they will call upon me, but I will not answer; they will seek me diligently but will not find me.'

[witch]

Or, it could be a mistranslation. That was the King James version, the 'English Standard' version says 'Then they will call upon me, but I will not answer; they will seek me diligently but will not find me.'

But that is completly out of context anyway: the rest it makes it clear that God is saying that if you ignore him then he will not show himself later:

"Because I have called and you refused; I have stretched out my hand and no one regarded; Because you disdained all my counsel, and would have none of my rebuke:

 

"I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your terror comes, when your terror comes like a storm, and your destruction comes like a whirlwind, when distress and anguish come upon you. '

 

So your quote doesnt really show anything about whether we can or can't one day discover God using science or something yet to be discovered

[RoF]

The existence of GOD and the authenticity of the Bible are 2 different discussions. Although those comments above on how GOD cannot be found are true, because he/she/it does not exist!

 

We have one life and should live that one to the fullest. There will be no amazing eternal afterlife to make up for wasting the life you have been given.

[Arthur]

Albert Einstein is quoted as saying "All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree." which in a sense is true because scientists and theists both believe in determinism. It's just that they describe it differently. However, as Stephen Hawking says, science will win in the end, because it works.

 

There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority and science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win, because it works. (Source)

 

Over time, science will be able to describe or predict, more and more of the universe we live in, which will force people to re-evaluate their beliefs as they did hundreds of years ago.

 

In ancient times, the world must have seemed pretty arbitrary. Disasters such as floods or diseases must have seemed to happen without warning, or apparent reason. Primitive people attributed such natural phenomena, to a pantheon of gods and goddesses, who behaved in a capricious and whimsical way. There was no way to predict what they would do, and the only hope was to win favour by gifts or actions. Many people still partially subscribe to this belief, and try to make a pact with fortune. They offer to do certain things, if only they can get an A-grade for a course, or pass their driving test.

 

Gradually however, people must have noticed certain regularities in the behaviour of nature. These regularities were most obvious, in the motion of the heavenly bodies across the sky. So astronomy was the first science to be developed. It was put on a firm mathematical basis by Newton, more than 300 years ago, and we still use his theory of gravity to predict the motion of almost all celestial bodies. Following the example of astronomy, it was found that other natural phenomena also obeyed definite scientific laws. This led to the idea of scientific determinism, which seems first to have been publicly expressed by the French scientist, Laplace. I thought I would like to quote you Laplace's actual words, so I asked a friend to track them down. They are in French of course, not that I expect that would be any problem with this audience. But the trouble is, Laplace was rather like Prewst, in that he wrote sentences of inordinate length and complexity. So I have decided to para-phrase the quotation. In effect what he said was, that if at one time, we knew the positions and speeds of all the particles in the universe, then we could calculate their behaviour at any other time, in the past or future. There is a probably apocryphal story, that when Laplace was asked by Napoleon, how God fitted into this system, he replied, 'Sire, I have not needed that hypothesis.' I don't think that Laplace was claiming that God didn't exist. It is just that he doesn't intervene, to break the laws of Science. That must be the position of every scientist. A scientific law, is not a scientific law, if it only holds when some supernatural being, decides to let things run, and not intervene. (Source)

[pcstru]

So your quote doesnt really show anything about whether we can or can't one day discover God using science or something yet to be discovered

 

"science or something yet to be discovered"

 

Hmmm. I have real problems parsing that.

 

Science IS a method of discovery. The pinnacle of 'science' is a theory. A theory is something that might be true, it will explain what we observe and those observations will be repeatable. The motto of the oldest scientific society is "nullus in verbia" - take no ones word for it, see for yourself. You don't need to rely on argument by authority with the scientific method, you can do the experiments for yourself and replicate the observations.

 

Scientists don't seek to prove a theory is true, such a thing can't be done. They seek to prove a theory is NOT true - they do everything they can to falsify it. A theory can be said to be good if it explains the observations but it takes one, and only one observation that cannot be explained by the theory to falsify the theory. So if we take Newtons theory of gravitation, he sees an apple falling and that observation leads him to formulate a theory of gravity - f=G*(m*m)/r^2. This explains the apple falling and makes predictions - about other things falling, about how planets move around other bodies like the sun. Those predictions are then observed to be good and the theory gains currency and credibility. The theory is good enough to put man on the moon and landers on Mars ... but ... as instruments get better, variations in the orbits of planets are observed that cannot be explained by Newtons theory of gravity. The theory is falsified - it is proved to be wrong. Those observations are explained by a more sophisticated theory of gravity, Special Relativity and SR makes predictions that are again confirmed by observations. GPS wouldn't work without taking account of SR ... yet ... it is *merely* a theory and while it is still useful as a model of the world (as is Newtons model), it has already been falsified. We know that as a model, it is wrong.

 

I think this is quite difficult to grasp. Science doesn't deal in truth, because you can never outside of pure mathematics *prove* that something is absolute truth. But you can prove something is NOT true and that is fundamental to science. Real scientists don't do experiments which can prove their theories, they do experiments which can disprove them. The first thing you do with a theory is try and falsify it.

 

God botherers will sometimes say to me, "well Structures, prove that God doesn't exist". I can't. Just as I can't prove that there aren't faeries at the bottom of my garden or that the world isn't a simulation being run in some giant computer or the mind of some over imaginative being. There is no possible falsification for such a theory and there are an infinite number of equally improbable speculations that are equally un-falsifiable. God is an undetectable teapot circling the earth at 20,000 km 4 times an hour, hey PROVE it's NOT true. Why should I? Those with extraordinary claims need to provide evidence for them - I don't need to disprove every tooth fairy, santa or bogie man that is drummed up out of human imagination. I ask, I hope reasonably, what does a theory of god predict that I can test? How can I falsify your theory? And if "god" allows me to predict nothing and cannot be falsified - of what possible use is such a concept in the real world?

 

Science, rationality, evidence, logic - these are all things that allow me to make sense of the world and critically to make things in the world work. If I can't make something work, I can find out why. "god" - not so much.

[Chris_Cook]

I fully agree with living life to the full, that's also biblical. Jesus himself said He came so we could live life to the full. If I'm guilty of not living my life to the full (and I certainly am guilty of that), that's not because of my faith. I feel so blessed as a result of being a christian at the moment, even though there are many more areas I want to grow in and things I want to do. I've got so many brilliant friends through being a christian. The sort you can really rely on, and who help you grow as a person. There was a point a few years back where I wasn't really following God, or going to church and it was a real low point in my life to be honest. I certainly wasn't living life to the full, and wasn't in any danger of doing so any time soon. My faith isn't holding me back, its pushing me forward.

 

The bible doesn't preclude exploration or discovery. Granted, many christians have over the years, but they aren't authorative, the bible is. If God didn't want us to explorer and discover, why did he make such a massive wonderful world? Why make the universe, the planets, other solar systems? Why give some people curious minds? Why give others creative minds?

 

When the bible says you can't measure God, It is referring to finding God's limits or size. Being an infinite, omnipotent, omnipresent God thats not possible. There are plenty of examples in the bible where people have had tangable experiences of either God, Jesus or the Holy Spirit. Moses, Jacob, Ezekiel, Thomas, the christians on the day of pentecost are just a few that spring to mind.

[pcstru]

because scientists and theists both believe in determinism.

 

I do hate the "scientists" this and that. As if there is some body of "scientists" who all tacitly agree with one another on everything "scientific". I'd call that the "Daily Mail" model of the universe.

 

But anyway determinism - not so much currency since the 1920's. Quantum Electrodynamics really put a spanner in the works of a deterministic universe and the picture for determinism hasn't got any better since then.

[featured_spectre]

By the sounds of some people here, they are either religious, or Nihilistic (not atheistic), and cannot seem to find any form of common ground. Topics like this will continue until God is scientifically proven or disproven and currently, neither can be achieved with the level of science that we have.

[localzuk]

But that is completly out of context anyway: the rest it makes it clear that God is saying that if you ignore him then he will not show himself later:

"Because I have called and you refused; I have stretched out my hand and no one regarded; Because you disdained all my counsel, and would have none of my rebuke:

 

"I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your terror comes, when your terror comes like a storm, and your destruction comes like a whirlwind, when distress and anguish come upon you. '

 

So your quote doesnt really show anything about whether we can or can't one day discover God using science or something yet to be discovered

 

Ah, but then again, one of the things about Christianity that I have observed on a regular basis is the picking and choosing of lines of the Bible, and using them out of context. Examples being it being a sin for 2 men to lie together, yet the same person who will waffle on about that will ignore the line about using mixed fabrics.

 

I merely pull a line from the Bible that has been used in a discussion with a religious person in the past, one which they stated that science cannot prove god as he is unknowable.

[witch]

I don't think any enlightened Christian, well not the ones I know anyway, would say that God is eternally unknowable.

What on earth I am doing, arguing this, when I am a pagan, is beyond me..

I am pretty much an atheist too but then I think of how someone in say 1500 would see our world and I wonder if that is where we are when it comes to supreme beings...

[Chris_Cook]

For a christian, the bible is the word of God, not a book of quotes for us to use to support our own views, predudices and arguments. Its important for a christian to learn the word of God. There are comentaries on the verse about mixed fabrics. Leviticus 19:19 "'Keep my decrees. "'Do not mate different kinds of animals. "'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. "'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material. and Should a Christian Wear Clothing of Mixed Fibers (Leviticus 19:19)?. One interesting idea from those pages was that mixing linen and wool in a fabric results in an inferior quality fabric, so it could be interpreted as a rule against merchants ripping off customers with shoddy merchandise. I don't know enough about this verse to say for certain. There also seems to be a symbolic theme in that chapter about keeping oneself set apart from the world, being distinct from non-christians/jews. I don't mean not interacting with them, just not following the same practises that go against the bible. A christian who broke the ten commandments regularly wouldn't be very convincing. I don't believe that christians are saved by following the law though, because as humans we can't. There's something in there that we've all done wrong. We can only be saved by Christ's death on the cross. He's the only one who never broke the biblical law, and the only one who can pay the price that the law demands for failing to follow it.

[witch]

I do have a problem with that - being told that a new-born baby is a sinner - doesn't jell with the idea of a merciful and kind God, does it?

Bit evocative of snakes and ladders - or maybe being patted on the head and told to be good. I don't think God, having given us free will, would do this

[synaesthesia]

It amuses me to see people (as a whole) change what they perceive as metaphor within the Bible as time goes on and things are proved/disproved as seen fit. So if there is indeed something in the bible to suggest people shouldn't wear different types of fiber in their clothing - it's lovely and convenient that as soon as that is impracticable it's meaning is changed to metaphor or an analogy.

"Do not mate two different types of animals" - at the time of the Bible's writing that would condemn someone mating a Leopard with a Tiger to eternal damnation, yet these days (don't quote me, I'm no more a biologist than I am one who studies the Bible) we know it happens naturally and wouldn't bat an eyelid to it. So the meaning again would be twisted.

It's that twisting to suit that is what annoys me. I wouldn't bat an eyelid if the Bible suggested that anyone caught wearing a comb-over on a Wednesday should be stoned and crucified because perhaps that was how it was done at that time. There lies the irony in that how Man reads the bible is either a) reliant on their own understanding of it, being modern, much of that understanding will be "incorrect" or b) reliant on an expert's understanding of it, who's understanding will in itself be fundamentally flawed although probably slightly better depending on that expert's level of bias.

However naively we (Humanity) look at it in the "Modern Times" we either cherry-pick what we want to guide us through, apply metaphor/analogy to what isn't fully understood or applicable or ignore it entirely.

I can't begin to understand how things could be improved - if I could, I'd be a real life modern day miracle maker. It is one of many reasons why I am agnostic, and also makes me wonder how on earth we all get on relatively well. It is no wonder that many disagreements (from forum banter to global wars and conflicts) fall back on each others' interpretations.

One thing is certain though, Humanity has room to grow and many lessons can and have been learned from the past - whether they're lessons taught from The Bible or mistakes made, both as a result of The Bible or otherwise.

 

Small disclaimer:

Much of the above is generalised as much as possible. "We" means "Humans" rather than "the people posting in this thread".

I have not read or studied the Bible other than select parts for past celebratory purposes.

This is also generalised for followers of The Bible: the same would apply for any other book of faith (Quran (sp?) etc.)

I am not judging anyone, that is not my place. The above is just stating where I lie in the "Religious Debate". I sincerely respect everyone here and everyone's particular faiths and beliefs.

[teejay]

@synaesthesia

The parts you picked out are from the Old Testament Jewish Law, which doesn't apply any more (see Colossians 2:13-17). This is what causes a lot of confusion with the Bible, the Old Testament is really just background reading to give placement to what happens in the New Testament, which for Christians is the important bit. This is the view of mainstream Christianity, you do get certain parts such as the conservative evangelical movement who disagree with this and are the ones who will cherry pick sections of the Old Testament for their own reasons, this isn't mainstream though, they just have louder voices ;-)

[synaesthesia]

Cheers Those were just bits from the post previous to mine.

[Chris_Cook]

The bit about mixed fibres is in the bible, twice in fact, both in Deuteronomy and Leviticus. I would also personally argue that what happens in nature is between God and the animals. The bit about mating two different animals is sometimes translated as domestic animals (farming etc), and humans attempts to make this happen. Often the original Hebrew or Greek doesn't translate perfectly into English or other languages. Words can be translated with different meanings depending on the context, and the English of the day can have different emphasis to what we might understand. Its important when critically examining the Bible to take this into account so we don't get too caught up in poetic language like the King James version, or contemporary language like The Message version of the bible. A comparison of different versions can be both helpful and confusing at different times. Often scholars will go back to the original text to see what that actually says.

 

Much of the bible is intended to be taken at face value. But there are also many different types of text in there. History, Laws, Prophecies, Parables, etc. Often there is a physical thing that is intended as a reminder of a historical thing like the passover festival is a reminder of when the Israelites were freed from Egypt. Sacrifices were looking forward to Jesus death on the cross, and as a reminder that God takes sin seriously, and that it has a consequence. Sometimes things in the bible arn't clear what they are, but most of the time they are.

 

What's important when interpreting and understanding the word is making sure that our interpretation/understanding is in keeping with the rest of the Bible, and with the character of God. When I offered a possible meaning of the mixed fabrics thing, I wouldn't at any point give the interpretation the same authority as the scripture. But the bit about not ripping customers off is in keeping with the rest of scripture, so I would say that's an appropriate way to live your life. That may or may not be what was intended originally. That verse will make for an interesting discussion in heaven. The idea of being distinct from the rest of humanity is also a biblical concept. Jesus himself talks about salt losing its saltiness and then becoming worthless - Matthew 5:13.

 

I think I pretty much agree with you on cherry picking scripture and twisting it to our own desires. Its not really the right way to approach scripture. There is a modern day parable of a man who wanted to get Gods advice, so he randomly opens his bible, closes his eyes and puts his finger down. That bit said "and they all went and killed themselves". Not liking that, he did it again. This time he got "Go then and do likewise". The word of God is described as a double edged sword. Its something to be treated with respect, and not just used as any other book. Its unique, even among other "religious" texts.

 

Teejay is right, we are under a new covenant, because of Jesus death on the cross. Our salvation is based on Jesus' payment or the penalty we should have paid. It is important though not to underestimate the value of the old testament. Without it we wouldn't understand our need for salvation, and our inability to get to heaven without Jesus. I think this might have been what you ment though. There are a lot of christians who are reluctant to go into the old testament (or parts of the new testament like Revalation) because they are awkward and unpleasent. The old testament is still scripture. We need both parts.

[Arthur]

What do people think of the following quote from Penn Jillette's new book?

 

There is no god and that's the simple truth. If every trace of any single religion died out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again. (Source)