Starise
Thanks for giving me your perspective on Atheists Strummy.
No problem Tim, I’m just glad this thread hasn’t overtly upset anyone enough to report it. It shows that a civilised discussion
is possible on matters and topics considered taboo by most forums not specifically dedicated to them.
Starise
I think both sides Christian and Atheist use the same argument, basically that we aren't what you think we are. In some cases this is really true, in others it isn't. In some cases one side is trying to paint a picture of the other side that doesn't exist. If it happens to be Christianity we are talking about then IMO it comes down to a personal experience as well as a knowledge based approach. I mean, 8 year old kids can successfully become Christian with no prior knowledge of scripture and be just as Christian as a theologian. They might not be old enough to know what a Methodist or a Baptist is but that doesn't matter. The basic premise behind the belief and the acceptance therof is all that is required. I am glad it is this way. What if only gifted scientists could get there?
I don’t wish to appear to be jumping on the bandwagon of what ‘Ol Pal said about the cognitive ability of 8 year olds, but it is a salient point. And I do believe you’ve answered your own question a little by wondering why there are no gifted scientists at that age. I’d also add that kids in that age group wouldn’t make very good politicians (though some one argue they couldn’t do much worse than those we already elect) or legislators, or teachers; or any profession or calling that requires little more than brain power as opposed to physical stature.
Plus, this all boils down to my previous argument that belief (
specifically by minors, but by all age groups in general) is almost inextricably linked to environment, in particular to the beliefs of their parents and immediate family, and to their place of birth.
Again, forgive me for quoting from elsewhere, but British philosopher Anthony (‘AC’) Grayling sums it up so succinctly in the first paragraph of his book
The God Argument ~ The Case Against Religion And For Humanism:
"
To put matters at their simplest, the major reason for the continuance of religious belief in a world which might otherwise have long moved beyond it, is indoctrination of children before they reach the age of reason, together with all or some combination of social pressure to conform, social reinforcement of religious institutions and traditions, emotion, and (it has to be said) ignorance - of science, of psychology. of history in general, and of the history and actual doctrines of religions themselves."
To add to this, I could possibly agree with your statement to
some extent if you’d not specifically mentioned this fictional 8 year old as becoming a “Christian” – without the direct influence of Christian teachings, I would suggest that no 8 year old “can successfully become Christian”. Even if such a child had not been steered in such a way, and allowed to decide whether or not there is a ‘god’ on his own; and if they did feel the need for a deity, was then given a raft of religious literature to peruse, the chances of him choosing to follow Christianity would be pretty low, and of the same probability of all the other options offered him.
Leaving all these hypotheticals aside, I strongly believe that 8-year-old kids ought to be doing what 8-year-old kids
should be doing, and not having to think about such matters. They will have plenty of time for that when they grow up
In my opinion, to actually
force one’s belief system on them at this age should be considered an act of gross irresponsibility at best, and tantamount to mental abuse at worse.
To conclude, I’d advocate letting them grow up first, and then let them choose. This will probably never happen of course, because I’d suggest that if it did, (specifically ‘organised’) religion would wither away and die within a handful of generations. And the churches know it.
Starise
We agree on a few things, mainly that religion in and of itself can be a bad thing,although I think the atheist says it is always a bad thing and I would say that if directed correctly it isn't a bad thing. I don't see any harm in science. As some have said, science is the pillar with which we have made things better for millions of people. I see a trend for that to continue...I mean we now have Sonar X3, how cool is that ? Computer science, medical science, nano technology..the list goes on.
Tim, I agree, to a certain extent. Religious people do a great deal of good in the world, and religions in general do a pretty good job of organising a lot of these good works.
But to me, the religious aspect is irrelevant – good people do good things and bad people do bad things; it need be no more complicated than that.
Steven Weinberg says it much better than me: “
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
The point being, as I take it, that there are undoubtedly plenty of bad atheists out there, but they don’t do bad things
in the name of their atheism.
Starise
The thing about science though is that it is supposedly based on empirical evidence, but the empirical evidence can change over time as Ol Pal said science is a moving scale of sorts and what is empirical today might not be empirical tomorrow. I would say that if the purpose of science is to further mankind intellectually ….
Nobody ever says that science offers the ‘truth’ about anything. Whatever hypothesis/theorem/theory/Law happens to be current flavour of the month is just that – it’s a best fit of the evidence available. Moreover it is the duty of the scientist to attempt to falsify any theory – a sort of what doesn’t kill me makes me stronger approach.
Where I disagree with you is in your statement that “the empirical evidence can change over time”. As far as we are aware, natural and consistent laws apply across our observable universe. What
might change over time, and this is a subtle but important distinction, is the
quality of the empirical evidence, and its interpretation.
I agree with what you say, “the purpose of science is to further mankind intellectually”. ‘Pure’ science is just part of our inquisitive human nature – it’s why we explore, experiment and philosophise.
Where a lot of the negative things said about ‘science’ come from is that often the distinction between science and ‘business’ (or business
ethics) becomes blurred. And this misunderstanding is often deliberately pushed to the fore by those groups with a particular agenda – both religious
and non-religious. Undoubtedly, the areas of ‘pure’ science-for-science’s-sake are shrinking as ‘applied’ science has superseded it. Commercialism is now linked hand in hand with scientific research, which ultimately needs to produce an end product, a new commodity if you like, rather than just an advance of intellectual content.
If you’ve never read it, I can heartily recommend (Dr) Ben Goldacre’s excellent and revealing book
Bad Science (Amazon
US |
UK).
Starise
…. and if that is all we need then it could concievably replace the belief in a god if that were the only motive and agenda of mankind. The idea being that if we eventually become smart enough we won't need a god and god will effectively be replaced. This assumption is based on the idea that god is a smart person and we can become that smart eventually, and that the only reason we would ever need a god is for knowledge and for how it will benefit us.
I’d argue, and have done elsewhere in this thread, that advances in science have already eradicated the need for belief in an
interventionist supernatural; and that as further advances chip away at what is still unknown (yet explained by holy books) this need will become further lessened.
Starise
My world view is much different. In my view we are created beings and will never attain that status. We think we have come far until we start to look at the complexity of even the smallest things in nature. I know what Dawkins says regarding his take on theories. I disagree with his thinking on the subject. It's either proven or its not. A theory is a theory even if there are numerous "empirical" discoveries surrounding a premise. I don't see any "crap science", what I see is the painful reach toward a solution to a problem that might not always be a good fit. These " painful reaches" are then used as practical explanations when we might not really have one. Both sides of the debate are doing these reaches.
Just as a matter of semantics Tim, can you explain what you mean by “we are created beings”?
Before I can address this point specifically, would you please be good enough to say whether you mean ‘created’ as per the
literal description outlined in Genesis (i.e. “Young Earth”); or in a more general way, as in you accept big bang theory/evolution etc but believe that mankind’s existence in it is an intended part of these processes, albeit that god was the initiator of these events (i.e. “Old Earth”).
As to what constitutes a theory (I’m assuming you mean ‘scientific’ theory?), then I’m afraid this is another matter of deliberate misuse of semantics, or possibly genuine ignorance. I can do little more than repeat part of (my) post #149 in response to backwoods to clarify the difference:
SteveStrummerUK
Firstly, you bandy around the word “theory” a lot. I might be wrong here, but I get the distinct feeling, that like a lot of believers, you’re not really aware of the correct definition of a “scientific theory” (I’ve added the word ‘scientific’ to clarify my point, but from the context in which you use the word ‘theory’ above, I’m pretty sure that’s what you meant?) – either that or it’s a deliberate (and often used) ploy to suggest that a theory is little more than an ‘idea’ or ‘hunch’.
A scientific theory is much more than that, and I’ll once again beg your forgiveness if I allow someone else to express it better than I ever could (from Wikipedia):
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive and explanatory force.
Starise
While I agree that many Christians aren't very well trained in the finer points of the Bible ( we talk about 25% of the Bible 95% of the time). This isn't a prerequisite to entry into the faith and as such not all Christians are required to be theologians. Some Christians however ARE very well equipped to answer questions on the Bible but you may not like the answers. This is one reason why I am involved in some Apologetics work. If anyone claims to tell you they know it all I would run far away from them. This applies to Atheists as well. Did you ever notice how many of them seem to have it all figured out? Especially with regard to the Bible. I seldom ever run across one who will even entertain the idea that they might be wrong, even on a few points.
I see this as a problem for religion, specifically in this case for (as you mention it) Christianity.
The reason being is that the whole thing comes down to interpretation. Which parts does one act upon literally, and which parts to view metaphorically. As Krist (Rain) argues elsewhere (are far more eloquently than I), this necessity to
interpret one’s holy book can prove very dangerous in certain circumstances.
My obviously naïve opinion on the matter is that (for example) the bible (and by that I mean both the New Testament and the Old Testament) is either the perfect word of an omniscient deity or it isn’t. If it is, then
everything it says should be actioned upon and believed, it should leave absolutely nothing in need of interpretation.
You say that “Some Christians however ARE very well equipped to answer questions on the Bible but you may not like the answers” – I would ask what gives these mere mortals the right to interpret it? Where do they acquire their judgemental skills on these matters?
Plus, if mortals are required to interpret the word of god, then god has made a pretty bad job of explaining what he wants to say. And humans, as we know, make a lot of mistakes.
Starise
It's a lot like a murder trial where there are two sides approaching the jury. One side says that the person is a criminal. They have a lot of so called proof to back that idea up. Some have even argued that the criminal might not exist.A closer look at the "evidence" reveals a very one sided approach to the whole affair. What their "evidence" reveals are taking factual events and putting a spin on them to suit their agenda, which is to discredit the one they put on the stand and therefore make any acceptance of the Bible as a credible book look like only a fool would read and believe it, even though thousands of gifted minds have read, studied and accepted it. The evidence looks compelling because they bring out what sure look like contadictions, improbablitites, impossibilities etc. The lack of contextual approach, lack of logical inclusion of all evidence leads to postions that they think supports their argument.Many rely on the writings of people who have no credibility in the fields they write about. Emphasis on cultic extremes and historical wars supposedly fought in the name of God all seem to paint a picture that the world would have been better off without Christianity.
On the other side we have thousands that can daily attest to the reality of their experiences even though they went into it not knowing a lot about the Bible. We have scientists and theologians that can attest to the same thing from a position of knowledge. They have studied the entire character of God and determined that He is good and just, not cherry picked certain parts of the Bible to try and prove He is cruel and heartless. The complete study reveals a God who is good and who loves. Who doesn't want bad for you in any way shape or form.
I'm probably tempting the TOS here. Sorry if I am. I have a hard time with people who insist the Bible is bunk. I at the very least feel compelled to give another perspective in this....can't let that one slide.
Just because certain people, or any number of people, believe (as a matter of faith) certain things, doesn’t make it any more true. A billion and a half Muslims around the world believe that Mohammed was the last prophet of god, and that Islam, as outlined in the Qur’an and The Hadith show the correct path to reach paradise. Over a billion Hindus don’t even believe in the Abrahamic god, but feel their way of life (and often reincarnation) offers the true path. Tim, I’m guessing you don’t subscribe to either of these views?