Lest we forget

[cariad]

My point is that it's impossible to work out the nature of god even if it did exist. Maybe my line of reasoning was a bit hard to follow. It has a tendancy to get a bit fuzzy when I'm discussing purely abstract issues.

I took that point, and agree with it. At the best we can work out where we need a supernatural filling. However the fact that we are unable to work out the nature of God does not mean that he does not exist.

So you believe in god because you want god to exist? If true, at least it's honest. But not really a case for gods existance, is it? I might as well say that I'm am atheist because I don't want god to exist. A bit silly isn't it? Hardly anything to base a religion on.

Not quite:
1. I believed in a God because to me it is the answer which makes sense.
2. I wanted to know more about God, so looked at how the various (but admittedly not all) faiths explained God.
3. I found one which made logical sense and fitted my experience of supernatural.
4. I studied the sacred texts of that faith to discover more what they revealed of God's nature.
5. I brought that information into real life and considered it and tested it.
6. I discovered more about God.
7. I found that the more I read and considered, the more spiritually aware I became, developing an appreciation of the tri-fold nature of humans - physical, emotional and intellectual, and spiritual - and how these interact.
8. I returned to step 4.

But you'd hardly bet on it being right, would you? Since you admit that the proof is full of holes?

Although there are many theories, some well grounded, and some less so; to my knowledge there is no complete proof on either side.

I'm really fascinated about how the bible came to be, but I think it's a bit of a side-track. We have no idea if it's the word of god or not. It's just an assumption christians make. If we don't even manage to come up with a likely model for how supernaturality works then the Bible isn't very relevant is it? If the supernatural didn't control the hands of the people writing it, then it isn't the word of god, right? If we have different interpretations of it, then well....we can't really draw any conclusions and....I think it's best to create a new thread about just that.

Smiles - after you...

That's fine, but you have no idea if it is in fact god you're adressing or just thin air, do you? Considering the nature of human perception, even if you personally have seen god, doesn't prove a thing.

I do not think not being able to see something is serious proof of it not existing. If you are referring to talking to God - I have seen too many things change as a result of doing so for it to be purely placebo, imagination or chance.

ok, but how do you know what is the "voice" of god and what just is wishfull thinking/hallucination/delusion?

That is a discussion in itself, and is one I have had many times. I have heard God, as in I would be amazed if someone who had been in the room at the time would not have heard him, twice. Once was over something I knew I should I do, but kept finding excuses about. The other time I was driving, and unbeknown to me a small child was about to come round the corner directly into my path. By following the instructions of that voice, in the moment before I could know there was a potential problem, that small boy was not seriously injured, or killed.

Other times, I 'hear' a voice in my head, which I have learned to recognise. I cannot give you any evidence that it is not wishful thinking or delusional, except that it has a nasty habit of always being right, of often making a decision on the basis of information I don't have, and is always in line with what the Bible teaches.

The other way I 'hear' from God, is not direct communication at all, but by learning what sort of thing He likes, my conscience will prick if I am stepping outside of those boundaries - that is no more supernatural than your slave knowing what you do and do not like, because she has made a study of you.

That's a contradiction. Just saying "god thought of it" is just avoiding the issue. A supernatural model of the universe is a lot more complex than a non-supernatural, because you have so much more variables. The plain fact is that the supernatural model has more holes in it than the non-supernatural. Just because on a very superficial level it looks simpler doesn't mean the maths of it are any simpler.

Again, just because you or I don't understand the maths of a theory, doesn't mean nobody does.

I think we have been round this one before. I fully agree that a model of the universe which includes the supernatural is bound to more complex, because there is an additional dimension. That in itself does not indicate whether it is right or wrong.

To me, the supernatural model has less holes in - but I fully admit that is because I temporarily suspended disbelief to view it with an accepting mind, (ref my much earlier comment about choosing which circle to stand in).

Because you and I don't fully understand any theory, of either 'side', does not prove it one way of the other.

But you're only talking about your personal journey. It's as if it's an emotional standpoint. A bit like going with what ever feels the best for you. The supernatural elements of religion is a scientific theory. A model. As with all scientific theories we can have leanings toward one or the other model. But if the theory is too flimsy, like all the supernatural theories of the world. Then having a firm faith in it is stupid. There's a number of serious scientific theories on the mechanics of the universe works, (no, christianity isn't one of them) and no scientist would say, this is what I believe the rest of you are all wrong. They might sound like that's what they're saying, but it's not what they mean.

Why do you say that the supernatural elements of religion are a scientific theory? I would say (if I have to find a discipline for it) that it is closest to a psychological theory - in that, to me, it is a study of a force with personality. In all the years of physics which I studied, personality was never a factor - with the possible exception of the sadistic temperament of one of my physics masters.

Believing in a scientific theory as a scientist is diametrically different than believing in a scientific theory as a religious follower. It has to do with comparing theories and doing the maths. If you don't have a degree in quantum mechanics it's a bit arrogant to pick your own version and just go for it, just like all religious people have to do. I think popular science is fun. I do my best in following the research but I don't have the proper education in the subject to formulate my own complete theory on the mechanics of the universe works or even evaluate what christianity says about it. That would be arrogance to the extreme.

Well, my quantum mechanics does not progress past a foundation unit I did at university, which was a shame, I loved that unit and found a real beauty in it, in the same way that I loved the unit I did on astrology, so I don't have the knowledge either to follow latest papers. That does not mean however that I reject the science. I agree popular science is fun, but I do get frustrated when initially theories are expounded, and after a few trips round the press they return as facts.

If religious people on top of this have the bad taste to vote for laws based on religious ethics, then I feel like grabbing for my gun. Hobby philosophers pissing those who have done their homeworkd and actually know better, (most often scientists) in the face. Yes, I think we should leave the big decision to the proper scientists, of the simple reason that they understand things that we don't.

Do I understand that you are suggesting leaving governing our countries to a group of scientists? *shudders at the thought* I live with someone who has a PhD in a physical science, and most of the people he works with have the same. Many of them work in ground breaking research, so they are still actively exploring their small area of science. I also regularly attend dinner parties with some of these people - and yes, I am very grateful for the work they do, and without doubt our world is a better place for it - but the thought of them governing the country. Please, no.

The religious comunity disregard serious science and treat all these big questions like a big joke. If they didn't they'd learn the maths. They might look all sinceare when they're pondering the bible, but it requires that you selectivly ignore critical problems of the model and only vote with your heart.

I disagree that the religious community disregards science. I am sure there are a few small groups which do, but I am sure I can find you a corresponding group of nutty scientists - so please don't discredit a whole community because one small subgroup is wacky. I personally refuse to ignore critical problems of the model which I have embraced. That does not mean that I have all the answers, but then, nobody, of any discipline does.

I think you are right when you said I voted with my heart when I decided to step into the circle of belief. After that I have been very analytical and critical.

I think religions are good for humanity simply based on the fact that they exist. They aparently fill a need. Practices that humanity doesn't need has a tendancy to disapear. That's the beauty of evolution. It may very well be that with the good bits we get some bad bits, but over the whole, it's aparent that it does a lot of good. Again, simply based on the fact that religions exist. Why? I have no idea. If anything in this thread, it should be aparent that I'm the wrong person to ask.

I think faith is good for humanity, and we are also social beings. I think they are two needs which we have. I don't think we have a need for religion.

I do know one thing that this thread has shown me Tom; you are great guy to get me thinking about some of the basics which I have accepted for too long - so I sincerely thank you for the challenge. We may not agree, but I have a great respect both for what you say, and how you say it.

cariad

[TomOfSweden]

I took that point, and agree with it. At the best we can work out where we need a supernatural filling. However the fact that we are unable to work out the nature of God does not mean that he does not exist.

Not quite, sorry. We can't even work out whether we need a supernatural fillling. First we need to have any working modell at all. That's still pretty far off. If we'll ever get one.

The supernatural theories are only on the table of all the other theories. They're not any more complete or offer any more a comprehensible picture of reality. You might say, "this one makes sense to me because of [this] and [the other], this is what I believe is true". That's fine and something we all need to do. But having faith in it, and banking on a thing like, you'll go to heaven after you die, is drawing a much too strong conclusion. At best it could be something you wish might be true.

Praying to god to help you with some disease IS deluded. That if anything is wasting energy, and we should all be well aware of it. Even saying stuff like, "I have nothing to lose by preying to god so I might as well do it" is still deluded. If you open up the possibility of a supernatural entity listening, the chances that god is evil and punishing anybody making a request is just as great. They're unsuported by the same amount of non-evidence.

Again, the ethical parts of a religion is a seperate issue than the supernatural claims. You might think the ethical guides are great. It's great if they are, I'm not going to debate it. But I am attacking the supernatural claims. Don't pick a religon based on it's scientific claims. They are all so old, the thoeries where made obsolete long ago.

Not quite:
1. I believed in a God because to me it is the answer which makes sense.
2. I wanted to know more about God, so looked at how the various (but admittedly not all) faiths explained God.
3. I found one which made logical sense and fitted my experience of supernatural.
4. I studied the sacred texts of that faith to discover more what they revealed of God's nature.
5. I brought that information into real life and considered it and tested it.
6. I discovered more about God.
7. I found that the more I read and considered, the more spiritually aware I became, developing an appreciation of the tri-fold nature of humans - physical, emotional and intellectual, and spiritual - and how these interact.
8. I returned to step 4.
the nature of God does not mean that he does not exist.

I'm going to go right ahead and attack step one. How did it "make sense". When we're discussing a thing like whether heaven exists, I don't think it's too much to ask qustions like how? Where is it? What is it? What do people do there? Is there even people there? Will I be me or transformed into something different? Will my thought be retained? What is the soul? Can it be measured? How is it transported? What medium does it use?

None of these are answered in the Bible. I'm not saying the claims in the Bible isn't true. It might very well be. But just settling for, "sounds good to me" or "nobody can prove it isn't true", shouldn't satisfy anyone in these modern times, with sofisticated measuring devices. Strictly speaking, you have no reason to believe anything in the bible is true, so being a little bit more explanation might not be all that amiss. Granted that the Bible is old, but if it's true they should have had all that information back then, right?

I've also got issues with your experiences of the supernatural. We discussed this earlier. The problems are:

1) Human perception is fallible. We can't trust our senses. We tend to see what we want to see.
2) Science has never ever been able to register anything that breaks the rules of nature as we know them.

Your next problem you've yet to solve is that the satanists could be right and the christians wrong. Even if your experiences with god are correct, you have no idea if "your" god is the christian version of it. That's just an assumption you've made. A pretty big assumption. For all you know, it could be little alien jr, in a saucer in orbit, stealing dadies mind-control laser for a laugh. Aren't you just being effected/swayed by the religious beliefs of people around you? People tend to stick to a faith most people have in their vicinity. That in itself is a argument against any of the supernatural being true. Just based on the fact that there are so many different ones.

I know I'm a bit silly now, but how did you test it?

Again, I've got no quarel with christian ethics. Only it's supernatural claims, and I've got no wish in discussing the ethical parts of it. I can well imaging that studying the Bible gives you spiritual awareness, but that's no case for you going to heaven, is it?

Although there are many theories, some well grounded, and some less so; to my knowledge there is no complete proof on either side.

I think my work is done here. So you admit that you problably wont go to heaven once you die? Is that what you're saying?

I do not think not being able to see something is serious proof of it not existing. If you are referring to talking to God - I have seen too many things change as a result of doing so for it to be purely placebo, imagination or chance.

I've heard that a lot. I did LSD in my youth. Not only have I seen god, I've seen gnomes, talking skeletons and people surfing on music. Our minds are very malleable. With or without LSD. We have to use external measuring devices. We cannot trust our eyes or ears. Just using personal experience alone just isn't good enough. Seeing it is only step one. Next step is proving it somehow. You know your dreams aren't real, right? So why couldn't your supernatural experiences just as well have been a dream?

If a lot of people believe something allready and their experiences get strengthened by others we tend to believe what we are seeing is real. That's certainly true for me. Each time I've had a broken heart I've seen my girls face in almost every other woman I see at a distance.

In the 50'ies there was a claim by some UFO-"nuts" that they saw a flying saucer. Before the 50'ies no UFO sightings had ever reported UFO's as saucer shaped. The closest had been football shaped, (the round kind, in Europe). After this event there's hundreds a year, and it's ever increasing.

The sheer number of christians alone means that their religious experiences should be taken with masses of pinches of salt. I'm willing to bet most christian miracles are witnessed in south America. Just a wild guess based on the fact that it's the most devout christian area in the world.

It just doesn't prove a thing. If you can't work it into a credible model then you've got nothing. We know for a fact that their are things in the Bible that can not be taken litterarily, right? So how do you know which parts should be? For all we know, it could all be metaphores for the highly regular and un-supernatural.

The other way I 'hear' from God, is not direct communication at all, but by learning what sort of thing He likes, my conscience will prick if I am stepping outside of those boundaries - that is no more supernatural than your slave knowing what you do and do not like, because she has made a study of you.

I'm not going to dwell on this. But it's interesting that you call god "he". It's the second time in this thread you've given god human qualities.

I think we have been round this one before. I fully agree that a model of the universe which includes the supernatural is bound to more complex, because there is an additional dimension. That in itself does not indicate whether it is right or wrong.

To me, the supernatural model has less holes in - but I fully admit that is because I temporarily suspended disbelief to view it with an accepting mind, (ref my much earlier comment about choosing which circle to stand in).

Because you and I don't fully understand any theory, of either 'side', does not prove it one way of the other.

That's exactly my point. The difference is that I'm well aware that we might go to heaven, but we probably wont. Only based on logic. As you have told me before, you do in fact believe strongly in heaven. This to me makes no sense. Not if you agree that the non-supernatural model makes just as good a case for it as the supernatural.

Why do you say that the supernatural elements of religion are a scientific theory? I would say (if I have to find a discipline for it) that it is closest to a psychological theory - in that, to me, it is a study of a force with personality. In all the years of physics which I studied, personality was never a factor - with the possible exception of the sadistic temperament of one of my physics masters.

Because they are. They make scientific claims. They make claims that, if true, would invalidate the non-supernatural theories. Priests pretend like it's only about taking a stand on the ethical issues. That is only one part of christianity. The part, if you will, within the realm of psychology.

We haven't proven yet if there is such a thing as the supernatural. Let's wait with attributing it things like personality until we've settled that one.

Well, my quantum mechanics does not progress past a foundation unit I did at university, which was a shame, I loved that unit and found a real beauty in it, in the same way that I loved the unit I did on astrology, so I don't have the knowledge either to follow latest papers. That does not mean however that I reject the science. I agree popular science is fun, but I do get frustrated when initially theories are expounded, and after a few trips round the press they return as facts.

You seem to have a good grasp of how science works. That's great. You are also aparently great at breaking down this problem into bits, and attacking each one. As I see it, your main hole is linked directly to your own experiences with the supernatural. Since those are easy to explain with the non-supernatural, it's beyond me how you can subscribe to the supernatural claims of christianity. You seem a little bit too smart.

Do I understand that you are suggesting leaving governing our countries to a group of scientists? *shudders at the thought* I live with someone who has a PhD in a physical science, and most of the people he works with have the same. Many of them work in ground breaking research, so they are still actively exploring their small area of science. I also regularly attend dinner parties with some of these people - and yes, I am very grateful for the work they do, and without doubt our world is a better place for it - but the thought of them governing the country. Please, no.

No, that's not what I mean. I think democracy is a great idea, but it would be nice if people knew their limits and not take a stand on things they haven't studied. It's not too much to ask is it? But now we're surely gliding into the domains of political opinions. I'll just leave it.

Priests don't study quantum mechanics in school, so they shouldn't tell people god exists. They are most probably the right people to interpret the Bible and teach us about it's ethical merits, but they do not have the education or qualifications to argue for gods existance. Which is why they don't off-course. They all say stupid stuff like, "it's up to us all to decide for ourselves". That's just avoiding the issue.

I disagree that the religious community disregards science. I am sure there are a few small groups which do, but I am sure I can find you a corresponding group of nutty scientists - so please don't discredit a whole community because one small subgroup is wacky. I personally refuse to ignore critical problems of the model which I have embraced. That does not mean that I have all the answers, but then, nobody, of any discipline does.

I think you are right when you said I voted with my heart when I decided to step into the circle of belief. After that I have been very analytical and critical.

Granted that I was a bit harsh here. But as I've said earlier in this thread. The only thing the christian supernatural theories have going for them is personal experiences not reproducable in a laboratory. Science is great at measuring which stimuli our brains react from. If no scientist has ever been able to measure a message from god, then well...chances are pretty good nobody ever has recieved a message from god. This must be the one most studied field in history, so you can't blame it on nobody trying. The plain fact is that all of the evidence christian supernatural theories has are all highly circumstantial. Maybe O.J. was in fact guilty? Who knows? But are you willing to bet on it? I mean really? If you are then I do think you take this issue very lightly.

I think faith is good for humanity, and we are also social beings. I think they are two needs which we have. I don't think we have a need for religion.

I'll just leave this. Religion means something else depending on who you ask. I'm a atheist. I believe that the evidence points towards it being wise to have faith in that god doesn't exist. There's aparently a lot of us. It's fair to say that Nietsche and Richard Dawkins are our greatest profets. Do I follow a religion? I think it's a pretty open question. We all have external ethical guides to our lives. Isn't that all religion is, really?

I do see myself as a highly spiritual person. I do believe we can send energies to one another. I don't believe there's something physical actually being sent, but whenever I'm around happy, intelligent and energitic people it feels like I have more energy. Is this belief a religious belief?

Religion is such an obvius part of how we think that we cannot imagine a paradigm of thought not including god or the supernatural. We have no words to describe the ununderstandable in any other way. An atheist is a non-teist. We have a very long way to go before we manage to break with god and religion being a natural part of our language and way to reason.

I do know one thing that this thread has shown me Tom; you are great guy to get me thinking about some of the basics which I have accepted for too long - so I sincerely thank you for the challenge. We may not agree, but I have a great respect both for what you say, and how you say it.

Cariad

And you're by far the bravest religious person I've ever had the great privilige to have one of these discussions with.