toldailytopic: Stephen Hawking says Heaven is a 'fairy story'

[DavisBJ]

I'm merely pointing out that the idea that science is the end all be all of knowledge and that we should judge all other forms of knowledge in terms of science is ludicrous.

If you are going to “judge all other forms of knowledge”, what methodology do you propose to use if not science?

 

[alwight]

So we should do away with morals because people can't agree on the subject? Seems to me you are bordering on ad populum again.

I'm really only saying that we have human morality which in society is a rough consensus of human opinion, ad populum if you like, it's all there is, but a morality is what it is if not always a perfect one.

 

[csuguy]

Yes man survived, and that is about all.

Man survived and built the wonders of the world, they developed things which we have no clue how to replicate today, and they developed those things which science couldn't even begin to exist without (Pythagorean Theorem for example). They developed beautiful art, wrote literature and built things that would be around for thousands of years after themselves, developed highly influential philosophical systems which we still use to this day, developed mathematics, they built huge empires, developed democracy, discovered the New World, etc.

In early history, man learned to build and use chariots. Several thousand years later, while those other fields held sway – those fields you declare that are so vastly more important than science – man progressed from chariots to stage coaches. Then science as a formal discipline came along, and within a century and a half hundreds of people at a time travel across oceans, in comfort 7 miles high at 40 times the speed of your old horse-drawn contrivances. Now because of science every generation generates more new knowledge than the entire previous 4 millennia.

Yes, there has been a drastic increase in knowledge thanks to science and science has made our lives easier in several ways. But the knowledge acquired can't compare to the importance of the knowledge that earlier man possessed and developed, without which modern science couldn't even exist. Just because science has increased our knowledge quite a lot (for how much longer?) it still pales in comparison to the various non-scientific areas of knowledge I have presented to you.

Included in that is how to extend our knowledge of history back far beyond man’s arrival, and curing diseases that ravaged the world for centuries, and producing enough food for multitudes. Unimportant science.

There are educated guesses as to the history of the planet prior to man. They can't actually observe or test the past however, so the past isn't properly within the scientific realm. At best we can try to explain what in the past might have produced the phenomenon we observe in the present. Though even if 100% science still pales in importance.

Science has cured diseases, it has also invented biological weapons and made old diseases stronger. Science might be able to produce food for everyone, but they still choose to let them starve (demonstrating once again that we need morality and not just science). Further, technology has also introduced new physical problems: greater % obesity of the population than any other population in the world at any previous point in history and physical problems produced through continued use of technology in the work place (carpal tunnel for example).

For all the comforts science can introduce into our lives, science cannot compare to the various non-scientific areas of knowledge I have presented to you. Scientism is the fairy tale.

 

[csuguy]

I'm really only saying that we have human morality which in society is a rough consensus of human opinion, ad populum if you like, it's all there is, but a morality is what it is if not always a perfect one.

Morality of the populace is important for the government, but morality is even more important for the individual - which is not, or shouldn't be, simply the consensus of human opinion. One must seek for themselves, ask oneself questions of what is right and wrong and one must individually pursue truth. Regardless of what society thinks, its what the individual thinks and does which matters.

 

[csuguy]

If you are going to “judge all other forms of knowledge”, what methodology do you propose to use if not science?

I propose you don't establish a methodology to judge all forms of knowledge because knowledge is acquired in many different ways. For example, scientists wouldn't base their theories around mere testimonies about how things work: they demand replicable experiments which universally demonstrate a phenomenon. However, in the court house eye witness testimony is invaluable and is often what makes or breaks a case. Thus, for different forms of knowledge there must be different criteria for evaluating them. Should we do away with any and all justice systems because they aren't scientific?

 

[rexlunae]

It definitely has a place, but I think theologies that only focuses on the future promises paint a very incomplete picture. This is an area where Christians could learn a lot from our Jewish brothers and sisters, the focus on the here and now and being a down to earth people concerned with the here and now as well as with the promises.

Interesting that you say that. I've always found it very hard to understand Christianity apart from the future promise of Heaven, but I've had a fair amount of discussion on exactly those lines with a couple of personal friends recently.

Norway.

Ok, cool. I was mostly just curious, but I also have some family in Sweden.

I should probably change that to "I sympathize with a lot of panentheistic thought, it is a work in progress kind of thing :chuckle:

I can understand that.

But I think there is a sense in which Christian theology has always had panentheistic elements in it. There is an idea of participating in God's being as opposed to being beings separate from God. Augustine's image of the sponge in the infinite sea of God.

I've always thought that was a strange concept to combine with the need to be reconciled to God. It seems like if everything is a part of God, then there's little possibility of separation.

I agree on there being little difference between atheism and pantheism, but panentheism is a different story. Panentheists states that there is an eternal aspect to God as well, a mind of God that contains all possibilities (Similar to the Platonic ideas). So in panentheism there are both eternal and temporal aspects of God, the temporal aspects are identified with the world.
There are more classical models that are viable as well, but there are other topics up on this already.

I've always seen panentheism as related to the concept of a multiverse. But that's not necessarily accurate. And I've never had much use for Platonic universals as any sort of fundamental part of existence. I tend to view all things as particulars, whereas "universals" are only a reflection of human understanding.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

So maybe my knowledge is incomplete, but I don't think classical theism could be said to deny man's free will...

Therein lies the rub, as they say. While I have thoroughly informed myself about Catholic as well as Protestant dogma, I suspect you have not done the same. Augustinian thought is pervasive in many Reformed doctrines, and you would do well to learn more about the views of those you like to take to task by reading the masters that have come before us. I suspect you have read any serious treatment of classical Reformed theology. I will also venture to say that you have not read a serious Catholic systematic theology, too. I am happy to be proven wrong here, but much of what you have to say about this or that matter of doctrine does not comport with one who has read the topics deeply. We can all glean a few nuggets from discussion sites, blogs, and what not, but nothing beats reading the masters.

You might consider these four volumes as a starting place for a grounding in the classical theology of Protestant Reformed thought:

http://www.abrakel.com/p/christians-reasonable-service.html

You might also consider the following as one from a Catholic perspective:

http://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Catholic-Dogma-Dr-Ludwig/dp/0895550091

Neither group denies man's free will. Instead both define carefully what "free" means in the context of a living and sovereign God. You and I are free moral agents, but we are not as free as we would like to be, nor as free as God Almighty. That said, don't take my word for it. Instead, make the remainder of 2011 a time when you will dig deep into a few good treatments and I will guarantee that your perspectives will be altered, or at least more tempered.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I just recorded in my notes that Lon is at heart a violent latent raping murderer, restrained only because he thinks God would not approve. Left to his own judgment, were he to lose his belief in God, then Lon might just be another Jeffrey Dahmer.

I’m glad the atheists I know don’t suffer from such a complete abrogation of decency.

Indeed, your observations about Lon and the rest of us are on point. However, it has nothing to do with the fear of the Lord, but with moral depravity. Even the child having a temper tantrum would not hesitate to strike you dead if it were within their power to do so. All but the grace of God working within the regenerate and restraining the unregenerate is what keeps our streets from running red.

I am but a few Bible verses away from being a serial killer. Think about it, and perhaps, one day with the grace of God, it will come to you.

AMR

 

[DavisBJ]

I propose you don't establish a methodology to judge all forms of knowledge because knowledge is acquired in many different ways. For example, scientists wouldn't base their theories around mere testimonies about how things work: they demand replicable experiments which universally demonstrate a phenomenon. However, in the court house eye witness testimony is invaluable and is often what makes or breaks a case. Thus, for different forms of knowledge there must be different criteria for evaluating them. Should we do away with any and all justice systems because they aren't scientific?

Sure information can come from various sources. But ideas that have not been subjected to critical examination are no more than personal opinions, and thus they are a pretty poor basis for building a reliable understanding on.

As to justice systems, at least in the US, science is more and more integral to proving a case. It has been known for decades that eyewitness testimony is prone to error. I know of several convictions that were based on eyewitness accounts but were reversed when science showed the testimony must have been in error. I challenge you to show many instances of the converse – where a conviction based on scientific evidence is later nullified by personal testimony.

 

[DavisBJ]

Indeed, your observations about Lon and the rest of us are on point. However, it has nothing to do with the fear of the Lord, but with moral depravity. Even the child having a temper tantrum would not hesitate to strike you dead if it were within their power to do so.

Part of growing up is realizing that actions have consequences, and the realization that the feelings of others are as genuine as your own.

I am but a few Bible verses away from being a serial killer. Think about it, and perhaps, one day with the grace of God, it will come to you.

In reality God, being a fictional creation of man, can bestow nothing on me. And I can assure you that I live a moral life, and do so sans any fear of God or expectation of eternal reward. No Bible verses are constraining me to be good, and I feel bad that you have such a sorry opinion of your own character.

 

[csuguy]

Sure information can come from various sources. But ideas that have not been subjected to critical examination are no more than personal opinions, and thus they are a pretty poor basis for building a reliable understanding on.

I agree - knowledge should be critically examined. However, critical examination does not equate to scientific examination.

As to justice systems, at least in the US, science is more and more integral to proving a case. It has been known for decades that eyewitness testimony is prone to error. I know of several convictions that were based on eyewitness accounts but were reversed when science showed the testimony must have been in error. I challenge you to show many instances of the converse – where a conviction based on scientific evidence is later nullified by personal testimony.

Scientifically based investigative techniques certaintly help us now adays in providing valuable evidence for court cases. However, relying too heavily on such techniques has also landed many innocent people in jail in the past. Cases like this weren't reversed through testimony alone, but through a re-evaluation of the application of scientific techniques in those cases - which in turn upheld testimony.

Testimony remains and will always be an integral and invaluable part of the justice system. Scientific based techniques are useful, and it certain cases maybe the only thing they have going for them - but witness testimony remains top dog. Further, the entire concept of 'justice' and 'crime' or 'morality' are outside of science, so while science may enhance our evidence collecting techniques - justice systems are fundamentally non-scientific.

 

[Lon]

I just recorded in my notes that Lon is at heart a violent latent raping murderer, restrained only because he thinks God would not approve. Left to his own judgment, were he to lose his belief in God, then Lon might just be another Jeffrey Dahmer.

I’m glad the atheists I know don’t suffer from such a complete abrogation of decency.

Partly true. If there were no morals, and we weren't made in His image but broken, I reckon' I'd be like the animals doing these things. Forget Dalmer, many animals are cruel and canibalistic. If I were nothing but a product of some meaningless and random happenstance, it wouldn't bother me a whit that you so noted on your legal pad. It'd be "I am what I randomly am" and your moral attestment wouldn't matter.
I'd suggest that we are both moral because we are made that way and that restraint isn't just for approval but love and all our other uniquenessess of reasons.

 

[nicholsmom]

Partly true. If there were no morals, and we weren't made in His image but broken, I reckon' I'd be like the animals doing these things.

I know with pretty decent certainty what sort of person I'd have been if I hadn't met Christ at age 9. It isn't pretty :nono:

Forget Dalmer, many animals are cruel and canibalistic.

Since my daughter started raising rabbits, I found out that it is not at all uncommon for a mother rabbit to eat her kits :shocked: One expert says that if she does that, give her another chance - breed her again, and if she doesn't eat the babies, then all's well :squint: What??? Sweet, soft, cuddly widdle wabbits are cannibals? Yep.

If I were nothing but a product of some meaningless and random happenstance, it wouldn't bother me a whit that you so noted on your legal pad. It'd be "I am what I randomly am" and your moral attestment wouldn't matter.

And we wouldn't care or even think about "meaning" or "purpose" - we'd just be and do whatever came naturally, like animals do.

I'd suggest that we are both moral because we are made that way and that restraint isn't just for approval but love and all our other uniquenessess of reasons.

I would agree with this

 

[Town Heretic]

...And I can assure you that I live a moral life,

By what standard? And therein lies part of your difficulty--or a rather empty declaration.

and do so sans any fear of God or expectation of eternal reward.

Then you serve your own notions and in that reward yourself as readily as any of the faithful ever have... All virtue is self serving.

No Bible verses are constraining me to be good,

No verse ever did, but the man who read or uttered it understood the good he followed.

and I feel bad that you have such a sorry opinion of your own character.

That's funny for any number of reasons, if you think about it. :e4e:

 

[nicholsmom]

Part of growing up is realizing that actions have consequences,

Do you mean that no one gets away with murder? I beg to differ.
For the less intelligent among us, this may be true, but for a smart person, consequences are just a factor in the equation of deciding on a course of action - "things to avoid to avoid consequences" would be on the list.

and the realization that the feelings of others are as genuine as your own.

Wait. I thought you were an atheist. If it is true, as you must believe if there is no god, that we are all products of random chance and natural selection, then there are no such things as "genuine feelings" :nono: The things we perceive as feelings are just biochemical reactions to stimuli - said reactions programmed in by way of genetics and past input to the program (what we theists call experiences). If there is no god, there is no guidance, no purpose, no reason other than biochemical/survivalistic reaction for any action or "feeling." In effect, there are no "genuine feelings" - that is just a construct of our brain's action to the intention of survival which sometimes goes wrong (as when "feelings" drive us to suicide or murder, which are sometimes counter-productive to species survival). There is no such thing as love - not as a "genuine feeling"; religion is just a survival instinct; and of course, perception of beauty is just a matter of natural selection (which makes no sense at all to me - Idocrasy anyone?).

And I can assure you that I live a moral life, and do so sans any fear of God or expectation of eternal reward. No Bible verses are constraining me to be good, and I feel bad that you have such a sorry opinion of your own character.

Why are you moral? Are you not very bright (and so cannot work out ways to avoid negative consequences)? Surely you aren't concerned for the survival of the human race - don't you, like most atheists, believe that we are overpopulating the planet? Shouldn't murder be a great way to deplete our numbers by way of eliminating the stupid and weak? Are you squeamish for some reason? Perhaps a product of your past input has made you think that murder and rape are wrong, because they make perfect sense for natural selection purposes. What's wrong with you, atheist?

 

[nicholsmom]

It was an overview class called Atheism, Theism, and Secularism. As I said, it was an undergraduate course, though it was also 400 level, which means that it counts for graduate credit. It was lead by a Presbyterian minister and philosophy professor, although his background didn't factor heavily into the class. It was largely a discussion class with assigned reading.

TOL in a classroom Cool.

As an overview class, we went through much of the philosophical history of theism, and atheism, and secularism, and the arguments between them, but didn't dig too deeply into any one category.

It was perhaps the most interesting and most fun class I took in college.

It certainly didn't cover all of theology. No one class ever could. In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that no one person could. But it gave a decent starting point for further study, and it targeted some of the most fundamental questions that theology asks. And it provided the opportunity to discuss the questions with other people with contrary ideas.

These in yellow seem to contradict your assertion that theology is simplistic - or more so than "science" - which is funny when you come to think of it. Theology deals with the varying views on God, Who is both infinite and infinitely more complex than the human brain considering Him. But even if you don't believe in a complex god, you must believe in the complexity of the human mind and of human thought. Surely, theology would have to be more complex considering it deals with millions of minds (believers), or at least thousands (theologians), each having different background (past input to the programmed response to things perceived as "god"), each having different brain composition. That's complex even on the surface...

I certainly wouldn't put it on the level of a master of theology. But then, I don't think it would make much sense to pursue such a thing as an atheist.

:chuckle: You always keep me smiling, rex

 

[Persephone66]

I know with pretty decent certainty what sort of person I'd have been if I hadn't met Christ at age 9. It isn't pretty :nono:

I've been an atheist nearly all my days, I'm also a rather kind, decent and polite person. I didn't need a story about a magic man to make me that way.

 

[Town Heretic]

I've been an atheist nearly all my days, I'm also a rather kind, decent and polite person. I didn't need a story about a magic man to make me that way.

How kind, polite, and decent is it to describe the central, transformational figure in someone else's life, an object of holy adoration, as a "magic man".

lain: Just doesn't sing, does it.

 

[nicholsmom]

I've been an atheist nearly all my days, I'm also a rather kind, decent and polite person. I didn't need a story about a magic man to make me that way.

Your programming must be better than mine, then. Plus, I rather think that your definitions of "decent" and "polite" are very different from my own - see TH's response above for an example of how you have clearly defined "polite" very differently from the way most would define it

The Free Online Dictionary:

po·lite (p-lt) adj. po·lit·er, po·lit·est 1. Marked by or showing consideration for others, tact, and observance of accepted social usage. 2. Refined; elegant: polite society.

Both the FSM and "magic man" do not show consideration for others, nor does it exhibit tact :nono: And is most definitely not refined or elegant

I have to wonder what you must mean by "kind" now...

 

[DavisBJ]

I've been an atheist nearly all my days, I'm also a rather kind, decent and polite person. I didn't need a story about a magic man to make me that way.

Per, like TH and Nicholsmom, I too have been sizing up whether you are really kind and moral. In you I didn’t detect any propensity towards the wanton slaughter of infants, as was commanded by TH’s and Nocholsmom’s God in times of old, so I can’t accuse you there. No apparent raping, like with the tens of thousands of virgin teenage girls spared to be taken as property by God’s soldiers after the rest of the girl’s family members were killed. Wholesale lying, robbery, cheating, nope – can’t get you on those. But Th and Nicholsmom caught you in a serious demonstration of depravity when you chose to rather accurately describe their deity as a “magic man”. Notice how deep and substantive TH and Nicholsmom’s claims against you are? (But I do wonder what their reaction would have been if you had let it be known that had at some point emulated so many Biblical actions of God’s followers and actually lied or had a mistress or pillaged or been a drunkard or …