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

[DavisBJ]

I can. Ideas have consequences. Those who came after Hitler evaluated his ideas and saw how incorrect they were. No one had to conduct scientific experiments to determine that Hitler's ideas were wrong and faulted.

The judgment of the evil of Hitler is easy now from our Monday-morning quarterback position. But at the time, a substantial portion of the German population – one of the more advanced societies on earth at that time – did not see what seems so clear now. Even now there are a few people who still hold the idea that Hitler was correct. So the verdict on Hitler is purely a subjective one, made by humans with a certain mindset. If somehow science could be impartially called in as the judge, this ambivalence would not be seen.

 

[DavisBJ]

That is a blatant misstatement. Science itself is founded on a human bias for induction.

A brief glimpse at history will show heavy bias perpetrated by scientists using the scientific method doing so for personal gain. While science provides a means to reduce these biases, it is not immune to them. Any lock can be defeated.

I have addressed this in another post. Any personal bias in scientific work will not pass muster by nature herself. Such bias may entrench itself for a while, but ultimately it either gets rooted out or that line of research is stymied. Nature cares not a whit for the feelings or biases of the scientists.

 

[alwight]

Are there differences of opinion amongst Christians about certain aspects of morality? Sure. But Christians also recognize an absolute authority from which morality is derived, even if they debate a couple points of interpretation.

As far as Christian morality not being terribly different from non-Christians, that has to do with Golden Rule. Many non-believers recognize the command to love your neighbor as yourself as good basis for morality. Conflicts arrise, however, over morals based upon the greatest command for the Christian - which is to love God with your entire being. Morals based upon this (I would put the issue of homosexuality, for instance, under this command) inevitably produce conflict since the non-believer necessarily doesn't accept the basis for them.

My feeling is that some Christians will however showcase certain doctrinal issues (homosexuality) as absolutes imo simply because they seem more unambiguous, while quietly getting on with other issues which might be more complex, that have little, no or conflicting guidance from scripture. :think:
:e4e:

 

[DavisBJ]

Not necessarily. I think Kali (a Hindu goddess/demon) is evil, but I don't think she actually exists. That being said, I don't think I'd be apt to trust anyone who happened to worship such a being as that, fictional or not.

Do you then carry an innate distrust of the majority of the world’s population – who are not Christian? Some are atheists, some worship strange Gods. Even some Christians hold ideas about God that you probably would strongly disagree with.

I didn't know that. So you just think they worship an evil, imaginary God, huh?

Strike the word evil. Imaginary – yes, in the sense that God is a creation of man.

 

[alwight]

If you're listing murderers, you're missing a few billion names.

You're right, I'm off out to add my name to the list. :Clete:

 

[badp]

I have addressed this in another post. Any personal bias in scientific work will not pass muster by nature herself. Such bias may entrench itself for a while, but ultimately it either gets rooted out or that line of research is stymied. Nature cares not a whit for the feelings or biases of the scientists.

The problem with your thinking is that nature itself does absolutely nothing about bias. Anyone can easily devise an experiment to confirm a bias by simply picking and choosing the attributes of that experiment, like what the controls and variables will be. Yes, someone can come along later and catch it out, but that will not necessarily happen because the bias may be shared by the successors. Nature does not enforce the proper conduction of an experiment.

 

[DavisBJ]

What claims?

Precisely. You fault him for a single issue, with as much substance as saying your god is a magic man.

You're surprised that people act like people? That men are willfully imperfect? Then you don't understand the purpose of the cross...among other things, like history, philosophy, sociology...

Sure people have been known to do really bad things. But the Bible is a source where it shows that believers were commanded by God to do some of the more horrific acts in history. You did read those parts in your Bible, didn’t you?

 

[csuguy]

My feeling is that some Christians will however showcase certain doctrinal issues (homosexuality) as absolutes imo simply because they seem more unambiguous, while quietly getting on with other issues which might be more complex, that have little, no or conflicting guidance from scripture. :think:
:e4e:

Homosexual activity is absolutely immoral from a Christian perspective (save various liberal theologians). However, I also recognize that non-Christians are unable to fully appreciate this due to the different foundations for our morals. I think many Christians fail to recognize the foundation for this moral as well (because most don't study or think about theology much) which only helps to fuel the flames.

Homosexuality is focused on way too much. It is a sin, but it's not worse than any other sin. I suppose the fascination with the topic is due to the relatively rapid changes in our culture which is becoming more and more accepting of homosexuality and other unorthodox sexual topics, and many feel the need to oppose the change (which is not without warrant).

 

[DavisBJ]

Nature does not enforce the proper conduction of an experiment.

Why don’t you set up an experiment that is contrary to the way nature works and see what happens. Feel free to attribute the improper experiment to a personal bias.

 

[csuguy]

Again I am hearing you say the heart and brains are more important than the legs and arms. I value my brains and heart, but I also know that there is an astounding difference between being a normal person and am immobile paraplegic.

Again, I have already shown that science is not comparable to the limbs or vital organs of the body of humanity, not when held up against those various other areas of knowledge.

Further, you are contradicting your last post here in your recognizing the equal importance of science with these other areas of knowledge (which is an improvement!). In your last post you emphasized that you hoped that there not be that many non-scientific areas of knowledge that we should rely on as if they were inferior, and yet here you are stating they are both vitally important.

Yes, any endeavor that man conducts, including science, will be subject to human biases. But science still has an advantage in that nature is the ultimate arbiter. If I, as a scientist, let my biases introduce errors into my research, then those that follow behind me and rely on my work will be stymied. Nature will not make their work succeed just because they want it to. Ultimately (and I have seen this happen), a scientist is forced to revisit the work of predecessors, and see where they went awry. So in the long term, personal biases do get filtered out.

Old biases get filtered out and new ones are introduced. As Kuhn said, it is the task of Normal Science to fit the world into its man-made box - and it is only when the world refuses to succumb that Crises Science is reached and then potentially Revolution! But the Revolution only introduces a new box which inevitably fails to encompass the world.

Further, the fundamental biases of science are never done away with. By limiting itself to empirical evidence and natural explanations science limits both what it can talk about (not a bad thing if you recognize the validity of non-scientific areas of knowledge) as well as how it can talk about them. By being unable to consider the possibility of non-naturalistic causes, but instead automatically rejecting them, science is necessarily incurably biased. See, for example, my thread on the Academic Study of Religion where I discuss the "Science of Religion."

Can you say the same for any other way of evaluating ideas?

Sure, they do it all the time. The critiques of the old way of thinking might not be universally accepted, but evaluations of biases in thought are often performed.

 

[Town Heretic]

Re: what claims?

Precisely.

Oh. You seemed to believe I was making a few. I thought I'd give you the opportunity to note them.

You fault him for a single issue, with as much substance as saying your god is a magic man.

Rather, I noted his self description and suggested it wasn't in practice as he approached the particular. So either he was making a generally accurate statement in need of particular application on the point, or he might want to reconsider. Up to him really. But it was demonstrably off the mark, be it the exception or a mistaken self impression.

Sure people have been known to do really bad things. But the Bible is a source where it shows that believers were commanded by God to do some of the more horrific acts in history. You did read those parts in your Bible, didn’t you?

I've read the Bible within its context...something you appear to be disinterested in. The odd and pointless end game of that being you attempt to overlay your own in judgment. Outside of the Christian context it's pointless and inside of it, mistaken.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Do you then carry an innate distrust of the majority of the world’s population – who are not Christian?

No, I usually keep it in reserve for evil cult members.

Some are atheists, some worship strange Gods. Even some Christians hold ideas about God that you probably would strongly disagree with.

That's okay. I'm not too worried about these people wanting to make me into a blood sacrifice.

Strike the word evil. Imaginary – yes, in the sense that God is a creation of man.

So you don't think God is presented as having any moral qualities at all?

 

[DavisBJ]

So you don't think God is presented as having any moral qualities at all?

Why that question, since I said nothing of the sort?

 

[DavisBJ]

I've read the Bible within its context...something you appear to be disinterested in.

Oh, I am very interested. I read the Bible quite carefully when I was a Christian, and strangely, the words I see in it now are the same as I read then. But will you graciously accommodate me, and explain something to me from your Christian perspective? Mentally insert yourself into the position of a warrior in God’s army in the Bible. Tell me how you feel as you set out to go to battle against a heathen encampment, with specific orders to slaughter the infants and children along with their parents. Do you glory in being obedient to your God, as you look down on a smiling 8 months old little girl you are about to disembowel?

 

[Persephone66]

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.

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...

Sorry to be so harsh and crude, I was a bit annoyed at the time. The point, that both of you may have missed as a result, is that I did not require the belief in any deity to keep me from doing bad things. You don't either. And if you do, I've got my concerns.

Don't kid yourself. You're evil and you know it.

I am? How am I evil?

 

[Ktoyou]

Sorry to be so harsh and crude, I was a bit annoyed at the time. The point, that both of you may have missed as a result, is that I did not require the belief in any deity to keep me from doing bad things. You don't either. And if you do, I've got my concerns.


I am? How am I evil?

You are not so much evil as you are a clown. :kookoo: Good news for you; from my impression you do not have a capacity to be evil, if you stay away from the little ones. Remember what Jesus said about this, 'do not mess with the little innocent ones' my interpretation.

 

[Persephone66]

You are not so much evil as you are a clown. :kookoo: Good news for you; from my impression you do not have a capacity to be evil, if you stay away from the little ones. Remember what Jesus said about this, 'do not mess with the little innocent ones' my interpretation.

You do know that I'm a teacher, right? Though I don't see how I can harm teenagers by teaching them maths.

 

[Town Heretic]

Sorry to be so harsh and crude, I was a bit annoyed at the time.

I figured, which was why I didn't so much go after you as nudge you.

The point, that both of you may have missed as a result, is that I did not require the belief in any deity to keep me from doing bad things.

I understand your perspective. I suppose my caveat would be "bad by what standard?"

You don't either.

Again, depends on how you mean it, what standard/context is being applied. It's the Christian belief that the good exists as an extension of the arbiter of moral authority, God. Or, in other words, your declaration is founded on a contextual foundation that is no more demonstrable or necessarily true than any you object to.

:e4e:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

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.

Er, no. You live a life defined by some relativistic chimera that you have labeled "moral" all the while ignoring an objective moral Lawgiver. That "oughtness" you feel is not something the universe instilled within you, but the One who made you in His image, albeit corrupted since the fall of Adam. The sad thing is that from birth we are all unlearning God, knowing He is, just not liking the God who is until we confront our humanity in the face of His holiness. I have no illusions about my state of life, and know that anything I might claim as being "good" in my life is by God's saving grace alone.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Now nothing I have read or listened to from you or anyone else on either side of the issue has led me to believe that the Reformed tradition believes that man is free in any meaningful sense. In fact I consider my last off-line conversation with you to be a sort of confirmation of that suspicion. I think the relevant sense of freedom being spoken about (and, not coincidentally, moral responsibility) can be accessed rather easily by asking whether Adam could have acted differently. The Reformed tradition seems to break with orthodoxy in answering with an emphatic "no." My signature is one example of Augustine separating himself from such thought which you have also held to in general on TOL.

Thanks for the links
-zip :e4e:

I am an unprofitable servant. Rather than appeal to my own feebleness in explaining things explained against your confused entrenchment or attempting to the lay that burden at my feet, why not take my suggestions to heart and steep yourself in the materials I have suggested? When you have read Brakel and Ott, perhaps the discussion will be more fruitful. If you think that Catholic theology agrees with your assumption concerning Adam's liberty of indifference, then I must humbly inform you once more that you are mistaken. That you attempt to use a quote from Augustine isolated from his full treatment to bolster your position tells me clearly you don't understand the man nor the topic the man was discussing.

AMR