Respect for the religious + religion - where does it start/stop?

Nodin

RikuoAmero wrote: »

How soon we forget...remember, katy has said reason doesn't apply here, so...there is no reason and can be no reason.

Even an unreasonable reason can be a reason, so it can.

shruikan2553

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I'd like to know how one is able to verify that scientific methodology doesn't apply to a certain aspect or subject...without using scientific methodology.

Thats easy. First ask yourself can you prove you are right? If you said no then there you go. You're still right and nobody can prove you wrong.

RikuoAmero

Nodin wrote: »

Even an unreasonable reason can be a reason, so it can.

Eh tamayto, tamahto...

Thats easy. First ask yourself can you prove you are right? If you said no then there you go. You're still right and nobody can prove you wrong.

Asking myself that question is in and of itself doing scientific methodology, which I can't do in this subject, according to Katy.

robindch

Nodin wrote: »

Even an unreasonable reason can be a reason, so it can.

In traditional logic, one can use the Principle of Explosion to show the truth of whatever one wants. Clarifying the standard example, here's the proof:

1. (P) is TRUE
2. (Q) is FALSE
3. The combined statement (P [OR] R) is TRUE (since P is TRUE; R is irrelevant at this point)
4. But if (Q)=(NOT P) = FALSE, ((NOT P) [OR] R) remains TRUE
5. Hence, as (FALSE [OR] R) is still TRUE, then one can infer that R must be TRUE.

For any R. Hence:

1. I am a bishop
2. I am not a bishop
3. (1) and (2) are true, hence you are John Waters.

I hope this clarifies things.

TheLurker

katydid wrote: »

You SAY it is wrong and therefore dangerous, but you haven't established or proved why.

It is wrong and dangerous because it results in over confidence in untested and unproving assertions. From the person who stops chemo therapy because he is "certain" that the homeopathic cream is going to work to the Christian who hits his child because he is "certain" that the Bible is true and wants him to not spare the rod, to the Islamist husband who strikes his wife because he is "certain" that it offends God for her to show her hair in public.

katydid wrote: »

Science is not concerned with religion and religion is not concerned with science.

Science concerns with everything. Again this notion that science is not interested in these subject is a fundamental misunderstanding of what science means when it says we cannot answer these questions scientifically.

You interpret that incorrectly as a call to go and use something else to answer the questions, but as I explained that is not what is being said

katydid wrote: »

You can't apply scientific principles to religion any more than you can apply religious principles to science.

You can apply scientific principles to anything. Science is just a methodology for learning about reality.

The problem science has with religion is that the claims made by religious people cannot be supported. So science says "We cannot know that".

Some religious people don't like that and choose to put forward this false notion that what science is actually saying is that "We are not interested in that". That is a false statement. And it is a dangerous statement because it leads to naive people believing that reasoning is not all that important in coming to form beliefs.

katydid wrote: »

How hard is that to understand?

Well it isn't true. But it also doesn't make any sense (why would science limit itself to what it is concerned about, as if the Enlightenment philosophers forming the foundations of scientific reasoning decided "Nah I'm not really interested in X,Y,Z lets just ignore all that")

The idea that there are whole areas of reality that science is just not interested in is both false and also rather dumb. Who picks what science doesn't apply to? Can I say science doesn't apply to me climbing a build and then just jump off the building? If people said "Lurker that was really stupid!" could I say "No you can't judge me belief because science doesn't apply to that!"

You are merely saying science doesn't apply because you don't like the answer science gives you, which is religion is an unsupported theory that is untestable and thus impossible to distinguish between factual and fictional claims.

TheLurker

katydid wrote: »

"based on upbringing, possibly a genetic factor"... very logical and scientific, indeed.

I didn't say that the supernatural was responsible for sexual attraction. It was an EXAMPLE of an area of life where logic and reason don't necessarily apply. Funny how a proponent of reason and logic doesn't recognise it when it's in front of his eyes.

Logic and reason apply to sexual attraction and to love. These are incredibly complicated systems of course, so just because they apply doesn't mean we will understand how they apply. Plenty of people don't understand their own attraction, why it happens or the various emotional systems in play that mean one person is attractive to you and another isn't

But saying therefore that logic and reason don't apply because we can't follow all the systems is like saying the laws of physics don't apply to a beach because we cannot model all the interactions of all the individual grains of sand.

I don't know who is filling your head with this nonsense about what science is, but I would suggest a good book on the philosophy of science and how to apply scientific reasoning to the world around us (and more importantly WHY we apply scientific reasoning to the world around us)

katydid

TheLurker wrote: »

Logic and reason apply to sexual attraction and to love. These are incredibly complicated systems of course, so just because they apply doesn't mean we will understand how they apply. Plenty of people don't understand their own attraction, why it happens or the various emotional systems in play that mean one person is attractive to you and another isn't

But saying therefore that logic and reason don't apply because we can't follow all the systems is like saying the laws of physics don't apply to a beach because we cannot model all the interactions of all the individual grains of sand.

I don't know who is filling your head with this nonsense about what science is, but I would suggest a good book on the philosophy of science and how to apply scientific reasoning to the world around us (and more importantly WHY we apply scientific reasoning to the world around us)

Ok, so we don't understand how they apply, but they must apply, because...?

Sounds to me to be taking a leap of faith. The kind of leap of faith that those who believe in religion are taken to task for.

I am perfectly capable of working this out for myself: I don't need to have my head filled with anything by anyone. Just because you don't grasp the import of what I'm saying doesn't make it nonsense.
But feel free to patronise me; I'm fair game, apparently.

katydid

Nodin wrote: »

Evolution is far from perfect.



The question was "why"/"what reason....", not "what scientific reason can you provide".

Evolution is far from perfect - handy opt-out clause there, alright. Covers all the inexplicable bits that of course couldn't possibly be down to anything other than science.

Whether the question was "What reason/what scientific reason/what logical reason/what rational reason" the answer remains the same. Even if you ask it ten times.

katydid

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You believe Jesus is God.

Of course you can't prove it, and no-one can be said to know it, because it isn't true. But you believe it.

You believe something is true which would make Islam utterly false, and vice versa.



Sure I do: you believe whatever nonsense you like, and nobody gets to say boo to you about it, no matter how mad it is, because you have a degree in English.

But you get to sneer at scientologists and creationists, because their religion is just stupid, not thoughtful and intellectual like yours.

Yes, I believe what I believe. And other people believe what they believe. What's your point?

I don't sneer at Scientologists or Creationists. I was asked, in the case of Scientology, whether or not I thought it was a religion, and I replied, giving the reasons why I think not. I never mentioned Creationists at all. Why do you persist in ascribing things to me I didn't say? That is dishonest.

My opinion of Creationists is very simple; they are wrong, because science proves them wrong. I have no opinion of them good or bad, they are simply wrong.

My educational level has nothing to do with this discussion other than to put the lie to the implication that belief and the ability to think and argue rationally are not compatible. One can't get to a post graduate degree level in any subject area without learning and engaging in reason and logic, and certainly not in comp. lit.

TheLurker

katydid wrote: »

Ok, so we don't understand how they apply, but they must apply, because...?

I didn't say they must apply, I said they do apply. We know this from studying the pieces. How humans are and how they behave when in the state we call "in love" is one of the most studied ares of human psychology and biology.

I cannot post links yet but if you Google "MRI scan love" you will find plenty of evidence of the physical manifestation of love in the human brain. The idea that "love" is some mysterious force that transcends our ideas of biology went out of date 80 years ago and is now found only in mussy Hollywood movies. I certainly understand that some find this notion that love is a biological phenomena un-romantic, and they would prefer that it was some magical force that can literally move mountains. But as such there is no evidence that this is the case, nor do I feel it needs to be in order that love be appreciate and enjoyed.

That does not mean of course that we understand every interaction to the point that someone can sit down and work out if they are or are not "in love". For a start you would be hard pressed to find a person who can actually define "love" to such a degree that this classification could be made in a meaningful sense. Using the analogy again, knowing that a grain of sand will be acted upon by the physical forces does not mean you can easily and accurately predict the lay out of the beach a week from now, or say if there is "too much" or "too little" sand now on the beach.

katydid wrote: »

I am perfectly capable of working this out for myself: I don't need to have my head filled with anything by anyone.

Well what you have said so far has been dangerously incorrect. So where ever you get your beliefs I suggest looking some where else.

katydid wrote: »

Just because you don't grasp the import of what I'm saying doesn't make it nonsense.

In most of your posts you flat out refuse to explain the foundations of your beliefs in any significant detail. Your statements amount to little more than saying your beliefs work for you. So while I might be missing the importance of your beliefs you cannot fault me for missing the importance of what you are saying since you refuse to say very much at all.

Which is of course your right. I do not consider you obligated to explain your beliefs. But you should not expect that those beliefs will be respected simply because you state them or that they be treated as anything more than nonsense based on misunderstandings, given that this is what they appear most certainly to be.

If you want us to understand the importance of what you are saying you will have to say a whole lot more than you currently are. You cannot both wish that your beliefs be considered to have merit worthy of respect while also refusing to engage in any serious examination of those beliefs

If you feel that is patronizing I am sorry you feel that way.

RikuoAmero

From the person who stops chemo therapy because he is "certain" that the homeopathic cream is going to work

Funny you say that...
http://7online.com/health/11-year-old-girl-dies-after-refusing-chemo-therapy/487908/

RikuoAmero

Yes, I believe what I believe. And other people believe what they believe. What's your point?

The problem is that we are skeptics. We're here listening to you saying "This is what I believe about reality, this is what I know". According to you, Jesus is the Son of God, he was God in the flesh. He purportedly did various miracles (which of the miracles talked about in the bible, by the way, do you believe/know happened? All of them? Some of them? None?). You've stated that Roman Catholicism didn't "work for you", so...what? Transubstantiation (wine and wafer literally turn in to the blood and body of Jesus) isn't true? The pope isn't the Vicar of Christ? He isn't infallible?
Then, over there in the other corner, we've got a Roman Catholic. He says things different to you. He says the pope IS the Vicar of Christ, no doubt about it. He says that the wine and wafer do literally turn into the blood and body of Christ at communion.
Then, over yonder, I see a Muslim. He says something different. He says that Jesus isn't the Son of God, he was not God in the flesh. He says that to even entertain the possibility of a man being divine is a sin. He says that Jesus didn't resurrect.

Now I am a skeptic, along with everyone else here. We want to know, which, if any of you, are telling the truth. Can all of you be speaking truth simultaneously? Logic says no, that would violate the laws of identity, excluded middle and non-contradiction (Jesus cannot both be God in the flesh, and not divine).
We are curious about what really is true, and we want to ascertain the truth. We want answers. To find the truth, we must have ways of sifting claims. We're not content with just leaving it at "people believe what they believe". We want to be able to find out which of those people actually do have true belief.

Zubeneschamali

katydid wrote: »

My opinion of Creationists is very simple; they are wrong, because science proves them wrong.

What? You said science doesn't apply to religion!

Because I've got news for you: science says dead people do not rise from the dead after three days. It says virgins do not get pregnant. There is no Heaven in the sky for Jesus to ascend into. There's no such thing as a miracle. Angels do not appear unto people and predict the future. Prophecy is a crock.

The Christian story in the Bible is absolutely impossible, says science.

RikuoAmero

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

What? You said science doesn't apply to religion!

Because I've got news for you: science says dead people do not rise from the dead after three days. It says virgins do not get pregnant. There is no Heaven in the sky for Jesus to ascend into. There's no such thing as a miracle. Angels do not appear unto people and predict the future. Prophecy is a crock.

The Christian story in the Bible is absolutely impossible, says science.

Katy is just maddening. She says logic, reason and science can't be applied to religion, yet says creationism (a form of religion) isn't true because science can prove it wrong...?
Can you keep a position for longer than five minutes Katy?

Nodin

katydid wrote: »

Evolution is far from perfect - handy opt-out clause there, alright. Covers all the inexplicable bits that of course couldn't possibly be down to anything other than science..

So all the times it went wrong = God? Great stuff.

katydid wrote: »

Whether the question was "What reason/what scientific reason/what logical reason/what rational reason" the answer remains the same. Even if you ask it ten times.

You can't provide any reason why you chose the faith you chose?

katydid

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

What? You said science doesn't apply to religion!

Because I've got news for you: science says dead people do not rise from the dead after three days. It says virgins do not get pregnant. There is no Heaven in the sky for Jesus to ascend into. There's no such thing as a miracle. Angels do not appear unto people and predict the future. Prophecy is a crock.

The Christian story in the Bible is absolutely impossible, says science.

No, it can't. Religion is a belief system about what is beyond science. Scriptures and teachings have, from time immemorial, tried to explain natural phenomena through recourse to the supernatural, but many of these explanations are unnecessary, or prove to be unnecessary with the passage of time. The creation story is one of those things; while science has explained some of the story, it nevertheless remains a very significant exploration of human nature, and the relationship between humans and the earth, and humans and the divine.

Of course the Christian story in the Bible is impossible, according to science. At least, parts of it are. But that's not the issue, since no one is trying to say it is possible according to science...

katydid

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Katy is just maddening. She says logic, reason and science can't be applied to religion, yet says creationism (a form of religion) isn't true because science can prove it wrong...?

And that's inconsistent how? Creationism isn't religion, it's an interpretation of religion that is clearly and demonstrably wrong. However, the creation myth is still a valid and a valuable myth.
Religion per se is far more complex than one interpretation of it, and where it addresses issues beyond our scientific comprehension it's simply not possible to marry the two.

You mind ME maddening. I find YOU maddening that you can't understand the difference between interpretations of religion that are erroneous and the larger concept of religion.

So we're quits :-)

Nodin

katydid wrote: »

And that's inconsistent how? Creationism isn't religion, it's an interpretation of religion that is clearly and demonstrably wrong. However, the creation myth is still a valid and a valuable myth.

How?

katydid

Nodin wrote: »

So all the times it went wrong = God? Great stuff.



You can't provide any reason why you chose the faith you chose?

All the times it went wrong...who knows? I don't claim to know. Unlike you, I'm not waffling on vaguely about "wiring" and then taking opt-out clauses when "wiring" doesn't explain everything. I'm being honest, I'm saying I don't know.

I have, repeatedly, given the reasons I chose the faith I chose. Apparently, those reasons aren't enough, since they don't conform to "reason and logic", but to my gut feeling that something is right for me. Maybe I just should say I must be "wired" to that particular frequency; would that satisfy, I wonder?

katydid

Nodin wrote: »

How?

Because, as I've said TWICE, it is an exploration of human nature, and humans' relationship with the rest of the world and with the deity. Like all myths, it tries to explain the world in a poetic and symbolic way.

Nodin

katydid wrote: »

I have, repeatedly, given the reasons I chose the faith I chose. Apparently, those reasons aren't enough, since they don't conform to "reason and logic", but to my gut feeling that something is right for me. Maybe I just should say I must be "wired" to that particular frequency; would that satisfy, I wonder?

O. You just 'feel' its right. That makes it clearer. Total nonsense, but at least we can say the reason is 'it feels right'.

Nodin

katydid wrote: »

Because, as I've said TWICE, it is an exploration of human nature, and humans' relationship with the rest of the world and with the deity. Like all myths, it tries to explain the world in a poetic and symbolic way.

Yes, but how is it useful to say some deity created the world in x amount of time etc when no such thing ever happened?

Zubeneschamali

katydid wrote: »

Of course the Christian story in the Bible is impossible, according to science. At least, parts of it are. But that's not the issue, since no one is trying to say it is possible according to science...

But you just said Creationism is wrong because it is impossible according to science!

RikuoAmero

Creationism isn't religion, it's an interpretation of religion that is clearly and demonstrably wrong.

Is Anglicanism not an "interpretation" of christianity? Can I apply science to Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism?
So how is it you can apply science to an interpretation of religion, but not religion itself? Is an interpretation a separate thing from the religion?
Oh and you're wrong by the way. There are people who try to say that the christian story is true according to science. Take Ken Ham for example. He did a debate last year with Bill Nye, where he tried to argue for a "historical science" that supposedly proves, through science, a literal reading of the bible.

katydid

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But you just said Creationism is wrong because it is impossible according to science!

Yes...

katydid

Nodin wrote: »

O. You just 'feel' its right. That makes it clearer. Total nonsense, but at least we can say the reason is 'it feels right'.

So any human decisions that can't be explained by a scientific hypothesis are "total nonsense". Hmm.

katydid

Nodin wrote: »

Yes, but how is it useful to say some deity created the world in x amount of time etc when no such thing ever happened?

It isn't, in itself. As part of a creation myth, it indicates the belief that this happened in stages. Not an unreasonable hypothesis for a primitive people to make when developing their creation story.

katydid

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Is Anglicanism not an "interpretation" of christianity? Can I apply science to Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism?
So how is it you can apply science to an interpretation of religion, but not religion itself? Is an interpretation a separate thing from the religion?
Oh and you're wrong by the way. There are people who try to say that the christian story is true according to science. Take Ken Ham for example. He did a debate last year with Bill Nye, where he tried to argue for a "historical science" that supposedly proves, through science, a literal reading of the bible.

Can you apply science to Anglicanism or Roman Catholicism? Sure you can. I can't imagine you'd be terribly successful. The bits that have had science supplied to them have already been through the process.
You can apply science to an interpretation of religion, because interpretations of religion are, by their nature, open to it. Religion itself is a more complex concept; it is a systemised belief in a deity. While it's possible to scrutinise and sometimes disprove specific claims, it is clearly impossible to prove or disprove the basic contention of the existence of a deity.
I should have thought the distinction was fairly clear.

I didn't say that there aren't people who deny the science that disproves certain religious claims.

Zubeneschamali

katydid wrote: »

Yes...

Creationism is wrong because it is impossible according to science.

Christianity is impossible according to science.

Therefore...

Nodin

katydid wrote: »

So any human decisions that can't be explained by a scientific hypothesis are "total nonsense". Hmm.

'I feel this is right'

'Why?'

'I just do'

when applied to selecting a religious faith underlines the bogus nature of the enterprise.

Nodin

katydid wrote: »

It isn't, in itself. As part of a creation myth, it indicates the belief that this happened in stages. Not an unreasonable hypothesis for a primitive people to make when developing their creation story.

The whole "use" of the creation myth is that it says it happened in stages......That's grasping at straws to be honest.

RikuoAmero

You can apply science to an interpretation of religion, because interpretations of religion are, by their nature, open to it.

Except for where they (very frequently) command you to believe and say you shouldn't apply science to it.

Religion itself is a more complex concept; it is a systemised belief in a deity

So Theravada Buddhism isn't a religion, since it has no deity?

While it's possible to scrutinise and sometimes disprove specific claims, it is clearly impossible to prove or disprove the basic contention of the existence of a deity.

Wrong. It is certainly possible to disprove a deity who is described as having done certain actions. For example, if someone says he worships a deity that, every Thursday, takes various famous national monuments and juggles them for a half hour for the lulz, I can say "Well, there is no evidence of that action happening, therefore I can say with a high degree of certainty that a monument juggling deity doesn't exist".
Part and parcel of the christian god's description is the claim that he died and resurrected. Well...there's no strong evidence in favour of that. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence here.

katydid

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Except for where they (very frequently) command you to believe and say you shouldn't apply science to it.


So Theravada Buddhism isn't a religion, since it has no deity?


Wrong. It is certainly possible to disprove a deity who is described as having done certain actions. For example, if someone says he worships a deity that, every Thursday, takes various famous national monuments and juggles them for a half hour for the lulz, I can say "Well, there is no evidence of that action happening, therefore I can say with a high degree of certainty that a monument juggling deity doesn't exist".
Part and parcel of the christian god's description is the claim that he died and resurrected. Well...there's no strong evidence in favour of that. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence here.

Can you give me an example of where "they command you to believe?"

Does a religion have to have a god? Good question...I take your point. A religion like Buddhism focuses on spirituality. It's a question I'll have to think about.

You can disprove that a deity juggles national monuments. You can't disprove that god died and was resurrected. Simples.

katydid

Nodin wrote: »

The whole "use" of the creation myth is that it says it happened in stages......That's grasping at straws to be honest.

Oh, for heaven's sake, I didn't say that the WHOLE use of the creation myth was to say that it happens in stages. You asked me a specific thing and I answered. You ignored what I wrote about the creation myth being an exploration of humankind and its relationship with the world and with the deity.

It's getting rather tiresome trying to have a reasonable discussion with someone who selects what they want from posts out of context and ignores the bigger picture. It's just as dishonest as totally misquoting.

katydid

Nodin wrote: »

'I feel this is right'

'Why?'

'I just do'

when applied to selecting a religious faith underlines the bogus nature of the enterprise.

Why? Does that mean that saying you know you love someone because you just do underlines the bogus nature of human emotions?

Nodin

katydid wrote: »

Oh, for heaven's sake, I didn't say that the WHOLE use of the creation myth was to say that it happens in stages. You asked me a specific thing and I answered. You ignored what I wrote about the creation myth being an exploration of humankind and its relationship with the world and with the deity..

How is it so? Please expand.

katydid

Nodin wrote: »

How is it so? Please expand.

Ah come on, you presumably know the basics of the Genesis story. Man developing relationship with God, man given "dominion" over the natural world, men and women have to live in pain and hardship, relationships between siblings "explain" different races/tribes, man punished for abusing nature by giant flood...etc. etc.

It's eleven o'clock on Saturday night. I've better things to be doing than writing essays.

Nodin

katydid wrote: »

Ah come on, you presumably know the basics of the Genesis story. Man developing relationship with God, man given "dominion" over the natural world, men and women have to live in pain and hardship, relationships between siblings "explain" different races/tribes, man punished for abusing nature by giant flood...etc. etc.

It's eleven o'clock on Saturday night. I've better things to be doing than writing essays.

....many seem to think that dominion over nature is the right to abuse it. Not sure what the relationships between siblings bit refers to. The explanation of different races and tribes - being untrue - was useless.

Jaysus forbid you explain yourself at any time without being hounded.

katydid

Nodin wrote: »

....many seem to think that dominion over nature is the right to abuse it. Not sure what the relationships between siblings bit refers to. The explanation of different races and tribes - being untrue - was useless.

Jaysus forbid you explain yourself at any time without being hounded.

And many think that dominion over nature is custodianship. Yet another example of how scripture is open to interpretation and debate.

Siblings; I was referring to Cain and Abel - clearly the myth of two brothers is indicative of clashes between humanity, and of course tried to explain the nature of good and evil, and of course an early bit of racism, interpreted by some to imply that black people were the descendants of Abel, and carried his curse.

Myths are by their nature UNTRUE, but they are not useless; they allow human beings to think about and to explore their own nature and their society. They are starting points for discussion and thought.

I didn't actually think I would have to explain this; it's kind of basic stuff, really. I have to say that I'm surprised that it seems to be your first time hearing this.

Nodin

katydid wrote: »

And many think that dominion over nature is custodianship. Yet another example of how scripture is open to interpretation and debate..

And thus useless.

katydid wrote: »

Siblings; I was referring to Cain and Abel - clearly the myth of two brothers is indicative of clashes between humanity, and of course tried to explain the nature of good and evil, and of course an early bit of racism, interpreted by some to imply that black people were the descendants of Abel, and carried his curse..

Useless as well then.

katydid wrote: »

Myths are by their nature UNTRUE, but they are not useless; they allow human beings to think about and to explore their own nature and their society. They are starting points for discussion and thought. ..

...so we'd be no better off than with the Greeks, Fair enough.

RikuoAmero

Myths are by their nature UNTRUE, but they are not useless; they allow human beings to think about and to explore their own nature and their society. They are starting points for discussion and thought.

This is perhaps the only thing you've said Katy, that I can agree with you on. For example, a major part of my view of the world, at least when it comes to religion, was formed by reading Frank Herbert's Dune and Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series.
However, at no point do I think that there is anything true historically about those stories. I don't believe that Paul Muad'Dib actually did lead a real army of Fremen to victory against the Padishah Emperor, nor do I believe that Richard Rahl did marry a real Mother Confessor.
So to see if I understand you correctly, you call yourself an Anglican, a person who believes that there is a god who is a trinity. You get this knowledge of this trinity from a bunch of old stories that are regarded as myth nowadays by myself and others like me. You believe that this god died and resurrected.
So if the myths, such as the resurrection are untrue, how then do you substantiate your religious beliefs?

katydid

Nodin wrote: »

And thus useless.


Useless as well then.


...so we'd be no better off than with the Greeks, Fair enough.

So it's useless for humans to think about human nature and their relationship with the world. Right.

I actually find it sad that you can't even begin to grasp ways of human thinking beyond A+B. If we were all like you, there'd be no literature, art or creative thinking of any kind.

Nodin

katydid wrote: »

So it's useless for humans to think about human nature and their relationship with the world. Right.........

Did I say that? No.

You seem to be deliberately forgetting the context here. This is supposed to be the word of God in a "special" book.

katydid

RikuoAmero wrote: »

This is perhaps the only thing you've said Katy, that I can agree with you on. For example, a major part of my view of the world, at least when it comes to religion, was formed by reading Frank Herbert's Dune and Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series.
However, at no point do I think that there is anything true historically about those stories. I don't believe that Paul Muad'Dib actually did lead a real army of Fremen to victory against the Padishah Emperor, nor do I believe that Richard Rahl did marry a real Mother Confessor.
So to see if I understand you correctly, you call yourself an Anglican, a person who believes that there is a god who is a trinity. You get this knowledge of this trinity from a bunch of old stories that are regarded as myth nowadays by myself and others like me. You believe that this god died and resurrected.
So if the myths, such as the resurrection are untrue, how then do you substantiate your religious beliefs?

At least you understand the value of myth. That's a start. :-)

I doubt if there are many Christians who believe the OT myths to be true. They are clearly the attempts of a pre-literate people, a tribal people who saw the divine as a kind of powerful king figure. In terms of trying to explain natural phenomena, science has caught up with it, but of course it's more than readable and explorable on a different basis.

I don't believe what I believe because of what it says in the Old Testament, I believe what I believe because of what I've read and studied about the writings of the New Testament makes sense to me. I won't deny I have question marks over some of the more outlandish stories, but on the other hand I'm willing to keep an open mind to the fact that while some is probably propaganda or exaggerated, there is a basis for most of it. Just because we can't prove that supernatural things occurred doesn't mean they didn't. So yes, I do believe that god became man, died and was resurrected. I don't necessarily believe all the stories of demonic exorcism and so on, which could well have been written to boost the agenda of the writers to portray Jesus in a certain way.

I know you'll find that wishy washy or strangely selective, but it's the way I see it. I believe that supernatural things can occur, but I don't believe that everything described in scripture, which is written by humans, to be true.

katydid

Nodin wrote: »

Did I say that? No.

You seem to be deliberately forgetting the context here. This is supposed to be the word of God in a "special" book.

A special book written by humans. Which most people know how to contextualise.

RikuoAmero

I doubt if there are many Christians who believe the OT myths to be true.

I've heard of quite a few studies that say, in the United States at least, there are quite a few tens of millions that believe some, if not all, the OT myths to be true.

the more outlandish stories

What makes a story outlandish to you? A few sentences after this, you say god became man, died and resurrected. So that's not outlandish? What could be more outlandish than that?

Just because we can't prove that supernatural things occurred doesn't mean they didn't.

Agreed, but it does indicate whether or not we have a legitimate reason to believe those things occurred. I currently have no strong evidence indicating a god became man, died and resurrected. It very well could have happened, but I will not believe without the evidence. For me to allow such a belief to form, would mean that the barrier for entry in my mind is extremely low. In order then to remain consistent, I would then have to believe all sorts of crazy claims that too have little to no evidence.
So no evidence for a god resurrecting? Believe anyway! No evidence an arab man flew to heaven on a winged horse? Believe anyway! Oh wait, no, you don't believe that for some reason.

which could well have been written to boost the agenda of the writers to portray Jesus in a certain way.

Have you considered that the entire story could have been an attempt to boost the agenda? What stronger propaganda can you write about a given person than to claim that that person is a GOD? Plenty of people have been claimed to be a god, and you don't believe those claims? So with regards to Jesus, what in your mind was exaggeration? How do you know it is exaggeration? Why isn't the resurrection story an exaggeration? What makes the claim "Jesus was [a] God" so much more compelling than any and all similar claims made about other people?

Long story short, from what I'm reading Katy, you seem to employ the logical fallacy of special pleading. Certain things are subject to scrutiny, are dismissed through an application of logic, reason or evidence gathering, while others get a free pass.

Nodin

katydid wrote: »

At least you understand the value of myth. That's a start. :-)

I doubt if there are many Christians who believe the OT myths to be true. They are clearly the attempts of a pre-literate people, a tribal people who saw the divine as a kind of powerful king figure. In terms of trying to explain natural phenomena, science has caught up with it, but of course it's more than readable and explorable on a different basis.

I don't believe what I believe because of what it says in the Old Testament, I believe what I believe because of what I've read and studied about the writings of the New Testament makes sense to me. I won't deny I have question marks over some of the more outlandish stories, but on the other hand I'm willing to keep an open mind to the fact that while some is probably propaganda or exaggerated, there is a basis for most of it. Just because we can't prove that supernatural things occurred doesn't mean they didn't. .

*sigh

katydid wrote: »

So yes, I do believe that god became man, died and was resurrected. I don't necessarily believe all the stories of demonic exorcism .

...because the resurrecting God-man is SO much more believable than Demons, Ted.

katydid

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I've heard of quite a few studies that say, in the United States at least, there are quite a few tens of millions that believe some, if not all, the OT myths to be true.


What makes a story outlandish to you? A few sentences after this, you say god became man, died and resurrected. So that's not outlandish? What could be more outlandish than that?


Agreed, but it does indicate whether or not we have a legitimate reason to believe those things occurred. I currently have no strong evidence indicating a god became man, died and resurrected. It very well could have happened, but I will not believe without the evidence. For me to allow such a belief to form, would mean that the barrier for entry in my mind is extremely low. In order then to remain consistent, I would then have to believe all sorts of crazy claims that too have little to no evidence.
So no evidence for a god resurrecting? Believe anyway! No evidence an arab man flew to heaven on a winged horse? Believe anyway! Oh wait, no, you don't believe that for some reason.


Have you considered that the entire story could have been an attempt to boost the agenda? What stronger propaganda can you write about a given person than to claim that that person is a GOD? Plenty of people have been claimed to be a god, and you don't believe those claims? So with regards to Jesus, what in your mind was exaggeration? How do you know it is exaggeration? Why isn't the resurrection story an exaggeration? What makes the claim "Jesus was [a] God" so much more compelling than any and all similar claims made about other people?

Long story short, from what I'm reading Katy, you seem to employ the logical fallacy of special pleading. Certain things are subject to scrutiny, are dismissed through an application of logic, reason or evidence gathering, while others get a free pass.

The whole story was written by different people at different times. I hardly imagine the whole thing is some kind of conspiracy. But different people writing have different styles, different priorities, different agenda. However, if you look at the whole thing, you can extract the commonalties and make a good stab at distinguishing the core facts.

Nobody can know for sure, as I've said all along. We can only make intelligent and educated guesses on the material we have to hand. I can say no more than that; if you don't understand, fair enough. All I'm asking is for you to respect that I'm not a moron for taking an intellectual course that doesn't tick all the scientific boxes.

Zubeneschamali

katydid wrote: »

We can only make intelligent and educated guesses on the material we have to hand.

And clearly when we regard these stories in a proper, educated and intelligent way, we discover that God, the creator of the entire Universe, was born of a virgin in the Middle East 2000 years ago, was executed and then magically rose from the dead before ascending into Heaven on a cloud.

What could be clearer?

RikuoAmero

The whole story was written by different people at different times. I hardly imagine the whole thing is some kind of conspiracy.

Not a deliberate conspiracy in my mind, but rather, an accidental one (that's the best term I can come up for now). What I think happened is that people heard a story about this great man who did one wondrous thing. They were amazed by it and thought to spread news about this man and so, in order to help their cause, they added a new detail. The next person or people to hear this now have a tale of two wondrous events, they too are enamoured and want to help spread the message. They believe the two wondrous events, add a third of their own, and repeat ad infinitum.
So what would be a core fact? A quick answer might be "The resurrection" but that can't be it, since the earliest manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark that we have don't have an account of it.