Science and Religion: Is it time to call a ceasefire?

A ceasefire? Tosh, Will! When should ideas be considered immune from rational scrutiny? When should truth claims (and the absurd mistakes of traditional religion are perfect examples) be let pass without being challenged? Yeah, whatever, maybe science and "religion" need not be in conflict, but religion as conceived by the vast majority of people, consisting of ridiculous concepts of "gods" and assertions as fact of events that we know did not happen, is forever inimically opposed to science, and is worthy of no respect, and can be granted no ceasefire. Unless you are suggesting that religion should surrender. In which case, fine; let's discuss reparations.

Well said Helio. Of course the two are often in conflict with no ceasefire on the horizon. There will be those believers who like to claim they are not in conflict, and if the ideas from religion are vague enough, that may even be the case. But most believers like to claim specific things. And that's where the trouble arises. And the token high-profile scientist who is also a believer doesn't change that. A majority of scientists don't believe, an overwhelming majority of high-ranking scientists don't believe. That makes what believers say about compatibility or room for a ceasefire rather irrelevant. For a ceasefire both parties have to agree. Most scientists do not sign up to it, so from thereon what believers like to claim about a possible detente is irrelevant. So no ceasefire.

I think if a ceasefire were called it would result in significant cuts in science budgets and an increased role for the pedlars of myth and superstition. Science is a sort of detergent that society cannot do without.

Sunday night's edition of Something Understood (Mythos and Logos) with Mark Tully examined some of the questions you raise. Karen Armstrong was quoted at length and regular contributor to Thought For The Day, Angela Tilby, argued that we really do not have to chose one or the other - they are complimentary ways to getting at the truth. She made the point that we can't live in a world detached from values, but she failed to point out that often the values promoted by people of faith inhibit scientific enquiry and harm society.

https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00sqkfk

Asking for a ceasefire implies that there is some active conflict between science and religion. There simply isn't.

All there is is a group of people with rigidly held beliefs who feel under siege from ideas and concepts that threaten their carefully crafted worldview, mainly due to underlying insecurities and a natural mortalistic fear of death.

Science doesn't actively seek to discover facts and present theories with the express intention of destroying religion. It simply postulates what is already there, but we have yet to define.

Religion on the other hand has for millienia sought to destroy, stamp out or otherwise convert everyone who doesn't agree with their specific view. Often with the consequence of in-fighting over very minor points (the sunni/shi'ite split for example)

If anything, religion should be looking for a way to alter dogmatically held beliefs, but science in no way obliged to stop the revelations of the facts.

Chill, Helio. The world will be all right so long as we have superior intellects to tell us what we're doing wrong. But I'm sure you knew that already.

"Is it time to call a ceasefire'? Absolutely not, but it is time to resolve the issue once and for all. Not possible you say? And that may have been the case for most of history but not any longer. What science and religion had agreed was not possible has happened, yet I doubt the high priests on either side of this fence of unknowing will appreciate a development that exposes the limitations of both sides and human nature itself.

The first wholly new interpretation for 2000 years of the Gospel/moral teachings of Christ is spreading on the web. Redefining all primary elements including Faith, the Word, Law, Baptism, the Trinity and especially the Resurrection. And for the first time in history, however unexpected, the world must now measure for itself, the reality of a new claim to revealed truth, a single moral tenet not of human intellectual origin, offering access by faith, to absolute proof, an objective basis for moral principle and a fully rational and justifiable belief! 

If confirmed and there appears both the means and a growing, concerted effort to test and authenticate this material, this will represent a paradigm change and advance in the moral and intellectual potential of human nature itself. Revolutionary stuff for those who have the moral courage and intellectual humility to test this teaching out for themselves!
Check it out at https://www.energon.org.uk

"You are a child of the universe,
no less than the trees and the stars;
you have a right to be here.
And whether or not it is clear to you,
no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.
Therefore be at peace with God,
whatever you conceive Him to be,
and whatever your labors and aspirations,
in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul." desiderata
I'd like to know why our souls feel like we have some connection with the universe? And why is there a connection between keeping peace in our souls and feeling like we are children of the universe?

for an excellent resource on this issue read

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-science/

Thanks Klatu. Jesus could have saved us all a lot of bother if he'd just given the URL during the sermon on the mount. Fail!

Here, Helio,

I came across the following story about the conversion of a prominent but as yet unnamed scientist and I was wondering what you thought.



“Christian Group at War with Scientist.

Certain Christian groups are objecting the the recent conversion of a leading scientist on the basis that the miracle which led to it was unorthodox.

The scientist experienced his religious awakening after a tin of alphabet spaghetti spelled out the whole of John 3:16 as he tipped it into a saucepan. “There really is no other way of understanding this except that it is a sign,” he said. “I would have been happy to ignore it but last week I dropped a tub of magnetic letters and was confronted with the words of a well known worship song. There has to be something in it.”

Unfortunately however, a local church has rejected his application for membership. Explaining their decision the church pastor said, “There is simply no way that we can accept his conversion as genuine. It’s not they we are against miracles, but when we asked the scientist to repeat the verse which had been spelled out in the saucepan he quoted from the NIV and as everybody knows the NIV isn’t the word of God.”

When asked whether or not the appearance of the worship song would add any validity to the claims of ‘miracle’ the pastor replied that his church wouldn’t, under any circumstances, countenance the singing of some ‘folksy guitar nonsense’. “If anything,” he said, “this earlier event only confirms our suspicions.”

Undaunted, the scientist continues to stir his pot."

Peter Morrow,

Fascinating account of the conversion of a scientist after a miracle. Though that can work both ways. Here is the moving account of an atheist who saw his lack of belief affirmed by a miraculous experience:

https://www.satireandcomment.com/0208toast.html

Isn't It, PK. Inspired by this I've spent the last week throwing tins of Spaghetti Hoops off the garden shed to try and decide whether or not I should go to the the 2012 Olympics!

It's good to see the same folks on this blog still battling it out day after day...you sure have convinced yourselves there is no God.

If I should get to the end of my life and realise that I'm wrong then I'll have lost nothing...but if you get to the end of your life and realise your wrong then you'll have lost everything.

Re Science-religion resources try also:
Why us? How science rediscovered the mystery of ourselves by James Le Fanu.
Reviewed at https://www.literaryreview.co.uk/cornwell_03_09.html

Bad reasoning and lack of imagination on display by Brian Thomas, post 14.

"If I should get to the end of my life and realise that I'm wrong then I'll have lost nothing"

He seems not to realize that if there is a god other than his christian one, he could be in so much more trouble than the atheists here. Suppose there is some other god than the christian one, but just as jealous, petty, insecure and unpleasant as the christian one. Like the christian god he doesn't like it if you worship other gods, sort of like the first of the 10 commandments and all that. The atheists would not have worshipped him, but then neither has Brian Thomas. And he has worshipped another god, violating one of the prime directives of bastard god X, Y or Z. Boy will he be in trouble.

Pitty poor Brian Thomas, for he knows not what he doesn't think through.

Can anyone spot the holes in PKs argument?? 20 seconds thought produced 3. Can anyone beat that???

Brian (#14)

"If I should get to the end of my life and realise that I'm wrong then I'll have lost nothing... but if you get to the end of your life and realise you're wrong then you'll have lost everything."

If there really is an all-knowing and all-loving God, then he created me and already knows I'm not going to subscribe to whichever faith/religion/denomination is the right one at this time in history. As he already knows, then to condem me to eternal suffering is cruel, sadistic and petulant. I'll take my chances with hell, it sounds much less hypocritical.

On a side point, if christians -really- believed in hell, then not one of them would rest trying to convert everyone else, martyrdom, persecution, unemployment and bankrupcy would not stop them. A bit of self-doubt there?

I'll give you a clue - the first problem revolves around the definition of "God". You see - it can't mean whatever you want it to.

The second problem revolves around the place of probabilities in calculating expected utilities.

The third problem revolves around what can and cannot count as "live" options for human belief, devotion and worship.(And that third problem has a lot of data backing it up).

The three problems don't make PKs position logically false. But they do make him look very, very silly and completely unread.

A bit like his use of "God-of-the-gaps" (shared with H and Grokes) which would make it impossible to ever present any evidence for God's existence. (I'd encourage them to publish in "Philo" on this. Because atheist philosophers have it all wrong, and they need to be put straight by some clear thinking scientists!)

GV

Natman

"On a side point, if christians -really- believed in hell, then not one of them would rest trying to convert everyone else, martyrdom, persecution, unemployment and bankrupcy would not stop them. A bit of self-doubt there?"

A bit judgemental, no? ;-)

And isn't doubt a good thing?

Helio

Come on, where are you?

You need to get 'tore in'. Your side needs you!!

;-)

2MP, I can't decide if your use of the word judgemental was ironic or not ;)

Doubt is an amazing thing, I constantly doubt that debates like this ever achieve anything worthwhile. I doubt that I should be trying to convince convicted Christians that their beliefs are flawed (they seem so happy in it!). I doubt that some people will ever realise that the core beliefs of christianity are actually a really good idea someone ruined by adding in God.

However, I don't doubt that science has given more to the progress of humanity in 200 years that religion could ever manage in 4000. I also don't doubt that non-rational viewpoints should ever be taught in schools to children. In my book all religion should carry an 18 certificate.

Peter - just wondering - is Nat really saying anything that General Booth hadn't said already?

I'll tell you what really worries me.....

If there's no ceasefire and the war continues what are we religious going to do when the atheists bring out their secret weapon: the double barrelled donkey?

Natman

"2MP, I can't decide if your use of the word judgemental was ironic or not ;)"

Well you're the freethinker, so I'll let you make up your own mind about that one!! ;-)

And "convicted Christians"? Boyz-o, I haven't heard that one in a while, I had almost forgotten that I was supposed to be, what was it, 'under conviction'!

Actually, I had completely forgotten that. :-)

First up, @ Will.

These experts on the show, are they all from the Faraday Institute (grateful recipients of 2 million dollars from the Templeton Foundation) or will there be some deviation from the now, now children, of course there is no conflict between science and religion school of discourse?

@ GV

I'll give you a clue - the first problem revolves around the definition of "God". You see - it can't mean whatever you want it to.

Tell that to every other believer who is not actually you or one of your simulations. Even if we restrict ourselves to self identified Christians, we have around 38,000 denominations with many radically different ideas on the nature of god, what he is and isn't responsible for, what he wants from his creation and how to interpret his words. Which one would the neophyte Pascal's Wagerer choose?

Bring in the other religions, whose adherents, naturally, are as convinced as you (with equally [un]convincing evidence) that god can't be defined in whatever way you want, and you have yourself a problem and a half.

The second problem revolves around the place of probabilities in calculating expected utilities.

As before. The weight of probability we put on various factors in the absence of solid evidence is so subjective as to be virtually useless. And if you mention Thwinburne again I'll thkweam and thkweam and thkweam until I'm sick (and I can).

The third problem revolves around what can and cannot count as "live" options for human belief, devotion and worship.(And that third problem has a lot of data backing it up).

I call cabbage.

A bit like his use of "God-of-the-gaps" (shared with H and Grokes) which would make it impossible to ever present any evidence for God's existence.

Give it up mate. The moment the religious top brass came up with the idea that faith was more important than belief from evidence, they acknowledged that arguing on the basis of evidence for god was a non starter. Why prolong the agony?

Parrhasios

Before we go any further you need to know that I am currently in a mischievous mood.

That said, are you referring to the 'some like to live within the sound of church or chapel bell, I'd rather run a rescue shop within a yard of hell," idea? (It seems to be attributed to different people)

Serious answer, I wouldn't limit my understanding of 'the gospel' to 'escaping hell'. (But I guess you know that already)

Oh for goodness sake - look what has happened - I get sucked into a meeting, then have to go to B&Q for weedkiller, go to the swimmers with the kids, get home & spray the path with aforementioned weedkiller, sort out a pile of admin, and all of a sudden this thread fills up with cabbage and Graham's link not only gets buried by the subsequent barrage, it gets *commended* by Will! What is going on?

Graham, you do PK an injustice; the problems are not with PK's argument, but in Brian's simplistic set-up. Brian says that by taking his view, he is more likely than an atheist to enter into a sweetiebread cottage of eternal bliss when he pops his clogs. His basis for this is that if there is no god, we're all in the same boat, whereas if his particular peculiar god exists, it's sweetiebread cottages for him and not PK.

PK merely points out that this argument (a common attempt at Pascal's wager) is deeply unsound, and throws out a few reasons. Indeed, you hit a few of these yourself. Yes, "god" can mean whatever people want it to believe, so even in the existence of A "god", there are so many possible options for its temperament, it seems silly to pin your hopes on one particular outcome. It's like saying that there is a dartboard, and therefore you're justified in pinning all your hopes on hitting the bullseye.

You also imply that the consequences of a wrong decision are so bad that they shift the decision-making process from a probability-based calculation to one more akin to a risk-based decision. Yet this is easily shown to be a problem with *Brian*'s argument, rather than Peter's. It is far more reasonable to think that any god that *might* exist values behaviours other than "belief" and "worship" - indeed, the requirements of these modalities of interaction is really quite bizarre. If we apply a wider theistic model, it is much much more likely that Brian will be punished by a theistic god than PK. Which takes in your third objection - again, there is no point in projecting this option at PK - it is better directed towards Brian.

I think one of the problems with philosophy of religion is that many of its proponents really don't properly consider the impact of their arguments.

And Graham, as for that Stanford article - I have only got part of the way down it. I would have to disagree with Will - it is not a great resource (maybe it gets better), and clearly the author has no idea what science is, and precious little of what religion is. The author (it actually sounds a bit like our old pastry Alvin Plantinga - I recognise some of his choice phrases) blunders about committing essentialist fallacy after essentialist fallacy, about what science "is" and religion "is", and plucking wee quotelets out from various punters who have often been equally confused.

If I get time I will trudge through the rest of that cabbage, but this is what you get when you get people who are neither scientists nor philosophers of science to pretend that they are philosophers of science. I hope this is worth it!

m

Fishy -
read the article very briefly. I am interested in the bit he didnt explain about imagination being the connection between science art & religion.
I must say that i find imagination one of the most fascinating things ever. Why do we have it, why are our hearts almost programmed to be restless, whether it is for spiritual or scientific knowledge or in many cases both. I do find it strange that st augustines "thee" could be helios "truth". And st thomas aquinas' beatific vision could have been einsteins unravelling of the universe.
I still believe that we perceive our universe through mind, body & soul. So a ceasfire 4 me has never been an option since i was never at war.

Hi Will, well, Plantinga would probably sell people the notion that he won of course. And Graham would be disappointed if I didn't come out with an immediate hurl reaction at Plantinga. Indeed, you won't know this, but off-line he goads me on at this; it would be impolite of me to refuse the old one-two! :-) Actually, I agree that the link is a useful one; it reveals some really poor logic from Plantinga - if anything, it's like a Tommy Cooper magic trick, without the humour. Plantinga is a dancer. It's moderately entertaining, but the sleight of brain is very obvious.

For instance, behold how he skips about trying to define "science", basing his argument not on an attempt to *understand*, but on quote-mining. He would be well advised to steer clear of "intelligent design" as an example, since there are numerous instances in his writings where it is clear he has no clue about evolution. But that is by the by. Having tied himself in knots over science, he moves on to discuss religion, and - BANG! - he ducks the issue entirely, and just focuses on religious *beliefs*! And assumes that we can just let that philosophically incoherent concept of an omnipotent omniscient omnibenevolent goddy thing slide as if it weren't completely vacuous. Ho hum.

Anyway, must dash, but just to point out that Plantinga has never really been able to grasp the distinction between hypotheses, theories and models. His article (for it is he!) is peppered with misunderstandings (or deliberate fastfootery?).

Essentially (see what I did there?) Plantinga is completely out of his depth when it comes to science and the philosophy thereof.

To have a ceasefire would require religion and science to sing from the same hymn sheet at some level...for both to be underpinned by understandings that are equally applicable to both. As religion currently stands in the world it can't even agree within itself never mind with a discipline outside of it - so the ceasefire won't be any time soon!
To have a true ceasefire and not just a 'we'll agree to disagree' ceasefire could be possible if there is Truth that is unifying and universal in application - that can be lived, known and experienced and not just something that is 'believed in' or to have 'faith in' and is applicable to science and religion. For me, there is Truth that is unifying and universal, consistent with and underpinned by science and also philosophically sound and consistent with a religion of love (where religion means 'relationship' and not how it is in the world today). Perhaps when the scientists stop deriding and dismissing anything to do with love and realise that there is a science of love, they can then provide the scientific understandings to explain what religion has been endeavouring to do for aeons along with some very enlightened people who have demonstrated how to live according to the science and religion of love! :-)
Another factor important in unification of science and religion is whether we continue to use our minds alone in scientific pursuit or combine the wisdom of the heart and the intelligence of the mind. Eg. a mind alone can advance technology to build weapons of mass destruction - a scientist combining heart and mind would never do that but would proceed with scientific advances for the benefit of the one humanity and the world, universe, cosmos at large - recognising the interconnectedness of all people and all things.
Of course I could also say that religion and science will ceasefire when the energetic nature of all things is truly understood by both science and religion - and the Truths that God is Love and the Kingdom of God is within are not just something to believe in or not - but are actually known by all. That day of course is a long way off and will require more than a few lifetimes and blogs!

Eunice, get back to us with an RCT showing whether pizzas cooked in anger are tastier than when cooked in beatific pacifism :-)

Helio: it's not about the taste per se but the energetic consequences on the body as a whole and when your ability to feel and discern energy is that clear you don't need an RCT! It becomes a known - like you wouldn't dispute that excess alcohol has an effect on the body that can be felt the following day and is not particularly pleasant - same same with the food we consume - it has a consequence on the body that happens to all of us and can be felt by all but most of us have lost or numbed our ability to feel that clearly. As we regain or re-awaken that ability then it becomes increasingly clear that what we put into our bodies in the form of food/drink/thoughts/emotions etc etc can be harming or healing. No need for beatific pacifism - just stillness/playfulness/love/joy will do! :-)

Ah, Eunice, you do not understand. This would be perfect for a double-blind randomised control study. I predict there will be no differences between the groups, and furthermore suggest that you are using the word "energy" incorrectly. The term you need is "magic woo essence". Energy is different. But even MWE is amenable to an RCT. Go for it!

Helio: I do understand you but you do not understand me! :-) When you understand energy/magic woo essence and know that all ultimately is energy/magic woo essence including us then of course we get affected by all that we consume and the energetic quality of it! Surely you can follow that logic even if you don't agree with it as being true. The RCT is not as straight forward as you think - because of our choices our ability to feel clearly is different (but the same in-truth - just that some of us have numbed/shut down our ability to feel clearly) and those with more love in the body will feel more clearly than those who have little love in their body - so we would need to have 2 groups who have the same amount of love in the body and whose ability to feel energy/magic woo essence was the same. So you see - it's not that easy!
And those who can feel clearly would not be eating pizza cooked in anger or stillness due to the effects of pizza/gluten alone - but could use lamb curry or pea soup! Problem still stands re: having 2 groups who are the same re love in the body and ability to feel clearly before you even start. Speaking from personal experience - as I have changed my diet/lifestyle the fact that we are affected by foods etc is increasingly clear to me - and trust me I am the last person who thought they would say that or who would not eat this or that as I previously couldn't stand people who were 'picky eaters' and a bit neurotic as I saw it. I know where you are coming from as I would have been equally disparaging of everything I have written on this blog a number of years ago! :-) You could do a personal trial and stop all caffeine, gluten, dairy, sugar, alcohol, chocolate/sweets/cakes etc for a year and then try them out one by one and see how they affect you! And that's before any anger is added!! Enjoy :-)

Yes, it seems that you guys are well acquainted with Hajek, Jordan, Pruss, Thomas V Morris on Pascals Wager, and the replies by Oppy and Sober. I stand corrected. I mean, gosh, I just feel silly. (-:

I'd give more detail, but PeterM, H and I have been through all this so many times we could probably give each others arguments.

Eunice, your lack of imagination is preventing you making your case. It's very simple. We take however many loopy food woo connectovagazzlers you can round up, and we feed them randomised pizza slices, produced by, say, the gorgeous and serene Gordon Ramsay and the vituperative and bitter Sophie Dahl, and ask them to mark down which slice was made by Angry Sophie and which was made by Serene Gordon.

I suggest that your taste-woo buddies can *not* tell the difference between pizzas cooked under different emotional states, if the pizzas are otherwise identical. Don't get me wrong - I *do* find it ridiculous that you think there is a difference, but guess what - you can prove me wrong. You can demonstrate that my naive scientistic assertions are misguided. You can prove to the world that your emotitasters can do their thang, and teh nastee syentists iz teh loozerz.

But, you know what, you won't do that. Because the plural of "anecdote" is "data" in the world of magic essence of woo. It's because you don't really care whether what you say is correct or not - it is sufficient to assert it, while flapping a pair of gossamer wings and gently drifting off to wibble land. Because then it is True, and what is True cannot be further analysed. This is the direct opposite of science; it is totalitarian, it is authoritarian, it is the highest form of cabbage, no matter how many pink sparkly hearts and flopsy bunnies you drape around it. You say you were previously sceptical of nonsense like this; I think you may be remembering things incorrectly.

Graham, you're right of course, but the point is that PeterK's criticisms of Brian's rehash of Pascal's wager are entirely valid, and the wobbles about probabilities and definitions of gods and available options etc are not criticisms that can reasonably be directed towards Peter, but gross inadequacies in the specification of the problem in the first place - i.e. they are demonstrations that Pascal was not valid, and, secondarily, Brian. Shoot the messenger, eh!!? ;-)

To perhaps clarify my earlier statement..(14), I will give a Bible reference;

1st Corinthians, chapter 1, verses 18 to 24

"they are demonstrations that Pascal was not valid"

Rubbish. Read the literature. Or call it names, whatever seems most convenient.

(the bottom line is that (a) you can have an evidentially concerned wager and (b) even if the wager is not evidentially concerned, not just any deity is avaiable to the proponent, or the critic, of the wager and (c) there are "Jamesian" and "Pascalian" wagers. Which was Brian making?)

GV

Eeek - forgot the (-:

And it's a good job that I noticed, because the mods would have taken an hour to read my post, and then I'd have sounded grumpy. And possibly caused offence. Needlessly.

When it seems that we can get all sorts of nonsense past the mods, and they don't notice. They really are a useless bunch. What is the rationale behind moderation?

A few more resources, that some folk may have missed. They're interviews, so not tightly argued. They just give the gist of a thinkers opinions. Still, they're interesting.

Simon Conway Morris
https://www.publicchristianity.org/scmvideos.html

Peter Harrison
https://www.publicchristianity.org/peterharrison.html

Michael Ruse
https://www.publicchristianity.org/rusevids.html

David Hart - author of "Atheist Delusions"
https://www.publicchristianity.com/david_bentley_hart.html

Owen Gingerich
https://www.closertotruth.com/participant/Owen-Gingerich/37

Ernan McMullin
https://www.closertotruth.com/participant/Ernan-McMullin/66

Peter van Inwagen
https://www.closertotruth.com/participant/Peter-van-Inwagen/114

An article by Denis Alexander on my IQ
https://graphite.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Issues.php


And a few lectures that may be worth listening to -

Ard Louis
https://www.veritas.org/Media.aspx

Fritz Schaeffer
https://www.veritas.org/Media.aspx

Finally, a debate with some of Helio's favourite philosophers...
https://www.veritas.org/Media.aspx

GV

Glad 2 c u back Eunice -
just 2 say that i've given up making custard when i'm in a foul mood - it always goes lumpy and is always silky smooth when i'm not.

GV
"the first problem revolves around the definition of "God".." - Do ever think at times that trying to define God with our human logic is as futile as a baby in the womb trying to figure out what its legs are for?

Brian (#43)

Quoting bible verses only really works if you accept it as truth, and the version you're using is the 'true' version and you're absolutely convinced that nothing was lost in 2000 years of translation. However, to balance it out (and to make a point that bible is full of weird stuff) here's mine.

Leviticus Ch 19 v 27

Natman

You asked about irony earlier. I have a suspicion that nearly everything on this thread is an exercise in irony, there are more smiles :-) and winks ;-) than donkeys in Jerusalem during holy week. ;-)

So with tongue firmly in cheek (and a smidgen of interest in how you’ll respond) let’s ‘rip in’ :-)

Right, Leviticus and beards, although where I come from people call them ‘birds’, with birds being ‘boards’ and boards beings ‘boords’ (as in diving boords and boards in the sky!)

Anyway, bear... I mean, Biblical literature.

I was just wondering if you had any thoughts (and I’ve said this so many times on this blog that it’s getting a touch embarrassing) on - author, style, purpose, cultural background, historicity, anthropomorphism, theme, oral tradition, literalism, idiom, humour, metaphor, Hebrew poetry, rhetoric, hermeneutics, New Testament Intrepretation of the Old Testament or Christology? (Helio calls all this 'cabbage', but you can ignore that for if he knew anything about unity and diversity he'd be able to mention bok choy, savoy, red, Brussels sprouts and so on instead of just repeating the same thing over and over, you know, like a worship song ;-)

Alternatively we could propose that that verse in Leviticus was a forerunner of Showaddywaddy.

And presumably it wasn’t ‘weird’ for them; I mean here, in my country, we grab another person by the hand and shake it up and down just so we can say, ‘hello’, I mean, how weird is that?

And didn't 'quoting' bible verses 'work' for you? ;-)

A bunch of sciency type people consider the science v religion question. Sam Harris is particularly entertaining.

@GV

Yes, it seems that you guys are well acquainted with Hajek, Jordan, Pruss, Thomas V Morris on Pascals Wager, and the replies by Oppy and Sober. I stand corrected. I mean, gosh, I just feel silly. (-:

Ah yes, the Courtier's Reply.

Natman...the problem that many have, is, that they take a verse out of the Bible and ignore the context. If you take a book, open it at page and read one line...does that tell you the whole story...I think not!

Yes, brian, you take the whole darned thing out of its ancient context. So you make errors.

Brian (#52)

And yet that is -exactly- what most people do with science. And if you take science out of context, or are not aware of either the background science or the concepts that underpin it, it's even worse!

1 Timothy ch2 v12

2MP (#50)

I've heard of this shake-handing, but it sounds like a strange custom to me. Your point is valid, however, the bible was written a long time ago in a culture that is vastly different to our own, using metaphorical language, poetry and all the rest that is difficult to relate to for those unlearned in ancient hebrew or aramaic.

The comparison between Joe Average (of whom I am proud to associate with) dealing with biblical interpretation and scientific theories is interesting. Neither can be viewed without a healthy dose of education in the subject matter, and neither can be taken out of context without seriously effecting the interpretation.

Too many people, on both sides of this artificially constructed debate, don't have enough knowledge in the relevant field to accurately debate the topic, and even less have a good sounding in the subject matter of the other side that is so needed to provide proper scope and balance.

I also feel that this discussion often gets side tracked into topics that distract away from the main topic. So I'll say it again;

There can be no ceasefire, because there is no conflict. Science is neither the protagonist, nor the antagonist, it is merely the background to which antagonistic protagonists (or maybe protagonistic antagonists) throw their carefully crafted and yet unwielding dogma at, in the hope that the science will somehow break.

Bombs away...


1 Nathaniel 3:21

2 Abraham 5:86

1 Davidus 5:2

14 Heshbon 23:6

2 Bashan 34:62

2 Reubenite (all of it)

1 Oholiab 17:6



That would be a 'no' then, Natman? ;-)

Grokes

This is not a productive conversation. We're just lobbing insults.

GV

Just stick to your philosophies Heliopitan...it will take you round in circles forever.

But it's a lot of fun. So let me summarise the courtiers reply.


1) Religious belief is exactly like the Emperor’s Belief that he was wearing new clothes – that is to say, Religion is obviously false, absurd and dangerous.

2) Religious people object that they have arguments that their beliefs are not obviously false, absurd and dangerous.

3) But we don’t need to engage those arguments as Religion is obviously false, absurd and dangerous.

GV

PS: In the spirit of this thread, to win you must reply *without making any substantial points*
Some people may call us immature, but this is much trickier than it looks. (Have we invented a new sport?)
I look forward to the counter-attack (-:

Brian

"Just stick to your philosophies Heliopolitan...it will take you round in circles forever."

I'm thinking, would that be like pi in the sky... ;-)


Graham

"to win you must reply *without making any substantial points*"

Should be easy enough for the atheists then. I mean, they probably don't have any substantial points so we should stop worrying and enjoy our lives!

;-)

William/Mods

Sorry about the change of subject but I seem to be unable to 'preview' my comments on either of the last two Old Testament course threads. No problem on this one, but on those the 'Preview' button is missing.

Any chance someone could look at this please?

The last I checked this wasn't an atheist vs christian discussion. It was science vs religion. The implication that all those who adhere to scientific principles are atheists is shockingly inaccurate and possibly even highly insulting to a lot of scientists who hold their beliefs to be very important. It's also the kind of straw-man argument so beloved of those across the Pond who seem to insist this is some form of Culture war.

The existance of any scientific theory that seems to preclude the involvement of a god doesn't automatically result in the denial that said god exists. It merely deprives dogmatic adherants of an aspect of the universe to which they can claim sole authority.

There was once a great flood, and a highly religious man saw the floodwaters approaching his house with the utter calm of a person with vast quantities of faith. "I am not worried, God will save me." As the waters reached the door of his house, some of his neighbours had acquired a boat and were on their way to higher ground. "Come with us." They pleaded with the man. "No." He replied, sending them on their way, "God will save me." As the waters entered his house and rendered the downstairs uninhabitable, he sat by an upstairs window as a rescue boat approached the house. "Come with us." The rescuers pleaded. "No." Replied the man, sending them away, "God will save me." The waters rose higher, forcing the man onto the roof of his house where he sat, huddled against the torrential rain. A helicopter arrived to winch away those still stranded. "Come with us." The helicopter crew pleased. "No." Replied the man, sending them away, "God will save me." Eventually the waters enveloped the house and the man was carried away and drowned. Upon arriving at heaven, he marched off to see God and demanded to know why, despite his prayers and devout faith, God didn't save him. "I sent two boats and a helicopter." God replied, "What more did you want?"

Natman

I pretty much agree with your sentiments, religion and science need not be in opposition... but to acknowledge that on this thread would be to miss the opportunity to have a bit of a mess about!

@GV

I endeavour to avoid making any substantial points, but if I do I'm always careful bury them in pointless insults and general shoutiness.

Having said that, pretty spot on with the Courtier's Reply there, and on reflection your position is slightly different:

1) There is no specious argument for god that is not strengthened by a bunch of philosophers wibbling on about it interminably.

2) If your opponent is not familiar with the wibbling he has no business tackling the argument.

3) And that Swinburne, what a guy.

Chappi and chapellae, we have indeed managed to warp this thread into interesting and entertaining topologies, no doubt unintended by the intelligent designer (i.e. Will). And that is fun. InsufficientPeters accuses us atheists of not having any points, and ContextuallyAppropriateBrian accuses us (me) of going round in circles. I hadn't noticed either if these fine gentlemen actually demonstrating that - just chucking 'em out there. Which is dandy of course.

The Natmeister is correct that this is not a war between Atheism and Christianity (after all, as a Christian Atheist - how should I choose sides??) nor even really between "science" and "religion", which are not actually in conflict - Ken Miller would be surprised to find a conflict, yet a more unwavering upholder of scientific primacy would be hard to find (maybe PZ might be firmer).

So where is the conflict *really* at? The conflict is NOT about the religious life, the rituals or even the general worldview. The conflict is over the truth claims. This is where the wheels totally come off the Plantingamobile (clown wagon that it is). You can't semi-define science with utter nebulosity, then refuse to define religion, but define religious *claims* and then by fiat declare that they are perforce based on an epistemology that cannot be undermined by rational analysis, ergo goddidit, and scientists are old meanies who don't understand the profound bran tub of epistemic logic.

The deal is this: it is perfectly possible to be a Christian (or a Muslim or a Jew or many other religions) and still be a scientists, indeed to still be an atheist. The difficulties arise when people confuse truth claims, be they scientific or historical (e.g. Adam & Eve [recent BioLogos facepalm on this one! v amusing] or the Virgin Birth), with articles of faith that their religion demands. Sorry, but such claims cannot BUT come into conflict with science. If I as a scientist am asked to "believe", say, that Jesus rose from the dead, I actually cannot do it. No es possible. As a historian (with a modicum of background in ancient literature, and several bibles in my house and the whole lot on the Net) I cannot do it, because the story, though holy, wholly holey.

So science does conflict with the narrow view of religion that is based on unsubstantiable claims such as "there is a god" or "jesus rose from the dead" or "his ma was a virgin". These claims are all very likely (!) to be FALSE, and it is scientifically absurd to state otherwise. But are such claims necessary for religion? Do religions NEED to invade the territory of science in this clumsy way? No, they do not.

I'm working on this: The Church of Jesus Christ Atheist is one experimental way forward; your thoughts, dear blogaroos, are most welcome!

:-) [Better put in the smileys, or Peter and Graham might think that I am cross with them! Anyway, it's late, and I have had a small beer. I should not post in such a state.]

-H

I still can't see your post at 23.20pm Grokes, and I'm off to bed. But I'm looking forward to it.

The bloggers dinner is still in Sept. isn't it? I'll have to make it this year. Could be great craic!

GV

Grokes

And that argument doesn't convince you??!!!

@GV

Well, I must say it's looking pretty persuasive...

What if I changed the wibble to a waffle?

Boys, this is great stuff. Grokes, bringing Swinburne in is teh funneez; here is what Plantinga says about him in Graham's entertaining link (the first one way up there): "...others hold that in fact there are excellent arguments for theism and even for specifically Christian belief. Here the most prominent contemporary spokesperson would be Richard Swinburne, whose work over the last 30 years or so has resulted in the most powerful, complete and sophisticated development of natural theology the world has so far seen".

Which is interesting, because Swinburne is probably the most loquaciously boring vendor of tired old cabbage wrapped up in misapplied Bayesian gloss that the world has ever seen. I can certainly see that he stands astride the field of natural theology like a mighty colossus, but he doesn't exactly cut it in the real world. Ho ho, Alvin - you are quite the comedian.

Alvin plumbs the depths further (Alvin, plumbing depths, geddit?) with this little snippet on the tragic and pathetic figure of Michael Behe, he of "irreducible complexity". I'll quote quite a bit of this, because it illustrates how unhinged from science Plantinga actually is:
"... Here there are several arguments, arguments that have historically fallen into two basic types: biological and cosmological. An example of the first type is the argument proposed by Michael Behe (Behe, 1996), according to which some structures at the molecular level exhibit “irreducible complexity.” These systems display several finely matched interacting parts all of which must be present and working properly in order for the system to do what it does; the removal of any part would preclude the thing's functioning. Among the phenomena Behe cites are the bacterial flagellum, the cilia employed by several kinds of cells for locomotion and other functions, blood clotting, the immune system, the transport of materials within cells, and the incredibly complex cascade of biochemical reactions and events that occur in vision. Such irreducibly complex structures and phenomena, he argues, can't have come to be by gradual, step-by-step Darwinian evolution (unguided by the hand of God or any other person); at any rate the probability that they should do so is vanishingly small. They therefore present what he calls a Lilliputian challenge to unguided Darwinism; if he is right, they present it with a Gargantuan challenge as well. Not only do they challenge Darwinism; they are also, he says, obviously designed: their design is about as obvious as an elephant in a living room: “to a person who does not feel obliged to restrict his search to unintelligent causes, the straightforward conclusion is that many biochemical systems were designed” (Behe, p. 193). Others, for example Paul Draper (2002) and Kenneth R. Miller (1999, 130–64), argue that Behe has not proved his case."

It should be pointed out here that it is not that "Behe has not proved his case"; rather, Behe's entire argument has been incontrovertibly shown to be completely wrong. Plantinga seems to give the impression that Behe's argument is a hmmmmm moment; that Miller and Draper are being cautious. Not the case. Miller *eviscerated* Behe's mistakes at the Dover trial and in several other publications; many scientists have looked at Behe's arguments and demonstrated very clearly that "irreducible complexity" is NOT a barrier to evolution, nor does it present particularly large probability hills. Indeed, evolution by natural selection acting on "random" variation is *predicted* to produce irreducible complexity. And, of course, the specific examples cited by Behe can be shown to have very plausible evolutionary routes. Behe is busted; THAT is why he (and ID) are treated with scorn by the academic community, not because of "prior metaphysical biases" as people like Billy Dembski and Casey Luskin plaintively bleat.

So it is perhaps a measure of Plantinga's grasp on this topic, that he has so little respect for scholarship, that he cannot recognise a bogus argument when he comes across one, that he gives charlatans the time of day. Sure, he can string a sentence together, but it is sad to see someone, who clearly is not *stupid* in the conventional sense, pushing such egregious nonsense, and apparently unable to spot the flaws in their own logic.

@Helio

not because of "prior metaphysical biases" as people like Billy Dembski and Casey Luskin plaintively bleat.

And our own dear LSV.

@GV

What if I changed the wibble to a waffle?

That's it, you've sold it to me.

I'm sure Sunday's discussion will be interesting. Wonder if any of these areas will come up......

* Facts that science 'discovered' long after they had first appeared in the Bible?

* The large body of scientific evidence which is consistent with the Bible's account of the origin of 'life, the universe and everything'?

* The largely concealed pieces of evidence which are scientifically difficult to reconcile with the evolutionary model?

* The growing number of scientists who have doubts about aspects of Darwin's theory?

* The many scientists who are prominent in their chosen field of study and who are also unashamedly Christian?

Seems to me that the 'Science v Religion' conflict is made the more contentious because some let prejudice and dogmatism to get in the way of reasoned discussion. Perhaps there will be no hint of that on Sunday, but I'm not holding my breath.....!

Phil, that was an interesting post, suggesting that you really haven't given these issues much thought. Let's see if we can unpick a little, shall we?

* Facts that science 'discovered' long after they had first appeared in the Bible?

Like what? Like the firmament over the earth? Like bats are birds? Like the earth has four corners? Like the waters above the earth? Like the mass of the proton? Like the common ancestry of all life? Did you know that Eve wasn't created from Adam's rib, but from his baculum? Look it up - the bible was right.

* The large body of scientific evidence which is consistent with the Bible's account of the origin of 'life, the universe and everything'?

And which body of evidence would that be then? The bible does not *have* an account of the origin of "life, the universe and everything" - the Genesis account is simply myth.

* The largely concealed pieces of evidence which are scientifically difficult to reconcile with the evolutionary model?

Like what? You've been reading books that are intended to deceive you, and in your scientific naivete, you have accepted what they say at face value.

* The growing number of scientists who have doubts about aspects of Darwin's theory?

Perhaps you would like to indicate the literature where this "growing number of scientists" publishes and discusses their findings? As it is, the "growing number" is not growing at all - if anything it is shrinking, and many people on the list from the Discovery Institute are a/ not scientists, and b/ horrified that they have been included. Also what do YOU understand by your use of the term "Darwin's theory"? Darwin discovered the basis of the primary theory that explains the facts of evolution. The last time I checked, there was a commandment against bearing false witness against thy neighbour. Many people suggest that this also means that there is an imperative to check your sources and not spread misinformation.

* The many scientists who are prominent in their chosen field of study and who are also unashamedly Christian?

Yes, there are some. And the vast majority of unashamed Christians in science recognise that evolution is fact, and that the modern evolutionary theory is the best explanation of that fact.

Seems to me that the 'Science v Religion' conflict is made the more contentious because some let prejudice and dogmatism to get in the way of reasoned discussion. Perhaps there will be no hint of that on Sunday, but I'm not holding my breath.....!

Precisely.

Helio: *But, you know what, you won't do that. Because the plural of "anecdote" is "data" in the world of magic essence of woo. It's because you don't really care whether what you say is correct or not - it is sufficient to assert it, while flapping a pair of gossamer wings and gently drifting off to wibble land. Because then it is True, and what is True cannot be further analysed. This is the direct opposite of science; it is totalitarian, it is authoritarian, it is the highest form of cabbage, no matter how many pink sparkly hearts and flopsy bunnies you drape around it. You say you were previously sceptical of nonsense like this; I think you may be remembering things incorrectly.*

I remember very well Helio thank you and it was as I said. I have not said I had 'data' or that I had scientific evidence of what I was saying. I am well aware that whilst these experiences are true for some people (as in it is true they have had these experiences) I know this does not constitute scientific evidence and I never said that it did. I merely used an example that most people can relate to and that it is true that after drinking excess alcohol the body/one does not feel as good as they did before drinking. That in itself does not require a randomised controlled trial (although you can still do one) but it is self-evident to most people who have consumed excess alcohol. Similarly, for those who are clear, the consequences of eating certain foods and foods cooked in emotion like anger can be felt by them in the body. Granted there are probably not many people who are clear enough to detect food cooked in anger (and its not about taste but energetic consequences) and I am not one of them. However, personal experience does tell me that foods irrespective of emotion do affect the body and our energetic state of being. Whilst I am not able to detect food cooked in anger (yet!) I have the understandings of the energetic consequences of such emotion and for me it is now understandable how this can affect the body in a detrimental way - even though previously I would have said this was complete nonsense as you are also saying.

You are wrong to say that I do not care whether what I say is true or not. I do care, very much. It is because I do care, that I say what I know - even though I also know it is likely to be knocked back as rubbish by people like you as it is not backed up by an RCT. As I pointed out above doing a trial is not as easy as it sounds and fact is most people in the world are not going to detect a difference because they are not clear enough to do so and there are probably not enough people who can to be able to do a trial. However, that still does not mean that it is not true - just because the majority are not aware of it. I am not being totalitarian or authoritarian - you can eat and drink whatever you like, whenever you like and in any emotion you like - no problem! I am just sharing what I know to be true for me based on experience, knowledge and understanding and you are free to reject it and wrap your vitriol up in pink humour if you wish - it's your body that has the consequences.

Consider that most of us are living far away from our true potential as human beings and that we are potentially capable of far, far more than detecting anger in a pizza - perhaps the day will come when that is just an accepted part of human knowledge and experience as we continue to evolve and unfold. Are you open enough Helio to consider that there may be more to this world and to you than what your currently very limited views of humanity are?? (intellient apes or something like that I think you said??). Watch you don't choke on your own angry pizza! :-)

PastorPhillip (#71), that comment is the kind of comment I've come to expect from pro-creationists who have done little more than read their own propaganda and either refused to look into the facts involved, or looked at them and dismissed them.

Helio has summed it up perfectly, so I can't really add more aside from to note that the comment 'The growing number of scientists who have doubts about aspects of Darwin's theory?' is entirely true. A lot of scientists have doubts about -ASPECTS- of Darwins theory. However, and this has failed to register through the creationist delusion, it's not the same theory as the one postulated by Darwin all those years ago and people can have their doubts about aspects of anything. They still have complete certainty that concept generally is sound and plausible.

If an account of any sort was to be dismissed on the grounds of some dissent over technicalities and minor points, then no religion in the world would stand to scrutiny. Take that plank from your own eye.

Hi Wedwabbit - thanks for your comments - BTW as well as your mood try stirring your custard anti-clockwise rather than clockwise! Don't ask me to explain on here - they already have me assigned to the loony bin! Enjoy! :-)

Eunice - just a quick query - what do you think of Rudolf Steiner?

Sigh. Similarly, for those who are clear, the consequences of eating certain foods and foods cooked in emotion like anger can be felt by them in the body.

No they can't.

They may PRETEND that they can, but they can't.

And you could do some very simple tests to prove this, as I explained.

Eunice, the bottom line is this: you can believe there are fairies at the bottom of the garden with all the feisty little strength you can muster, but that does not summon up the fairies. Remember it is YOU who is asserting that crazy stuff happens (like Angry pizza), and I think it is interesting that you show such a shocking lack of respect for logical hygiene that you are prepared to arrogantly insist on the "truth" of some really quite nutty notions, and when challenged (which is only right and proper, and forms the core of rational discourse), you just chuck on another couple of layers of cabbage and accuse your challengers of having disharmonious energy thingydoodles.

Look, you're entertaining, and we like you, but you are going to have to up your game a little bit, and learn how to deal with the situation when you are trying to get your ideas across to people. Maybe it's inexperience on your part, but I think it's more likely that you really don't know what you're talking about in the first place.

And I say that not to be a dysenergetic old meaniebubble, but in order to challenge you to straighten out your thoughts and present them to us rationally. Will you do it? Are you prepared to acknowledge that you may be wrong about your Pizza Whisperers? How can you *tell*?

Actually, Eunice, I know some of these guys in the world outside W&T, and we're very fond of you. I haven't a *clue* what you're talking about some of the time, but you're possibly the most affable character I've met online. And you're tenacious, and I respect that.

Eunice - thanks for the custard tip.
Helio, no they really did taste the lumpy bites in the custard - i dont think they were just pretending.
i was going to put the QI link in of "can jesus walk on custard" but it might offend some people so instead i added the bbc QI link of eddisons 15 little people and another term for cabbage - "Floccinaucinihilipilification"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eb6xJLrXnI&feature=channel

Good morning gentlemen!
In order :
Parrhasios: Re Steiner - quick query, quick answer - best avoided! Where evil is understood to be anything that promotes separation from one's essence/soul - then he fits that bill.

Helio: *No they can't.

They may PRETEND that they can, but they can't.*

It is not I who is arrogantly asserting!! Kettle and pot again!! I am sharing what I know and I do not insist on you accepting it, liking it, agreeing with it, using it, believing it or do anything at all with it - you can throw it all in the bin! I have presented what I know logically, rationally and simply several times and am willing to do so again should you wish it. I do know what I am talking about and I accept that you do not know what I am talking about and that to you it's all cabbage and that's fine - as I said I did use to think the same. I don't need you to agree with me Helio - hence I am not insisting on you accepting what I say - far from it!

The body is the marker of truth - it has lived all our experiences and reveals all our choices. We give supremacy to the mind and thinking over the body and feeling and many of us (self included) have shut down our ability to feel or rather to recognise what we are feeling - but we are all feeling all of the time - we are energetic beings and energy is flowing through us all the time (and without it you are dead!) . We are interconnected with all that is. What we consume or put into our bodies in the form of food, thoughts, emotions affects the body - it cannot but affect it and people can feel the effects of that.So the pizza whisperers can feel the effects of anger!! Its just the same as feeling the consequences of alcohol which has a more overt effect - but food is the same - eg after certain foods you might feel heavy, sleepy, sluggish, or the opposite. Emotions also affect the body detrimentally as they are not our true nature - and increasingly this is being recognised even in medicine as I'm sure you are aware through psychoneuroimmunology etc. So whilst it is a much more subtle level - food cooked in anger is energetically affected by that anger and can have consequences for the consumer. As I said - this is not most people's experience and thus I understand your doubt, scepticism, scorn and ridicule! But hey - what have you got to lose - just cook with joy and all will be well! :-)

Have you heard about the Japanese guy who did experiments with water - labelling jars with words like love, anger, hate, beauty etc and then photographing the crystal formation? Those with words like beauty and love were beautiful crystals and in harmony and those with words like hate were disharmonious and all over the shop! Yes there is more to it and I am not using this as scientific evidence - just a supporting point!

The pizza whisperers feel what they feel - they don't pretend to feel it - why would they? DO you pretend to have a hangover or pretend to feel crap when you have one?? No - you just have one, feel it and know that what you put in you the night before has affected your system. Same goes for food - begin to notice how you feel after what you eat and see if any differences in how you feel in the body. Rather than have me give you the evidence (which you will only pull apart) be the experiment yourself and know it for yourself! It is by listening to the body, to our feelings rather than our thoughts that we get in touch with what is true. The mind does not care about the body and can overrule the body and can tell you another drink will be fine etc - but ask the body how it feels the next day!

GV & Wedwabbit: thank you :-)

Keep feelin the love that you are guys! Even Helio! :-)))

Emotions are both subjective and relative, what inflames some with anger can calm others. What some people find saddening to the point of insensibility can instill a sense of euphoric joy in others. To presume that inorganic and unsentient lumps of matter such as pizza and crystals can somehow be infused with the resonance of a chemical and neurological signal and that resonance can somehow reflect the specifics of each user of that object is bizarre, to put it mildly.

I've cooked plenty meals with less than a pleasant mood and the resulting offering hasn't been noted to have anything less than the sustenance that it should bring. For any experiment of this nature to be valid, not only would you have to match the exact mood over the course of cooking several meals, the tasters would and should not be aware of the mood of the person cooking it. It is quite easy to 'detect' happiness in a meal that you, or another, cooked with a light heart and joy if you are present to share in that emotion with them.

I think that, fundamentally, the beliefs of Eunice with regards to the ability of emotions and feelings to transcribe to inanimate objects is a matter of faith, and as such lies beyond the remit of science. Science concerns itself with defining that which can be defined. Whilst it can never disprove the existance of a god, or any other related concept, neither can they be proven, or analysed to examine them further. To expect it to is sheer folly. Whilst I accept that god -might- exist, or that Eunice's ideas about emotional resonance are intriguing, it is has no bearing on my decisions about how the universe was created (as it can be shown god wasn't involved) or where to order my takeaway from.

Natman:
Matter and energy are interconvertible (Einstein) - the pizzas do not feel the anger, they are made in the energy of anger as opposed to the energy of love/joy and carry the imprint/energy of that anger into the body. That energy is not our true energy and thus affects us detrimentally. It is not a matter of faith for those who experience it - it is a known. The energetic precedes the chemical and neurological aspects.

*Emotions are both subjective and relative, what inflames some with anger can calm others. What some people find saddening to the point of insensibility can instill a sense of euphoric joy in others*
Precisely - all emotions are deviations from our true nature of love and joy and the further we are from our essence the more emotional we will be and be affected by what happens out there in the 'big bad world'. To be a master of yourself is to be able to be love and joy no matter what is going on in the 'big bad world'. Hence the importance of knowing and re-connecting with one's essence and living from there such that the emotional dramaramas diminish and life becomes a joyful harmonious journey (most of the time!!) :-)

Eunice, please provide a reference for "that Japanese guy". I suggest you are talking twaddle. I know you think you know what you know, but that only tells us about your psychological state. It does not tell us whether That Japanese Guy really did what he did or not, or whether you or he are lying or incapable of critically analysing what you think you know. I have no problem having my preconceptions challenged, but please provide evidence, not twaddle.

Sheesh. The cows are getting ready to attack on the "Ulster Museum" thread. And Eunice is getting threatening looks from her Pizza.

Is anywhere safe?

...anger is not energy. Anger is a physiological and neurological responce to a situation that you find undesirable. The energy comes from the mechanical actions your body takes to respond to that. Some people get angry, but don't show it, suppressing the emotions and remaining calm. Some people explode in rage. Which one has more energy? To suggest that, somehow, all this involves a form of extra-body energy is a strange concept, to say the least. In addition, how do you explain that some of the best food in the world is cooked by chefs who are angry all the time?

If I recall correctly, Jesus once got angry, in the temple, with the money-lenders and sellers there. You cannot tell me that he was disconnected from the 'true nature of love and joy'. Wasn't he the personification of that source? Should not he, above all others, be the master of himself?

The only energy that is carried into my body by eating a pizza is good old carbohydrates and their remarkable ability to convert ADP into ATP.

I also heard some ukrainian guy saying that energy comes in different flavours, not emotions. He said the best sort is 'peppermint' but you can also get up, down, strange and wahoonie.

Natman: suppressed anger is just as bad (or worse) than expressed anger as far as the body is concerned. It is not extrabody but intrabody and yes there are physiological consequences as well - it is both/ and not either /or. Re chefs and food - I am talking about a level of feeling/discernment that most people dont have at the moment - esp if numbed out on alcohol, stimulated by sugar/caffeine, dulled by gluten etc then they ain't gonna feel the difference!
Jesus was a master of himself - do you believe everything that is in the bible to be literally true? I don't. Also even masters are allowed their off moments!

Helio - I'll get back to you with the name when i get it!

Helio: my disclaimer - I just heard about this guy but had not researched him or his work so I'm at fault here and shouldn't have mentioned it without doing so - don't shoot me! A quick look reveals you will easily pull it apart as not scientific! So I've saved you the bother of trying - no need to waste your time! Some nice pictures though :-) His name is Masuro Emoto.

Eunice, don't worry about it - I knew it was nonsense as soon as you posted it, so now you do too - we're both happy :-)

Let's get this thread back on course, now that we have heard from Will's panel in Dublin that there is no necessary conflict between science and religion...

...well, actually that point was never established, nor could it be in the absence of *anyone* prepared to give an alternative view. Where were the atheist or humanist panelists? As for the discussion on creationism, the point seems to miss Denis Alexander in particular - the meaning of the word "yom" or any other word in the whole sorry mess that is Genesis is precisely *irrelevant* to science. Genesis is a series of *stories* - that is it. It's the cultural heritage of the ancient civilisation from which Judaism and Christianity eventually evolved. It is neither literal *nor* literary - it is simply context in the same way as the Epic of Gilgamesh or the Tale of Sinuhe are context.

And then the discussion on "ethics" at the end - that too had me banging my head off my courgette plants as I carried out my horticultural rounds, iPhone in pocket and headphones in ears. The level of discourse was *shockingly* jejune (Plantinga, listen up, buddy) in comparison to the issues that are being raised every day by the most junior researchers in these fields - and this without any cabbage about "playing god" or pseudoscientific pablum about "The Fall". These guys are splashing in the shallows, pretending they're cross-channel swimmers.

As for the old chestnut "The Question of Evil", they were largely right - there is no other way for our world to *be*, but that renders the "god of classical theism" (as this "omnipotent omnibenevolent omnipresent omniscient necessary being") nothing more than a joke.

So, ceasefire? It's not even a credible proposition. It was like watching England playing against *nobody* and still managing to lose 4-1.

If my memory serves me well, Will asked the question: "Is theology a science?" The person who answered said that it was, and proceeded to talk about different types of evidence. Observational on the one hand and, I suppose, just make it up on the other. This reminded me of the earlier contributor to the programme (bloke with the book) who argued that it is wrong to see "truth" as just something external than can be weighed and measured, but that it is something within as well.

Christian Theology is based on the historical facts about the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ - and there were plenty of people around to 'observe' Him!

The Bible points to Jesus as the Unique Son of God, and records that He said:"I am...the Truth" (John 14v6)

None of this is imagination - check it out; the evidence stands up!

pastorphilip, you don't think there is a circular reasoning problem in holding up a quote from the new testament as evidence for christian theology?

Sheesh, Phil - you're going to need a different thread for that.

The bible is a secondary source of historical information, mainly based on decades old subjective observations and hearsay, and it's a highly biased and well edited source at that. To view it as a valid source upon which to base any theories on is dangerous.

To give a more modern example, it would be the equivalent of a student of the Napoleonic Wars in 100 years time using a single Sharpe novel (the rest having been discarded 70 years before that) as a primary source and claiming to be able to give a valid account for that time period.

To claim the bible is 'god-inspired' and incapable of being wrong is a matter of faith and puts the use of the bible in any factual setting into even more dodgy grounds. People of faith are well known for establishing their 'facts' first and then looking for evidence to back it up.

Peter,

Since Christian Theology is based on the New Testament, I don't see the problem.

And as for the subject itself...you guys brought it up!

The problem is Phil that you are using an uncorroborated document to corroborate itself. By that reckoning Middle Earth exists because it says so in Lord of the Rings.

The bible is not a reliable historical record of anything, if it were there would be independent corroboration of the events within it and given how major the events were, I would expect to see masses of external evidence, but there really is none.

Just because you say it is true does not make it true.
.

PeterK

"you don't think there is a circular reasoning problem in holding up a quote from the new testament as evidence for christian theology?"

No more than pointing to yourself as evidence for yourself. ;-)


Phil

Here's the thing: there is no God, it's just that atheists like to spend a lot of time talking about him. ;-)

Dave

"By that reckoning Middle Earth exists because it says so in Lord of the Rings."

You can do better than that.

"Just because you say it is true does not make it true."

That bit would be right though.

Peter Morrow,

"No more than pointing to yourself as evidence for yourself. ;-)"

A book pointing to itself as evidence that it exists is fine. If there was bible verse saying 'The bible exists, it is in itself evidence of its existence' I would go along with it without hesitation. But the bible being evidence for christian theology, that's a whole different ball game. One in which pastorphilip should have received a red card for violating the circular logic rule ages ago. And for your post I am hereby handing you a yellow card. Don't do it again if you want to stay in the W&T game! :P

2MP (#96)

We like to talk about God because the people who do believe in him insist on having it included in every aspect of our lives, whether we believe in it or not.

Quite rightly, people are objecting to this. Especially when it relates to the teaching of children who are very susceptible to this form of brain-wash... I mean preaching. ;-)

Peter

A book would need a verse like that?

Looks like we're both booked now!!

Only you gave yourself your own yellow card!! ;-)