Theists and atheists( P.S.)

[kowalskil]

Theists and Atheists​

I still do not know what can be done to eliminate endless conflicts between theists and atheists. But comments collected at several websites prompted me to compose a short on-line paper at:

theo_sci

It can probably be used to initiate an interesting discussion here. Please share this link with those who might be interested.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
Professor Emeritus
Montclair State University, USA
.

 

[DaSleeper]

It was just too quiet for the last little while........from the atheist front....

Here we go again..........

 

[DurkaDurka]

If you read the first couple lines of this paper, he states he was a atheist in his youth and is now a theist.

 

[MHz]

Another conflict simply pops up to take the place of a 'defeated' threat. Sometime nature is the catalyst and other time men engineer the events, for good or bad. Do wars for treasures and property belong to the Atheist Wars or is that a mis-label?

3) Initial Statements

Statement 1 (L.K.)
Did God create us on his image? Did we create God on our image? The answer is “yes” to each of these questions.

God and the Holy Spirit created man in in their image and likeness, that means physical form and a bond that brings a man an a woman together in the strongest bond a man can have (that is below the one with God)

Statement 2
That's an interesting thought. I'd like to know how both could be simultaneously true. There are thousands of verifiable instances of humans creating new religions, and none of the former option.

We can't even understand the 1st chapter in the first book let alone being able to not have some 'unanswered questions'. Not very likely we cna come up with something as complex (yet understandable) as the Bible. That is using the viewpoint that all the 'authors' were acting as a scribe for God. He is the Potter and we are the Clay

Statement 3 (L.K.)
Theological questions are not answered by using science and scientific questions are not answered by using theology. Likewise, theologians say that the universe was created in six days, as revealed in holy books. But astronomers say that they have evidence that the universe has been changing for billions of years. Scientific methodology is not used to validate holy books and holy books are not used to validate scientific claims. Mixing science with religion is not useful.

Add one zero for each of the 7 days of creation and use the date of the exit from Eden as the starting point. 4,000 BC becomes 4,000,000,000BC and that is the end of day 1 in Genesis 1. On that day the earth experienced it's first day/night cycle. Day 1 was from 13,5000,000,000BC . Day 2 started at 4,000,000,000 and goes to 4,000,000,000 etc until day 7 ended at 4,000 BC. The day God started his rest would have been 40,000BC. That is the basic outline

Statement 4
I think that science can be used to test the claims made in holy books. If the claims made in holy books were correct, we would expect scientific inquiry to support them. Yes, holy books contain pronouncements about the physical world. Such pronouncements should not be taken literally. They represent incorrect beliefs of our ancestors. Faith and science were not yet separate disciplines. The world was not created in one week, six thousand years ago. Theologians know this; many of them do not take such stories literally.

Faith cannot hold back water against gravity, that is a goddidit event that the Bible promotes as being true. Science will never support that view because they cannot reproduce it. That's fair If a being cannot do that then they are not God no matter how powerful they are.

Statement 5(L.K.)
Holy books do not define God in terms of material attributes. The best a scientist can do is to confirm that God is not a material object. But that would not be a surprise to sophisticated theologians; they have already accepted that God is a spiritual entity.

Genesis 1 is the path the dust part of us took to get us here, Genesis 2 is the path the breath of life part took to get us here.

Statement 6 (L.K.)
Think about close cooperation between scientists and mathematicians. The two disciplines are very different, in terms of methods of validation, but there are no conflicts. In fact, mathematics is like theology; it starts with axioms (self-evident truths in particular contexts) and uses logical derivation to justify claims. Science is different; here claims are justified by reproducible experimental observations, not by pure logic. Scientists and theists can coexist in the same way.

The Bible would seem to promote the first signs of life were on land rather than the sea. Moss being the first and trees existing as a result of life being established where water was in the form of mist. Sea life developed independently from like for the fowl (air) and the land (many varieties) Reading the Bible I take it that a bird could become a whale just through adapting two environments and one species. Air into water. Water onto land has it's examples and land to air has a few also. All of that through adaptation more or less stopped about 40,000 BC. What existed then is pretty much what we have today as far as species goes. Adapting to local condition is an ongoing process.

Statement 7
It is not good to subdivide knowledge in two categories. Knowledge is interconnected, that is its nature. There is one truth, not two truths. In a perfect man, it's one not two. So we either believe in the Bible, and in the story of the literal Genesis (or in some other religion like Islam), or not.

In a perfect man there are two people, without a wife mankind is a sterile being and destined for extinction.

 

[Corduroy]

I disagree with your assessment of conflict being undesirable. The conflict of ideas improves our understanding of those ideas, peels off the superfluous and ineffectual arguments and makes both sides stronger, and ultimately, theoretically, the only way you can resolve the issue. It's the only way we can ever hope to arrive at something close to the truth. And even when we are certain for something, challenging ourselves fends off intellectual atrophy.

 

[darkbeaver]

In what sense or context do you consider "conflict" as benevolent?

 

[kowalskil]

Corduroy wrote: "I disagree with your assessment of conflict being undesirable. The conflict of ideas improves our understanding of those ideas, peels off the superfluous and ineffectual arguments and makes both sides stronger, and ultimately, theoretically, the only way you can resolve the issue. It's the only way we can ever hope to arrive at something close to the truth. And even when we are certain for something, challenging ourselves fends off intellectual atrophy."

Thank you very much, Corduroy. Your message made me aware that I did not expressed myself clearly. You are right, conflicts of ideas are likely to improve our understanding. Discussions between scientists and theologians are desirable. Participants would probably agree about the existence of two different methods of validation of claims. They would probably agree that methods of validation developed by scientists are applicable in our material world only. Likewise, they would probably agree that methods of validation developed by theologians are applicable in our spiritual world only. Scientific methodology of validation should not be used to validate or refute God's existence. Likewise, theological methods of validation should not be used to validate or refute statements about the age of our planet.

Reaching an agreement on this would a big step toward peaceful coexistence and mutual respect. That was my main point. Only futile debate, not all debates, are undesirable. Debates in which methods of validation are not used properly are usually futile.

Ludwik
.
.

 

[MHz]

I disagree with your assessment of conflict being undesirable. The conflict of ideas improves our understanding of those ideas, peels off the superfluous and ineffectual arguments and makes both sides stronger, and ultimately, theoretically, the only way you can resolve the issue. It's the only way we can ever hope to arrive at something close to the truth. And even when we are certain for something, challenging ourselves fends off intellectual atrophy.

Only if that teaching can appear as something other than a threat to the ones it is being presented to. Discussion means nothing if one side can lob in 500lb bombs anytime they want to.

In what sense or context do you consider "conflict" as benevolent?

The cartoon of an IDF targeting a pregnant woman wit a 2 for 1 caption would be considered art rather than inciting violent behavior. That is coming from a Nation that will start campaigns for a month over a few rockets, without any warheads, landing in the desert of what is Gaza on some maps. Two different sized feet obviously.

 

[Said1]

Hey, 'Kowalski' come here often. :lol:

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I still do not know what can be done to eliminate endless conflicts between theists and atheists.

Neither do I, but I know they can't both be right in any meaningful sense, so I'm quite convinced the conflict will continue until one side gives up. I'm also quite convinced, after decades of thought and analysis and a rather painful apostasy, that it's the atheists who are right.

 

[In Between Man]

Neither do I, but I know they can't both be right in any meaningful sense, so I'm quite convinced the conflict will continue until one side gives up. I'm also quite convinced, after decades of thought and analysis and a rather painful apostasy, that it's the atheists who are right.

Apart from thought, analysis and painful apostasy how much of a factor was pride in making your choice?

Can you honestly say that if you were convinced there was God that you would want him in your life?

 

[Cliffy]

Theology is based on the interpretation of ancient writings. How is that even remotely connected to a spiritual reality? The spiritual world is unseen, so how can ink on paper give an accurate description? I think it is as absurd as science saying there is only a material world. Neither take into consideration the personal experience in either realm. It is about the faith of accepting the truth according to someone else.

Theologians theorize about spirit, science theorizes about the material. Both require blind faith in belief system, one on feelings based on interpretation of texts written by someone else the other on visual interpretations of data collected by someone else. Both down play the personal experience in both worlds. One says that if it is not observable then it is not valid, the other says if you don't have blind faith in the existence of god, you are doomed. I think they are both nuts. It is not either/or. It is both. One cannot exist without the other.

One's personal interpretation of the meaning of either determines their experience of either and if they think only one is valid, they will not be able to accept the validity of the other. It is to live in only half a world, which is of course impossible. They are mated: the Yin and Yang.

The problem lies in the orthodoxy of dogma. Literal fundamentalist on both sides fail to see the duality of life. Life cannot be understood by dissecting life into its component parts or by interpreting allegorical and metaphorical texts as literal fact. Both only view reality through a narrow tube, missing the interconnectedness and interdependence of all things to all other things, seen and unseen.

The concept of god is just a concept. It has no basis in observable fact. The Christian/Jewish/Islamic view of god as a separate entity from the rest of the Universe is not supported by any evidence, so science assumes that it is not worthy of consideration. The problem is not whether god exists, but that the concept of a god as separate from the cosmos is untenable, the view too narrow. We look out at the Universe from a tiny speck of dust floating around in an infinite sea of dust and think that we can comprehend the vastness and complexity of it. It is a futile and egotistical mind game, nothing more.

 

[Corduroy]

Thank you very much, Corduroy. Your message made me aware that I did not expressed myself clearly. You are right, conflicts of ideas are likely to improve our understanding. Discussions between scientists and theologians are desirable. Participants would probably agree about the existence of two different methods of validation of claims. They would probably agree that methods of validation developed by scientists are applicable in our material world only. Likewise, they would probably agree that methods of validation developed by theologians are applicable in our spiritual world only. Scientific methodology of validation should not be used to validate or refute God's existence. Likewise, theological methods of validation should not be used to validate or refute statements about the age of our planet.

I'm not sure I would make the distinction as being between science and theology and I'm not entirely sure what you mean by theologian validations. Obviously, theologians across religions use different standards to validate their theology and between them there isn't much ground to resolve differences. As a method of validating claims, there is no ultimate standard to appeal to, except for maybe reason. Which is why I would rather make the distinction as being between a posteriori and a priori: i.e. claims proven through experience and claims proven through reason.

Science employs both but is strongly associated with experiential claims. In science nothing is really accepted (or shouldn't be) until they have experimental evidence. So much in cosmology, for example, flounders in a scientific purgatory because we haven't come up with any hard evidence for a lot of the lovely formulas physicists have come up with.

Theology at best is entirely a priori, but is rampant with naked assertions and assumed premises. One such assumed premise you brought up when you said theology can validate claims in the spiritual world. You're assuming that there's a spiritual world to make claims of in the first place. And since experience has been nixed for theology, you'd have to come up with an a priori proof for the spiritual world. I'd be interested in hearing it. All such claims I've ever heard have been made in a posteriori language. However, there are compelling a priori argumentsfor the existence of God.

Reaching an agreement on this would a big step toward peaceful coexistence and mutual respect. That was my main point. Only futile debate, not all debates, are undesirable. Debates in which methods of validation are not used properly are usually futile.

Depends on what your goals are. Sometimes I know I won't be able to change anyone's mind. A lot of times I'll just debate to better convince myself of what I believe.

Only if that teaching can appear as something other than a threat to the ones it is being presented to. Discussion means nothing if one side can lob in 500lb bombs anytime they want to.

Debate is always threatening.

Can you honestly say that if you were convinced there was God that you would want him in your life?

Depends on the nature of that God. All human religions I've heard of don't present the kind of God I'd want in my life. In fact, none of them seem to even give me the choice anyway. And I'm not really sure I know what kind of God I would want in my life.

 

[El Barto]

Why the conflict?????
Well online speaking .....it is the constant spam , threads and threads of religious crap with shades and slices of different angles of the same god damn subject!!!!!!
True there are some athiest trolls .....narrow mindedness seems to have no boundries .

Can it be we are just tired of this crap?
The continious claims we are going to places that don't exist gets a little annoying.... the lack of acknowloging the holes and proof of the contrary just points out the intent . In all my time here on the net I haven't seen one member change camps in beliefs.......yet this is a fact totally oblivious to the what I call religious spammers.
It must also be very tiring to the quiet believers who have to bear the brunt of attacks. They didn't ask for it and yet they see it.
Bottom line ....no one wants to be told what to think , what to believe.....should be a header for all forums !

 

[MHz]

Too many ups and downs in it for you or what. You will be happy to know that there are many people working to bring God down to a size that you will accept as being what the OT part of the Bible is about. Perhaps that version will fill your requirements even though the conduct doesn't improve at all, if anything it gets worse as some men will claim the right to be the watered down God of the Bible (and their select followers who just happen to be the elite of today) and everybody else has the job to listen and obey without question. Welcome to medieval England on a global scale. The Bible also tells you to watch out for certain things that will turn out to be scams in the end. How much of the religion do you see that is geared to commercial ventures (money is involved somehow), that is an Atheist past-time even if it is would in religious colors.

Sometimes I know I won't be able to change anyone's mind. A lot of times I'll just debate to better convince myself of what I believe.

Debate is always threatening.

Hopefully any opinion you have has gone through some debate in the past and hopefully the debate covered both sides equally, that still leaves you to sort and file that info, if facts are involved only one version can have the true one. If you value honesty over accepting a lie your version of the truth should end up being stronger version just because lies come with errors of some sort, even if they are small it is enough to show there id deception or some facts are just missing and the conclusion is in error because of that. Only the weak side finds debate threatening, as you pointed out debate is the test to finding out how accurate your current knowledge is (various subjects apply rather than the one of this thread)

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Apart from thought, analysis and painful apostasy how much of a factor was pride in making your choice?

None. It was strictly reasoned, along the lines of, Do these claims make sense? No they don't. It wasn't a choice, it was a conclusion.

Can you honestly say that if you were convinced there was God that you would want him in your life?

If he's the mean, capricious, vindictive SOB the Bible and the Quran portray him as, no, I wouldn't want him in my life.

 

[darkbeaver]

Religion was meant to instruct the student about the incarnation of reason into human matter.

 

[kowalskil]

Neither do I, but I know they can't both be right in any meaningful sense, so I'm quite convinced the conflict will continue until one side gives up. I'm also quite convinced, after decades of thought and analysis and a rather painful apostasy, that it's the atheists who are right.

Each side has to give up something. Scientists should stop using their instruments to refute/validate claims about our spiritual world, theists should stop using their instruments to refute/validate claims about our material world. That is the only way, in my opinion, toward peaceful coexistence and mutual respect. The "we know better" conflicts are perpetual poison.

Ludwik
.

 

[darkbeaver]

The "we know better" though is the product of the god reason, isn't it? If you reason a better way aren't you are bound to insist to share? Despite the cost. Any parent is familiar in the instruction of reason with a competing little spirit.

 

[selin]

Theists and Atheists​

I still do not know what can be done to eliminate endless conflicts between theists and atheists.

hııım, then strike a balance between theist and atheist- be deist.