At this point, I'm not seeking to produce God-evidence, TBones.
I am looking to standardize our understanding of and communication about evidence. In doing so, I am hoping to agree on semantics so we can communicate effectively on the topic at hand.
Rational Faith
- Thread starter Motar
- Start date
At this point, I'm not seeking to produce God-evidence, TBones.
I am looking to standardize our understanding of and communication about evidence. In doing so, I am hoping to agree on semantics so we can communicate effectively on the topic at hand.
I have confidence in my own thinking, based on the evidence that it's worked pretty well in the past so I have good reason to expect it'll continue to do so. You're deliberately confounding different meanings of the word faith, the cheapest of cheap debating tricks.
Are you sure it's deliberate?
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity."
What type of evidence in support of superior self control is this "foregoing instant gratification for longer-term gain", TBones?
Is it information drawn from
1) personal testimony,
2) documentation, or
3) (a) material object
used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in a law court?
evidence: definition of evidence in Oxford dictionary (British & World English)
Is it legitimate?
Motar, get stuffed, OK? I can't be bothered to deal with your snarky BS. I hope you find some fellow adolescents who are interested in your game.
Francis Collins discusses the evidence for belief:
"Some have argued that spirituality is simply a function of neurotransmitters, and this can now be demonstrated by imaging experiments on the brain. But the fact that the brain has the functional capability to support a spiritual experience, which seems to be the case, does not seem to me in any way to negate the meaning of that spiritual experience. Again, if spirituality was part of God’s plan for us, these remarkable creatures created in God’s image – and by that I mean creatures of mind, I don’t think God has a physical body – then wouldn’t God need to have made a plan to have those experiences of spirituality supported anatomically in some way, so that they could be a real possibility for those who were seeking God? It seems to me that once again, science is doing what science does really well, which is telling us something about how and very little about why. How spiritual experiences are mediated by the various neurons and neurotransmitters is a scientific question. But why they happen in the first place? That’s a pretty tough one for science."
The ’Evidence for Belief’: An Interview with Francis Collins | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project
Physical/material evidence approaches the "how" of spiritual experience, while spiritual evidence addresses the "why" of it.
"Some have argued that spirituality is simply a function of neurotransmitters, and this can now be demonstrated by imaging experiments on the brain. But the fact that the brain has the functional capability to support a spiritual experience, which seems to be the case, does not seem to me in any way to negate the meaning of that spiritual experience. Again, if spirituality was part of God’s plan for us, these remarkable creatures created in God’s image – and by that I mean creatures of mind, I don’t think God has a physical body – then wouldn’t God need to have made a plan to have those experiences of spirituality supported anatomically in some way, so that they could be a real possibility for those who were seeking God? It seems to me that once again, science is doing what science does really well, which is telling us something about how and very little about why. How spiritual experiences are mediated by the various neurons and neurotransmitters is a scientific question. But why they happen in the first place? That’s a pretty tough one for science."
The ’Evidence for Belief’: An Interview with Francis Collins | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project
Physical/material evidence approaches the "how" of spiritual experience, while spiritual evidence addresses the "why" of it.
T-Bones, You have the freedom to leave the discussion at any time. If you are not interested in this topic, then do not participate. No need for insults.
cj, probably best you stay out of this. I got no problem with you, matter of fact I enjoy our discussions (and I'm aware I still owe you my "theory of the case" on the Christ story).
Christians, like non-Christians, can have productive discussions, or they can descend into snark and BS. I calculate the latter is when they exceed the ability of their smarts to handle the discussion. I'm aware that Dexter Sinister and I put a lot of pressure on you. I admire the way you handle it, and work to make a good thing out of it.
Motar, not so much. It's to do with my reaction to him as a person, not as a Christian.
Let me re-emphasize something here. You've been pretty much consistently respectful and smart in your discussion of faith. I don't think you'll ever change my mind, but I respect your faith, what it does in your life, and how you express it.
T-Bones, Well, I still think you are being rough on Motar. I'll add this to the conversation:
In regards to knowing the existence of God - "God can be properly known only in terms of his relationship to man; and man can be properly known only in terms of his relationship to God. This means that knowledge of God and of man is relative knowledge in the sense that each is known only in relationship to the other, a relationship that is ontological as well as personal. "
What does this mean? Anybody? Cause I really don't know.
Actually, I think science is good and has its most useful and rightful place, but God doesn't overtly use any of the branches of science to make himself known to us. We meet God, know God when we acquiesce to his knowledge regarding us. I expect much protest over this comment and that is why I am going into hiding now. Bah HA! Actually I will be back later this evening.
In regards to knowing the existence of God - "God can be properly known only in terms of his relationship to man; and man can be properly known only in terms of his relationship to God. This means that knowledge of God and of man is relative knowledge in the sense that each is known only in relationship to the other, a relationship that is ontological as well as personal. "
What does this mean? Anybody? Cause I really don't know.
Actually, I think science is good and has its most useful and rightful place, but God doesn't overtly use any of the branches of science to make himself known to us. We meet God, know God when we acquiesce to his knowledge regarding us. I expect much protest over this comment and that is why I am going into hiding now. Bah HA! Actually I will be back later this evening.
Yes, I'm sure, he's been sniping at me like that for years. He's a lot of things, but stupid isn't one of them.
"Science's domain is the natural. If you want to understand the natural world and be sure you're not misleading yourself, science is the way to do it ... When does life begin? When does the soul enter? That's a religious question. Science is not going to be able to help with that ... I actually do not believe that there are any collisions between what I believe as a Christian, and what I know and have learned about as a scientist. I think there's a broad perception that that's the case, and that's what scares many scientists away from a serious consideration of faith."
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/f/francis_collins_2.html
I thought this might interest you, Dex.
Building on the theory of multiple intelligences advanced by Harvard Professor Howard Gardner, Dr. Karl Albrecht proposes the following six dimensions to human intelligence:
Abstract intelligence - Conceptual reasoning, manipulating verbal, mathematical & symbolic reasoning
Social intelligence - Interacting successfully with others in various contexts
Practical intelligence - "Common sense" capabilities; the ability to solve problems & get things done
Emotional intelligence - Self-insight & the ability to regulate or manage one's reactions to experience
Aesthetic intelligence - Appreciation of form, design and relationships
Kinesthetic intelligence - Whole-body competence, e.g. singing, dancing, flying an airplane
Theory of Social Intelligence
I think Collins is wrong again there. The natural is all there is, there's no evidence there's anything else, merely anecdote, conjecture, and untestable statements about people's feelings and beliefs. Science may not be able to shed much light on those questions he poses, though I'd dispute that, but religion can't definitively answer them either. Many scientists don't enter into religious disputation because much of their funding is controlled by people like Collins. If he believes god inserted morality into us, for instance, as he apparently does, he's not likely to look with favour on a project to investigate the anthropological or evolutionary origins of morality, he'd believe there's nothing to learn there.
It does, thanks, I'll follow that up.
You have conned yourself into thinking that you have no faith, that's crazy man, you're a believer Sinister, you need pills.
You started it by oh never mind.
I started it by telling you the electric cosmos stuff is bad physics, which is true, and you've never forgiven me.
I forgive you, I hope that makes you feel comfortable. I understood way back then that you were hopelessly and emotionally attached to the Big Bang Religion and would need years of personal therapy that I undertook completely free of charge because I feel bad for people like you who cannot understand physics. I enjoy our sessions and I feel we've made some progress, especially with your bed wetting and nail biting which your extended care worker assures me you are coping with, finally.
Why we have spiritual experiences? That's interesting. My guess is because it is our brains giving us interpretations of experiences that we can handle. It is our brains' way of protecting itself from overwhelming emotions or sensory input.
Like this, for instance: Trauma switch identified: Mechanism protects our brains from turning stress and trauma into post-traumatic stress disorder -- ScienceDaily
Sounds to me as if it is saying the only way to be cognizant of a relationship between gods and humans is by metaphysical means. What I have to say about that comment is "well, DUH".T-Bones, Well, I still think you are being rough on Motar. I'll add this to the conversation:
In regards to knowing the existence of God - "God can be properly known only in terms of his relationship to man; and man can be properly known only in terms of his relationship to God. This means that knowledge of God and of man is relative knowledge in the sense that each is known only in relationship to the other, a relationship that is ontological as well as personal. "
What does this mean? Anybody? Cause I really don't know.
Me, too, and now I am equipped with my cuppa Earl Grey.
I think the entire faith thing is due to feelings. And spiritual matters are not behavioral. Behavioral matters are our interaction with out environment. Spiritual matters, IMO are entirely personal and subjective and are the ways we interact with each other, our world, our beliefs and are completely of the mind; IOW, the product of the electrochemical
activity of our brains rather than the actual processes: thoughts.
I agree. The dim rodent is definitely intelligent and his method of "trolling" is unique and IMO, a lotta fun and pretty cool.
Anybody can rationalize anything using any media. Psychopaths rationalize murder, politicians rationalize ripping everybody off, etc. The religious rationalize god by many different means, beliefs and books, but to me it is more about justifying their feelings of inadequacy.
As far as humans go, a separate life begins when the sperm and the oocyte unite. But life itself is a continuum and it started some 3 n a half billion years ago. Well, that's from the genetic POV anyway.
The soul. IMO the soul is entirely a product of the mind. It's a thought.
And then he goes and tries to prove me wrong by posting something like this:
Enjoy, cj. I'll be away for a few. Best discussion yet! Thanks everyone - especially, TBones : )