tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33424426.post7928702747384910955..comments2023-09-01T07:04:13.381-07:00Comments on Reflections on Faith and Culture: Deliberate Barbarism and the VacuumGil Bailiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04481878663941134090noreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33424426.post-17913194531328732322009-11-30T05:37:07.263-08:002009-11-30T05:37:07.263-08:00Hi Mike,
Of course you may call me Rick.
Like you...Hi Mike,<br />Of course you may call me Rick.<br /><br />Like you, and I think we are of a similar mind on much of this subject, I’m pressed for time – especially this time of year. Trade Show this week…<br /><br />Anyway, you are right about the inadequacy of the baseball/music analogy, and how it may be interpreted by atheists. After I came up with it I thought it may come across like one was better than the other – which may be true, but not the point. Only that the rules or “language” of one is not in the other. I would prefer an analogy that would show the language of one is in the other, but not vice versa – such as say physics/mathematics. But since most of our subject deals with a form of consciousness, there really is no metaphor for consciousness. There is nothing to compare it to.<br /><br />But getting back to my point about our debate dilemma; that you and I are speaking from a different plane than Doughlas, Hermes perhaps was the best to describe them respectively as the vertical and the horizontal planes. This is not to say the planes are equal. Lets say we assign (not to mention it is proper to) religion or Christianity or philosophy (properly understood), humanity, Man, to the vertical plane. And likewise, to the horizontal we assign mathematics, physics, our planet, science, biology, biological evolution, materialism, etc. A proper view of or from the vertical plane will account for the existence of those things on the horizontal plane to the satisfaction of people who operate exclusively, lets say, on or in the horizontal plane. But the people on the horizontal plane can no nothing of the vertical plane without betraying the rules of the horizontal. In other words, mathematics knows nothing of theories, evolution can not know even the theory of evolution. For to have a theory is to exist on the vertical plane, even if you don’t know it or deny it.<br /><br />And yes Mike, I have stories. It is why we have maintained the Jesus Fish symbol for centuries; the reason proven to this day by the Darwin Fish and Science Fish car placards. The Jesus Fish is meant to be an inconspicuous expression of like mind/heart. The others are passive-aggressive, immature, ignorant attacks on it. Nothing new, nothing of value, no one improved by the latter.<br /><br />Rick F.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10589423819039764711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33424426.post-71092730633781329292009-11-29T21:56:19.795-08:002009-11-29T21:56:19.795-08:00"Even if you redouble the improbabilities by ..."Even if you redouble the improbabilities by positing an intelligent designer, how do you get from there to the Judeo-Christian god who listens to our prayers, punishes evil-doers, and rewards the virtuous with eternal life?<br /><br />As stated above, one thing at a time. <br /><br />"The intelligent design position requires vast leaps of logic and ignores scientific evidence." <br /> <br />I wonder if you are not lumping ID in with creationism. If that's the case, I can see why you would say this, but it would be untrue about ID.<br /><br />Just a little FYI for both of you now. I have had my fair share of discussion with believers and non-believers alike. The latest was with a friend who I work with and admire a great deal. He is a self-proclaimed atheist. He is very smart. He strives to be an ethical person. He has read the bible in its entirety. He is the one who told me he was doing it to "know his enemy." He says the world would be better off without religion. What he doesn't seem to understand is that when he talks in anger about Christians, he is talking about me. It's almost like he is in denial that I am a Christian. He has been wounded in the past by someone, obviously a Christian. In talking to him, it is fairly obvious that he has spent very little time contemplating the possiblity of God, and a great deal of time trying to figure out how to payback this person from his past. <br /><br />This is just one example of the list of what you call stereotypes that I have personally encountered. All of the other ones I mentioned have a story behind them as well. If it's true, I don't think we can call them stereotypes.<br /><br />You say that you don't harbor ill will toward Christians. For that I am glad, but as a Christian, I can tell you that there are many atheists who do. Rick can probably attest to his own stories and I can fill many blogs-worth of my own personal stories of discrimination in school and at work. This is why I think it is necessary to dialogue. It may not always be fun, but I think it is necessary. <br />I hope you both had a wonderful weekend, Thanksgiving or no. I will try to write more later.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06557664947033545823noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33424426.post-37059018825714245962009-11-29T21:56:19.794-08:002009-11-29T21:56:19.794-08:00Ok, I have been away for a while, however, I have ...Ok, I have been away for a while, however, I have read the dialogue between the both of you (Rick) and you (Doughlas). (I hope it's ok that I call you by your first name by now.) I have much I would like to say but not a lot of time. Maybe over the next couple of days I can respond.<br />To start: <br />"If you feel uncomfortable discussing such things, then you are free to stick your fingers in your ears, as you did before. I notice it did not take you very long to return, however."<br /><br />I have yet to feel uncomforable about any of the discussion here. I have other pressing responsibilities that prevent me from responding as frequently and as readily as I would like. Don't take that to mean that I am somehow plugging my ears.<br /><br />Rick, I like your analogy of baseball and music. I think you have a point. I am afraid, however, that an atheist view may interpret the analogy to mean that baseball equals reason and music equals faith. <br />This is the point I am arguing against. I think that a world view that excludes even the possibility of a creator is completely illogical and not reasonable. If Doughlas wants to proclaim the scientific method as the only means for knowing the truth, fine, but be true to the scientific method, be open to whatever conclusion comes. In that case, one cannot rule out the possibility of God. But atheists do. If we want to play baseball (using the misinterpreted analogy) lets play using all of the rules, not just the ones that are convenient. And explain to me how one can know things like love and joy, if science is the only means for knowing the truth?<br /><br />Doughlas you went on to misqoute what I said about atheism requiring more faith than belief in God, I didn't say Christianity.<br /><br />At this point, I don't see the need to discuss the particularities of the Catholic faith with you if you still do not believe in God. This is why I have not engaged you in regard to the mystery of transubstantiation. It is not because it's not worth discussing, it's that I believe it would prove to be fruitless at this point. <br />You see, knowledge of the existence of God does not require faith, knowing who that God is, does. <br /><br />"Natural selection is a cumulative process, and it breaks down the problem of improbability into small chunks."<br />Please explain how the problem of improbability is broken down. So is this is how you are able to believe in coincedence?<br /><br />"It just adds to the riddle by raising the question of the origin of the intelligence that carried out the design. Any entity that is capable of designing something as improbable as a hedgehog would have to be even more improbable than a hedgehog."<br /><br />Exactly! Don't try so simplify before you have the entire equation.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06557664947033545823noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33424426.post-80630080382382410542009-11-27T05:27:17.586-08:002009-11-27T05:27:17.586-08:00Hi Rick,
To address your points:
I am very caref...Hi Rick,<br /><br />To address your points:<br /><br />I am very careful not to stereotype Christians. Notice that I used the qualifier “many” before “Christians” in the sentence that you quoted back to me: “I believe many Christians stereotype atheists.” Without the qualifier, the sentence would have been a good example of stereotyping.<br /><br />I am not sensitive about my name. If I were, I would have corrected you. I inserted “[sic]” because I was quoting an error, and that is standard practice for quotations.<br /><br />I deliberately bring up homosexuality quite a lot on this site because I believe the Church’s position about it is morally wrong and I avail myself of every opportunity to point that out for the benefit of anyone who happens to be reading my comments. Sounding like a broken record is just one of the burdens of fighting for justice.<br /><br />The suffering of children whose parents’ faith forbids them to seek medical care is a much greater problem than you imagine. I thought of it because there was an article about it in our local newspaper just yesterday. You can easily find more information on the Web, but I’ll share what I’ve got if you want to become better informed about this.<br /><br />I’m not here to change your mind.<br /><br />If you’re interested in visiting atheist blogs, there are plenty of them. Just search on “atheist blogs.” <a href="http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">Here’s</a> one I’d recommend.<br /><br />I’m always interested in discussing these matters with you, Rick. Interpreting people’s moods is difficult through this medium, but my sense was that you were becoming fearful about the consequences of joining in this debate and I did not want to cause you any anguish. I remember that my first conversation with an atheist (in high school) was very unsettling to me. I must have thought God was eavesdropping or that my mother would find out. I’m glad to hear that I you are not distressed.Doughlas Remyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18421275276424774845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33424426.post-78598332408966202992009-11-26T21:16:59.459-08:002009-11-26T21:16:59.459-08:00part something plus one
“cannot disprove the clai...part something plus one<br /><br />“cannot disprove the claim that god looks like an oyster or that the world sprang out of a giant cocanut”<br /><br />I understand your point; proving a negative. This is not news to me. However, we are talking about (or at least I still am) being or non being of God. Unless you have a time machine and you’re not telling me, you may find out tomorrow you were wrong. Now if you’re wrong about coconuts, big deal. Incidentally, I am perfectly comfortable, actually delighted, that God may present himself to different people via different religions, at different times in history. I don’t talk to my son this way. Nor my accountant. I’m a big fan of individuality and that God is too.<br /><br />Now the rest of your post just gets crazier and angrier.<br /><br />“You write, “I’m asking. Please don’t do it.” ...as if I were about to incur the wrath of God. But you needn’t fear. I have been talking this way for a long time, and no thunderbolts have landed anywhere near me yet”<br /><br />You know, if Christianity, properly understood, were anything like this, I’d have no part of it. Did I sound at anytime like one of those literalists? Talk about stereotyping. Projection. And we’re the bigots. This is what I mean by inadequate.<br /><br />“This topic obviously makes you very uncomfortable—dare I say “fearful,”<br /><br />You may say it.<br />But it’s not true.<br />See how you can be wrong?<br /><br />“I now find myself hoping that you will drop out of the discussion. I don’t wish to cause emotional distress to anyone”<br /><br />What if I promise I’m not distressed? Will you believe me?<br /><br />“but neither will I agree to be silenced because of your distress.”<br /><br />You’re projecting again. Sorry to keep bringing it up. But I will not be silenced. (Hint: you said you want me to drop the discussion.)<br />As I alluded to before, why do I deserve a culture that is constantly trying to change me, while it has the nerve of accusing me of trying to change it?<br /><br />This was so much fun.<br />You enjoy this?Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10589423819039764711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33424426.post-79084453533221243572009-11-26T21:14:02.267-08:002009-11-26T21:14:02.267-08:00Part something
“Are your beliefs so fragile that ...Part something<br /><br />“Are your beliefs so fragile that you cannot bear to hear them questioned?”<br /><br />If anyone sounds fragile, it’s not me. I think you have a stereotypical view of Christianity. I think I covered earlier how I don’t believe Jesus wishes us to suffer without purpose. In other words, my feelings can be affected but I don’t have to just “take it”. That would be injustice. When I said Gil and Mike are on solid ground, of course I meant me as well. I was the one saying it after all.<br /><br />“I enjoy the challenge…”<br /><br />I actually don’t enjoy it. I’m not a real thrill seeker anymore. I was pretty certain I wouldn’t change your mind. I worry about the kids as I said.<br /><br />“…and it is unlikely that you are going to hurt my feelings. (I object to stereotyping, however, because I think it leads to discrimination and even to persecution.)”<br /><br />We’re talking about Christians again, right? :-)<br /><br />“Does it bother you that I might talk to kids? Well, I have talked to many kids, including my own son.”<br /><br />Yes. I believe I said it would bother me. That’s all that would bother me, just as I said. Your son is your business. I wish I could go 10 minutes where I wasn’t being told how to raise my son or my son wasn’t surrounded and being constantly pummeled by a culture set on turning him anti-God. I would prefer it if they would leave me and my son alone. We’re not bothering anyone.<br /><br />“Are you suggesting that hearing my views about God might cause them to turn out like me? Thanks, Rick.”<br /><br />No. There’s that projecting again. Let me be clear, I’m concerned about <i>them ruling out God</i>. Being talked out of it. Period. I barely know you.<br /><br />“For your argument to make sense, you would first of all have to show that being an atheist is somehow a bad thing, and you haven’t shown this.<br /><br />I would first have to change my mind that I thought I could ever convince you with any evidence. I can only produce abundant evidence to support my first position. However, as far as whether I think “being an atheist is somehow a bad thing” or not, I might phrase it this way. I think atheism is or rather, I’d prefer to say “someone who thinks there is no God” (since you suggest it’s a term misunderstood by me, so be it) I say it is an inadequate understanding of Man properly understood and his needs for a complete and fulfilling life. Nor is it a sufficient personal philosophy, which we all operate by, whether we are aware of it or not, or whether we have a sufficient one or not. We can’t not have a philosophy. But we sure can have an insufficient one.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10589423819039764711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33424426.post-68358624325154921682009-11-26T21:07:46.320-08:002009-11-26T21:07:46.320-08:00Part 2
“For example, I don’t like to see children...Part 2<br /><br />“For example, I don’t like to see children suffering and dying because their parents believe a visit to the doctor would betray a lack of faith in God’s healing power.”<br /><br />This stuff makes great news clips. Like those one in a million blue lobsters. I’ve never met a person like this. And I’ve probably met thousands upon thousands of people. I’m certain most of them Christians – the standard, default variety. In other words, I can’t imagine starting a personal crusade or wasting any time worrying about such things. I promise you if I ever meet anyone like this I’ll try to do something about it. <br /><br />You bring up homosexuality again. That’s fine. I think I covered my perspective about the “openness” of the church on this matter, which I think is its actual perspective. I understand other Christians would disagree with me.<br /><br />I will add this if it’s helpful. The only time I have a problem with homosexuals is when they “lead” with their sexuality. My sexuality is my business. It’s hardly the greatest thing about me. I don’t see why this matters when you enter a church. No one asks you if you are one. They shouldn’t, or they are getting their Christianity wrong.<br /><br />“Mike, the conversation is not mandatory. You may leave it at any time. If you feel uncomfortable discussing such things, then you are free to stick your fingers in your ears, as you did before. I notice it did not take you very long to return, however.”<br /><br />I don’t know why you are dragging Mike into this.<br />Just kidding – that was a joke about spelling my name wrong. And boy did you!<br />:-)<br />Your mood seems to be changing right about here.<br /><br />“We want to avoid being disrespectful, but at the same time, there’s not much point in having the discussion if we are unwilling to have our beliefs challenged”<br /><br />I’m quite certain you started it. I don’t cruise atheist blogs to challenge their beliefs. I know you would have no way of knowing something like this. I know I don’t know any Christians who do cruise those blogs. Are there any such blogs? You were originally and are on the offensive. I’m trying to remember if I challenged your belief in atheism… I’m not coming up with anything. But if I did, I believe I should have expressed it like this: Atheism is simply an insufficient or inadequate belief system for me. I haven’t always been a religious person you know. It used to creep me out as a kid. The particular religious people around me at the time were not a good fit for me. They were for many others. And I was quite ignorant to the depth of Christianity. Like you (maybe), my own intellect was my stumbling block. It has never been disappointed since. I had no idea.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10589423819039764711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33424426.post-1766593158349558482009-11-26T21:04:22.392-08:002009-11-26T21:04:22.392-08:00Part one :-)
“Hi Rick. I took the liberty of read...Part one :-)<br /><br />“Hi Rick. I took the liberty of reading your message to Mike (about me). I hope you don’t mind.”<br /><br />Hi Doughlas. Why would I mind? I addressed it to you right at the top. Go see. Sorry about misspelling your name. My spellchecker must think my spelling is more common. I’m always surprised how sensitive people are when others misspell their names. My last name is Fernandes and almost everyone puts a “z” on the end instead of an “s” without ever a thought to it. I stopped bringing it up 30 years ago. <br /><br />“One of the reasons I decided to engage in this conversation is that I believe many Christians stereotype atheists, just as they do gays and lesbians”<br /><br />Now this is exactly what I’m talking about. I believe this is called projection, among other things. Amazingly this happens in one sentence. Are you aware you just stereotyped Christians?... to prove your point about it being a bad thing to stereotype atheists? Not to mention the projection part, which is to bring up gays and lesbians, which no one has except you.<br /><br />Let me add this since you bring it up. As a Christian, a serious student, admittedly not anywhere near a great one, I am not anti-lesbian or anti-homosexual. I believe all are welcome in the church. A church shouldn’t even need to say this. Now I understand some churches will turn people away. Some friends of mine had to find a different church to get married when the one their family went to wouldn’t marry them. They found another church and they were married last weekend. They were turned away because they weren’t attending the family church. Not meeting the standards. They found another church. It evens out. The first church shouldn’t change their standards. The couple may appreciate them some day and return to it. Just as I do, but once didn’t. They can start their own church if they like.<br /><br />This is already tedious. No offense. However, I’ll just run down your message and hit the big stuff. Maybe it’s all big stuff.<br /><br />To be continued..Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10589423819039764711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33424426.post-22207614306472827512009-11-26T09:34:36.617-08:002009-11-26T09:34:36.617-08:00(Part two, also to Rick)
Does it bother you that I...(Part two, also to Rick)<br />Does it bother you that I might talk to kids? Well, I have talked to many kids, including my own son. Are you suggesting that hearing my views about God might cause them to turn out like me? Thanks, Rick. For your argument to make sense, you would first of all have to show that being an atheist is somehow a bad thing, and you haven’t shown this. <br /><br />And finally, once again, you are quite correct in saying that I cannot prove that there isn’t a god. I have confirmed that several times during these discussions. There is a <i>virtually unlimited set of propositions</i> that I cannot disprove, and this is because they are not falsifiable—i.e., they are about the supernatural. I cannot disprove the claim that god looks like an oyster or that the world sprang out of a giant cocanut. And I cannot disprove any of those myriad god theories that the Hindus believe in, because they are all about supernatural beings. <br /><br />The important point, as I said before, is that I see <i>no evidence</i> for the existence of the Judeo-Christian god or for any other god. History and anthropology have shown us so much about the genealogy and variety of religious beliefs concerning supernatural beings. We cannot ignore the implications of that knowledge. <br /><br />You write, “I’m asking. Please don’t do it.” ...as if I were about to incur the wrath of God. But you needn’t fear. I have been talking this way for a long time, and no thunderbolts have landed anywhere near me yet. This topic obviously makes you very uncomfortable—dare I say “fearful,”—as if you or I were about to touch a high-voltage cable. I now find myself hoping that you will drop out of the discussion. I don’t wish to cause emotional distress to anyone, but neither will I agree to be silenced because of your distress. As an atheist, I don’t fear eternal punishment and I do not wish to be constrained by anyone else’s fear of it.Doughlas Remyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18421275276424774845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33424426.post-3022018364489085012009-11-26T09:33:00.473-08:002009-11-26T09:33:00.473-08:00(Part one)
Hi Rick. I took the liberty of readin...(Part one) <br /><br />Hi Rick. I took the liberty of reading your message to Mike (about me). I hope you don’t mind.<br /><br />“It becomes quite clear what type of person we are dealing with here,” you write. And later: “With people like Douglas [sic],...it may take some Saul/Paul blast to get through to him.” <br /><br />One of the reasons I decided to engage in this conversation is that I believe many Christians stereotype atheists, just as they do gays and lesbians. We are not people. We are “types” and we are all alike. At the beginning of the conversation, I learned from Mike that I am immoral and hopeless, and we now seem to have agreed that perhaps I am neither of those things after all—or at least no more so than anyone else. <br /><br />Contrary to what you appear to think, I am not trying to convince you of anything. My hope is to introduce you to a worldview unlike your own so that you will not understand it better. I think it is unfortunate when negative assumptions are made about anyone because of their religious affiliations (or lack thereof), their sexual orientation, race, gender, etc. I do not join with atheists who slam all Christians, because I have known Christians all my life and believe that most of them are good people. <br /><br />If you think that atheism has certain bad effects, then say so. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts, and you may have a viewpoint that I have never considered. <br /><br />I think that certain religious beliefs have bad effects, and I am thankful to live in a country where I can say so. For example, I don’t like to see children suffering and dying because their parents believe a visit to the doctor would betray a lack of faith in God’s healing power. And I would like to see the Catholic Church liberalize its position about homosexuality, because I think that position causes a great deal of suffering among people whom we all know and care about. These are all legitimate concerns, and I think we should be discussing them. <br /><br />You write: “It’s not so easy to sit here and listen to someone who doesn’t know talk about something as deeply personal to me, Mike, and Gil.”<br /><br />Mike, the conversation is not mandatory. You may leave it at any time. If you feel uncomfortable discussing such things, then you are free to stick your fingers in your ears, as you did before. I notice it did not take you very long to return, however. <br /><br />And yes, these matters are very personal, and we all have our sensitivities. Discussing faith is always a balancing act. We want to avoid being disrespectful, but at the same time, there’s not much point in having the discussion if we are unwilling to have our beliefs challenged. Are your beliefs so fragile that you cannot bear to hear them questioned? Mine are certainly not. I enjoy the challenge, and it is unlikely that you are going to hurt my feelings. (I object to stereotyping, however, because I think it leads to discrimination and even to persecution.)Doughlas Remyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18421275276424774845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33424426.post-69412983301169180702009-11-26T08:09:05.085-08:002009-11-26T08:09:05.085-08:00Mike, everything you’ve said about the extraordina...Mike, everything you’ve said about the extraordinary improbability of our existence in this universe is true. The more I learn about our planet and the evolutionary history of the species that inhabit it, the more amazed I am that any of it could have happened. <br /><br />At first, it seems statistically improbable that organisms could have developed in the ways they have, but when you begin to understand random mutation and natural selection over countless eons of time, it starts to make sense. Natural selection is a cumulative process, and it breaks down the problem of improbability into small chunks. The biggest unsolved mystery concerns the origin of the original living cell, but there are plausible theories to account for it. <br /><br />Intelligent design is not a plausible solution to the riddle of statistical improbability. It just adds to the riddle by raising the question of the origin of the intelligence that carried out the design. Any entity that is capable of designing something as improbable as a hedgehog would have to be even more improbable than a hedgehog. <br /><br />Even if you redouble the improbabilities by positing an intelligent designer, how do you get from there to the Judeo-Christian god who listens to our prayers, punishes evil-doers, and rewards the virtuous with eternal life?<br /><br />You quoted someone who said that being an atheist requires more faith than being a Christian. In light of what I’ve just said, I couldn’t agree less. The intelligent design position requires vast leaps of logic and ignores scientific evidence. It is a faith-based system, whereas evolutionary theory is not.Doughlas Remyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18421275276424774845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33424426.post-3612256456724857272009-11-25T19:54:38.046-08:002009-11-25T19:54:38.046-08:00Douglas and Mike,
Mike first.
I’ve seen these typ...Douglas and Mike,<br /><br />Mike first.<br />I’ve seen these types of debates many times. Participated in them. Maybe you have too. Talent, intelligence, quantity of knowledge, debating skill has almost nothing to do with the outcome.<br />When they reach a certain point it comes quite clear what type of person we are dealing with here. In the beginning of course you can’t tell. I had a hunch about Douglas but one has to give each a chance and some exchanges. But it’s like this. You are both arguing from different planes. It’s as if Douglas has designed the game of baseball and you this thing called music. Douglas has climbed into the game and the rules which apply there cannot tell him anything about the rules of music. He can’t take himself out of the game to experience music because the rules of baseball can’t let him out. Only those things which can be compared to baseball are absorbed or they bounce off. He must “lead” with baseball post climbing in. Because to not lead with baseball is to break every rule of baseball as far as he knows. Notes, rhythm, harmony have no effect on the outcome of a homerun as baseball always knows there is nothing but baseball. Read the rule book. Nothing but baseball. Nothing about climbing in. At best, there are simply “participants” of which he is one.<br /><br />That’s a long way of saying I’m quite convinced that Douglas will not be convinced no matter what we say. I hope both of you can tell that I don’t think Douglas is being untruthful or disingenuous in his arguments. I sincerely believe what he believes he believes sincerely. I would be happy if at best I could serve as some small conduit to a little grace penetrating Douglas. With people like Douglas, as I’ve said I’ve seen it countless times, it may take some Saul/Paul blast to get through to him. Those also happen.<br /><br />Douglas, I hope you can tell I don’t think you are a bad person. Nor stupid or any such thing despite the little bit of fun I’ve had with you at your expense. Keeping in mind, it’s not so easy to sit here and listen to someone who doesn’t know talk about something as deeply personal to me, Mike and Gil. If you have a son or daughter and I was saying horrible things about them or mocking them behind your back that might be pretty close to how what you say most times is received here.<br /><br />So it would be good if we could reach you, Douglas, but I can live with the fact that my studies show it’s highly unlikely.<br /><br />However, what bothers me a great deal is the thought that you may be trying, effectively, to talk other people, especially kids, out of a belief in God. I’m not talking about people who are already on solid ground in that sense, like Gil and Mike. I’m talking about the vulnerable, the on-the-fence, the doubters, the ones who can’t seem to rule it out.<br /><br />Now you may say, “Hey, I’m not doing that, I’m just defending my positions.” But people see you and hear you, so that is what I mean by “effectively”.<br /><br />I care about you, Douglas, of course. But if you want to believe there is no God, so be it for you. I'm glad I can't do it. It should be in God's hands. But you cannot possibly, honestly, claim that you know it for a fact that there isn’t one. There is no way around this, and that is why I am asking you not to do it for that reason, because for that reason it would be wrong. You don’t know. And we know you don’t know. I don’t even have to get into that this warning is made throughout the NT.<br /><br />I’m asking. Please don’t do it.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10589423819039764711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33424426.post-10351590117740234462009-11-25T18:59:45.154-08:002009-11-25T18:59:45.154-08:00Hey Rick,
I have not read it, but I appreciate th...Hey Rick,<br /><br />I have not read it, but I appreciate the reference. I also also liked your earlier post.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06557664947033545823noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33424426.post-17650030029475055472009-11-25T18:30:36.330-08:002009-11-25T18:30:36.330-08:00Mike,
Have you been to the blog "One Cosmos&q...Mike,<br />Have you been to the blog "One Cosmos"?<br />I'm pretty certain you'd find the author's work of interest. In fact, your last comment here sounds like you've read his book.<br /><br />Rick F.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10589423819039764711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33424426.post-21272804241264406552009-11-25T16:52:36.947-08:002009-11-25T16:52:36.947-08:00Mr. Remy,
Just a thought. For me, atheism relies ...Mr. Remy, <br />Just a thought. For me, atheism relies on one key concept: coincedence. I can understand that because I myself have believed in it in many aspects of my own life. <br /><br />But when I take a step back and start to look not only at my own life, but all of life, and all of creation that we are aware of, coincedence becomes a difficult concept to hold on to. Without even knowing how it all began, understanding that the earth had to reach a certain temperature for life to begin would have required that the earth be a certain distance from the sun. Knowing what we know now about the complexities of cells and DNA we can't begin to fathom the coincedences that must have taken place in the right order in the right time for it to have been possible. Once life began, it had to be sustained. It needs a continuous supply of water, but not to much at once. The hydrologic cycle, coincedentally, allows for water to be stored and released in the proper amounts that life may be sustained but not overwhelmed. Coincedentally, the aforementioned hydrologic cycle requires the also-aforementioned earth to rotate in a way that allows for a heating and cooling process, thereby allowing for water to be store in different states. Not to mention all of the necessary coincedences necessary for beginning and sustaining human life. <br /><br />You get my point. I am not smart enough to clearly articulate the vast coincedences that are absolutely essential for you and I to be alive right here, right now, having this discussion. What is the probability that it just happened? Once again, I am not smart enough to say. I realize that there is that possibility, but as it was once said, "Considering the data, it requires more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a believer."Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06557664947033545823noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33424426.post-81906900691039895142009-11-25T15:37:56.214-08:002009-11-25T15:37:56.214-08:00Mike, I think we are getting in synch. However, in...Mike, I think we are getting in synch. However, in your sentence, “Faith and Reason help focus our perception...,” I would not include “faith” as I understand it. Maybe you can clarify this. Isn’t faith what sustains our belief that the radiator fluid is orange juice and that the communion wine is the blood of Christ?<br /><br />If you think the sky is green, there may indeed be something wrong with your vision, or there may have been a nearby volcanic eruption that spewed sulfur into the atmosphere. In some cases, however, people disregard the evidence before their eyes because they are under the influence of strong social forces such as religion. Again, I cannot think of a better example than the doctrine of transubstantiation. (Check out Rick’s earlier quotation about viewing the host with a microscope.)Doughlas Remyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18421275276424774845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33424426.post-63645607563702274862009-11-25T15:24:01.068-08:002009-11-25T15:24:01.068-08:00Mike: Yes, these studies by Paul, Zuckerman, Bloom...Mike: Yes, these studies by Paul, Zuckerman, Bloom, and others are indeed research. The conclusions they draw from their data are not part of the actual research component, however, and you are free to disagree with them. I’m not sure I agree with all their conclusions, but I am keeping an open mind. I am assuming, until shown otherwise, that their data is reliable.<br /><br />As for the credibility of the AlterNet site, I read pretty widely. I just finished reading the new Manhattan Declaration, for example, and I read Gil Bailie’s posts all the time. What does that say about my interest in the truth? Not much. It just indicates that I read widely. As I have pointed out several times, I read Christian writers pretty often and consider their points of view. Have you by chance read any atheist writers? I thought this article might be a good portal into a world you might not have explored. <br /><br />Yes, your interpretation of Paul’s data (in your concluding paragraph) makes perfect sense from the perspective of one who believes in God. However, if one does not, then Paul’s interpretation of the data makes sense. In other words, you may be right if your God exists, but Paul may be right if He doesn’t. Paul doesn’t claim to be looking for an answer to the question, “Is there a God?” I think he has already concluded from available evidence that there is not.Doughlas Remyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18421275276424774845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33424426.post-40529875586601392502009-11-25T12:33:33.916-08:002009-11-25T12:33:33.916-08:00The point is not that we have made the real (radia...The point is not that we have made the real (radiator fluid) into the unreal (orange juice, which it is not), but that we believe that we have done so. And that is where the danger comes in.<br /><br />Exactly. The truth is independant of our perception. Faith and Reason help focus our perception so that we see what is true, what was true, and what will always be true. If I think the sky is green, the problem is with my eyes, not that the sky is somehow really a different color for me than for everyone else.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06557664947033545823noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33424426.post-90660717930052710082009-11-25T12:27:08.856-08:002009-11-25T12:27:08.856-08:00Mr. Remy,
How can you possibly consider this rese...Mr. Remy,<br /><br />How can you possibly consider this research?<br /><br />"Paul is less compromising, characterizing organized religion, particularly the conservative Christian brand widely practiced in the U.S., as societal anathema, conspiring against real progress."<br /><br />Do I really need to read anything beyond this point? What in this statement makes you think that this fellow is actually interested in getting to the truth?<br /><br />Not to mention many of the other radically biased links on this website. You cannot claim to be interested in the unbiased truth and use this website as research.<br /><br />"While it's possible that good governance and socioeconomic health are byproducts of a secular society, more likely, he speculates, people are inclined to drop their attachment to religion once they feel distanced from the insecurities and burdens of life."<br /><br />"Popular religion," Paul proposes, "is a coping mechanism for the anxieties of a dysfunctional social and economic environment."<br /><br />Really? A=B and B=C so A must equal Q?<br /><br />How about this. When people are in touch with insecurities and burdens of life, they remember how weak and powerless their situation is and realize that they are not God. When those insecurities and burdens are relieved, there is danger that they will forget that they are not God.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06557664947033545823noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33424426.post-87142333781936989832009-11-25T05:11:59.879-08:002009-11-25T05:11:59.879-08:00Mike, you may remember my regretting that neither ...Mike, you may remember my regretting that neither of us had cited any research into correlations between religion and hopelessness/happiness. Well, somebody out there must have overheard our conversation. I stumbled on <a href="http://www.alternet.org/story/144174/is_belief_in_god_hurting_america?page=entire" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">this</a> article, just published this morning on AlterNet.Doughlas Remyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18421275276424774845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33424426.post-79359432476972425362009-11-24T12:36:33.203-08:002009-11-24T12:36:33.203-08:00(Part two)
Why do I read Christian authors? Well, ...(Part two)<br />Why do I read Christian authors? Well, as I explained earlier in this thread, I am interested in Biblical literature partly because my degrees are in literature and I regard the Bible as very great literature. In addition, I am very interested in anthropology, especially the anthropology of religion. I am interested in why people believe the things they do. You hinted that I might be trying to “know the enemy.” On the contrary, I am trying to break down some of the walls that separate Christians and atheists because I do not like the atmosphere of fear that is developing between us.<br /><br />The wonderful sense of release that I felt just prior to nearly dying was the release that people everywhere experience when they have accepted their deaths. Did you ever hear of Elizabeth Kubler-Ross?<br /><br />I think you missed my point about making the real unreal or the unreal real. Maybe I did not explain it clearly. I was saying that these modes of thinking can produce behavior that ranges from the bizarre to the dangerous. Transubstantiation (making the unreal real) is an example of the bizarre, and climate change denial (making the real unreal) is an example of the dangerous. I like your example of the radiator fluid, however. The point is not that we have made the real (radiator fluid) into the unreal (orange juice, which it is not), but that we believe that we have done so. And that is where the danger comes in.Doughlas Remyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18421275276424774845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33424426.post-65418311423842181812009-11-24T12:34:37.105-08:002009-11-24T12:34:37.105-08:00(Part one)
Mike, in response to your first point, ...(Part one)<br />Mike, in response to your first point, I think we can agree that there are immoral atheists as well as immoral Christians, and that anyone, Christian or atheist, may feel hopeless at times. The real question is whether either Christianity or atheism <i>causes</i> immoral behavior or hopelessness. You had earlier suggested that atheism leads to hopelessness, but I refuted that claim on the basis of my own personal experience and my observation of others. We have not brought in any research to support our claims. I suggested almost facetiously that high divorce rates in the Bible Belt might correlate with hopelessness, but now that I think of it, divorce is often a deliverance from hopelessness. So, I am not going to speculate further about that except to say that I don’t think there are any correlations. <br /><br />As you say, there are more good examples than bad ones, so I think we should focus on the best and the brightest that either of these worldviews can produce while avoiding claims that either worldview is responsible for all that is best and brightest. You may remember that this conversation started as a response to Gil’s implication that the recent Paris riots were a result of secularism. I pointed out that the rioters were not necessarily secularists and reminded him that, even if they had been, Christians sometimes misbehave as well. <br /><br />Regarding my point about raising children, I think you are reading too much into what I said. I simply said that raising a child is a source of meaning, as is writing a book or inventing a tool. The meaning that we derive from these things may satisfy us, and it may not. If it does not, then that may be because, as you say, the child dies, the book goes out of print, or the tool is no longer needed. So we adapt. Humans are good at that. We find meaning in other ways, for as long as we can. I’m not saying that death is easy for non-believers. I’m only saying that we have as good a chance as anyone else of living our lives meaningfully. And,...I might add, we are unburdened by concerns about whether we will go to heaven or to hell. From the moment hell is added into Christian theology, there is bound to be fear and anxiety around death. <br /><br />I did not exist for eons before I was born, and I am perfectly happy to think I will not exist for eons after my death. I don’t have to worry about whether I have pleased God or not, and I don’t have to worry about whether I am going to be either bored or lobotomized in heaven. To me, the very concept of heaven is just a monumental absurdity, and thank you but no thanks. I do not desire eternal life in heaven. In my view, life is all the more precious and beautiful because it is just ephemeral, transitory, like a camellia.<br /><br />You may have misunderstood me. I don’t deny the possibility of life after death any more than I deny the possibility that I didn’t exist yesterday. I just don’t see the evidence.Doughlas Remyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18421275276424774845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33424426.post-85689170643019925242009-11-24T10:25:21.735-08:002009-11-24T10:25:21.735-08:00Mike (and Gil),
You may enjoy this. Douglas would ...Mike (and Gil),<br />You may enjoy this. Douglas would too if he could get his own jokes.<br /><br />“When microscopes were discovered, there where some clergymen who thought that with sufficient magnification, it would be possible to see a little Jesus in the host -- which is hardly less silly than the hyper-rational atheist who rejects religion, in effect, because he can't see God with the tools of empirical science.”<br />~ Robert Godwin, PhD.<br /><br />Rick F.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10589423819039764711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33424426.post-4026511121781985782009-11-24T09:22:03.092-08:002009-11-24T09:22:03.092-08:00"If you define morality so narrowly than only..."If you define morality so narrowly than only a Christian can be moral, then you would have to conclude that most Japanese are immoral. Or that most Jews are immoral. I can’t believe you would seriously propose such a thing."<br /><br />Mr. Remy, we are not to the point of talking religion yet. I am simply trying to point out where I think there are gaps in an exclusive belief system, particulary exclusive of the possibility of God. I do not believe that people who call themselves atheists are inherently immoral. I know that many people who call themselves believers live immoral lives. What is important is that we distinguish between bad examples and bad philosophy. In my view living life without the even possibility God is detrimental to society and there are many examples I could site here. But the failures of so many believers general to live up to the faith is not a condemnation of the faith. Afterall, there are more good examples than there are bad ones.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06557664947033545823noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33424426.post-9764031620245332502009-11-24T09:06:31.367-08:002009-11-24T09:06:31.367-08:00"we derive meaning from our ability to make a..."we derive meaning from our ability to make a contribution that is recognized and valued. We raise a child. We write a series of books. We invent a new tool. We work in a soup kitchen. We play the cello in the local orchestra. All of these things give us meaning because they signify that we are a valued part of our community."<br /><br />So does a child have meaning only when they are able to be productive, or do they have meaning based upon who they are? What happens when they become too old to contribute? What happens when the child dies, the book goes out of print, the tool is no longer needed?<br /> "I realize the thought of death can be frightening and, in my current state of consciousness, I am sometimes frightened by it. But I will not enter into denial about it." <br />I'm not denying the reality of death. I am saying in faith that there is life after death. You claim to base your beliefs on evidence, yet you deny the possibility of life after death before you die? I think your trying to have it both ways here.<br /><br />You want to apply the scientific method to the theory of God but you can't so you say God is a myth. Can you apply the scientific method to love? What about joy? What about sorrow? Are these things real? Do they have meaning?<br /><br />It is not science that proves the reality of these things, it is our very real lived experience of them. I know about love, joy, sorrow, and yes I know about God because of my lived experience. It does not come from a desire to explain away fear, it comes from an openess to the truth, even when the truth means something uncomfortable. There is an old spanish saying that says the shade you get depends upon the tree you choose to stand under. Reading Christian authors is a start, but why are you reading them? Is it because you want the truth regardless of where the truth leads? Or is it to know the enemy? <br /><br />"I once had a near-death experience without once thinking about God or an afterlife." <br /><br />If we live our lives denying the existence of God, why is it assumed that at the moment of death our thoughts will be of him?<br /><br />"The thought that I was about to die within the next few seconds gave me a wonderful sense of release." <br /><br />Release from what? I think this proves my point.<br /><br />"Conversely, we make the real unreal by denying that it is real."<br /><br />So if you come over for breakfast and I pour us both a glass of what I think is orange juice, but you see that it is radiator fluid, are you going to drink it with me? According to your logic, all we have to do is deny that it is really radiator fluid, and it shouldn't kill us. Right? I think, therefore I am?Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06557664947033545823noreply@blogger.com