Northern Ireland is creationist capital of UK

It's not just a "more religious culture", but creationism to some people is a badge of belonging to their particular sect, and especially on the Protestant side, it can be seen as being an explicit identification with the community. So, our sectarian troubles in the past might have a role here, that would not be present in the rest of the UK, where many Christians aren't scared of thinking. I think it's less of a problem in the Catholic community, but that is just an impression that I have.

Perhaps people like Mervyn Storey would reveal precisely *which* scientists think that science supports his view, and point to the peer-reviewed scientific literature that informs their decision. Maybe they're the same scientific advisers that tell Sammy Wilson that the planet is indestructible, and we're not having any effect on our environment.

"Answers in Genesis" (they of the Comedy Creationist Museum in Cincinnati) have frequently targeted NI, although they apparently lost a *lot* of money when Ken Ham's Waterfront appearances failed to attract much of an audience.

As our sectarian woes fade, I think we will see creationism continue to wither, but that shouldn't stop us trying to firmly douse any remaining embers with good solid science.

-H

H

I need to get back to you on Galileo, when I get a minute.
My son still awaits your thoughts on the evolution of the Yeti.

Just kidding.

GV

As I said to William on Talkback today, it doesn't say much for science education in the province that so many people believe that dinosaurs coexisted alongside humans only a few thousand years ago, just like in the Flintstones. Absolutely shameful.

I'm also extremely dismayed that the hierarchy of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland has allowed young Earth creationism to infiltrate the denomination. Do they not realise the damage they are doing to the church ??? Flintstone theory only turns the church into a laughing stock. All evangelical denominations really ought to be aware of this.

Don't forget about CMI Helio, who now appear to be much better organised than AiG, and much more active in the province as well. They now have a full time speaker from here (Philip Robinson) along with a part time one (Rev. Robin Greer). Philip Bell is in NI twice this year. His first speaking tour is only a few weeeks away.

AiG seems to have suffered badly since the departure of Monty White last year.

Sorry, but he reason must be more stupidity.
Evolution is a fact supported by overwhelming evidence. Creationism is a belief. A belief that a God did it, and you can choose from any one of many, each with its unique creation myth.
Believing the Earth is flat would be less nutty. It does look flat.

William said on-air today that the survey "could have been worse" ie than 25 %.

Interesting comment Will!

;-)


Anyway, I dont see much new in the survey.

It seems to be a matter of record that there is massive dissent from Darwinism in the UK and around the world;-

https://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=060810_evo_rank_02.jpg&cap=A+chart+showing+public+acceptance+of+evolution+in+34+countries.+The+United+States+ranked+near+the+bottom%2C+beat+only+by+Turkey.+Credit%3A+Science


https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm

https://www.teachers.tv/node/30193


Shalom

OT

Hello OT,

"It seems to be a matter of record that there is massive dissent from Darwinism in the UK and around the world"

Fortunately that is not true of the scientific community, ie. those on average more knowledgeable on the matter than the general population.

The report is more than a social attitudes survey. Essentially, [from P 46 onwards] it makes a case that theism and evolution are compatible and argues for a middle way between "a handful of modern Darwinians who insist that evolution has killed God and ideas of design, purpose, morality and humanity whilst on the other side are their mainly, but not exclusively, religious opponents who, unwilling to adopt such a bleak vision, cite Genesis and Intelligent Design as evidence of evolution’s deficiency."
May be of interest some here.

Gveale. Evolution of the Yeti & yarns for your son.
It's a hybrid, resulting from a mating of the Himalayan Brown Bear and the Britannicus-hairy-faced-mountaineer. (Chris Bonnington is a fine specimen of the latter, but there have been many others.) The two species are also often mistaken for each other in poor light.

To prove Peter's point OT, and to get things into perspective, don't forget about project Steve which now has it's 1,000 signature:

https://ncseweb.org/news/2009/02/steve-darwin-is-steve-1000-004308

Scientists with the name "Stephen" or "Stephanie" account for a mere 1% of all scientists.

Hello peterJhenderson,

The 1000th Steve to sign up to that list happened to have the last name 'Darwin'.:) Seems a bit too accidental. The cretinists frequently cry out over 'conspiracies' etc. In this case I might even believe them a little.

At least his name wasn't John Darwin !

Sheff Tim

Good theory. But I'm not about to test it.

GV

I think it's explained entirely by the high adherence to religion in Northern Ireland. The same correlations can be found in some areas of the United States. And these statistics - in themselves - prove something interesting about creationism/ID:

It ain't based on science, but religious belief, regardless of science.

OT-

I answered you in depth over on THIS thread.

"Darwinism"?

The term is "evolutionary biology", and the "dissent" is minimal, poorly-reasoned and entirely religious. But you knew that anyway.

And here is the REAL story from this research.

That Darwin firmly believed that God designed and created the universe;-




Nick Spencer, the director of studies at Theos and co-author of the report, said:

"The problem is that evolution has become mixed up with all sorts of ideas – like the belief that there is no God, or no purpose or no absolute morality in life – which people find very difficult to accept.

"The tragedy is that this was never Darwin’s position. Three years before he died he wrote 'it seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist.'

"And in one of the last letters he ever wrote, to the philosopher William Graham, he said, 'my inward conviction [is] that the Universe is not the result of chance.'

"Sadly, however, Darwin's own beliefs have been ignored or misused by some of his modern disciples. Today too many people associate Darwin and his theory with a bleak and brutal vision of life, which is why so many people are sceptical about evolution.



Paul Woolley, the director of Theos, said:

"Darwin was a truly great natural scientist – not a theologian or a philosopher. Both his theory and the tragic loss of his favourite daughter played a role in his own loss of Christian faith. But, by his own admission, even in his wildest fluctuations he was never an atheist.

"Unfortunately, he is being used by certain atheists today to promote their cause....."

Why should we be surprised to find that a fair number of folk in the Province have the good sense to believe God when He explains how He created the world? (Exodus 20v11)

After all, He was there at the time.....!!!

While writing a paper a few years ago entitled "The ontogenetic ground of value", I decided to dedicate the essay to a Mrs Thompson who, in that weeks letters page of the Scottish Catholic Observer, opined, "Why oh why does everyone have to question everything these days. I know that there are far greater minds than my own at work in the Church, so I for one, am just going to listen to them!"

Wished I had known about you then, Pastor Phillip, I'm sure I'd have dedicated it to you.

One problem is that many Christians *do* think that, because some very intelligent people are Christians, who are little-old-they to question things?

Then they typically trot out such over-rated windbags as CS Lewis, the ABoC, the Pope, William Lane Craig, Al Plantinga etc etc, as if to say that these lofty sages must surely have considered all the evidence and arrived at a rational conclusion.

Question EVERYTHING. The windbags may be able to frame their flawed arguments in flowery impressive-sounding language, such that it even fools themselves, but they still lack any logical core.

But, once you've believed one set of fairy tales, it's a piece of cake for some creationist to come and sell you another set, and before you know it, you're reasoning in ellipsified quote snippets like a seasoned pro.

"We always suspected that Northern Ireland has more creationists than any other part of the UK"

Why should this come as a surprise? Northern Ireland itself is an artificially created entity.

Yeah, but was it intelligently designed?

-H

H
I question that you should question everything. And I also question that I should question everything. And so on...

And it doesn't really matter what you say in reply, I'm just going to question that, and then question that I should question that...

And it does beg the question (which you should question) why have you enough certainty about any of your beliefs to write into a blog, and express your opinions.

Shouldn't you be doubting your doubts, and then doubting those doubts, and doubting the validity of doubting?

GV

Hi Graham,
I do. And yet, I manage to function. Funny, that. I appreciate that some people need "certainty", but my experience is that this need for certainty trumps the inquisitive search for What is Actually Going On. And the certainty itself is an illusion - just stating something as True does not make it True.

If you have a different opinion to mine, then you can voice it on the blog too. We can question both views, and provisionally accept the view (mine, of course) that is most likely to be correct.

Belief is for turkeys. Keep questioning!

-H

Yes, Helio. Peter Ustinov put it well: "Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them".

Long live doubt. Down with belief!
It is belief in absurdities that leads to atrocities. And sometimes amusement, like the guy on yesterday's Talkback who had T-Rex and his missus stumping about with all the other animals on Noah's Jurassic ark.

Hi Helio

You said;- "The certainty [faith?] itself is an illusion."

How certain are you of that Helio? Why?



Brian

ref post 16

Darwin said: "my inward conviction [is] that the Universe is not the result of chance."

What atrocities did Darwin's belief lead to Brian? Just curious...


;-)

OT

Hi guys,

While we're rolling out soundbite quotes, I might as well quote Bertrand Russell:

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."

Gveale

"I question that you should question everything."

And I question that you question nothing...at least nothing of consequence. Only a questioning mind has any hope of finding any truths in life. An unquestioning mind accepts whatever lies are handed to him, especially those drummed into his head at an early age. Now take your unquestioning faith in the existance of god for example. When it flies in the face of facts, like all intellectual tyrants who must ultimately impose their view of truth on others, you will attack those who bring contradictory facts when you can't attack the facts themselves. What are you afraid of, your bubble of how you will find eternal salvation bursting? How desperately frightened people cling to their illusions and demand that nobody else carry pins.

Ha, now we seem to be arguing about who's most certain about their own doubts.

Of course we should doubt everything. But doubt only has a purpose if it is used as a means to form rational, likely conclusions.

Continuing to doubt absolutely everything, including, presumably, the validity of doubt, is an inhuman way to live.

While we should never close our minds to the possibility of being incorrect, the man who refuses to take a position on anything is no man at all.

Of course, everyone here has taken a position which they no doubt think is correct, so, luckily, we are all human.

Of course, we're not all right.

H
The point is that there simply isn't enough time in a day (or since creation) for an infinite series of doubts. Which is what you would need to attempt to have if you were serious.

Whatever you really mean it cannot be "doubt everything", or you wouldn't have bothered to reply, because you would have doubted your belief that you could reply, then doubted that doubt, then doubted that doubt and so on.

Maybe you mean something like *absolute* proof or certainty is impossible? That is, skepticism cannot be decisively refuted?

Okay, fair enough. How does that rule out faith? Doesn't it actually put faith on a par with many other commonly held beliefs ("cruelty is wrong", "truth matters more than falsehood")?

Or maybe you just mean we shouldn't use political force to impose our beliefs when they are controversial. Fair enough.

This affects my faith how, exactly?

PS The "windbags" don't claim to have refuted atheism decisively.

GV

Graham, there is nothing stopping me taking a stand. I just refuse to encase my feet (or my brain) in concrete.

However, if you (or I) come up with a really good argument that undermines my position, then I will reassess my position, and revise it as necessary. THAT is what I mean. I do not need any unassailable principles - it's just that the principles that I *do* hold have either not been assailed at all (so I'll have to continue to question those myself, thank you very much), or you boys have done such a rubbish job that I think they seem rather good, and I'll stick with them until you or I come up with better alternatives. I'll certainly keep *considering* alternatives, and I suggest that you and Bernard and OT do likewise.

What is the point in "faith" in "beliefs"? You don't really know that Jesus rose from the dead, yet you (presumably) claim to have "faith" in this. Why? Why don't you question this? Why *don't* you question whether or not a god exists? Why don't you point out the fallacy of jumping from ignorance of how the world came to be to a conclusion that there is a god, for example? Why *don't* you consider the possibility that the warm fuzzies you feel from your "walk with the Lord" in fact arise as a pure psychological phenomenon, like they do in Muslims (as I presume you think)?

Indeed, who needs "conclusions"? All we need are "positions", and positions must be revisable, subject to evidence.

God, if she exists, knows this too, which is why no *sensible* god would use religion or "faith" to interact with humans. It would be like trying to hammer in a nail with an orange.

"Faith", "Belief" and "Religion" are simply not fit for the stated purpose.

-H

simply nonsense though, Helio.

indeed, we're having the same argument as usual.

You're taking the "position" that people with faith neccessarily have never asked any questions about their faith, or whether god exists....


which is patent nonsense.

I'm quite willing to accept that my faith is a "position", and even that it is subject to revision.

But I, like you, have yet to have my position successfully "assailed".

Again, if we're talking about "positions" and "revisions" you must at least admit the possibility that faith is also a "position", and is subject to the same questions and doubts as any other "position". that mahy of us still hold our positions, just like you still hold yours, is a "revision" that you refuse to accept to your "position".

In sum, this argument is mainly nonsense, based on the totally baseless premise (prejudice, in fact) that theists are unquestioning morons.

We've heard it all before, and it adds nothing to anything. But you knew that anyway....it's implicit in your "position", were it genuinely subject to "revision"

:)

Bernard, a more inaccurate assessment of this discussion is hard to imagine. I don't think it is at all deducible from what I have said that theists are unquestioning morons (at least not all of them - some certainly make a good stab at it).

Yeah, sure, your faith can be regarded as a "position", but it is a purely arbitrary position. Do you really question it? Could it be true that you are wrong, Jesus is dead, and God non-existent? Do you acknowledge that the firm assertions you make may in fact be false?

I am certainly willing to concede that it *possible* that there is a god, and that Jesus rose from the dead etc etc - but I can do a much better job defending an alternative view, and if I take the theist line, I might as well accept Mohammed and Krishna and Wotan and Amun and all the other chappies while I'm there.

But, given that your "faith" is provisional, as you say, what is your reason for holding that position? Sure, I know you can say it makes sense "to you", but that's of no value to anyone else - you would say the same thing if you were a Muslim, and with quite the same justification.

-H

Helio, i must beg to differ;

"I don't think it is at all deducible from what I have said that theists are unquestioning morons"

I think it's deducible from this:

"Why don't you question this? Why *don't* you question whether or not a god exists" (in relation to "having faith", presumably in general)

And this;

"many Christians *do* think that, because some very intelligent people are Christians, who are little-old-they to question things" (Granted that's a "many" and not an "all" statement - but still pretty presumptuous).


"Yeah, sure, your faith can be regarded as a "position", but it is a purely arbitrary position"

Arbitrary? I think you might have missed two thousand years of history and thousands of speculative documents. Arbitrary suggests I've just made it up apropos of nothing....clearly nonsense.

"Do you really question it"

Yes.

"Could it be true that you are wrong, Jesus is dead, and God non-existent? Do you acknowledge that the firm assertions you make may in fact be false"

Yes.

Everything I think could be wrong, as could everything you think. But, being human, i take the position that I think is right.

"I am certainly willing to concede that it *possible* that there is a god, and that Jesus rose from the dead etc etc - but I can do a much better job defending an alternative view"

Which is fair enough. you've been doing a decent job of defending your view on this blog. However, i feel that I and others have also done a good job of defending our view. it's an ongoing argument, to which your last few comments add nothing.

"But, given that your "faith" is provisional, as you say, what is your reason for holding that position"


Well, there are many many reasons, many of which have been outlined in relation to various topicws on this blog.

Let's take the intelligibility of a finite contingent universe for one. I would suggest that most rational explanation for that is an intelligent creator. Your view is probably that the universe is not intelligible, that intellgibility ultimately derives from random unintelligibility, or that intelligibility doesn't actually exist, and is an illusion.

Take your pick. I think each of those options completely ignores and refuses to explain the evidence of human existence, the experience of which is the starting point for any inquiry. in refusing to explain that fundamental giveness of the intelligible universe, I think your view, whatever it is, explains precisely nothing.

Again, these are all arguments that we can have, and will no doubt have countless times.

I don't see how your last few posts have added anything to the argument, that's my point, other than to try to crystallise it through an assertion that at least most Christians do not question their faith.

Useless nonsense, in other words.

:)

Religious faith or belief is not the result of intelletual enquiry. As probably 99.99% of believers have the faith they were inculcated into in childhood it is more of an inherited prejudice that the product of a considered evaluation of the subject. If it were otherwise, changing religion would not be so uncommon.

Baseless nonsense again.

My faith is almost totally the result of intellectual inquiry, given that I was brought up atheist.

Let's have less of the baseless assertions, eh.

Bernard. Your explation for the universe i.e. an Intelligent Creator. You and everyone else will have heard what I am to say many times before, but it must be constantly repeated.
What created the creator? If the answer is that it does not have one, then why does the Universe.
If the the entity you call God or the Creator can exist without, then why is one required for our Universe?

Quite simply, because the universe is contingent.

Every aspect of the universe is determined by causality and dependency.

the god that i am proposing is not.

It amazes me that people are completely unwilling to accept that something completely transcendent can account for its own existence, while at the same time conveniently accepting that the universe, which has shown to be determined by cause and effect in every single aspect, can somehow acount for its own existence.

It's quite simple....if anything does account for its own existence, it is not the universe. Nothing about the universe accounts for its own existence. absolutely nothing. so it's a ridiculous leap of faith to claim that it does.

You accept that there is problem with positing a completely non-contingent entity, yet you're willing to imply that the universe is just such an entity, despite ALL the evidence.

Basically, your comment undermines your own view, and not mine. Let me turn it around to make that clear:

If the universe can exist without a cause, why can't something other than the universe?

In fact, given all of the evidence of our understanding of the universe, it's much more likely that whatever exists without a cause IS DEFINITELY NOT the universe!

To putm it more simply, i'm suggesting that SOMETHING must be non-contingenet, otherwise there could be no contingent things.

As the universe is contingent, as is every particular thing in it, I'm further suggesting that the non-contingent must transcend the universe.

In fact this is the typical Dawkins argument, which has absolutely no understanding of what we mean by positing "God".

Is it easier if I simply suggest that SOMETHING must be uncaused, and that, given the evidence, that SOMETHING is unlikely to be "the universe", which displays causality and dependence in absolutely all of its facets.

Science recognises this fact, by continually pushing back the limits of causality until arriving at a hypothetical construct called "The Big Bang".

If the big bang is totally uncaused, I'll call it God. But given that it implies already exisiting matter and space, which somehow "exploded", it does not seem to be uncaused. So "the Uncaused" must be pushed even further back, until it is limited to the totally transcendent.

Or, i should say, "until it reaches the limit of the totally transcendent"...

Ah, memories, memories. I recall that this was the topic discussed when I first started writing here about a year ago, faith and certainty and doubt.

But which is it guys? Is it faith or certainty or doubt you are against? Or should that be 'for'?

Peter K what was it you said recently, something about accuracy and the bible? Science and God thread, "But wouldn't those of us who are concerned about accuracy be better off tossing it out altogether then?" and I asked what you meant by accuracy? Certainty? More or less certain? Would not being completely certain be a kind of faith? Which do you want Peter, because now it seems you are arguing for doubt.

And Helio, you want to know what is "actually going on". Would this 'actually' mean reasonably certain? Would that involve any kind of trust? (trust and faith are synonyms here) And which are the principles that haven't been assailed?

So are you guys rejecting faith, or are you rejecting certainty? Are you sure you have rejected whatever it is you are rejecting or do you doubt that too?

Brian, OK, let's all glory in doubt then; but I seem to remember that last time we had this conversation you told me off for psychologising you when I suggested you didn't really doubt. Would you like to have another go at doubting, or is your doubt still selective?

What you're all actually saying is that you trust some things but not Christianity. In fact you're certain (are you certain?) you don't trust Christianity. But, what about what you know, are you certain about that, or do you doubt what you know? Now I don't mean, do you doubt what you don't know, I mean do you doubt what you do know, or are you certain about it, and how do you know whether your are certain about it, or doubting it, or whether or not you have questioned it? (Yikes!) I'd love to know how you know, cos when Christians have faith it's wrong, and then when they are certain it's wrong? And then the word 'belief' gets dropped in to mean 'not true'. Make up your minds, please. And then, just to be consistent, doubt what you've just decided.

Then Marky2 pops up with questioning and unquestioning minds, as if faith automatically closes minds. Really? So is a questioning mind a mind of doubt or a mind of faith, are you certain that we're not questioning or do you question that? Do you ever doubt that you're certain, or are you ever certain that you're doubting? Are you sure you're Marcus or do you question that too? What you mean Marcus, is that it's good to learn, now nobody I know doubts that, but we'd need to be clearer with our words now. BTW are you certain that Graham's faith or mine is unquestioning? Have you ever questioned that thought?

So what is it you all really doubt? What are you certain about? Is being certain good or bad? Are you certain about that, or do you question it?

Do you want to condemn me for my faith or my certainty?

Faith - doubt - certainty, there's certainly no consistency.

Anyway faith and doubt aren't contradictory. Nor are faith and knowledge, but we've been here already, already. I'm pretty certain of that.

But here's the thing, if doubt is such a great thing then let's really doubt, like I offered before, let's take a walk on the wild side of doubt, I'm ready when you're ready, I've only been waiting a year.

And now I'm going to lie down.

Sorry Bernard that won't do. Your franticly attempting to find a exit where there is no door.

Good answer.

Well done. I feel wholly refuted.

:)

Hi rochcarlie

Please understand I'm not trying to be awkward, but you appear to be having problems with the question who made god.

But you have no problem with the question, how come there's stuff? How does that work?

It's simple really, either something/someone made the universe or the universe made itself in some way or another, now which one do you go for? The choices really are quite limited.

Everything else follows from that.

So tell us please, Bernard and me, what it is that will do?

Looks like we're going to spend another year hurtling round the same circle!

:-)

Now now Peter.

I imagine we'll be at it much longer than a year. After all, it's just a constant, seemingly irrefutable claim that we've just never really thought about it. That'll take much longer than a year to clear up.

Yes Bernard you are right.

And now that I pause and think about it (it's good to keep and open mind, don't you think), maybe it's a square we're voyaging around, or on third thoughts it could be a dodecahedron, or even a donut, wouldn't want imply that we Christians believe only in flat things.

You know Bernard, with all these fairies and pixies and green goblins you believe in, do you ever doubt your sanity, or come to think of it, do you ever doubt mine! ;-)

No, I know what it is we're going round, it's a Mobius strip.

Eureka!

petermorrow

"Do you want to condemn me for my faith or my certainty?"

Why should I when you have condemned yourself already? You have all the answers you want or need. If they don't yield the expected results, how will you deal with it? You won't know if there is life after death until after you are dead....unless there isn't any in which case you won't know anything. You will have wasted your life but from my point of view, since life is meaningless anyway, it doesn't matter.

"So is a questioning mind a mind of doubt or a mind of faith.."

By definition, it is mind of doubt. If it was certain, it would not question, it would already know and have no reason to question.

"Do you ever doubt that you're certain, or are you ever certain that you're doubting?"

The doubting mind is never certain of anything except that it is certain that it will always be in doubt. No matter how much it thinks it knows, it is aware that ultimately it will never be sure of anything.

"Anyway faith and doubt aren't contradictory."

Of course they are. Faith means trust in something being true without evidence. Any degree of doubt means lack of faith.

"Nor are faith and knowledge"

Yes they are different. Real knowledge comes from experience, questioning, reasoning, understanding, testing, and questioning again. It does not ignore or reject facts it cannot explain. It fits the best theory it can find to the facts and if no theory fits them, then it says I don't know, that will have to be figured out at a later time or by others who can find a plausible explanation that fits the facts. It does not invent fairy tales and then insist they must be right. It is not intellectually dishonest or corrupted it its criticality. That is the scientific method. Faith comes from acceptance with no evidence or questioning. It leads to belief which is not knowedge.

"...but we've been here already, already. I'm pretty certain of that."

The trip did you no good. You'd better pay another visit. Perhaps it will help clarify things in your mind you are confused about.

The atheist with a scientifically trained mind is always in doubt, always seeking the truth, and always aware that whatever it has, it is the best explanation it can devise for the facts at hand but its explanations are always suspect and subject to being overthrown. For example, Einstein overthrew Newton when later evidence Newton didn't have could not be reconciled by Newton's laws. To the degree that a mind is unwilling to question and constantly re-examine the validity of prior conclusions based on all of the facts, to that degree it is neither scientific nor rational. Believers cannot have it both ways, they either have faith in the unproven and even unprovable or they have doubt entertaining the possibility that their beliefs are wrong and therefor they are not true believers. One or the other but not both at once.

Marcus Marcus

I search the faces of the gods... for ways to please you, to make you proud. One kind word, one full hug... where you pressed me to your chest and held me tight. Would have been like the sun on my heart for a thousand years. What is it in me that you hate so much? :-)

"You will have wasted your life..." I will? Crap. I recant, I recant! Sorry, no I don't, I'm having a great time and if you are right... ah, what the hell...

"I have all the answers I want or need." I do, gee thanks, I feel a lot better now.

"By definition, it (a questioning mind) is mind of doubt." Are you certain about that?

Ah, I see I jumped the gun! "The doubting mind is never certain of anything except that it is certain that it will always be in doubt." So you don't doubt everything? And when you come to know something, oh yes you never actually do know...

Faith. OK you define faith your way, and I'll define it in mine.

"Any degree of doubt means lack of faith." Not in my world. And anyway this means that you will have to define faith as certainty, not trust. Trust means trust, not certainty. If I was certain about God, I would be God.

Knowledge and faith, "Faith comes from acceptance with no evidence or questioning." Aw shucks, we did that already.

"Always seeking the truth." But not a truth you can ever know.

"Believers cannot have it both ways, they either have faith in the unproven and even unprovable or they have doubt entertaining the possibility that their beliefs are wrong and therefore they are not true believers. One or the other but not both at once."

Never said I wanted it both ways. Anyway at least we've established one thing, I reject your definition of faith, that changes everything. You think I haven't doubted?

Oh and just for those who need to hear it again, my faith doesn't mean I can't or don't want to learn. Science is great.

And I take it you apply the same level of doubt to yourself. Actually Marcus, you are one of the few consistent atheists around here, I can respect that, even if we disagree.

Bernard, are you dizzy yet?

Golly, we have got going here, haven't we? And Bernard was saying that my statements had added nothing to the discussion. Fancy.

Bernard, your argument re contingency is wholly inappropriate. The universe is only contingent if you think of time as being external, yet that has been pretty much categorically refuted by general relativity - time is a property of the universe itself, therefore you can talk of events WITHIN the universe being contingent, but not necessarily the universe as a whole.

Furthermore, you cannot simply "with one bound, he was free" your way out of providing an explanation for your alleged god, because IF you take the contingent viewpoint, the changing mental states of the god system (and indeed the components that make up the god intelligence) *must* themselves be contingent. Intelligence cannot be non-contingent. So you're stuffed on that one, I'm afraid.

It's the old cosmological argument for god - you cannot get your god off the hook by simply claiming that there "must be" a first cause, and just asserting that your little god is "it". Why not many gods? Families of gods? Themselves contingent on a deeper reality? And indeed, you can't even invoke Occam's Razor here, because if you propose a god with various qualities (omnithis and omnithat and quasitheother), you are either saying that gods have no choice in how they "are", or that some arbitrary process just happened to land us with Yahweh, when it could just as easily have been Allah or Vishnu or Wotan.

It is to your credit that you doubt things like the resurrection, virgin birth etc.ill not clear, however, on why you still hanker this feeling that they are "true" - what do you base that on? The facts? Well, there aren't any - the accounts are woefully inadequate. The warm fuzzies? Well, everyone gets those, no matter what religion.

So *what*?

-H

H, I'm sorry, I seem to have doubted your motivation.

Whereas I thought that you were just having the same cheap dig, it turns out you were wishing to be the catalyst for a fresh round of the same old argument.

Still, you make a few points.

"The universe is only contingent if you think of time as being external, yet ... time is a property of the universe itself, therefore you can talk of events WITHIN the universe being contingent, but not necessarily the universe as a whole."

No, I'm sorry, but contingency isn't simply temporally linear. Because a thing is contingent on something else does not neccessarily mean that it "comes after" the something else.

In fact, your concept of time as inhering within the universe fits precisely with Augustie's concept of eternity as existing beyond the universe of time and space.

But back to contingency, this has nothing to do with "time". That the universe, including "time", if you like, exists at all is wholly contingent....it could have been otherwise....its essence does not account for its existence.

So that's a dud argument, trying to somehow shoe-horn "temporally previous" into the notion of contingency.

"IF you take the contingent viewpoint, the changing mental states of the god system (and indeed the components that make up the god intelligence) *must* themselves be contingent."

The THING that is non-contingent is simple...it is not a complex of components....complexities and components exist within the universe, else they wouldn't be definable as complex, or discernible as components.

That the non-contingent Thing is the sorce of the contingent INTELLIGIBLE universe means that the non continent thing must be capable of creating and grounding intelligence....somehow "meta-intelligent", or intelligent in such a fashion that a single act and state simultaneously grasps and costitutes both essence and existence. A simplistic act.

So, what we analogously call "intelligent", being transcendent, is not an intelligence of compartmental knowledge and affirmation, but a single act that gasps, constitutes as intelligible, and affirms Being as Being.

An "intelligent" creator is an analogous term. it does not mean intelligent in the sense of grasping patterns. It means intelligent in the sense of "accounting for the being of intelligibility".



"Intelligence cannot be non-contingent."

The type of "intelligence" I've described is neccessary non-contingent.

"you cannot get your god off the hook by simply claiming that there "must be" a first cause, and just asserting that your little god is "it". Why not many gods?"

Because division and differentiation are definable, intelligble features of the universe. my God, as the transcendent creatorof intelligibility abd definabilty, is simple, and ONE.

"And indeed, you can't even invoke Occam's Razor here"

I wasn't going to. I invoke the meaning of "transcendent"....my God is beyond the divisions and contingencies that constitute the universe. he is One.

"It is to your credit that you doubt things like the resurrection, virgin birth etc.ill not clear, however, on why you still hanker this feeling that they are "true" - what do you base that on?"

On many things...but, in relation to the above, on the grounds that a transcendent creator , being the source of all intelligibility and Good, would be in some way analogous to intelligent and good, in the sense of being an archetype or exemplar.

GIVEN that, it makes sense that such a transcendent good creator would wish to communicate with His miror creation....the intelligences that almost reach the peaks of His transcendence....it also makes sense that the fullestand most affirmative and gracious way i which this could be done would be to BECOME man. The moment of the infinite within the finite.

At this stage, it becomes speculative. the point to be grasped from the intellect is that there IS a transcendence.....just like the intellect can grasp the bahaviour of a spouse. But you have to go further to believe that she loves you. Many do, and their faithful fidelity is rewarded in kind

Here Helio

Tell me this, what is it you think Yahweh is saying about Yahweh?

And I know, I know there's an objection just waiting to be grasped there, but go on, just for the sake of the debate assume Yahweh is there, and assume he has spoken.

petermorrow;

"One kind word, one full hug... where you pressed me to your chest and held me tight. Would have been like the sun on my heart for a thousand years. What is it in me that you hate so much? :-)"

Sorry Peter, I'm strictly AC. You're not my idea of the chest hugging type. Not for me anyway.

"And when you come to know something, oh yes you never actually do know..."

That is a correct conclusion. For a moment I thought you were going to accuse me of having created a tautology. I can never be sure of anything. When I go to sleep, I can never be sure I will wake up. I can never be sure I'm dreaming when I'm having a dream or that I'm not when i think I'm awake. I can never be sure that gravity will work tomorrow. I can't even be sure that everything I think I remember actually ever happened. All I can do is draw conclusions based on what I think I know here and now and watch to see if they remain valid in predicting what will happen. If they don't, I will have to find different conclusions or admit that I just don't understand. This is the opposite of religion which has an unyielding answer for everything. It never changes. If it does, it is not the same religion.

Suppose we let the dictionary define faith. I haven't even looked it up yet. Here is dictionary dot com's definitions.

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.


Where does your definition fit into one of those? Do you have any others to offer into evidence? One thing those definitions have in common. They nowhere speak of a need for proof, evidence, drawing logical conclusions from observations, or the existance of doubt.

"Oh and just for those who need to hear it again, my faith doesn't mean I can't or don't want to learn. Science is great."

What would you do if science demonstrated that something in your "faith" is wrong, what then? How would you reconcile it? Where does it stop? What if your faith would not admit to say evolution or that the earth is round and revolves around the sun? At one point or another, every religion becomes rigid in its resistance to evidence it cannot reconcile. That is where real science kills it. No fact or facts or logical deductions no matter how unpleasant or contrary to our wishes or expectations can be discounted if there is evidence to support it. Emotion plays no role in it. That is why it is the only truely rational method of thinking.

Someone, I can't rember who, described theology as a towering edifice whose foundations are supported by its own superstructure. I feel some of the posts here just confirm that.

rochcarlie

But you haven't actually told us anything yet.

What is it that you accept as an answer? You just keep telling us we're wrong, please tell us why we're wrong. You could, for example tell us what is supporting your towering edifice. :-)


Marcus

I'm off to bed, it's just turned Wednesday in NI, but as a first response to post 53 I'll run with definition (1) of faith, and then suggest that based on your statement, "All I can do is draw conclusions based on what I think I know here and now and watch to see if they remain valid in predicting what will happen", that you exercise this kind of faith too.

Sorry for the Gladiator quote!

This particular discussion reminds me that philosophy has been defined as: "Getting to know more and more about less and less until you know everyting about nothing!"

All very interesting no doubt - but I prefer to trust the supreme mind of Jesus Christ. He said, "Your Word is Truth." (John 17v17)

End of story!

Pastorphilip et al:

I see that the Christians are up to their old tricks: anything to detract from the main criticism being made. Why is Ulster the creationist capital of the UK?

I think Helio is right to suggest that it is particularly a Protestant defeat. The dominant form of Protestatism in NI is Puritanism, derived from Calvin and Knox. In its insistence on the direct relation of God and man, in its faith in the intellectual sufficiency of the Bible, and in its rejection of any symbolic representation of spiritual realities or any theretical contradiction of biblical 'truth', Puritanism is fundamentally anti-culture and anti-science.

Now, in an age when nearly all art, music and literature was religious, this implied a complete denial of such indirect modes of communication as irrelevant or blasphemous. God was an ineffable mystery and should therefore not be depicted symbolically. Moreover, the truth had been revealed once for all in its entirety in the Bible, so nothing could be added and nothing could be taken away. The assumption behind all art, philosophy and science that there were other insights to discover or developments to occur or criticisms to express was thus plainly wrong.

In later ages when art, philosophy and science tried to break free from a narrow religious straitjacket, it merely offered Puritans further proof of its sacrilegious nature. Past Philip mocking philosophy in favour of biblical cretinism is a perfect example. Mock philosophy, without which we might as well be without a brain.
It is hardly surprising that Puritan communities have become notorious for the dearth of their artistic endeavours. Talent and analysis are smothered by a stultifying cult of the Bible which views culture as at best an irrelevant indulgence or at worst a positive threat to its hegemony.

Take the case of drama. In Elizabethan England, Puritan pressure in which plays were denounced as inventions of the Devil and theatres were attacked as dens of iniquity forced the authorities to remove the playhouses from the precincts of the city of London. Cromwell banned plays altogether.

And there are still many Puritans today throughout the world and Ulster who would never enter a theatre or a cinema or countenance the presence of a TV in their homes. Thus Paisley told Pat Kenny on The Late Late Show that he had only seen two films in his entire (and guess what they were: Cromwell and Shadowlands!).

Although such people may now be only a minority in most societies, the denigration and censorship which culture has suffered in the past at their hands has left a deadening legacy on more puritanical communities such as Ulster.

The high percentage here who believe in creationism reflects this Puritan hegemony in the Protestant culture. Clearly, there are strong vestiges of it remaining.

Brian,

Much of what you say is historically correct.

May i ask, though, as you accept that;

"such people may now be only a minority in most societies"

Do you also accept that they are also a minority within Christendom, and have always been so....and that therefore your valid criticisms refer only to a very small minority of Christians, and could just as easily apply to a small minority of, for example, minimalist nihilistic atheists?

This, for example,

" the truth had been revealed once for all in its entirety in the Bible, so nothing could be added and nothing could be taken away"

Does not in any way reflect mainstream Christianity, either now or ever.

Particularly given that the very compilation of the bible was a process of "adding AND taking away".

Bernard, there is no "telos" in where I'm going here - I am merely surfing a contingent wave, and that saves me from having to say silly things like this:
"An "intelligent" creator is an analogous term. it does not mean intelligent in the sense of grasping patterns. It means intelligent in the sense of "accounting for the being of intelligibility"."

Firstly, this strikes me as meaningless gibberish - Brian, can you translate for Bernard, pls?

Am I correct in getting from that that you are deducing this divine intelligence thingy (however we conceive it) as being of purely ontological necessity? You need it in order to define what intelligence "is"? That's just wordplay, and gets us nowhere.

I see we have been reading the Bill and Alvin comic, haven't we? However, your notions of contingency are a bit flawed. If there is no temporal requirement for contingency, it becomes logically possible to invoke a causation loop, and logically entirely correct that such a loop contains within it its own causation. This is hardly satisfying to a scientist (although philosophers might be happy to take their cocoa up to bed having established this). What you are looking for is not a CAUSATION, but an EXPLANATION.

IF you are taking the (strange) view that the universe DOES require a cause, but the "cause" of the universe DOESN'T, and the only reason you can adduce for the non-causedness of this particular cause is that the causality buck has to stop somewhere, it is pretty poor philosophy. It is even poorer philosophy (tending in intellectual poverty towards *theology*!) to then adduce all sorts of wee human properties like "intelligence" and "potence" and "benevolence" and "beardiness" onto this entirely notional creation of your own mind.

It's even *worse* to claim that we poor humans can't hope to understand the divine mysteries of such a notional intelligent pixie, while at the same time ontologically or cosmologically inferring its existence, AND claiming from some old texts and doddering old fools that you somehow have insight into the workings of its entirely notional brain.

Nah - I'm a simple chap. The philosophy sucks - we've established that. Just show me the *evidence*.

-H

[And following Brian's point, I do agree that creationism is a result of that sort of siege mentality that comes with tyrannical puritanism. It is a defence mechanism for turning weakness into apparent strength.]

Helio;

I think you're still not grasping what i mean by "contingency".

i think hume pointed out that, even were there an infinte series of causes all causing each other, one would still need to account for the series itself. the same applies to your somehow self-sufficient "causal loop"....

It is not strange to take the view that the universe requires a "cause"...in fact, given the embeddedness of causality within human reason, it's the entirely rational thing to do.

The causality buck DOES have to stop somewhere.

Given the discernible and intelligible features of the universe, it is irrational to suggest that the causality buck stops IN the universe, as further questions can always be asked.

Although i do have to use human language, i am not attributing "wee human properties" to the transcendent cause. I am suggesting that the way in which we can understand is through effects......when the effects are intelligible, and where a fullness of intelligibility is a GOOD, we can make the assumption that, as far as it is open to us in even second-hand way, the transcendent cause is "proto-intelligent" and "proto-good".

Exactly what "intelligence in itself" or "Good in itself" consists of, I am not quite sure. But I know what my limited understanding of intelligibility and good is, and that is how the transcendent cause makes itself known to me. It is no doubt MUCH MORE.

Brian,

My previous point was typed with a smile (!), but I would be interested in your response to the fact that Jesus obviously trusted the Genesis account. (see eg Matthew 19v4)

Is it so surprising that Christians follow his lead?

pastorphillip, Jesus was a Jewish rabbi. Genesis has always been Jewish theology. Why would he NOT have believed in Genesis? Genesis is the first book of the Torah, the Pentateuch. This is the holiest part of the Jewish bible. Now what kind of rabbi would he have been if he didn't believe in it? What I want to know is was Jesus a young earther believing that the world was only 5000 years old or did he believe as many Christians do today including Catholic theology that Genesis is a figurative account not to be taken literally and that Genesis is reconciled with a 13 billion year old universe and evolution of living creatures down to homo sapiens. That's what a lot of this is about for Christians today isn't it? So what DID Jesus actually believe? Don't tell me he left it a mystery. What kind of teacher, rabbi, prophet leaves the most important questions of his teachings a mystery? Please cite chapter and verse for your explanation. I can hardly wait to read it.

Pastophilip:

It's difficult to engage when you aren't sure that someone is being serious or just 'joking'. "My previous point was typed with a smile", you say. That sounds like a kid whose idiocy has been rumbled. So philosophy is really OK, after all? Why not poke fun at Jesus, 'with a smile'. Instead of 'supreme' mind, why not say, 'simple mind', for example,... with a smile?

Indeed, 'simple minded' helps to explain Jesus's attitude. We have to remember that he lived in a fairly primitive period and a primitive part of the world. He had no knowledge of the general conditions of life outside the Middle East and was unacquainted with science. Thus he believed in the Devil and that diseases were the work of demons. He told people to disregard the world, have no thought for tomorrow, to neglect their home and families and to 'trust in God'. Not very philosophical or very scientific.

Bernard:

Yes, puritanism is espoused by a minority but they are very vocal, they dominate the leadership of the main Protestant party, and they are not sufficiently challenged by other Protestant Christians. The Humanists and atheists who do challenge them are generally pilloried as 'aggressive' or 'foolish'. The end result: the puritan hegemony remains, despite the fact that a majority of Protestants know it is all antiquated and 'laughable' (Pastorphilip, take note) nonsense.

Brian;

i think it's a fair point. The only point i would make is that, perhaps atheists and humanists are pilloried as agressive because, like you, they attempt on every occassion to extend their criticisms of that vocal minority to Chritians in general. I suppose, being atheists and humanists, they are bound to do so, but to use the valid criticisms against a vocal minority and somehow attempt to apply them to the majority is quite agressive.

Still, you do make some fair points.

Bernard:

Personally, I have no quarrel with an ethical Christianity, provided that it properly followed. It is the Christianity of dogma that I find a pain in the neck.

What about that dogma that deals with ethics?

I understand a mistrust of unquestioned dogma, but you must have some dogma in order to know what you believe.

We are all dogmatic. You just don't trust the dogma of the church.

Barnard:

Perhaps I should clarify. By ethical Christianity I am not referring to 'following Jesus' (he was not consistent anyway), but applying the compassionate and pacifist message he preached (and Buddha, Confucius and others also preached).

So, Christianity that has nothing really to do with Jesus then?

:)

Fair enough.

Bernard:

No, I don't agree. We are back to the point about the value of doubt and scepticism above. For me, and I think for Helio and others, these are the starting points.

As a teacher of Economics and Politics, they were values I tried to promote. I actually encouraged pupils to criticise my opinions (which many of them did - often).

Even when the fashion in Economics switched from Keynesianism to neo-classicism, I always made a point of insisting that students remain sceptical because fashions change.

There is nothing worse that dogma. It is the enemy of all thinking and all progress.

BTW: "The dogma of the church" is misphrased. There isn't one dogma. Isn't that what Christians fight over: their dogma is Persil-white and the other lot are wrong? Isn't that why the Pope recently said Protestants aren't true Christians?

First....I challenge you to find a quotation of the pope saying that.

Secondly, i'm not sure we have the same understanding od dogma.

To my mind, dogma is the accepted view of an organisation, determined by the members of the organisation, and without the acceptance of which one cannot be a member of the organisation.

It is not a simple decree to end all inquiry. It is rather the settled and expressed position of an organisation.

People are perfectly entitled to question it....if they arrive at a different conclusion, they are not entitled to remain members of that organisation, unless the nature of the organisation changes.

It's a contradiction, surely, to suggest that dogma is the enemy of thinking and progress, and then to admit that it changes and develops, presumably THROUGH thought and progress.

But an organisation must at any given time have a dogma that defines it, otherwise there would be no meaning to the term "Christian"

Atheism has a dogma, of course, as does humanism.

If you were to assert that there is a God, you are not entitled to call yourself an atheist...

That is what dogma means. it is not an enemy of thought, but a specification of a group position.

Bernard:

"So, Christianity that has nothing really to do with Jesus then?"

I'm not sure what this means. I am assuming that a man existed who said 'love your enemies'; do good to them that hate you' etc. And I also think that these values are worth following. So the values do have something to do with him, and with others before him who expressed similar values.

'Christianity' is surely open to interpretation. I think we are back with the simplistic Irish attitude to Christianity which is unscholarly and reductionist. Most Christians here say that to be a Christian YOU have to believe that Jesus was God incarnate. But this is wrong. You don't and many people who call themselves Christians don't. They are quite entitled to call themselves what they want (and, yes, others are quite entitled to disagree with them).

Suppose I pretend (to annoy Marcus) that I am a Marxist. That doesn't mean I believe everything Marx said or that he was God incarnate. But it does mean that on some key elements of life and society he got it right.

Sticking a label on yourself is not a matter of all or nothing. Eclecticism is itself a useful and wise approach. Take what is best and discard what is worst.

Hi Bernard:

Let's catch up with each other. I see that we are interpreting dogma differently. That's my point, isn't it, about being a 'Christian'?

BTW: The Pope stated that other Christian denominations were merely 'ecclesiastical communities' and cannot be 'true churches'.

Brian;

Well, yes, people attach whatever label to themselves that wish. Others can disagree.

Saying that protestant congregations are not churches does not mean that the members are not christian.

I'm not sure what we are arguing about. I suppose if you want to call yourself a Christian that is fine. But you do not conform to what is generally and historically meant by the term.

I don't suppose it really maters, however.

But stil, as for marxism, you need not accept all of Marx's views, but at what point you stop being a "marxist"? Say I accept marx's views on "the jewish question", but totally reject his entire system of economics in favour of an unrestricted market. Am i still a marxist?

We can all call ourselves what we want, but if so, at some point language will break down.

It's quite ironic though, that you're complaining about the Pope's view of other congregations, while at te same time insisting that peoplecan call themselves what they want. Presumably, others are also allowed to take a view on that?

brianmcclinton why would you think pastorphillip is joking? What kind of pastor would joke about god?

How can you say Jesus was a primitive who wasn't aware of the world? He was god remember? He knew all things that had happened and will ever happen everywhere in the universe. That is what an omnicient god is all about.

It's a sad day when an atheist like me has to teach the bible to a pastor. What is this world coming to? :-)

Good grief, do some of you guys have no work to go to?

Pastorphilip - I've no axe to grind with you and would wish the emphasize the centrality of Jesus too, but a lot of the atheists on this blog are right at times, sometimes Christians just have no answers. Here's what Francis Schaeffer had to say,

"Christians have tended to despise the concept of philosophy. This has been one of the weaknesses of evangelical, orthodox Christianity - we have been proud in despising philosophy, and we have been exceedingly proud in despising the intellect. Our theological seminaries hardly ever relate their theology to philosophy, and specifically to current philosophy. Thus, students go out from theological seminaries not knowing how to relate Christianity to the surrounding worldview. It is not that they do not know the answers. My observation is that most students graduating from our theological seminaries do not know the questions."

In fact, I've been accused in church of being too theological! Work that one out.

Philip, philosophy, in it's simplest form, is just a way of looking at the world, and theology is just words about God.

And as soon as you say "I prefer to trust the supreme mind of Jesus Christ", you have made a philosophical and theological statement. The church has to do better, and, as Brian and Helio have pointed out the Protestant church has to do better.

Brian, I think you make some good points, as you will have noted in my comments to Philip, (Philip, would you not drop the 'pastor' bit, I don't go round calling myself 'teacherpeter'!) but might I suggest that your brush strokes are rather broad, too broad.

Some of Protestantism is anti-cultural and anti-philosophy and anti-science, this is regrettable. However it does not necessarily follow that all those who hold a high view of the bible are like this. There is a strong Reformed Christian tradition which, for example, celebrates culture and welcomes science while also considering the bible to be sufficient. What is important here is what these people consider the bible to be sufficient for, and, as I have said many times, it's sufficiency relates to knowledge of God, it is not however a science book, or a recipe book, or a useful manual for my car. Generally though you make an important point, and frankly it is my opinion (one which is usually ignored in church!) that we Christians are largely the authors of our own downfall, and the sooner churches stop being preoccupied with their own made-up sub-culture and made-up 'in' language, the better.

Helio - let's get real simple. As I said to someone else on this thread, 'stuff' is here either because it made itself in some way or another, or someone/thing else did it. And it is either self-existent or is sustained. And it will either continue to exist (and has always existed) or will come to an end of some sort (and had a beginning). Do you have an opinion here? Spin the wheels and whip up a combination for us!

Marcus Am I correct in thinking that you have some kind of faith or other?

And, am I to think that while first we praised doubt, now we've buried it!! Have I no takers for pushing the limits of doubt? :-)

Or did we all just me 'an inquisitive mind' all along?

petermorrow

No! No! No! No! A thousand times no. I have no faith. During the hours I'm asleep, I do not believe that reality exists. And when I'm awake....I can't be sure if anything is real or it isn't. There is nothing I am certain of in all of the universe or my experience. Imagine if a robot could be programmed with a memory. As soon as he was switched on, he'd think he was many years old. How would he know none of what he thinks happened to him in the past wasn't real until he starts to investigate. How do I know I'm not just minutes old, a robot with a programmed memory? I don't. You may just be a figment of my imagination so you'd better watch it buddy or Pfffft, you're history.

Marcus

Remember definition (1) above, the one you provided for me?

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

Next question, if you say yes, you are truly consistent, nobody else here is. Although what you say, and how you actually act when you are awake may be two different things, you must think about both. I'm uncertain about me too, more than you might imagine or expect from a Christian, but I live as if I am real! :-)

I mean I take it you believe in your own existence enough to eat.

Question - So you NEVER trust yourself?

Remember I didn't say faith was certainty, it is you who is saying that.

And definition (1) isn't 'belief, or action, without evidence'.

Difficult to keep up with all this! Peter & Bernard, I have no problem with contingency, temporal or otherwise. Within the universe, you might make a case for contingency, although it could also be argued that since "things" just represent relationships that form, break and re-form between fundamental particles, which themselves are just peculiar warps of spacetime itself, that nothing gets *really* created. It is a category error (sorry, but it is) to insist that the universe *as a whole* is contingent on another process.

However, I *do* agree (and indeed maintain rather strongly) that the universe needs an explanation, but I also maintain that a "god" is not it, because any such "being" MUST itself be contingent in order to make decisions etc, and so you are no further on. You can't simply declare this magic space pixie to be non-contingent and immanent, yet give it the characteristics of a "cause" of our universe. It doesn't work.

FWIW, my view remains that the universe is fundamentally computable, which necessarily implies that it is a mathematical structure, and therefore does not require "causation" outside that conceptualisation, but that's just me. If you're interested, Google Max Tegmark Mathematical Universe.

petermorrow

"So you NEVER trust yourself?"

Not fully. Even when I am awake, sober, fully in possession of my faculties, I am vulnerable to errors. Errors in judgement, technical errors, misperceptions, forgetfulness, errors from miscommunication. Uncertainty is at the heart of every good engineer's design. He plans for the worst and hopes for the best. Murphy's law which was invented I think by an engineer is an expresssion of the belief that unknown variables can wreck every plan no matter how well laid. In case you don't know Murphy's law, it is that anything that can go wrong will go wrong...and at the worst possible moment. And BTW, Murphy was an optomist. It's the reason I never pursued a PE License. When you put your stamp on a document such as a drawing, you become responsible for the consequences of building it if it fails and it is your fault. I'm talking about legal liability in perpetuity with lawsuits, payouts and the need for insurance for what we call "errors and omissions" akin to a doctor's malpractice insurance. Nope, I let others take the risk. Cost me potentially a lot of money for jobs I didn't qualify for on account of it too.

Do I trust other people? Not fully. Never. Too err is human, to forgive is against company policy. The only way to avoid making mistakes is to never do anything. BTW, I have never lost one cent in the stock market or anywhere else on someone else's advice. I make all my mistakes by myself. I don't trust others judgement on faith, I check out everything for myself first. Makes life complicated. The most famous last words most people hear IMO are "trust me."

Have you ever read Camus or Sartre? Existentialism is an alternate theory of existance, one of three I've narrowed the possibilities down to.

Some people can get really annoyed with evangelical Christians, can't they?! Ah well - I'll try not to take it personally!

Interesting, though, that people are getting hung up on what was intended as a light-hearted comment - rather than addressing the two serious points I made....ie God's own description of His 6-day creation, and His Son's straightforward reference to the Genesis account.

I submit that these deserve more serious consideration than they have so far received.

Perhaps you are wrong, Peter - it's not that Christians don't have answers; more likely that those they have are unpalatable!

Bernard:

Labels which are attached to people's opinions are generally of little real significance, even though they often fight over them. It's what is meant by the labels that is relevant.

Interpreting the Pope as saying that Protestants are not proper Christians can be regarded as a fair inference from his statement that they do not belong to proper churches. Certainly, many Protestants have interpreted his remarks in this way. But perhaps Nietzsche was right: "The last Christian died on the Cross".

Do Catholics worship Mary? Do they ignore the Bible? Or are Protestants enslaved to it? Do they ignore the wisdom and tradition of 'the church'? Is the road to the deity through the Mass or the Hot Gospel?

Frankly, I don't give a damn about the answer to any of these questions. They are all quite meaningless disputes about irrelevant dogma.

I am not concerned with an implausible hereafter and the true route to it; but I am concerned about this life an our behaviour in it. And if Christianity has anything relevant to offer in this respect, I am willing to listen. But I will protest about its frequent insistence on messing up this life for other people because of futile fights over meaningless shadows.
In this aspect, it needs to shut up and let the rest of us get on with our lives,

Peter:

I am not claiming that all Protestantism is anti-culture and anti-science; only the 'puritan' strain of it. There is also a traditional of liberal, enlightened Christianity which is found among some Presbyterians, Quakers etc., which I would regard as a step in the direction of secularism. But I think that it tends to be crushed in NI (think of Montgomery v Cooke etc in the 19th century) by a puritanism which punches about its weight and worth. How long do we have to weight before an enlightened Christianity arrives in Ulster?

Naturally, I don't agree with you about the Bible, but we have been round this bush before. However, if we take only the topic of creationism, the Bible is just plain wrong, wrong, wrong (and, Pastorphilip, Jesus is wrong as well as Genesis).

As an outsider, I must say I find these intramural squabbles amusing, the more intense the moreso. When it gets to "it's my god right or wrong and you'd better believe in him the way "we" do or I'll kill you in the name of Christ" the way it did during "the troubles" it's at its best. Pastorphillip, do you think all of those who participated in both sides of the troubles either by deed or in their hearts have gone or are going to hell? Have they led a Christian life? Have they sinned by hating other Christians for their religous beliefs?

It's enlightening coming from a place where tolerance for other religions is expected and is the norm to watch places like NI. The framers of the US Constitution created a place where we've never had these "troubles" of our own, at least not this kind or to this degree. That appears to have been their intent.

BTW Pastorphillip, I will assume from your posting that you believe in the literal word of the bible that the universe was created in six days as we know a day and that the earth is no more than around 7000 years old. I'm curious. Do you believe that the earth was created before the sun and the stars? That's how I read Genesis.

"1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light."

What does it mean when its says the earth was "formless and void?" I can't seem to relate to that. Enlighten me.

Now this next part also has me puzzled.

"4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day."

But we know today that somewhere in the world there is always a place where it is daytime and somewhere else there is always a place where it is night. At what spot did he use for a reference when he started computing when day and night begins and ends to know when the first day was over? Do you think it was Mesopotamia? The rift valley in Africa? Jerusalem? Yankee Stadium?

Don't let me down pastorphillip. I'm depending on you. This is just the beginning. We have the WHOOOOOLE bible to go through together. Won't that be fun? :-)

In fairness, Pastorphilip is not believing "the Bible" - he is believing HIS interpretation of it, and it is not even necessary to stress that there are other interpretations of the "creation" story.

For example, a few wacky folks take it literally (Genesis 1, not 2 of course, because Genesis 1 was created before Genesis 2, and therefore Genesis 2 is inferior to Genesis 1, just as the New Testament is inferior to the Old Testament). The "literalist" interpretation of Genesis 1 is disproven by science. End of. Get over it.

Then there are other people who treat it as allegory - the writers of Genesis in ~700BCE were trying to convey a concept of overall divine creation. This would be the majority Christian position, although for some odd reason many people in this camp like to protect their more retarded bretheren in the above category. Don't know why.

Then there are other people who place Genesis in its historical and geographical context, and realise that it is just another one of many similar creation myths that has been worked over and redacted into its current form, and represents nothing more than mythology, and trying to salvage *anything* scientific from it is about as likely to succeed as salvaging the works of Shakespeare from a dog-eared edition of "Mr Bump Goes to Town".

Just forget it.

Helio:

"although it could also be argued that since "things" just represent relationships that form, break and re-form between fundamental particles, which themselves are just peculiar warps of spacetime itself, that nothing gets *really* created."


Except the spacetime itself, of course, not to mention the peculiar warps.

"It is a category error (sorry, but it is) to insist that the universe *as a whole* is contingent on another process.2

On another "process"...yes. A process inplies division and differentiation...which are found "in" the universe, or "in" our phenomenal experience.

However, what I am positing is a fundamental "Act"....a simple act which admits no division or differentiation, but accounts for the being of all in the universe.

The ACTUALITY of being itself, if you like. This is not a process, but a simple wilful ACT.

"However, I *do* agree (and indeed maintain rather strongly) that the universe needs an explanation, but I also maintain that a "god" is not it, because any such "being" MUST itself be contingent in order to make decisions etc"

A single ACT which accounts for all ACTUALITY must not be contingenet...in fact, being simple and fundamental, it cannot be contingent.

Again, I think you are reducing God to a cause in the universe. I am talking about that which transcends the universe. As it transcends the universe and everything in it, it is not subject to division or differentiation, but is the single primal "force" or "Act" (used analogically) which accounts for all further act, actualities or causal connectivities.

"and so you are no further on."

I am further on insofar as I can, intellectually, recognise the total otherness and uniquness of whatever must transcend the universe. The acceptance of this intellectual possibility opens the way to accept a number of other considerations about what a Transcendent ACT might entail. I agree that that is as far as the intellect can take us, but, if you intellectually accept that "the explanation" of the universe must transcend the universe, you can then take into account other considerations.....such as the possibility of a transcendent creator "expressing" some "purpose" in that creation.

"You can't simply declare this magic space pixie to be non-contingent and immanent"

I'm declaring a transcendent OTHER to be non-contingent and immanent.

"yet give it the characteristics of a "cause" of our universe"

"Cause" is a loaded word. If we're referring to what lies outside the universe, strictly speaking it does not "cause" the universe....causality applies within the universe.

However, as we are talking about the contingency of the universe, and the non-contingency of the transcendent OTHER, there is a sense in which we can speak of the OTHER "accounting for" the universe, or "being the fundamental reality underlying the universe of causality"

Kant is useful here, and schopenhauer's even better.

The realm of phenomena is totally contingent......yet, although the Noumena cannot act as a "cause" of the phenomena, they are nonetheless the underlying reality of the phenomena.

Schopenhauer then argued, forcefully, that the Noumena, as lying outside the scope of the phenomenal realm, must not admit to division or definition...those are all phenomenal.

So whatever transcends the phenomenal universe must be One, and Unique.

Schopenhauer also argued that the only aspect of phenomena which comes close to providing an "inner identity" with the noumena was the indivisible and undefinable "Will", which does not seem to be subject to phenomenal considerations.

I tend to think that.

Bernard, so many words to say so little! Schopenauer and Kant be damned - how do you distinguish this "transcendent OTHER" from mathematics, say? An ACT *has* to itself be phenomenal - the DECISION has to precede the ACT (Genesis 1, I'm afraid). How does a non-phenomenal pixie do that? How does your "Transcendent OTHER" translate its non-actional non-contingent thingyness into thing? It's all unnecessary, never mind entirely illogical.

Here, have a look at this:https://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646

I think it's rather interesting, and perhaps Will might consider interviewing Max T on one of his shows?

How are mathematics totally transcendent of all division and definition?

Mathematics are patterns of space and number operative within the universe of things.

Given that we're talking about unique transcendence, the ACT that I refer to could also be conceptualised a fundamental WILL.

Bearing in mind that we are totally transcendent of all division and definition, a WILL that wills the entire universe is "simultaneously" (analogical) "at one" with its ACT and its DECISION.

I am not talking about human decision or action. I am talking about the transcendent actuality which is the proto-actuality of all other acts, wills, decisions and definitions. It is the unlimited perfection "within which" the limited imperfect universe of divisions and definitions has its being.

Although I completely accept that such a struggle with language is neccessarily lacking in full expression, it nevertheless is an attempt to grapple with the transcendent "other" within which the contingent has its being.

It is thus completely neccessary, in the sense that you have admitted that there must of neccessity be an outside "explanation".

If you accept that that must be transcendent and cannot be circular....well, I'm just trying to unpack the implications of transcendent.

a transcendent thing cannot be limited by definition, for example....then it is not transcendent.

It cannot be limited by division into parts....then it wouldn't be transcendent.

I'm trying to use imperfect langauage to partly express the way in which a transcendent Other can account for the universe....

I take it you are now accepting that whatever accounts for the universe must be transcendent other.

Well, such a thing is not a spaghetti monster, or a "pixie", or a mathematical construct.

It is Unique. it is unlimited. Yet it "Accounts" for the limitations and definitions of that universe.

I would suggest the best way in which we can understand such a thing, which we accept must be neccessary, is as something analogous to a mind....as minds are partly unlimited bydefintion or division, but, in humanity, are limited and separate from action. The prime transcendent analogue of such a thing is not limited by being separate from its effects or actions.

The Transcendent OTHER is its action, and its effects are the myriad of unfolding imperfect and limited things which must inhere within the perfect and unlimited, just like every number must be included in an infinite series.

Bernard,
I take it you are now accepting that whatever accounts for the universe must be transcendent other.

Oh yes of course - if we are attempting to explain the universe, we have to invoke some sort of context in which the universe sits - I don't think I've ever argued otherwise (although I appreciate some people think differently).

Well, such a thing is not a spaghetti monster, or a "pixie", or a mathematical construct.

Well, it sure as hell ain't Jehovah either! All this stuff about transcendent ACT and WILL etc is just guff, because as you correctly state, the language runs out of meaning a bit before that point. But I would suggest that you don't even need to get your knickers in such a metaphysical twist.

Mathematics is NOT contingent on our universe; a hypothetical god can't change Pi, for example. Pi is Pi. It is transcendent. God can't change the Euler equation - it "exists", whatever the status of the universe. 3^2 is 9, whether we exist in our universe or in a Game-of-Life universe (which, incidentally, I would suggest is a perfectly valid universe in *precisely* the same way that ours is).

But there is a deeper issue here - why do you stop your causation train with the most proximate "cause" of our universe? Surely it would be entirely possible for "god" to be one of many gods, who all make their own wee universes, and meet together at the Olympian pub to have a beer and joke about their creations? And them to be creatures of a further transcendent entity?

You'll rightly invoke Occam's razor here, but I would suggest that it kills your Transcendent OTHER too, or at the very least converts it back into the sphere of pure mathematics, as Tegmark suggests.

-H

H
Tegmark? Are you nuts? The virgin birth not only happened (somewhere else) but it happens an infinite number of times - AND there is no God?!!

Come to think of it, maybe a miracle did happen on this earth! The resurrection - it was just a fluke, not a divine intervention.

Gimme a break! I'll take a Spaghetti Monster (I mean literally, I'd rather take an FSM) than absurd atheistic metaphysics. Teggy should stick to the day job.

GV

"Mathematics is NOT contingent on our universe; a hypothetical god can't change Pi, for example. Pi is Pi. It is transcendent"

Simply untrue. Pi is pi because the space and form work the way they do in the universe. It is possible to suggest a hypothetical universe in which pi is something different.

"why do you stop your causation train with the most proximate "cause" of our universe"

I don't.

I stop the causation train at whatever transcends the universe - by which I mean all that exists.

Beyond all that exists, something IS.

If there were numerous gods, such gods would not be transcendent...I've been through this argument before.

Difference, division and discernibility are features of "the universe" or "things that exist"....some people try to get around this by positing a number of universes, but I would suggest that this is an erroneous definition of universe. "Universe" is "all that exists". Existence implies form and discernibility.


In that case, all of your "gods" are not transcendent, and are thus contingent. They're more likely to be "angels" than "God", given that I've defined God as the Transcendent Other.

Such an Other does not admit of division or discernibility, and so cannot be "a group of gods"...


This is also relevant to the neccessary identity of ACT, Decision and ACTION, when the terms are used analogically to refer to transcendence

Will it help if I simply assert that whatever IS the transcendent reality beyond the universe is totally beyond anything we could ever hope to understand or imagine, and yet is the source of all the perfection of being that we find in the world?

Such a thing seems like it must be well worth a bit of worship, eh?

I mean, it must be really Great

Dear me, boys, we *are* in a pickle, aren't we? Bernard first:
If there were numerous gods, such gods would not be transcendent...I've been through this argument before.

Cripes - not with me, I hope! They could be transcendent to our universe, since transcendence is relative. But they may have a deeper reality transcendent to *them*. I don't give a tiddler's how you *define* your god - how does that matter? It just converts your cosmological fallacy into an ontological fallacy.

As for Pi, I have bad news for you. Pi "exists" regardless of our universe - it is a fundamental constant that is not constrained or defined by our physics or universal set-up. As it happens, the laws of our spacetime are sufficiently Euclidean at the sorts of scales we operate at for the circumference of a circle to approximate to Pi, but that is not the same as saying that the actual value of Pi is dependent on our physics.

Graham, you don't appear to have understood Teggy's contribution here. For something to "happen" in a universe, it has to have a history. There are states that a universe could operate downstream of a "historical" event (like a resurrection, for instance) that may not mathematically have a consistent antecedent, which means that if you want to invoke miracles, you have to invoke an entirely new *universe* altogether, while the universe in which the miracle did NOT happen (which I would contend is this one) would continue on regardless.

-H

If there are numerous "gods" what transcends them then?

all I am suggesting is that, at the end of all contingency, all transcendence and all causality, there must be ONE SINGLE UNIQUENESS.

you can add any amount of levels you want, but all you are doing is averting the question.

What is at the source of all "things"....your "gods" are obviously "things", what with being discernible from each other.

My God is the transcendent source of "things".

Tell me though, in what way would Pi "exist" were it not to approximate the circumference of a circle? As just a made up number?

and what about a universe of straight lines....would pi mean mean anything then?

So there are regions in the level 2 multiverse with virgin births? People walking on water? How do we know we're not in one? You don't actually need to break laws for miracles - just very, very, very improbable events will do. Both those miracles will do nicely.

GV

H
While I'm with you on the existence of mathematical truths that would independently of any physical universe (I think Theists should commit themselves to this) it is a controversial idea. I don't think you can just say its true.

GV

Yes, surely if intelligibilities exist independently of the universe (or multiverse) so also does intelligence.

[Bangs head on desk]

Bernard, find yourself a mathematician - there are several routes to Pi that do not require circles - indeed, the relationship in the Euler equation is one, and a damned spooky one at that.

Graham, I'm aware that there is a modicum of support for the notion among some that we "invent" mathematics rather than discover it. I do not hold that view. 2+2=4, as long as we understand what the terms *mean*.

I would again point out that not all "universes" that have a specific *state* have a *history*, and it is not at all obvious that a universe where Christianity is "true" is a universe that has a history before the last miracle, and you would need to balance the improbability of being in such a universe (which is pretty damned tiny) with the very high probability that it's all just a wee story, like we know humans come up with all the bloody time.

However, you at least *read* the paper - Bernie, can you please go and do likewise? ;-)

-H

Bernard, intelligibility does not imply intelligence. Have you been reading that idiot Lennox again?!?

So may words, so many misconceptions. Mathematics is strictly a human abstraction, a closed system of logic complete within itself apart from the physical universe. That scientists use mathematics to express notions in physics and other sciences is because it is the best tool they have. But even the best physical model expressed as a mathematical equation is imperfect by being inexact. The physical universe can only be approximated using math. Every model is flawed to one degree or another because it is only a model, it is not the universe itself.

"Mathematics is NOT contingent on our universe; a hypothetical god can't change Pi, for example. Pi is Pi. It is transcendent"

Pi is what is defined as a transcendental number, not transcendent. A transcendental number is one that cannot be expressed as the ratio of two whole numbers. This means that when written out, there are an infinite number of digits as the number approximates more and more closely the ratio of the length of the circumference of a circle to the length of its diameter, both being abstract concepts of mathematics themselves.

Can a hypothetical god change pi? Yes, with his omnipotence by changing the way our minds function. This would make the universe entirely irrational if that possibility was open. It would mean that anything and everything we think is true is subject to recall and revision which is what I pointed out earlier. A universe with an omnipotent god that can capriciously change any and all things either selectively or in their entirety would not be rational.