I notice most of your post is also name-calling as well.

False.

Take care.

Eli wrote: "By the way, Dan was completely right in his assessment of your comments to Nicole."

That I'm "a liar?" I notice most of your post is also name-calling as well. I think we're not fulfilling the "debate" portion of the forum, so let me just end this here. Bye.

By the way, Dan was completely right in his assessment of your comments to Nicole.

#2 is about the nature of Sin. I doubt if you have a full understanding of the nature of sin or you would be less of a pantheist.

I doubt you have a full understanding of my position or you would be less of a caricaturist.

First I worship a "science god", then I'm a "sentimentalist", now I'm a "pantheist." I look forward to your next epithet, as I am sure it will be as imaginative as always.

As for pantheism, classical pantheism I reject outright. Naturalistic pantheism has so little content there's almost nothing to reject.

I already said I agreed mostly with your #2, I knew we came to it from vastly different rationales. I put that aside and thought I might still be able to use it as common ground, but it seems you want nothing more than to explode any difference between us and use my smoothing over these differences as evidence that I don't understand the concepts.

I read your list of 9 generously and I thought there was some wisdom there. But now that it's plainly obvious you have no intent of extending me the same courtesy, let me offer you something: normal people who disagree can still look for common ground. We don't have to robotically hone in on every difference if we come to the same realization via different paths.

Yes, of course the Church recognizes original sin and how it relates to the mystery of Jesus Christ; but no, it does not say that original sin “made the death of Jesus necessary.”

"389 The doctrine of original sin is... that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ."

Can we please stop quibbling over a small difference? If it's really so important exactly how it's worded, then let's replace #7 with this quote. My initial purpose in putting it up was because it seems very dubious to me that all need salvation. I can't remember ever feeling a need to be saved. That's what original sin is, right? We're all "fallen" and need God to lift us up? But what if some of us aren't fallen and don't need God? That's the heart of what I meant by #7.

And the existence of Hell has nothing to do with its demographics (of which the Bible or the Church says little)

I think you skimmed over part of the Catechism. That's ok, I'll requote.

...reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted...

Explicitly atheists. QED.

You were denying his divinity, a common ploy (and the one you used) is to praise his “moral leadership”

Let's get the order of things right. The moral lessons are tangential and irrelevant to his divinity. I didn't use this as a ploy, and the fact that I only mentioned it at all 80-some posts in should show you how low it is on my list. I denied his divinity because of the extreme implausibility of it. The moral lessons I take are of the same sort I might take from Aesop's fables. And many of the parables and teachings I throw out altogether. If the historical Jesus existed and was anything like how he's presented in the Bible, he certainly would have me on my way. I'm ok with that. And the moral lessons I do see in the Bible are not things I can't get in other places. Get it right, the morality thing is an olive branch I was extending. If you want to say that's cowardly, fine, but if we're stuck pedantically arguing with turns-of-phrase, then don't fabricate a phrase like "moral teacher" or "moral leadership" and then attribute it to me in quotes. It was an olive branch, the same way I admitted God's interaction might be like Flatland, the same way I admitted C.S. Lewis' argument through morality was powerful and once convinced me. I was hoping you would use those concessions to better understand my position, that we might make a bridge with some discussion. Instead you've said I'm "unwilling to engage in metaphysical thought." I've been patient because I still don't fully understand Christianity or the position of Christians.

You really misread Merton. The point was about how we respond to tragedy with or without faith.

No, I got that part. I admit I got a little sloppy in my response. I've never known despair, that height of tragedy, so none of my experiences with suffering and tragedy have provoked a reaction like the depiction in your #9. Thus, again I was giving it a generous reading and saying something like that could be true in the future.

My own response to suffering is, when possible, to laugh. That usually alleviates suffering of the garden variety. Harder things warrant harder responses. My uncle recently suffered an extremely traumatic injury. I'd be lying to say that I have a cookie cutter response for something as horrible as this. I love him very dearly and hope with all my heart he makes a full recovery. Yes, I have to "just take" the suffering provided by empathy. But it doesn't mean I can't get anything out of it, "like a dumb animal." I can visit him, provide good company, talk him through it. Indeed, if we were like the dumber of animals, we wouldn't have empathy at all. Life strikes me as having intrinsic value. We're able to meditate on this the way no other animal can.

The second half of #9 is what I referred to when I said I'd have to life live to find out, because it's so speculative. It's almost like a math expression. "As aversion to suffering increases, magnitude increases and approaches infinity." Maybe, I dunno. Seems written by someone who had trouble laughing at himself.

If I am not mistaken, you are the type who would respond to Sally Thomas with that comment about a large state hospital for micro- and micra-cephalic infants children in California.

With respect to myself, I should hope I have built enough character over my lifetime that I can stand the prolonged suffering that often comes at the end. But the whole issue of euthanasia is something I need to meditate further on. I have no ready answer for making decisions on behalf of others. I promise to respond to your implicit question in a day or two.

Thank you Dan. I appreciate that.

Derek,

Nicole my comments had absolutely NOTHING to do with you nor did they have anything to do with sexual promiscuity -- the topic, clearly defined, was "mindlessness." Get a grip. I didn't insult you or liken you to Roman Polanski.

Actually, that's exactly what you did. You said, "Anyone who equates the love of God or the love of Thomas Aquinas with chemicals juggling about your brain and Sex in the City mindlessness deserves cell time with Roman Polanski." Well, this is exactly what Nicole did, so you just told her she should go to jail alongside a rapist. Classy. You also said, "I say she winds up single and pregnant (Sorry, Nicole. Cheap thoughts equal cheap dates here.) " To say that this has "absolutely NOTHING" to do with her or promiscuity is just a flat-out lie.

To say that someone belongs in prison with a rapist does have something to do with her. To say that someone is or gets cheap dates, and will end up single and pregnant, does have something to do with her. I don't know where you get off saying such insulting things about a person by name and then claiming they didn't have anything to do with her. If you want to say insulting things, go right ahead. But at least own up to it.

Now, I know you told me to go away (and find my own Internet, perhaps), and I had largely given up on this thread, and I suspect you dislike me, in part because I am unimpressed by the writers you quote, but, frankly, you need to be told that in addition to your other faults, you are also a liar.

Nicole wrote: It is rude, and unchristian to assume that I'm sexually promiscuous just for the sake of insulting me. And bringing Polanski into it. Wow.."

Nicole my comments had absolutely NOTHING to do with you nor did they have anything to do with sexual promiscuity -- the topic, clearly defined, was "mindlessness." Get a grip. I didn't insult you or liken you to Roman Polanski. Kindly never respond to my posts.

dj

Derek- you are an asshole. There I said it.



It is rude, and unchristian to assume that I'm sexually promiscuous just for the sake of insulting me. And bringing Polanski into it. Wow.

You also totally misunderstood what I was saying. I might have been clearer. But all this hatred, it is sad of you.

Especially when you want to tell us about what god's nature is.

"Sex in the City mindlessness deserves cell time with Roman Polanski"

I wasn't talking about sex. Yes, sex is in that list, but the point is that all bonding, all bonding that you experience is happening because of hormones.
(sex is oxytocin+adrenalin) Even what you experience as a relationship with god. Or maybe you haven't experienced what I was talking about, a sudden conversion.

Yes, I don't have "Derek's" idea of god.

I actually critically read things in the old testament.

Instead of excusing rape in the name of god, I criticize it. Yep, you're right, I don't have the same picture in my head that you have in yours.

One of the reasons I am on goodreads groups is to understand that not all christians are like my parents.

Don't apologize and then four days later do the same thing. Pathetic christian morals.

Eli wrote: " There's nothing in what Dulles says that nullifies those four points...".

EVERYTHING Dulles says shows the distortion and corruption of your reading of the Old Testament. You have massive powers of self-deception.

Eli wrote: "I can see from #2 on your blog that we are in agreement..."
#2 is about the nature of Sin. I doubt if you have a full understanding of the nature of sin or you would be less of a pantheist.

Eli wrote: "(Me) Quote the Catechism if you want to be conversant with Catholic beliefs.
.. So, I repeat, 5-6 are Catholic beliefs."

Now I feel I have created a monster. What you quoted did not support what you wrote. Yes, of course the Church recognizes original sin and how it relates to the mystery of Jesus Christ; but no, it does not say that original sin “made the death of Jesus necessary.” And the existence of Hell has nothing to do with its demographics (of which the Bible or the Church says little). If you wish to become more conversant about the nature of hell, here are some reading selections from a very complete overview of the topic by Avery Cardinal Dulles:

http://payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/...

You need to ask yourself why is sin so important to Jesus. That answer is far more important than anything about sin itself.

Eli wrote: " Jesus does not admit to being 'a moral teacher.' He does not allow that interpretation." We're re-treading our footsteps here. Who are you to prevent me from deriving moral lessons from Christ's life? To learn from a teacher does it mean we have to agree with everything he ever said?..."

You were denying his divinity, a common ploy (and the one you used) is to praise his “moral leadership”. He is much more than a moral teacher and to claim him as a moral leader while turning your back on his divinity is a cowardly act on your part – but commonly done, as I pointed out (many Christians are guilty of the same, so you are not unique in this regard).
Sort of like joining hands to sing “Kumbaya My Lord” but not having the courage to live the life. No one “prevents” you from doing it of course, but let me offer one of those prolonged slow sarcastic rounds of applause for your praise of Jesus as a moral teacher. Like the wealthy young man who wished to follow Him, he'd have you on your way in a New York minute.

Eli wrote: " As for #9, the death of a parent is beyond my experience. Likewise I am ignorant on matters of the depths of suffering. I don't know what it's like to be a torture victim, but I was once good friends with a Guatemalan torture victim. I lived with him for a few years. And I went to his funeral when he committed suicide. By no means do I take this question easily. But I think I will have to live life to find out if #9 is true..."
You don’t need to live a life to realize #9 is true. It has less to do with the death of a parent (in fact nothing to do with it) as much as it does with the nature of and response to suffering. Evidence is all over the place, all that it demands is the honesty to look at. Once again it is how the world works.

You really misread Merton. The point was about how we respond to tragedy with or without faith. You want to know what faith does for you, it is in stories I provide in that post. We see it played out most clearly in the end-of-life/euthanasia debates.

If I am not mistaken, you are the type who would respond to Sally Thomas with that comment about a large state hospital for micro- and micra-cephalic infants children in California. You really see the secularist response to suffering in the Death with Dignity, euthanasia debates. I re-use the Merton quote in the post that deals with that. Perhaps you might understand it better in that context.
That is all here.

http://payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/...

Eli wrote: " What you said to Nicole was incredibly rude. "
No it wasn’t. Take the Novak quote make a few substitutions/additions and you get this: “If you make mistakes about your own nature or the nature of love, you will make as many mistakes about God, and quite properly then, reject what your inquiries put before you. The god you fantasize (and love itself) will appear to you not very great, a delusion, a snare from which you or others ought to be freed. You will despise this god, because you misunderstand yourself and love.”

Anyone who equates the love of God or the love of Thomas Aquinas with chemicals juggling about your brain and Sex in the City mindlessness deserves cell time with Roman Polanski. Rude again? Um...

Sez who? Atheists compile a twisted list of what they think the OT “says.” This is Avery Cardinal Dulles opinion of the relationship of the OT to the NT:
http://payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/...

There's nothing in what Dulles says that nullifies those four points. Am I leaving stuff out? Of course. Even with the Chalcedonian theories and the theology obscuring the more hard-to-defend parts of the Bible, even with the de-emphasis on prediction and emphasis on exhortation and salvation, at some point we have to ask about the nature of the truth value of the predictions. Were they recorded incorrectly? Then why trust the Bible? Were they figurative? How could they be figurative when they are usually the most specific parts of these books, not to mention what it even really means to have a "figurative prediction," sounds a bit like Nostradamus. But if they were meant truly as the inerrant word of God, then we have to ask how free will can even exist at all, given something like Ezekiel 38 & 39, a very detailed description of a future event whereby Yahweh brings an army of barbarians against Israel only to destroy them as a show of power. This is not an anomaly, but something that occurs several times in the OT.

Choice is a great mystery. I think anyone who claims to fully understand choice is deluding themselves. I can see from #2 on your blog that we are in agreement. So I don't pretend to know how the mind operates. But in my mind you can't reconcile choice with foregone human events.

Quote the Catechism if you want to be conversant with Catholic beliefs.

OK.

1034 Jesus often speaks of "Gehenna" of "the unquenchable fire" reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost.[612:] Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,"[613:] and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"[614:]

I don't see anything in that page you linked that does anything to negate #6, in fact #389 supports it

389 The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the "reverse side" of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ,263 knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.

So, I repeat, 5-6 are Catholic beliefs.

Jesus does not admit to being “a moral teacher.” He does not allow that interpretation.

We're re-treading our footsteps here. Who are you to prevent me from deriving moral lessons from Christ's life? To learn from a teacher does it mean we have to agree with everything he ever said?

Well let me rewrite the sentence then: "How do you ever expect to relegate theology (faith seeking understanding) to the equivalency of "flat earth societies"?

One flippant response deserves another. The content of your statement was a blatant misrepresentation of anything I've said.

And how do they get that knowing it is the result of random coincidences?

I have a math degree, and I don't fully understand what "random" even means. Statistically, yes, it's simple. But what is at the heart of randomness?

Awe and admiration are easy to come by. All you need is a little knowledge and a good question.

What you said to Nicole was incredibly rude.

Could you give me three things that you’ve said so far that contradict your scientific materialism?

I linked this before: http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/8356...
I joined the discussion at post#137.

Message #18 of this discussion contains some explanation, as well as #28. I didn't really elaborate because I felt it was tangential, but I may need to at this point. My rejection of materialism comes from subjective metaphysical considerations, which I have come to on my own, but with some prompting by various essayists. I know my considerations are flawed, but my own meditations on consciousness lead me to believe without question that there is more than the simple physical universe. Simply put, there is the universe of being which I experience. These words are inexact and can certainly be manipulated to look silly by materialists. But the universe of being exists beyond a gulf which, I believe, science cannot penetrate. I've been called a Dualist for this (which is really just a catchall term) maybe so, I'm not sure. I am making no hard claims about the exact nature of reality, aside from the fact that the physical model is incomplete.

I am certainly not saying there is no objective world. I operate, as does everyone else, on the axiom that it exists. As for the relationship between these two "universes", well my intellect fails me.

Here, too, is another fountain of wonder and awe.

Read #9 on my list (a reply to yours: http://payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/...) and understand what your sentiments purchase in life.

I agree mostly with #2 and #5, very much with #7, parts of #6.

As for #9, the death of a parent is beyond my experience. Likewise I am ignorant on matters of the depths of suffering. I don't know what it's like to be a torture victim, but I was once good friends with a Guatemalan torture victim. I lived with him for a few years. And I went to his funeral when he committed suicide. By no means do I take this question easily. But I think I will have to live life to find out if #9 is true.

Nicole wrote: I guess you think that my explanation of love is not up to your standards of being in the bible and therefore infallible.."

Some serious misunderstanding going on. My apologies for mentioning your post in my reply to Eli. I see that you do not understand Christianity and I really don't want to explain it to you. Can we just call it quits? My bad. My apology. Goodbye.

dj

Nicole wrote: Maybe I can explain it to you like this...."

You really don't need to. I told you why it was different but you didn't understand. Redoubling your efforts is not an answer.

Are you thrilled when you meet a girl like Nicole (“Love is an hormone: oxytocin.”)? I say she winds up single and pregnant (Sorry, Nicole. Cheap thoughts equal cheap dates here.)



Do you always assume so much about a person? So I only get cheap dates? How nice of you. I think you just called me a whore.

Are you actually sorry? I doubt that. I guess you think that my explanation of love is not up to your standards of being in the bible and therefore infallible.

How is it that my bringing up the science behind an emotion is a "cheap thought?"

How about this for a moral: Don't be rude, it's not very loving of you.

Derek wrote: "Nicole wrote: "Faith is derived from Love." Um, no..."

Um, not that kind of love, Nicole. Think: "For God so loved the world..."

Thanks for the science though, very interesting.

"

So what you are claiming here if I'm not mistaken is that when you feel love from god, god isn't communicating that love through your body. Don't you feel love from god? Feeling love is feeling the chemicals in your brain firing.

Maybe I can explain it to you like this.

You meet two people. One of them is all excited about how he just found god. He wants to tell everyone. He thinks about god all the time. He feels gods love. He has been converted.

The other person just met the man of her dreams. She has fallen in love with this man and now she can't sleep or concentrate on anything mundane.

Both of these people are experiencing the same phenomenon; Oxytocin in the brain in large amounts.

There is no medical difference between the two. They are both "crazy in love"

I remember when this was how I felt when I was born again. It always fades, and then you chase the dragon.

Eli wrote: "...for if the mind is mechanical, thought cannot be very exciting...

I've mentioned Feynman on more than one occasion, because he's truly an inspiring, wonderful teacher who happens to be... well ..."

I'm a big fan of Feynman but I think you are being dismissive of Chesterton and the context/times in which he wrote -- those quotes are over a hundred years old and refer to a nineteenth century atheist/theist mechanistic conception of God. Atheism hasn't advanced that much and that brand of theism still lives in the attacks that Hitchens /Dawkins /Harris et al make on God. You see Karen Armstrong responding to it when she replies to Dawkins.

Eli wrote: 1-4 are from a direct, honest reading of the Bible..."

Sez who? Atheists compile a twisted list of what they think the OT “says.” This is Avery Cardinal Dulles opinion of the relationship of the OT to the NT:
http://payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/...

Forget direct and honest, let’s go with intelligent.

Eli wrote: 5-6 are Catholic beliefs.."
No they aren’t. While there is a relationship between Christ and Adam and original sin, I don’t think it can be summarized so simply without losing a lot of nuance. Quote the Catechism if you want to be conversant with Catholic beliefs.

Eli wrote: After some research I can see there are many viewpoints, so I will withdraw it.."

Where do you do your “research?” Unless you are reading the catechism, you’re really not reading what the Catholic Church thinks on these matters. Here, for example is the Church on “original sin: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/...
Highly nuanced, several pages, not at all what you seem to think...

Eli wrote: “The other accounts of Jesus' life that aren't in the Bible are not to be trusted…” .."

The only other account of Jesus’ life that I am aware of is a couple of mentions in Josephus. So you’ve lost me. Unless you are speaking of apocryphal gospels written several hundred years after Jesus lived and reeking of early Church politics.

Eli wrote: “On the contrary, I am a very flawed person. I can see a definite need for a moral guide.” .."

Jesus does not admit to being “a moral teacher.” He does not allow that interpretation. Nor does the religious imperative we serve under (As captured by Augustine: "God, you have made us for yourself, and our hearts are restless till they find their rest in you." ) translate into a need for “moral guides.” Maybe they do for you but not for your fellow man and the weight of evidence is far heavier on the side of Augustine.

Eli wrote: Just because you deny it, do you expect others to follow? Why? How do you ever expect to ban people wondering about God?

We don't ban people from believing in a flat Earth, do we? Why would I want to ban thoughts?
.."

Well let me rewrite the sentence then: "How do you ever expect to relegate theology (faith seeking understanding) to the equivalency of "flat earth societies"? Aren't you taking A LITTLE BIT FOR GRANTED? You make statements like that and people laugh at you.


Eli wrote: “John 1:1-14 is indeed poetic, as is the psalm. Poets need only an awe and admiration for the world.” .."

And how do they get that knowing it is the result of random coincidences? Are you thrilled when you meet a girl like Nicole (“Love is an hormone: oxytocin.”)? I say she winds up single and pregnant (Sorry, Nicole. Cheap thoughts equal cheap dates here.)

Eli wrote: You keep treating me as though I'm a materialist, despite everything I've said to the contrary. .."

Could you give me three things that you’ve said so far that contradict your scientific materialism? Or list the comment number. I know you are a sentimentalist but that can't offset your materialism -- it's terribly hard to offset one with the other.

Eli wrote: Love is truly what it's all about. As the central point of Jesus' teachings, of Paul's letters, it makes them into great works of literature. It makes me aware of my own failings in this area. It makes me want to emulate their stewardship and love for others. It doesn't make Jesus into God.

If I didn't know atheists who loved, I might be moved to think otherwise, but I have had the good fortune of meeting many profoundly loving people in my life, both atheist and religious..."

Well then, you haven’t paid attention to 1 John 4:16 ("So we have known and believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them.").

The Christian assertion about love goes far beyond what you are saying and demands that you live a life committed to it and confess Jesus as Lord. You are replying to that truth with sentiments, feelings. No matter how elevated or fervent your advocacy, they still wind up on the trash heap of good intentions. The Christian God demands more than just walking the walk. Most rejection of this comes from fear of redemption (http://payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/...)

Read #9 on my list (a reply to yours: http://payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/...) and understand what your sentiments purchase in life. As Bogart once said: “If that plane leaves the ground and you're not with him, you'll regret it. Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of your life.” Ilsa knows what he is saying, it's called the truth.

She sacrifices her love for Rick: "Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division! From now on five in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three; they will be divided: father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.” Living a true Christian life is terrifying. Cheap sentimentality and good intentions are for the wine and cheese atheist crowd.

...for if the mind is mechanical, thought cannot be very exciting...

I've mentioned Feynman on more than one occasion, because he's truly an inspiring, wonderful teacher who happens to be... well I don't know if he ever used the word atheist exactly, but it's clear from his books he seriously doubted the existence of God.

And yet, he also is very obviously a man of great joy, profoundly excited about the world. To see him explain something... well you just have to watch!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITpDrdtGA...

Nicole wrote: "Faith is derived from Love." Um, no..."

Um, not that kind of love, Nicole. Think: "For God so loved the world..."

Thanks for the science though, very interesting.

Love is an hormone: oxytocin.

The cuddle chemical? ever heard of it. Same hormone that keeps labor going. Same hormone that facilitates bonding between mother and child while breast feeding. Kissing releases this same hormone, and orgasm as well.

Ever wonder why children suck their thumbs? They suck their thumbs because it releases oxytocin.

There was some really interesting research into the effects of oxytocin. One study had participants inhale oxytocin through their noses and play a trust/risk game with others. The one who double blindly received actual oxytocin were more likely to risk trusting their team mates then the control.

So on top of it being the hormone of sex, love, and mother/child bonding, it is also for trust.

Why do adults bite their nails? Same as why a 3 year old sucks his thumb, it feels good, and it is easier to trust the people who he needs for survival.

"Faith is derived from Love." Um, no.

An exhausting list and so unnecessary, even downright weird in places.

1-4 are from a direct, honest reading of the Bible. Since they carry over from one book to another, over hundreds of years and told often in exactly the same way, it's safe to assume these things are not figurative. In (4) I was obviously not speaking about "false" prophecy, but "prophecy from God."

5-6 are Catholic beliefs.

7 admittedly is a stretch. I understood this to be the "official" Catholic take on other gods like Osiris, for instance, who had come before Jesus. After some research I can see there are many viewpoints, so I will withdraw it.

8 was based on this very discussion with you. It may not be exactly how you would phrase it, but let's not quibble.

9-10 seem to me necessary to buttress belief against erosion via contradicting texts (9), or the possibility that Jesus didn't provide us with enough teachings to start a church (10). These are maybe a little more subjective, so if you like you can ignore these too.

That still leaves seven very high hurdles for belief in the resurrection. None of these are scientific hurdles.

If you saw no need for it and see no need for it within yourself,

On the contrary, I am a very flawed person. I can see a definite need for a moral guide. Hence why I described Jesus as a great teacher. That's no reason to accept him as the son of God.

Do you really expect to convince people of faith using reasoning that is based only upon science?

We've delved into multiple paths of inquiry, not all of them scientific. Please don't pigeonhole me.

Just because you deny it, do you expect others to follow? Why? How do you ever expect to ban people wondering about God?

We don't ban people from believing in a flat Earth, do we? Why would I want to ban thoughts?

John 1:1-14 is indeed poetic, as is the psalm. Poets need only an awe and admiration for the world.

You ask others to surrender all of this to pursue a life constricted by the rules of scientific inquiry?

I've never asked this. You keep treating me as though I'm a materialist, despite everything I've said to the contrary.

Faith is derived from Love. If you understand love, you understand faith and can make arguments for God (and for yourself, for that matter). Your "list" doesn't recognize this at all.

Neither did the critique on your blog address any strengths of the issues.

Love is truly what it's all about. As the central point of Jesus' teachings, of Paul's letters, it makes them into great works of literature. It makes me aware of my own failings in this area. It makes me want to emulate their stewardship and love for others. It doesn't make Jesus into God.

If I didn't know atheists who loved, I might be moved to think otherwise, but I have had the good fortune of meeting many profoundly loving people in my life, both atheist and religious.

Eli wrote: "The resurrection hypothesis requires that we believe all of the following..."

An exhausting list and so unnecessary, even downright weird in places. Belief in Jesus simply comes from whether Jesus' ministry strikes you as truthful or not. If you saw no need for it and see no need for it within yourself, which proceeds from your understanding of your own nature, then you will see no need for belief. Mistake yourself, mistake God. It's a pretty simple thing, actually.

I have a favorite quote from Michael Novak that I find nothing truer: “Gathering force over many years, one discovery has hit me with the force of a law: If you make mistakes about your own nature, you will make as many mistakes about God, and quite properly then, reject what your inquiries put before you. The god you fantasize will appear to you not very great, a delusion, a snare from which others ought to be freed. You will despise this god.”

I think your list includes a number of items that if you ever spoke with any Christians you would find them to deny most of it. Several points have no basis in Catholicism, which is my belief.

Most theologies are "projections of God;" some work better than others. I don't understand why you can't discern the figurative from the literal in the Bible. Wouldn't a garden where God strolled with his first creation be figurative? One located betweeen Arlington and Charles Streets in Boston would be literal. What's the hangup? A fantasy where the main character gets swallowed by a whale is figurative, etc. etc. We have historical and archaelogical evidence for David and the House of David.

Do you really expect to convince people of faith using reasoning that is based only upon science? Most people understand metaphysical inquiry and know that it does not follow upon scientific rules of evidence. Just because you deny it, do you expect others to follow? Why? How do you ever expect to ban people wondering about God?

John 1: 1-14 is one of the most beautiful passages in the Bible and of all literature. It stirs the soul, awakens us to fully read the Psalmist that we are indeed “little less than the gods,” as Psalm 8:2-8 puts it:

"Out of the mouths of babes and infants you have founded a bulwark because of your foes, to silence the enemy and the avenger.
When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars that you have established;
what are human beings that you are mindful of them, mortals that you care for them?
Yet you have made them a little lower than God, and crowned them with glory and honor.
You have given them dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under their feet,
all sheep and oxen, and also the beasts of the field,
the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, whatever passes along the paths of the seas."

You ask others to surrender all of this to pursue a life constricted by the rules of scientific inquiry? Your "Science God?" Who needs that?

“So long as men can breathe or eyes can see, So long lives this, and this gives life to thee… ” The words of Shakespeare, the lover.

"However this journey of God from the everlasting into the transitory, this stride across the border into history, is something no human intellect can altogether grasp. The mind might even oppose the apparently fortuitous, human aspect of this interpretation with its own ‘purer’ idea of godliness; yet precisely here lies hidden the kernel of Christianity. Before such an unheard of thought the intellect bogs down. Once at this point a friend gave me a clue that helped my understanding more than any measure of bare reason. He said: “But love does such things!” Again and again these words have come to the rescue when the mind has stopped short at some intellectual impasse. Not that they explain anything to the intelligence; they arouse the heart, enabling it to feel its way into the secrecy of God. The mystery is not understood, but it does move nearer, and the danger of “scandal” disappears."
Romano Guardini, "The Lord"

Faith is derived from Love. If you understand love, you understand faith and can make arguments for God (and for yourself, for that matter) . Your "list" doesn't recognize this at all.

dj

Armstrong gives her definition right there "a human projection."

Well I was hoping you'd elaborate since her definition seems a bit vague. After all, I might call all conceptions of God "human projections," but I'm not convincing any theists by that proclamation. So, put another way, if you agree with her judgement, by what reasoning does she make that decision?

Whatever is historical has been proven to be so through archaeology and other supportive texts.

So empirical evidence in the form of archaeology has the ability to determine what parts of the Bible were figurative and what parts were literal? That makes sense, I agree with you. I'd still like a little clarification, though. In the absence of empirical evidence either way, is it natural to assume a given Bible story is figurative, or literal?

And then there are the so-called "alternative theories" which turn out to be pretty lame -- some of which I have taken up here, as it applies to the Gospels in general and the Resurrection in particular:

You do a good job of making various theories look lame, it would be nice if you used the same sharp wit against the theory of the resurrection itself. I don't claim to know what really did happen there, or any of the archaeological evidence. You say the only sensible conclusion is that Jesus was resurrected. I can think of many other possibilities, and you might rightly say all of them are various degrees of improbable. But we want to be careful not to fall into the lottery paradox:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lottery_par...

Let me first give my justification for why I see the resurrection hypothesis as being at least as unlikely as any of the atheistic alternatives you mentioned. The resurrection hypothesis requires that we believe all of the following:
1) There is a God, who created the universe and has always existed outside of time (whatever that means), personal, invisible, three and yet one, everywhere and yet not physical, existing without demonstrable evidence, infinitely good and yet allowing evil to exist, all-knowing about what decisions we will make in the future and yet still blaming us for them, all-powerful and yet avoiding the paradoxes this creates, a part of everything and yet apart from evil.
2) For all of history up until 2000 years ago, God chose to formally associate himself with one race of people, constantly slaughtering hordes of attackers, oscillating between extreme benevolence and jealous wrath, based, often, on the frequency of offerings to an idol called Baal. For this same period of time, God thought it best to lay out a foundation of morality that involved stoning people who worked on the sabbath, cutting infants' foreskins, and burning heaps of animals on altars, among many other ideas that only seem wrong today.
3) The doctrines of the New testament and the Old are, somehow, compatible.
4) Free will exists, and yet prophecies, often about the minds of humans, still always come true.
5) Everlasting torment is a plausible outcome for disbelief. Although everything we have ever observed has always been in a state of change, conceptions like heaven and hell warrant exceptions.
6) Jesus' death was necessary because of "original sin."
7) The other Jesus-like figures previous to Jesus were conjured up in advance by Satan to confuse us.
8) The reason I do not perceive one word of communication from God is due either to my own stubbornness/sinfulness, or that God hasn't gifted me yet, and not the more obvious reasons.
9) The other accounts of Jesus' life that aren't in the Bible are not to be trusted, on the basis of them being not in the Bible.
10) The wide divergence of Christian sects today (i.e. the various Orthodox churches, Catholicism, Mormonism, Evangelical & Fundamentalist Churches, Protestant denominations, Snake handlers, etc.) are not due to any lack of coherence or contradiction in Jesus' message.
11) etc.

I mentioned the lottery paradox earlier. Supposing, as a simplified example to illustrate a point, we have 99 atheistic explanations for Jesus' death, and 1 possibility that the account is historically and literally true. I think it would be charitable (based on the above) to say the least, if I gave the resurrection hypothesis an equal 1% probability. For simplicity let's assume we've covered all possibilities; there is nothing we've overlooked.

You'd be right in saying this example doesn't fit the lottery paradox exactly. The point of departure is that, while we might not be able to say with any certainty which possibility actually happened, for our purposes it doesn't really matter which, if any, of the 99 options occurred. These are all no different proscriptively. We are simply asking, "Should I believe in Jesus?" Unless the atheist is a historical scholar, it doesn't really matter whether Jesus was moved to another tomb, or the death staged, or invented as divinity after the fact, etc., etc. The details are simply speculation, and rightly so. We don't have the facts for what did happen. I think for any atheist to adhere to one such theory with solid certainty would be akin to someone believing in the resurrection. But I doubt their proponents are doing that, instead probably provisionally backing one or the other to explore their intellectual merits. When it comes down to it, we have a lot of unlikely possibilities. Does that mean they're all bunk collectively? No.

Furthermore, there's enough history to draw from that sometimes very strange or unlikely things do happen. Invariably, when something very unlikely happens, most people will try to assign some special significance or rationale in order to place it in a context that makes sense. If I was the only survivor in a train wreck, random chance wouldn't jibe with my intuition.

Take the example of raining frogs. With the benefit of knowing this has happened before, we might be able to put it into context. But if we had never heard of such a phenomenon, and it happened to us, would we really be ready to quickly attribute it to the normal workings of physical laws?

Again, this is all provisional. I don't know what did happen in Jerusalem on Passover back then, but I think it's safe to say it wasn't the resurrection of God.

Dan wrote: "You just copied and pasted the article..."

Liar. I am reposting the quote and my explanation from weeks ago. I did not just "copy and paste" as you accuse me of but provided an interpretation as well. You, on the contrary just kept yammering away, how can an ape not be an ape how can man not be a man, etc, etc., over and over again.

I'm not "turning the other cheek." I'm giving yours a good hearty slap. Now get lost. It's obvious you are only here to engage in polemics, dishonest ones at that. I'm tired of your cheesy innuendo and outright dishonesty.

"Materialism and the view of everything as a personal illusion have some such effect; for if the mind is mechanical, thought cannot be very exciting, and if the cosmos is unreal, there is nothing to think about. But in these cases the effect is indirect and doubtful. In some cases it is direct and clear; notably in the case of what is generally called evolution.

Evolution is a good example of that modern intelligence which, if it destroys anything, destroys itself. Evolution is either an innocent scientific description of how certain earthly things came about; or, if it is anything more than this, it is an attack upon thought itself.

If evolution destroys anything, it does not destroy religion but rationalism. If evolution simply means that a positive thing called an ape turned very slowly into a positive thing called a man, then it is stingless for the most orthodox; for a personal God might just as well do things slowly as quickly, especially if, like the Christian God, he were outside time.

But if it means anything more, it means that there is no such thing as an ape to change, and no such thing as a man for him to change into. It means that there is no such thing as a thing." G.K. Chesterton

If you read this carefully you will see Chesterton is questioning the materialism that some forms of evolution was based upon. Namely that the transformation from ape to man was either a transformation from one thing to another OR it was from one blob of matter to another blob of matter, that with neither a form of spirited being per se, neither really existed as a real thing. No God only forces of mindless, spiritless nature. Do you see it now?

Eli wrote: "By what reasoning was Newton's God an idol?"

Armstrong gives her definition right there "a human projection." Encouraged by the success of a physics that was explaining the universe, the theologians went on to explain God in the same terms. It was later disproved of course as the Newton theories of the universe fell apart.

As for what parts of the Bible are historical and what are not, I think I've spoken to how the writers wrote in mythological terms. Whatever is historical has been proven to be so through archaeology and other supportive texts.

There is Lee Strobel's Case for Christ. And then there are the so-called "alternative theories" which turn out to be pretty lame -- some of which I have taken up here, as it applies to the Gospels in general and the Resurrection in particular:

http://payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/...

dj

Dan,you keep hammering the same things. I've made a good faith effort to explain the Chesterton quote. I'm sorry you don't understand it. What more can I say?

You just copied and pasted the article over and over. That's not much of an explanation.

Hopefully we have seen your final post.


How very polite. Is this what you guys call "turning the other cheek?"

There are so many who have that happen to them, how can you consider yourself uniquely denied that?

I'm only stating a fact. I don't think I'm unique.

From Armstrong's article:But the Great Mechanick was little more than an idol, the kind of human projection that theology, at its best, was supposed to avoid.

By what reasoning was Newton's God an idol? Was it because it had no biblical foundation? Under this definition wouldn't Catholic prayer to the Virgin Mary be idolatrous? Is it because Newton's God was a flawed idea of God? I bet Newton and others were earnest in their belief, thus how are you certain that you yourself aren't practicing idolatry? Or is it simply because it's an inconvenient conception to currently have lying around, so, like other previous conceptions of God, we put it in the trash bin of "heresy" and "idolatry."

I anticipate you might answer that Newton's God was idolatrous because it brought God into the physical realm of science, when God is a purely spiritual being. You've said this before, and it appears to my eyes to be just a survival tactic for religion, an acknowledgement that there's no evidence in the world for God. It's as though science is a beacon growing brighter, and God is a mouse scurrying into smaller and smaller shadows.

Armstrong:For that people turned to mythos, stories that made no pretensions to historical accuracy but should rather be seen as an early form of psychology...

Do you believe the Bible to be historically accurate? Exactly what parts of the new and old testaments do you believe literally happened?

Eli wrote: "It's unlikely, but possible that I might have some subjective experience in the future that convinces me of God's existence. I say unlikely because such an occurrence has never happened to me.
..."

There are so many who have that happen to them, how can you consider yourself uniquely denied that?

Eli wrote: But if you (or anyone) are going to make the intellectual case for God..."

The only "intellectual case" for God I have made is faith, which is aintellectual, if ever there was one. I see sometimes you saying "You Christians want to have it both ways...etc." You drag our conversations into sheer argumentation when you do that. See how Dan in other posts was unable to read a simple passage from Chesterton and move on. He had to stay on and on and on and on arguing some some point of order on apes and man rather than comprehending and saying, well that doesn't apply to me in anyway.

I like your point though of their being an "intellectual case" for God. Karen Armstrong does that very well in last weeks WSJ, although many Christians took offense to her offering up a Christian defense of Richard Dawkins -- in that respect she did a miserable job. But as to why religion and religious thought is important, she made many good points:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...

dj

Dan wrote: "Derek,

Dan you have me trying to get you to understand G.K. Chesterton. If you want to argue what he is saying, well, he's dead.

You're the one who introduced his quotation into the discussion. ..."

Dan,you keep hammering the same things. I've made a good faith effort to explain the Chesterton quote. I'm sorry you don't understand it. What more can I say?

Same thing with Professor Haught.

Hopefully we have seen your final post.

dj

Derek,

Dan you have me trying to get you to understand G.K. Chesterton. If you want to argue what he is saying, well, he's dead.

You're the one who introduced his quotation into the discussion. Now please stand behind it. You can't just say, "Hey, I didn't say that, he did. You posted it. You obviously understand it, or think you do, and want me to understand it, so why don't you explain it to me.

If you are trying to say that he makes absolutely no sense, then manifestly you are on the losing side of that argument. The man is an accomplished author.

This is an appeal to authority, and it's a logical fallacy. Essentially you're saying that I have to accept what he says (even though I admittedly don't know what that is), or accept that he is (and by proxy you are) right, just because he's "an accomplished author." Do you maintain that nothing has ever been published that doesn't make sense? Or that is factually or logically wrong? You've obviously never heard of The Secret. The fact that he's "an accomplished author" doesn't prove a thing about what he says, or what you say.

The point you question me on is not the point he is making; so perhaps we should leave it at that -- you didn't "get" it.

Or why don't you tell me what point he was making? It seemed to me that he was saying, among other things, that if evolution happened, or if there is no such thing as a soul, then there's no such thing as a man or an ape. What point was he making? Or am I not supposed to actually know what point he was making, but just be awed by his obvious but indecipherable "wisdom?"

I can't say it any better than Prof Haught does. It's the third time I've cited the argument. So let's drop that. I don't know whether your just not reading it or what the problem is.

You can't even say it in your own words, so you obviously don't understand it very much. He's making a disingenuous argument that science is the same thing as faith. This is simply not true. Faith is belief in things without evidence. Science is the opposite of faith. His argument is completely disingenuous.

I'm beginning to suspect that you don't really even understand these arguments you copy and paste. I think you just see that they're pro-Christianity, anti-atheism, and they seem impressive to you, and that's good enough. I don't mean this as an insult. It just seems odd to me that you'd rather people not even understand these incredibly wise men than go to the trouble of saying something you purport to understand in your own words.

Dan wrote: Where did I ask for scientific proof of the soul?

Dan wrote:Explain to me how it is necessary for something to have a soul to exist. Message 57, Dan.

So let's drop all that too.

This isn't asking for scientific proof of the soul. This is actually assuming that the soul exists and asking how it logically follows that it is necessary for something to have a soul in order to exist, which it seemed you claimed earlier. And nowhere do I use the word "scientific." You can offer any type of proof you like.

You're mixing and matching some things here. I gave you an in depth analysis of how Catholics view the Bible.

What am I mixing and matching?

As for how the bible is the word of God, i.e. biblical theories of inspiration, this is what Catholics believe:

Thank you for the link. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but my interpretation of the Chalcedonian theories is this:

"God inspired the writers of the Bible in a way similar to the faith of today's Cristians, not giving them specific instructions on how or what to write, but letting their faith shape the writing into something which had the primary purpose of creating faith in others."

A few questions come to mind:
1) Isn't inclusion of canonical writings a subjective affair? More specifically, if the books of the Bible were included in the Bible before the Catholic Church even got it "right" on what the basis was for divine inspiration, then isn't it possible we have some stuff in the Bible that shouldn't be there, and other stuff that should? Indeed the Catholic Bible does have a few more books in it than everyone else's. You might point to papal infallibility (a pretty ridiculous doctrine), but if so, then why adopt this Chalcedonian theory at all? Shouldn't the writers of the Bible be at least as infallible as the pope?

1) If the basis for divine inspiration is that the writing furthers God's will by containing a "saving message", and there may be literal inaccuracies with the facts tangential to this saving message, why trust any of the facts present in the Bible at all? I doubt this would be persuasive to a believer, but it is at least a fair question to someone contemplating belief. So try to put yourself in an atheist's shoes. If the key to the Bible and the "inspired" part is really all those "commands, exhortations, thanksgivings, acts of penitence, expressions of joy, and so forth," and "judgment[s:] about how to act," couldn't we just as easily take this as a book with some advice about how to live well and leave out all the supernatural beliefs?

My point and Prof. John Haught's point (reading interview link in message 31; some videos here: http://www.counterbalance.org/cqinterv/j...) is, once again:

...that evidence is necessary — holds a further hidden premise that all evidence worth examining has to be scientific evidence...

I think I answered this implicity in post 39. All of morality is ascientific. Of course we need the subjective to make certain decisions and come to certain conclusions. And the subjective is open to things that are not observable by the senses (empirical) and not replicable, hence not scientific. So I have never held that hidden premise.

But if you (or anyone) are going to make the intellectual case for God, then objective evidence is all you have to go on. Subjective evidence doesn't translate.

It's unlikely, but possible that I might have some subjective experience in the future that convinces me of God's existence. I say unlikely because such an occurrence has never happened to me.

Most Christians believe that atheists are really "rebelling" against God, that God exists in their mind but that they are running away from him. This is frustrating for me because, while I know it is false in my case, I don't have any way of convincing them otherwise. Some more charitable ones might say that I actually consciously believe what I profess, but that I'm unaware of my subconscious motivations. There's no way to disprove that either, but the claim doesn't seem to be made by any analysis of me, rather purely as an outcome of their beliefs.

Now, I once started writing some surreal fiction, and found that sometimes the main character would talk to me. I could have conversations with him in my head, or at the very least hear his thought process. Similarly, I can sometimes envision what a good friend or family member would say in response to my thoughts or actions. Now considering I went to Church for the first 18 years of my life, and intermittently after that, I can "hear" God the same way I hear a character or person with whom I'm familiar. You might call this "non-scientific evidence", but I reject this as nothing more than the imagination. The only reason I can't "hear" Allah, Shiva, Buddha nearly as well is because I wasn't chanting things about them on a first name basis for the majority of my life.

The only non-scientific evidence for God I ever found in the least bit compelling was the existence of morality. C.S. Lewis made a good case for this in Mere Christianity. I've since seen how morality can arise from atheism, so it doesn't convince me any more, but I hope this gives you a picture of me (and perhaps other atheists) as not someone who is simply closing his mind to all subjective evidence or analysis.

AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING. Using your science to discredit religious beliefs,

I think you made a long leap from what Haught was saying. Just because there are sources of evidence other than material, does not mean material evidence is barred from us. Christians like to have it both ways on this issue. If the Shroud of Turin had been radio-dated to around Christ's time, instead of the middle ages, don't you think the church, even the Catholic church, would have had something to say about that? But I think it goes much deeper than that. What are the gospels if not books making objective claims about what Jesus did. Sure, maybe some things like the holy spirit aren't objective, but Jesus' miracles are claimed to have been real and observed by the senses of his disciples, who supposedly passed them on to the ones who eventually wrote the stories down. If objective, sensory reality is really out of the question, why then do we need descriptions of what happened in the gospels at all? It's because Christians implicitly need that confirmation too. Even the apostles were often doubting Jesus until they observed things. You might come back with John 20:29, "blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe," but the point is that everyone still relies on the Bible as the starting point for belief. The "proof" offered is that he really did do these miracles and such. If religion really was 100% subjective, then the Bible would only have to say, "Jesus was the son of God," and let people meditate on it until they agreed. Now I may not have phrased that perfectly but please consider the content and not the form.

As soon as you bring objective, sensory reality into a religion, you open it up to science. If I invented a religion, call it Elism, that was 100% about meditational experiences and reaching some God of enlightenment who never did miracles or interacted with the physical plane, you're right that science could never touch it. But the Bible is full of such physical interactions, hence science can make claims on it.

black and white? How 'bout parallel lines? Isn't that a metaphysical concept?

It's an axiom. Mathematics doesn't make claims on the existence of parallel lines, it only says: "assuming parallel lines never touch, then we know..." In fact, mathematics uses the opposite of the parallel postulate in forming elliptic geometry, which is just as "valid" as Euclidean geometry.

Yes, I've read The Elegant Universe, but I'm having trouble seeing how you get from that to God. I'm having trouble following the quote in msg. 64, could you perhaps restate it?

This is what allows most scientists who have faith to hold a faith. It is what separates the two domains.

Feynman was another atheistic scientist, and agreed that while scientists can hold a faith, it is almost certainly a different kind of faith than that held by most people. Because scientists are among those who deal in degrees of statistical probability. Thus, while the non-scientist may ask, "Is there a God?" the scientist instead starts to ask the question, "How likely is it that there is a God?" 0% and 100% probabilities are now, for all intents and purposes, barred to him.

Dan wrote: Namely that the transformation from ape to man was either a transformation from one thing to another OR it was from one blob of matter to another blob of matter, that with neither a form of spirited being per se, neither really existed as a real thing.

I don't remotely understand what this is trying to say. In this post you assert that (at least from an atheist's worldview) neither an ape nor a man really exists. That if something is not a "spirited being," it doesn't exist. Trying to prove to me that I necessarily believe that I, you, or apes don't exist is, yes, ridiculous. If you disagree, please, explain to me how it's impossible to establish that humans or apes exist without believing in God."

Dan you have me trying to get you to understand G.K. Chesterton. If you want to argue what he is saying, well, he's dead. If you are trying to say that he makes absolutely no sense, then manifestly you are on the losing side of that argument. The man is an accomplished author. The point you question me on is not the point he is making; so perhaps we should leave it at that -- you didn't "get" it.

Dan wrote:To impugn my faith as drivel or nonsense is an ad hominem attack on myself

No it isn't.

Yes it is, no, it isn't, yes it is, etc. etc. You obviously don't see the difference between political, sports and religious argument. Impugning a man's faith is different from discrediting his soccer team or political platform. So let's end that one. "No, it isn't" just doesn't get us anywhere.


Dan wrote: If you're claiming that science is something other than a method, then what is it? And please, in your own words; do not for a third time paste the paragraph someone else wrote about science being faith.

I can't say it any better than Prof Haught does. It's the third time I've cited the argument. So let's drop that. I don't know whether your just not reading it or what the problem is.

Dan wrote: Where did I ask for scientific proof of the soul?

Dan wrote:Explain to me how it is necessary for something to have a soul to exist. Message 57, Dan.

So let's drop all that too.


Dan wrote:So, it's clearly not obvious, without the assumption that the Bible must be inerrant, that it is metaphor.

You're mixing and matching some things here. I gave you an in depth analysis of how Catholics view the Bible.

If there is something else still on your mind, bring it to my attention but I don't see much here I can pursue. Thanks for your time.

dj

You must have passed over message 21 where I addressed the misreadings of that passage.

I didn't pass over post 21; post 21 was what I was responding to, and what I was calling nonsense. Because it does not make sense. For example (and I don't know if these are your words or a copy-and-paste):

Namely that the transformation from ape to man was either a transformation from one thing to another OR it was from one blob of matter to another blob of matter, that with neither a form of spirited being per se, neither really existed as a real thing.

I don't remotely understand what this is trying to say. In this post you assert that (at least from an atheist's worldview) neither an ape nor a man really exists. That if something is not a "spirited being," it doesn't exist. Trying to prove to me that I necessarily believe that I, you, or apes don't exist is, yes, ridiculous. If you disagree, please, explain to me how it's impossible to establish that humans or apes exist without believing in God.

To impugn my faith as drivel or nonsense is an ad hominem attack on myself

No it isn't. You need to, perhaps, look up what an ad hominem attack is. It's an attempt to refute your claim by attacking your person. I'm doing the opposite: I'm attacking your claim, and your person is taking offense. Any claim that happens to hurt your feelings is not an ad hominem. If you took offense, I'm sorry, but you quoted a passage that does not make any sense. If it does make sense and I'm just missing it, then please, enlighten me. And a bit of advice: simply saying it's a matter of faith won't at all clear things up for me.

as to your demand for scientific proof or evidence of the soul or metaphysical concepts of being, that is a request to turn the unreligious nature of science into a religion.

Where did I ask for scientific proof of the soul? I reread my last several posts and found no such request. If anything, although I didn't find this request either, I would ask what your basis is for belief in the soul. Notice I did not say "scientific basis."

All this jive about "science is a method" is just that, JIVE.

No it isn't. Science is a method. You agree when in the next sentence you refer to "the scientific method." If you're claiming that science is something other than a method, then what is it? And please, in your own words; do not for a third time paste the paragraph someone else wrote about science being faith.

I don't know where I've supposedly said, "Science is the only way to truth," but let's examine that statement. To demonstrate this, you are defining science by your own terms, which makes it quite easy to prove that my (supposed) claim is false. But let's look at it another way. Science is simply a mode of thought. In a nutshell: We draw ideas based on observation, and compare those against reality; if they match, we hold them to be true, as long as they continue to match reality. So what is truth? Truth is, in a nutshell, an idea that matches reality. So, if we grant that I did in fact make the claim that science is the only way to truth, although I don't recall making such a claim, then let's at least grant that the only fair way to assess my claim is by using my definitions for the words in my claim. Therefore, my claim would translate to: "The only way to know what ideas match reality is to check them against reality to see if they match."

What is controversial about this claim? Without simply saying that faith exists, or that such-and-such is a matter of faith, explain to me another way for determining if an idea matches reality. Or, if you have alternate definitions of science, reality and truth, then what are they?

Because you keep reposting this same paragraph, though, let me take a stab at it. It seems to be saying that there are types of evidence other than scientific evidence. (This seems to rely on a redefining of the word "scientific," since scientific evidence is basically anything that can be observed.) It seems that this non-scientific evidence would be "faith." So belief is based on faith. But faith also is, by definition, belief. So basically, this quotation says that you believe what you believe because you believe it. That's a tight little circle.

Again, maybe I'm reading this paragraph wrong. It seems like an attempt to discredit science, both by redefining science and by declaring science to be "faith," implying that faith is bad. (Otherwise, calling science "faith" would be a compliment.) And then it attempts to say that science (because it is faith) is something totally different from faith? Or is less than faith? Or that faith is therefore scientific? The whole thing seems like smoke and mirrors to me.

Let me make a suggestion to you. When discussing religion, try not to rely too heavily on (or use at all) the word faith. It should seem obvious at this point that either we atheists have no idea what the word faith even means, or that the religious throw the word around to mean whatever they'd like. Also, it's a good idea to be able to make the same argument twice using totally different language; if your arguments rely so heavily on a single, special word like "faith," they're probably not strong arguments.

Thank you for responding to my post, although you did seem to ignore whole sections of it wholesale. I hope you get back to those points, if you have time.

Now this happened in mathematics, my own background and a field where truth is about as black and white as it gets.

Eli wrote: The book "Flatland" is full of such stuff..."

black and white? How 'bout parallel lines? Isn't that a metaphysical concept?

Flatlanders is precisely what we are talking about. As I noted before, Brian Greene's PBS elegant universe specials speak of 10 to 14 different dimensions and the Jewish/Christian God, the whole concept of that God is what distinguished it from the pagan Gods:

"Christian theology is differentiated from pagan religious and philosophical reflection primarily by the introduction of a new distinction, the distinction between the world understood as possibly not having existed and God understood as possibly being all that there is, with no diminution of goodness or greatness.

It is not the case that God and the world are each separately understood n this new way, and only subsequently related to each other; they are determined in the distinction not each apart from the other. The Christian distinction between the world and God may receive its precise verbal formulation in a theoretical context, since it is described especially by theologians and philosophers, but the distinction does not emerge for the first time in this theoretical setting.

It receives its formulation in reflective thought because it has already been achieved in the life that goes on before reflective thinking occurs. The distinction is lived in Christian life, and most originally it was lived and expressed in the life of Jesus, after having been anticipated, and hence to some extent possessed, in the Old Testament history which Jesus completed.

The Christian distinction is there for us now, as something for us to live and as an issue for reflection, because it was brought forward in the life and teaching of Christ, and because that life and teaching continue to be available in the life and teaching of the Church. It is a massive theological and philosophical fact that this understanding arose and is maintained by Christian belief."

So your criticisms of God appear to based on a God-in-the-world misconception. God is not another existant within the world. Hence as any self-respecting scientist will point out to you, not the object of a scientific hypothesis.

This is what allows most scientists who have faith to hold a faith. It is what separates the two domains. Atheists who understand this, like Dr. Weinberg, have no problem in distinguishing the two. The ones who don't, like Richard Dawkins are always falling all over themselves and the cause of all kinds of mischief.

I thought it was generally recognized that the bible was a collection (a library) of books, some of which are quite frankly of a fantasy nature.

I don't dispute this. The Bible is a hodgepodge of different writings, culled from an even larger set of writings. My point is that there's no way to tell which, if any parts are meant to be figurative. And at the time of the Bible's assembly, there was no way to determine which books should be included (were true) and which should be rejected (were false).

The only way to make these distinctions (true/false, literal/figurative) is to form a conclusion first. An idea is formed about the nature of God, based on nothing more than wishful thinking, and then that which does not adhere to the idea is dismissed as either heresy or metaphor. And it's worth pointing out that for centuries the stories in Genesis were not considered metaphor, and still aren't by a great many people. So, it's clearly not obvious, without the assumption that the Bible must be inerrant, that it is metaphor. So again, I'll ask, on what do you base your conclusion that Genesis is figurative? I don't mean, "How do you know that at least some of the Bible is figurative?" I mean, How do you know that Genesis, specifically is figurative? And actually, the other question is a good one, too: Just because the Bible is a collection of writings by different authors, how do you know that they were intended as metaphor, not literal truth that just happens to be mistaken?

I called something "drivel" and "nonsense" because it did not make sense. I asked you to clarify what it meant, if it was, in fact, logically coherent. You refrained. This is not my fault. I'm sorry if your feelings were hurt."
....
As long as you do not, I will assume that you can not, an observation that is consistent with my initial conclusion that the statements do not make sense and are, therefore, "nonsense."


You must have passed over message 21 where I addressed the misreadings of that passage. Much of what we are dealing with here are matters of faith. To impugn my faith as drivel or nonsense is an ad hominem attack on myself, the person holding those views. These aren't political beliefs we are talking about. If you can't understand the difference, watch the 9/11 attacks again.

And, once again, as to your demand for scientific proof or evidence of the soul or metaphysical concepts of being, that is a request to turn the unreligious nature of science into a religion.

I HAVE a religion and do not need to corrupt my knowledge of science to make another. I'll leave that to you and Eli. My point and Prof. John Haught's point (reading interview link in message 31; some videos here: http://www.counterbalance.org/cqinterv/j...) is, once again:

"The hidden assumption behind such a statement is often that faith is belief without evidence. Therefore, since there’s no scientific evidence for the divine, we should not believe in God. But that statement itself — that evidence is necessary — holds a further hidden premise that all evidence worth examining has to be scientific evidence. And beneath that assumption, there’s the deeper worldview — it’s a kind of dogma — that science is the only reliable way to truth. But that itself is a faith statement. It’s a deep faith commitment because there’s no way you can set up a series of scientific experiments to prove that science is the only reliable guide to truth. It’s a creed."

AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING. Using your science to discredit religious beliefs, stating that science is the only reliable way to truth. All this jive about "science is a method" is just that, JIVE. When you take the scientific method into the realm of the religious and start speaking to religious truths you are performing the same wrong as a religious taking faith and proclaiming the earth to be 6000 years old. I would like to send both you and your fundie cousins on a long trip to deep space. The rest of us here would be so much better off.

Dan wrote: "They (biblical authors) did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language.

What is the basis for this conclusion? Now..."

I thought it was generally recognized that the bible was a collection (a library) of books, some of which are quite frankly of a fantasy nature. And how can you avoid the figurative in the garden of eden, trees of knowledge and evil etc. I'm afraid I can't follow what you're saying. Unless you are accusing all Christians of being literalists?

As for how the bible is the word of God, i.e. biblical theories of inspiration, this is what Catholics believe:

http://payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/...

dj

Sorry to hear that, hope you feel better soon.

Been sick the past week. Will try to catch up. Didn't want you to think I was ignoring you all...

dj

They (biblical authors) did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language.

What is the basis for this conclusion? Nowhere in the Bible is it written, "The following passages are figurative." In my experience, the only way to conclude that such-and-such in the Bible is figurative is to begin with the conclusion that the Bible cannot be wrong; therefore, apparent contradictions between the Bible and reality must be the result of figurative language, etc., because that's the only way the pre-drawn conclusion can continue to appear be correct.

Now my good buddy Dan does that explicitly and is confident enough so that he can pronounce my arguments as drivel and nonsense. I'm lucky he condescends to reply to me.

I called something "drivel" and "nonsense" because it did not make sense. I asked you to clarify what it meant, if it was, in fact, logically coherent. You refrained. This is not my fault. I'm sorry if your feelings were hurt. Explain to me how one comes to the conclusion that there is no such thing as an ape or a man. Explain to me how it is necessary for something to have a soul to exist. In your own words. As long as you do not, I will assume that you can not, an observation that is consistent with my initial conclusion that the statements do not make sense and are, therefore, "nonsense."

Derek,

Sorry I haven't gotten back to you in a while; I've been away from the Internet for a few days.

That's perfect. Like I said, "default" is a kind of nowhere.

Either I don't know what you're asking, or you don't know what I'm saying. What do you mean by "a kind of nowhere?" Atheism is the lack of religious belief; it is not in itself a religious belief, nor, in fact, a belief about anything. It is just a word to describe a state of being whereby one lacks a certain type of belief. So, since this is seemingly unclear, maybe it would help if you could tell me what exactly you're asking about atheism?

were Science able to disprove God or prove God

Well, I agree that by definition a god (in a general sense) can never be disproved. But to say that since God hasn't been proved yet, then he never will, and that, by implication, he exists outside of the realm of science and that claims about God or religion can therefore not be questioned, is a bit disingenuous.

Faith cannot be verified by facts observable to all, because it deals with realities that cannot be measured the way claims are measured, and because the realities it engages demand personal commitment.

Calling the objects of faith "realities" seems dishonest. It seems like wishful thinking: I would like to believe that x, y & z are true, but I would not like to call them merely hopes and dreams, because that seems wishy-washy, so I will call them instead "realities of faith," which lends them more credence.

I've heard the argument before that the "beautiful" thing about faith is that it's belief in things with no evidence. What's so great about this?

Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.

I agree that religion is blind, with or without science. But science without religion is not lame. I have no religion, and I love science. It lacks no meaning for me.

The biblical materials for a concept of God do not organize themselves. They do not automatically arrange themselves into a satisfactory form. They achieve that form only when the human mind, seeking to understand its own faith, begins to work on them and to set them out in more intelligible ways.

Compare the above statement you made (or copied and pasted) to the following paragraph:

The Bible is nonsense. It is inconsistent with both observed reality and with itself. It is chock full of immoral and reprehensible behavior, archaic moral codes and rotten descriptions of reality. It isn't corroborated by anything other than its own (and its followers') claims to its divinity and perfect truth. Since it is logically and demonstrably impossible that it is perfectly true, and there is no other justification for believing any of it other than the authority of its perfect truth, the whole thing should be dismissed out of hand. However, believing that there is a God makes people feel nice, so there is a second route one may take with the Bible. Simply decide in advance what you would like your conclusions to be. Build these conclusions around ideas like "God is great, all-knowing, all-loving, etc. Jesus died for your sins, you can live in eternal happiness, and so on." When you read the Bible with these pre-drawn conclusions in mind, underline anything that supports them. Ignore anything that contradicts your pre-drawn conclusions. Claim that these contradictions are the result of translation errors, taken out of context, the words of flawed humans and not God, or that the critic doesn't truly understand the nature of God, and won't until he accepts Jesus, whatever that means. Once you have constructed your own version of the Bible and replaced the original with it in your mind, you will "understand" the Bible; which is to say, you will understand what you invent, and you will call it "the word of God."

Now, I know you'll find the previous paragraph ridiculous and probably offensive. But I'd ask you to seriously consider it. Consider two people reading the Bible, one under my scenario and one under yours, and ask yourself, how would these to people be at all different. The two scenarios appear completely identical.

Where you WILL get an argument from me is when you use science to justify your religious views.

I don't know where I've done this, since I don't have religious views. What I can't stand, though, is when religious people, when presented with a problem with their religion's supposed truth, wave their hands and say, "Well, this is the realm of religion, not science, so your science is irrelevant." I only bring science into the discussion in places where religion makes a specific claim that can be addressed otherwise. Science is a method of inquiry; it is never inappropriate.

As for the idea of science being a kind of faith, I find that pretty ridiculous. Science is a method: you observe the world; based on these observations you speculate what might be going on; you design ways to test whether or not this speculation might be true; the more you fail to disprove your speculation, the more reliably (although always provisionally) you can hold it to be true. The only apparent alternative to this method is to cut out the testing bit and just make stuff up and hold to be true regardless of its consistency with reality.

All that science really is is the idea that the things we hold to be true should be consistent with each other and with continued observation of reality, and that we should always hold truths provisionally so that they can be replaced with better, more consistent ideas when those become available. To argue that this is "faith" is outrageously disingenuous. The basic principle of science is that a claim should be justifiable; religious folk disagree with this, while simultaneously trying to justify the idea that belief need not be justified. Christians, for example, use the scientific method all the time when trying to justify their claims: they go to the Bible, to theologians, etc., for support for their claims; they just don't do it very well, since they often ignore mountains of counter-evidence, and only then say, "Well, this is outside of science, so evidence is irrelevant. Unless I find some, in which case it will again become important."

I was unimpressed by your attempt to deflect your ad hominem attack of me by separating the content and character of my arguments (drivel, nonsense, etc.) with my person. Pretty weak.

I wasn't trying to deflect anything because I did not make an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack is an argument "against the person." I did not do this. I criticized some of your ideas, or the ideas of those whom you quote. I said that such-and-such a statement was "nonsense." I never attacked you.

An example of an ad hominem attack is to say, "What you just said is wrong because you are stupid." This is a logical fallacy, because obviously a stupid person can say something correct, so calling the person stupid proves nothing. It's something quite different, though, to say, "What you just said is stupid." Obviously, some things can be stupid. If I were to say, "Pigs are made out of chocolate," that would be pretty stupid. And just because I've said something stupid, that doesn't mean that I'm stupid. I know plenty of intelligent people who from time to time say stupid things.

Your apparent definition of ad hominem implies that nothing can be nonsense, nothing can be ridiculous, etc. To take this to the nth degree, everyone's ideas must be true, because to say otherwise would be offensive.

If sometimes I find an argument so ridiculous or tired or whatever that I don't bother fleshing out a response because I (erroneously) assume that the ridiculousness of the statement is obvious, then I can be accused of laziness (which I will not deny), but I cannot be accused of an ad hominem.

It is worth repeating here that the biblical materials for a concept of God do not organize themselves. They do not automatically arrange themselves into a satisfactory form.

One question that springs to mind, then, is this:

Given that there are plenty of dumb people out there, plenty of lazy people, plenty of people lacking a contemplative side, isn't the Bible a pretty dangerous book?

Science, Eli, says NOTHING about “analyzing the supernatural claims.”

Well it depends on how nitpicky you want to get with me, and what definition of supernatural you're using. If we're turning this into a semantic argument, then you could rightly say supernatural is defined to be that which is beyond the scope of science. But clearly what I meant was whether the miraculous claims are supported by our scientific models.

That’s precisely where you screw up Eli. Science is a wonderful thing for judging the macro physical of this world. It does not apply to the Christian/Jewish God who is clearly not of this world.

You're wrong here. If Jesus and Yahweh were solely and completely in the realm of ideas, then you'd be right. But I've yet to meet a Christian who didn't believe Jesus/Yahweh interacted with the world. So your "not of this world" turn of phrase is in my view just a semantic trick to try and get around any accountability to science.

the application of these notions to God is an attempt to speak of what lies beyond the world within terms drawn from this world, and so is only justified if we always add a postscript to that effect.

There are, as far as I can see, three distinct possibilities here:

1) The physical universe is all that is.
2) There are things outside the physical universe, but they do not interact with it.
3) There are things outside the physical universe, and they interact with our universe.

One or two are for all intents and purposes the same. Now you may or may not be surprised that I am with you in adhering to #3. I don't think the subjective can ever be fully explained in physical terms, thus our consciousnesses are "things" (the only reason I neglect to call them souls is that I'm sure our definitions are different) interacting with the physical universe. Describing their "interaction" with the universe is beyond my abilities, so I won't attempt to.

As for God, I suppose it's possible to conceive of something outside our dimension or universe interacting with our universe in a way that is so unusual or extremal that our physical understanding breaks down due to its uniqueness. The book "Flatland" is full of such stuff. Even so, such an interaction doesn't make the event any less "physical", it just means our understanding of physics is off. And it doesn't shift the burden of proof away from whether or not it actually happened.

Unless of course you’ve got some pagan God who is throwing thunder bolts from on high. That science will dispose of pretty fast.

What if we defined the pagan God in a way that was inherently untestable? He controls thunderbolts from the fifth dimension. That would indeed make him supernatural, by definition of being "beyond the scope of science." It wouldn't improve his statistical odds of existing.

You truly are right when it comes to science not being able to test whether many people (Jesus, Lazarus, the little girl he brought back to life, the holy men of Matthew 27:51) rose from the dead 2000 years ago. The opportunity is long past. But it does not fit our models. I see it as no different scientifically from the 6000-year-old Earth claim, with the exception that the evidence against the latter is still all over the place, whereas the evidence against the former is long gone.

Read that John Haught interview I gave you the link for – all the evolutionary stuff he cites in no way conflicts with his faith.

I can't find your link, mind posting it again? Regardless, I never said thinking people couldn't be Christian, you're a counterexample. There are thinking Christians and thinking atheists. But should we really settle a debate by pointing to a thinking person on one side?

There also have been instances where thinking people were largely wrong. The Monty Hall problem,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_...
a counter-intuitive finding about probability, was once correctly stated in a syndicated column. After it was printed, nearly 1,000 math PhD's wrote in claiming that the columnist was wrong. Now this happened in mathematics, my own background and a field where truth is about as black and white as it gets. How much more likely, then, that there are other cases, in much grayer fields, where experts and "thinking people" can still make big mistakes? Worse, in fields where propositions are not as clear-cut, it may not always be obvious that there is a premise we're making a mistake on.

One thing I have realized from this discussion, and I want to thank you for it, is that to some extent I probably have been caricaturing religious belief, and although I still see no reason for me to believe, I probably should be more charitable toward thinking religious people who have carved out an ideology that does not harm others.

Science, Eli, says NOTHING about “analyzing the supernatural claims.”

If science has nothing to say about supernatural claims, then neither does anything else.

You say, "I believe in supernatural events. I have no evidence of them, and no reason to believe in their existence at all outside of the fact that I believe...I believe....I BELIEVE!!!!"

Big fucking deal. What an utter waste of breath. You believe in something because you want to believe in it. Yet, you admit there is no evidence of it or even a reason to believe. Bravo there chap, bravo. You have just mastered the art of making your words insignificant.

Eli wrote: I just don't see a good reason for me to disregard what science says when analyzing the supernatural claims.
----------
Science, Eli, says NOTHING about “analyzing the supernatural claims.” Science does not concern itself with the metaphysical and does not admit any supernatural claims it its methodologies. It’s only laymen like yourself, reading delusional tracts by Richard Dawkins who has developed an atheist religion based on his understanding of evolutionary biology (but won’t admit to it).

Note how the atheist I use, Steven Weinberg admits frankly up front that is what he is doing. Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens et. al. claim that their understanding of science discredits the Christian/Jewish God. Yet you can find their claims analyzed and disposed of in Michael Novak’s No One Sees God – a book that celebrates atheism BTW.

You fall into this group when you stray over the line like here when you construct your little science experiment: Eli wrote: “Supposing someone claims they have ESP. Now this violates physics as I understand it. So let's set the probability that my understanding of (basic) physics is wrong at one in a million. But I go in and see him predicting cards with perfect accuracy. Do I throw physics out the window? No. Maybe the independent chance that he's in cahoots with the tester is 1:100. So that's the provisional hypothesis. We test again, at another location. He still passes. OK so he's not in cahoots but there's maybe 1:500 (independent) odds that he's found some other way to read the cards. We continually isolate these things. Each time he passes, he makes it more likely that physics is wrong, but it's still a very long shot. We have to eliminate every more likely possibility. Similarly for something like resurrection, I look at it as both violating physics and being unparsimonious, and thus I give it very low odds.”

That’s precisely where you screw up Eli. Science is a wonderful thing for judging the macro physical of this world. It does not apply to the Christian/Jewish God who is clearly not of this world.

Here is Aidan Nichols from the post I made the other day, an elaboration on the Theodicy and Salvation approach to God I had made previously. “It is worth repeating here that the biblical materials for a concept of God do not organize themselves. They do not automatically arrange themselves into a satisfactory form. They achieve that form only when the human mind, seeking to understand its own faith, begins to work on them and to set them out in more intelligible ways. To organize the biblical materials, we soon find that we need to draw on such philosophical categories as good and evil, freedom and necessity, person and nature, mind and will, essence and existence, being and knowing. Of course, the application of these notions to God is an attempt to speak of what lies beyond the world within terms drawn from this world, and so is only justified if we always add a postscript to that effect.

That’s the postscript you haven’t been paying attention to and why your explanation of the Bible was so poorly drawn
[(1) On a surface level, the Bible runs contradictory to many things we now know about the world.
2) It was originally written to be read on this explanatory level.
3) Any highly nuanced way of looking at it to reconcile these things seems a bit like grasping at straws.

Science doesn’t proscribe you from religious beliefs. Science could give a sweet leaping flying EFF what you think. Unless of course you’ve got some pagan God who is throwing thunder bolts from on high. That science will dispose of pretty fast. But the Christian Trinity? No way. Never happen. Hence my embrace of science as a Christian.

Read that John Haught interview I gave you the link for – all the evolutionary stuff he cites in no way conflicts with his faith. Most thinking Christians side with Haught, the raving Fundies make good press coverage on MSNBC.

Hence I refer to your "Science God". Ironically you’re doing the same thing you’re accusing others of doing.., a perfect foil to the Fundies.

But thank God you’re a lot more polite than, say, Nathan, whom I offer up as a typical example of your fellow parishioners. Loud, derisive, butting in on conversations he has no place in – a true son of Bill Maher.

dj

On the contrary I would hope I have conclusively shown that I regard you as someone who has simply not received the grace I have.

Ha ha. This is condescending nonsense. You pretend that you don't think Eli is "mistaken," but merely think he hasn't received your "magical knowledge" from Jesus. That's the same thing as saying he is mistaken.

You haven't received grace, you have merely received some fantastical nonsense about mythical beings from parishioners of your local church.

Eli wrote: You may not call me mistaken, but it's implicit in your criticism of my belief....If you wish I will not mention it again.


-----------
On the contrary I would hope I have conclusively shown that I regard you as someone who has simply not received the grace I have. And that even with a lack of belief in the Christian God of love, someone who may have profound knowledge of that love from whom we could all learn – a point explicitly made by Pope Benedict in Spe Salvi that I also mentioned earlier.

Here is a 1950’s Catholic author speaking to that goodness of man and God:

The Fundamental Schism Of Man
We all share in a shattering duality – and by this I don’t mean that soggy, superficial split that one so often sees: the kind of thing, for example, where the gangster sobs uncontrollably at an old Shirley Temple movie.

I mean the fundamental schism that Newman referred to when he spoke of man being forever involved in the consequences of some “terrible aboriginal calamity;” every day in everyman there is this warfare of the parts.

And while all this results in meanness and bitterness and savagery enough, God knows, and while only a fool can look around him and smile serenely in unwatered optimism, nevertheless the wonder of it all is to me the frequency with which kindness, the essential goodness of man does break through, and as one who has received his full measure of that goodness, I can say that for me, at least, it is in the long succession of these small, redemptive instants, just as much as in the magnificence of heroes, that the meaning and the glory of man is revealed…
The Edge of Sadness – Edwin O’Connor

Rather than "not mentioning it again," I would attempt to persuade you that there is nothing implicitly negative in my opinion of you and I regret that is your perception of anything I’ve said here. There is no reason to cling to that perception.

You're not going to be very successful in this world labelling all Catholics as "mistaken." I would never call you "mistaken," why not return the favor? You're someone who has not received the grace of faith yet. There's nothing judgmental there. Do you resent that in any way?

You may not call me mistaken, but it's implicit in your criticism of my belief. I take no offense at this. If you wish I will not mention it again.

I don't resent your interpretation.

Why can't you regard me as someone who has rejected your science God? Perhaps I have not received His grace yet, but I don't think the Science God you subscribe to grants such favors. How 'bout he hasn't made me smart enough? hehehe

Well your calling my understanding a "science God" seems a bit patronizing, but I believe you when you say you've rejected it. I just don't see a good reason for me to disregard what science says when analyzing the supernatural claims. Some atheists might use the latter ("they're dumb") as a simplistic explanation. Without flattery I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge your robust intelligence. If I thought the difference between atheism and religion was simply a matter of intelligence, I doubt I would be having this conversation, and would probably be something of a snob. I hope I'm not.

If you really want to know my mental model for why some people end up becoming atheists while others become religious, keep in mind that this model is provisional, and that when it comes down to it I don't fully know. A lot certainly has to do with the conditions under which one was raised. I think some people are raised in stifling intellectual conditions (I'm not referring to you), under which religion is really the only option. By the time they are adults and out of those conditions, their beliefs are hardened. But for the majority of us who aren't raised in the Bible belt, I think the question is a matter of sensitive dependence on initial conditions, to use a mathematical turn of phrase. There is also a constant subtle credibility added to the default religion here in the U.S., and people who adopt its axioms find that they are self-reinforcing. Further, and again independent of intelligence, I think some people have a natural tendency to religion, the way some have a tendency to athleticism or academics or even drugs. Finally, intelligence itself is a complex assessment. I myself am pretty lacking when it comes to musical ability. Does that mean I'm less intelligent than all musicians? Only in a narrow sense. I can only go where my brain leads me, and no argument for the existence of God has convinced me, so I remain an atheist. As an aside, you might say I can follow my heart. That's true, but the "heart" you refer to is also in the brain.

Oh and if you reply "There isn't any grace because there isn't any God" Then I will say "How the hell do you know?" and you will answer "Well strictly speaking..."

If grace, as you've defined it, is something given to me from intellectually honest inquiry, then it's irrelevant anyway whether I believe in it. It will either happen or it won't.

Flannery O'Connor says, "We know them as we see them, not as God sees them..." Then she describes a new way of seeing them ostensibly closer to how God sees them. For one this is presumptuous. Secondly, if all we have is how we see the laws of physics, shouldn't that be the tool we use until we have better? You could use essentially the same argument to prove any kind of pseudoscience you wish. As I'm sure you're not a believer in astrology or levitating yogis, what makes the resurrection warrant an exception?

Well these are well intended folks huddled joyously about a piece of toast where they claim to see the Baby Jesus or the Virgin Mary. None of them are telling you you're on your way to hell.

Actually, they tell me I am on my way there every single time I see them.

Eli wrote: Similarly for something like resurrection, I look at it as both violating physics and being unparsimonious, and thus I give it very low odds.
-----------------
Flannery O'Connor responds to Richard Feynman:

"To see Christ as God and man is probably no more difficult today than it has always been even if today there seem to be more reasons to doubt. For you it may be a matter of not being able to accept what you call a suspension of the laws of the flesh and the physical, but for my part I think that when I know what the laws of the flesh and physical really are, then I will know what God is.

We know them as we see them, not as God sees them. For me, it is the virgin birth, the Incarnation, the resurrection which are the true laws of the flesh and physical. Death, decay, destruction are the suspension of these laws.

I am always astonished at the emphasis the Church puts on the body. It is not the soul she says that will rise but the body, glorified. I have always thought that purity was the most mysterious of the virtues, but it occurs to me that it would never have entered the human consciousness to conceive of purity if we were not to look forward to a resurrection of the body, which will be flesh and spirit united in peace the way they were in Christ.

The resurrection of Christ seems the high point in the law of nature.

From “Flannery O’Connor Spiritual Writings” – Robert Ellsberg (Editor)