Are you religious?

[StickyEnd]

...
I do however have a beef with the closed scientific mind just as much as the closed religious mind, both are mirror images of each other as far as I am concerned. Open doors folks.


Something else. Sticky said that
" I don't think there are or should be divine rules. What I was going on about was if there was. ie If there was a God like in the bible then it should follow that his rules be understood by all and universally and consistently aplied."

And I went, AHA!!
It seems that Sticky and certainly some other posters have a fixation about God being like it says in the Bible. (if not so then I will be happy to be corrected, but I do get that impression)...

Time to address this.

Dwarf,
The scientific mindset is not closed. Far from it, science accepts all sorts of explanations that defy common-sense. The major stipulation though is that there must be evidence, there are more but there is no need to dwell upon them for this point. Just have a look at what science has found out, loads of it beggars belief on a human senses scale.

example: The most solid object that you will ever experience is almost entirely empty space.

As for most Atheists/Agnostics here normally referencing the Bible/Christianity, that is no big shock. We have already addressed this. The majority of none religious folk here live in countries where the dominant Religion is Christianity, so it is no surprise that we concentrate on that one.

Once you have lost/rejected a religion (and become none religious), you are not likely to bother to learn all about another one. Unless you actually do have evidence of a scientific standard, then I (for one) would be fascinated.

Closed mind? I do not accept that.

Sticky when I refer to closed minds I wasn't referring to you, nor to a scientific mindset in general. What I was referring to is a certain type of individual both religious and scientific who have a mind made up and are predisposed to ignore, rubbish, or pour scorn on anything that does not fit in with that belief.
"I do however have a beef with the closed scientific mind just as much as the closed religious mind, both are mirror images of each other as far as I am concerned. Open doors folks." Is what I said, immediately after a paragraph extolling science.
So individuals, and they do exist, OK?

As to your second point I also agree that we have adressed it in the past, and I understand that for most the christian viewpoint is their contact with religion. However the particular point was that I had just made a point that included references to something non-biblical only to have it referred to as biblical. I am trying to put across concepts that are non-biblical to a) explain my mindset better (and those like me) and b) to try to show spiritual alternatives that might make more sense than other concepts. Not to convert but to explain and allow a wider view. Otherwise we boil down to a 4 legs good 2 legs bad situation.
To then apparently have these concepts lumped into the simplistic christian compartment is frustrating.
I am trying to understand science better so I can have a more balanced view, when you say that most people are not bothered to learn another one goes in the opposite direction. If one wants to understand this debate better then one should at least try to get a working idea of what it is all about, which means not restricting oneself to one small compartment of knowledge.

I hated those chemical tables in school, but was fascinated by atoms and electrons, and that comment about the four fundamental energies is giving me food for thought. The maths will always be beyond me but conceptually I get the idea and find it absolutely fascinating too. I am getting a wider picture and a greater understanding thanks to you scientists. But I suggest that until you can step outside the limiting box you will not, at least conceptually, get the full picture.

Also to tie it into the Trinity thing, I was doing a bit of fast re-reading last night and came across this reference. The Trinity really came about to explain the difference between the basic idea and the in-depth idea of the christian religion. Aristotle noted that people attended the mystery schools/religions not to learn (matein) but to experience (pathein). Basil, bishop of Ceasarea 329-79 defined the same in the christian sense as dogma and kerygma. Kerygma was the public teaching of the Church based on the scriptures. Dogma however represented the deeper meaning of the biblical truth, which could only be apprehended through religious experience and expressed in symbolic form. Beside the gospels a secret or esoteric tradition had been handed down 'in a mystery' from the apostles; this had been a 'private and secret teaching',
"which our holy fathers have preserved in a silence that prevents anxiety and curiosity..... so as to safeguard by this silence the sacred character of the mystery. The uninitiated are not permitted to behold these things: thier meaning is not to be divulged by writing it down"
Behind the liturgical symbols and the lucid teaching of Jesus there was a secret dogma which represented a more developed understanding of the faith.

The secret teachings have largely been suppressed by the Catholic church which means only the form and basic teachings, enough for a simple medieval people have been maintained. By arguing only from this basis, or by equating all religion to this basis one simply misses the bigger picture and hence has a weaker argument.

In the east the orthodox church has the idea of the Trinity as a way to take the inner mystery public and allow people to experience the oneness of it all. The western church reduced it to a legalistic concept thus reducing God to a human level and human way of thinking.

I suggest that Excognito has left behind the basic teaching and is allowing the scriptures to show him 'dogma', which is how it should be.

We come back to the we believe through our personal experiences pov versus the where is the scientific evidence bit. The original idea of Christianity needed experience to fully appreciate it, as is stressed by other belief systems. I can't provide scientific evidence Sticky, though it doesn't mean I am wrong, (or right for that matter) but it does mean to have an idea conceptually of my argument one has to leave basic christainity to one side. The only thing I can do is invite you over here, to sit under a fig tree with me and pull up a prayer mat followed by a fascinating pagan ritual involving the dedication of natural plants such as barley via a fermentation process, to the health of one's fellow man. It's called having a few beers together.

Dwarf,

This might sound rude but that is not my intention. I am just trying to clarify my view.

The reason that a lot of my posts reference Christianity is because that was the religion that I escaped from. I tend to quote the Bible for the same reason.

When it comes to alternative religions I just don't bother learning. There are so many religions that I will not live long enough to learn them all.

I like the way that science works and if any religion can provide evidence in that way, I would be fascinated and damned willing to learn. Until then, I am not.

I will not live long enough to absorb all the evidence based human knowledge, so I am damned if I will spend time learning evidence-free stuff.

I do not think that you are "wrong" to live your life as you choose to, I just don't accept it as "right" for me.

[Dashing_Chap]

Hello chaps,

Please forgive me if I’m repeating covered ground as I don’t have the pleasure of time to peruse through the countless pages of this fab thread.

I have been reading around very widely covering a strange diversity of topics in my search for an answer to ‘the big question’ which led from philosophy to physics, (Richard Feynman et al) & eventually to non linear dynamics & Chaos Theory. One fundamental aspect of Chaos Theory that I stumbled across was the Mandelbrot Set, this bizarre creature is an infinite series of patterns laid out according to a mathematical equation. Now when I say infinite I really do mean infinite, you could keep zooming in on this pattern ad inifnitum from the beginning of time to the end of the universe & you would still see new patterns emerging, which incidentally makes the pattern larger than the entire universe itself & is a rather shocking principle to say the least!*

This leads me to ponder whether the universe itself is a factual & whether similarities of it may even appear in the Mandelbrot Set? To make things even more complicated apparently the Mandelbrot Set is only one of countless mathematical factuals that all go on forever. The theory of infinity is a curious one though as you can get small infinities, between 1 & 2 you get 1.11111111…etc, yet this is a smaller number than 2 & certainly smaller than the classic understanding of infinity that most people are used to.

Naturally I would be the first to admit that my mind is fairly illogical & I have no business to venture into the higher realms of mathematics, tho if anyone else has considered similar reflections it would be interesting to confide.

&c,

~D.C.

*Further Details on Mandelbrot Set
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB8m85p7GsU

[Sisyphus]

Sisyphus,

This debate kicked off with you saying:

Richard Dawkins has convinced me that there probably is a God. Not long ago on a TV interview he said that the chances of life arising spontaneously from a random combination of inorganic chemicals is so vanishingly small as to be impossible. But he went on to say, 'But we're here, so it must have happened.'

Note the word impossible. Perhaps he really said “almost impossible” or “seemingly impossible”, or perhaps he made a verbal error as we all do.

You really are splitting hairs, aren't you! You'll note that I only put the last sentence in quotes to indicate his precise wording. In any event, if we're adopting scientific method then Dawkins' own words in his book of 'a billion, billion, billion to one' is WAY BEYOND improbable based on the standards of science.

In any event, when Sticky finds the clip I am confident that he'll see the word was 'impossible'. Not that it would alter what scientists lay down in terms of statistically standards.

[billybongo]

I believe in the existence of Richard Dawkins, I just don't believe him.


Edited to add: The arrogant, sophist cnut.

Odd that. I believe in the existence of Jesus, Mohammed, Joseph and Mary. Paul and the other scribes probably existed. Lazarus may even have existed too. But I don't believe them.

Lying cunts. Especially Mary.

[Sisyphus]

Look, you said you saw this on TV. You then said that you had "rewound" it and watched it again to check. If you have done that you should have no problem in telling us the programme name, which channel it was aired and how far into it he said what you claim.

Sticky

Once again, you're making assumptions based on no facts. Facts:

1. I saw the programme
2. What Dawkins said seemed to be so against his normal position I rewound it to make sure I hadn't misheard. Scouse used the word 'stunned' - which is a fair description
3. The programme was last year [possibly earlier]
4 I can't remember which one of his TV appearences it was [he is seen quite often, as you know. Unless, of course, you think I do know and I'm not revealing it for some odd reason?

5. You say `I should have no problem in telling you the programme name. You really haven't been listening to what I've been saying have you? a) Dawkins is a frequent face on TV; b) I've seen a lot of those appearances; c) I can't remember which one he said it on; d) I said I rewound it to listen to it again. I didn't say I'd recorded it - if I had I could have, obviously, told you what it was at the start. Why on earth wouldn't I?
6. Believe it or not [I'm sure you won't] when I watch programmes I'm more interested in what's being said and shown. I have no reason to try and remember the Titles of programmes.
7. You ask for evidence from me of a sort you couldn't provide yourself.
8. You can't remember the programme title of programmes you saw a few weeks ago, never mind a year ago - yet you think I can?
9. I've provided the quote from Climbing Mount Improbable on which his comment was obviously based.
10. In the book - as I put in "quotes" in my initial post - he offers as his scientific proof the fact that 'we're here'.
11. Your disbelief about the TV programme is solely based on the fact you haven't seen it and believe me to be mistaken
12. Irrespective of (11.) there remains the extract from his book.

Once you provide that information we can all look it up, see that you are correct and apologise for doubting you (or explain how you misunderstood).

Considering that you claimed that you are deciding to live your life according to that quip, it would be rather strange if you are not interested in investigating it further.

What on earth would I want to research it further for? I saw the interview; I've provided the extract from his book. What more could there possibly be to explore? Exactly what do you want to research?
Is your belief system based on whether the word was impossible or improbable or one of the other versions Scouse suggested? If you do find the clip I'm as sure as I can possibly be that he said 'impossible'. But so what? Don't you believe the extract from the book which explains in far greater detail than a two sentence clip from an interview what Dawkins' position is? Do you think one word would motive the scientific community to alter how they view statistical method based on Dawkins what wrote?

The one thing I would say to your argument is that, in science, nothing can ever be proved to be an 'absolute' truth.

One last point. Let's say Dawkins did say 'impossible' in the clip [go on, humour me!]. He clearly wrote improbable in his book. Would you condemn him because in an unscripted interview on TV he didn't use precisely the word he'd used in his book? Surely not?

[StickyEnd]

http://video.google.co.uk/videosearc...&hl=en&tab=wv#

I am not having much luck.

[kitten97]

I'm not totally a religious but I believe in God

[Cuddles]

One last point. Let's say Dawkins did say 'impossible' in the clip [go on, humour me!]. He clearly wrote improbable in his book. Would you condemn him because in an unscripted interview on TV he didn't use precisely the word he'd used in his book? Surely not?

Burn him, he's obviously an auto-heretic, disagreeing with himself in public. He should be ashamed.

Sisyphus - have you got time to post in here? That rock won't roll itself up a hill...

[Sisyphus]

Sisyphus - have you got time to post in here? That rock won't roll itself up a hill...

Great point. This IS the rock!

:D

Although I think you've underlined my point very well. Dawkins' quote was based on his book. It would be wrong (well, extremely unreasonable at least) to criticize him if his 'on the hoof' comment in an interview didn't exactly replicate his words in the book

[Excognito]

I suggest that Excognito has left behind the basic teaching and is allowing the scriptures to show him 'dogma', which is how it should be.

Given your definitions, that is a possibility.

Let's consider the nature of the Bible. It is clear from even a superficial reading that there are literal contradictions or factual errors. So the question arises as what the response should be and how they might be viewed.

One, and perhaps the most obvous one, is that they undermine the integrity of the whole structure, justifying the view that it is (significantly) false. If something is claimed to be inerrant, and it contains errors ...

Another is that there might have been errors in the recording of the data. For example, an after action might note that Cpl Bloggs did something rather than Pvt Smith, due to, eg, the author misinterpreting who did what, or somebody misrembering (or falsely claiming things) or the circumstances making it appear that way. This would not invalidate the fact that a given action occured but would cast doubt upon the details. So one might still accord a degree of belief to things that were not directly affected by the contradiction. In a Biblical sense, would the fact that one verse claims X was 20 whilst another says X was 70 when something happened, be significant enough to warrant disbelief in the Bible as a whole? Or even whole sections, given that they were written by different authors getting different accounts? This would be equivalent to (after due explanation) discounting an outlier or seeing the message through the noise - to stretch the analogy a bit further, there may be sufficient information in the context to carry out simple error correction (eg, it's plain Bloggs was doing something else, Smith is mentioned in the surrounding text, therefore it is likely that 'Bloggs' should be 'Smith')

Or it might be that (some of) the contradictions are present because a section is meant to make a point rather than be a fully detailed analysis. By analogy, this would be the equivalent of a old-fashioned ad for insurance, which just gives the main outline of an offer rather than a complete list of exclusions "Terms and conditions apply, not available in certain post codes, read the small print, blah, blah, blah ....". Bits of the Bible are bad enough with all that begatting - imagine what the Sermon on the Mount would be like if every statement was hidden in a cloud of nit-picking legalese (You will find the operational definition of 'meek' at Appendix 2 to Annex A of Matthew 2 dated 30 Mar 81. Other behaviours will be taken into account as defined in Annex C, Entrance Criteria, to the Heaven Residential Status Policy document (Ref 2)). Of course, this would have made some people a lot happier, as it would have given them explicit guidelines that could be tested by simple, direct analysis and that they, or a machine, could live by ... provided such analysis left time for living.

Alternatively, the "errors" could be deliberate, and meant to make one consider multiple aspects of a situation. For example, why are there 2 distinct creation events in Genesis? A (loose) analogy for such contradictions would be the fact that some experiments indicate that certain objects (eg, electrons) can give the impression they are particles or that they are waves, depending upon a number of environmental and measurement factors. Such "errors" could also serve to eliminate certain interpretations precisely because those interpretations do cause contradiction, and it reduces the need to be overly explicit.

The existence of contradictions and factual errors is why I am not a Literalist. The fact that there are means of reasonably interpreting the Bible with a degree of consistency is part of the rationale for my not rejecting the Testaments.

For those who would like at least one 'official' view of how to interpret the Bible, http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_cs...m/p1s1c2a3.htm - for example:
109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.
110 In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."
111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."

We come back to the we believe through our personal experiences pov versus the where is the scientific evidence bit. The original idea of Christianity needed experience to fully appreciate it, as is stressed by other belief systems. I can't provide scientific evidence Sticky, though it doesn't mean I am wrong, (or right for that matter) ...

Agreed. However, I must re-iterate the difference between the application of the scientific method to the verification of hypotheses versus the intuitional nature of the thoughts that can lead to those hypotheses or the means by which hypotheses are verified. An analogy one physicist uses is along the lines of the distinction between carrying out the five-fingered exercises necessary to become a pianist versus the 'musicality' that you need to 'play' the Hammerklavier. (as anybody who has ever heard me at the keyboard can attest to, I can hit some of the right keys but what comes out can only be described as anti-music, whereas somebody like Earl Wilde could hit plenty of wrong notes and still have it sound magnificent. In fact, rumour has it that Cage threatened to rip up the score for 4'33" after he heard me have a go at it)