|
|
Post by krkey1 on Nov 27, 2009 0:14:14 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by krkey1 on Nov 27, 2009 0:20:15 GMT
Oh here is another site you might like www.openmindsite.com/dl.htmI am the resident Parapsychologist around here and that website is a great introduction in evidence for life after death. |
|
|
|
Post by perplexedseeker on Nov 27, 2009 0:58:44 GMT
I noticed Mr. Wilson is confident that there is a naturalistic explanation for the origins of morality, and basically anything that can be attributed to a Creator. Indeed. And this is exactly why I think he is one of the most effective critics of the NAs, because he demonstrates how their ideas are unworkable even in a purely naturalistic framework, and additionally exhibit contempt for the scientific method that they claim to defend. It's important, I think, to look at all sides in these debates, particularly the various "shades of grey", because they usually contain the most convincing insights. As to whether you believe that metaphysical naturalism itself is true, as Wilson believes, is a different matter, which is firmly in the realms of philosophy, not science. It was issues like this that compelled me to take up the study of philosophy once I realised that there were places science could not go (due to the philosophical framework science itself is built on). Personally I have no problem with the idea of morality arising through evolutionary processes, since that itself says nothing about its ultimate origins, only the means by which it historically arose in humans (and to a lesser extent in other sentient animals). It is always possible to draw many conclusions from such a fact. For example, a biological origin of morality is certainly no threat to the concept of a divinely-inspired universal (though admittedly not necessarily Christian) Moral Law, which is traditionally believed among many cultures around the world to be as objective as the other facts of nature. It's even theoretically possible that further studies of the evolution of morality might allow us to confirm the existence and basis of such universal morality. |
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Nov 27, 2009 2:49:56 GMT
Thank you all again for your responses! It's a pleasure! I'm enjoying the conversation, and if I can help in some way as well, then that's a bonus. This is a pretty important topic, and one I'm sure we've discussed here before. But it is worth another look, so I will start a new thread to see what everyone thinks. I think the best book I've read about Jesus is A Spectator's Guide to Jesus by John Dickson, but a follow up book, Jesus: A Short Life (which I haven't read) may be easier to get. Dickson is an Aussie historian who did his PhD on the NT period. He is also a christian apologist, but instead of allowing his faith to distort his history, he has allowed his history to inform his faith. I find him very honest and fair-minded, and he knows how to communicate. These books are popular rather than academic. Trivia: he was formerly leader of a good but obscure rock band, In the Silence. I haven't read more than a few bits, but others here recommend JP Holding's "Shattering the Christ Myth" for a more detailed look at that topic - you can read quite a bit of it on Google books to get a preview. Best wishes. |
|
|
|
Post by eastshore4 on Dec 1, 2009 21:16:03 GMT
I probably should've realized that it's a philosophical argument and not a scientific argument, thanks perplexed. Also thank you for creating that discussion link unklee!
I will check out your links krkey, thank you. To be honest I'm not so much interested in their validity, I was more curious as to their place in apologetics. When I first started the post, I actually figured they didn't get much mention because they are hard to verify and/or made for bad arguments but they certainly seem compelling.
If I might just ask one last question... I hope this doesn't seem redundant in lieu of the article almortiz provided me with, but please bear with me:
It seems like a lot of convincing evidence for God(at least in the scientific aspect) is emphasized with the apparent fine tuning of the universe. For a while now I took this argument for granted, and was rather ignorant to the multiverse/string theory arguments. I've been looking into this more though and I'm now a bit confused.
I've read a few articles now as to why the multiverse idea doesn't work, but I still can't shrug off since it is apparently "gaining credibility"(you might say that the more detailed the argument gets, the harder time I have seeing the big picture). Combining this with The fact that string theory is legitimately researched(although still hasn't reached that supposed breakthrough they were expecting 25 years ago) can't let me just toss it aside so easily. Indeed, although I have read of those who are dismissive of it, they still seem to concede that it could just be a matter of time.
I think my problem with these is that I have a hard time understanding exactly how to look at this issue. Some people completely toss the multiverse/string theory aside as nothing more than a metaphysical assumption. Others however, are stating that there is science involved, and I've even heard that some are looking towards the results of the LHC to validate some of these theories. Obviously the multiverse/string theories don't eliminate the possibility of God's existence, but it does seem to strike a pretty large blow to apologetics, at least when it comes to fine-tuning. I just want to make sure I'm getting the "straight dope" here when people talk about how weak of an idea the multiverse and/or string theories are... when it comes to the big bang, I've read a lot of apologists remarking about it's religious implications, then as a slight aside mention "oh yeah there are some pre-big bang theories but let's not talk about that"(this is more or less the very remark made by antony flew in his conversion book) so I want to make sure this issue isn't being represented in the same way. I'm trying to get into Peter Woit's blog, but I sort of want to make sure that Woit and Lee Smolin don't represent the fringe of physics.
Perhaps this leads to another question too... if the multiverse idea really is rubbish, why do so many want to support it? It seems rather hard to believe that many top scientists like Martin Rees would promote the multiverse theory in simply to avoid the implications of God, but then again I am reminded of "Bertrand Russell's syndrome". Furthermore, why do you figure so many scientists(maybe not "so many", but at least the majority) are atheists or unbelievers? Allister McGrath has remarked that his atheist co-workers "don't base their atheism on their studies", so I'm wondering what causes such a mass appeal of atheism in the sciences.
|
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Dec 1, 2009 22:00:36 GMT
I just want to make sure I'm getting the "straight dope" here when people talk about how weak of an idea the multiverse and/or string theories are... when it comes to the big bang, I've read a lot of apologists remarking about it's religious implications, then as a slight aside mention "oh yeah there are some pre-big bang theories but let's not talk about that"(this is more or less the very remark made by antony flew in his conversion book) so I want to make sure this issue isn't being represented in the same way. I'm trying to get into Peter Woit's blog, but I sort of want to make sure that Woit and Lee Smolin don't represent the fringe of physics. Perhaps this leads to another question too... if the multiverse idea really is rubbish, why do so many want to support it? It seems rather hard to believe that many top scientists like Martin Rees would promote the multiverse theory in simply to avoid the implications of God Good question. Any scientist, whether atheist or theist is committed to methodological naturalism; that is the natural explanation has to be pushed as far as it will possible go. The way this has worked theologically since the Middle Ages is that God is invoked as the primary cause and he works through secondary (natural) causation. One doesn't invoke ad-hoc supernatural explanations in matters of natural philosophy or make unnecessary recourse to the primary cause. Saying 'god did it' doesn't tell you very much. Hence any natural explanation of the universe has to be supported, even if it appears to look a tad contrived, as is the case with a lot of multiverse theories. But since they invoke natural explanations they fall within the domain of science and can be used to construct theories which can generate predictions. What the apologetics have to do is demonstrate that the natural explanations invoked fail as ultimate explanations, which they do. Interestingly the only time the subject of multiverses was addressed by the church was by Bishop Étienne Tempier of Paris in 1277. He ruled that God could create as many universes as he wanted. To say that he couldn't would be to place limits on his omnipotence. |
|
|
|
Post by Al Moritz on Dec 1, 2009 22:42:41 GMT
Eastshore, in my article I wanted to point out that the multiverse is not/cannot be science, at least not in the usual sense of science based on observation and experiment. This does not necessarily imply that the multiverse should not be taken seriously as philosophy, or as a hypothesis from science. It is not necessarily rubbish. As I say: "Another reason for the postulation of a multiverse may be a purely scientific one, resulting from the combination of inflation and string theory (explained elsewhere on the web or in books, e,g, The Cosmic Landscape by Susskind). This scientific reason also leads some theistic physicists like Stephen Barr and Don Page to embrace the idea." (For those who haven't read it, here is the link: home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosmological-arguments-god.htm ) and I've even heard that some are looking towards the results of the LHC to validate some of these theories.That does not work. As I argue: "Yet perhaps eventually we will arrive at a theory that is considered the correct fundamental theory of physics – it will account for all observations in cosmology and particle physics, it will be well-tested by experiment, will lead to many correct predictions, and will have a tight structure. The equations of that future theory may imply that the universe has a multiverse structure with each of the domains having physical parameters with different values. One might suggest that this may constitute a ‘theoretical proof’ that the multiverse is correct. However, in order to qualify as science in the usual sense there would still need to be observational proof that the multiverse, which is expressed in these equations as mere potentiality, is in fact actualized (confusing potentialities with actualities is a grave mistake in science). Such an observational proof is not possible." (Because of the particle horizon, see my article.) Obviously the multiverse/string theories don't eliminate the possibility of God's existence, but it does seem to strike a pretty large blow to apologetics, at least when it comes to fine-tuning.No, it does not, at least if the multiverse is understood properly. As I argue in my article (and as also Stephen Barr points out who likes the multiverse), the multiverse does not solve the overall design problem. It does solve the fine-tuning problem of our particular universe, but it introduces fine-tuning problems of its own. It does not solve anything, design-wise. Paul Davies: "The multiverse theory is increasingly popular, but it doesn’t so much explain the laws of physics as dodge the whole issue. There has to be a physical mechanism to make all those universes and bestow bylaws on them. This process will require its own laws, or meta-laws. Where do they come from? The problem has simply been shifted up a level from the laws of the universe to the meta-laws of the multiverse." Humphrey wrote: Interestingly the only time the subject of multiverses was addressed by the church was by Bishop Étienne Tempier of Paris in 1277. He ruled that God could create as many universes as he wanted. To say that he couldn't would be to place limits on his omnipotence.Quite so. I also say in my article: Alternatively, God worked with a multiverse as an intermediate,... This does not address the option though that God could have generated as many interesting universes as he wanted without a 'many-universe generator', which would produce a lot of really uninteresting and sterile universes next to the few that would contain life, or just any structures really. |
|
|
|
Post by eastshore4 on Dec 1, 2009 23:11:50 GMT
Very good points, I should have just paid more attention to your article... when I was looking into this issue I think I was a bit too caught up in the potential conflict.
|
|
|
|
Post by eastshore4 on Dec 18, 2009 2:39:07 GMT
Hey guys, I had a couple more questions if anyone has a moment to answer.
-I didn't get to see it, but I noticed a show on the National Geographic Channel called "Jesus' Rivals" or something... it was about other teachers during Jesus' time, and it got me to wondering. I was always under the impression that Jesus sort of came out of the blue with some rather radical ideas, but is this true if there were other teachers out teaching similiar lessons? Granted, the last NGC show I saw concerning Christianity was about Jesus Myths so I'm taking this with a grain of salt, but this was still something that seemed interesting.
-This is perhaps a rather broad question but do you think there really is any way to "give religion a boost?" Here in the US, the whole evolution conflict is still a pretty big problem, which among other issues seem to both cause alot of infighting amongst theists(I don't quite understand why, but I also noticed there's something of a conflict between Islam and Christianity), and only seems to leave an open the door for fundie atheist criticisms. From what I understand, secularism is increasing in europe, and although Christianity thrives elsewhere, it comes in a rather evangelical form. Do you think anything can be done to course-correct religion so to speak?
|
|
|
|
Post by perplexedseeker on Dec 18, 2009 4:09:58 GMT
I don't really know enough to answer your first question, but as for your second, I wish I knew. I often ask myself the same thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Dec 18, 2009 10:10:11 GMT
I was always under the impression that Jesus sort of came out of the blue with some rather radical ideas, but is this true if there were other teachers out teaching similiar lessons? There are certainly many other people who have said some things similar to Jesus over the years - the concept of "do unto others as you would have done to you" is hardly unique to Christianity, and Jesus was the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy, so we'd expect to see similar ideas perhaps promoted by other messianic pretenders. This is the sort of thing that could be said about any revolutionary or leader. What made Jesus stand out were his claims to divinity and the authority with which he spoke - that's why people tried to stone him, and you'll struggle to find anyone else from that time who made similar claims. And yes, I'd take National Geographic Channel religion programmes with a hefty pinch of salt  |
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Dec 18, 2009 11:31:42 GMT
it was about other teachers during Jesus' time, and it got me to wondering. I was always under the impression that Jesus sort of came out of the blue with some rather radical ideas, but is this true if there were other teachers out teaching similiar lessons? I agree with Jamie, it would be strange to suppose that Jesus grew up in a vacuum and didn't get input from his contemporaries and those who came before him. But my reading suggests it was not just the OT prophets that Jesus would draw on, or other reformers or fake messiahs who he might sound like. I have read that many of Jesus teaching and examples reflect contemporary controversies. For example, there were (among others) two strong schools of thought in 1st century Judaism, based around the teachings of two rabbis, Hillel and Shammai, who lived a little earlier than Jesus did. Shammai was generally conservative whereas Hillel was more progressive. Experts say that some of the discussions Jesus had with crowds or with the religious leaders were of topics where Hillel and Shammai disagreed, and Jesus generally gave teachings closer to Hillel. If you Google these two names, you can find out more - see e.g. this site (the first that came up). I don't think we should be too surprised by this. Christians don't claim that we have all the ethical truths. Rather, we accept that God's light can shine into any life, and we also acknowledge that we are far from perfect. So there is bound to be continuity between Jesus' teachings and those of other good people. But I believe Jesus gave new insights into ethical teachings, and carried them into much more radical territory - for example "love your enemies and pray for those who mistreat you" is still radical today, even (perhaps especially) in the supposedly most christian nation in the world. I think Jesus' innovation was mostly elsewhere. For example, the OT talked of two figures - the coming King or Messiah, and the Suffering Servant of Isaiah. The Jews, in the main, were looking for a conquering Messiah who would endorse their existing views on life and God and ethics, drive out the hated occupying Roman forces and make Israel a great nation - a warrior king. But Jesus showed that their views on ethics were wrong (they could never achieve righteousness that way), and that he was a suffering messiah, not a conquering one. He calls his followers to be servants like him, not "lords". He identified with the poor and outcasts and calls us to do the same. I grew up (if I ever grew up!) in the 1960s, when optimism and idealism reigned supreme. Long-lasting and good outcomes proved hard to get, but I still feel to some degree that "we need to be the change we want to see". So I think the only way to course correct is to pray for change and for guidance, and then start living the change as best we can. Hopelessly optimistic? Perhaps. But better than not trying. Best wishes. |
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Dec 21, 2009 12:26:32 GMT
I agree with Jamie, it would be strange to suppose that Jesus grew up in a vacuum and didn't get input from his contemporaries and those who came before him. But my reading suggests it was not just the OT prophets that Jesus would draw on, or other reformers or fake messiahs who he might sound like. I have read that many of Jesus teaching and examples reflect contemporary controversies. For example, there were (among others) two strong schools of thought in 1st century Judaism, based around the teachings of two rabbis, Hillel and Shammai, who lived a little earlier than Jesus did. Shammai was generally conservative whereas Hillel was more progressive. Experts say that some of the discussions Jesus had with crowds or with the religious leaders were of topics where Hillel and Shammai disagreed, and Jesus generally gave teachings closer to Hillel. If you Google these two names, you can find out more - see e.g. I think that the teachings themselves are important and as Unklee points out, they are rooted in the more progressive Judaic ethics of the time; although they go a lot further in some cases. However I think, as important, if not more important is the context of those teachings which was Jewish 1st Century apocalypticism; the imminent arrival of the kingdom of God which would destroy all evil and bring the age to a sudden and catastrophic end. That is what appears to have been the inspiration and the conditioning for the basic Christian ethic of confronting god obediently and neighbour lovingly. That, coupled with the radical theological claims probably best explains the effectiveness of Christian ethics. So, as Paul Ramsey says, the apocalyptic framework 'acted as a burning glass to bring biblical ethics to pinpoint focus and intensity'. |
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Dec 23, 2009 8:55:06 GMT
Good point, UnkleE. It's easy to miss the subtle influences of local controversies which, though important at the time, are sometimes not mentioned explicitly by the Gospel authors.
|
|
|
|
Post by eastshore4 on Jan 5, 2010 13:59:30 GMT
I had some questions about philosophy if anyone has a moment... I noticed Jim S posted an article on his blog about how philosophers are still largely atheist, by apparently a 4:1 ratio. Now these statistics could be iffy(one person says it's skewed but if I understand his reasoning it's because they only counted the highest-ranking philosophers... I'm not really convinced by this argument) but it really did make me curious: as far as apologetics goes do you think polls like this have any argumentive weight? It certainly doesn't make sense to appeal to scientist's beliefs like Dawkins does, but it's a little harder to argue with someone who appeals to philosophers since these kind of issues are their forte. It's a silly question I'm sure but it sort of stumps me how to respond if someone used it against me in a discussion... if the arguments for God's existence are so sound why doesn't it phase many of the great thinkers of the world? On another note, are there any Christian philosophers you might recommend? I'm familiar with Craig and Plantinga, both of whom are quite interesting to read although some of their views are a bit off-putting. I've been meaning to check out Richard Swineburne, do you have any other suggestions? Are there any other christian blogs that you guys enjoy reading? I've been poking around but so far I'm rather disappointed since a lot of blogs seem to be more conservative or evangelical than what I prefer. "Atheism is Dead" was just... bad. Oh and here's the link to that article I mentioned at the top: thomism.wordpress.com/2009/12/14/we-are-all-atheists-now-say-prominent-atheists/ |
|
