I haven't said that you need to prove that god exists by empirical methods. I have simply asked for a plausible basis for your belief. You have provided none.
Setanta wrote:I haven't said that you need to prove that god exists by empirical methods. I have simply asked for a plausible basis for your belief. You have provided none.
Perhaps we disagree on what constitutes plausible.
Setanta wrote:Since that is not what i've done, or ever do, your remark is a non-sequitur --which describes about 19 out of 20 of your posts.
Can you provide a plausible basis for that belief?
neologist wrote:Setanta wrote:I haven't said that you need to prove that god exists by empirical methods. I have simply asked for a plausible basis for your belief. You have provided none.
Perhaps we disagree on what constitutes plausible.
Translation: You still don't intend to answer the question.
Leaving aside, for the moment, and only for sake of discussion, the question of whether or not there is a deity, upon what basis do you assert that the "bible" is the one and only true source for knowledge of that god? Do you assert that the bible is inerrant? If so, how do you account for matters such as two geneologies for your boy Jesus which do not agree? How do you account for the fairy story about the census by Augustus which required Joseph and Mary to go to the place of birth of Joseph? (A Roman census only ever counted Roman citizens, there was no reason to, and no evidence in any reputable historical source that the Emperor ever conducted an empire-wide census of all the inhabitants--and your boy Joseph is not to be considered a Roman citizen. Additionally, at the height of the Augustan empire, there were more than 7,000,000 Roman citizens in the empire. Imagine, if you will, the kind of logistical nightmare which would ensue if seven million people decided today, in an age of automobiles, trains and air liners, to all at once return to the place of their birth--and then consider what greater degree of logistical nightmare would have ensued 2000 years ago.)
If only for the sake of discussion, i were to leave aside the question of why you believe there is a deity, you still have the problem that you have opted for a particularist theology, and to make it more than mere credulity, you'd have to provide a plausible basis for asserting that it is any more compelling than any other theology.
Here's another reason. Better educated people tend to have more money, and church is a social scene... where people often go to pray someone will show up with money....
From Misquoting Jesus pp63-65
The story of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery is arguably the best-known story about Jesus in the Bible; it certainly has always been a favorite in Hollywood versions of his life. It even makes it into Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, although that movie focuses only on Jesus's last hours (the story is treated in one of the rare flashbacks). Despite its popularity, the account is found only in one passage of the New Testament, in John 7:53-8:12, and it appears not to have been original even here.
It is a brilliant story, filled with pathos and a clever twist in which Jesus uses his wits to get himself -- not to mention the poor woman -- off the hook. Of course, to a careful reader, the story raises numerous questions. If this woman was caught in the act of adultery, for example, where is the man she was caught with? Both of them are to be stoned, according to the Law of Moses (see Lev. 20:10). Moreover, when Jesus wrote on the ground, what exactly was he writing? (According to one ancient tradition, he was writing the sins of the accusers, who seeing that their own transgressions were known, left in embarrassment!) And even if Jesus did teach a message of love, did he really think that the Law of God given by Moses was no longer in force and should not be obeyed? Did he think sins should not be punished at all?
Despite the brilliance of the story, its capitvating quality, and its inherent intrigue, there is one other enormous problem that it poses. As it turns out, it was not originally in the Gospel of John. In fact, it was not originally part of any of the Gospels. It was added later by scribes.
How do we know this? In fact, scholars who work on the manuscript tradition have no doubts about this particular case. Later in this book we will be examining in greater depth the kinds of evidence that scholars adduce for making judgements of this sort. Here I can simply point out a few basic facts that have proved convincing to nearly all scholars of every persuasion: the story is not found in our oldest and best manuscripts of the Gospel of John; its writing style is very different from what we find in the rest of John (including the stories immediately before and after); and it included a large number of words and phrases that are otherwise alien to the Gospel. The conclusion is unavoidable: this passage was not originally part of the Gospel.
How then did it come to be added? There are numerous theories about that. Most scholars think that it was probably a well-known story circulating in the oral tradition about Jesus, which at some point was added in a margin of a manuscript. From there some scribe or other thought that the marginal note was meant to be part of the text, and so inserted it immediately after the account that ends in John 7:52. It is noteworthy that other scribes inserted the account in different locations in the New Testament -- some of them after John 21:25, for example, and others, interestingly enough, after Luke 21:38. In any event, whoever wrote the account, it was not John.
That naturally leaves readers with a dilemma: if this story was not originally part of John, should it be considered part of the Bible? Not everyone will respond to this question in the same way, but for most textual critics, the answer is no.
neologist (to Setanta) wrote:You ignore my repeated admissions that belief in God cannot be obtained by empirical methods, only by circumstance and experience. That does not rule out the operation of logic.
Again... are you simply unable to articulate in logical form why you believe as you do?
echi wrote:neologist (to Setanta) wrote:You ignore my repeated admissions that belief in God cannot be obtained by empirical methods, only by circumstance and experience. That does not rule out the operation of logic.
Again... are you simply unable to articulate in logical form why you believe as you do?
Apparently not according to your perception of what is logical. When I said you would have to walk my walk, so to speak, I never meant to claim that you would reach the same conclusion as I, or the same faith. In fact, it has been my experience that most do not. However, many at least come away with an understanding of how I arrived at my conclusion.
What surprises me in a way is that, although I am killer at logic puzzles such as Sudoku, and a whiz at the NY Times crossword, I don't seem to be able to expound an idea as simple as faith, or as simple as I understand faith to be.
Is it perhaps that some folks are looking for the profound answer? I don't think it exists.
The basis for what is logical and not logical is easy to determine.
cicerone imposter wrote:The basis for what is logical and not logical is easy to determine.
Of course!
Just let me state the rules! :wink:
I would suggest that the correlation between education and religious belief is stronger if we compare types of education (i.e., technical vs. humanistic) and type of Christian religion (one that is fundamentalist/literalist vs. a more philosophically or consciously metaphorical type).
Humanistically educated individuals are more likely to be either atheistic or practicioners of a more profound (mystical and poetic) Christianity.
Then, again, there are two forms of atheism: (1) a superficial one that denies God but nevertheless sees the world in terms of the kinds of GIVEN moral and metaphysical absolutes that could only come from some kind of external Creator, and (2) a form of what some people would call nihilistic atheism which assigns all meaning to the creativity of enlightened (grown up) human beings. This latter distinction was developed by Nietzsche.
JLNobody wrote:I would suggest that the correlation between education and religious belief is stronger if we compare types of education (i.e., technical vs. humanistic) and type of Christian religion (one that is fundamentalist/literalist vs. a more philosophically or consciously metaphorical type).
Humanistically educated individuals are more likely to be either atheistic or practicioners of a more profound (mystical and poetic) Christianity.
If you will go back further in the thread, you will see a link i provided to a study sponsored by Harvard (JPB originally posted a summary, which put me on the trail to that study). It purports that increasing education results in increased church attendance across individuals, and decreased church attendance across denominations. You might find it interesting.
neologist wrote:echi wrote:neologist (to Setanta) wrote:You ignore my repeated admissions that belief in God cannot be obtained by empirical methods, only by circumstance and experience. That does not rule out the operation of logic.
Again... are you simply unable to articulate in logical form why you believe as you do?
Apparently not according to your perception of what is logical. When I said you would have to walk my walk, so to speak, I never meant to claim that you would reach the same conclusion as I, or the same faith. In fact, it has been my experience that most do not. However, many at least come away with an understanding of how I arrived at my conclusion.
What surprises me in a way is that, although I am killer at logic puzzles such as Sudoku, and a whiz at the NY Times crossword, I don't seem to be able to expound an idea as simple as faith, or as simple as I understand faith to be.
Is it perhaps that some folks are looking for the profound answer? I don't think it exists.
Would you be willing to walk me through it? (If not, that's okay-- I know it's a lot to ask of anyone.) I know that you are a respectful and thoughtful poster and that you and I have very different (maybe opposing) beliefs. I am interested in understanding your reasons-- the process that led you to believe as you do. If you would share the questions you faced and the ways you dealt with them I think it would force me to examine my own convictions. Of course, I don't mean to suggest that I think my convictions will change any, but it does happen from time to time here at A2K... sometimes, when I least expect it!
So, what do you say? Maybe you could start with the "If God exists" questions from a few pages back.
JLNobody wrote:[. . .] Then, again, there are two forms of atheism: (1) a superficial one that denies God but nevertheless sees the world in terms of the kinds of GIVEN moral and metaphysical absolutes that could only come from some kind of external Creator, and (2) a form of what some people would call nihilistic atheism which assigns all meaning to the creativity of enlightened (grown up) human beings. This latter distinction was developed by Nietzsche.
I'm afraid that I may be one of those "superficial" types (although I don't believe in a Creator). Is it not a fact that no one likes to experience suffering? Couldn't so-called moral absolutes be grounded in this universal truth?
I agree with echi. I don't understand why people claim that morality requires a diety. I do not believe in any creator and yet I am moral - for the most part. :-)
USAF, Most people are "moral for the most part." We can only observe by other people's actions their true character, and what people "think" are most often hidden from view.
Setanta wrote: Do you assert that the bible is inerrant?
As a matter of fact, I do.
Setanta wrote: If so, how do you account for matters such as two geneologies for your boy Jesus which do not agree? How do you account for the fairy story about the census by Augustus which required Joseph and Mary to go to the place of birth of Joseph? (A Roman census only ever counted Roman citizens, there was no reason to, and no evidence in any reputable historical source that the Emperor ever conducted an empire-wide census of all the inhabitants--and your boy Joseph is not to be considered a Roman citizen. Additionally, at the height of the Augustan empire, there were more than 7,000,000 Roman citizens in the empire. Imagine, if you will, the kind of logistical nightmare which would ensue if seven million people decided today, in an age of automobiles, trains and air liners, to all at once return to the place of their birth--and then consider what greater degree of logistical nightmare would have ensued 2000 years ago.)
If only for the sake of discussion, i were to leave aside the question of why you believe there is a deity, you still have the problem that you have opted for a particularist theology, and to make it more than mere credulity, you'd have to provide a plausible basis for asserting that it is any more compelling than any other theology.
I'll take a few of these and others here:
http://able2know.com/forums/about97061.html
USAFHokie80 wrote:I agree with echi. I don't understand why people claim that morality requires a diety. I do not believe in any creator and yet I am moral - for the most part. :-)
That morality is not a special possession of the believer is a point I made earlier in this thread.
neologist wrote:USAFHokie80 wrote:I agree with echi. I don't understand why people claim that morality requires a diety. I do not believe in any creator and yet I am moral - for the most part. :-)
That morality is not a special possession of the believer is a point I made earlier in this thread.
Well unless there is some great incongruency between his own beliefabout himself, and the way his actions are taken/interpertated it's not an unfair statement.
Diest, Are you really a "nippon no hito?"
