The GOD Delusion:

[gone_fishin]

If I state that the only reason that you dont agree with me is that you dont understand the material due to prejudice or what ever, then I am setting up the parameters of what it means to be a theist.

If you dont agree with me, its because your own prejudices prevent you from seeing the real truth. You will see in every argument what you want to see as you are using the filter of your own fallible existence to measure the infinite. I however am using divine intervention as my rule which allows me a perspective that no infidel could possibly have. Thus, I am infinitely more attuned to the true workings of the physical, as well as the metaphysical world than you could imagine. It doesnt concern me that you dont agree or understand my point of view because you dont have the G chip showing you what is really going on. The idea that observation can rectify this situation only compounds the problem of interpretation. A chimpanzee with a microscope will only see what its mind allows it to see.

This is what the religion sounds like to me, with a certain emphasis on "we're better suited to make important decisions because our faith allows us to know what is right where as you infidels are simple monkeys with tools It sounds somewhat condescending and presumptuous. Its the definition of prejudice actually.

The problem I have with this perspective is that it assumes infallibility using Gods perfection as its source of inspiration. Within the framework of Gods domain, all the questions are answered and all the arguments are solved. It doesnt allow for learning or humans capacity to evolve over time. If I project out 10 million years, I can actually have a fair degree of certainty that the problem of interpretation involving quantum mechanics will be better understood on every level. We will essentially be taking Gods pants off and telling him to turn his head and cough.

Is God repulsed by this analogy? I think he/she would find it funny in a nervous kind of way. The children are growing up and the world has become bigger than the house we live in or the parents that spawned us. Or better yet, the world we live on and our need for parental guidance.

If you dont agree with me, its because your own prejudices prevent you from seeing the real truth.

It was never asserted by me that Atheists or Agnostics are blinded from observing any universal truth by their 'prejudices', conclusions, or presuppositions. These 'uncomprehendable truths' that I refer to are the fruits of revelation to the Theist. When have I ever claimed that these realizations which I refer to as revealed truths (as a Theist) are applicable or even pertainant to Atheists and Agnostics? Moreover, when have I claimed that they are universal truths (pertaining to theists, agnostics, and atheists)? On the contrary, I have referred to them as 'local' truths-- emphasizing that they are legitimate solely to Theists. As I have said several times before, your judgements on the illegitimacy of religious doctrine are what distinguish you from the theistic community in the theological spectrum. Where in any of my statements have you gotten the impression that I would be so arrogant as to suggest that your conclusions are a handicap in the ascertainment of the 'real' universal truth? Put simply, I may disagree with you due to my theistic beliefs, but when have I ever claimed their universal validity?

You will see in every argument what you want to see as you are using the filter of your own fallible existence to measure the infinite.

Again, never have I claimed that my conceptions (or lackthereof) of the infinite are infallible; nor am I claiming their absolute legitimacy even inside the theistic community, let alone outside. As a theist, I have used my reason and my intellect to formulate my own opinions (regarding the infinite) from what is believed by theists to be God's dualistic revelation to the world. As a Christian theist, I believe that the Holy Spirit was responsible for revealing truths to me as an individual, that were previously incomprehendable by my mind (notice there is no reference to your mind). Therefore I believe that my understanding of 'personal truths' (no matter how vague) regarding the infinite were not acquired by any act of my mind, but rather by a graceous act of the Holy Spirit. My response to this experience is faith. These are things that I hold as truth (for myself) due to a deeply personal experience with what I feel is God's grace. As a theist, I believe that they are infallible insofar as they originated from God-- not from myself. I am a fallible human being. Therefore although I believe there is one absolute divine truth that is revealed by God, misinterpretations are certainly possible due to our fallible nature. Am I admitting that my personal beliefs about the infinite could be wrong? Absolutely, but they are my belief nonetheless-- and this possiblity of error is why my beliefs are faith based, not certainty based. The very nature of the infinite not understandable by us. How then, is it fair to compare the validity of its acknowledgement to the validity of its denunciation, holding one as a 'universal truth' over another? Simply put it's not; and although either can be localized truths to the individual, they cannot rightly be imposed universally. I am aware of this. It doesn't concern me why you are an atheist or an agnostic; and furthermore I am not making them applicable to you.

I however am using divine intervention as my rule which allows me a perspective that no infidel could possibly have.

To be fair, in my belief as a Theist, we all have a meger understanding of the infinite until there is intervention by the divine. It is the Theists belief that divine revelation is non discriminatory-- in other words it either has occurred or will occur in every individual. On this note, revelation is the priliminary step in becomming a Theist, followed by faith. It has the propensity to inspire every individual (regardless of their orientation in the theological spectrum) to have faith. It is revelation followed by faith, not the other way around. We are all bestowed the gift of free-will, therefore it is ultimately our choice whether we accept revelation on faith as truth, or dismiss it as fallacy.

Thus, I am infinitely more attuned to the true workings of the physical, as well as the metaphysical world than you could imagine.

Those who accept revelation on faith as truth are logically more attuned to the workings of a metaphysical world that they believe in.

The problem I have with this perspective is that it assumes infallibility using Gods perfection as its source of inspiration.

Please explain how perfection could be fallible?

Within the framework of Gods domain, all the questions are answered and all the arguments are solved. It doesnt allow for learning or humans capacity to evolve over time.

Who implied that divine revelation has anything to do with the revelation of truths of the material realm of existence? God's revelation would have nothing to do with quantum mechanics or biological chemistry. Rather it has to do soley with the nature of the immaterial-- primarily his existence. As a scientist, it seems rather ridiculous to me that these realms would ever intersect in such a way that science would study anything but the material-- considering science is defined as the study of the workings of the material. In God's domain, all the questions and the arguements of the material would be answered in the ideology of the Theist. However, does revelation of his existence pertain in any way, shape, or form to a revelation of these answers? No. Moreover, I don't think there has ever been a nobel laureate that has claimed that his/her discovery was a product of divine revelation. Even if a Theist were to believe that God is the source of all things material, why would this necessitate ignorance? It is obvious that 1.) the material and immaterial realms (if the immaterial exists) are seperate, and that if God exists, he exists in the immaterial realm only. If these realms are indeed seperate, why would we not want to define the workings of every material thing to the furthest our material understanding will take us?

If I project out 10 million years, I can actually have a fair degree of certainty that the problem of interpretation involving quantum mechanics will be better understood on every level.

Every material level no doubt, granted that earth's life expectancy extends that far.

 

[Doodsmack]

"very nature of the infinite not understandable by us. How then, is it fair to compare the validity of its acknowledgement to the validity of its denunciation, holding one as a 'universal truth' over another?"

the only universal truth is that we don't have a damn clue about the infinite. the infinite is a figment of our highly evolved imaginations. it is a universal truth that the specific Hebrew spirituality, the tradition which you subscribe to, is limited in scope and descriptive power to the specific culture which gave rise to it. in your mind, however, you apply it to the entire universe, as if it was not hobbled by this limitation. thus you are subscribing your mind to something that should only occupy a portion of your mind: knowledge of a certain time period in human history.

 

[gone_fishin]

This is my last post in this thread. What started off as an insightful dialogue has turned into essentially a libeling free-for-all against religious association. Instead of offering unique and respectful insight from both sides, this debate has gone nowhere and no productive end is in sight. It is simply me (the theist) having to justify my faith when it is being called illegitimate. It's difficult enough to have a steadfast foundation of faith and to walk the Christian line, without being ridiculed for it and worse yet having to justify it (as if my intellect was being called into question) in front of a group of faceless nay-sayers. As Aristotle says, those who disagree on first principles cannot hope to gain anything from debate. It's quite obvious there is much disagreement over first principles here.

 

[Doodsmack]

i am making a specific argument regarding the historical evidence behind the social construction of religion. you are steadfast in your faith and recognize that others will disagree; therefore there is no reason to get offended. i threw no personal insults - i argued a point which was relevant to the topic at hand. there is plenty of room for debate in what i said.

 

[Donas64]

This is my last post in this thread. What started off as an insightful dialogue has turned into essentially a libeling free-for-all against religious association. Instead of offering unique and respectful insight from both sides, this debate has gone nowhere and no productive end is in sight. It is simply me (the theist) having to justify my faith when it is being called illegitimate. It's difficult enough to have a steadfast foundation of faith and to walk the Christian line, without being ridiculed for it and worse yet having to justify it (as if my intellect was being called into question) in front of a group of faceless nay-sayers. As Aristotle says, those who disagree on first principles cannot hope to gain anything from debate. It's quite obvious there is much disagreement over first principles here.

I feel you man. It's like I've often said, Atheists are often quick to say that Christians are intolerant, but they themselves are often times the most intolerant bunch of all. While I understand that you are a Theist and not a Christian Kudos for stating your position insightfully and being respectful of the views of others. I wish the same could be said about other members of this board. Underhanded disrespect and ridicule of ones beliefs might be subtle and it might be covered up in sophisticated lingo, but it's still pretty lame.

 

[1st Gen]

I did not quote anyone in my post because I was not speaking to anyone in particular. I was showing a tactic that is used to marginalize people that are not of the faith community. Although I was not trying to offend anyone participating in this thread, it did happen once again.


I have been reading a bit in Meditations.



For truth itself will readily lead the remainder of the ingenious and the learned to subscribe to your judgment; and your authority will cause the atheists, who are in general sciolists rather than ingenious or learned, to lay aside the spirit of contradiction, and lead them, perhaps, to do battle in their own persons for reasonings which they find considered demonstrations by all men of genius, lest they should seem not to understand them; and, finally, the rest of mankind will readily trust to so many testimonies, and there will no longer be any one who will venture to doubt either the existence of God or the real distinction of mind and body. It is for you, in your singular wisdom, to judge of the importance of the establishment of such beliefs, [who are cognisant of the disorders which doubt of these truths produces].* But it would not here become me to commend at greater length the cause of God and of religion to you, who have always proved the strongest support of the Catholic Church

I did kind of paraphrase some.This is from the last paragraph of the Letter of Dedication.

This thread has gifted me with a ton of insights, not all of which I'm worthy of. Thanks for that.

 

[gone_fishin]

I feel you man. It's like I've often said, Atheists are often quick to say that Christians are intolerant, but they themselves are often times the most intolerant bunch of all. While I understand that you are a Theist and not a Christian Kudos for stating your position insightfully and being respectful of the views of others. I wish the same could be said about other members of this board. Underhanded disrespect and ridicule of ones beliefs might be subtle and it might be covered up in sophisticated lingo, but it's still pretty lame.

Thanks for your support Donas. Theist was just a genealizing term I was using for those who believe in God, it doesn't specify theological orientation. I am a Christian-- specifically Catholic. In hindsight, maybe that is why you were hesitant to participate in the discussion in the later parts? Looking back, I should have specified my religious orientation earlier-- although I was trying my hardest to be sensitive to everyone's background (including my own) in how I phrased things.

Although I'm aware we're in the minority here on this forum, I'm happy to know that I'm not the only (audible) Christian.

And to 1stGen, I'm glad to hear you've been reading meditations. Although Descartes is a proponent of Catholicism, I don't want you to get the impression that I recommended meditations for that reason. There were several philosophers I recommended (some theistic and some atheistic). All share excellent insights on the topics that were covered here; and it was only for that reason they were recommended. When seeking the truth, I try to not to let my presuppositions prevent me from searching in places where my biases would not normally lead me. It's valuable to be well rounded in ones knowledge and education. If we let our biases control this process, we do ourselves more harm than benefit.

 

[Doodsmack]

Underhanded disrespect and ridicule of ones beliefs might be subtle and it might be covered up in sophisticated lingo, but it's still pretty lame.

sophisticated lingo, or real-life historical evidence? there's no need to be offended by what i said. in fact i doubt you are offended. i can't help but notice that you have avoided refuting what i actually said.

to me the question is this: which of the following can i trust more?

what i see before my own eyes

or

what's written in the bible

 

[Killer]

sophisticated lingo, or real-life historical evidence? there's no need to be offended by what i said. in fact i doubt you are offended. i can't help but notice that you have avoided refuting what i actually said.

to me the question is this: which of the following can i trust more?

what i see before my own eyes

or

what's written in the bible

I use these--->(shocked)

 

[G-Papi]

Doodsmack ~ you have stumbled upon one of the most overlooked and amazing problems of human understanding.

Most folks have serious difficulty discerning between what is true, and that which is truth.

What is true can be observed and documented (the keystone of scientific observation) - but it is also subject to change (not accounted for in many so-called scientific documentations).

That which is truth is not subject to random factors and influences.

The difference is as simple as noting that "true" is usually used as an adjective; while "truth" is usually used as a noun. Still, many people try to compare the two.

My "down" is pointed in a different direction than an Australian's "down"; while for an astronaut, the term is almost irrevelant. Yet, while I point down, and say that it is true that I am, in fact pointing down (and am not lying), where does that stand in the greater scheme of things?

Never limit truth to your own perception. The universe ain't that small.

 

[Donas64]

sophisticated lingo, or real-life historical evidence? there's no need to be offended by what i said. in fact i doubt you are offended. i can't help but notice that you have avoided refuting what i actually said.

to me the question is this: which of the following can i trust more?

what i see before my own eyes

or

what's written in the bible

I'm not interested in picking a fight with you, and despite what your ego may tell you I was not referring specifically to you in my comments. I will say that it's uncescessary in polite conversation to call ones personal beliefs superstition and fairy-tales. Thats all I have to say.

 

[Doodsmack]

nor am i picking a fight with you. i've said nothing about you personally. i presented a supported argument about why religious beliefs are inherently superstitious. i'm sorry if that word is offensive, but i don't see how you can get around it.

 

[Doodsmack]

g-papi, given that the nature of our individual understanding is restricted to what is "true," would you say that it is impossible for us to know the "truth." by definition, my senses and intuitive reasoning can only relate things to myself and my individual point of reference, thus confining those things to what is "true."

it seems that, in order to overcome our individual points of reference, we would need a greater brain that literally could observe more and consider more possibilities simultaneously. since we probably won't live to see our brain evolve any further, it seems we would need to create a computerized brain which was autonomous and could learn and think by itself. i wonder how close we are to that.

 

[1st Gen]

If I understand Rene Decartes 1st meditation, he tries to create doubt in everything he has ever learned and all the references that he thinks to be true by saying that it is impossible to be able to tell whether or not he is awake or dreaming. His senses will not signal him if he is not in his right mind and thus create doubt in all information ascertained through his senses.

While an element of this may be true, I would have to say his premise is very suspect to a type of reverse methodology. He has a destination which represents his faith and he is trying to figure out how to reason his way there.

 

[Killer]

I am just happy to see we have thinkers on this board. Good thread if I do say so my self.

 

[G-Papi]

If I understand Rene Decartes 1st meditation, he tries to create doubt in everything he has ever learned and all the references that he thinks to be true by saying that it is impossible to be able to tell whether or not he is awake or dreaming. His senses will not signal him if he is not in his right mind and thus create doubt in all information ascertained through his senses.

While an element of this may be true, I would have to say his premise is very suspect to a type of reverse methodology. He has a destination which represents his faith and he is trying to figure out how to reason his way there.

A similar exercise to that which Solomon engaged in, in Ecclesiastes.

 

[1st Gen]

A similar exercise to that which Solomon engaged in, in Ecclesiastes.

I dont understand the reference. Please elaborate.


What turns me off to the idea of not being able to determine whether or not were dreaming is that it is possible to tell. Its kind of an easy out too IMO.

 

[G-Papi]

If you read Ecclesiastes, you see Solomon beginning at a skeptic's position, and in attempting to rationalize a disbelief, he backs into a position of faith.

 

[1st Gen]

If you read Ecclesiastes, you see Solomon beginning at a skeptic's position, and in attempting to rationalize a disbelief, he backs into a position of faith.

I dont see the connection. It sounds like it might be an interesting match of wits though.