Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,812 Year: 3,069/9,624 Month: 914/1,588 Week: 97/223 Day: 8/17 Hour: 4/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   John Polkinghorne - Scientist and Priest
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 31 of 39 (450788)
01-23-2008 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by bluegenes
01-23-2008 7:13 PM


bluegenes writes:
If you think that altruism requires a programmer, the programmer himself, by definition cannot be altruistic. You end up with the same kind of infinite regression that the I.D. people do when they claim that intelligence requires an intelligent designer. The original designer has to be unintelligent. Biological evolution is a non-intelligent, non-altruistic "designer".
I'm sure there is logic in all of that but I'm afraid it escapes me. You Brits do have a way with words. I spawned children and did my best to train them to be altruistic in the same way that I would like to be. As for biologists and evolutionists being unintelligent - that is something you'll have to take up with them.
bluegenes writes:
As for legal and moral standards, do you expect me to torture someone to death for working on a Sunday? Read that Bible of yours.
Why is it that all you Atheists are Biblical literalists?
bluegenes writes:
But you and Polkinghorne seem to be suggesting that this intelligence for which there's no evidence does effect our physical environment in some way. And what's odd, and typical of religious people, is that you then make the leap to assuming that an intelligence behind the universe, if it existed, would be a version of the Abrahamic God, an apparent middle-eastern tribal invention, rather than an effectively infinite number of other possible candidates.
Well' I disagree about there being no evidence but in the end it is called a "faith". Science tells us that about 70% or so of our universe can't be perceived by humans. (At least that is my understanding of dark matter and energy.) We believe however that it exists because we can see the gravitational effects of it so we take it on faith that it exists. As a Christian when I see acts of pure love in this world I see the effects of a loving intelligence and I take it on faith that He exists.
bluegenes writes:
Buddhism isn't really theistic, and Islam declares the Christian scriptures to be corrupt, and that Christ is not God. Are these minor differences?
I'm not saying that the differences are minor, I'm just saying that they also have many things in common.
bluegenes writes:
I don't have the required talents to be religious. I'm terrible at lying to myself.
Even you with an open mind could eventually discern the truth. I'm sure of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by bluegenes, posted 01-23-2008 7:13 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by nator, posted 01-23-2008 8:09 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 33 by sidelined, posted 01-23-2008 10:18 PM GDR has replied
 Message 35 by bluegenes, posted 01-24-2008 6:24 AM GDR has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 32 of 39 (450790)
01-23-2008 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by GDR
01-23-2008 7:38 PM


quote:
Science tells us that about 70% or so of our universe can't be perceived by humans. (At least that is my understanding of dark matter and energy.) We believe however that it exists because we can see the gravitational effects of it so we take it on faith that it exists. As a Christian when I see acts of pure love in this world I see the effects of a loving intelligence and I take it on faith that He exists.
Er, no.
We infer that it exists, from the physical, observable evidence available to us.
No faith required whatsoever.
How many times will you attempt to equate acceptance of scientific findings with religious faith as if they are similar, only to be corrected, again and again?
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by GDR, posted 01-23-2008 7:38 PM GDR has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 33 of 39 (450798)
01-23-2008 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by GDR
01-23-2008 7:38 PM


GDR
As a Christian when I see acts of pure love in this world I see the effects of a loving intelligence and I take it on faith that He exists.
Well like the term God, love is also subjective in its application to language and concept. First off,what is meant by love? Do we equate it to selflessness? In what way is it selfless?
Is there such a thing as selfless or is it simply a selfishness that happens to include others as a consequence of what is in fact a selfish act?
If I sacrifice my life in saving another is it a selfless act or did I in fact take that step because of what I hold to be of value? If so, is the act selfless or ,since it was done out of reference to MY values, actually selfish?
Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by GDR, posted 01-23-2008 7:38 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by GDR, posted 01-24-2008 2:20 AM sidelined has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 34 of 39 (450811)
01-24-2008 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by sidelined
01-23-2008 10:18 PM


sidelined writes:
Well like the term God, love is also subjective in its application to language and concept. First off,what is meant by love? Do we equate it to selflessness? In what way is it selfless?
This is all a matter of opinion of course and we are restricted by the English language. "I love my wife" and "I love beer" sound the same but hardly convey the same thing.
I suggest that love may be either selfless or selfish. You can argue that when I do something loving for my wife that it is in my own best interest. Happy wife, happy life as they say. You might also say that doing charitable deeds makes you feel good so it isn't selfless either, but then that leads to the question of why does it make me feel good.
sidelined writes:
If I sacrifice my life in saving another is it a selfless act or did I in fact take that step because of what I hold to be of value? If so, is the act selfless or ,since it was done out of reference to MY values, actually selfish?
What we hold to be of value has to be based on something whether it is religious or not. I would say that a selfless act of charity such as giving money to someone in need whom we've never met might very well be based on our values but I don't see that as being germane. In order to do that act of charity we had to first establish a set of values that was based on selflessness.
To be honest I don't see the point anyway. I'm just saying that I believe that the basis of our ability to love and genuinely care about the welfare of others is a loving creator, whereas you believe that the ability to love has evolved in us naturally. We simply disagree.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by sidelined, posted 01-23-2008 10:18 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by sidelined, posted 01-24-2008 9:26 AM GDR has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 35 of 39 (450818)
01-24-2008 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by GDR
01-23-2008 7:38 PM


GDR writes:
Science tells us that about 70% or so of our universe can't be perceived by humans. (At least that is my understanding of dark matter and energy.) We believe however that it exists because we can see the gravitational effects of it so we take it on faith that it exists. As a Christian when I see acts of pure love in this world I see the effects of a loving intelligence and I take it on faith that He exists.
I've seen that analogy before on EvC, and it's a terrible one. Dark matter is inferred on the basis of indirect evidence, but there's no evidence, direct or indirect, for any Gods. That doesn't mean that they don't exist, or prove that they don't exist, but you have to take it on faith, as you say.
Human love certainly isn't indirect evidence for your God or any others, and neither is human altruism. Affection can easily be observed in other mammals (the bonobos are like free love and peace hippies) The ability in social animals to form close bonds can easily be seen as a characteristic that could be selected for in evolutionary terms.
Science doesn't disprove the concept of a God, but it's true to say that increased knowledge tends to take away any apparent necessity. It takes away gaps to stick your God into, but there are still plenty of gaps for you to rest your hopes on!
GDR writes:
Why is it that all you Atheists are Biblical literalists?
It's an EvC habit, hardly surprising when you think of some of your fellow Christian members.
Of course I don't believe the universe was created by a racist who particularly favours one tribe and wants us to stone people to death. But why do you cherry-pick? The claim of Jesus to be God is no more likely to be true than the stone throwing bit.
It all requires blind faith, and I wish the likes of Polkinghorne would state that loudly and clearly, rather than implying that the effects of an intelligence can be perceived in the universe.
The fine tuning argument is silly. To say that the universe is ideal for whatever it contains is just stating the obvious. If it contains galaxies, it's perfect for galaxies, and if it contained falaxies, whatever they are, it would be perfect for them.
It's like looking at the earth and saying "how incredible that the atmosphere is fine tuned so that we can breath it, when there are a virtually infinite amount of possible atmospheres that would be poisonous to us - proof of God's work", missing the point that we're a part and a product of the planet, and that any breathing organism that doesn't evolve with the changes in the atmosphere becomes extinct, so that what life we see is inevitably "fine tuned" to the planet, rather than the other way around. (Or to be even more accurate, life and the planet tune each other, as organisms shape the atmosphere as well as the other way around, so we should perceive ourselves as part of the planet).
GDR (my brackets) writes:
I'm not saying that the differences [between religions] are minor, I'm just saying that they also have many things in common.
That would hardly be surprising as they're all invented by the same species. Basic guidance like "do unto others as you would have done unto yourself" have probably been arrived at separately in every human culture. Same with the concept of the soul, what's missing when a body dies, usually given to other animals as well when we're living close to nature, but removed from them as we develop agriculture and more sophisticated cultures, and start along the grand religious misconception, only now being corrected by science, of regarding ourselves as separate and magically distinct from our fellow life forms, our relatives.
Even you with an open mind could eventually discern the truth. I'm sure of it.
I can tell you one evidence backed truth. Humans invent religions and Gods, they always have, and new ones come up all the time. I'm not going to believe in something someone else invented, whether it's St. Paul, Mohammed, or L. Ron Hubbard. I'm not gullible enough.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by GDR, posted 01-23-2008 7:38 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by GDR, posted 01-24-2008 2:25 PM bluegenes has not replied
 Message 39 by GDR, posted 01-24-2008 5:02 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 36 of 39 (450834)
01-24-2008 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by GDR
01-24-2008 2:20 AM


GDR
What we hold to be of value has to be based on something whether it is religious or not. I would say that a selfless act of charity such as giving money to someone in need whom we've never met might very well be based on our values but I don't see that as being germane.
If you base it on a religious point of view because it makes you feel good to do so then is the love genuinely selfless and done for another or is the act selfish because the basis of it is for the gain you have in making you feel good about the action?
If we cannot trace the course of how these emotions actually play themselves out in our life then we cannot be making assumptions as to those of a God without realizing what that really entails. If we find that the act of love which we assume to be selfless is ,in fact, actually based on our own needs then what does the phrase "a loving creator" really imply?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by GDR, posted 01-24-2008 2:20 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by GDR, posted 01-24-2008 1:56 PM sidelined has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 37 of 39 (450872)
01-24-2008 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by sidelined
01-24-2008 9:26 AM


sidelined writes:
If you base it on a religious point of view because it makes you feel good to do so then is the love genuinely selfless and done for another or is the act selfish because the basis of it is for the gain you have in making you feel good about the action?
Who knows. There does seem to be a large number of people that just want to do the right thing because it is the right thing, be they Christian, Atheist or whatever. There are others who don't much care about doing the right thing. In either case though there is a general understanding of what the right thing is.
I believe that the recognition of what the right thing is comes from something that goes beyond natural evolutionary forces. I don't think I'll find unanimous acceptance of that on this forum however.
I'm sorry about the decision you made in the other thread Richard. I hope you change your mind. I for one will miss you.
Greg

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by sidelined, posted 01-24-2008 9:26 AM sidelined has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 38 of 39 (450875)
01-24-2008 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by bluegenes
01-24-2008 6:24 AM


bluegenes writes:
I've seen that analogy before on EvC, and it's a terrible one. Dark matter is inferred on the basis of indirect evidence, but there's no evidence, direct or indirect, for any Gods. That doesn't mean that they don't exist, or prove that they don't exist, but you have to take it on faith, as you say.
I contend that there is indirect evidence. I see love, beauty, justice, mercey etc as being indiorect evidence. You don't accept it as such. I see the historical record faollowing the crusifixion of Jesus as being indirect evidence for Christianity. If one doesn't accept the possibility of there being something more out there than our natural physical world then of course there is no way that what I suggest is evidence can be considered as such.
bluegenes writes:
Human love certainly isn't indirect evidence for your God or any others, and neither is human altruism. Affection can easily be observed in other mammals (the bonobos are like free love and peace hippies) The ability in social animals to form close bonds can easily be seen as a characteristic that could be selected for in evolutionary terms.
I don't have a problem with that but I don't see where it is germane. It is something I would expect. Animals have consciousness so I would expect them to forge social bonds.
bluegenes writes:
Science doesn't disprove the concept of a God, but it's true to say that increased knowledge tends to take away any apparent necessity. It takes away gaps to stick your God into, but there are still plenty of gaps for you to rest your hopes on!
I'm not using a god of the gaps theology. Although I'm inclined to think it won't happen, science may very well find a mechanism behind altruism, but it can't tell us why that mechanism was there in the first place.
I've got to run. I'll return to the rest of your post later.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by bluegenes, posted 01-24-2008 6:24 AM bluegenes has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 39 of 39 (450893)
01-24-2008 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by bluegenes
01-24-2008 6:24 AM


bluegenes writes:
Of course I don't believe the universe was created by a racist who particularly favours one tribe and wants us to stone people to death. But why do you cherry-pick? The claim of Jesus to be God is no more likely to be true than the stone throwing bit.
But I don't believe in that God either. I don't know what your reference is for the stoning bit but I do believe that if we want to know about God then we should look at the Son who obviously did not approve of stoning but did approve of restorative justice - "You who have not sinned cast the first stone" - "Go and sin no more" etc.
As far as favouring one tribe is concerned I disagree with that as well. I believe that the family and descendants of Abraham were God's chosen people. The question then is; "chosen" for what? I believe they were chosen for vocation. They were chosen to bring God's message of love, truth, mercy and justice to a pagan world. Sure they were told that they would be favoured, but they would only be favoured as a result of living up to the message that they had been given. When you read the Biblical account you can easily see that mostly they failed to live up to their calling, and as a result you can see that things in general didn't go that well for them.
The Bible tells us that to whom much is given much is expected so in many ways being entrusted with God's message wasn't a favour but a responsibility that carried a considerable burden.
bluegenes writes:
It all requires blind faith, and I wish the likes of Polkinghorne would state that loudly and clearly, rather than implying that the effects of an intelligence can be perceived in the universe.
If Christianity requires blind faith then so does Atheism. (You believe that Atheism provides the best explanation for reality. You can't prove it but you still believe it. It is a faith.) This world exists and we can learn a great deal about it through the scientific method. However, there is order, there are conscious emotions and values etc. The fact that these conditions exist is evidence. We just come to different conclusions about where the evidence leads us. If you want to say that everything that can't be empirically proven requires blind faith then that's fine.
bluegenes writes:
That would hardly be surprising as they're all invented by the same species. Basic guidance like "do unto others as you would have done unto yourself" have probably been arrived at separately in every human culture. Same with the concept of the soul, what's missing when a body dies, usually given to other animals as well when we're living close to nature, but removed from them as we develop agriculture and more sophisticated cultures, and start along the grand religious misconception, only now being corrected by science, of regarding ourselves as separate and magically distinct from our fellow life forms, our relatives.
When the early Jews espoused the "golden rule" they were completely dominated by the surrounding pagan cultures which espoused anything but. I'm not so sure that this philosophy would just have come to us naturally.
I'm not in the least convinced that we are all that separate from other life forms. Certainly we have a more highly developed consciousness but we aren't alone in having consciousness. The Bible talks about a new creation, the new heaven and the new earth. Everything that I read in the Bible indicates that this new creation won't only be for humans.
bluegenes writes:
Humans invent religions and Gods, they always have, and new ones come up all the time
Obviously most religions are invented by man usually because someone has a vested interest. However that does not mean that any specific religion could not have come about through some form of divine revelation.
bluegenes writes:
I'm not gullible enough
Just call me Mr. Gullible.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by bluegenes, posted 01-24-2008 6:24 AM bluegenes has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024