|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: John Polkinghorne - Scientist and Priest | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member  Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I've been reading some of John Polkinghorne. He has a PHD from Cambridge and was a professor of Mathematical Physics at Cambridge. After years of working in the scientific field he studied to become a Priest in the Church of England.
He has written several books and has been awarded with the Templeton Prize for Science and Religion in 2002. Here is a website that contains his bio.
John Polkinghorne From this web site I have provided a link to a lecture that he gave in 1990 that discusses how a man of science can also be a Christian and not find the two in conflict.
God's Action in the World I know that opening a discussion by just providing links is not the norm but frankly this lecture addresses many of the issues that are raised on this forum such as where is God in the world of physics and biology. I think that it would be difficult to find a person more qualified than Polkinghorne to discuss these issues. Any forum including Coffee House would be fine with me. Edited by AdminNWR, : fix broken links (removed extraneous space) Edited by GDR, : sp Edited by Admin, : Fix misspelling in title. Everybody is entitled to my opinion. 
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
sidelined writes: It is deeply satisfying to have a viewpoint that arrives at the upholding of the world by the will of God by premises that only seem to show a sign of mind in operation?It is not even close to a knock down arguement for a specific reason. God is not really explained in any manner as to what John Polkinghorne considers God to actually be. Time and again this is the problem that people such as John refuse to face. Not just that the evidence is weak but that the conclusion {God}is maintained in a level of belief far out of sync with the claims being perpetrated. John isn't even attempting to make an argument for what he considers God to be. All he is saying is that science is compatible with science and that with his scientific knowledge he finds the idea of a Mind behind the universe more compelling than the lack of such an intelligence.
sidelined writes: So here we come upon a difficulty that is raised by the very principle that John is using to explain the Fine-tuning here.Why has it not occurred to him that in us being limited to being able to choose only certain parameters to allow for the universe to unfold the way it has {as demonstrated with God's universe making machine} we must also in the same breath say that God is also limited in choice? In other words this arguement is saying that God works within limits as well. Now if God works within limits as well then what is the greater thing that is forcing God to do so? Is this really where you want to take the discussion of God GDR? Frankly I don't have a problem with that. I agree that Christians throw around terms like omnipotent and omniscient, (which I've done myself on occasion), but in the end what do they really mean. How can we with our mental capacity ever come to terms with an intelligence that is able to create the universe? If God has sufficient intelligence and imagination to create the universe I'll allow you your quibble that maybe He does have limitations in what He can do. For that matter perhaps the concept of us having free will meant that He had to impose limitations on Himself. Actually in a book I read that was written by Polkinghorne he suggested that perhaps God has total knowledge about the past and present but has created us in such a way that He is only aware of the possibilities for the future. None of us have all the answers but when it comes to questions that involve both science and Christianity Polkinghorne is probably more qualified than anybody on this forum, (or any other forum I've seen), and so it seemed to me that his thoughts might be of interest. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
sidelined writes:
Quite possibly
Did I fall asleep for some class as we grew up wherein there was a definition known as "Mind" separate from the "mind" sidelined writes:
John separates his science and his faith other than to show how they are compatible.
Exactly what is it about the operation of the universe that allows a scientist to claim that it is scientific to speculate without offering evidence or observation that would support such a hypothesis? Polkinghorne writes: So I stand before you as someone who not only wishes to take science seriously, but who also wishes to take religion seriously. Religion is concerned with asking, and seeking the answers to, deeper questions about the world in which we live -- questions of meaning and purpose and destiny. It moves us from the largely impersonal world of scientific knowledge, to the world of personal encounter, with all the risk and ambiguity and necessary commitment that's involved in that. Religion is concerned with the type of inquiry in which testing has to give way to trusting. sidelined writes:
Someone else might find it compelling. Both of us lack objectivity.
Since when is personal opinion without evidence found to be somehow compelling? sidelined writes: But we have not established that an intelligence exists such as described here. Since the common definition of intelligence is still subject to being a physical property of the brain why is there speculation about a disembodied intelligence which exists separate from a brain and which is neither detectable nor demonstatable?My "quibble" about limitations is not a small matter. Even if we concede a god we cannot dismiss what the capabilities of that entity are without again having evidence by which to make such assertions. First John is allowing for a God {without evidence} then making claims as to the abilities of that God {again without evidence}. This seems rather like the invisible immaterial dragon in the garage that is claimed to "really" be there but only if you have faith. Again the science is located where?... here? But you only acknowledge scientific evidence. The scientific evidence is that the universe is finely tuned. That doesn't constitute scientific evidence for the existence of God, but it might make one think about whether or not there is an intelligence or "Mind" that caused it to be that way. We come to different conclusions but neither of us can prove our beliefs.
sidelined writes: But we have not established that an intelligence exists such as described here. Since the common definition of intelligence is still subject to being a physical property of the brain why is there speculation about a disembodied intelligence which exists separate from a brain and which is neither detectable nor demonstatable?My "quibble" about limitations is not a small matter. Even if we concede a god we cannot dismiss what the capabilities of that entity are without again having evidence by which to make such assertions. First John is allowing for a God {without evidence} then making claims as to the abilities of that God {again without evidence}. This seems rather like the invisible immaterial dragon in the garage that is claimed to "really" be there but only if you have faith. Again the science is located where?... here? Polkinghorne, unlike Dawkins is clear as to when he is talking science and when he is talking religion. He is not saying that his "faith" is scientific. He is saying that they aren't contradictory and that in his view they compliment each other. He is saying that he believes that there is a Mind behind all of creation. He is saying that the way he views and experiences the world causes him to come to that conclusion. I have come to the same conclusion and you the opposite conclusion. There is no scientific evidence to prove any of us right.
sidelined writes: I am sure he is a competent scientist but the fact remains that in issues where science is not applied he cannot make claims for a scientific support of that which he himself refuses to offer a coherent hypothesis backed by evidence.Faith is cool if that is what floats his boat but in the hard world of evidential based acquisition of knowledge his assertions do not amount to much at all. On a purely scientific level I agree, but that isn't the point of his polemic. Edited by GDR, : No reason given. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
bluegenes writes: I emboldened the bit where he's lying to himself, a habit of the religious. Religions actually exist because they answer "questions of meaning and purpose and destiny" without reason or evidence, not because they want to ask them. Asking those questions is something that anyone with a philosophical mind might do, but being religious is about cheating, and coming up with faith based answers when there are no known real ones. A religious mind is a believing without reason mind, not an inquiring mind, and the claim that Polkinghorne makes in the sentence I highlighted is outrageous. I obviously disagree. I contend that Polkinghorne and others very much apply reason to believing the things that they do. It isn't scientific but we all come to non-scientific conclusions about our existence. For example an Atheist believes that our moral code is something that has developed culturally over time. As a Christian I believe that there is more to it than that. We could go down the road of arguing about why we are able to love, have a sense of justice etc. but it would be off topic and has already been done numerous times. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I looked at the rules and as this is the "Coffee House" forum we are probably ok.
bluegenes writes: But briefly, a social animal like us which is capable of behaviour like that described in the good Samaritan parable has certain evolutionary advantages. So, our morals aren't just a matter of culture. Thanks for the response. It seems to me that we have dwindling resources for our population. However in our church we are actively involved in supporting a home in Uganda for young women who have been severely disadvantaged. (There are millions of people both religious and secular doing similar things.) Wouldn't it be to our advantage to have millions of people in the third world just disappear so that the world's resources wouldn't be spread as thinnly? It seems to me that altruism continues to exist even though in many cases it creates a cultural disadvantage. This suggests to me that there is something operating that can't be explained by evolutionary advantages.
bluegenes writes: I can't speak for other atheists on this, and the reason I picked up on your comment on what atheists think about morals was to point out that atheism is not a belief system, and the only thing that we all have in common is lack of belief in Gods. No other shared politics or philosophical opinions or views on morality or anything else. There moral laws that come from somewhere. Thou shalt not murder, steal etc. I gather from your previous statement that you believe they are a result that they are creating an evolutionary or cultural advantage. Isn't that a belief? We have laws that we agree on and there has to be a reason for the fact that we have them. I don't disagree that culture plays a role but I also believe that there is something implanted in our consciousness that comes form something or someone beyond oursleves and I believe that Christianity does the best job of explaining what that something or someone is. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
sidelined writes: You cannot show compatibility by compartmentalization though. If they do not support one the other then no compatibility exists except by making claims despite the evidence. It is just the fact that they aren't contradictory.
sidelined writes: That is just the point though. Religion does not seek answers, it makes them up. If we had answers we could implement them, yet thousands of years have gone by and religion has solved nothing. You see religion as being made up whereas I believe that God does interact with His creation. You say that religion has solved nothing but that is an empty statement as neither of us have any idea of what the world would like like if religion had never existed.
sidelined writes: Religion has a personal encounter with what then? A claimed deity that performs incredible feats without leaving a trace? A being whose qualities vary dependent upon which religion you inquire of? Who says He hasn't left a trace? If God created the universe that would be a lot more than a trace. Jesus Christ and the history of His church is more than a trace. Just because you choose not to believe doesn't mean that it isn't true, any more than a creationist not believing in evolution makes that untrue.
sidelined writes: Even if we had fine-tuning why would it not be us who are fine-tuned to the world rather than vice-versa? Fair enough but in the end our existence depends on the fact that we are fine-tuned to our environment.
sidelined writes: What exactly is the evidence that speaks of a "Mind" or intelligence that is somehow disembodied and leaves no trace nor exists except in those who first adhere to believing in spite of a lack of any reasonable support to show this to be the case? The fact that we exist and perceive the world in a particular way if nothing else.
sidelined writes: Please do explain how they compliment one another because I think that is not the case. It appears to me that John keeps them separate in order to avoid the inevitable conflict. Science does a great job in understanding the workings behind our physical world, whereas Polkinghorne believes that his religion goes a long way in explaining why things exist at all. You might say that no explanation is necessary or even possible but He would disagree.
sidelined writes: It is telling that the world operates exactly the way in which we would expect it to if there were no driving intelligence behind it. How do you know that? Your life experience and knowledge is based solely on the world in which you exist. You have no basis for saying how else it might or might not be.
sidelined writes: Polkinghorne never does manage to do what I have highlighted in this paragraph. I suppose I could have worded that better, but still it is clear that John believes that God is the Mind and the creative force behind all of the natural world. He would agree though that his faith is faith and not scientific and though he does seem them as separate disciplines he sees no contradiction. I happen to agree with him. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
sidelined writes: Yet you cannot provide evidence to show that God interacts with the world. But this is the crux of the whole thing. You are only prepared to accept physical scientific evidence. I agree. It doesn't exist. There isn't scientific evidence that can prove He even exists. We can debate until the cows come home but we aren't going to resolve anything. I believe that there is more to our life than the physical world that we perceive. You apparently don't, so what I might view as evidence isn't acceptable as evidence to you. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
bluegenes writes: Biological "programs" in social animals don't necessarily lead to rational "selfish" behaviour of individuals. Anthropologists will be able to tell you about hunter/gatherer tribes which operate like large extended families, and function on an "from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs" basis. Without going into details, this makes sense. With modern travel and media communication, people increasingly identify, consciously or subconsciously, with the entire 6 billion as being the tribe, so your example of helping people on another continent is not foreign to our biological nature at all. It's a mistake to see evolution as something that would automatically promote selfishness in individual organisms. Social animals, from ants to ourselves, can make individual sacrifices for the group's "selfish genes". Let's just assume for a minute that biologists could scientifically demonstrate how we became altruistic through an evolutionary process. It wouldn't change my view of things at all because it still shows the characteristics of design. If we are biologically programmed by evolutionary means, it still demonstrates the likelihood of a programmer. JMHO
bluegenes writes: Touching on the topic, Polkinghorne is a good scientist, and he might, at least partially, agree with me on this. I wouldn't disagree
bluegenes writes: However, I don't think your example is a very good one, because I think it's definitely to our advantage to increase levels of international help and cooperation. Twentieth century history shows us that the cultures that achieve virtual zero population increase (apart from that attributable to increased life expectancy), are those with the most wealth, highest life expectancies, highest literacy rates, and, I might add especially for you, lowest levels of traditional religion. Maybe the reason birth rates are down in countries with the lowest levels of traditional religion is because people have developed the attitude of "looking out for number one" and that children interfere with life style. One of the biggest concerns in western countries is health care, meanwhile the birth rate is dropping. We seemed to be much more focused on living to be a 100 than we are about reproducing the next generation. It is all about us it seems.
bluegenes writes: So, while improving conditions in struggling areas of the world may seem to increase population in the short term, when people feel increasingly secure, they actually choose to have less children, and that means we might be able to achieve relatively stable world population by the end of this century, or early in the next. Stable families would go a long way towards having people feel secure.
bluegenes writes: You seem to be confusing atheists with philosophical movements, like humanism. Atheists are people who don't believe in Gods. One might be a serial killer, and another a philanthropist. They do not share a moral philosophy any more than cigarette smokers or people who don't believe in fairies share a moral philosophy. Atheists are not defined by by anything other than their lack of belief in Gods. I'm not saying that people necessarily share a moral philosophy but I suggest that most people believe that one exists whether it be God given or not. Atheists believe that there is no god. That is a belief. It also requires faith in the idea that we have only ourselves to look to in defining legal and/or moral standards.
bluelined writes: When someone makes up a commandment like "though shalt not kill", it's surprisingly meaningless. If you applied modern Canadian values, for example, Moses would be condemned to about a thousand life sentences for murder and genocide. Don't you read your bible? And Christendom, throughout its history, managed a far higher killing rate than the secular modern Western Europe of the last 60 tears or so (church going started to decline rapidly from about 1950 onwards). There have been terrible things done in the name of Christianity by people who claim to be Christian. People are tribal and we desperately want to be recognized as being part of a tribe. We divide ourselves up occupation, which sport team we cheer for, religion, race and even gender. Christ's message, (as well as Buddha and others) speaks strongly against unhealthy levels of tribalism. As far as reading my Bible is concerned you are probably right. I don't read it enough. I spend a lot more time reading about it by authors like Polkinghorne, NT Wright, Philip Yancey etc. The best guy I have found for science is Brian Greene. My next reading project though is to read the Bible right through. I can hardly wait to get into the genealogies. When the church becomes the road to political power it is a recipe for disaster for both church and state. The church is compromised as it becomes made up of people seeking political power as opposed to people seeking to serve God. The state becomes damaged as it becomes led by unaccountable power seekers. {I'm not saying that that religious people shouldn't be involved politically but just that they should use the normal political route.)
bluegenes writes: The "something" could be our subconsciousness and our biological natures, both individual and as a species. As these are things that we know to exist, and they fit the bill, don't you think it likely that they are, at least, possible explanations (added to culture, as you agree). Possibly yes although I obviously don't believe that is the case. Just the same, even if you are correct that doesn't preclude the possibility that God used our biological natures to program us. It goes back to my response to sidelined, we either accept the idea that there is an intelligence that is distinct from our physical or we don't. That sort of fixes how we approach these discussions. Neither position is scientific.
bluegenes writes: Odd if you were brought up a Muslim and indoctrinated as a child with Islam. Or were you, like Polkinghorne, brought up as a Christian? I too was brought up Anglican but I was agnostic for about 20 years.
bluegenes writes: At least 95% of the world's religious people happen to believe that the religion of their background does the best job of explaining things. You can try and intellectualise your cultural programming if you want to, but it won't convince the likes of me. I was brought up in the exact same form of Christianity as Polkinghorne (and Dawkins, interestingly) and I understand very well where he's coming from. Most of the major world religions have a great deal in common. The original Buddha preached very much the same message as Jesus did. (Love your enemy etc.) Islam has the same roots as Christianity. It is the questions surrounding the man Jesus Christ that bring about theological differences.
bluegenes writes: I de-programmed myself decades ago. I did the same and then re-programmed myself. You should try it, I highly recommend it. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
