|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Choosing a faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
That's math, not science, and if you're working in any base except base 2 or 3 then the answer will always be 4. I would quibble that should be: "except base 3 or 4". Not base 2 because the "2" does not exist, but rather that equation would be 10 + 10 = 100. And "4" would not exist in base 4, but rather it would be 2 + 2 = 10. But you did recover in your examples and discussion, so I will not quibble.
It would not surprise me that there are other systems of mathematics where 2+2 does not equal 4, ... Not sure about math, but in some programming languages the + is the concatenation operator (joins two strings to form a longer string), so there it would be 2 + 2 = 22 (ie, concatenate the string 2 with the string 2 to form the string 22) -- though the notation for the strings will vary.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Revisiting this because of ringo's Message 272.
I told my Counselor about EvC and ... Quick question: What kind of counselor is he? A normal counselor (ie, for normals) or a Christian counselor (ie, for ... you know who)? Because it would make a difference. You remember about Dan Barker. I've mentioned him a few times. Raised a fundamentalist Christian and served as a fundamentalist minister for two decades after having been called to the pulpit personally by God (that was his story). But then he committed the unpardonable sin of daring to think and start to ask questions and now he has been given the title (by his opponents, I'm pretty sure) of "America's Leading Atheist" and co-President of the (FFRF). I bring him up again because of a statement he made from his own decades-long personal religious experience (quoting from memory): "Fundamentalism is what happens when your theology becomes your psychology." As a result of their having different psychologies, they do not find useful counselors trained to help normals, but rather they need to have their own special Christian counselors. Rather than try to help them with their problems for the purpose of resolving those problems, Christian counselors also seek to keep their patients within the Fold. I saw them in action during my divorce. I got recruited to help balance a 50's singles dance class at a nationally known Baptist megachurch (class attendance: 100 women to 50 men, so after a couple weeks many of the women drop out) and that brought me into the social circle of those middle-age single Christians. One of their activities was to attend another local megachurch's "Singles Seminars" led by a pair of Christian counselors who took turns giving that week's presentation. They would use some of the same tools as normal counselors (eg, setting boundaries, associating with people who lead you to positive attitudes) and would even start to offer some actual good advice, but then they would inevitably blow it completely as they veered off the road into the weeds with religion; eg:
As we see in those examples, for a normal a Christian counselor would be worse than useless. One of the several reasons would be that a Christian counselor would never offer any practical or real reasons for making any positive changes, but rather everything is because of God and what God wants. And for one whose theology has become his psychology (ie, one whose psychology is centered on God, who interprets everything through God and bases all his motivation on God, etc) a normal counselor would be of little use since that counselor would give real and practical reasons and goals, whereas the patient can only relate to what God wants. But there's also the point that when seeing a Christian counselor, it's not about you. Rather it's about keeping you from straying from God, even when that would be the way to cure you. They will try to keep you from asking too many questions and from thinking too much. Or from talking to outsiders who are telling you things that your religion does not want you to hear. Hence your counselor's advice to leave from here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
GDR writes: There is zero evidence that we are not the product of an external intelligence. It must have been explained at EvC a thousand times that you can't prove a negative, and that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. These are obvious and inviolable principles, but somehow you keep tripping over them.
Essentially the only evidence that you and virtually everyone else on this site allows for is scientific evidence. Scientific evidence is the only kind of evidence there is. The foundation of scientific evidence is observation using our senses, which we all do all the time. If the information you've gathered isn't something you experienced from the real world through your senses then it isn't evidence. What we call science is just a formalized, methodical, accurate and, increasingly often, technological way of gathering, analyzing and thinking about evidence. The important question is "What is evidence?" You may have been party to some of the past discussions about the nature of evidence. 1 Corinthians 15:6 says that Jesus appeared to 500 followers at one time after the resurrection. Is that evidence that it really happened? Trump says he won the 2020 election. Is that evidence that he really won? Neil Armstrong said he went to the moon. Is that evidence that he did? Is any claim anyone makes evidence? I would answer in the affirmative, and this is where replication comes in. It is the accumulation of reported observations, the accumulation of evidence, that gives us confidence in what we know. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
You brought up some founders (at Discovery Institute) from the past, but I wonder if anyone saw or read the recent Newsweek article from Stephen C. Meyer? I respectfully disagree with dwise1 when he points to how horrible Christian counselors are. He may have had some genuine bad experiences, but that is no reason to vilify an entire profession! I would be more worried about indoctrination if I had a strong atheist for a counselor.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " *** “…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.” “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
dwise1 writes: This has not been my experience. Apparently, you had a bad one in your early divorce recovery. As we see in those examples, for a normal a Christian counselor would be worse than useless. One of the several reasons would be that a Christian counselor would never offer any practical or real reasons for making any positive changes, but rather everything is because of God and what God wants. And for one whose theology has become his psychology (ie, one whose psychology is centered on God, who interprets everything through God and bases all his motivation on God, etc) a normal counselor would be of little use since that counselor would give real and practical reasons and goals, whereas the patient can only relate to what God wants. "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " *** “…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.” “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Tangle writes: Posted this before but it's one response to the something from nothing problem. Skip the very long introductions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwzbU0bGOdc Wow, bright guy. However it makes the point that it is plausible that the laws of the universe do not need a cause. However he goes on to say that it doesn't explain the existence of particles in the first place. Also of course if his explanation is plausible, (which I agree it is), then other explanations are also plausible. Also his talk is about the physical universe and doesn't explain the emergence of consciousness. He also says, (in the question period), that there is a limitation to science as we live in a single universe. He mentions the multi-verse in saying that if that is the case then science won't be able to investigate them. That takes me back to that front page headline in Scientific American which asks the question: "Is an Entire Universe Silently Woven Into Our Own". If that is the case then is it possible that an interwoven universe impacts the world we live in here? Then I would wonder if the connecting point between the two might possibly be through consciousness. It also takes me back to the question of which god that I started with. In addition to theism I might add that the atheistic position, as I understand it, involves making us gods in the sense that right and wrong are simply human constructs, which could well make that position of being one of the available gods. At any rate thanks, although like one of the questioners said, my head is spinning. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Percy writes:
I watched it right through. Please see my reply to Tangle. To GDR: I hadn't seen this video before. I only watched a few minutes beyond the 13 minute mark, by which time it became obvious he was going to talk about things I already know, but they may not be things that you already know. If you're curious about scientific views (i.e., evidence-based views) of first causes of the universe and also of how it might end then this is well worth listening to.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
GDR writes: I would contend that science should impact our theology but not the other way around.Percy writes: I believe that I do. I'm just saying that some of the conclusions drawn from science around here are simply plausible conclusions, such as observing that morality is naturally infectious. (which I agree with), but then claiming it is scientific that there is nothing more involved. You should live this rather than just say it.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Percy writes: Relatively early in this process you should have reached some sort of conclusion along the lines of you're not going to find TRVTH. It's still a worthy exercise, but it's the journey that's important. The destination doesn't exist. I certainly always knew that I can't know the truth but I can conclude what I believe to be true.
Percy writes: ...and so should our religious beliefs. I think what you're trying to say is that science is tentative, always ready to change in light of new evidence or improved insights.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
dwise1 writes: Except there would be evidence of someone having pushed that rock, or at least of someone having been in the immediate vicinity of the rock's original location in the fairly immediate past: footprints!. No trace of anybody having been present would weigh against the "someone pushed it" hypothesis. By analogy, consider the small child explaining to his mother that he hadn't broken the lamp, but rather it was an elephant that had entered the room (and somehow hadn't upset anything else, just the lamp). Was it erosion? Examination would uncover signs of erosion, which does leave evidence. If physical support for that rock had eroded away or subsided, then there would be evidence of that. In the end, you are free to believe all you want to in your elephant who magically leaves behind no evidence of its passage. Just don't expect any agreement from those who actually examine the evidence. There could well be both footprints and erosion. The point is simply that we can choose to believe one or the other.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
GDR writes: There is zero evidence that we are not the product of an external intelligence.Percy writes: Sure, but posters here claim that because there is no evidence that there is a god as evidence that there isn't. Bit of a double standard possibly?
It must have been explained at EvC a thousand times that you can't prove a negative, and that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. These are obvious and inviolable principles, but somehow you keep tripping over them. Percy writes: I would disagree as I contend that there is such a thing as philosophical evidence. Scientific evidence is the only kind of evidence there is. In addition it is suggested that morality has come about because of personal interactions alone, or something like that), which is strictly from observation. In that scenario, the observation could just as easily lead to the belief that the facility for that to happen came from an external moral intelligence. Neither view is scientific or evidenced. AbE Wow! I am caught up.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9199 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Yeah, your counselor is doing great.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
There could well be both footprints and erosion. For which there would be evidence which must be examined in order to determine what had actually happened. I'm thinking particularly of Locard's exchange principle:
quote: To get a better time-fix on Dr. Locard, he set up the first police forensic lab in 1910.
The point is simply that we can choose to believe one or the other. No, the point is that there is always evidence (which includes the absence of certain evidence that would be expected by a given hypothesis), so one must be ready to test one's hypotheses against the evidence. Ignoring evidence just so one can hold on to one's unfounded preconceived notion would be a sin. A full investigation requires taking all the evidence into account. Engaging in wishful thinking is doing the opposite. OBTW, it could be both! Not necessarily either-or. For example, erosion had weakened the soil under the rock to the point where a passerby stepping a little too close to the rock would have been enough to cause the soil to give way and the rock to go tumbling down. And the evidence should show that! Or show something different. Every hypothesis is subject to testing and rejecting or refining. Don't fool yourself with simplistic either-or thinking, but rather follow the evidence.
ABE: Just to make sure that last point was clear.
GDR writes: There could well be both footprints and erosion. The point is simply that we can choose to believe one or the other. No, that is not the point. Not by a long shot! If it's both, then it is both! Not either-or, but both! You are claiming the opposite, that if it is both, then you can pick either one and ignore the other. Wrong! If it is both then you must accept both. Not pick and choose what you want to believe and ignore the rest (like the cafeteria theology which we observe far too many Christians employing). Both means both.Edited by dwise1, : ABE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Obviously not. Evidence isn’t proof and a positive claim isn’t a negative. So whichever way you meant it you’re wrong.
quote: I wonder what you mean by that. But then we already know that you have odd ideas about evidence.
quote: This is just nonsense. I get that you don’t like the science-based explanation for morality - but to dismiss it like this without even understanding it is neither rational nor intellectually honest.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
GDR writes: However it makes the point that it is plausible that the laws of the universe do not need a cause. er, that's my point not yours... you say the universe needs an uncaused cause and that cause is your god. I say not necessarily and gave you some current theory that says maybe it doesn't.
However he goes on to say that it doesn't explain the existence of particles in the first place. Can you show me where he says that, I suspect you misunderstood something.
Also of course if his explanation is plausible, (which I agree it is), then other explanations are also plausible. That's a non sequitur. Something specific being possible does not make something different possible. Also his talk is about the physical universe and doesn't explain the emergence of consciousness. He doesn't give a recipe for egg custard either. He also says, (in the question period), that there is a limitation to science as we live in a single universe. He mentions the multi-verse in saying that if that is the case then science won't be able to investigate them. That takes me back to that front page headline in Scientific American which asks the question: "Is an Entire Universe Silently Woven Into Our Own". If that is the case then is it possible that an interwoven universe impacts the world we live in here? Then I would wonder if the connecting point between the two might possibly be through consciousness. You're all over the place GDR. What you heard was science, what you're talking about now is pure woo. You're trying to jamb your belief into science, it's a bit embarrassing. If you need to believe in Christ just do it, but please don't pollute the science with your personal fantasies. You can't just ad hoc your way into cosmic physics. It also takes me back to the question of which god that I started with. In addition to theism I might add that the atheistic position, as I understand it, involves making us gods in the sense that right and wrong are simply human constructs, which could well make that position of being one of the available gods. How many times GDR? Atheism is a lack of belief in god - any and all gods. NOTHING ELSE! Please, please, please stop trying to make it more than that. Morality has nothing to do with atheism and vice versa. They are independent variables. Right and wrong has got nothing to do with god and nothing to do with atheism, it's an evolved trait conditioned by our culture. What an individual believes about right and wrong is subjective and varies depending on when and where he was born and the culture he was born into. Moral feelings can be changed with drugs and by brain injury. It's not an absolute, it varies over time, between cultures - and religions. In some modern cultures it's moral to throw homosexuals out of tall buildings and stone people with different beliefs. At any rate thanks, although like one of the questioners said, my head is spinning. Please remember that the presenter is a real scientist, presenting real science. Difficult science way beyond anything that you or I can understand. He's also an atheist so it's unlikely that anything he says is helpful for your argument, so don't twist it. He might also be wrong - not about facts but about speculation beyond them.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024