Though I'm quite sure that much of my thought process is also "broken" and uncritical.
It is, but it is something you can learn to do, it's a simply acquired skills. And the beauty of it is that the skills can be applied to anything. It's not a religious thing.
I know that I will never "throw God away" as jar suggests, yet am learning why I fall on this side of the fence rather than on Richard Dawkins side.
You don’t have to throw god away, you just have to discard all the utter bollox that goes with the process of believing. You could see even from that short clip that she simply could not think in a straight line. Her particular belief corrupts her entire ability to think critically.
By "most of the Christian Churches" you are likely referring to the Roman Catholic position which fully accepts Evolutioon as a viable concept.
No, I mean most Christian churches. Obviously the Catholic church accepts evolution which is the majority Christian belief system anyway, but so does Anglicanism and pretty much all others except the total loony lot. I understand that you live in the US and that the US is a total outlier as far as religious belief and evolution is concerned but most of the rest of the world looks on in amazement.
Im quite sure that most all Episcopal Churches would agree and that only thew modern day evangelical fundamentalists would put up much of a fuss.
There you go.
It's not a hard point to grasp that evolution and atheism are not the same thing, not even related.
But I'm only using the evolution thing to provide an example of how a belief can corrupt the thinking process.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
quote:Ouch. That hurt, but I will take it as a loving rebuke
Well, you have to remember that I was brought up Christian, and I still find negative depictions of God to be suspect. Perhaps underneath it all I really do want the loving and merciful God I was taught, but Christianity gets in the way of that (Calvinism especially).
quote:One question, though. If you cant decide to want something that you really dont understand, why do you self identify as an atheist rather than an agnostic?
Wanting is not believing. Indeed I don’t trust myself when I want something to be true (the number of black headed gulls I’ve thought might be mediterranean gulls...). So, intellectually I find the idea of a god highly implausible, and piling religion on to that doesn’t make it any more likely. Maybe there’s some religion I haven’t given a fair shake, but Christianity and it’s major offshoots don’t seem to have much truth in them.
I know that I will never "throw God away" as jar suggests, yet am learning why I fall on this side of the fence rather than on Richard Dawkins side.
You keep injecting what I post into replies to other folk while demonstrating that you are simply incapable of understanding or are unwilling to understand what I actually post.
Think for a minute about "throw God away" and the many instances where that is exactly what you do while never realizing or refusing to realize that is exactly what you do do.
There is a God in Genesis 1. That God is supremely competent but also aloof, apart, and has absolutely to contact or communion with what that God creates.
But you throw that God away; instead you create a God that is not apart, not aloof and that has communion with some chosen few that just happens include you.
There is a God in Genesis 2&3. That God is kinda incompetent, learning on the job, unsure, learning by trial and error, not fully honest and certainly not fair in its treatment of humans but it is approachable, helping and definitely in communion with Adam & Eve.
But you throw that God away; instead you create a God that is not unsure, not learning on the job, not working through trial and error, fully honest and incapable of lies or deceit.
The list of God(s) and god(s) that you do throw away is extensive and we have discussed many if not most of such examples. What you do is throw all God(s) and god(s) except the God you want and create away because it is the God you really really really want to be real.
GOD, God god.
I have never suggested that you throw GOD away. It's all the brazillion God(s) and god(s) that you and all other believers create that need to be thrown away. Stop worshipping a human creation, an idol, an ikon, coyote & raven & Loki that are what the Apologists of all time and all faiths create, costume, script and market.
Believe in GOD, the creator all that is, seen and unseen, the GOD that will judge your life after you die. Or don't. But why continue to believe in some God that ALL the evidence says is just a creation of human minds?
Finally I can relate to what you suggest, though it is not an easy thought process. There is fear that if I deconstruct God as I understand Him I will be left in the dark. Science Mike actually talks similar to you and I have been thinking outside my usual evangelical box lately....(well just a *little bit* outside!)
In all honesty:
I always keep the God I want. I throw all of the others soundly and firmly away. I believe that GOD is also the living Spirit....the comforter promised through Jesus. And I believe that GOD can be better understood through studying the Bible and Jesus than He(She,It) ever could through studying human literature.
But I appreciate your input. A good teacher challenges their students assumptions. All of you certainly;y challenge mine. Often I hate it. But I don't hate you.
I think I liked this post because you didn't call me stupid, accuse me of word salad, or say anything negative. It was refreshing, but I do note that you always encourage me to think.
"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
The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe. - Criss Jami, Killosophy
I always keep the God I want. I throw all of the others soundly and firmly away.
Exactly.
You keep the God you create.
But if GOD exists she is not any of the God(s) or god(s) that humans have created over the millennia.
GOD, if GOD exists is what IT is; not what we really really really want to be real.
AbE:
Phat writes:
And I believe that GOD can be better understood through studying the Bible and Jesus than He(She,It) ever could through studying human literature.
But again Phat, that is not what you do.
You do not study the Bible; instead you listen without question what Apologists tell you the Bible really says instead of what is actually written.
Second, there is no way to study Jesus other than through what humans have written about Jesus and even there, you do not actually study what is actually written but only what the Apologists market.
The Bible is just human literature, written by humans, edited by humans, compiled by humans, revised by humans, translated by humans, interpreted & marketed by humans.
There is fear that if I deconstruct God as I understand Him I will be left in the dark.
Try watching this YouTube video, The LOGICAL reasons people deconstruct | 5 strategies Evangelicals use to NOT deconstruct by Deconstruct & Level Up:
In the comment section she's addressed as "JC" apparently for "J.C. Lamont". She appears to be a Christian, possibly evangelical, who is trying to guide Christians suffering from cognitive dissonance caused by conflicts between things they've been taught to believe and hence entering into deconstruction, but they fear that that will lead to atheism (which it can do, especially if they are stupid in their deconstruction or just plain fall into the booby traps set by their religion). She's preparing a course which I seem to recall is called "Door #3" -- she presents examples of the problem as a list of three options with the third one being what she would recommend.
Basically, her approach is similar to what I've tried to do with creationists. Their theology teaches them that if creationism's lies turn out to be false (which they are) then that would disprove God and they should become hedonistic atheist axe murderers (that may seem a bit hyperbolic, but there's actually what some creationists have told me).
Rather, the point I try to make to creationists is that their theology is Man-made and hence fallible, so when their theology turns out to be wrong about something then it's the theology that's at fault, not "God", and that having something disprove a part of their theology only affects that theology and not "God". Instead, creationism presents its theology as infallible and teaches that disproving that theology is the same as disproving "God".
My attitude towards theology is the same as my attitude towards science: if a theory is wrong about something then correct the theory, so likewise if a theology is wrong about something then correct the theology.
However, JC points out that evangelicals would view that situation as part of a slippery slope that will slide them down into atheism and hence would one or more of the five strategies she describes for avoiding deconstruction. I see that fear reflected in your " ... I will be left in the dark."
Consider this quote from Augustine of Hippo (354 - 430 CE) is also known as "Saint Augustine," arguably the inventor of a lot of Christian doctrine:
Augustine of Hippo:"God is not what you imagine or what you think you understand. For if you understand, you have failed."
Therefore do not place too much stock in your own misunderstanding of "God", since it is most definitely lacking. One's understanding must grow, not become petrified. That requires thinking and questioning.
I've recommended this book before, though my only exposure has been to a newspaper article reviewing it: Childhood Image of God Prevails Among Adults, Authors Say. Basically, we have childish ways of thinking about "God" because that's what we were taught (and learned -- what kids end up learning is not usually what we try to teach them) as children and then when we grew up out of childhood we never went back to develop a more mature understanding.
Here is how that article starts:
quote:When asked his identity, God answered cryptically in Scripture, “I Am Who I Am.” Religious thinkers say God is beyond human definitions or comprehension, but that many people tend to shrink him down to handy, manageable size.
Such notions generally are carried over from Sunday school images from childhood, never subjected to mature examination, says Rabbi Jack Bemporad, a leader in Jewish-Christian dialogue.
“In many ways, we have grown smarter, but when it comes to God, many of us haven’t grown at all,” Bemporad and advertising executive Michael Shevack write, saying that many haven’t developed views matching adult knowledge.
“We still have stupid ways of thinking about God,” they say. “The ideas we were spoon-fed as children we now gag on as adults,” undermining and destroying belief in many cases.
In an often humorous but perceptive book, “Stupid Ways, Smart Ways, to Think about God,” published by Triumph Books, the authors describe both the frequently silly but also sensible views of God.
To a large extent, atheists seldom reject a credible God but usually “reject some stupid way of thinking about God,” the authors say, calling some ideas about God “so ridiculous they are not worth believing.”
Although God can’t be reduced to human analysis, the authors say there are “smart ways to think of God” that expand and change with time and that “also expand and change us.”
Oh what the heck! Here's the rest which is a description of stupid and smart ways of thinking about God:
quote:
Among the “stupid” views of God listed in their 117-page book:
* God as your personal “cosmic bellhop,” ratifying “your every desire,” always “ready to serve you” to control others, making in essence “yourself god.”
* God as “little Mary Sunshine,” so don’t worry, “little Mary Sunshine will take care of everything for you.”
* The “proverbial God of wrath, ready to show how much he cares by punishing you, the Marquis de God,” despising sinners so much he exterminates them. Adherents of this view blame God’s vindictiveness, rather than “our own moral lapses.”
* “God the general,” a “nationalistic god” whose “holy mission is to serve his country. Protect its honor.” He’s not just defender, but a “self-righteous and meddlesome god. . . . He is the commander of crusades. The leader of jihads.”
* “God the master of ceremonies,” who leads weddings, bar mitzvahs, confirmations, christenings, circumcisions, funerals, to be hired by anyone.
Among the smart ways to think of God, the book says:
* Consider God “the beginning of the beginning” of everything, before the big bang, before the time-space continuum, before energy and matter, before any universe. * Recognize “God is living” in the present. This doesn’t mean he breathes air and digests foods but that God’s infinity “permeates everything,” a “strange quality called consciousness.”
* As “the creator,” God must have “one heck of an IQ”--the “ultimate prodigy.” You can see this supreme intelligence at work “if we look at creation.”
* He gave humanity “truly godlike” qualities, his free will to share in shaping creation, the source both of humanity’s suffering and dignity, to make choices. God “can’t just swoop down and make our lives perfect. That would be an insult against our humanity, our nature. It would violate the very free spirit he gave us. . . . He must allow man rope, even if he hangs himself.”
* “God is personal” and he has “real consequences for your life” and “must become the standard by which you evaluate your decisions.”
* God is forever, confronting the “power of death.” God lifts the “executioner’s mask” and “says we are immortal” because we were created in his immortal spirit. That is our true nature. “God says our consciousness lives on.”
That was a good post. What fascinates me about you is that despite your public stance of dismissing religion, you seem to have not thrown personal belief away and kept it as a developing option. Or am I only hoping this to be so?
quote: Among the smart ways to think of God, the book says: * Consider God “the beginning of the beginning” of everything, before the big bang, before the time-space continuum, before energy and matter, before any universe. * Recognize “God is living” in the present. This doesn’t mean he breathes air and digests foods but that God’s infinity “permeates everything,” a “strange quality called consciousness.” * As “the creator,” God must have “one heck of an IQ”--the “ultimate prodigy.” You can see this supreme intelligence at work “if we look at creation.” * He gave humanity “truly godlike” qualities, his free will to share in shaping creation, the source both of humanity’s suffering and dignity, to make choices. God “can’t just swoop down and make our lives perfect. That would be an insult against our humanity, our nature. It would violate the very free spirit he gave us. . . . He must allow man rope, even if he hangs himself.” * “God is personal” and he has “real consequences for your life” and “must become the standard by which you evaluate your decisions.” * God is forever, confronting the “power of death.” God lifts the “executioner’s mask” and “says we are immortal” because we were created in his immortal spirit. That is our true nature. “God says our consciousness lives on.”
My own answer is that of course I don't "resonate" with any of those "smart points," which aren't smart at all but are just Christian theology steeped in the Bible.
It's like you're saying, "I'm searching for answers about God. I haven't found them yet, but I know that those answers are Christian answers." GDR takes the same approach.
That was a good post. What fascinates me about you is that despite your public stance of dismissing religion, you seem to have not thrown personal belief away and kept it as a developing option. Or am I only hoping this to be so?
I think the main point is that science shouldn't be a stumbling block for those seeking to keep their faith. YEC is pretty much an own goal when it comes to keeping people in the faith.
I can only speak for myself, but I have run across many people who have the same experiences as I have. I was a pretty curious kid growing up in the church, and I made peace with science and Christian theology at a young age. It wasn't a stumbling block for me. Rather, it was a whole host of other issues that led me away from the faith, such as the problem of suffering and the rather strong correlation between where you are born and what religious beliefs you accept. When I asked myself if I would be Hindu if I grew up in India and the answer was probably yes, that made me question a lot of things.
I can only speak for myself, but I have run across many people who have the same experiences as I have. I was a pretty curious kid growing up in the church, and I made peace with science and Christian theology at a young age. It wasn't a stumbling block for me. Rather, it was a whole host of other issues that led me away from the faith, such as the problem of suffering and the rather strong correlation between where you are born and what religious beliefs you accept. When I asked myself if I would be Hindu if I grew up in India and the answer was probably yes, that made me question a lot of things.
Blaming God for the actions of man (be they religious men or secular humanists) is a common human response to the problem of suffering and injustice. Note:
quote:* He gave humanity “truly godlike” qualities, his free will to share in shaping creation, the source both of humanity’s suffering and dignity, to make choices. God “can’t just swoop down and make our lives perfect. That would be an insult against our humanity, our nature. It would violate the very free spirit he gave us. . . . He must allow man rope, even if he hangs himself.”
Blaming God for the actions of man (be they religious men or secular humanists) is a common human response to the problem of suffering and injustice.
First, I'm not blaming God. What I am doing is seeing if the world I see is consistent with the loving God described by the Bible. What I see is a universe that is indistinguishable from one where God does not exist.
Second, I am not talking about the actions of men. I am talking about suffering, such as the millions of children who die from malaria or cancer.
First, I'm not blaming God. What I am doing is seeing if the world I see is consistent with the loving God described by the Bible. What I see is a universe that is indistinguishable from one where God does not exist.
First of all, you are not addressing evil. In the Bible there are two spirits. 1)The Holy Spirit 2) All of the other ones self-willed to exist in rebellion to God.
What I see in this world is a world where the other independent "spirits" are in control. It is only by God's grace that we still exist at all.
What I see in this world is a world where the other independent "spirits" are in control. It is only by God's grace that we still exist at all.
How are you able to see this? Can you take a photo and share it?
Or are there invisible entities that no one can perceive doing things that no one can perceive, and a deity that no one can perceive that is somehow stopping it all. That's quite a winding road of a story you have there.
What I am doing is seeing if the world I see is consistent with the loving God described by the Bible.
The *loving* God of the Bible can only really be understood through the lens of Jesus Christ. And Jesus can only be understood by comparing what words were attributed to Him with reality.
...are there invisible entities that no one can perceive doing things that no one can perceive, and a deity that no one can perceive that is somehow stopping it all?
The Deity is not stopping anything. The Deity is allowing destiny to fulfill its course. Humans are responsible for resisting evil. One could argue that intrinsic evil is causing much of the world misery but evidence will show only that this evil originates from humans. As POGO said, "We have met the enemy and he is us."
That's quite a winding road of a story you have there.
I'm sure the story has and will also have a few plot twists. One could argue that the story is being written with our broken thinking skills contributing to the narrative.
Thats partly because you see a lot of injustice and assume that God is morally culpable for fixing it or preventing it.
What I see is injustice caused by men, and no supernatural deity doing anything about it. Again, the universe is indistinguishable from a universe where God does not exist.
I think that Percy is talking more about the actions of men. (...) specifically, men who call themselves either devout Jews or Christians.
I am talking about horrific suffering from disease through the fault of no one.
The Deity is not stopping anything. The Deity is allowing destiny to fulfill its course.
That is indistinguishable from a universe where God does not exist.
™ Version 4.2
