I was reading this again to think on it some more. It is actually a pretty good answer. It has a strange sort of logic to it. Then I thought about Satan and the fact that he rebelled from God. Who would--being intimately familiar with God as Satan was--do that? It is insane to know that God is all powerful, but you are going to take Him. So, the Devil does not have a good track record in these things and probably would have tried out of his own arrogance and narcissism.
After reading this, I felt it necessary to say that I don't believe Jesus is God; the Devil wasn't trying to ' take' God...but just imagine if he could take \ get God's First-born Son! Now, that wouldve been something!
But, to me, during Jesus' previous existence in Heaven with his Father (John 17:5), he had developed so much love and respect for Him, that he simply wasn't going to give in to anything! But Jesus could've...his love just motivated him not to.
See, Adam hadn't developed such a closeness...he felt closer to his wife.
Your (mis)interpretation of God would make Him a sado-masochist.
While Jehovah God can opt to foresee future events, He chooses 99.9% of the time not to know which individuals will be involved, preferring to respect our use of free will.
Comparing 'objective' research with individual ideological preference is not really an accurate comparison. Religion falls more into the category of ideology than scientific fact.
Ideology is inherently subjective and we all require metaphorical truths to ground our ideologies.
And I was just noting that simply showing someone data will not change their opinion on something they are emotionally invested in, as is supported by numerous scientific studies and is apparent from spending any length of time on RF.
People tend not to believe that this also applies to them as well as other people though.
ETA-Most people you accuse of intellectual dishonesty will be thinking exactly the same thing
Nope.
That is an absurd thing for you to say. See if you can see why.
Mot people do not operate under the assumption that they are being intellectually dishonest when they are discussing something they are emotionally invested in.
See for example almost any discussion here about Trump.
Do you believe others will see what you say as being intellectually dishonest at times, and that you will often be unaware of your own biases?
Comparing 'objective' research with individual ideological preference is not really an accurate comparison. Religion falls more into the category of ideology than scientific fact.
Ideology is inherently subjective and we all require metaphorical truths to ground our ideologies.
And I was just noting that simply showing someone data will not change their opinion on something they are emotionally invested in, as is supported by numerous scientific studies and is apparent from spending any length of time on RF.
People tend not to believe that this also applies to them as well as other people though.
Mot people do not operate under the assumption that they are being intellectually dishonest when they are discussing something they are emotionally invested in.
See for example almost any discussion here about Trump.
Lets keep it simple. A creationist who has access
to information has no option other than intellectual
dishonesty, if he is to keep his faith.
A researcher has no option, if he is to keep his
reputation, but to do his utmost to be objective.
Religion is a culture of faith, science a culture
of doubt.
Human failings ar perfection do not alter that.
ETA-shoe ME the data, and I will believe in "god",
of whatever stripe. When I said "we" that may have
been a royal we, or, a "we" who do not predictably
and inevitably indulge in emotion uber alles.
How do creationists predictably respond to data?
Intellectual honesty is what it is. Some value it
some fear and shun it.
In terms of normative platitudes perhaps, but scientists are humans and humans are influenced by biases, prejudices, cognitive failings, ambitions, pressures, structural constraints, bribes, etc.
When published findings in certain fields are >50% false can we say that this field is a paragon of intellectual honesty and a culture of doubt?
Or Max Planck: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
Anyway, comparing science to religion is comparing methodologies to ideologies, not exactly apples and apples.
Evolutionary psychologist John Tooby would disagree on this:
Every human—not excepting scientists—bears the whole stamp of the human condition. This includes evolved neural programs specialized for navigating the world of coalitions—teams, not groups. (Although the concept of coalitional instincts has emerged over recent decades, there is no mutually-agreed-upon term for this concept yet.) These programs enable us and induce us to form, maintain, join, support, recognize, defend, defect from, factionalize, exploit, resist, subordinate, distrust, dislike, oppose, and attack coalitions. Coalitions are sets of individuals interpreted by their members and/or by others as sharing a common abstract identity (including propensities to act as a unit, to defend joint interests, and to have shared mental states and other properties of a single human agent, such as status and prerogatives)...
This raises a problem for scientists: Coalition-mindedness makes everyone, including scientists, far stupider in coalitional collectivities than as individuals. Paradoxically, a political party united by supernatural beliefs can revise its beliefs about economics or climate without revisers being bad coalition members. But people whose coalitional membership is constituted by their shared adherence to “rational,” scientific propositions have a problem when—as is generally the case—new information arises which requires belief revision. To question or disagree with coalitional precepts, even for rational reasons, makes one a bad and immoral coalition member—at risk of losing job offers, one's friends, and one's cherished group identity. This freezes belief revision.
Forming coalitions around scientific or factual questions is disastrous, because it pits our urge for scientific truth-seeking against the nearly insuperable human appetite to be a good coalition member. Once scientific propositions are moralized, the scientific process is wounded, often fatally. No one is behaving either ethically or scientifically who does not make the best case possible for rival theories with which one disagrees.
I'm sure that you know that that is true for many believers, like these, who would all tell you that if the Bible says the moon is made of cheese, then it is, and any evidence to the contrary, including moon rocks, should be ignored. It must be wrong if it contradicts scripture. Here are a few examples of the stubborn closed-mindedness of literalist faith :
[1] "The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. And this gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, even if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I do not think that this controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit. In such a situation, I should regard that as simply a result of the contingent circumstances that I'm in, and that if I were to pursue this with due diligence and with time, I would discover that the evidence, if in fact I could get the correct picture, would support exactly what the witness of the Holy Spirit tells me. So I think that's very important to get the relationship between faith and reason right..." - William Lane Craig
[2] The moderator in the debate between science educator Bill Nye and Christian creationist Ken Ham on creationism as a viable scientific field of study asked, "What would change your minds?" Nye answered, "Evidence." Ham answered, "Nothing. I'm a Christian.” Elsewhere, Ham stated, “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."
[3] “If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa
[4] “When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data. The only Bible-honoring conclusion is, of course, that Genesis 1-11 is actual historical truth, regardless of any scientific or chronological problems thereby entailed.” –American young Earth creationist and co-founder of the Creation Research Society and the Institute for Creation Research Henry M. Morris
[5] “As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate” – creationist Kurt Wise
[6] “Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.” source
Even without knowing which holy book that is, I suspect that we have different understandings of what truth is and how it is determined. To call the Bible, for example, the truth is to say that its claims are facts of history, science, morality, and metaphysics (afterlife, gods and angels, heaven and hell), meaning that they demonstrably with reality.
That is determined by examining reality and comparing scripture to it. If the scripture accurately maps a piece of examined reality, then we can call it a fact, as when it refers to the presence of fig trees in the Levant. We can go to the appropriate place and confirm that the claims that there are indeed figs grown there. We can be confident that the claim does map reality, since it can predict outcomes reliably. If I go there, I can expect to find figs.
More generally, if a man holds belief B that some action A will produce desired result D, if B is true, that is, a fact, then doing A will achieve D. If A fails to achieve D, then B is incorrect.
Either you agree that truth should be measured by its ability to predict outcomes and its capacity to inform decisions such that they lead to desirable results, or you have some other understanding of what makes an idea true, correct, or factual. If we agree, we have a common basis for discussion, and a common means of investigating any differences in opinion about what is true. If I think that a particular restaurant is still in business, and you think otherwise, we have a means to determine which is the fact
If you have a different understanding of what truth is or how it is determined, say by faith, then we have no basis for discussion, and your contradictory opinion carries has no persuasive power to the rational skeptic, who questions all unevidenced claims, and believes nothing without a sound reason.
The Garden story is just as critical. No initial disobedience, no original sin. no need for Christ or redemption. The Old Earth Creationists are adapting to incorporate modern scientific knowledge, which is to their credit. It's a willingness to accept science over literal interpretation of scripture, as when science says that it is impossible that there were only two human beings a few thousand years ago.
Isn't that the way it should be? I believe my belief system, secular humanism, is the best ideology man has ever devised. If I thought that some other belief system were superior, I'd adopt it and be of the mind that then, my belief system was superior.
religious people tended to use different parts of their brain when looking at religious beliefs vs non-religious beliefs compared to atheists. They found that those brain regions were associated with strong emotions and absolute certainty, which were even comparable to strong political beliefs.
Thanks for that. Not surprising. I'll try to find more on the topic.
Faith-based and evidence-based thought are radically different ways of processing information and come to diametrically opposed conclusions, so why shouldn't those brains look different in functional scans?.
Also, faith-based thought predisposes to the construction of a faith-based confirmation bias that controls what gets in and what is rejected out of hand according to faith. It's not ithat different neural circuitry is recruited for the task.
Many human beings are capable of writing clearly. Plain language is generally unambiguous. Shouldn't a god be held to that standard? If I want to give you instructions on how to get to my house or how to bake a cake, it's generally pretty clear what I am suggesting that you do to get to my home or bake yourself a cake. It's unlikely that your understanding of the passages is wrong. "Make a left at Main St." or "add a half teaspoon of salt" are pretty hard to misinterpret. Why, if God chose writing as His preferred method of communicating with the ages, why wasn't scripture written at least that clearly? Aren't these considered the most important of instructions by believers?
But more to the point, if a passage is ambiguous, it is neither right nor wrong. It has no definite meaning. It's poetry, like song lyrics, and no interpretation takes precedence of any other.
For example, what does this ambiguous piece of poetry from Bob Dylan's Desolation Row mean? I would suggest that it means whatever you want it to mean, that is, it really means nothing. Even if the poet had something definite in mind, if he didn't tell us what that was, we still don't know what the words meant to him. We can only describe the image it evokes in ourselves, which can't be right or wrong.
Across the street they've nailed the curtains, they're getting ready for the feast
The Phantom of the Opera in a perfect image of a priest
They are spoon feeding Casanova to get him to feel more assured
Then they'll kill him with self-confidence after poisoning him with words
And the Phantom's shouting to skinny girls, "Get outta here if you don't know"
Casanova is just being punished for going to Desolation Row"
If any of my beliefs don't match reality, I modify them as soon as I become aware of it. I just provisionally accepted somebody's claim about different kinds of thinkers having different brain scans while doing their characteristic type of thinking. I believe that he is probably correct based on prior experience with such posters and such scanning, but the degree of confidence is less than it would be if I confirmed the claim.
Incidentally, atheism is nothing more than the "No" answer to the question of whether one believes in a god or gods,or not, and is based on the twin beliefs that nothing should be believed without a sound reason, and no such reason has been uncovered to believe in gods. The first belief has been confirmed to be valid by its track record. It converted astrology to astronomy, the flat earth to the spherical earth, and creationism to the scientific theories of the evolution of matter, chemicals, and life, Each of these conversions has borne fruit, which is the evidence that this basic tenet of skepticism is not only valid, but essential to learning what is true, that is, to finding useful ideas capable of improving the human condition.
So, even if a god or gods do exist, it is still correct that one should not accept that claim without sufficient supporting evidence, and it is correct that existing atheists have not been convinced that gods exist, so, the position is secure and hold
I'm pretty sure that if I were a god creating creatures that I wanted to behave in a certain manner, I would make them with the will to behave that way as nature has done for us. It is imperative that we breathe, drink water, and eat. Why did the god that built us with the ability to sin against its will not also build us with the ability to not take a breath, drink or eat unless and command us to do those things? The answer is easy for me - no god was involved, just blind, natural processes that don't have a concept of sin, but will select against those needing to be reminded to breathe.
So, to answer your question, yes, if an tri-omni god exists, it is responsible for making us with the ability to disobey. With omniscience and omnipotence comes omni-responsibility.
It apparently wasn't sufficient to prevent disobedience. Taking the story at face value, the children's consciences would be undeveloped both because they hadn't eaten the fruit yet, and because we don't enter the world with a developed conscience. It evolves with experience. Unbelievers don't believe that any of this happened, but can note that whether fictional or historical, the story depicts an unjust god, and now unfair devotees of that god attempting to defend what those with no need to defend it can see is not exemplary behavior on the part of the described god.
Not for curious young people testing the limits. It was hard to follow, just as a similar instruction to a child in a room with a cookie jar that he left alone with and told to stay out of. Where the believer thinks the child is at fault (or Adam and Eve), the unbeliever blames the adult (or God), and regrets seeing others that have been convinced to blame the child instead.
Unfortunately is right. And unfortunately, when this monster was cast out of heaven, we are told that it unleashed on humanity to raise hell there rather than be destroyed or confined.
Yet another production failure. This god can't build a decent angel or human being. Perhaps it should stop trying. It's flooding reality with defective products if one accepts the theology.
I have been accused recently of not having intellectual integrity. Im not asking you to speak on behalf of this person. But... Can u in general describe the elements that diminish intellectual integrity?
In academia, it's mostly plagiarism and inappropriately manipulating the results of experiments or surveys.
In both the institution and the individual, it refers to a good faith effort to discover and teach the truth. For example, in a venue like this, where we debate, it involves good faith disputation. That requires that arguments that are made and presented are sincerely believed and constructively offered, that all of the relevant evidence was included rather than some inconvenient findings being ignored, that rebuttals to ones argument and additional questions asked are addressed, and the like, or what is called dialectic.
Dialectic refers to the cooperative effort of people to determine what is true by tracing back to their point of departure and trying to identify why they went in different directions, with the possibility that one will see a mistake in his own reasoning and correct it.
Or perhaps they parted ways because of different values rather than different facts - perhaps a discussion about abortion - in which case, they might not agree on how society should proceed, but they can probably agree that if they held the value that the other holds, they might come to the same conclusion.
“When considering the truth of a proposition, one is either engaged in an honest appraisal of the evidence and logical arguments, or one isn't. Religion is one area of our lives where people imagine that some other standard of intellectual integrity applies.” - Sam Harris
Taking the story at face value, the children's consciences would be undeveloped both because they hadn't eaten the fruit yet, and because we don't enter the world with a developed conscience
I believe there are times when science can lead to a better interpretation of the Bible but the fantasies of scientists don't even come close to the reality of God's knowledge.
I believe there are times when science can lead to a better interpretation of the Bible but the fantasies of scientists don't even come close to the reality of God's knowledge.
What "fantasies" are you talking about? You may have an incorrect belief of what science is and how it is done. Spoiler alert, the fact that Genesis has been shown to be mythical is not a fantasy at all.
I believe there are times when science can lead to a better interpretation of the Bible but the fantasies of scientists don't even come close to the reality of God's knowledge.
The inability to improve. A perfect circle is one that cannot be any rounder, one in which any change in shape makes the circle less round and therefore less perfect.
This is the quality that you say, if I understand you correctly, Adam and Eve possessed. It is also the quality that God is said to possess. None of these could be any better than they were? Did God create a defective race of angels and then a defective race of human beings which he regretted enough to nearly exterminate them (and most of the life around them). If so, He wasn't perfect.
Whether the products of genetics, environment, or some combination of both, we are products. We are made, not self-made. We cannot take credit for our achievements if they are the result of a combination of factors that we didn't choose. Likewise, we cannot be blamed when these factors conspire to produce failure - that is, until and unless we reach a stage of self-actualization, where we have achieved the ability to decide how we want to be and chisel ourselves into that form.
But even then, can we take credit for getting to that point?
Unless the Devil was mistaken that a perfect person could sin. Can the Devil tempt Jehovah to sin? My guess is that you would answer "No." If so, then Jehovah is more perfect than somebody who could be tempted to sin, such as Eve, making the latter imperfect. Perfect is like unique. It doesn't take a qualifier. Nothing is very perfect or very unique, just perfect or unique, other things being not being a little less perfect or a little less unique, but imperfect or not unique.
The fantasies of scientists are making possible this discussion between people on opposite sides of the planet in close to real-time if we choose. The fantasies of scientists conquered smallpox and polio. The fantasies of scientists gave you electric lighting at night, air conditioning for your comfort and refrigeration to preserve your food supply, the world's supply of which has been dramatically increased by other fantasies of scientists. The fantasies of scientists gave you electric motors and machines that reduce the tedium of daily life, and automobiles and airplanes to facilitate transportation of goods and people.
What have the fantasies of religionists provided us? What good ideas have the science nay-sayers given the world?
Or their god. If it exists, we've gotten no help from it, just as we would expect if there were no god. Why didn't it tell us about the penicillin-producing fungus, or about electricity and how to make it work for us?
What does that mean? I knew the Jonah story was a fairy tale by the time I was 9 years old.
Make no mistake I still loved the story, but I also loved the story of Pinocchio which is also full of moral instruction. However, I never had to believe a puppet turned onto a boy to get it.
The inability to improve. A perfect circle is one that cannot be any rounder, one in which any change in shape makes the circle less round and therefore less perfect.
This is the quality that you say, if I understand you correctly, Adam and Eve possessed. It is also the quality that God is said to possess. None of these could be any better than they were? Did God create a defective race of angels and then a defective race of human beings which he regretted enough to nearly exterminate them (and most of the life around them). If so, He wasn't perfect.
Whether the products of genetics, environment, or some combination of both, we are products. We are made, not self-made. We cannot take credit for our achievements if they are the result of a combination of factors that we didn't choose. Likewise, we cannot be blamed when these factors conspire to produce failure - that is, until and unless we reach a stage of self-actualization, where we have achieved the ability to decide how we want to be and chisel ourselves into that form.
But even then, can we take credit for getting to that point?
Unless the Devil was mistaken that a perfect person could sin. Can the Devil tempt Jehovah to sin? My guess is that you would answer "No." If so, then Jehovah is more perfect than somebody who could be tempted to sin, such as Eve, making the latter imperfect. Perfect is like unique. It doesn't take a qualifier. Nothing is very perfect or very unique, just perfect or unique, other things being not being a little less perfect or a little less unique, but imperfect or not unique.
The fantasies of scientists are making possible this discussion between people on opposite sides of the planet in close to real-time if we choose. The fantasies of scientists conquered smallpox and polio. The fantasies of scientists gave you electric lighting at night, air conditioning for your comfort and refrigeration to preserve your food supply, the world's supply of which has been dramatically increased by other fantasies of scientists. The fantasies of scientists gave you electric motors and machines that reduce the tedium of daily life, and automobiles and airplanes to facilitate transportation of goods and people.
What have the fantasies of religionists provided us? What good ideas have the science nay-sayers given the world?
Or their god. If it exists, we've gotten no help from it, just as we would expect if there were no god. Why didn't it tell us about the penicillin-producing fungus, or about electricity and how to make it work for us?
