A United Christian Church Future

Absolute proof is too high a hurdle for either religion or science to jump. I suspect most folk are not demanding either.

However my problem (as a scientist) with Christian* religion is I can't even see how it passes the rather weak, 'on the balance of probabilities' criteria which civil courts apply. It seems to me there is little externality in what the Church chooses to have its adherent believe. e.g. Catholics when I was growing up in the West of Scotland didn't eat meat on Fridays. Such ad hoc nonsense doesn't help their cause.

regards

Ian

*I'm limiting my comment here to Christian religion as I'm pretty ignorant of the others.

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:

People with faith don't require proof.

But they ought to.

I think faith is a grossly misunderstood notion. Most people think that it is evidence of some sort of mental blindness in a person. However, the decision to make a "leap of faith", as it were, is one based soundly and securely on what is already known. It is an incremental step on the road to belief - it just happens to be at the end of that path and not the beginning.

quote:

People with faith don't require proof.

Agreed.

And just as well, 'cause there aint none, either way.

BTW in my language, faith = belief.

Cheers

Don

quote:

And just as well, 'cause there aint none, either way.

Like I said before, do you know eveything?

Human arrogance again!

'I haven't seen or been to China, so therefore there's no such thing...'

quote:

quote:
And just as well, 'cause there aint none, either way.



Like I said before, do you know eveything?

Human arrogance again!

'I haven't seen or been to China, so therefore there's no such thing...'

"And just as well, 'cause there aint none, either way. At least, not at this point in time and not as would convince the entire world poulation"

I was in a bit of a rush the other day, so missed a few words off the end of my statement.

Cheers

Don

I don't need proof in the existence of God, only an understanding that it isn't me.

quote:

Originally posted by joe90:
'I haven't seen or been to China, so therefore there's no such thing...'

the existence, or not, of china proves nothing

quote:

Originally posted by Jay:

quote:

Originally posted by joe90:
'I haven't seen or been to China, so therefore there's no such thing...'

the existence, or not, of china proves nothing

Reminds me of an extract from the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy:

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

quote:

At least, not at this point in time and not as would convince the entire world poulation

I think you'll find there are many more 'believers' than not...

quote:

Originally posted by Hammerhead:

Reminds me of an extract from the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy:

Me too:

---- First question asked of enourmous computer, "Is there a God?"

Computer's answer, "There is now." ----

Perhaps the things we rely upon for our certainties and understandings about the world (ie: logic and other abstract systems of symbols) are really our Gods?

quote:

I think you'll find there are many more 'believers' than not...

I wouldn't be surprised either way

Cheers

Don

Having your holy cake and eating it:

* God does not need a cause, but everything else does.
* God is not subject to any form of analysis, but everything else is.
* God does not need any explanation for his existence, but everything else does.
* God must not conform to rules of logic, but everything else must.
* God can create himself and be his own explanation for his existence, but nothing else can, however illogical this may seem.
* God can break the laws of physics, but nothing else can.
* Belief in God should be without high standards of evidence, but belief in other things needs evidence.

quote:

Originally posted by acad tsunami:

* God does not need a cause, but everything else does.

To those who believe, God is First Cause. However, there are plenty of philosophical works on the notion of cause and effect and the shortcomings of those notions. Read them sceptically, lest you fall into the trap of being a wise man who knows he is a fool...

quote:

* God is not subject to any form of analysis, but everything else is.

I believe in God and have subjected my belief to a great deal of analysis through the years. To whom, exactly, do you refer?

quote:

* God does not need any explanation for his existence, but everything else does.

I agree with the Judaic tradition here - that such questions are interesting, but the point of belief is how you behave, not what you think.

quote:

* God must not conform to rules of logic, but everything else must.

Rubbish. Can God make it rain and not rain at the same time? If He cannot, does this mean He is not omnipotent? This is one of the most basic questions posed by philosophy lecturers in first-year philosophy courses. I'm surprised that you're unaware of the answer.

quote:

* God can create himself and be his own explanation for his existence, but nothing else can, however illogical this may seem.

Huh?

quote:

* God can break the laws of physics, but nothing else can.

For example?

quote:

* Belief in God should be without high standards of evidence, but belief in other things needs evidence.

Do you even understand the distinction between induction and deduction?

Epicurus (341-271 BC) wrote:

'If God is willing to prevent evil but not able, then he is not omnipotent; if he is able but not willing, he is not benevolent; if he is both able and willing, whence come evil?'

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:

quote:

[QUOTE]To those who believe, God is First Cause.

I am aware of this but there is no such thing as a first cause so believers can believe what they like but their grasp of the concept of a first cause is flawed.

quote:

I believe in God and have subjected my belief to a great deal of analysis through the years. To whom, exactly, do you refer?

People in general I suppose.

quote:

I agree with the Judaic tradition here - that such questions are interesting, but the point of belief is how you behave, not what you think.

Sadly how one behaves often follows what one believes. President Bush believes he was told by God to invade Iraq.

quote:

Rubbish. Can God make it rain and not rain at the same time? If He cannot, does this mean He is not omnipotent? This is one of the most basic questions posed by philosophy lecturers in first-year philosophy courses. I'm surprised that you're unaware of the answer.

It is clear that you are presenting an argument against a point I have not raised - you may care to carefully consider why you have done this.

quote:

Huh?

Keep trying to understand. You will get there in the end.

quote:

For example?

Miracles.

Do you even understand the distinction between induction and deduction?

Yes I do. What is your point?

quote:

Epicurus (341-271 BC) wrote:

'If God is willing to prevent evil but not able, then he is not omnipotent; if he is able but not willing, he is not benevolent; if he is both able and willing, whence come evil?'

This I worked out for myself in my late teens. I am glad to to have a real philospher's quote on it for it really destroys the reasoning behind the popular Christian Churches in every aspect. I have never found a clergyman prepared to answer the point, and until I do I shall remain steadfast in my opposition to the Christian Church having any moral authority what-so-ever beyong its teaching about loving thine enemy, which strikes me as one up from the old idea of an eye for an eye!

All the best from Fredrik

Hi Acad

I can't be bothered doing this quote/unquote thing again.

Suffice to say, it is logic which is flawed; not God.

There are as many approaches to God as there are to Atheism. The choice to head down one approach or the other reveals a lot about that person and what they (might) have experienced - as well as revealing something of that person's perception of their place in the world. There is at least one thing I am certain of and that is that I have yet to meet a person of either ilk - believer or non-believer - who was genuinely open-minded at any point on their journey. I include myself in this, of course. I think people tend toward one view or the other because of their experiences in life and how they have integrated the experiences into their world view.

You seem as zealous about your views as any religious person with whom I have ever discussed religion. Would you care to reveal why?

Deane

Dear Deane,

On the issue of Christianity, I am totally open minded. I wish I had not considereed the question of evil when younger, and concluded that I wanted a few satisfactory answers from a true practisioner of Christianisty. It was big part of my upbringing, and schooling. I was confirmed, which is of course a voluntary act and so therefore could take communion, which I have not since the age of 19.

But I am open to someone explaining why there is any moral or logical basis behind the Christian Church. Looking at it open-mindedly, I am inclined to the view that the Bhuddists may have a most satisfactory answer to man's craving for a formal spiritual framework, but am as yet too ignorant to really know...

Fredrik

Fredrik

My belief system has taken many forms over the years. I would like to say that it has "evolved" according to my experiences, but it is only possible for me to make this claim if I ignore those times during which my beliefs were utterly static. During those times I made the world fit my beliefs through sophistry and rhetoric - or I just plain ignored stuff.

I now have a lot of evidence for the belief that spiritual principles are the same everywhere. If a person practices these principles in their life then the results will be very similar - no matter which religion they're attached to.

The question of suffering (or evil) lies at the heart of the human condition. I tend to find that, the more a person has suffered, the greater the likelihood that they will turn to religious beliefs to answer their questions. Please note, I said "tend" to find.

Deane

quote:

Epicurus (341-271 BC) wrote:

'If God is willing to prevent evil but not able, then he is not omnipotent; if he is able but not willing, he is not benevolent; if he is both able and willing, whence come evil?'

Who, in their right mind, would rely on syllogistic reasoning for such an important problem?

However it is put the point is indeed something to consider. The quotation seems both eloquent and elegant to me!

I quite agree that doing evil is part of the human condition, but did the Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Benevolent God [as the Church describes Him] need to allow people like Hitler, Stalin and Mao [for three examples only]to be so successful at perpetrating evils in the name of God given free will? If Mankind is made in the image of God...

Well I am sure you get the drift. Either God is what the Church says He is, or He is something else, in which case the Church has a big problem justifying itself. The evidence suggests to me that God is not quite what the Church suggests! It does appear a question capable of a yes or no answer to me. Either God is Omnipotent and Benevolent, or not...

I think much good may be drawn from the great religions of the world, but one may find that some of the popular doctrines simply do not stand the simplest philosophical examination. This merely confirms in my mind that they are man made rather than the work of this Deity or that...

Perhaps this popular gloss is put into place to help subdue the masses as a political tool, and the religions of the world have certainly wielded huge political power historically as well as in today's times. I have to say that all to often this goes against the best interests of humanity as a whole. It smacks of manipulation, based on proslitised muddled thoughtless faith rather than clear sighted logic.

Another bit of logic if you like: If someone is thoughtless then they are careless of the need for thought. A careless person is one without the benison of sufficient care, which suggests a heartless disposition to me. Thus I equate blind and unexamined faith with exactly the opposite of what one might hope for: More care, more thought, and more of the best aspects of humaine character. The best aspects abound of course, but rarely are they associated with the institutional religions of the world, and certainly not more so in the case of the Christian Churches, either nowadays or historically.

Kindest redards from Fredrik

The Chain of Being argument is an interesting one and is very well set out in "A Guide for the Perplexed", by E.F. Schumacher.

If one chooses, it is possible to set the contents of the world into four categories (or kingdoms).

Mineral
Vegetable
Animal
Human

These can be described as "levels of being" and it is apparent that there are very distinct differences between each level. It can be seen that many of the properties of minerals can be found in plants, many properties of plants can be found in animals - and so on... The levels "ascend", for want of a better word, to the human level where sentience is found. If this particular organisation of the world is studied, it is easy to see that there might be another level above the human - and what characteristics a Being at that level might possess. Those characteristics would mark that Being as different from a human as a dog is different from a geranium (I feel a Monty Python skit coming on...) - but still showing many aspects of the human.

Just a thought.

Deane

Dear Deane,

I appreciate your kindly worded and nice answers, but again the issue of the question of evil is side-stepped. I have never found anyone prepared to make a satisfactory and logical answer to it.

Really I would hope that any clergy who post here might care to address this question as an answer to it is not really to be expected of the layman here. [I imagine that you are not a clergyman or graduate of religious studies, though please correct me if I am wrong].

Kindest regards from Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:

You seem as zealous about your views as any religious person with whom I have ever discussed religion. Would you care to reveal why?

Deane

Hi Deane,

I like to provoke a debate. I don't necessarily post my thoughts or opinions but I am fond of saying 'well that's one way of looking at it' when anyone offers a strongly held view about anything as there is nearly always another view which is just as valid. As for my views on God I have arrived at my position of closed mindedness after years and years of open mindedness. I have simply come to the conclusion after long years of study that God simply does not exist and there are better, deeper, fuller explanations for everything in the bible both OT and NT and for the experiences which believers have.

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:


[QUOTE] I now have a lot of evidence for the belief that spiritual principles are the same everywhere. If a person practices these principles in their life then the results will be very similar - no matter which religion they're attached to.

I agree to a degree.

quote:

The question of suffering (or evil) lies at the heart of the human condition. I tend to find that, the more a person has suffered, the greater the likelihood that they will turn to religious beliefs to answer their questions. Please note, I said "tend" to find.

I agree to a degree.