Alan Burns #fundie

Alan Burns #fundie religionethics.co.uk

But you assume that human scientific investigation will discover any evidence for God if God does exist. Can you not see the limitations of what science can discover? It is by definition limited to what can be perceived by physical human senses and man made contraptions. There is much, much more to reality which our spiritual awareness can reveal if you allow it to.

20 comments

old comment by checkmate

here is much, much more to reality which our spiritual awareness can reveal if you allow it to.

Ok, let's have a go with that, for arguments' sake. Please explain how, with science, everybody independently eventually comes up with the same answers, whereas with spiritual awareness everybody comes up with something completely different and, in most cases, contradictory.

Also, please explain the difference between spiritual awareness and imagination. Yes, human scientific investigation may be limited by physical human senses and man made contraptions, but how can you assure and that spiritual awareness doesn't lap over into wild speculation? How can you guard against that? The Bible, you say? Why then is the Bible, inspired by spiritual awareness, right while the Koran, the Rigveda, the writings of Bhudda, the songlines of the Aboriginals, and so many others, all inspired by spiritual awareness, are wrong?

old comment by The Angry Dybbuk

(Teal deer; look out.)

I suspect scientific study is far from being able to explore if there is a Creator or not: At present, we lack certain tools that could help with the task. (Assuming we survive our technical adolescence, I have no doubt we'll develop stronger radio telescopes and other devices designed to wrestle with the question of what, for example, makes up the 96% of our universe we can't currently identify.)

Those interested in the study this subject don't even know of what material the Creator would be made.

Some of the materials that compose a theoretical Creator might be very common, and so the known universe could be shot through with them - whereas other materials might be far rarer, existing primarily outside the universe after having collected in a place from which the Being superintends.

There are also more specific questions to be asked beyond that of existence. These include (a) whether a Creator still exists, or only existed, since one possibility could be the architect of this universe was actually mortal; and (b) would it recognises humans (etc.) as beings of any individual consequence (as opposed to how we ourselves would see the many ants in an anthill)

Alas there are so many snake oil salesmen and egomaniacal tyrants who have gotten into the appallingly lucrative business of preaching pop-religion and of deliberately peddling false...everything...that there is no real way to explore the existence of gods by talking to those who claim to have been visited, healed, punished, and so on. (I do have a claim, and I believe it wholly. I don't expect anyone else to believe it without evidence. I do have evidence, but the very nature of it puts me in a Catch-22...so no expectation of belief.)

I think it will one day be possible for science to detect, if not the being itself, then at least 'cosmic footprints' (a) far different in nature and composition from anything around them, and (b) that appear to have an intelligent rhythm to them.

I don't expect people to believe in a being they haven't seen, nor in a being some religious people claim has made them kinder and morally superior to other human beings despite a bottomless pit of evidence to the contrary.

I wonder what the atheists here think of a belief I kind of hold: The lack of evidence for a god creates agnostics, whereas the outrageous behaviour of some believers hardens uncertainty into atheism.

If believers (among the Abrahamic faiths) treated everyone the way, for example, 1 Corinthians 13, Micah 6:8, Isaiah 42:3, Galatians 3:28, and the vision of peace in Isaiah 11:9 and 66:25 showed (and there are many more such passages; those are just the ones I could think of off the top of my head), those outside looking in would find their god at least a little more credible.

So yeahmaybe science will one day identify something like a god, but at no time soon.

old comment by Keith

@The Angry Dybbuk
"The lack of evidence for a god creates agnostics, whereas the outrageous behaviour of some believers hardens uncertainty into atheism."

Well, as a believer, I was uncomfortable with those of my fellows that got more excited thinking about the punishments of the sinners than about the glories of heaven. Except that being able to look down and SEE the sinners burn, that was their favorite part of heaven...

But that wasn't what made me atheist. I had questions, and all I got were platitudes. Either it was my fault for doubting, or I got clichéd IOUs for knowledge (you'll understand one day) or they said 'It's a mystery.'

I realized no one around me knew the answers. I left the church, seeking the god I still b'leeved in. Found that everyone had the same platitudes. Or they made shit up, stuff they couldn't actually support.

I left Christainity, still looking for God. Woke up one day and realized that while I was looking, I no longer believed. My atheism crept up on me, blossoming as every investigation turned up nothing compelling.

I think the lack of evidence is mostly what makes atheists, and the behavior of some of the faithful makes angry atheists and uncomfortable theists.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

It is by definition limited to what can be perceived by physical human senses

Rainbows don't physically exist.

image

So much for the 'Spiritual'/'Supernatural', then: especially as the above is easily explainable scientifically.

So you're basically sayimg that your 'God' can't do a Morgan Freeman in "Bruce Almighty", then: thus he isn't 'Omnipotent'; there is a limitation to his powers? Thus by your own logic, if he can't do something, then he doesn't exist:

image

Therefore Morgan Freeman is superior to your 'God': he exists.

He also possesses Omniscience. Especially after Scarlett Johansson became God. [/"Lucy"]

There is much, much more to Reality outside of a Luc Besson film which your visual awareness can reveal: If you allow it to. [/'Teach the Controversy']

She did die and come back to life as Public Security Section 9's field leader Major Motoko Kusanagi in "Ghost in the Shell", you know...! [/Masamune Shirow]

old comment by Kanna

@The Angry Dybbuk

"The lack of evidence for a god creates agnostics, whereas the outrageous behaviour of some believers hardens uncertainty into atheism."

No, I'd have to disagree, at least for me. The sheer physical impossibility of (take your pick) creation of the world, make Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark, etc, including that cheap carnival trick of water into wine - all of these made me an atheist as a very young teen. I don't remember passing through a period as an agnostic, but I suppose there was probably a brief transition. In other words, science education made me an atheist. I fear that fundies are correct in one respect: education takes you away from religion, while stupidity and the attendant gullibility make you accept all the more laughably impossible mythologies without taking a skeptical look at them.

I didn't realize how many Christians use their religion for evil instead of good until much later in life. I didn't go to a fire-and-brimstone church, and I didn't dislike the congregants. I just knew that if so many things in the bible were demonstrably false, it had nothing to teach me that I wanted to know.

old comment by The Angry Dybbuk

Thank you for your responses, Keith and Kanna.

@ Kanna:

I fear that fundies are correct in one respect: education takes you away from religion, while stupidity and the attendant gullibility make you accept all the more laughably impossible mythologies without taking a skeptical look at them.

On this we agree. A far greater emphasis on free and full education, including multiple courses in critical thinking and logic from a young age, may well be a serious key to the survival of humanity.

It's interesting to note how a well-rounded education in theology can also have a negative impact on a belief in (and the growth of) Biblical literalism.

Even basic knowledge puts a dent in any claim of Biblical inerrancy:

As most posters here know, a fair number of beliefs which underpin the Abrahamic faiths were adopted from much older traditions.

The Hebrew Bible is actually a fascinating collection of books representing different regions, eras, and specific beliefs. The oldest of these books is almost certainly Job - written around 3500 years ago and containing, among other special features, words in Arabic. Some translators have found the content hard to accurately translate into modern parlance because the writing style is, for lack of a better word, archaic. (It's also one of my favourite books, though I'll spare you the wordy explanation as to why.)

Information dealing the list of kings contains discrepancies. (So, too, does a far later set of lists, appearing in the NT, which attempt to record the lineage of Jesus.)

Books throughout both Hebrew and Christian Bibles contain not only some contradictions but also - and of far greater interest to me - arguments that rage across pages and the centuries of time these pages represent. These disagreements, despite editorial decisions and multiple translations, remain for modern readers to look at for themselves.

A well-known example involves forbidden foods: Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14:3-21 (among others) versus Mark 7:19 and Colossians 2:16 (among others). It's interesting to note here that the Seventh Day Adventists keep the Levitical prohibitions, and more, while claiming in an official Statement of Faith: "We consider our movement to be the result of the Protestant conviction Sola Scripturathe Bible as the only standard of faith and practice for Christians." (Naturally, this leads to fundie Bible fights between and among religious factions.)

There is more as to why I find these things fascinating rather than disheartening, but to explain them would probably take a lot of tl;dr on my part concerning a subject that likely holds little interest for most readers here.

Alan Burns #fundie religionethics.co.uk

20 comments

Confused?