GODSQUAD: Science, religion each teach valuable truths

[ZombieHorde]

Published: Friday, January 27, 2012

Q: How can you not realize that religious belief up to the time of Copernicus was based on a no-longer valid, fixed earth-centric view of the universe, in that the earth is now known to rotate daily and to revolve around the sun, i.e., the sun does not “rise,” but merely comes into view daily as the earth rotates? Also, now the Hubble space telescope has shown us that this sun is only one of billions of suns in the known universe, meaning that Earth can’t possibly be the only planet in the universe harboring life? — W., Guilford, CT, via email

A: Every religious person must at some point resolve the problem of the relationship between religion and science. When the Bible was written, there was no difference between works of science and works of faith.

The Bible is a work of all the wisdom people had almost 4,000 years ago. At that time, the biblical view of the structure of the world imagined a flat earth supported by pillars that extend through water to a firm foundation. Over the earth was a clear dome with gates in it that separated the waters that were over the earth from the waters that were under the earth. This is not true.

So what are we religious people to do about that? One answer is to throw out everything the Bible has to say about everything. For me, this is ridiculous. The moral teachings of the Bible about the sanctity of life and about not murdering or stealing and about giving to the poor and about forgiveness are as valid today as they were four millennia ago. They are answers to the question of how we ought to live in the world. Questions about what is in the world or how the world is constructed are another matter entirely and do not in any way alter my belief that the Bible is the word of God.

~snip~

http://nhregister.com/articles/2012/01/27/life/doc4f23439d48364755857371.txt?viewmode=fullstory

I wonder if the answerer agrees with every moral value in the New Testament, or just some of it.

[Joe Shlabotnik]

1. yes, reconciling that pesky 'relationship between religion and science' again

lol, I get more of my divine inspiration from reruns of the MOD Squad. Rock on Pete, Julie and Linc!

[xfundy]

2. Preacher-man's gotta pay the rent, too!

The moral teachings of the Bible about the sanctity of life and about not murdering or stealing and about giving to the poor and about forgiveness are as valid today as they were four millennia ago.

They were valid long before the bible was written. And anyone else noticed how they've changed "thou shalt not kill" to an admonishment against "murder?" These folks loves them some killin'.

Questions about what is in the world or how the world is constructed are another matter entirely and do not in any way alter my belief that the Bible is the word of God.

I hear ya, man. Gotta keep the cash rollin' in, gotta keep faking sincerity.

[cbayer]

3. This is how I look at it.

The belief in a god or gods has been around for a very long time.

It was often used to explain what was otherwise unexplainable. It helped make sense of a world that did not make sense.

As certain things become explainable, such as evolution, then, to me, it is a simple matter of discarding the theory that man was instantaneously created by a god. Those stories may then become metaphors or stories. If one insists that the bible is literal, you are going to get squeezed into a very tight corner.

OTOH, there is still much that is unexplained and might be unexplainable. There is so much that is not *known*. A god or gods may be responsible or play a role in those things. On what basis could someone say that that is impossible?

[darkstar3]

4. Is that not EXACTLY the God of the Gaps argument?

[cbayer]

5. Call it whatever you want.

My views are always evolving. Every door that gets opened just leads to a new room.

[skepticscott]

6. And is your "god" always evolving?

Does he/she/it/they have a real, physical existence independent of you or the imagination of any other believer? And if so, can you demonstrate that you are actually getting closer to an understanding of their true nature, since the whole "god of the gaps" argument assumes without evidence that there is SOME god-thing out there that has a nature we can find out about?

Or do you have such a deep need to call something, anything in your life "god" that you'll put that label on something new every time your old concept is discredited, rather than simply discarding the need for "god" altogether?

[cbayer]

7. I don't know the answer to your questions.

Many wiser than I have attempted true understanding, so it is unlikely that I would ever approach anything near it My thoughts about what a god may or may not are definitely not fixed. As there is no proof to the contrary, I can't rationally or intellectually rule out the possibility.

Your second paragraph is just full of false assumptions about me, what I need or what I think.

[skepticscott]

13. Have you ruled out the possibility that there being no god whatsoever

is the best explanation for things being the way that we see them, rather than clinging to a concept of god that constantly shifts (why would something such be worth calling "god" in the first place)? A properly rational mind does not necessarily rule out possibilities, but waits for evidence before giving them serious consideration, and even then, only in proportion to the evidence in their favor. It is a sign of either deep-seeded bias or intellectual cowardice to continue to ascribe equal or unwarranted validity or likelihood to all possibilities regardless of the evidence in their favor, or lack thereof.

And my second paragraph was a question, not a statement, so no assumptions were involved...except yours about me, of course. Feel free to answer accurately and honestly.

[darkstar3]

8. and the "god" in that new room is smaller and less consequential each time.

[cbayer]

10. As I said, darkstar, everytime I open a door, I walk into a new room

And that room always has more doors to be opened.

So I disagree with your premise here.

Once, when I was being particularly arrogant (more than my usual, lol) and sure I was right, someone drew a large circle on a piece of paper. They then asked me if everything that was known by the humans on this planet was contained within that circle, what size circle would I draw inside of it to indicate how much I knew. I realized that even the smallest dot would be too large.

If one extends that circle to include what may exist outside the minds of humans or in places other than this earth, it would be ludicrous for me to even define what I know for certain. Not just ludicrous, but staggeringly narcissistic.

Is there life in places other than this planet? I suspect so and I sure am not going to rule it out.

Has there been evolution of beings far beyond what I can even imagine? I sure can't rule it out.

[darkstar3]

11. "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Aristotle knew his agnosticism well. Tell me, are you advocating agnosticism here, or are you simply expounding poorly on the concept of believing that God is in the things we don't understand?

[cbayer]

12. Swith to insults. So predictable.

[darkstar3]

14. I don't see an insult in the post you responded to.

I see a point, and a very simple one at that. What you describe when you speak of reserving judgment is agnosticism, through and through, and yet your original point was theistic. I wish for clarification. That is all.

[skepticscott]

18. A switch to victim status

and an attempt (again) to paint your critics as mean, nasty bullies. So predictable.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

23. I don't know how you read an insult into darkstar's post

He brings up a valid point that I think you have a hard time addressing in your own mind, so you manufacture a way to take offense.

[cbayer]

24. This is how I see it.

I made a post in which I offered up some of ideas about things. It was presented as personal and unique to me, as far as I am concerned. The response I get back attempts to label me and tells me that I am "expounding poorly". It does not respond to the substance of my post.

Since I have seen this happen over and over and over again here, I know where this goes.

While it is true that there are questions that are difficult, that makes it even more important to have a safe place to discuss them where people do not personalize their responses or revert to insults. You just did what I am talking about in your last sentence. You are making assumptions about my state of mind, what is difficult for me and accusing me of manufacturing my response to it. That's insulting and presumptuous.


There is a pattern here of people personally insulting the intelligence, education or mental stability of people they disagree with. I don't want to play that game., so I am going to get out as soon as I see that that is the direction of the conversation.

[edhopper]

25. I can only speak for myself

I was trying to point out that I have heard your POV before and have seen the pros and cons. These thoughts are not unique to you (you do not claim they are) so perhaps you would want to hear the counter arguments so you could think further aboout them. Or perhaps you just want to state your opininon and not be bothered by what anyone says about them. But in this forum we do tend to respond to what people say.
Also attacking your argument is not attacking you or insulting you personally.

[cbayer]

26. I wasn't talking about you and haven't seen you do this.

I do want to hear counter arguments and I do think further about them.

However, I do not want to be insulted. Responding to the substance of a post is one thing. Starting to drill someone in order to back them into a corner quite another. When debate becomes blood sport where winning the point is more important than the point itself, I am not interested. Others are. They can have it.

It's a total Catch-22, as well. Members who decide to end the discussion because they feel that it is becoming personalized and that they are being attacked are then accused of being unable to continue because of some defect on their part. If they choose to stay and defend themselves and their position, the person they are talking to will up they insults. It's not just my perception. It's why a lot of members avoid this group like the plague. If a person points out that they feel insulted, they are told that it's not insulting (which is ironic in light of the "militant" thread in A/A right now) and that you just have some kind of personal problem or weakness.

Screw that.



Anyway

[edhopper]

27. Well I hope you think about some of the thoughtful response to your posts.

I think some of this is the weakness in this media. More people can discuss things from anywhere on Earth. But the process lets small comments get in the way of the larger discussion. Something that can be moved pass quickly in face to face conversations.

[cbayer]

29. I do think about some of the thoughtful responses and I appreciate

your input on this. Your take on the media is quite correct, imo. Without body language and inflection, things can be rapidly distorted.

[darkstar3]

28. There is a safe space. In fact, there are 9 of them.

If you wish for a complete safe space, go and spend your time in one of them. As for your claim here that I got personal...your attempt at communication was poor and unclear, and I told you so. It was not personal, but rather a statement to be expected in discussion when you lack clarity, and for you to claim that the statement was personal in nature is a reach so long that I'm left to wonder at your intent.

I know you don't like me, and I know you don't care for my presence in the Religion forum, but that's no reason to claim that I'm attacking you personally when I'm being perfectly civil.

[cbayer]

30. I don't dislike you and I don't want you to go away.

I have had some interesting conversations with you that have ended well, imo. I have also had conversations that I felt got too personal and I decided to walk away from them. I felt this one was going in that direction, but quite possibly I over-reacted. There is also this piling on thing that I experience and I felt that was going on as well.

Perhaps my "attempt" at communication was "poor and unclear", or perhaps you just didn't understand. The truth probably lies somewhere in between.

[edhopper]

15. This is called God of the Gaps

and is not a good argument. Just because we know far from enerything does not make the hypothesis of God, for which there is zero evidence, any more likely. You can just as easily argue for invisible, purple unicorns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The argument out of ignorance is never a good one.

[cbayer]

16. I'm not making an argument, you see, so it doens't matter to me whether this is a

good one or not.

I am only stating my POV, my perspective. I do not care if anyone else sees it the same way.

[skepticscott]

19. Uh, yes you are

whether you admit it or even realize it. Your post #3 above is an argument for why active belief in god should still be considered reasonable, despite a lack of convincing evidence.

[edhopper]

20. I use the term argument as a POV, not a conflict.

I was pointing out the logical, rational problems with that perspective. It is one I have heard many times and find it serverely lacking. You can rethink it from a different perspective or hold on to a flawed idea. If it doesn't matter whether is has any validity or not, that is your choice.

[cbayer]

21. I am constantly rethinking it from a different perspective.

The day that I grab and cling to only one idea about what is and isn't is the day when I stop thinking.

[edhopper]

22. But can you let go of ideas

that are illogical and irrational? Or just plain unfounded. like this one? It is fine to keep an open mind, that does not mean that you shouldn't dismiss some ideas that are not supported.

[2ndAmForComputers]

9. Religion did teach me a lot of things.

Things it definitely did NOT intend to teach.

Like: "How deep are the depths of hipocrisy and willful ignorance humans can descend to."

And others.

I learned well.

[edhopper]

17. hmmm

"Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;"

There are some good morals you got there. Punishing the grand children for the crimes of the Grand Parents. And all because they don't like you.
Interesting all loving God.