I have a question about christianity, and religion in general..

dyer

I grew up as a catholic myself, as much as any other irish person has faired in this country. In primary school, i remember being told stories of jesus christ in our religious classes.. i remember drawing all sorts of pictures of jesus depicting chapters of the bible, yet even as a child, i always just thought of them as stories. i'm sure many of you are acquainted with this.

I remember being dragged to mass by the ear by the oul fella, every sat or sunday.. until i got to the age where i had to work or train for my local team, which was generally on weekends, so i literally had no time to go to mass, and to be honest i was quite thrilled about it, otherwise id just sit outside the church and have a fag out the back or something. As soon as my siblings and i hit this stage, my parents stopped going to mass themselves..and quite literally stopped pestering us to go at all.. it seemed they cared about it just about as much as we did.

I went on to study science, and have a huge interest in philosophy, computers, physics, chemistry etc.. actually, to be quite honest, i have so many interests sometimes i dont know where to start, im currently studying psychology.. so there you go. Im very interested in why people believe the things they do.

Personally, i have found so much more peace in studying eastern philosophy than catholicism has ever offered me. As far as im concerned, its a model thats "wholly" outdated.. by a few thousand years, perhaps. There is nothing that ive found in christianity that teaches you how to meditate, how to differentiate between mind, body and soul.. it just seems like an endless circle going nowhere, seperating people, no more than any other religion.. and that's why i don't believe in it.. because if God did exist, why would he care about priests or churches or popes or anything? he exists in you, he exists in me, he exists in every single thing that you can see, touch or hear.

As far as i can see, these are human constructs, and they all have to do with egotistical thinking. That's why you need to meditate, to deconstruct what we've been taught in this world, to know the truth within yourself, but just because the world is the way it is, and not the way we expect it to be.. do we really need a god to come and save us? i dont think so. i think that god, that spirt we all believe in, is within us already.. it doesnt matter what you call it.. it doesnt matter if youre a christian, a protestant, an agnostic or even an atheist. were all capable of sensing something much bigger than ourselves, whatever you want to call it. And what you call it, and this is the truth of the matter, is simply a matter of geographic location.

I suppose my question goes something like this:

What is Christianity if it doesn't teach you to know yourself? what do you actually have without the bible?

and,

if you don't know yourself, how can you ever expect to understand another?

i respect people will have differing opinions, thats okay.. id love to hear about them! i hope i made myself clear.

Peregrinus

dyer wrote: »

. . . I suppose my question goes something like this:

What is Christianity if it doesn't teach you to know yourself? what do you actually have without the bible?

and,

if you don't know yourself, how can you ever expect to understand another?

Well, without the bible you don’t have Christianity.

But that’s not a serious criticism of Christianity. You could just as truthfully say that without the teachings of the Buddha you don’t have Buddhism, without the writings of Newton you don’t have a great deal of fundamental physics, without the writings of Euclid you don’t have geometry, without the writings of Darwin you don’t have evolutionary biology. All those statements are true, but they tell us nothing about the truth or falsity, usefulness or utility, validity or invalidity of Christianity, Buddhism, basic physics, geometry or evolutionary biology.

The question “what is Christianity if it doesn't teach you to know yourself?” seems to presume that Christianity doesn’t teach you to know yourself. I’d argue, though, that Christianity offers a pretty full account of what it is to be human. You may not like the account, or agree with it, but it’s certainly there.

And I’d pick you up on a couple of things you say. There’s a certain tension between saying, on the one hand that you “have found so much more peace in studying eastern philosophy than catholicism has ever offered me”, and at the same time objecting that Christianity is “a model that’s ‘wholly’ outdated . . by a few thousand years”. The Eastern philosophies that bring you peace are much older than Christianity. Whatever your underlying problem with Christianity, I don’t think it can be age.

And, when you say “there is nothing that i’ve found in Christianity that teaches you how to meditate, how to differentiate between mind, body and soul”, I read that - no offence - as a comment more on your engagement with Christianity than on the substance of Christianity. You’ll be aware, I think, that there’s a long tradition of meditative prayer in Christianity, as well as a good deal of time, thought, prayer and experimentation having gone into the development of the contemplative life. It’s not that these things aren’t found in Christianity; it’s that you didn’t find them. And that’s probably because you weren’t introduced to them, and because your childhood engagement with Christianity faded away as you became more adult, and gradually developed the interest, the desire and the independence that might have led you to seek them out for yourself.

And, in fact, some of what you say is absolutely straight-down-the-line Christian teaching. Like this:

dyer wrote: »

. . . because if God did exist, why would he care about priests or churches or popes or anything? he exists in you, he exists in me, he exists in every single thing that you can see, touch or hear.

From a Christian perspective, God does exist in you and me and every single thing; that’s what the Incarnation means. And God cares about priests or churches or popes just as much as he cares about you.

dyer wrote: »

As far as i can see, these are human constructs, and they all have to do with egotistical thinking.

Yup, absolutely, but that doesn’t mean God isn’t in them. That’s the thing with the Christian belief in the Incarnation. If God has entered into the world that we have made such a mess of with our egoism and our blindness and our need, then God is in - is deeply in - a pretty messy place. So you can’t neatly package up God, and put him in some pure, perfect, spiritual and comfortably distant heaven with very occasional excursions to earth to works acts of creation or the odd miracle; you’re going to meet him every day in all kinds of broken realities. And sometimes you may have to work hard to see him through the dirt we have deposited and the injuries we have inflicted, but he’s there.

homer911

dyer wrote: »

What is Christianity if it doesn't teach you to know yourself?

if you don't know yourself, how can you ever expect to understand another?

And therein lies the difference between the Abrahamic faiths and eastern mystic religions

The Christian faith, in particular, is about having a relationship with God, and putting God first. Eastern pholosophies, in my limited understanding, tend to be all about the individual, because without the knowledge of eternal life, all there is is self.

The acronym JOY comes to mind: Jesus first, Others second, Yourself last

Peregrinus

homer911 wrote: »

The Christian faith, in particular, is about having a relationship with God, and putting God first. Eastern pholosophies, in my limited understanding, tend to be all about the individual, because without the knowledge of eternal life, all there is is self.

I'd put that slightly differently. (Or maybe radically differently, depending on your point of view.)

The Christian account of what it is to be human pays a great deal of attention to your relationships. In the Christian view, your relationships are not something external to you, that you do outside of yourself. To be human is to have relationships. An account of someone which does not include their relationships is an incomplete account. Consequently you can't understand yourself without understanding your relationships, including your relationship with God (and your relationships with other people). Attempts to understand the self first and relationships separately and afterwards create a false division between self and relationships, and necessarily lead to an imperfect understanding.

FriendlyChar

dyer wrote: »

I grew up as a catholic myself, as much as any other irish person has faired in this country. In primary school, i remember being told stories of jesus christ in our religious classes.. i remember drawing all sorts of pictures of jesus depicting chapters of the bible, yet even as a child, i always just thought of them as stories. i'm sure many of you are acquainted with this.

I remember being dragged to mass by the ear by the oul fella, every sat or sunday.. until i got to the age where i had to work or train for my local team, which was generally on weekends, so i literally had no time to go to mass, and to be honest i was quite thrilled about it, otherwise id just sit outside the church and have a fag out the back or something. As soon as my siblings and i hit this stage, my parents stopped going to mass themselves..and quite literally stopped pestering us to go at all.. it seemed they cared about it just about as much as we did.

I went on to study science, and have a huge interest in philosophy, computers, physics, chemistry etc.. actually, to be quite honest, i have so many interests sometimes i dont know where to start, im currently studying psychology.. so there you go. Im very interested in why people believe the things they do.

Personally, i have found so much more peace in studying eastern philosophy than catholicism has ever offered me. As far as im concerned, its a model thats "wholly" outdated.. by a few thousand years, perhaps. There is nothing that ive found in christianity that teaches you how to meditate, how to differentiate between mind, body and soul.. it just seems like an endless circle going nowhere, seperating people, no more than any other religion.. and that's why i don't believe in it.. because if God did exist, why would he care about priests or churches or popes or anything? he exists in you, he exists in me, he exists in every single thing that you can see, touch or hear.

As far as i can see, these are human constructs, and they all have to do with egotistical thinking. That's why you need to meditate, to deconstruct what we've been taught in this world, to know the truth within yourself, but just because the world is the way it is, and not the way we expect it to be.. do we really need a god to come and save us? i dont think so. i think that god, that spirt we all believe in, is within us already.. it doesnt matter what you call it.. it doesnt matter if youre a christian, a protestant, an agnostic or even an atheist. were all capable of sensing something much bigger than ourselves, whatever you want to call it. And what you call it, and this is the truth of the matter, is simply a matter of geographic location.

I suppose my question goes something like this:

What is Christianity if it doesn't teach you to know yourself? what do you actually have without the bible?

and,

if you don't know yourself, how can you ever expect to understand another?

i respect people will have differing opinions, thats okay.. id love to hear about them! i hope i made myself clear.

Hi.

In Christianity Christ is your soul mate, your - spiritual - other half. So it's exactly in him you truly find yourself. Psychology has failed to do this, it has allowed us in some areas to understand the mind, but not the self, not who we are. Only God (through his Son) knows us.

This reminds me of a book written by Peter Kreeft called 'The philosophy of Jesus'. In it he explains, using scriptures, how Jesus showed himself to be the answer to all the four great philosophical questions:

What is real? - He is, ultimate reality
How can we know it? By knowing him
Who are we? - He is the perfect man, in him we find our identity, and..
How should we live? - Like him, since he denied being merely 'good' because he is goodness.

Not 'follow my teachings' but 'follow me', not 'here is the truth' but 'I am truth.' etc. He is constantly drawing people to himself, affirming, not that he just has the answers, but he is the answer!

Try and get your hands on this book it's fantastic.

dyer

....You could just as truthfully say that without the teachings of the Buddha you don’t have Buddhism, without the writings of Newton you don’t have a great deal of fundamental physics, without the writings of Euclid you don’t have geometry, without the writings of Darwin you don’t have evolutionary biology. All those statements are true, but they tell us nothing about the truth or falsity, usefulness or utility, validity or invalidity of Christianity, Buddhism, basic physics, geometry or evolutionary biology.

I whole heartedly agree with everying you've said here. In fact you've raised some interesting points and challenged my thoughts, and I appreciate that. From my life experience as a catholic there was never any guidance about how to truly discover or connect with the inner world of the self, and thus the spirit within. Yet we are speaking about something intangible here, that in many respects, cannot be proven to be true or false, so we must have faith in that belief, despite what our rational minds might tell us otherwise.

What I respect most about Buddhism and its counterparts is that it gives clear guidelines about meditation and the different stages of growth one can achieve on their journey to enlightenment, to be one with god, in life, and not just in death.

I don't think i have an underlying problem with christianity per se, I just feel it's not really evolving or striving to incorporate the lessons learned within buddhism etc and leading humanity forwards, maybe that's why I left it behind and why I described it as an outdated model. I do recognise and appreciate the fundamental foundation of christianity and what it offers people, but I personally just feel there's a lot more to be gained which is not being provided there. What I don't have any time for is a hierarchy of power like the Vatican, I see no need for it whatsoever and I don't understand why we should live a life of abstinance when God gave us a life to live and enjoy in all of its infinite potential.

And, when you say “there is nothing that i’ve found in Christianity that teaches you how to meditate, how to differentiate between mind, body and soul”, I read that - no offence - as a comment more on your engagement with Christianity than on the substance of Christianity. You’ll be aware, I think, that there’s a long tradition of meditative prayer in Christianity, as well as a good deal of time, thought, prayer and experimentation having gone into the development of the contemplative life. It’s not that these things aren’t found in Christianity; it’s that you didn’t find them. And that’s probably because you weren’t introduced to them, and because your childhood engagement with Christianity faded away as you became more adult, and gradually developed the interest, the desire and the independence that might have led you to seek them out for yourself.

I understand what you've written, but I'd appreciate if you could elaborate a bit more because this is certainly a side of christianity I haven't personally experienced. I live my life to the best of my abilities, and try not to cause harm to others, and sure, as you say, things will happen, we all make mistakes and we learn from them and do our best to make amends and carry on, further deepening our relationship with the self and others, and ultimately with God. Despite what you might think, I still pray sometimes, I ask for help and guidance when at times it appears there is none, and I do feel engaged with something larger than myself, and trust that whatever happens, it will always be for the greater good, regardless of how hard it might seem at the time. I don't think I would describe that power as the son of God who was nailed to a cross however, but I appreciate the metaphor, because in retrospect, we are all sons (and daughters) of God.

So you can’t neatly package up God, and put him in some pure, perfect, spiritual and comfortably distant heaven with very occasional excursions to earth to works acts of creation or the odd miracle; you’re going to meet him every day in all kinds of broken realities.

This is where I might disagree.. because I do believe God is pure and perfect, and I believe the reason people are so dysfunctional is because they lack the knowledge to find him and ultimately feel like they are alone in this life. The world is quite a messy place granted, but I think everyone has the capacity to find him if they only knew how.. but the world we live in is dominated by egotism to such a degree we can become so disjointed and alienated that nothing really makes sense anymore. I appreciate prayer and contemplation can bring one closer to the realms of the soul, but that is only scratching the surface in my opinion.. and I suppose, that is why I chose to look further, because I needed more than that.

Thanks for your input anyway, it has given me a lot to contemplate.

In Christianity Christ is your soul mate, your - spiritual - other half. So it's exactly in him you truly find yourself. Psychology has failed to do this, it has allowed us in some areas to understand the mind, but not the self, not who we are. Only God (through his Son) knows us.

Psychology has come a long way in the last 100 years.. it has finally begun to appreciate the value of holism. There are new branches like transpersonal psychology etc that include religion and eastern teachings because people are beginning to understand the intrinsic values they hold and integrating them to provide better care.

The Christian faith, in particular, is about having a relationship with God, and putting God first. Eastern pholosophies, in my limited understanding, tend to be all about the individual, because without the knowledge of eternal life, all there is is self.

Not true, because the knowledge of God and eternal life is within the Self

Peregrinus

I don’t want to go through your post point by point, dyer, partly because a good deal of what you say I agree with, and partly because if we break things down like that, we’ll end up with a very scrappy, disjointed conversation that, I suspect, will trail off in all directions, but probably never reach any destination. Instead, let me say this:

First of all, in your comments you glide rather smoothly between Catholicism and Christianity, probably because Catholicism is the particular form of Christianity that you have most experience of. In fact, as you probably know, a lot of Christians would join in your rejection of “a hierarchy of power like the Vatican”, and some of them - Protestants - even name themselves in honour of their protests against such things. There are plenty of Christians who feel as you do on this subject, so that in itself is not necessarily a reason for rejecting Christianity.

At the same time, your concern does point to a wider feature of Christianity. I said in my earlier post that the Christian understanding of what it is to be human embraces your relationships, and this is reflected in the fact that an integral part of living as a Christian is building Christian relationships, and a Christian community. To be blunt, you can’t be a Christian on your own. And while lots of Christians would reject the Roman Catholic understanding of what it is to be a church, they’d all affirm that, yes, we do have to be a church. And that pretty well inevitably involves organisations and structures of some kind, even if they’re much more localised and decentralised than the Catholic church. And organisations and structures are (a) inevitably human constructs, and (b) inevitably vulnerable to degradation by our egoism, blindness, weakness and greed. The failings of an elder of a congregation at the back end of County Leitrim may attract less media attention than the failings of the bishop of Rome, and they may directly impact less people. But they’re no less real. And they may be just as discouraging to the members of his community.

That’s not to say we just abandon ourselves to egoism, etc. Christianity always calls us to become something more than we currently are, and that applies at the collective as well as at the individual level. So the church, whatever form it takes, is constantly striving to rid itself of egoism and become a community of complete self-giving love. Which is a tall order. But we have to try; we can’t avoid this problem by just opting out.

In other words, dealing with others (and exposing yourself to being damaged by their weakness, and exposing them to being damaged by your weakness) is an inescapable part of what it is to live as a Christian. If you seek a spiritual life which avoids this problem by being wholly free of organisations and structures and communities tainted by egoism, then Christianity is not for you. As a Christian, I’d say you are mistaken to seek that; you can never live a complete spiritual life that isn’t connected with other people in this way, and that doesn’t involve building and fostering a communal, as well as an individual, spirituality. But, then, I would say that, wouldn’t I? And in the end this is a decision you have to come to by yourself.

Secondly, I’m going to pick you up on the “life of abstinence” comment. I don’t think many Christians believe that we are called to a life of abstinence. We are called to a life of self-giving love (which, frankly, is much harder). That may from time to time involve some degree of abstinence, but it’s just as likely to involve joyous celebration. The central experience of Christianity is a shared meal (with wine!); that has to point to something, and it’s not abstinence.

Does this matter? Yes, I think it does. I get the sense from what you write that, for you, at this point in your journey at any rate, spirituality is something inward-looking; you talk about “how to truly discover or connect with the inner world of the self, and thus the spirit within”. And, while I may be reading a great deal to much into a couple of lines, what this evokes for me is a false dualism, in which the authentic, pure, spiritual inner world is contrasted with the gross, material, defective external world; the real person is to be encountered within.

Christianity strongly rejects that, and regards it as an error, which is why the centre of Christian life is a shared (communal, involving others, requiring relationships) meal (material, seeking fulfilment through meeting bodily needs and appetites). If you don’t like the understanding of the human condition that that celebration points to, then probably, again, Christianity is not for you. (Yet!)

Finally, the elephant in the room is of course Jesus Christ. It’s trite for non-Christians to say that they respect Jesus as a teacher, a prophet, etc, etc. But bugger that, if you’ll excuse the language. If the central experience of Christianity is the Eucharist, the central claim is that in Jesus Christ we encounter God in his fullness. An awful lot of religious and spiritual traditions have a concept of God in which this is an absolute impossibility, indeed a blasphemy. Still others have a concept of God in which this claim simply makes no sense; it has no meaning. And if you’re drawn to an understanding of God such that this claim has no appeal to you then, once more, Christianity is not for you.

Finally, since you ask, I’ll just say a bit about the contemplative tradition within Christianity. It’s striking that Christianity and Buddhism are two major religions which, quite independently of one another, have developed a monastic tradition, and in both religions the practice of contemplation and meditation is most visible in the monastic tradition, and in the lives of those who commit themselves to living in that tradition. So any account of contemplation, meditation or mysticism in Christianity is always going to start with the monasteries, where these traditions are practiced with method, system and commitment - as in, you have a bunch of people committed to structuring their lives around the need to make meditation and contemplation a central experience.

That can result in an impression of a Christian community divided into monastics, who meditate, and the rest of us, who don’t, and there may be some truth in that impression. But that’s a division which is breaking down with the decline of the the vowed religious life, and the rise of lay-led and lay-populated movements, as well as of “associates” who are not monastics but who seek to express monastic spirituality in their daily lives. These are much less visible than monasteries and formal monastic communities, but they’re certainly there- it’s a large and growing trend within Christianity, and especially Catholicism.

Xenophile

dyer wrote: »

I id love to hear about them! i hope i made myself clear.

Maybe "A Course in Miracles" would interest you, it's a channeled book first published in the mid seventies.

Christian based, holds that God did not make the world, rather it is an illusion and the construct of our ego very much works with the ideas of Buddhism and Freud. Best described as Spiritual Psychotherapy. It is not a religion, not a sect, not a cult. No hierarchal structures.

Many false interpreters of the material in the world at the moment. But also some very good ones.

Kenneth Wapnick is an authentic interpreter, was involved from the beginning in the editing.

homer911

dyer wrote: »

Not true, because the knowledge of God and eternal life is within the Self

As a Christian to a non-Christian, we will have to agree to disagree.

If you don't accept that being a Christian is about having a relationship with God and other believers, then I agree with Peregrinus, Christianity is not for you (yet)..

It was Jesus himself who said that he came to serve, not to be served. There is no self in that...

philologos

Xenophile wrote: »

Maybe "A Course in Miracles" would interest you, it's a channeled book first published in the mid seventies.

Christian based, holds that God did not make the world, rather it is an illusion and the construct of our ego very much works with the ideas of Buddhism and Freud. Best described as Spiritual Psychotherapy. It is not a religion, not a sect, not a cult. No hierarchal structures.

Many false interpreters of the material in the world at the moment. But also some very good ones.

Kenneth Wapnick is an authentic interpreter, was involved from the beginning in the editing.

How is a philosophy that denies that God created the world in any way Christian?

Xenophile

philologos wrote: »

How is a philosophy that denies that God created the world in any way Christian?

There is no reason why Jesus could not incarnate into a world of illusions. He came to awaken us from the dream of sickness, suffering and death.

philologos

Xenophile wrote: »

There is no reason why Jesus could not incarnate into a world of illusions. He came to awaken us from the dream of sickness, suffering and death.

If God didn't create the world it undermines the very reason why Jesus came.

If the "Course on Miracles" stuff contradicts the Bible which comes far earlier and is far more contemporary to the actual life of Jesus, I'll trust the Bible over the "Course on Miracles".

Geomy

I think Christianity is about salvation,and Buddhism and new age or old age spirituality is about enlightenment.

It's a personal choice...

philologos

Geomy wrote: »

I think Christianity is about salvation,and Buddhism and new age or old age spirituality is about enlightenment.

It's a personal choice...

Is what's true a choice or a reality?

Is truth a bazaar or is it based on objectivity?

Geomy

philologos wrote: »

Is what's true a choice or a reality?

Is truth a bazaar or is it based on objectivity?

Truth is based on the observer

Geomy

You can take a walk with Buddah, Muhammad,Jesus,Dawkins or anyone else for that matter..
As long as you're not a knob all the time,you will be ok

FriendlyChar

Geomy wrote: »

Truth is based on the observer

Truth is the accurate description of reality!

Benny_Cake

Geomy wrote: »

Truth is based on the observer

You won't find too many takers for that notion here I'm afraid, particularly in the run up to Easter (see John 18:38).

I don't think that you have to be a Christian to see that a proposition is either true or it isn't.

Geomy

Benny_Cake wrote: »

You won't find too many takers for that notion here I'm afraid, particularly in the run up to Easter (see John 18:38).

I don't think that you have to be a Christian to see that a proposition is either true or it isn't.

The truth comes from above...is that the right answer

Attabear

Benny_Cake wrote: »

You won't find too many takers for that notion here I'm afraid, particularly in the run up to Easter (see John 18:38).

I don't think that you have to be a Christian to see that a proposition is either true or it isn't.

It depends what you mean when you say true. And it also depends on the properties of the object to which you are ascribing the value "true".:)

evangelist

dyer wrote: »

What is Christianity if it doesn't teach you to know yourself?
what do you actually have without the bible?

Christianity is a relationship with the Lord God of the Universe, i.e. it's not really a religion.

Christianity begins here ...

“And I (Jesus) will pray (to) the Father, and He will give you another Helper,
that He may abide with you forever -- the Spirit of truth
… you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.
I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.
… If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him,
and We will come to him and make Our home with him.
… But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name,
He will teach you all things ...” (John 14:16-26)

The above was spoken to Jesus' disciples, but it applies to us also.
The following was spoken to Nicodemus, but it applies to us also.

"Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again,
he cannot see the kingdom of God ... You must be born again." (John 3:3, 7)

They say that the Greek for "again" can be translated "from above".

There are many Scripture verses that talk about the Holy Spirit being INSIDE of the born-again Christian.

Please notice that I have told you what Christianity IS ... and I have not told you what it IS NOT.

dyer

I spent 'easter' with some chinese friends of mine, who obviously don't have that holiday in their calendar..and neither could they care less. They aren't the only race of people in the world for whom it had no meaning, no more than any celebration in any other culture has any meaning for us. So what does that tell us? I really don't mean to demean religion in any regard.. but isn't it about time we all woke up and started looking a little bit deeper? and i don't mean the hard cold facts, i mean, bringing our collective spiritual experiences together in one place.

If religion should exist, why is it driving us apart? The essence of any religion, is that it should bring us together..and that's not really happening is it? Is it likely to happen if we continue on this path that we're on? I want the world to be a better place, that's why i care, and ask these questions. History is fraught with violence and religion is steeped in it's blood, wars are waged in its very name.. and people fight for that reason. Fight and kill for God and your nation..it doesn't make any sense does it? Yet people justify their violence in Gods name every day, whether they use a gun, or words, or their power, money and influence.

There are so many ways we could improve our lives if people just stopped looking up for answers and created heaven on earth itself. This is paradise, and look what weve done to it. We have the potential to create anything we can imagine, i really believe that. Instead, we give all our power to others and let them decide our faith. Maybe this is my problem with religion..because it takes all the beauty of creation and puts in the hands of someone else, just not yours.

coddlesangers

evangelist wrote: »

Christianity is a relationship with the Lord God of the Universe, i.e. it's not really a religion.

How odd. I would have thought that one of the major religions in the world was ipso facto a religion. Just because you touchy-feely it up with a personal relationship vibe doesn't unmake its essential religious nature.

Baked.noodle

Just a thought. I do believe in God on a personal basis, as a friend and guardian, and on a creative basis, as the source of all order (and disorder). It seems to me that order cannot arise from disorder. Given realities God given order, it is paradoxical that we are free. In my view, without God, there can be no freedom from deterministic materialism. It is my belief that God should have little interest in beings subject to unbreakable determining laws, at least insofar as these forces apparently determine the choices we make. What a bore creation would be for both man and God if freedom didn't pose the unexpected. Indeed, life is simply not worth living without freedom from the determinism of the great watchmaker. Science may point to defects in the brain, the response to stimuli. Nevertheless, God is not a control freak, most of the time. Creation delights God and his subjects in the full spectrum of possibilities. God is not much interested in our particular believes, born from our geographic location and education. He is interested only in his creativity, both his intentional and unintentional amusement. He must surly love, perhaps even greater than I do, for he knows each of us thoroughly. He is delighted by our expression of his gift of freedom. I've no doubt God loves, nevertheless I do not doubt his disgust for some. This however is the price of our freedom. We are free to do good, and be wicked. In the end all of us can change. Do, in my view, frequently exercise this gift and change your mind. Peruse a different course. I imaging a fun loving, jovial, loveing creator who delights in the fullness of his creation. Surprise him, and yourself. Who really thinks following any particular doctrine is the key to success. God graced us with the ability to think for ourselves. Forge your own path and love who you can, treat all others as best you can.

Knasher

Peregrinus wrote: »

without the writings of Newton you don’t have a great deal of fundamental physics, without the writings of Euclid you don’t have geometry, without the writings of Darwin you don’t have evolutionary biology. All those statements are true, but they tell us nothing about the truth or falsity, usefulness or utility, validity or invalidity of Christianity, Buddhism, basic physics, geometry or evolutionary biology.

There is actually a fundamental difference between science and religion here. Euclid, Newton and Darwin are notable because they were first to publish their ideas, but without them eventually other people would have arrived to the same conclusions. In fact in Darwin's case you wouldn't have had to wait very long at all because Darwin was prompted to publish his work by Alfred Wallace who had independently arrived at much the same conclusion, was corresponding with Darwin and preparing to publish himself and in the end presented his work along with Darwin.

Peregrinus

Knasher wrote: »

There is actually a fundamental difference between science and religion here. Euclid, Newton and Darwin are notable because they were first to publish their ideas, but without them eventually other people would have arrived to the same conclusions. In fact in Darwin's case you wouldn't have had to wait very long at all because Darwin was prompted to publish his work by Alfred Wallace who had independently arrived at much the same conclusion, was corresponding with Darwin and preparing to publish himself and in the end presented his work along with Darwin.

Sure. But the same is true of fields other than science, including philosophy, theology, ethics, etc. For example, the "golden rule", the ethical principle that we ought to treat others as we wish them to treat us, turns up in many religious and non-religious ethical traditions, and was independently arrived at in most of them. So different people, or different cultures or communities, can arrive at the same insights independently of one another.

The point I was making is, without someone articulating a theory of evolution, you don't have a theory of evolution. That someone might be Charles Darwin, or it might be someone else; it doesn't matter. The fact that Darwin, or Wallace, or whoever, has articulated a theory of evolution doesn't in itself prove that the theory is true, useful, valid, or that it isn't.

Zombrex

Peregrinus wrote: »

Sure. But the same is true of fields other than science, including philosophy, theology, ethics, etc. For example, the "golden rule", the ethical principle that we ought to treat others as we wish them to treat us, turns up in many religious and non-religious ethical traditions, and was independently arrived at in most of them. So different people, or different cultures or communities, can arrive at the same insights independently of one another.

The point I was making is, without someone articulating a theory of evolution, you don't have a theory of evolution. That someone might be Charles Darwin, or it might be someone else; it doesn't matter. The fact that Darwin, or Wallace, or whoever, has articulated a theory of evolution doesn't in itself prove that the theory is true, useful, valid, or that it isn't.

I think the point is that Christianity is a system based purely on the claims of others and on trusting the claims of others. You cannot verify anything in the Bible for yourself, you have to trust that the person telling you what they experienced is being accurate, which is complicated both by the primitive nature of the people making the claims, and by the extra-ordinary nature of the claims

The is the exact opposite of how science works. If a scientist said "Hey I got this amazing result, but you cannot test it for yourself you just have to trust me" he would be laughed out of a lecture hall. In fact the more extra-ordinary the claim made by the scientist the less likely any other person is likely to merely accept what they said was true.

The contrast between the two approaches to claims is frankly striking.

lmaopml

Zombrex wrote: »

I think the point is that Christianity is a system based purely on the claims of others and on trusting the claims of others. You cannot verify anything in the Bible for yourself, you have to trust that the person telling you what they experienced is being accurate, which is complicated both by the primitive nature of the people making the claims, and by the extra-ordinary nature of the claims

The is the exact opposite of how science works. If a scientist said "Hey I got this amazing result, but you cannot test it for yourself you just have to trust me" he would be laughed out of a lecture hall. In fact the more extra-ordinary the claim made by the scientist the less likely any other person is likely to merely accept what they said was true.

The contrast between the two approaches to claims is frankly striking.

Scientists put forward hypothesis all the time that sound very strange and very odd and sometimes prove to be true, and sometimes prove to be false. It's self correcting - this is part and parcel of understanding the world we live in. Nothing more and nothing less. In five hundred years they may very well laugh at the ideas put forward today, and they may applaud too....

Science is not a person or 'God' it's only a tool despite the idea that some believe it's a 'way of life' and informs their 'way of life' and only theirs alone and nobody else has any claim on it except the Zombrex's of the world. Not all Atheists are scientists, and not all scientists are Atheists.

Actually I don't believe that the more 'extraordinary' the interpretation made by a scientist is in fact 'laughed' out of a lecture hall - think the multiverse that isn't even observable or testable only by default - and yet is preferred by some despite the fact that we have spent millions apon millions just trying to see a footprint?

I think it depends on the scientist who is a person at the end of the day and will always be one - not a drone who lives their life by the method - that's just too limiting and no scientist should limit themselves that way imo because they learn by thinking.

There is far too much politics that claim science as their own, daft really, considering the vast majority stand on the shoulders of those before - and I think people need to claim it back from those who think they 'own' it because of their worldview and publish books on same.

Science is not religion, it does not have a creed, only a 'method' - and I'm sorry but this generation of atheists do not own inquiry any more than any other old as the hills generation of atheists did. There is no such thing as a 'new' atheist - only a copycat.

I wonder whether you will see this post like perhaps the way Phil knew you wouldn't see his because your particular worldview of those who are worthy of your thought can be blocked out?

Especially when they are examples of what real people are, that are not 'acceptable' because they posit a different idea of what seeking truth should entail - and yet you are welcome here, and have been for well over a decade debating people who you think it's ok to call troll, or call foul - and that's clever behaviour.


I don't think so.

The message is that you don't own science and you never will, and making an alliance with your worldview and the method is so easy to see through that it might as well be made of glass. Nothing new - there is no 'new' Atheist - only old ones.

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

Scientists put forward hypothesis all the time that sound very strange and very odd and sometimes prove to be true, and sometimes prove to be false. It's self correcting - this is part and parcel of understanding the world we live in. Nothing more and nothing less. In five hundred years they may very well laugh at the ideas put forward today, and they may applaud too....

Science is not a person or 'God' it's only a tool despite the idea that some believe it's a 'way of life' and informs their 'way of life' and only theirs alone and nobody else has any claim on it except the Zombrex's of the world. Not all Atheists are scientists, and not all scientists are Atheists.

Scientists are people, and like religious people, scientists make claims about what they have experiences (Man wasn't it cool when that electron detached from the atom!)

The difference is when someone makes a claim in science other scientists do not simply take their word for it, particularly when that claim is extra-ordinary. When a religious persons makes a claim, other religious people have to, and quite often do, just take their word for it (Man wasn't it cool when that Jesus guy came back from the dead).

lmaopml wrote: »

Actually I don't believe that the more 'extraordinary' the interpretation made by a scientist is in fact 'laughed' out of a lecture hall - think the multiverse that isn't even observable or testable only by default - and yet is preferred by some despite the fact that we have spent millions apon millions just trying to see a footprint?

You didn't read my post properly.

Scientists are not laughed out of lecture halls for proposing extra-ordinary ideas. And if all religion did was propose an extra-ordinary idea, followed up with a way to test or measure this, it wouldn't either.

A scientist would be laughed out of a lecture hall if they claimed to experience an extra-ordinary event that they expected the other scientists to accept happened but which they just said "You'll just have to trust me that it happened as I say"

If a scientists stood up in a biology lecture hall and said that human beings come back to life, he had seen it but no there is no way to test this yourself, he would be laughed out of the lecture hall.

If a scientist stood up in a physics lecture hall and said that human beings can walk through walls, he had seen it, but no there is no way to test this yourself, he would be laughed out of the lecture hall.

etc ..

Contrast that with how religion works. If you stripped out of the Bible all the claims by individuals to have experienced supernatural events which they are now reporting to others, what would you be left with?

Have you ever wondered why, lmaopml, scientists don't just take the word of other scientists when they claim to have experienced something, particularly something extra-ordinary?

I mean, it works so well in religion doesn't it ....

J C

Zombrex wrote: »

Scientists are people, and like religious people, scientists make claims about what they have experiences (Man wasn't it cool when that electron detached from the atom!)

The difference is when someone makes a claim in science other scientists do not simply take their word for it, particularly when that claim is extra-ordinary. When a religious persons makes a claim, other religious people have to, and quite often do, just take their word for it (Man wasn't it cool when that Jesus guy came back from the dead).

Churches test any claims made by their members against their accepted doctrines and the Word of God on the matter. Scientists do something very similar with peer-review.
There are weaknesses and strengths in this approach.

This idea that Atheists are very logical folk and Theists are illogical is false ... you get varying degrees of logicality amongst both groups of people, depending on the person and the issue.
Similarly, the idea that religious people will swallow any old lie, while the Atheists are the 'wise ones' is also incorrect. I have found excellent critical thinking skills amongst people of all religions and none ... and I have found the opposite as well !!!

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by Geomy

Truth is based on the observer

Benny_Cake
You won't find too many takers for that notion here I'm afraid, particularly in the run up to Easter (see John 18:38).

I don't think that you have to be a Christian to see that a proposition is either true or it isn't.

I don't know about that Benny.

There is a long tradition, that has culminated with postmodernism, that is always interpreting/reinterpreting reality ... and therefore what constitutes truth!!!!

... the 'my truth isn't your truth' attitude that is so prevalent today amongst the moral relatavists ... except apparently when they get a parking ticket!!:)

Pilate was of this school ... that is why he was so dismissive of the existence of objective truth.


John 18:37-38
New International Version (NIV)

37 “You are a king, then!” said Pilate.
Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”

38 “What is truth?” retorted Pilate. With this he went out again to the Jews gathered there and said, “I find no basis for a charge against him."

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

Churches test any claims made by their members against their accepted doctrines and the Word of God on the matter. Scientists do something very similar with peer-review.
There are weaknesses and strengths in this approach.

This idea that Atheists are very logical folk and Theists are illogical is false ... you get varying degrees of logicality amongst both groups of people, depending on the person and the issue.
Similarly, the idea that religious people will swallow any old lie, while the Atheists are the 'wise ones' is also incorrect. I have found excellent critical thinking skills amongst people of all religions and none ... and I have found the opposite as well !!!

Otio.

J C

Zombrex wrote: »

Otio.

Are you actually claiming that being an Atheist, somehow makes you more logical, on average, than if you were a Theist?
If so, please expalin and justify this unfounded assertion.
... and church members ideas can be declared heretical where they are in clear breach of established doctrine or un-biblical ... just like peer-review can do the same in science.
They're both forms of peer-pressure based on objective criteria ... and that is why I have said that there are strengths and weaknesses in these approaches.
The most obvious weakness is that novel ideas that are valid may get 'buried' and never see the light of day just because they are novel and the proponent lacks the status or resources or indeed the stomach for confrontation on the issue within either church or science. It can be a very conservative process ... conserving ideas (and pardigms) well beyond their 'sell-by' date ... and this applies to both peer-review and church governance review.
On the positive side, church governance and peer-review are necessary to maintain good order and to vet and assess novel and not-so-novel ideas against established objective scientific and theological criteria.

wrote:

Originally Posted by Zombrex
Scientists are people, and like religious people, scientists make claims about what they have experiences (Man wasn't it cool when that electron detached from the atom!)

I would take serious issue with your implication that there are scientists and there are religious people and they are totally separate groups.
Indeed there seems to be a working assumption in your post that all 'true' scientist are Atheists, or at least practical atheists ... when practically all of the 'fathers of modern science' were Theists ... and the majority of scientists, even today believe in God.
... and the electron has been detaching from the atom since the dawn of Creation ... all science has done is to discover this.
... and the man who discovered that the electron could detach from the atom was a Christian ... the great J J Thompson, former Cavendish professor of physics at Cambridge University, who has said:-
"In the distance tower still higher [scientific] peaks which will yield to those who ascend them still wider prospects and deepen the feeling whose truth is emphasized by every advance in science, that great are the works of the Lord."

Benny_Cake

Since this thread is now moving into territory covered by the Atheism megathread, any further discussion should be conducted there.