One question to atheists II (does that mean it's two questions now??)

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: Ahhhhhh...but what about Divine Intervention. I have personally seen prayers succeed where science and technology failed. I've told the story before, but the short version is that I faced a life-threatening condition 6yrs ago. I suffered massive internal injury and - through a series of events - had to wait more than 30 hours before corrective surgery could be performed. After the surgery, the doctor asked my wife and mother if they believed in miracles. They replied that they did and he said "That's good - because a miracle is the only thing that will save him now. I've done what I could, but it simply wasn't enough to repair the damage that's been done. I don't expect him to survive past the next 72 hours." My mom returned to the waiting room in tears and asked everyone there to pray with her for my safety. Total strangers joined hands with my mom and asked God to spare me. I later learned that over 100 people from my hometown were also praying for a miracle on my behalf. However, I was completely unaware of any of this - so my recovery cannot be attributed to "positive thinking". The bottom line is that our advanced medical technology was not sufficient to save me. Only God's Grace was able to do that.

You’re talking about supernaturalism there.
But Science only deals with Tangible proofs and evidence,
So to say that someone _is_ cured by “god’s grace” is rather misleading, since there is no scientfic justification for that (the matriel world, including people getting cured come under the jurisdiction of science) nor will there ever be, unless someone empirically proves the existence of a god or higher power of the sort that your beliefs subscribe too.
So someone can believe that they were cured by such, but ultimately it comes down to a matter of faith, and so it is inadmissible as evidence in any form of logical debate and argument.
I can say that I think for example When I went Short sited in my right eye, That It was caused By something to do with hardening of the lenses or something? or I could say that It was done by god who was angry that I had done sometihng bad,
However on the one hand I have an Optician to back one veiw up with the whole wieght of human scietific endevour and "proof" behind him, On the other hand I have faith in A God and faith in various doctrinesn needed to ascribe my ocular malady to him.
The choice is up to the individual in the end.

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: I disagree. Although I'm in no hurry to die, I do not fear death. I have a personal relationship with God that is real - not imaginary, hallucinatory, or chemically induced. I have heard His voice in direct answer to prayers and I have seen His hand intervene in my times of need. This is not just "wishful thinking" -

some people may think you have proved his point,
your belief in a god as you state quells your fear of dieing,
i.e “I do not fear death”.

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: I have gone to God in prayer over different circumstances and seen real, empirical results occur from those prayers. We are stuck on this planet, but we are not insignificant - at least not to God.

Religion in itself cannot be empirically proved true, therefore unless you first prove the existence of god, to claim the existence of it's intervention in the matriel world is, since it cannot be verified on scientific grounds, is purely faith.
You cannot definitively claim that god _does_ exist or that god _does not_ exist without making the statement anything other than pure faith with all that entails.

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: I agree. Although I don't feel that science and God are mutually exclusive. I believe God designed our world and the universe to operate in an orderly and precise manner. He then gave Man the ability to "discover" these "orderly patterns" for ourselves so that we could better understand how our world works.

Religion deals with faith, i.e. simple (or complicated YMMV) Belief in something without nessacerily any valid empirical proof to back it up.

Science deals with empirical proof, i.e. something that within the evidence based observation model we have built up of the materiel world can be independently verified by someone with repeatable experiments and similar.

Mathematics I think deals with Necessary truth & pure logic, I.e. within our current mathematical system 2+2=4 and no one and nothing can change this without changing the whole premise of Maths as it currently is.

Language deals with contingent truth, For example The Sentence “Fish don’t have legs” Is contingent that we don’t call “fins” (something which fish have) “Legs” (something which under the current meaning of the word Fish do not have).

For example I can get Foucault’s pendulum or whatever it was they used to prove that the earth rotates and I can duplicate this experiment myself, You can duplicate it, Everyone on earth can, and They can therefore prove to themselves that the earth appears to rotate.

We can all get a sheet of people and a pencil or even a calculator perhaps, and see that 2+2=4. We can all look in a dictionary at current meaning of words,
But we cannot all sit down and do a certain proscribed action and all find proof of god’s existence in that or even contract with a divine being etc.

Therefore IMHO (YMMV) I think science and relegion do have an irreconcibiable gap, One of proof and evidence.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Eisenschwarz: You’re talking about supernaturalism there. But Science only deals with Tangible proofs and evidence, So to say that someone _is_ cured by “god’s grace” is rather misleading, since there is no scientfic justification for that (the matriel world, including people getting cured come under the jurisdiction of science) nor will there ever be, unless someone empirically proves the existence of a god or higher power of the sort that your beliefs subscribe too. So someone can believe that they were cured by such, but ultimately it comes down to a matter of faith, and so it is inadmissible as evidence in any form of logical debate and argument. I can say that I think for example When I went Short sited in my right eye, That It was caused By something to do with hardening of the lenses or something? or I could say that It was done by god who was angry that I had done sometihng bad, However on the one hand I have an Optician to back one veiw up with the whole wieght of human scietific endevour and "proof" behind him, On the other hand I have faith in A God and faith in various doctrinesn needed to ascribe my ocular malady to him. The choice is up to the individual in the end.

There is one fundamental difference between the two examples, Eisenschwarz. An examination by a trained doctor will find the the physical cause of your reduced eyesight. It is easily and readily identifiable by scientific means.

But I had Peritonitis running rampant through my system for 30 hours. According to all medical knowledge and scientific data, the Peritonitis should have also spread to my bloodstream and killed me within the next 72 hours - but it didn't. The "fact" is that there are occurrences that science cannot explain. My example was one of them. If it can't be explained by scientific methodology, then the explanation must lie somewhere else. You call it supernatural, I call it God's Grace. Fair enough on both counts.

As for the "empirical results" I spoke of, the fact that I am still alive (in defiance of any scientific explanation) DOES count as empirical evidence. You may disagree with my hypothesis (God's Grace), but you cannot disagree with the evidence (that I'm still alive).

However, I will stop there. And I will also compliment you on the entirety of your response to me. You offered excellent counterpoints to my assertions and I give credit where credit is due. I'm sure many people would say that I don't fear death because of my faith. I have to admit they are probably right. Although I admit that I do have some fear of the physical sensations I will experience as I die....I have NO fear about what happens afterwards. In my opinion, my faith is not base on blind hope - but I won't contest your assertion that it is.

I could give more examples of why I feel it isn't, but this thread WAS originally designed primarily to allow atheists to explain the reasons for their beliefs (or lack thereof) - so I will step back and allow you to have the spotlight once again.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Eisenschwarz: I think science and relegion do have an irreconcibiable gap, One of proof and evidence.

Theology IS a science.

[Gammit]

I just want to say that although many of us agree or disagree, I am learning much about the different opinions on this matter... and for that learning experience and added wisdom, I thank you all. Most is done with much humility and respect for others views, and this is why I love IW!

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Gammit: I just want to say that although many of us agree or disagree, I am learning much about the different opinions on this matter... and for that learning experience and added wisdom, I thank you all. Most is done with much humility and respect for others views, and this is why I love IW!

The wisest statement I have read on IWF or anywhere in days. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[realbinky]

OMG (pun intended, sorry) Eisen posted something I agree with! Way to go buddy [img]smile.gif[/img] You always have good arguements, thankfully, one went in my directions. Cerek, I am extremely pleased that you did live through that experience, as I get to interact with you here. I am NOT trying to lessen your faith, but let me put it in the terms I think of it in. Currently I am an agnostic, for lack of better words. Some days I feel "spiritual" and some days not. Your experience with the doctors is simply one they had not encountered. To go with Moiraine's explanation of the scientific puzzle, you are a new piece. If they knew more, they would have known what combination of circumstances and your physical characteristics interacted to "save" you. 500 years ago, a lighter would seem like magic, now it costs $.50 in a gas-o-mart. Just because we can't explain it, doesn't mean we never will.

On the other hand, on one of my spiritual days, I would say that God saved you, not by direct, immediate intervention, but because he designed you that way. My theory is that IF God exists, he did it by designing evolution, billions of years ago, and set it in motion. He knew we would eventually pop up. The Book of Genesis was written as it is because the writers did not have the framework and environment we have now to write it in, when God "gave" them the knowledge through divine intervention.

On a cynical day, I would say 3 things:
1) You're a lucky SOB,
2) God is EITHER omnipotent OR omniscient, but not both,
3) Women: a mistake, or did He DO it to us ON PURPOSE (to quote Jack in Witches of Eastwick). [img]smile.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img]
Thank Him I don't have many of these.

And to paraphase Gammit, thanks for the new knowledge and perspective.

Originally posted by Yorick: Theology IS a science.[/QB]

Theology is not science because science is based upon pancritical rationality, Which is a way of thinking that is free of external domination (for example that of a deity & associated Dogma), always regards all assumptions and all results as in principle open to criticism and does not cling stubbornly and dogmatically to any thesis.

The Sphere of theology is founded upon and promulgates dogma, and doubt is acknowledged only as a challenge to be overcome by faith.
Whereas doubt about the correctness of any assumptions and any affirmations forms an essential part of science, i.e. pancritically rational thought.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Eisenschwarz: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: Theology IS a science.

Theology is not science because science is based upon pancritical rationality, Which is a way of thinking that is free of external domination (for example that of a deity & associated Dogma), always regards all assumptions and all results as in principle open to criticism and does not cling stubbornly and dogmatically to any thesis.

The Sphere of theology is founded upon and promulgates dogma, and doubt is acknowledged only as a challenge to be overcome by faith.
Whereas doubt about the correctness of any assumptions and any affirmations forms an essential part of science, i.e. pancritically rational thought.[/QUOTE]sci·ence

1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study (the science of theology)
b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge (have it down to a science)

3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE

4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws (culinary science)

5 capitalized : CHRISTIAN SCIENCE

[ 01-25-2003, 11:40 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Eisenschwarz: doubt is acknowledged only as a challenge to be overcome by faith.

Yet again you show you fail completely to understand faith. Why don't you stop telling ME what doubt means to a theologian, and let a theologian tell you - an atheist - what doubt is acknowledged as.

Doubt is a wonderful precursor to greater theological understanding and knowledge of God. The existence of doubt actually creates faith - without which there would simply be mute, one dimensional acceptance.

[antryg]

Thank you for your post Yorick. Since I have a Master of Theology degree it is rather bothersome to keep seeing people post about theology when they don't even know the basic definition much less how theological work is done.

As an aside students of comparative theology can show, using observation techniques, logic and reason that "Science" can be a religion. It is usually described as a type 2 religion with and identifiable supreme entity (named either science/reason/logic). It has its own interperters of the religions tenets (scientist=priest). Salvation/completion comes through the supreme entity. It is faith based (ex. "All creation comes from the Big Bang." What was before the Big Bang? How did matter come from nothing? "Science will eventually find the answer.")