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

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by Yorick: Barry, I'm calling a spade a spade. It has nothing to do with opinions. I presented a FACT: The definition of what a word in the English language is, yet Dramnek kept arguing his opinion. If he's wrong he's wrong. The fact is that the English word "science' applies to theology, no matter how much an atheist may argue it is not so. On this case, the argument is not about worldview, but language. Science and faith are not opposite. Science and religion are not incompatible. Science can be part of faith and part of religion, just as faith can be part of the scientific method, and the scientific community. Any attempt to belittle theology as valid scientific study is little other than an attempt to extend ones own atheistic reality onto others. It's prejudging the CONTENT rather than the METHOD of the field of study.

Once again Yorick you've proved that you can present an opinion without riling people. My argument was not over the factual content of the words but instead over the choice of phrase. You seem to be able to put your point across without resorting to antagonism, which seems to suggest to me that you just wanted to annoy Eisendram with that comment. I just disagreed with your phrasing - not the idea. You may be calling a spade a spade but you were doing so in such an overly antagonistic manner that it was bound to kick the two of you into a slightly less civil argument than you have previously had.

Originally posted by Yorick: No matter what you think, the English language disagrees with you. Theology, however much you may argue IS by definition a science. I posted the definition of science, and theology certainly fits it. Don't be trying to change the entire language just to fit it in your theology. You are wrong pure and simple.[/QB]

You’ve made the mistake of trying to present a contingent truth (spoken & Written language) as a necessary or absolute truth. I'm afraid The Cambridge dictionary will disagree with you here. (thanks to "esquire")

science noun(knowledge obtained from) the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical world, involving experimentation and measurement and the development of theories to describe the results of these activities pure/applied science [U] a science course/lesson/teacher a science laboratory

Thus as we can see, Theology does not use the scientific method as it is described there.
Theology is based on Dogma, and all it’s conclusions are thus shaped.
I’m not saying that is bad, But that’s just how it is.
I'm calling a spade a spade ;o)

Originally posted by antryg: Eisenschwartz-please define your buzzword pancritical. If your arguement hinges upon a quote then please tell us who you are quoting. It is hard to refute or give weight to an unattributed quote. (ex. a prominent psychiatrist stated "Anybody that goes by a user name such as Eisenschwartz is a pathological liar.") Such an example is worthless; quote marks do not give validity or authority. You are correct in that systems of government can also be seen as expressions of religion.

The quote Comes from Joseph Ratzinger.
Pancritical simply means applying criticism or reason to everything. Pan as in panoramic, I.e the whole, etc Critical As in Critical Thinking, To Criticise and explore.

I did already define the word for you in essence, re:

"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."

Originally posted by antryg: From your posts, I would assert that you do not have an understanding what theology is or how it is done.[/QB]

Would you like to either prove that Or withdraw that comment?
If you can't, I understand perfectly )

HTH.
TIA.

[Moiraine]

Eisenschwarz, why being so aggressive ?

[ 01-27-2003, 09:02 AM: Message edited by: Moiraine ]

[Indemaijinj]

Why should the human powers of thought and reasoning be so utterly and completely removed from anything else spawned by nature?

Humans ARE quite different from most other animals, but why can't this difference just be the result of evolved specialisation?

It is quite clear that we are a very social species. We are also belong to a very social type of animals (apes). Communication is important for flock animals and the ability to communicate more advanced matters to the rest of the flock is a really good ability for the survival and proliferation of the species.

We have developed a quite powerful ability for this, called speech. A system of sounds that can be formed and combined into sentences that can carry an almost (if not actually) infinite array of meanings. This is quite unlike other flock animals that are only able to communicate a limited amount of meanings.

The ability to adapt one's way of thinking and concepts of the world around one is probably a pre-human thing, albeit it is especially pronounced on humans. The ability is vital to any species that wishes to extend it's range of possible habitats. Imagination, memory and toolmaking have all proven to be good attributes for survival.

But why has the human powers of imagining, reasoning and concept-making evolved to be so radical as to include artistic ability and the power of existencial and religious thought?

There are several explanations on this:

1. These modes of thinking is an unharmful (and quite wonderful) by-product of a more important ability (the general ability of advanced thought). It is a common mistake to view evolution as only producing beneficial traits. A lot of inconsequential traits can also appear. A trait, that neither promotes, nor hinders the survival and proliferation of a species would not necessarily have to be lost in evolution.

2. The ability has proven beneficial for survival and proliferation. This is a more likely scenario since why should it else become so common?
It is another common mistake only to look on things such as the ability to gather food and protect oneself and one's kind from calamities. The ability to acquire mates and, in the case of flock animals, the goodwill of the flock.
One sweet little theory states that boredom was an issue for the early human. During days or nights where there was little to do besides sitting inside the shelter or cave humans could sometimes become quite bored. Some humans invented storytelling along the way. Those who could alleviate long winters or droughts with imaginative stories or inspirational art would rise in popularity. This would mean more mates and a bigger share of the food. Also in such dire times the human capacity to understand advanced concepts and be able to think back and forth in time could produce great anxiety. People who were able to ease this (often detrimental) state in themselves or others would have a greater chance of survival and a greater status in the group. This could be the origin of the first priests (the rulers of ancient human cultures often also had clerical functions).

I, personally like the second explanation better. One might also consider that the acknowledgement of the divine and the understanding of the religious aspect of the world might have a beneficial effect on survival.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

I was a little surprised to see this thread revived this morning. I didn't visit the forum over the weekend and figured it would have dropped to Page 3 or 4 by now.

Yorick & Eisen - Would it be possible to just bypass the whole "science" debate? It is quickly degenerating into an "Is Not/Is Too" argument that neither side is going to even consider compromising on...so it's best to just accept the fact that you view it differently and move on.

Yorick - Eisen is never going to accept that theology is a science because it isn't a "pure science", as it does have a pre-determined hypothesis that is considered unalterable.

Eisen - "Pure science" is a wonderful ideal, but it is just as "corruptible" as you consider theology to be. The cold hard fact is that most scientists depend on outside funding or grants to conduct their research and it is a well documented fact that the "test results" are often altered to suit the sponser. This discussion has been held before and that fact has been attested to by different members who are working scientists. Unfavorable results are sometimes altered or ignored in order to present "positive results" to the group or organization that is providing the funding. In that context, even "pure" science can have a predetermined outcome. I recognize why you disagree with theology as a science and I agree with you that it is not the same as research science. But I am also pointing out that research science is not always as "objective and open-minded" as it likes to portray itself.

realbinky - In response to your post to me on Page 3, none of the comments made so far have served to "lessen my faith". Indeed, the opposite is true. I don't have any problem with you (or anybody else) disagreeing with me and challenging my beliefs. Having my beliefs "attacked" is a different matter. Some people cannot challenge without attacking, and I have been upset at some remarks that have been made in that context in the past - but nobody has made any such comments in this thread. My faith has been strengthened immensely since I started "allowing" it to be challenged. I've seen very good arguments against religion presented in the various discussions I've participated in, and this has made me examine my beliefs more closely in order to determine exactly why I believe as I do. In some cases, I have changed some long-standing beliefs when presented with a good enough counter-argument - but my core faith has only grown stronger. I have tested my faith, and it has withstood every test I've administered. Just as a sword is strengthened and tempered by fire, so has my faith been. The more it has been challenged, the more I have had to search my Bible and other sources for answers. This has served to strengthen the foundation of my belief even more than when I first started.

Moraine - You ask what a believer would do if they were presented with irrefutable proof that God did NOT exist. That is an interesting question - and one that I can only answer for myself. Even though I don't follow Pascal's Theory as a reason for believing (ie, that I have nothing to lose and a great potential to gain), I would have to say that my reaction would be that of one who had. I've lived my life as I saw fit. I've treated my fellow man with kindness and respect just as I would want to be treated and I've been respectful of those whose beliefs contradicted my own. I have been as good a person as I know how (for the most part anyway, but nobody is perfect )So if I were to die and discover that God did not exist, the life I've lived would be reward enough for me. Even if presented with irrefutable proof that God does not exist, I would not change my lifestyle. I am who I am and the absence of God would not change that.

I admit that your question made me defensive at first. After all, I honostly and sincerely believe it would be absolutely impossible for anybody to present me with irrefutable proof that God does not exist. Also, I don't claim to be a scientist, so I have no obligation to "keep an open mind" about the subject. But, if I wish for atheists, agnostics, pagans, heathens and others to look deep within themselves and examine thier belief systems and consider "What if you're wrong" - then it is only fair that I subject myself to the same hypothesis and examination.

I would be critical of any "irrefutable proof" and I would do my best to refute it...but if it were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that I had been wrong all these years...I would still continue to live my life the way I do now. I cannot change the person I have become.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: Moraine - You ask what a believer would do if they were presented with irrefutable proof that God did NOT exist. That is an interesting question - and one that I can only answer for myself. Even though I don't follow Pascal's Theory as a reason for believing (ie, that I have nothing to lose and a great potential to gain), I would have to say that my reaction would be that of one who had. I've lived my life as I saw fit. I've treated my fellow man with kindness and respect just as I would want to be treated and I've been respectful of those whose beliefs contradicted my own. I have been as good a person as I know how (for the most part anyway, but nobody is perfect )So if I were to die and discover that God did not exist, the life I've lived would be reward enough for me. Even if presented with irrefutable proof that God does not exist, I would not change my lifestyle. I am who I am and the absence of God would not change that.

Good post here Cerek. Thanks for asking those two to quit chasing their tails about the science/not science bit. As a lawyer I am less attached to science, since it is logically flawed at base. But, even given the astounding strength of the scientific method, you are absolutely right about the fact that any scientist working today has money backing his/her project and expected results. Now, to be fair, come companies/universities are okay with dis-proving their original hypothesis, but this is rare.

The bit I've quoted is important here. You state exactly how I do behave and think for the most part, as I feel there is irrefutable proof that God does not exist. I just wanted to point this out, 'cause I think the "how can you not believe in God and still be a good/moral person" thing gets really outta hand sometimes. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[Yorick]

I disagree that theology has a predetermined assumption. Someone can study theology and develop an atheistic theology. Or a pantheistic theology. Or a monotheistic theology. There is no predetermined assumption in theology whatsover. Christian theology is one result of studying theology.

It should be noted that my own theology is based on this: the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical world, involving experimentation and measurement and the development of theories to describe the results of these activities - The definition in the Cambridge dictionary, as used and advocated by Dramnek APPLIES to MY THEOLOGY.

Dramnek is using the results of my observations and experiments as proof that my approach is not scientific, simply because he cannot accept the conclusions I have made.

The different schools of psychology do not try and tell each other they are not true psychology simply because they have different outcomes. Why should Dramnek discredit my approach simply because he disagrees with my conclusions?

[ 01-27-2003, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Timber Loftis]

Must you continue to haggle over the small stuff, Yorick? I mean, really. You go get your dictionary, Dramnek will go get his, and you can each sit and read quietly. [img]graemlins/readingbook.gif[/img]

Look, I happen to think theology can be a science. I think a discussion of how books get cannonized or de-cannonized was a good theological result of the archaeological discovery at Nag Hamadi.

But, gosh, is all this really relevant at all? To anything really?

[LordKathen]

Why not chase their tails? This is what it all comes down to. As long is its civil, I think this is exactly what should be debated. Not just whether or not there is a supernatural creator or not. This debate was finally maturing into something interesting. I have not posted much in this thread, becouse as we have discovered in previous posts, I am a bit touchy towards Yorick, and would like to stay member of IW, (no affence Yorick) I just know my limits. I am pleased with all the responce to this thread, and will continue to watch.
Maybe I'll pop in here and there.

Commence, please.