Julian9EHP wrote:
>> From: "Bob (this one)"
>
>>> It is as impossible to prove God scientifically as it is to
>>> disprove God. _You_ can't prove that God _does not_ exist.
>>>
>>> I can give some exellent testimonies, including those of some
>>> important scientists and statesmen. ;-)
>>
>> They can't offer proof, either. Their word counts no more than
>> yours.
>
> If testimony is nothing, you invalidate your own testimony that
> there is no God.
Do us both a favor and try to keep the attributions correct. The way
you've trimmed all this means that it's no longer possible to
separate who said what. You have mistakenly assumed that it was I
who said things that previous posters offered.
Nowhere have I said or implied that I think there's no God. What I
have said is that there's no proof. I'm not offering "testimony," I
made a simple, unarguable statement of logic. You're using the
vocabulary of the church. I'm not.
>>>> I think not. A god is a natural invention of our specie. It
>>>> was the easy way out.
>>>
>>> Except that some religions -- most notably many varieties of
>>> Buddhism -- do not believe in a god.
>>
>> Huh? How does this disprove the assertion above, "A god is a
>> natural invention of our specie[s]."
>
> You offer no evidence that it is "natural" -- or what the word
> natural means.
Agreed. The thought behind its naturalness as expressed by the prior
poster seems to be that most societies have some sort of supernatural
observers/creators/guides. The fact of its widespread presence would
seem to say it's part of our human psyche to try to explain
*everything*. And when we can't, we create *something* to offer a way
to try to remove some of the terror of the unknown.
> "Our species" believes in gods, a God, or none. You were
> overgeneralizing.
No, I wasn't. That some believe differently doesn't mean that they
aren't all inventions.
>>> Easy how? The four major religions of the Western World began
>>> in the long time before anesthesia. Adversity tests faith.
>>
>> Non sequitur.
>
> No. "In the past, we believed . . . but now we know . . . "
> Religious people have faced the circumstances of life. Faith is
> not easy -- but then, life is not easy.
Faith hasn't demonstrated any pro-survival characteristics. It is
predicated on the unknowable. As for that "in the past..." business, I
can only look to history to state that most of our treasured "truth"
will be found to be wanting, just as those old ones have.
>>>> Otherwise we would have to answer to our actions in this
>>>> life.
>>>
>>> Except that many of those who most wished to improve _this_
>>> life believed in an afterlife.
>>
>> Still, no proof of anything.
>
> Proof that your generalization is again wrong. Faith is not easy.
> Some faith is true, but even the true faith is not easy.
Whether faith is easy or not is no proof of any sort of validity. As
for whether it's true or not, that's unknowable. No proof. It can be
argued that faith isn't logic-dependent, and there is a good series of
arguments that can be made for that posture. But the final tally is
that faith - yours and mine - is utterly subjective with no external
support.
>>>> By extention, we also had to invent an afterlife.
>>>
>>> Again, there are religions which do *not* believe in an
>>> afterlife. Ancient Judaism seems to have thought the
>>> personality faded out after death.
>>>
>>> You make too many assumptions.
>>
>> And, still no proof.
>
> Proof that your assumptions about the ground of faith are wrong. I
> have not sought here to prove anything else. And you are proved
> false.
Sorry. No. My assumptions about faith are that it's individual,
unprovable and apart from any logic. Anything else is your invention
of what I'm saying.
>>>> So we invent an external force that explains (in a myriad
>>>> number of ways - take your pick - can any one be right?) our
>>>> faults and the way to overcome them - all this based on
>>>> reward/punishment - same as training a dog.
>>>
>>> Again, there are faiths which have nothing to do with ethics.
>>> The Greco-Roman pantheon seems to have taken a long path.
>
>
>> Deities in those societies were cast in very different roles than
>> modern theology does. Are you asserting that the Spartans didn't
>> have a developed ethical code? That Greece wasn't the beginning
>> source of our modern ethical tenets?
>
>
> No. I was asserting that the gods of the Illiad and the Odyssey
> were not ethical.
Gods are not ethical by definition. In the bible, there are numerous
tales about God killing and causing suffering and torturing (if you
love me, kill your child). Gods make the rules for mortals to live by,
but that doesn't bind them to observe them for themselves.
> And it _is_ a long path between the early position and the
> Spartans, and the Athenian statement that "Father Zeus does not
> like oath-breakers."
It's a long path irrespective of the belief set from the tales to the
rules.
>>>> In actual fact this is not a bad idea. It gives those
>>>> incapable of independant thought or incapable of behavior
>>>> acceptable to a close knit society an anchor - a base line so
>>>> to speak - of proper conduct, and it gives the 'proper
>>>> thinking people' the 'right' to punish transgressors.
>>>
>>> Except, again, that many of those who _were_ capable of
>>> independent thought were most strongly adherent to those
>>> beliefs.
>>
>> Nonsense.
>
> It is so. Zwingli and the Diggers and Dr. King and . . . again and
> again, some of the strongest protesters against Things As They Are
> are also religious. If you like, you can take on the words of the
> early feminist, Christine de Pisan, and say that it is not right
> to offend people while we challenge them. But it is more than
> that. These people are devout.
You miss the point. They're protesting the things they are because
they're devout. The ethical and moral teachings they learned formed
their characters and the way they look at the daily issues. They
protest against those things that their faith tells them are wrong.
Every culture has those same notions, it's just the specific issues
that vary. De pisan seems to contradict the behavior of Jesus when he
drove the money-changers from the temple.
Cannibals are puzzled when told that it's wrong to eat other people.
They "know" that it's a good thing. Because when you eat the heart of
a brave warrior, some of that bravery comes into your flesh, they
believe. Both the "it's bad" and the "It's good" factions have to rely
on faith for these views because there's no absolute standard that
works for all people in all situations.
>>> John Bunyan was no conformist. He, and other religious people,
>>> fought _against_ society and its supposed right to punish
>>> transgressors.
>>
>> When there were no other explanations for the natural phenomena
>> they saw, faith was the major means to any sort of conclusion.
>> Martin Luther wasn't a conformist, either, but he, too, didn't
>> prove anything. None of them has.
>
> They prove that your assumptions about religion are false. I have
> not sought to prove more.
Which assumptions of mine have you proved wrong? That there's no proof
for the existence of God? That the way we look at the matters of faith
are likewise unprovable? That morality is a subjective, culturally
dependent issue? That religious thought is absolutely shaped by the
culture it's found in? I think not.
>>>> Thus we find the correct religious forces of Europe
>>>> destroying several amazing civilizations in the Americas (The
>>>> Conquistadores and the Jesuits to name two such forces).
Can't really call the conquistadors a religious group. They certainly
cloaked everything in religious imagery, but they came for the gold.
>>> And several native organizations -- including some of the
>>> Indian tribes oppressed by the "amazing civilizations" --
>>> joined with the conquerors in their fight.
>>
>> Come on...
>
>> This proves that Indians weren't opportunistic? Or that they
>> couldn't see which side their bread was buttered on? "If you
>> can't beat 'em, join 'em."
>
> "The amazing civilizations" practiced blood-letting, imperialism,
> rule by terror. The Inca strangled child sacrifices: the Aztec
> practiced cannibalism. It's a safe assumption that the subject
> peoples did not like these things. The "evil invaders vs. good
> natives" breaks down upon closer inspection.
Sorry. No. The things you list are evil *in your eyes* You can't
seriously be contrasting the new world Indian colonialism with
European colonialism and saying the Indians were worse. Rule by
terror, you seem to be saying, is a new world phenomenon. As for
blood-letting, what had been happening in Europe and in the crusades
stands as an exemplar of the process.
Humans don't have a good record for humane behavior and ethical
actions. None of them. No matter what society we're talking about.
They have all had civil authorities to punish transgressions according
to their values. Look at the Code of Hammurabi. Draconian by our
standards today. The fact remains that through all history and likely
well before it was any way recorded, people have acted selfishly and
brutally. The Europeans who colonized the Americas and the rest of the
world have not much to be proud about.
Those same Incas and Aztecs had a rather developed technology, strong
communications links across thousands of miles, sophisticated plant
and animal husbandry skills, good architectural examples. Those
destructive Europeans had well-developed art and music, architecture,
literature, mathematics, etc.
>>>> Thus we find Islam trying to prove (by whatever means
>>>> possible - including total annialation - sound familiar?)
>>>> that 'their' way is the 'only' way.
>>>
>>> Some Muslims have done so. Some Muslims have not. Is
>>> "religion" to be damned for the bad and not commended for the
>>> good?
>>
>> I think yes. The bad and the accompanying silence and inertia of
>> the "good" conspire to create a miasma of evil. The "good" not
>> standing up to the others creates a basis of suspicion for
>> *everyone* who espouses that religion.
>
>
> Except that the good (no quote marks) _does_ stand up to the evil.
> St. Francis protested the crusades: so did many others. Dr. King
> led the march to Selma. That some of these protests did not end the
> abuses does not mean that they were worthless. A woman in Iran
> preaches that Islam is and should be feminst. A woman in America
> writes a book against slavery. And some people lead their lives in
> peace and quiet, thus quietly refuting evil. I know a minster who
> had been the child of an alcoholic, and had undergone violence in
> childhood. Once he was so angry and frustrated that he went over
> to a parishoner and, with her permission, threw her china against
> the wall. Yet he was a good pastor, gentle toward his people. His
> church was strong and good. I think you ascribe too much evil to
> faith.
I ascribe *no* evil to faith. I simply observe that the faithful don't
have any better record of advancing ethical and moral presence in
society than anyone else. Living a peaceful life doesn't refute evil,
it merely avoids it. Another way of saying we're all sinners is to say
we never do anything that doesn't return us some good. Never. Even if
it's just the good feeling of having done something good by our
respective standards.
>> Religious faith has it's roots in many conditions. Some healthy,
>> some perverse. The declaration of faith has no more substance
>> than any other without proof.
>
> Your original statement _was_ overgeneralization. The declaration
> of faith among thinking people proves that thought does not
> necessarily kill faith.
No one has said it does. The analysts who see the universe as
mechanistic aren't likely to be people of faith. Those to whom the
"rational" explanations aren't satisfying will likely be. No one is
completely either one.
>>> You seem to have some bigotry toward those who do not think as
>>> you do.
>>
>> Funny how the deeply religious are most like that. Have you been
>> reading the insanity from Chung?
>
> I don't read Chung. I _do_ read you. Yes, your post is bigoted.
> "No faith is good" is such a sweeping generalization. Let's see .
I've never said that. I think you're confusing me with someone else.
> . . Would you be willing to assert that an atheistic faith is good
> -- such as with some Buddhists, or the Ethical Culture? Would you
> say that good people have a good faith, and bad people have a bad
> faith? Or you could stand with such Anglicans as Lancelot
> Andrewes, who said that good people can be saved, even from a bad
> sect.
None of the above. Do make a distinction between believing something
and ascribing faith to it. In this context, "faith" means an organized
body of spiritual beliefs, a religion. Atheists have nothing like
that. They say that there's no God. That ends the process right there.
No further organized set of ethical or moral beliefs proceeds from
that. Any person's faith is meaningless to anyone else except as how
it guides people to behave in thoughtful fashion.
>>>> Any religion that allows for the destruction (through action
>>>> or inaction) of anyone is a false religion!
>>>
>>> What of someone who allows people to destroy themselves? Is
>>> that evil, or mercy?
>
>> Ask the whole question and maybe an answer can be formulated.
>
> A person says, "I want to die. I want to be damned." Is it evil
> to allow this, or is it an allowance of the individual's free will?
>
Puhleeze. Why don't you load it up a little more? A person wants to
die? It's that person's choice and if the notion of free will means
anything, it must stand. As for wanting to be damned, how silly a
thing to try to introduce to muddy the issue. But the basic answer
remains. The person makes a choice, so be it.
>>>> By that definition there are no (mainstream) religions that
>>>> do not fall into this catagory.
>>>
>>> Again, you don't seem to have read much about religion.
>>
>> It's in the papers every day.
>
> Ah! There's the problem.
It was a slightly sarcastic comment. The fact is that I've spent more
than a dozen years in formal religious educational and even
considered becoming a member of the clergy. I've since read most of
the sacred texts of the major religions of the world.
> You wouldn't take your stand on science or art from what's in the
> papers. With art, you'd go to galleries, talk to artists and look
> at their work.
I am an artist (with a good scientific background). I used to operate
restaurants, and if you don't think preparing and serving food is
essentially art, you don't get it. I write for a living now and also
do media work in radio and tv. I have a rather large sculpture in a
gallery right now, along with some fanciful packaged foods I make that
I put into unusual containers. I've visited many of the great museums
of the world and studied art as both undergraduate and graduate student.
> You'd even go to Kenneth Clark -- and to learn to
> differentiate him from Joe Shmoe.
I've read Clark's work. I find him to be a bit crusty for my tastes.
His too-strong opinions and rather self-satisfied pronouncements put
me off him. There are others I like, though.
> In the same way, you should read
> more deeply about religion, and learn from those who you think are
> good and true.
I think there are many good and true people of faith. It's the ones
who think they have an exclusive grasp on what it's about that I can't
abide. I have small patience for the close-minded and the dogmatic.
The arbitrary and the exclusive. The ones who believe they have a "get
out of hell free" card. The ones who know how I should live.
Pastorio