I watched the “God Delusion” Debate between Professor Richard Dawkins and Dr. John Lennox both esteemed scientists from Oxford University. The debate touched on six of the main arguments Dawkins gives against the existence of God in his book The God Delusion. I regretted that the debate format did not permit much freedom for back and forth dialog. Instead it focused on concise discussion about certain particulars of the book. While I understand this choice of style for the debate, I agree with Dawkins frustration at not having more time to delve deeper into the very important issues discussed. I was glad to see that the Christian organization hosting the event gave Dawkins the first and last slots in the debate.I did notice that Dawkins and Lennox agreed on several key assertions of Dawkins. Dawkins raised the point that religion ought to withstand the test of science and not be afraid of scientific investigation. Lennox wholeheartedly agreed that there should not be a division between the two and that Christianity is able to be verified or falsified by historical science. Dawkins and Lennox both agreed that science was birthed out of theism. Dawkins was the first to make that assertion in the debate and then Lennox agreed referring to the Whiteheads Thesis.
Dawkins asserted that children should not be taught faith, but skepticism on the grounds that saying “that’s my faith” removes objective thinking and debate and provides an avenue for extremism. Lennox agreed, as he should, that children ought to be taught to be critical thinkers and that they ought to learn how to think and understand the evidences for what they believe. However, Lennox rightly maintained that Christianity is based on evidences some objective some subjective. Moreover that biblical Christianity does provide a framework for scientific investigation, knowledge, thinking etc.
Dawkins has a list in the beginning of this book The God Delusion of wars and atrocities that would not have occurred, he asserts, if there was no religion. Lennox responds, speaking only on behalf of biblical Christianity, that Christianity does not support this kind of thing in the world and gives a counter argument of Stalin, Mussolini and Mao atheistic beliefs rooted in Marxism. I was surprised that Dawkins granted that these men, if Marxist, were products of atheism, albeit as Lennox granted not the sort of atheists Dawkins and other atheists proponents support. I think that Dawkins was saying that it still had to be proven that they were operating out of their Marxism in committing these atrocities, but if it could be proven to come from their Marxism then he agrees it also stems from atheism. I don’t do their arguments justice in this post, please watch the debate yourself.
Lastly I wanted to touch on the issue of God based morality. Dawkins asserts that one does not need God to be moral. Lennox grants that atheists certainly can be moral without believing in God. Dawkins, however, gives two main arguments of why we don’t need God for morality. One is that we don’t need a holy book to give us morality because he says that we pick and choice what is moral from the text. Two he asserts the only reason to need a God based morality is out of fear of God’s retribution or out of a desire to earn His favor and be divinely rewarded. He then says humanity universally accepts a moral right and wrong. It’s common sense, he claims. He posits the development of morality coming from the relationships of small hunter gatherer groups that valued good and sympathized with suffering and as time evolved this concept was passed on through the generations. He said there seems to be “something in the air” that gives modern consensus of morality. He says that attitudes towards slavery and women have changed, thus morality changes therefore it is not based on a fixed system.
Lennox responds that indeed we have moral understanding, because we were created with it by God. Our behavior can mirror good actions without knowing God, but we cannot support the foundation of what “good” is without God. He quotes from Dawkins previous books that he grants that we are merely products of our DNA in a world with no good and no evil. From there he asks Dawkins how he can then discuss good and evil if there is no such thing. Dawkins said the two don’t contradict; it is true that there is no real good and evil and yet we experience a humanity who has a moral construct.
I will close this post without adding my own thoughts to Dawkins discussion on morality. However, I will write another where I address them. I do wish that such a debate happens again with more time for dialog on these and other issues. I feel it is very profitable to have such discussions.
24 comments:
karla quoted that: Christianity is able to be verified or falsified by historical science.
What exactly is 'historical science'?
karla said: Dawkins and Lennox both agreed that science was birthed out of theism.
In a roundabout way, yes.... But so what? You could also say that chemistry in particular grew out of alchemy - in other words magic.... It's an interesting historical fact but hardly anything more.
karla said: Moreover that biblical Christianity does provide a framework for scientific investigation, knowledge, thinking etc.
[laughs] That's almost too funny for words [rotflmao]
karla said: I was surprised that Dawkins granted that these men, if Marxist, were products of atheism, albeit as Lennox granted not the sort of atheists Dawkins and other atheists proponents support.
They may indeed have been atheists - but it wasn't their atheism that *caused* their crimes against humanity. It was their ideas that things could be perfected by killing [lots of] people they didn't like.
karla said: From there he asks Dawkins how he can then discuss good and evil if there is no such thing.
Because *other people* use those terms and they are terms in common usage.
Dawkins and Lennox used that term I believe "historical science" I am guessing they mean scientific investigation into the past. For instance a paleontologist. Dawkins is a biologist, but I think he studies the past through his research. (I'm not sure though)
If science was birthed out of theism and specifically Christianity it would seem that Christianity does not need to impede scientific knowledge for it is what gave birth to it. Dawkins seems to argue that Christianity gets in the way of science, however, true Christianity is it's firmest supporting foundation.
If you are interested the link will lead you to an on-line viewing of the debate.
I think Lennox point was just that. "They may indeed have been atheists - but it wasn't their atheism that *caused* their crimes against humanity." That the same should be granted to Christians in that the crusades may have been connected to Christianity but yet it is not a Christian thing to do.
This was a fantastic review of an important debate. Job well done!
Sincerely,
Terry Michaels
'The Preacher who hates religion and loves God'
www.strategicbookpublishing.com/ThatIMayKnowYou.html
karla said: If science was birthed out of theism and specifically Christianity it would seem that Christianity does not need to impede scientific knowledge for it is what gave birth to it.
Christianity certainly didn't *need* to impede scientific advance but religious dogma - and the fear of losing power - certainly did. The gradual removal of humanity from the centre of the universe was a case in point - fought against at every step of the way by the Catholic church in particular. It is not unreasonable for Christians - and members of other religions - to accept scientific advances in knowledge. Most of them would or should - from my point of view - have no impact on faith issues. However, seemingly many people have a problem with things such as Evolution or even Geology that apparently threaten their *interpretation* of their faith. But as I said there is no reason for that. Science and scientific endeavour generally has very little to say about God.
karla said: Dawkins seems to argue that Christianity gets in the way of science, however, true Christianity is it's firmest supporting foundation.
I'd like to hear your defence of that considering religious views on things like Stem Cell research!
karla said: That the same should be granted to Christians in that the crusades may have been connected to Christianity but yet it is not a Christian thing to do.
...and yet it was the Catholic church who were responsible for the Crusades often portrayed as a matter of faith and reflecting obedience to God.. Stalin etc may indeed have been responsible for their many crimes but where they driven by their *atheism* to perform them? I would say not. They were each individually driven by their particular flavour of utopian ideology. Their lack of belief in God was, at best, incidental. Not all atheists - even those in positions of power - are mass murderers.
Pastor Terry. Thank you. I just made a second response to the debate detailing my thoughts on the matter of morality.
Cyber Kitten wrote “However, seemingly many people have a problem with things such as Evolution or even Geology that apparently threaten their *interpretation* of their faith. But as I said there is no reason for that. Science and scientific endeavor generally has very little to say about God.”
I think that Biblical Christianity supports scientific knowledge and that is why it gave rise to it. Most of the first influential scientists were Christians or at least Deists. History is replete of such scientists. I believe that true science is supported by Christianity and supports Christianity. I think there has been a divide between the two culturally where there should not be and that is because Christians have responded out of fear and misunderstanding. They should not be afraid of scientific advancements. The Bible says that it is the glory of God to conceal a matter and the glory of kings to search it out. God delights in our curiosity and endeavors to know more about the world around us.
Cyber Kitten wrote: ”I'd like to hear your defense of that considering religious views on things like Stem Cell research!”
I don’t know much about stem cell research. I know that they can take the cells from the umbilical cord and I think they can find more alternatives than using embryos. The problem Christians have with it is a matter of life not of science. I don’t think you would agree to take a heart from a two year old child so that another person can have life. It is the same to us to destroy an embryo – a life that has all the genetic makeup of a human being that needs only to grow – in order to give medical care to another. I think we should put more time, money, and energy into finding alternative sources of stem cells so that this science can continue to progress and help people.
Cyber Kitten: ”...and yet it was the Catholic church who were responsible for the Crusades often portrayed as a matter of faith and reflecting obedience to God.. Stalin etc may indeed have been responsible for their many crimes but where they driven by their *atheism* to perform them?”
And such actions by the church, who ought to have known better, were not a outworking of Biblical Christianity. They were a gross corruption of grand proportions and is nothing akin to what Jesus taught. He told Peter to put away His sword. He said that the Kingdom of God will not and should not come by weapons and force in this world. My point is that just because a person identifies themselves as a part of a belief system doesn’t mean you should blame the belief system for their actions unless it can be proven that that belief system gave direct cause for those actions. You separate atheism from the actions of Stalin and I separate Christianity from the actions of those who did the crusades for it was not something supported by Biblical Christianity.
Cyber Kitten “Not all atheists - even those in positions of power - are mass murderers.”
I most certainly agree. I think most atheists are looking for a utopia brought about by intellectual, non-violent, suppression of religion to advance the well being of the human race. I admire the diligence in their endeavors. I hope though that we can come to a greater understanding and see that the answer lies not in eradication of belief in God, but in the progression of alignment with what is true which is found in God. That the answer isn’t in atheism, but in Christianity and that we both want a world without the kind of religion most dislike.
karla said: Most of the first influential scientists were Christians or at least Deists. History is replete of such scientists.
That's because until very recently pretty much everyone in the West was a Christian. In the Early Modern period you had to take Holy Orders in England in order to teach at University. It is hardly surprising therefore that most, if not all, of the worlds greatest scientists were also theists. It is only in the last 100 years or so that it has become acceptable - even normal - not to believe in God.
karla said: Christians have responded out of fear and misunderstanding. They should not be afraid of scientific advancements.
...and yet many are and even more dispute them.
karla said: I don’t think you would agree to take a heart from a two year old child so that another person can have life.
Nope.
karla said: It is the same to us to destroy an embryo – a life that has all the genetic makeup of a human being that needs only to grow – in order to give medical care to another.
I think that the whole religious argument against stem cell research is based on fundamental misunderstanding of what constitues an embryo and what is meant by life.
karla said: I think we should put more time, money, and energy into finding alternative sources of stem cells so that this science can continue to progress and help people.
That's certainly a valid alternative.
karla said: My point is that just because a person identifies themselves as a part of a belief system doesn’t mean you should blame the belief system for their actions unless it can be proven that that belief system gave direct cause for those actions.
Agreed.
karla said: I hope though that we can come to a greater understanding and see that the answer lies not in eradication of belief in God, but in the progression of alignment with what is true which is found in God.
So you don't admire atheists position then... just their desire for a better world? Certainly from my point of view I would like to see a world based more on reason than superstition.
karla said: That the answer isn’t in atheism, but in Christianity and that we both want a world without the kind of religion most dislike.
Personally I think that *all* religion is foolish nonesense and think that we would be better off without it. But then again we would be better off without a lot of other foolish nonesense too.... I'm not holding my breath at this point.
I was with you until the end there. I also value reason and logic. I think it is unreasonable to dismiss belief in God as superstition. To do so does not aid intellectual exchange, but simply disregards the theism as lunacy. If atheism is so reasonable it ought to be able to counter actual theists arguments as I request in the post I made today.
karla said: I think it is unreasonable to dismiss belief in God as superstition. To do so does not aid intellectual exchange, but simply disregards the theism as lunacy.
...and yet have I not been exchanging intellectually with you and others here? I believe that your belief in God is foolish - but that doesn't stop me debating the issue rationally with you.
karla said: If atheism is so reasonable it ought to be able to counter actual theists arguments as I request in the post I made today.
...and that is exactly what I have been doing have I not?
karla said: I think it is unreasonable to dismiss belief in God as superstition. To do so does not aid intellectual exchange, but simply disregards the theism as lunacy.
Harsh fact, but as an atheist I believe all thiests are atleast slightly insane. As I would anyone whom believe in 'imaginary' beings.
Maybe we need to clarify what is being implied by saying "unreasonable." Are we saying that reason is not employed? Or that the conclusions drawn are not reasonable? Or are we saying the person doesn't know how to reason? I think we can both utilize reason and logic based on our presuppositions and present reasonably constructed argument. However just because an argument shows the person is reasoning doesn't mean the conclusions are correct. If the premise is wrong all the reason in the world won't bring truth to the conclusion. So I think atheists can and do use reason as well as theists.
We have all met people who don't think things through and are obviously not able to use logic for whatever reason.
So what is being said when we use the word "unreasonable." I am hearing that what I believe is no different than fantasy and imagination. I have never discounted anyone's belief system in this way. And yes by evidence of this conversation I take it that you must see I am employing some degree of reason for if I wasn't we really couldn't communicate about such lofty topics as we are trying to wrap our heads around.
Karla,
"I think that Biblical Christianity supports scientific knowledge and that is why it gave rise to it."
This is just plain factually wrong. Do you really think no science was done before Jesus and that only Xians did science afterwards? In order to believe this, you'd have to believe that no Greeks, Muslims, Chinese, Japanese, etc. made any scientific contributions. C'mon.
"Most of the first influential scientists were Christians or at least Deists."
The influential ones from the Xian west were, but other societies also learned about the world. And, it is by setting aside their Xian preconceptions that scientists have made strides in understanding the world. I realize that you know nothing about how science is actually done, so please take it from someone who does know - firsthand.
"They should not be afraid of scientific advancements."
Then why do you deny evolution?
"I don’t know much about stem cell research. I know that they can take the cells from the umbilical cord and I think they can find more alternatives than using embryos."
Shocker that you don't know much about it, and I'm not going to go into a lot of detail here, but there's a need to investigate all stem cells, not just those that come from umbilical cords (they are generally not pluripotent).
"The problem Christians have with it is a matter of life not of science."
You mean it's a matter of conflation of the definition of life with the definition of humanity.
"And such actions by the church, who ought to have known better, were not a outworking of Biblical Christianity."
And I'm sure none of them were Scotsmen, were they? I usually don't use the argument of the Crusades against Xians, but your fallacious defense of it is no answer.
"I also value reason and logic."
No you don't.
"I think it is unreasonable to dismiss belief in God as superstition."
Would you also agree that it is unreasonable to dismiss belief in leprechauns as superstition? Think carefully.
"To do so does not aid intellectual exchange, but simply disregards the theism as lunacy."
How many times do I have to explain this to you? Your whole, "I'm either telling the truth or a lunatic" thing is logically fallacious as you are making a false dichotomy. This is why I say you are dishonest, because I've presented you with multiple options to your statement, multiple times, and you simply disregard them and keep making the same fallacious arguments over and over and over.
"If atheism is so reasonable it ought to be able to counter actual theists arguments as I request in the post I made today."
We have, repeatedly. Even if we haven't, you have yet to present an argument as to why we should accept your theism as true. The burden of proof lies on you to support your positive claim of the existence of your god. In the absence of support (no evidence means no support) we are well within reason - in fact, it is the rational position to not accept your claim as truth and disbelieve in it.
"And yes by evidence of this conversation I take it that you must see I am employing some degree of reason for if I wasn't we really couldn't communicate about such lofty topics as we are trying to wrap our heads around."
Bad assumption.
karla said: Are we saying that reason is not employed?
Sometimes yes - or simply baddly employed.
karla said: Or that the conclusions drawn are not reasonable?
Most definitely.
karla said: Or are we saying the person doesn't know how to reason?
Again, sometimes yes.
karla said: I think we can both utilize reason and logic based on our presuppositions and present reasonably constructed argument.
To an extent yes - though I obviously consider mine to be better than yours.
karla said: However just because an argument shows the person is reasoning doesn't mean the conclusions are correct.
Indeed.
karla said: If the premise is wrong all the reason in the world won't bring truth to the conclusion.
My thoughts exactly.... [grin]
karla said: I think atheists can and do use reason as well as theists.
I can't make sweeping statements but from the varied conversations I've had with people both on and off line I find that atheists think much better and more clearly that theists.
karla said: I am hearing that what I believe is no different than fantasy and imagination.
I definitely think that your beliefs are wrong. Didn't you say something recently about the age of the Earth and dinosaurs which I found incredible?
karla said: by evidence of this conversation I take it that you must see I am employing some degree of reason for if I wasn't we really couldn't communicate about such lofty topics as we are trying to wrap our heads around.
You are certainly constructing arguments and are employing *some* degree of reason. I just don't think that it's very good reason.
CyberKitten said...
I can't make sweeping statements but from the varied conversations I've had with people both on and off line I find that atheists think much better and more clearly that theists.
From my experience, atheists tend to apply more logic.
"To an extent yes - though I obviously consider mine to be better than yours."
Based on what standard? How can one person's opinion be better than another's unless there is a standard of truth to anchor it?
I keep hearing how I can't be certain, I can't know, my opinion is only an opinion (at least this I hear from anonymous), but how does the atheist position gain anything greater than mere opinion?
You have to have faith that our five senses are able to actually be trusted to even trust science at all. This cannot be proven. We cannot prove that our sensory perception of a tree is in fact a tree and yet we accept that we do experience what is real with our senses. We have to excersise faith at some point no matter what we believe.
"Based on what standard? How can one person's opinion be better than another's unless there is a standard of truth to anchor it? "
Evidence. Your "standard" isn't better simply because you claim that it comes from some supernatural source.
"I keep hearing how I can't be certain, I can't know, my opinion is only an opinion (at least this I hear from anonymous), but how does the atheist position gain anything greater than mere opinion?"
You can't be, period. Any time that you claim certainty, I can claim counter certainty and the argument goes nowhere. Of course, it's a false dichotomy to claim that there is only absolute certainty or opinion. In reality, there are all kinds of differing levels of certainty, and opinion doesn't always have everything to do with it. It's not my opinion that we have tons of evidence that supports evolution, and I happen to carry a high degree of certainty that evolution happened/is still happening. Is this an opinion? No, it's not. It's a conclusion based on evidence. It's not like I'm sitting here smoking a joint and talking about how my hand looks.
"You have to have faith that our five senses are able to actually be trusted to even trust science at all."
No, I don't. If I were to simply trust my senses, I would think that the sun revolves around the Earth! Again, you seem to be very ignorant about science, yet you make these absurd claims! How do you feel comfortable making such claims while knowing virtually nothing about which you speak?
"We cannot prove that our sensory perception of a tree is in fact a tree and yet we accept that we do experience what is real with our senses."
Do you have any idea why that is? I'll give you a clue, it has nothing to do with god.
"We have to excersise faith at some point no matter what we believe."
Even if this were true, what does it gain you? Do you even understand what it is that you are arguing?
karla said: How can one person's opinion be better than another's unless there is a standard of truth to anchor it?
If there is nothing but opinion then debate is futile. As to a standard of truth... What standard? Who's standard? Can we agree on a standard? Can a standard be objective if people disagree on it?
karla said: how does the atheist position gain anything greater than mere opinion?
Because, I for one, base my beliefs (or lack of beliefs) on a complete lack of evidence to support them. Nothing I have read here or elsewhere or experienced leads me to a belief in the supernatural. So why should I believe in it? If an idea is without support I frankly find it unsupportable.
karla said: We have to excersise faith at some point no matter what we believe.
Yet naturalists have 'faith' in what they can see and experiment with. Theists have faith in what cannot be seen. Who here has more faith - who is going the extra yard beyond what I for one feel to be reasonable?
Cyber Kitten: "Can a standard be objective if people disagree on it?"
Good Question. Yes it can be. Does everyone need to agree that 2+2=4 ? Does everyone need to agree that what goes up must come down for it to be true? Does everyone need to agree that the world is round for it to be so? Things are true not by agreement, but by reflection of reality. If no one believed in gravity it would still be an objective reality regardless. Truth is not measured by consensus of opinion.
"Yet naturalists have 'faith' in what they can see and experiment with."
It is refreshing that you didn't deny a use of faith. When Lennox asserted that Dawkins used faith to accept science he put his head to his podium in great frustration.
"Theists have faith in what cannot be seen. Who here has more faith - who is going the extra yard beyond what I for one feel to be reasonable?"
Ah, good point. Except you are assuming God is someone unable to be experienced. That's a false assumption. Many, including myself, experience Him in a variety of tangible ways.
I have never experienced many of the scientific experiments of renown, but I don't discount them based on my lack of experience for someone has experienced them. Just because I haven't experienced them doesn't mean others haven't.
Have you seen the new Dr. Sues movie Horton Hears a Who? We just watched it with our nephews and niece. In it one of the characters says "if you can't see it or hear it it does not exist." Horton however had heard what she claimed didn't exist. So she was making her experience into the norm and discounting his experience because she didn't share it.
karla said: If no one believed in gravity it would still be an objective reality regardless. Truth is not measured by consensus of opinion.
Very true. But gravity exists independently of humans. Gravity existed long before we did and will continue long after we vanish. But morality lives in our heads. It is not something 'out there' that can be discovered. Differences of thought about any standards are real and deep. Consensus on the subject is practically impossible. That being the case how can moral standards be in any way objective? If we became extinct would morality still exist?
karla said: It is refreshing that you didn't deny a use of faith.
You will have noticed I put the 'faith' of naturalists in comma's... I did that for a good reason. We have 'faith' in natural processes in the same way that we have 'faith' that what we see actually exists. It is something that is taken as 'given'.
karla said: Except you are assuming God is someone unable to be experienced. That's a false assumption. Many, including myself, experience Him in a variety of tangible ways.
Maybe you and others feel God's presence.... but your subjective 'feelings' can hardly be used as evidence for His existence! Firstly how do I know what you're feeling? Second, how do you know that it's God. How can you possibly validate any of it?
karla said: Just because I haven't experienced them doesn't mean others haven't.
But experiments are not about the *experience*. Experiments are used to verify or call into question theories about nature. If the results can be repeated by other people it indicates that the theory being tested is on the right lines. That is a *whole* different ball game than feeling the spirit move through you!
karla said: Have you seen the new Dr. Sues movie Horton Hears a Who?
Yes, and I cringed at the part you mentioned. Just because someone has a very personal experience doesn't mean that their interpretation of that experience is correct. If you cannot show anyone else what happened to you - apart from trying to vocalise the experience - how is it supposed to be verified to anyone else's satisfaction? If I was abducted by aliens without witnesses or physical evidence would you believe me simply because I told you about my experience? I certainly wouldn't.
Crudely what you seem to regard as evidence I, and people like me, do not. I think that is a crux of the problem we are having.
"It is refreshing that you didn't deny a use of faith. When Lennox asserted that Dawkins used faith to accept science he put his head to his podium in great frustration."
I deny it. I deny that I use faith in the way that you are using it. It might be possible to say that I have a sort of faith, but it's not even remotely of the sort that you are trying to imply. That is most likely why Dawkins was frustrated, because this argument comes up often from apologists and it is fallacious every single time it comes up, yet apologists continue to use it unabated. That's because apologists are generally dishonest, but that's another story.
"Ah, good point. Except you are assuming God is someone unable to be experienced. That's a false assumption. Many, including myself, experience Him in a variety of tangible ways."
Actually, you claim to have experienced him. Until you can back up that claim with actual evidence, your claim is worthless.
"I have never experienced many of the scientific experiments of renown, but I don't discount them based on my lack of experience for someone has experienced them. Just because I haven't experienced them doesn't mean others haven't."
It's not about experience, it's about evidence.
karla said: If no one believed in gravity it would still be an objective reality regardless. Truth is not measured by consensus of opinion.
Cyber Kitten said: "Very true. But gravity exists independently of humans. "
As does morality.
“But morality lives in our heads. It is not something 'out there' that can be discovered. Differences of thought about any standards are real and deep. Consensus on the subject is practically impossible. That being the case how can moral standards be in any way objective? If we became extinct would morality still exist?”
You can’t prove morality is only a human mental construct. You assume that it has to be that way because you know it exist and you believe God can’t exist to have given it to us. You don’t think there is an objective source because you believe all there is the natural world. However this is not proven. This must be taken on faith. Some have theorized that morality is only a human invention and not discoverable objectively, but those who do so adhere to a naturalist Darwinian worldview. It’s part of the whole picture, just as Christianity explains it in part with its whole picture.
Cyber Kitten: You will have noticed I put the 'faith' of naturalists in comma's... I did that for a good reason. We have 'faith' in natural processes in the same way that we have 'faith' that what we see actually exists. It is something that is taken as 'given'.
Exactly, you assume you have reason to accept that what you see is reality. No argument there. We all have presuppositions, but even those need to be examined. Why take it for granted? I am not being permitted license to take the existence of God for granted. Yet scientists are operating under assumptions that we can experience reality. Christianity gives the framework that reality is indeed able to be experienced. Naturalism does not provide this groundwork from what I am aware of thus far.
”Maybe you and others feel God's presence.... but your subjective 'feelings' can hardly be used as evidence for His existence! Firstly how do I know what you're feeling? Second, how do you know that it's God. How can you possibly validate any of it?”
Is not your experience of reality subjective? You can only assume that it’s objectively corresponding to what is. Without a structure that affirms the natural world as experiential science can make no assertions about truth. They can only say what is observed, not what is truth.
Also I am not talking about only subjective feelings. I have seen an arm grow out as a direct result of prayer. This was attested to by others who knew it was short and saw it is now the same length as the other arm. This is by no means subjective. You can allege it wasn’t the Christian God that some other god was answering prayer on behalf of the Christian God, but that seems a little absurd to me. Regardless arms don’t just instantly grow out. Either I am crazy or I really saw a supernatural event which indicates a supernatural being for I nor my husband have any evolutionary powers to grow out a person’s arm. Nor did my mother in law have any special powers of the sort. So how else do you deal with the event?
I am not talking about an ethereal whimsical feeling. I am talking about the tangible power of God that is demonstrable and experiential. This is why I am so adamant. I am not talking about something you have to first be a believer to experience. I am not talking about something merely spiritual and internal. I am talking about something that can be observed and demonstrated just as it was told in the Gospels of the many miracles. These kinds of things are happening in the world today. I’ve seen a little of it. I want to see more. I have read and heard of many remarkable well documented miracles.
Cyber Kitten “But experiments are not about the *experience*. Experiments are used to verify or call into question theories about nature. If the results can be repeated by other people it indicates that the theory being tested is on the right lines. That is a *whole* different ball game than feeling the spirit move through you!”
Just because something happens every time you do it doesn’t prove it will happen the next time. We just think it highly probably that it will. Also experiments are based on observation of reality or what we think is observation of reality. Even if many people experience that result it is the same as what I am advocating in regards to experiencing God. See what I wrote above.
Cyber Kitten “Yes, and I cringed at the part you mentioned. Just because someone has a very personal experience doesn't mean that their interpretation of that experience is correct. If you cannot show anyone else what happened to you - apart from trying to vocalise the experience - how is it supposed to be verified to anyone else's satisfaction? If I was abducted by aliens without witnesses or physical evidence would you believe me simply because I told you about my experience? I certainly wouldn't.”
My mother in law has shown bunches of people what happened to her with her arm. That wasn’t the first miracle with her wrist and she has been able to demonstrate the others as well. Miracles are happening to many people and there are observable signs that they have occurred. I’m talking about new organs growing, tumors dropping off, cancer disappearing, etc. These are all verifiable outside of personal testimony.
Yes there is a level of experiencing God that is subjective to ones own spiritual journey. But there is also demonstrations of His power and presence which can be experienced tangibly and shared. I have experienced God on both levels as well as the observable miracles. I have also see peoples lives radically transformed as evidence of God, yet that is a subjective thing, one can say that it was their belief in God and not God himself, but the person knows better. As for the hypothetical alien abduction, it would depend on your testimony and how well I trusted you. There is much speculation about what happened at Roswell New Mexico. I think there is enough evidence to suggest something out of the ordinary happened, that has not yet been exposed. Whether there is evidence to support something other worldly I don’t know. If something tangible happens there is some explanation needed either natural or supernatural. If I truly saw my mother in laws arm grow an inch and a half before my eyes as I claim then something happened that a natural answer does not account for thus we have grounds to look for a supernatural answer.
Cyber Kitten: “Crudely what you seem to regard as evidence I, and people like me, do not. I think that is a crux of the problem we are having.”
How about eye witness testimony? Science? History? Archeology? Philosophy? In tandem with personal experiences objective and subjective?
"You can’t prove morality is only a human mental construct."
You can't prove that it is some externality.
"You assume that it has to be that way because you know it exist and you believe God can’t exist to have given it to us."
It's not an assumption at all, it's a conclusion based on empirical evidence. The evolution of morality is strong evidence in favor of this position, and against your position. Where is your evidence that morality is god given?
"You don’t think there is an objective source because you believe all there is the natural world. However this is not proven. This must be taken on faith."
No, it does not. It is rational to not accept that your god exists unless you can provide sufficient evidence to make us believe that he does.
"Some have theorized that morality is only a human invention and not discoverable objectively, but those who do so adhere to a naturalist Darwinian worldview."
Darwin has nothing to do with this.
"Exactly, you assume you have reason to accept that what you see is reality. No argument there."
Big argument, because it's not an assumption, at least not in the way that you mean. If I assume in any sense, it is at least a posteriori not a priori. I believe that I can accept what I perceive as reality because it works. I have evidence that it works, I can corroborate with others to make sure it works, I can build instruments to test and make sure it works, etc. This is not the same as making an assumption. This is a basic stumbling block in your thinking.
"We all have presuppositions, but even those need to be examined."
What are mine? And, if you believe this is so, why do you refuse to examine yours?
"I am not being permitted license to take the existence of God for granted. Yet scientists are operating under assumptions that we can experience reality."
Because we have mountains of evidence that reality exists and behaves a certain way, but none that god exists. This is quite an asymmetrical situation.
"Christianity gives the framework that reality is indeed able to be experienced. Naturalism does not provide this groundwork from what I am aware of thus far."
Wrong on both counts. Xianity tells us that there's an entity that is able to change the world around us at will, which would mean that we can't believe that the world will behave as it has in the past. Naturalism does provide this, as we can draw on past measurements and evidence. Of course, THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN EXPLAINED TO YOU AND YOU ARE LYING RIGHT NOW IN CLAIMING THAT IT HASN'T.
"Without a structure that affirms the natural world as experiential science can make no assertions about truth. They can only say what is observed, not what is truth."
Science can never claim anything as 100% certain, but we can get as close as we need to for all intents and purposes. This is because science does work, regardless of your disdain for it.
"Also I am not talking about only subjective feelings. I have seen an arm grow out as a direct result of prayer. This was attested to by others who knew it was short and saw it is now the same length as the other arm."
Have you still not watched the Derren Brown video that I linked for you? Of course not.
"Either I am crazy or I really saw a supernatural event which indicates a supernatural being for I nor my husband have any evolutionary powers to grow out a person’s arm."
Or you are mistaken in what you think happened. That does happen you know. Of course, once again you rely on the insane or true false dichotomy, which I also take as dishonest considering how many times I've pointed out that there are other alternatives. Do you understand why I call you dishonest now? I don't see how you can chalk this up to a simply disagreement, especially since even if it were, you would have to answer that disagreement before continuing to make your false claims!
"I am not talking about an ethereal whimsical feeling. I am talking about the tangible power of God that is demonstrable and experiential."
Other religious people say the same for their gods. Yawn.
"Just because something happens every time you do it doesn’t prove it will happen the next time. We just think it highly probably that it will."
Exactly. The more it happens, the more certain we can become that it will continue to happen (sans confounding events, data). What's your point?
"Also experiments are based on observation of reality or what we think is observation of reality."
Through objective means.
"Even if many people experience that result it is the same as what I am advocating in regards to experiencing God."
No it is not. And, here's a situation that proves it - the sun does not revolve around the Earth. Many people experienced this phenomena of seeing the sun go around the Earth, many still do. Using objective measures, however, we realized that the Earth goes around the sun. In this example, your experience of god is like seeing the sun go around the Earth, while the objectivity of science showed otherwise.
"If I truly saw my mother in laws arm grow an inch and a half before my eyes as I claim then something happened that a natural answer does not account for thus we have grounds to look for a supernatural answer."
You should be more careful in your verbiage here. You can always look for a supernatural answer, but you can't conclude the supernatural until you find evidence of it or exhaust every single possible natural alternative, which is clearly impossible since you can't know all the unknown natural possibilities. To suggest that since you don't know how natural causes can explain something, therefore god, is to commit the god of the gaps fallacy.
"How about eye witness testimony? Science? History? Archeology? Philosophy? In tandem with personal experiences objective and subjective?"
That's funny, because you have none of those, save the personal, subjective experiences, which could be anything.
karla said: As does morality.
If morality exists outside of humanity please point to it or take a picture of it & post it on your Blog.
karla said: You can’t prove morality is only a human mental construct.
As it doesn't exist anywhere except in our minds and as a historical development of morality can be shown in multiple cultures.....
karla said: You assume that it has to be that way because you know it exist and you believe God can’t exist to have given it to us.
But I've said countless times that I do not believe that objective morality exists and do not believe it was *given* to us in any way. We *manufactured* it over a very long period of time.
karla said: Exactly, you assume you have reason to accept that what you see is reality. No argument there. We all have presuppositions, but even those need to be examined. Why take it for granted?
Science assumes that reality is pretty much as it appears until proven otherwise. Countless experiments have shown this assumption to be pretty accurate. You could argue that its all an elaborate illusion - but then *everything* including your belief in God would be part of that same illusion. Until things are *proven* to be otherwise I'll take reality for what it appears to be - mostly....
karla said: I am not being permitted license to take the existence of God for granted.
But you *do* take Him for granted. I just happen not to. You simply hold a belief that I don't. You have yet to convince me that your position holds any validity whatsoever.
karla said: Yet scientists are operating under assumptions that we can experience reality.
If they didn't operate under that assumption then science would be impossible.
karla said: Christianity gives the framework that reality is indeed able to be experienced. Naturalism does not provide this groundwork from what I am aware of thus far.
Really? Christianity is *more* in touch with reality than Naturalism...? That's a new one on me!
karla said: Is not your experience of reality subjective?
Yes, obviously.
karla said: Without a structure that affirms the natural world as experiential science can make no assertions about truth. They can only say what is observed, not what is truth.
Science can give a pretty good approximation of what it has found to exist. If you're looking for Truth in an ultimate metaphysical sense you don't really look for it in science.
karla said: I have seen an arm grow out as a direct result of prayer.
...and I find that quite frankly incredible.
karla said: Either I am crazy or I really saw a supernatural event which indicates a supernatural being for I nor my husband have any evolutionary powers to grow out a person’s arm.
Or you may have misunderstood what you saw or things only appeared to be as you reported or.....
karla said: These kinds of things are happening in the world today. I’ve seen a little of it. I want to see more. I have read and heard of many remarkable well documented miracles.
..and I'n surprised that they haven't been more widely reported. Unless you think there's some kind of Atheist conspiracy going on?
karla said: Just because something happens every time you do it doesn’t prove it will happen the next time. We just think it highly probably that it will.
Didn't you recently argue quite strongly in favour of a direct link between cause and effect? If A caused B then when A happens B will happen too won't it?
karla said: Even if many people experience that result it is the same as what I am advocating in regards to experiencing God.
Oh, I think that there is a *world* of difference between various people experiencing God and experiments all over the world producing the same results. How, for instance, do you know that the experience of person A is the same as that of person X or H?
karla said: I’m talking about new organs growing, tumors dropping off, cancer disappearing, etc. These are all verifiable outside of personal testimony.
Please post a link to the medical journals where these miracles have been independently verified.
karla said: I have also see peoples lives radically transformed as evidence of God, yet that is a subjective thing, one can say that it was their belief in God and not God himself, but the person knows better.
Which is proof of what exactly?
karla said: As for the hypothetical alien abduction, it would depend on your testimony and how well I trusted you.
So.. I wouldn't need any *facts* or any *evidence* then? You'd just need a good story well told?
karla said: How about eye witness testimony? Science? History? Archeology? Philosophy? In tandem with personal experiences objective and subjective?
Eye witness testimony is about as unrealiable as it comes. The rest... do you have *any* of this kind of evidence to back up your belief in God - because I haven't seen any here or anywhere else actually...
Post a Comment