I have come to realize rather recently that Christians have been careless with their usage of the term “absolute truth.” It appears that this translates to a claim of infallible absolutism of which is in the very least seen as arrogant and at the most is seen as having the potential for religious terrorism. I will not deny that a very small percentage who use the term may have some issues of self-righteous arrogance and a few of those may have a mindset that may cause militancy. I give to you though that either use of the term would be in stark difference to the person of Jesus and is not indicative of His message.
The only thing that is meant genuinely by most who venture to advocate that absolute truth exist is that there is such a thing as a universal truth that is true for all people in all time. For example, if Jesus is God that is true not only for those who believe it, but for all. Or if love is the most excellent way, that is universally so and not simply so for those who think it is. It means generally that truth is that which lines up with reality. We don’t create truth, we discover it. As such, truth isn’t something to be levied upon another by force or manipulation or any other covert or reprehensible means. The existence of Truth does not give license for the injustices of absolutism.
Most of the world sees claims to truth as grounds to assume power over others. To the followers of Christ, this is a misuse of truth and not the way of truth. In Jesus day, His followers who were still thinking like the common culture thought He would rise up and overthrow the government and establish a physical Kingdom upon the earth. They saw that this is how rulers rule, by power and force. He told them the Kingdom of God was going to be established through the hearts of man and not the swords of man. He told them to put away their swords. He was led like a lamb to the slaughter when He was crucified for He did not resist as He did not seek to build a Kingdom by force. He could have commanded all the angels to come to His rescue. He could have rescued Himself, but His sacrifice for a higher purpose. Jesus was always toppling the paradigms of man and turning them upside down. Where men thought mighty force was the way to establish God’s Kingdom, Jesus points to the children and says the Kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Jesus said to love one another even ones enemies and be kind to those who are unkind to you.
Furthermore, when Christians speak of absolute truth, we do not mean that we have all knowledge or even a complete picture of reality. We know that one exists, but that we only have a part of it one that is seen as through a glass darkly. We peak through with our fallible minds and senses to the infallible and we see glimpses of the greater reality than that in which we live. We see that glimpse of His Truth and we journey towards Him seeking a closer look. We can’t stare at the sun because it is too bright for us, but by the sun we can see the world around us. We might not be able to see God directly, but through the glimpses we gain of Him we can see our world more clearly. That sight is always in part, and not in full. It is always a journey of truth and not a stationary position of absolute knowledge. When we say we have found truth, it doesn’t mean we’ve attained all truth, but we have seen enough to know that our journey is in the right direction.
Likewise, when I write articles and answer questions with confidence. I don’t mean to communicate that I’m infallible or have the corner on truth. There is much I don’t know even about what I believe I know. I’m learning how to communicate what I have learned on my journey to help others along in their journey. I’m of the conviction that it’s a good thing to help others out and that others who have learned things along the way that I haven’t learned yet or haven’t seen in their perspective can help me out too. Some may have seen more glimpses than I and I’d like to learn from them. Some may have seen different glimpses than I and we can put those puzzle pieces together to see more of the big picture. I am writing from the perspective that there is this grand reality to glimpse and if you haven’t glimpsed it yet, or you are questioning those glimpses as something more natural than supernatural I’m okay with that. I am hoping we all still have a desire for truth even if we aren’t in agreement about where that is found. And I am hoping that we can be an aid to each other even in our disagreements in that journey gaining perspective and gaining understanding of each others worldviews in a manner which values the person over their way of thinking so that there is never any cause for condemnation, arrogance, militancy, manipulation etc.
I hope by now most of you, if not all, have seen my heart in these discussions and know that I see myself as someone along side everyone else searching for knowledge and understanding of this life and our purpose in the grand story of life. Yes, I am forthright that I believe that Christ is both the way to the answer and the answer Himself. But others propose that way of naturalism is the proper journey of truth and freedom of thinking. These are two of the many truth claims in the world. The many doesn’t mean there isn’t a One. Some may walk through many before finding the One. And others may start with the One. And still others may embrace the many roads. We are all on journeys and there is no road that we can travel that God can’t find us and show us the road of Himself. The glimpses of truth show through with amazing creativity no matter where we are in life. There are always signs along the way and I trust that some may see some of the things I write as signs pointing towards truth and others may find other signs. Some may need philosophical answers and others may need tangible experiences, and most I would imagine need both. No matter, my confidence is not in myself, but in Christ. The answers are not in me, but in Him and that is why I use the name answer bearer. Not because I have all answers, but because He who I believe is the Answer lives in me and I bear Him. I seek to glimpse Him and to share what I see as best I know how.
89 comments:
"The only thing that is meant genuinely by most who venture to advocate that absolute truth exist is that there is such a thing as a universal truth that is true for all people in all time."
Wow. You really don't get it, do you? No one is disputing this!
"Likewise, when I write articles and answer questions with confidence. I don’t mean to communicate that I’m infallible or have the corner on truth."
Yet, that's exactly what you assert. You "know" that god exists, not you suspect or you believe, but you "know." You are making a claim to absolute truth which you can not support.
"I hope by now most of you, if not all, have seen my heart in these discussions and know that I see myself as someone along side everyone else searching for knowledge and understanding of this life and our purpose in the grand story of life."
Sorry, but this is a load of BS. You're not searching, because you think you've already found the "Truth." Sure, there might be some small pieces missing, but you believe that those small pieces are going to continue to reveal a very specific "Truth." So, you shoehorn everything into your end result that you've already pre-determined is "Truth" and claim that you are searching? That's total BS. If you are truly searching, you don't start with your end point and then make up everything as you go along to ensure that you reach that end.
No, what you are really searching for is re-assurance that you are correct.
"Yes, I am forthright that I believe that Christ is both the way to the answer and the answer Himself."
Nice try, but you assert that you "know" this to be true, not that you believe it. Or, are you willing to back off of your absolute truth claims and admit that it's a belief and not absolute knowledge? (This admission would be a shocker, but it would help gain back some respect.)
Anon, I have been using the words believe and know interchangeably.
I am searching for truth, for greater understanding, more knowledge, a bigger picture of seeing the world, but I don't hide that I'm seeking it on the road of Jesus and not from a different starting point. That may be preposterous to you, but I would imagine that you consider yourself also a seeker of truth and seek it in a non-religious road.
I assert that I know God exist as well as I know my husband exist. Sure there is faith involved in both assertions. There is faith involved in knowing I exist or that tomorrow will happen. But as well as I can know anything at all I know that God exist. I don't see how that is a claim to absolute knowledge in the way in which you seem to be using the word. I think faith plays a part in epistemology of any kind.
"Anon, I have been using the words believe and know interchangeably. "
That's false, because I specifically called you out on it before and you confirmed that you meant to say "know" instead of "believe."
"I am searching for truth, for greater understanding, more knowledge, a bigger picture of seeing the world, but I don't hide that I'm seeking it on the road of Jesus and not from a different starting point."
You mean ending and starting point. You can't figure out your conclusions first.
"That may be preposterous to you, but I would imagine that you consider yourself also a seeker of truth and seek it in a non-religious road."
No, I seek it on a "road" that is religious-indifferent. I don't assume there is no god nor that there is one. I simply let the evidence do the talking. You assume god, then make all the "evidence" fit into your preconceived conclusions. This is not how one seeks truth, not through confirmation bias.
"I assert that I know God exist as well as I know my husband exist. Sure there is faith involved in both assertions. There is faith involved in knowing I exist or that tomorrow will happen. But as well as I can know anything at all I know that God exist. I don't see how that is a claim to absolute knowledge in the way in which you seem to be using the word."
This is a departure from your previous stand, in a direction that is at least a little more defensible. I would contend that you at least have verifiable evidence that your husband exists, whereas not so much for god, but at least you are no longer claiming absolute knowledge.
So, with that, you should really stop using the word, "know," because your new stance is not that you know god exists but that you suspect or believe that god exists. Language is important. Until you can provide evidence of this god, you should say that you believe.
karla said: That may be preposterous to you, but I would imagine that you consider yourself also a seeker of truth and seek it in a non-religious road.
I agree. You may be seeking a certain *version* of the truth but I don't think that you are really fully open to other ways of looking at things. Like Anon said you consider that you have already found the truth - or at least the correct road to it - so feel that you can dismiss things in a way that I honestly find totally incredible.
There are probably many ways to the truth of things but some are better than others, some are shorter than others and some are bound for dead ends. Guess where I would place religions of all kinds?
I'm a schizophrenic solipsist, you all exist only in my head. ;-)
I actually find that to be a *very* interesting question Mike. How can we tell that *anything* exists?
Answer - We can't.
If this really is The Matrix there is *absolutely* no way to tell [grin]
As Morpheus said - It's all electrical impulses in our head.... if we *have* heads that is... [laughs]
That's really what it comes down to for me, even the things we feel certain of are not necessarily certain.
That's correct. The rational position to hold is that the reality we perceive is real, because we do not hold evidence that we live in the Matrix, but it can not be discounted. That's why I hold that we can't be certain of things to 100% certainty. Karla can't be 100% certain that he husband exists, because it is possible that he is an electrical impulse in her brain, as could be her god (even if we aren't in the Matrix).
Yes we could all be living in a Matrix and nothing we know to be real is real. However, that would be a difficult position to live out and I doubt you guys seriously think it probable.
Anon said: The rational position to hold is that the reality we perceive is real, because we do not hold evidence that we live in the Matrix, but it can not be discounted.
Indeed. Cool isn't it?
karla said: However, that would be a difficult position to live out and I doubt you guys seriously think it probable.
Possible, yes... probable....? hard to tell.
Of course if I could 'dodge bullets' I'd be well on the road to believing....
What if the Matrix we live in is really a distorted world and we can find the way to see beyond it to the really real that the world is designed to be. What if we can be given the tools to set our world to rights and see the Eden, Nirvana, Utopia, Paradise, everyone is desiring?
Karla,
No one is saying it is probable, only that it can't be ruled out...just as we can't rule out that no god exists. When you make claims to absolute knowledge, however, this is exactly what you do...you rule out potentials that you can rule out, no matter how improbable they may be.
We can come up with all kinds of what-ifs, and they hold about the same level of probability as the Matrix, which is not very likely, but also not zero.
You often say that you still hold out that it's possible God exists, but not very likely and that there is 0 evidence for it. However, I see a magnificent amount of evidence for His existence. Yes combined with the probability of the voluminous evidence is faith. Just the same I am sure combined with your evidence for God's non-existence is faith to hold that that is the most likely in your estimation. So when I say I'm certain, I don't mean there is no faith involved. There is also faith in involved in my certainty that my husband exist and even the certainty that I exist. I think it is the combination of the evidence and the faith that produces such strong conviction and certitude.
I would venture to say that that is the way everyone arrives at things they hold to be true. But all truth claims are not equally probable there is more evidence for some than others. There is more probability for some than others. So we have to look at the evidence and what is practical and see which seems like a more accurate picture of reality. Then upon that foundation rest our faith for the conclusion we come to.
karla said: What if the Matrix we live in is really a distorted world and we can find the way to see beyond it to the really real that the world is designed to be.
...and how exactly can we "find the way to see beyond it to the really real" if everything inside The Matrix is controlled in such a way as to prevent it? That's the whole point of the argument is it not? If our very senses are being manipulated then how can *anything* be trusted?
karla said: What if we can be given the tools to set our world to rights and see the Eden, Nirvana, Utopia, Paradise, everyone is desiring?
Firstly I doubt if *everyone* wants to live in a Utopia. Second, I know for certain [grin] that not everyone wants to live in the *same* Utopia!
karla said: However, I see a magnificent amount of evidence for His existence.
Not surprisingly Atheists do not - probably because we don't agree on what constitutes evidence for His existence. As far as I am aware the evidential count for God is in fact zero.
karla said: But all truth claims are not equally probable there is more evidence for some than others. There is more probability for some than others.
Obviously.
karla said: So we have to look at the evidence and what is practical and see which seems like a more accurate picture of reality.
I have. How about you? Have you come to a conclusion about the age of the Earth yet? I seem to remember that you were yet to be convinced one way or another about that?
karla said: Then upon that foundation rest our faith for the conclusion we come to.
Faith...?
"However, I see a magnificent amount of evidence for His existence."
Present it then.
"Yes combined with the probability of the voluminous evidence is faith."
You don't need faith if you have evidence. If you need faith in order to see the evidence as evidence, then it's not actually evidence. For instance, I can drop a ball towards the ground (or put it on rails that are sloped with low friction) and measure the speeds. This is evidence for the gravitational force and the amount of force, and it doesn't matter whether I believe in god or not. But, let's say that I look at a sunset and think, "Wow, this is evidence for god." Well, no it's not; not unless I beg the question and already believe in god and that god made sunsets.
"Just the same I am sure combined with your evidence for God's non-existence is faith to hold that that is the most likely in your estimation."
Incorrect. What "faith" do I need to hold? None is the correct answer.
"I would venture to say that that is the way everyone arrives at things they hold to be true."
Incorrect. Not everyone begs the question.
"But all truth claims are not equally probable there is more evidence for some than others. There is more probability for some than others. So we have to look at the evidence and what is practical and see which seems like a more accurate picture of reality."
Correct, and when one does this, the probability of your god is much lower than the probability that your god is not there, just as we find the probability of living in the Matrix to be very low.
"Then upon that foundation rest our faith for the conclusion we come to."
No, we don't use faith after reason. Faith precludes reason. You use your faith in place of reason.
Karla, as a fellow SF reader you might like to read my latest post.
I always laugh and move along to more productive things when the atheism / theism discussion gets to this point:
"I see evidence that God exists.." (believer)
"Present it then.." (skeptic)
This type of transaction can only progress with one of two things: 1) A concession from one side or the other, or 2) An argument over what constitutes evidence.
What atheists really mean when they say, "There's no evidence for God" is "I've not seen evidence I find convincing."
What theists really mean when they say, "There is evidence for God" is "I've found evidence I find convincing."
It's that simple.
Yet, I'm bombarded all the time with theists providing their evidence. My response is always to say that if I do not experience it, then how can I believe it?
Theist's idea of "evidence" is always good for a laugh - and that's when it makes 'sense'.
Other times it just confuses the 'heck' out of me....
Anon, I have given your last post a lot of thought over the weekend and I am still thinking it over. I am rethinking what I mean when I say I am certain and the role that faith places and ought to or ought not to play in our knowledge about anything.
I have realized that when I say the word "certain" I am not saying that all the evidence clearly with 100% accuracy points to the conclusion I have accepted as truth. And believe I know as truth. I do not deny that faith is involved, but faith that is substance. It's like there are building blocks of evidential data, then there are experiences that add to the truth of that data seeing it work practically and experiencing tangibly supernatural things, then on top of that there is a faith that is not blind but substantial and on top of that there is a new seeing that affirms all the building blocks including those of faith giving it all a firmer support. So it is from that place that I feel certain and it is from that place that I have difficulty understanding why someone could say I cannot be certain. And still from that place I examine it all again and am trying very much to see from outside to gain your perspective of how you see what I am saying and what you are saying from the foundational blocks on which you stand that point a different direction.
Mike, you are right to say that if it is true you should be able to experience it just like the next person. If truth isn't anything beyond some intellectual assertion and isn't able to be touched, felt, seen, experienced then what good is it? Yet at the same time while there is this desire for the experiential there seems to be a distrust of the experiential not only the experiential testimonies of another, but your own experiences which now seem to you ungrounded and fallen from any practical support in truth. Is that a fair estimation of where you are at right now?
karla said: If truth isn't anything beyond some intellectual assertion and isn't able to be touched, felt, seen, experienced then what good is it?
Mathematics?
Cyber, I was talking about worldviews.
"If truth isn't anything beyond some intellectual assertion and isn't able to be touched, felt, seen, experienced then what good is it?"
I guess I'm not sure what you are asking here. I don't know anyone who thinks that truth be touched, felt, seen, experienced in anyway, but the binary.
Aristotle said “To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true”
Now if you are meaning truth in the John 14:6 sense where Jesus is purported to have said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." then I think I understand what you mean.
That is roughly where I am now, though I do trust my experiences and still maintain that nothing I experienced as a Christian was God revealing himself. I am, however, open to him doing so now. I'm going to need more than endorphins and coincidences this time though. "endorphins and coincidences" is a gross simplification of what my faith was like, but that sums up what feeling God was like for me.
karla said: Cyber, I was talking about worldviews.
Naturalism. Works for me and covers everything you said about being able to be touched, felt, seen, experienced.
"I am, however, open to him doing so now. I'm going to need more than endorphins and coincidences this time though."
That's as it should be. I mean if God is real He ought to be so real He is tangibly thus. Christianity hinges on the reality of having a relationship with God and relationships are more than emotive or coincidences. Do you feed the smoldering ember of desire to see this kind of reality demonstrated by God (if He exists)? Do you continue to look in that direction or avoid that direction? If that's too personal a question you need not answer.
"I guess I'm not sure what you are asking here. I don't know anyone who thinks that truth be touched, felt, seen, experienced in anyway, but the binary."
I am speaking of God and the reality of experiencing Him. If He is real, and is Truth then He ought to be able to be experienced. I thought you were speaking of that when you said "My response is always to say that if I do not experience it, then how can I believe it?"
Cyber, I see how you can say that, but is nature truth? or merely matter?
"Do you feed the smoldering ember of desire to see this kind of reality demonstrated by God (if He exists)?"
I don't make a conscious effort to feed it, but I do try to be aware and open to it.
"Do you continue to look in that direction or avoid that direction? If that's too personal a question you need not answer."
I do not avoid that direction at all. My whole deconversion process was me voraciously seeking God in every moment.
karla said: Cyber, I see how you can say that, but is nature truth? or merely matter?
What do you mean by 'truth' is this context?
If you are asking if Nature is all that there is: The answer is 'Yes'
Mike, sometimes the process of having that kind of relationship with God is precipitated by a feeling of utter separation. I don't know why this is, but I have heard many a testimony of people who have gone through a time where they thought He was so very far away that that experience of Him would never come and they pressed onward to find the sweetness of experience of Him that they desired so much.
The dark night of the soul, yep, I've read St. John of The Cross and others who have written about it.
Cyber, by truth in this context I do not mean mere facts like mathematics or substance like natural matter. But that which is the ultimate answer(s) to life's most desired questions. Who are we? Why are we here? What are we purposed for? Where are we going? How did we get here? etc.
I also don't mean merely the intellectual answers to these questions, but the embodiment of both the creator and essence of the answer.
Thus, experiencing the reality of Truth and not simply intellectual assent to a set of abstract propositions.
Mike, something like that, maybe. I'm sure it isn't the same for each person as we all experience things differently. But I do know there is hope to find what it is you were originally seeking for. I am glad you seem to be open to keeping that hope alive even if you are not in a place for active pursuit at this time.
My current state is if God exists, he knows where to find me.
"I have realized that when I say the word "certain" I am not saying that all the evidence clearly with 100% accuracy points to the conclusion I have accepted as truth."
Thank you. That's exactly what I was getting at.
"I do not deny that faith is involved, but faith that is substance. It's like there are building blocks of evidential data, then there are experiences that add to the truth of that data seeing it work practically and experiencing tangibly supernatural things, then on top of that there is a faith that is not blind but substantial and on top of that there is a new seeing that affirms all the building blocks including those of faith giving it all a firmer support."
Again, there's no reason for faith if you have evidence. Unless you are defining faith in the following way: "One has 'faith' that the sun will rise tomorrow?" It's simplistic as an example, but it will do (because if the sun does not rise tomorrow then we are all dead and no one will witness it anyway). I would note that this type of "faith" is wholly different than what you are invoking in regards to god. You can't equate the two.
karla said: But that which is the ultimate answer(s) to life's most desired questions. Who are we? Why are we here? What are we purposed for? Where are we going? How did we get here? etc.
Who are we? Collectively: Human Beings. Individually: Ourselves.
Why are we here? We are the result of 4+ Billion Years of Evolution.
What are we purposed for? Creating little humans.
Where are we going? Eventually... Extinction. In the mean time... Hopefully to the Stars.
How did we get here? We are the result of 4+ Billion Years of Evolution and several millennia of slow cultural accretion.
karla said: I also don't mean merely the intellectual answers to these questions, but the embodiment of both the creator and essence of the answer.
Huh?
karla said: Thus, experiencing the reality of Truth and not simply intellectual assent to a set of abstract propositions.
Again: Huh? As a living breathing being I have daily intimate experience of reality. It'd be pretty difficult to be any different to be honest. But generally speaking I have no idea what you're talking about.
karla said: I also don't mean merely the intellectual answers to these questions, but the embodiment of both the creator and essence of the answer.
ck: Huh?
It's just the same old exercise in begging the question.
Anon stated "Again, there's no reason for faith if you have evidence."
So you never assert certainty about anything? Your existence. The reliability of science. I guess you avoid saying your certain about there being no God because you know this is unprovable. But you think it the best scenario regardless, is this not faith? Or do I misunderstand your position?
I'm still thinking on this whole relationship between evidence, faith, certainty. . .
Cyber "What are we purposed for? Creating little humans."
Oh, really? Why? I thought you took the position we had no purpose. . .
And in response to the "huh?" I mentioned I wasn't referring to the answers of merely a factual nature. But the Answer the Truth that fulfills all these questions. The truth that is experiential and not just intellectual fodder for the inquisitive mind. But goes far beyond that to satisfying our souls. We ask these questions not to find abstract answers, but to find something substantial that is the Answer to all our desires and questions.
karla said: Oh, really? Why? I thought you took the position we had no purpose. . .
I was speaking biologically. Life's 'function' - if you want to use that word - is to produce more life (basically to produce offspring). Hence humanities function from that prospective is to produce babies. Species that don't tend not to be around for very long.
But yes... I do not believe that we have any purpose over & above those we choose to give ourselves.
karla said: I wasn't referring to the answers of merely a factual nature. But the Answer the Truth that fulfills all these questions. The truth that is experiential and not just intellectual fodder for the inquisitive mind. But goes far beyond that to satisfying our souls. We ask these questions not to find abstract answers, but to find something substantial that is the Answer to all our desires and questions.
I recognise the words, but honestly have no idea what you're talking about.
"So you never assert certainty about anything? Your existence. The reliability of science."
These things have very good evidence, but we could be wrong all the same. The rational position is to hold to what the evidence indicates.
"I guess you avoid saying your certain about there being no God because you know this is unprovable. But you think it the best scenario regardless, is this not faith? Or do I misunderstand your position?"
No, it's not faith. It's a rational response based on the evidence (not just the lack of evidence for god BTW). Faith is holding the position that a logically untenable deity exists even without evidence and even though it contradicts logic. You could be right about it, but it's not the rational position to hold and requires faith.
"No, it's not faith. It's a rational response based on the evidence (not just the lack of evidence for god BTW). Faith is holding the position that a logically untenable deity exists even without evidence and even though it contradicts logic. You could be right about it, but it's not the rational position to hold and requires faith."
I disagree. You do not see the evidence for God's existence and are thus assuming it's not there and I am employing blind faith rather than reasonable faith. Like I might be making a good guess or shot in the dark, but nothing involving rationality, reason and logic.
However, I would think you would have least have seen how much I study and think and all and may realize that your estimation that I have no evidence might be incorrect. I don't think that you have no rational evidence for your position. I think you are a thinker and do see evidence for your position. I don't see how you could say I have no evidence because that seems rather odd to me that you would see me as the sort to believe something blindly. I know some Christians who do. They would tell you they believe in God because they were always taught to, or because it feels right or they like to or some such non-rational reason. That kind of thinking bothers me to no end. I usually try to help them see that that's not good reasons for accepting something as truth.
I'll have to end here for now. I have things I have to do before I can find more time to be on my blog.
karla said: I don't see how you could say I have no evidence because that seems rather odd to me that you would see me as the sort to believe something blindly.
Can you post your three best pieces of evidence for the existence of God.
Some of us may disagree on what you see as 'reasonable' and I think that is the *heart* of the issue. We see our position as reasonable. You see your position likewise. But our take on what constitutes 'reasonable' differ.
Can we actually ever say more than that?
"I disagree. You do not see the evidence for God's existence and are thus assuming it's not there and I am employing blind faith rather than reasonable faith. Like I might be making a good guess or shot in the dark, but nothing involving rationality, reason and logic."
Evidence is not relative, nor does it follow from logical fallacy.
"However, I would think you would have least have seen how much I study and think and all and may realize that your estimation that I have no evidence might be incorrect."
There are famous scientists that believe and I think they do so from faith too. (And, this is gonna sound snarky, but your grasp of the things you profess to study, like history, is shaky at best, so no, I don't think you actually study this stuff...not from reputable sources at least. I think you seek sources that confirm what you already believe, which goes along with how you already know your destination for truth and look for supporting arguments to back it up.)
"I don't think that you have no rational evidence for your position. I think you are a thinker and do see evidence for your position."
You should, because I've presented you with evidence. It's not a matter of faith to note that there is a mountain of evidence for evolution, for example, from the fossil record to the known chromosomal fusion event that led to humans diverging from other primates. It takes faith to deny these things, however.
"I don't see how you could say I have no evidence because that seems rather odd to me that you would see me as the sort to believe something blindly."
I've yet to see you present any, or any Xian or other theist for that matter. All theistic "evidence" hinges on logical fallacy.
"I usually try to help them see that that's not good reasons for accepting something as truth."
You're right, it's not, but it's also what you do. You simply have what you think are better reasons, but they all fall apart and amount to nothing but irrationality.
Even if I accepted evolution as 100% accurate that still wouldn't give response to questions of origin. Telling me how the system works doesn't explain how we got the system.
Moreover even evolution is taken on faith because no one has ever observed millions of years of transitional history of species. The best they can do is look at fossils and propose the best theory they can of what may have occurred. It might have good fossil evidence or other evidence, but still there is faith involved in going from a theory of evolution to claiming it to be fact.
Faith is also used to accept that our senses correspond to what is actually there in reality. That what we touch, see, hear, smell, taste is accurate enough to produce a hypothesis and prove a hypothesis. You can't prove that the tree you see or feel is really there in the way that you see it or feel it. Can you? But you are certain when you see a tree that it is as you see it. You don't question your sight if it is 20/20.
"Even if I accepted evolution as 100% accurate that still wouldn't give response to questions of origin."
That's like saying that the theory of gravity is wrong because it doesn't explain how the universe started. It makes no sense.
"Moreover even evolution is taken on faith because no one has ever observed millions of years of transitional history of species. The best they can do is look at fossils and propose the best theory they can of what may have occurred. It might have good fossil evidence or other evidence, but still there is faith involved in going from a theory of evolution to claiming it to be fact."
Sorry, but you show a faulty understanding of not just evolution, but science in this statement. Evolution is a theory that is built on facts! We have numerous facts that underlie evolution on which the theory is based. That theory has not been disproven and is supported positively by these facts. It's not a matter of faith to accept that evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life that we see on this planet.
"Faith is also used to accept that our senses correspond to what is actually there in reality."
we use independent verification and observation, as well as instrumentation because we know our senses can be fooled. The sun does not travel around the Earth, even though we sense that it does.
"You can't prove that the tree you see or feel is really there in the way that you see it or feel it. Can you? But you are certain when you see a tree that it is as you see it. You don't question your sight if it is 20/20."
We operate as if these things, like trees, are real because they make a coherent telling of reality and they fit together. When I walk into a tree, it hurts. So, my brain notes those objects and classifies them and reality fits together.
The same can not be said for god.
cl, I have no idea. Must have gotten lost in cyberspace. I don't have any restriction settings set.
Anon and Cyber I'll get back to you as soon as I can.
whoops, ignore the thing to cl, wrong thread.
Anonymous said,
"Evolution is a theory that is built on facts! We have numerous facts that underlie evolution on which the theory is based. That theory has not been disproven and is supported positively by these facts. It's not a matter of faith to accept that evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life that we see on this planet."
For the most part, I'd say that's a well-reasoned argument.
However, I'd say the following is not a well-reasoned analogy:
Karla: "Even if I accepted evolution as 100% accurate that still wouldn't give response to questions of origin."
Anonymous: "That's like saying that the theory of gravity is wrong because it doesn't explain how the universe started. It makes no sense."
Karla's statement makes perfect sense to me. Karla's not said, "evolution is wrong because it doesn't explain life's origin." What she did say is more akin to, "even if we accept that gravity is 100% true, it still doesn't explain how the universe started."
And that is correct.
Cl is correct. Typically in defense of there being no need for God in the origin of the universe evolution is given as a defense. Giving an explanation of the system does not explain the origin of the system. My position on evolution is irrelevant to the statement I have made.
Cyber there is a plethora of evidences, I am weighing what I think to be the "best."
I know first off that the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is at the top of my list. I have only given on this blog a short synopsis of the preponderance of evidence for this event. I could make a fresh post on it soon.
I'd have to think about what to suggest for the other two for there are many philosophical arguments for God's existence which I'm sure you have all heard, Teleological, Cosmological, etc. But I think the evidence for Christ Resurrection surpasses the intellectual philosophizing.
I think evidence of the miraculous healings are pretty good evidence of something supernatural at work. But taken by themselves, I can see how they would not give good evidence that the Christian God is true.
I'll have to get back to you more on this later.
Someday blogger will hopefully let people edit comments.
"Typically in defense of there being no need for God in the origin of the universe evolution is given as a defense."
I have never seen an atheist make that statement, but plenty of theists seem to think that's what atheists believe. Anyone who's taken a high school biology class would know that evolution has nothing to do with the origins of the universe.
Evolution is, however, a wonderful refutation tool for young earth creationist "theories".
karla said: I know first off that the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is at the top of my list.
Erm... *What* evidence?
Oh, and philosophical *argument* doesn't constitute *evidence*.
As to miracles.... Even *if* they occur - which is arguable at least - as you rightly said they are not evidence for God. They're *at best* evidence that something is going on we don't understand.
"Typically in defense of there being no need for God in the origin of the universe evolution is given as a defense."
What Mike said. Add to that that your statement is still absurd. Even if you accept evolution, criticizing it for not explaining origins is like criticizing a yellow dog for not being black. And, I'll note that you don't have a viable explanation for origins.
"I know first off that the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is at the top of my list...But I think the evidence for Christ Resurrection surpasses the intellectual philosophizing."
What CK said, there is no evidence. In order to make the resurrection argument work, you have to make a lot of assumptions, especially assumptions that you are trying to prove. It's called begging the question.
GCT / Anonymous / cl is a coward and liar / OMGF / eff you clown said,
"Even if you accept evolution, criticizing it for not explaining origins is like criticizing a yellow dog for not being black."
I'd say that would be true if Karla was actually criticizing evolution for not explaining life's origin, but I'm getting the perception Karla is criticizing those who mistakenly believe evolution answers the question of life's origin (correct me if I'm wrong Karla).
And I agree that atheists who actually believe that are few and far between. IMO, the vast majority of atheists know far better, so if not a strawman, we're definitely in the cornfield. However, to be fair, a few atheists have offered me the argument I believe Karla is criticizing.
Cl is correct. I am not criticizing evolution for not addressing questions of origin. I am saying that I usually see atheists respond to the question of origin with evolution even though they know evolution despite the famous "Origin of the Species" does not in fact address the origin but the system of life once life began.
Mike young earth or old doesn't address the origin either that's why it doesn't matter to me what people want to believe about the age of the earth so much or the system used for neither address how we got here.
Cyber earlier answered the How did we get here as "How did we get here? We are the result of 4+ Billion Years of Evolution and several millennia of slow cultural accretion."
I'll give the benefit of the doubt that maybe Cyber meant how human life got here versus origin of everything. Then I could see how evolution could be proposed as the answer.
Maybe I jumped the gun, but I was thinking of this sort of answer when I made my statement.
Cyber, I'll need to make a whole post on the evidence of the Resurrection though many a book has been written on it. It won't be today, something else I wrote will post later today. It's my b-day so I won't be on here much today.
Happy Birthday! If I recall correctly this is the birthday that most women don't want to admit to advancing beyond. ;-)
My fiance just turned 29 in January, so you are not alone.
karla said: I usually see atheists respond to the question of origin with evolution even though they know evolution despite the famous "Origin of the Species" does not in fact address the origin but the system of life once life began.
Actually IIRC that's "On the Origin of Species" - with no second "the". It's basically (as far as I know) an explanation of how new species come into being. I picked up a copy recently so I'll get around to reading it at some point.
Oh, and yes - you are correct. Darwinian Evolution says nothing about the origin of life on Earth.
karla said: it doesn't matter to me what people want to believe about the age of the earth
The age of the Earth is not a matter of belief - its a matter of fact and whether you accept it or not.... much like Evolution.
karla said: I'll give the benefit of the doubt that maybe Cyber meant how human life got here versus origin of everything.
Correct. The origin of everything happened about 11 Billion years before the Earth existed.
karla said: It's my b-day so I won't be on here much today.
Happy Birthday! It's mine in a week or so. Have a nice day.
A topic appropriate, coincidental funny. I know no one here is taking the positions held in this comic, but it's still cute.
Stagetokste
"I am not criticizing evolution for not addressing questions of origin."
This is a bit disingenuous, is it not? I was not addressing origins when answered me and brought it up. I was addressing what we know and how in the matter of evidence vs. faith.
If you want to talk about origins, that's fine, but you've said yourself that you don't think the cosmological argument is your best argument. It's actually not even a very good argument because it relies on un-proven assumptions and god of the gaps thinking.
"Mike young earth or old doesn't address the origin either that's why it doesn't matter to me what people want to believe about the age of the earth so much or the system used for neither address how we got here."
For someone who supposedly seeks truth, this is a rather blase answer, don't you think? And, it does address origins, because the actual age of the universe makes your storybook account incorrect.
Okay, we can address each other by omission if you want, but it might get just as confusing as leaving different handles all over the place. For example:
said,
"This is a bit disingenuous, is it not? I was not addressing origins when answered me and brought it up."
yet, also previously said,
"That's like saying that the theory of gravity is wrong because it doesn't explain how the universe started."
Is that not an analogy clearly addressing origins? Let's be fair here. Karla catches a lot of flack for defending her ideas and it's okay, everyone here seems like good people. But come on, someone's gotta call this one out besides me. If we take disingenuous to mean "not taking known information into account," what happens when we re-parse 's attempted defense?
"I was not addressing origins when answered me and brought it up."
Should have read "I was not addressing origins when you answered me and brought it up."
Karla: "I am not criticizing evolution for not addressing questions of origin."
Anon: "This is a bit disingenuous, is it not? I was not addressing origins when (you) answered me and brought it up. I was addressing what we know and how in the matter of evidence vs. faith."
Anon is correct in the irrelevant non-sequitur that Karla brought up origins, but unfortunately that's not the out he needs. With his gravity / universe analogy, he directly implied Karla was "criticizing evolution for not addressing questions of origin," when she wasn't. So no, it was not disingenuous of Karla to defend herself on this point, IMO. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, Karla, because I'm just trying to be sure I'm following things correctly here.
Mike,
Earlier in the thread you said,
"..if I do not experience it, then how can I believe it?"
I agree.
"I agree."
Thank you.
Thank you everyone for the birthday wishes. Yes, Mike you remembered correctly!
As for origins . . .
I did get off topic to go there not sure where I was going with that at the time. I think it had to do with the discussion of accepting things on faith. (ie that it hasn't been proven God was not involved in our origins and while my scientific knowledge is rudimentary it still logically appears that a First Mover or First Cause or some kind of metaphysical Being is required for life to start.
"ie that it hasn't been proven God was not involved in our origins..."
Can't prove a negative, but I don't have to. You have to provide evidence that god was involved.
"...and while my scientific knowledge is rudimentary it still logically appears that a First Mover or First Cause or some kind of metaphysical Being is required for life to start.""
I've already explained this to you. That is NOT a requirement. We don't have enough information, scientific or otherwise, to claim anything of the sort. Resorting to god is either god of the gaps reasoning (i.e. we don't know how/why it happened, so god was involved) or it is seriously over-stepping the rational/logical/evidentiary grounds that we have (i.e. I'm going to make assumptions X, Y, and Z and then claim that this implies god must have started the universe). Further, this does nothing to point one toward the Xian god, even if your assertion were true.
"Can't prove a negative, but I don't have to. You have to provide evidence that god was involved."
Not necessarily. Science would need to give a viable explanation of how something physical could come from nothing.
Also, it's not a God of the gaps to posit God, because I do not posit Him because science hasn't filled the gap, but because it is a viable explanation of the beginning. Everything with a beginning has a Beginner and the universe had a beginning, and thus a Beginner.
I also wasn't saying that the Cosmological argument was insufficient only that I knew you all to already be familiar with it.
"Not necessarily. Science would need to give a viable explanation of how something physical could come from nothing."
That's god of the gaps. Once you rely on science not being able to explain something and saying, "Therefore god," you've crossed over into god of the gaps territory. Also, you've made an assumption that "nothing" was there and that "something" came from "nothing" which is not a viable assumption, considering that you don't know that that was the case.
"Also, it's not a God of the gaps to posit God, because I do not posit Him because science hasn't filled the gap, but because it is a viable explanation of the beginning."
It's only viable if you have some evidence that it is.
"Everything with a beginning has a Beginner and the universe had a beginning, and thus a Beginner."
The universe as we know it took the form it is currently in at some point when time as we understand it came into being. Your overly simplistic assessment of what happened is dangerous as it leads to bad inferences, like the ones you are making. We don't know that the universe 'came from nothing.' We don't know that it 'began' at the big bang. We also don't know if the formation of our universe wasn't part of some natural process from some other metaverse, thus negating any supposed need for god. Again, you have to provide evidence that god exists and caused the universe to exist.
"I also wasn't saying that the Cosmological argument was insufficient only that I knew you all to already be familiar with it."
It is insufficient though, and for the reasons I'm pointing out.
karla said: it still logically appears that a First Mover or First Cause or some kind of metaphysical Being is required for life to start.
That's not logical at all. The only logical thing to say is: We don't yet know how life first emerged. If there is no evidence for a supernatural origin you cannot put forward a supernatural origin.
Even if our universe came out of another universe that universe would need a beginning. A multi-universe or meta-universe doesn't avoid the need for a beginning. Is there evidence of a meta or multi universe? I have heard people posit aliens, multi-universes, crystals, etc. to avoid the necessity of a Beginner.
Many scientists posit that there was nothing before the Big Bang. Also that the universe expanded from a singular point and moves outward. Also that the universe had a beginning. I know not all scientist agree, but it seems that the dissenters suggest things that seem more odd and complex than God's existence. It's like they propose the most complex and unprovable natural explanation to avoid a supernatural explanation and this is contradictory to the Ocaams Razor of going with the simple answer.
Cyber,
God's existence weaves a full worldview that deals with origin, purpose, meaning, morals, desires, history, etc. So to posit a supernatural beginning is not in isolation of all the other facets of the full worldview of God's existence. It's a package deal. So no one argument or set of propositions and evidences stand alone.
Why do people promote the myth that one can't prove a negative? Sure, it might be more difficult and exhaustive to prove certain negatives over others, but to simply say, "can't prove a negative" is not intellectually honest.
"The universe as we know it took the form it is currently in at some point when time as we understand it came into being."
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but that statement seems to contradict itself: "The universe took its current form at some point when time came into being?"
"Even if our universe came out of another universe that universe would need a beginning. A multi-universe or meta-universe doesn't avoid the need for a beginning."
Incorrect. There can be an infinite chain of universes or an infinite universe that spawns others.
"Is there evidence of a meta or multi universe? I have heard people posit aliens, multi-universes, crystals, etc. to avoid the necessity of a Beginner."
Wrong again. There's actually scientific theories that deal with this that at current time are not yet falsifiable, but are backed by math and physics. This isn't about avoid a god, it's about exploring the physics and trying to actually find out what happened.
"Many scientists posit that there was nothing before the Big Bang."
False. All origins models begin with something there and expand outwards.
"Also that the universe had a beginning."
Which I explained to you doesn't mean what you think it means. By "beginning," one means that there was no such thing as time because we measure time by light. The universe as we know it "started" at the big bang, but that's quite different from what you are trying to make it out to be.
"I know not all scientist agree, but it seems that the dissenters suggest things that seem more odd and complex than God's existence."
Again, false. god's existence is the most complex thing one can posit.
"It's like they propose the most complex and unprovable natural explanation to avoid a supernatural explanation and this is contradictory to the Ocaams Razor of going with the simple answer."
god is the most non-simple answer there is. And, you seem to be highly ignorant of the scientific method. People have hypothesized god, but it's never gone any further, since no one can figure out how to devise a method to test for god. One is free to hypothesize anything, the trick is to actually devise testing that one can do to try and falsify or support the hypothesis. The hypotheses being put forward generally should come from somewhere - some observation or previously obtain data, or maybe mathematics or something like that. That is where multi-verse and metaverse theories come from. the god hypothesis, which is a non-starter, came from superstition and wishful thinking.
"God's existence weaves a full worldview that deals with origin, purpose, meaning, morals, desires, history, etc."
Which, weirdly enough, are different from believer to believer. god's existence actually brings up more questions that are assumed to be answered by the believer, but are actually not.
karla said: So no one argument or set of propositions and evidences stand alone.
...and, your point being?
"There can be an infinite chain of universes or an infinite universe that spawns others."
I agree, but the irony is hilarious. What are some typical atheist responses to a believer who proposes an infinite God that spawned this universe?
"There's actually scientific theories that deal with this that at current time are not yet falsifiable, but are backed by math and physics."
Karla, I'd ask Anon to back this up with evidence, and again, the irony of Anon offering unfalsifiable ideas in response to your concerns of "evidence" is amusing.
"That is where multi-verse and metaverse theories come from."
This is partly true, but omits that said ideas have roots in science's attempt to account for the astronomical odds against life's existence. Part of the allure of multiverse cosmologies is that they stack probability in naturalism's favor.
Which goes right along with, "It's like they propose the most complex and unprovable natural explanation to avoid a supernatural explanation and this is contradictory to the Ocaams Razor of going with the simple answer."
I always wonder why theists bring up Ockham's Razor as it points about as far away from God as possible, then again fundamentalists tend to put God in a tiny little box, which is just sad. I'm not saying that any of you are doing that, mind you.
These word verifications are funny, this one is "herstfu". Well, it's funny if you split between the "r"and the "s" and know what the second half stands for. ;-)
CL said "I agree, but the irony is hilarious. What are some typical atheist responses to a believer who proposes an infinite God that spawned this universe?"
I know like I said atheists would rather propose the most complex radical natural answer to avoid a supernatural one.
God breaks any box people try and place Him into.
Ockham's Razor to go with more simple answer that fits. . . To me it would appear that suggesting infinite un-caused universes is more complex than the answer of an eternal being. That is not to say that God is simple, but that the answer of God being the originator is much more simple than infinite universes spawning one after the other with no cause.
"I know like I said atheists would rather propose the most complex radical natural answer to avoid a supernatural one."
As I explained, that's not what is happening, no matter how much you claim that it is. Stating that universes could be infinite is not the same as stating that god created all and was in turn created by a god, etc. Not even in the same ballpark.
"Ockham's Razor to go with more simple answer that fits. . . To me it would appear that suggesting infinite un-caused universes is more complex than the answer of an eternal being."
And, you would be wrong, as I've explained. god is the most complex "answer" anyone can propose, because the level of complexity for a god would be far and away higher than any other explanation, not to mention all the additional questions it raises, the added layer of the supernatural over the natural universe, and the fact that it can't get off the ground scientifically. You can continue to ignore all of this and erroneously assert that "goddidit" is simple, but it clearly is not. Further, "goddidit" doesn't actually explain anything.
"That is not to say that God is simple, but that the answer of God being the originator is much more simple than infinite universes spawning one after the other with no cause."
And, of course, you are mistaking and misunderstanding what string theory and multiverse theory are talking about. Plus, remember, these are hypotheses at this point that have observational and mathematical backing, which is far and away more than "goddidit" has. I seriously recommend that you learn more about science before you continue to make the sorts of remarks that you are prone to make, because it does not serve you well to be so anti-science (and yes, it is anti-science) when you clearly don't understand what it is you are railing against.
Karla:
Indeed. What you've said has real-world precedent.
In sound science, the explanation most supported by the evidence is the best explanation of how things work. What happens when that explanation is not the preferred explanation? Like any other fallible human, scientists can most certainly consciously and unconsciously bend their research to advance their preferred conclusion or avoid an unwelcome one.
Consider the following unusually candid statement made by British physicist John Gribbin on the big bang: “The biggest problem with the big bang theory of the origin of the universe is philosophical, perhaps even theological; what was there before the bang? This problem alone was sufficient to give a great initial impetus to the steady state theory, but with that theory now sadly in conflict with the observations the best way round this difficulty is provided by a model in which the universe expands from a singularity, collapses back again, and repeats the cycle indefinitely.”
Now - I'm not making a "Something from Nothing" argument here. The point is that the subtext of Gribbin’s statement is very revealing, especially the italicized words. We see that at least for him, resistance to a philosophical, "perhaps even theological" idea compromised clear and impartial research into the direction of two erroneous hypotheses (steady state cosmology and the oscillation hypothesis).
How many other times might this have happened and be happening?
Good point CL. Thanks.
cl has no clue what he's talking about Karla. The fact that some scientists are religious and talk about religion does not help you. In fact, it hurts you in this case. Do you honestly think that string theory and multiverse theory are only put forth by atheist scientists? Of course not. That's akin to saying that all evolutionary biologists are atheists and evolution is an atheist plot to undermine religious values or some other inane thing like that. This is flatly absurd as is cl's "point."
We don't know what was "before" the big bang, as I've continually said, making me the only intellectually honest person amongst the three of us (you, me, and cl). You have no warrant to interject your god into the equation. The science does not support you, nor does it even point in the direction of your god or any other god. It's rank ignorance that allows such false thinking to persist.
I said: "The fact that some scientists are religious and talk about religion does not help you. In fact, it hurts you in this case."
Let me explain further, since I know you won't get it.
It hurts you in this case, for a couple reasons. We don't see practicing scientists putting forward god as a hypothesis, regardless of their belief system. That should tell you something about whether science supports god or not. Also, even though some scientists believe, we still see alternative theories put forth, theories that you pooh pooh as not worth thinking about (without knowing anything about them of course), yet some of their proponents are believers, meaning that your stock defense that the atheists are putting forth weird ideas to avoid talking about god simply doesn't work.
I predict you still won't get it.
"cl has no clue what he's talking about Karla. The fact that some scientists are religious and talk about religion does not help you. In fact, it hurts you in this case. Do you honestly think that string theory and multiverse theory are only put forth by atheist scientists? Of course not."
Wow, you really botched that one.
"We don't know what was "before" the big bang, as I've continually said, making me the only intellectually honest person amongst the three of us (you, me, and cl)."
Oh, really? What about the part where I explicitly said, "I'm not making a "Something from Nothing" argument here?" I've never once said we "knew" what was before the big bang, so your appeal to "intellectual honesty" seems a bit suspect here. Burn the straw.
"This is flatly absurd as is cl's "point.""
You say my point is absurd, but you cannot refute the fact that theological dislikes influence research. Please, by all means, with your supreme rational abilities present a cogent argument why theological dislikes cannot possibly influence research.
"We don't see practicing scientists putting forward god as a hypothesis, regardless of their belief system. That should tell you something about whether science supports god or not... I predict you still won't get it."
I can't speak for Karla, but I didn't need any of the nonsense contained in your follow-up. You don't need to tell me that science can't prove God; it's me who's laughing at you for constantly, rudely demanding such of others and treating them like unintelligent peons.
Post a Comment