Faith and science [Archive] - TheologyWeb Campus

lao tzu

January 7th 2006, 07:56 PM

Greetings, TWeb,

What do you do when faced with physical evidence that contradicts your spiritual faith? Is it ever okay to believe something in your heart that can be proven untrue in your head?

What's the minimum intellectual requirement to be called a christian? Can a congenital idiot be saved?

Most of the world today accepts that humans arose from another species and still they find a way to love their kids, but half of American christianity thinks evolution somehow makes us less than human. What's up with that?

I PMed these questions to a few TWebbers and received a reply (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1329111&postcount=55) from Jedidiah in anticipation of this discussion.

If something can be proven to be untrue discard it.

Christianity is not about the intellect. It is about trusting God. I will trust God with the congenital idiot, or other questioned individual.

Popularity is not what it is all about. It is true that most of the best scientists believe evolution is the way all species came about. It is true that evolution, in some version, is the best naturalistic explanation for what we see around us. That does not mean it is indeed the best possible explanation. If it is true it has nothing to say about us, beyond what we are.

Discussion will have to proceed from further questions.

I actually feel, in spiritual matters, that faith can trump reality on occasion. In the purely physical realm, we are confined to observable truths, but it's possible to take these observations and, through faith, create an alternate spiritual reality. There are such things, in spiritual matters, as self-fulfilling prophecies. Of course, I wouldn't recommend using that principle on a malfunctioning electrical outlet.

Perhaps in no other feature does faith show a universal applicability that surpasses science than in the relative requirements of intellect. From the Jainists who walk barefoot to avoid inadvertently killing an insect to christians such as Jedidiah above who find a common humanity in those afflicted with mental deficiencies from birth, faith allows us to discern a spirit that reaches beyond mundane measures.

I would ask my fellow TWebbers, and especially TWebbers in the community of faith, how they treat the divide between faith and physics, between spirituality and chemistry, between love and calculation.

As ever, Jesse

Jedidiah

January 7th 2006, 08:27 PM

I actually feel, in spiritual matters, that faith can trump reality on occasion. In the purely physical realm, we are confined to observable truths, but it's possible to take these observations and, through faith, create an alternate spiritual reality. There are such things, in spiritual matters, as self-fulfilling prophecies. Of course, I wouldn't recommend using that principle on a malfunctioning electrical outlet.I would like to understand just what you mean by faith trumping reality. Do you mean nothing greater than self-fulfilling prophecies?

I would also like to understand exactly what you mean by faith. Faith, as I understand it refers to confidence based upon evidence of some sort. Of course, I am not using faith as a term referring to a particular 'faith' or religious group.

rossum

January 7th 2006, 08:54 PM

If you believe that God inspired the Bible and that God created the world then the Bible, correctly interpreted cannot contradict the world, correctly interpreted. Truth cannot contradict truth.

Unfortunately there are many incorrect interpretations out there. You just have to work out which are the correct interpretations. What you cannot do is to ignore the world - that would be to ignore what God created.

Remember also that your resolution of this question might be different from another person's resolution. That does not make them less of a Christian than you.

rossum

Straylight

January 7th 2006, 08:58 PM

I'm a supporter of science, to the extent that it would probably upset some of my friends in faith, as well as confuse the average apologetic atheist. Unlike them, I don't see science and faith as competing viewpoints. One is concerned about eternity, truth, and the ideal, while the other is concerned about inquiry and discovery in the material world. Why is this an either/or situtation? And why is it always viewed that way by people who don't even study science?

The fight is not between science and faith. It's between materialism and faith (and no, science is not materialism).

Saying science is against faith is liking saying police officers are against fire prevention because they're not firemen. Which is to say, it's simply not the job or in the scope of science to inquire into "everything". Materialism, on the other hand, affirms that what science sees "is" everything -- When science itself doesn't support that notion.

lao tzu

January 7th 2006, 09:11 PM

I would like to understand just what you mean by faith trumping reality. Do you mean nothing greater than self-fulfilling prophecies?

I would also like to understand exactly what you mean by faith. Faith, as I understand it refers to confidence based upon evidence of some sort. Of course, I am not using faith as a term referring to a particular 'faith' or religious group. Hiya, Jed,

I offered self-fulfilling prophecies as an example in the OP to encourage posters to think beyond the usual "vs." stereotype of discussions dealing with faith and science. In particular, though, I was thinking of an encounter with a surly waitress once, who turned out to be quite friendly when I decided to treat her as if she was. The reality was that she was surly. The faith was that she could be other than surly. Faith, in this case, "trumped" reality.

I'm sure others could come up with examples as well. While any thread of mine is open to those who want a spirited debate, I'm usually looking primarily to create a space for discussion. Are there any examples of faith trumping reality in your understanding of christianity? I'm sure you could point to physical miracles, but what about the spiritual side?

We've already referenced the evolution theme. I can't read your response other than as intending to reach beyond the physical definition of humanity. I like to think of science's role in spirituality as illuminating the boundary between body and spirit, so as to avoid incorporating ... hmm, for example, the maya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_%28illusion%29) of Tibetan buddhism into one's faith. (Sorry, that link is the closest thing I could find on wikipedia.)

As ever, Jesse

gharfish

January 7th 2006, 09:16 PM

Greetings, TWeb,

What do you do when faced with physical evidence that contradicts your spiritual faith? Is it ever okay to believe something in your heart that can be proven untrue in your head? ......
I would ask my fellow TWebbers, and especially TWebbers in the community of faith, how they treat the divide between faith and physics, between spirituality and chemistry, between love and calculation.

As ever, JesseThere's no divide. "All the above" point to Intelligent Design / microeveolution / punctuated 'bursts' of creation --the progressive model.

The scientific fields of study: cosmology, molecular biology, and paleontology; support this view, which is in keeping with the Judeo/Christian scriptures. The progressive view of the design model has every appearance of being more consistent (than any form of macroevolution) with first principles, the laws of science...observational evidence.

I'm sorry, but I couldn't resist saying something about your presumptuous--even a bit (a lil' bite) of condescension--in the OP.

_______________________________________________
"For the story and message of the cross is sheer absurdity and folly to those who are perishing...but to us who are being saved it is the [manifestation of] the power of God. ...He is longsuffering--extraordinarily patient--not desiring that any should perish, but that all should turn to repentence."

Jedidiah

January 7th 2006, 09:40 PM

shunyadragon

January 7th 2006, 10:14 PM

There's no divide. "All the above" point to Intelligent Design / microeveolution / punctuated 'bursts' of creation --the progressive model.

The scientific fields of study: cosmology, molecular biology, and paleontology; support this view, which is in keeping with the Judeo/Christian scriptures. The progressive view of the design model has every appearance of being more consistent (than any form of macroevolution) with first principles, the laws of science...observational evidence.

I disagree that science supports this worldview with observational evidence. If anything it is neutral and indifferent. The knowledge and understanding of science itself does reflects that the apparent 'cause' of everything in the universe is the laws, environment and materials.

Jedidiah

January 8th 2006, 12:48 PM

Hiya back, taoist,

I offered self-fulfilling prophecies as an example in the OP to encourage posters to think beyond the usual "vs." stereotype of discussions dealing with faith and science. In particular, though, I was thinking of an encounter with a surly waitress once, who turned out to be quite friendly when I decided to treat her as if she was. The reality was that she was surly. The faith was that she could be other than surly. Faith, in this case, "trumped" reality.Okay, I would not describe that as faith trumping reality, but I can not argue with the idea. Proverbs 15:1 says “1A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.” There is also a common saw, “you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar.”

We've already referenced the evolution theme. I can't read your response other than as intending to reach beyond the physical definition of humanity I had no intention of reaching beyond the physical definition of humanity. My point is simply that the evidence does not distinguish between naturalistic evolution, theistic evolution, or continuing creation. I do not deny that the fossil evidence is real, only that it is not able to make the distinction. I was in a discussion once upon a time, for example, where an evolutionist described the discovery of a huge flower. I was told that the existence of this flower, let to the clear prediction that there would exist in the area a huge moth to pollinate the flower. Well, the prediction is not all that clear – a prediction of an appropriate pollinator was valid – but it need not have been a moth. Of course, by the time we had our discussion the moth had been discovered. The idea of creation, the point is, would certainly make the exact same prediction in the above case. Thus, no distinction resulting from the available data.

Jed

James Peter

January 8th 2006, 01:00 PM

What to say? Hmm...

I agree that truth is truth and don't have any time for theories which have 'reality' (as we experience it) conflicting with 'truth' (as it is revealed to be). Everything hinges on correct understanding and interpretation of the evidence before us (that would apply both to science and 'faith'). If we want to make certain dubious assumptions about how Scripture is to be read and understood then we have to accept that we may end up looking a little stupid... Theology is based on more than just Scripture (traditionally at least, and I think rightly so) - Reason, Tradition and Experience all have their place. 'Science' is simply us experiencing the world and then attempting to understand it. It should be part of theology. And I don't think that using (as a moderate example) archaeology to help us to understand O.T. narratives is wrong - in fact refusing to use such evidence is wrong. Similarly what we know from astrophysics is perfectly valid to help us understand the creation narratives...

Faith isn't the opposite of Reason; that would effectively be saying that Faith is Ignorance (sadly often the two seem to go together though). Instead the sciences should help us to understand the world. Afterall, the NT and early church fathers reflect a Platonic understanding of the world (i.e. they understood God's revelation in the light of what they already 'knew')...

fool

January 10th 2006, 04:05 PM

I had no intention of reaching beyond the physical definition of humanity. My point is simply that the evidence does not distinguish between naturalistic evolution, theistic evolution, or continuing creation. I do not deny that the fossil evidence is real, only that it is not able to make the distinction.
It would seem to me that the Bible does distinguish, as in it states that all animals were made during creation week and are stuck within their "kind", being able to adapt into new species, but not new genera.

Jedidiah

January 10th 2006, 06:28 PM

It would seem to me that the Bible does distinguish, as in it states that all animals were made during creation week and are stuck within their "kind", being able to adapt into new species, but not new genera.Howdy fool,

You are speaking of one very narrow way of interpreting the creation description in Genesis. The term 'kind' has been interpreted well beyond anything in the text itself. Also, I missed the discussion of evolution into new species, but not new genera, in the Genesis account. I am interested in how my understanding of evolution can be seen as distinguishing between the physical definition of man and something beyond that. I am not saying I do not see any aspect of man that goes beyong the physical definition, only that I had no intention, or thought, of anything beyond the physical aspect when I wrote the posts in question.

Jed

lao tzu

January 10th 2006, 08:43 PM

What to say? Hmm...

I agree that truth is truth and don't have any time for theories which have 'reality' (as we experience it) conflicting with 'truth' (as it is revealed to be). Everything hinges on correct understanding and interpretation of the evidence before us (that would apply both to science and 'faith'). If we want to make certain dubious assumptions about how Scripture is to be read and understood then we have to accept that we may end up looking a little stupid... Theology is based on more than just Scripture (traditionally at least, and I think rightly so) - Reason, Tradition and Experience all have their place. 'Science' is simply us experiencing the world and then attempting to understand it. It should be part of theology. And I don't think that using (as a moderate example) archaeology to help us to understand O.T. narratives is wrong - in fact refusing to use such evidence is wrong. Similarly what we know from astrophysics is perfectly valid to help us understand the creation narratives... Thank you for your thoughts, James Peter,

I don't see a place for science "in" theology, but rather as an illumination for theology, or faith more generally.

Faith isn't the opposite of Reason; that would effectively be saying that Faith is Ignorance (sadly often the two seem to go together though). Instead the sciences should help us to understand the world. Afterall, the NT and early church fathers reflect a Platonic understanding of the world (i.e. they understood God's revelation in the light of what they already 'knew')... I would say that faith takes up where reason leaves off. Naturally, that places faith in the region of our ignorance, but I really don't see a problem with that. What is the act of creating poetry, if it's not an act of faith? If we knew what we were creating before we created it, it would be a dismal world all around.

As ever, Jesse

fool

January 11th 2006, 12:17 AM

Howdy fool,

You are speaking of one very narrow way of interpreting the creation description in Genesis.
"Narrow is the path"
But seriously, if you don't posit that the Earth was created 6000 yrs ago, then we have no quarrel.

The term 'kind' has been interpreted well beyond anything in the text itself. Also, I missed the discussion of evolution into new species, but not new genera, in the Genesis account.
I guess that in my experience creationists use genera as an aproximate to "kind". As in, a horse can't become a possum.

I am interested in how my understanding of evolution can be seen as distinguishing between the physical definition of man and something beyond that.
Jed
I guess we need to define "beyond"

Hail Mary

January 11th 2006, 12:24 AM

What do you do when faced with physical evidence that contradicts your spiritual faith? Is it ever okay to believe something in your heart that can be proven untrue in your head?

What if you're faced with evidence that seems to contradict science? I think these would be along the lines of 'miracle' stories. Is it ever possible for you to consider something outside the realms of science?

Jedidiah

January 11th 2006, 03:43 AM

I would say that faith takes up where reason leaves off. Naturally, that places faith in the region of our ignorance, but I really don't see a problem with that. What is the act of creating poetry, if it's not an act of faith? If we knew what we were creating before we created it, it would be a dismal world all around.
I have weighed in on this topic already but, faith should be the final result of reason. We can never be absolutely sure of anything in this life. Once you have tested adequately you can put your faith in something. Another word for faith might be confidence. I am confident the sun will come up tomorrow.

And, what does faith have to do with creating something. Art is emotion related, faith is intellect related.

Jedidiah

January 11th 2006, 03:56 AM

Zarathustra

January 11th 2006, 04:43 AM

And, what does faith have to do with creating something. Art is emotion related, faith is intellect related.

Faith is a creative method of making something true.

shunyadragon

January 11th 2006, 07:03 AM

What if you're faced with evidence that seems to contradict science? I think these would be along the lines of 'miracle' stories. Is it ever possible for you to consider something outside the realms of science?

So far in history, 'miracle' stories remain anecdotal, whether written or relayed person to person, like UFO accounts, and are not objectively substantiated by scientific evidence. Science is essentially not faced with evidence in these cases, yet. Having written records of miracles 1700 to 1900 years old would not be scientific or historical evidence for miraculous events that occured 100 years or even 50 years prior to the written record.

As far as science considering things outside of science, no science itself does not with the exception of the evolving philosophies of science, and the related the ethics and morals of the application of science. But, in the real world science does not stand alone, most people consider many different sources of knowledge in philosophy, religion and history.

Hail Mary

January 11th 2006, 09:10 AM

So far in history, 'miracle' stories remain anecdotal, whether written or relayed person to person, like UFO accounts, and are not objectively substantiated by scientific evidence. Science is essentially not faced with evidence in these cases, yet. Having written records of miracles 1700 to 1900 years old would not be scientific or historical evidence for miraculous events that occured 100 years or even 50 years prior to the written record.

What if YOU were faced with evidence that seemed to contradict science? At this point, it ceases to be something historically anecdotal, and becomes part of your being. I think if you look at any of the miracle stories within Christianity, that is what they are conveying, the change of the person who experienced the miracle.

Baha'u'llah also related this quite well to the clerics that demanded he perform a miracle to prove his claims he was a manifestation of God. Baha'u'llah's response was to say in advance, how will this miracle affect your faith? Were the clerics ready to reconsider their beliefs, they had to think about this if they were going to deal with Baha'u'llah!

As far as science considering things outside of science, no science itself does not with the exception of the evolving philosophies of science, and the related the ethics and morals of the application of science. But, in the real world science does not stand alone, most people consider many different sources of knowledge in philosophy, religion and history.

I agree that science can not consider these types of things, but we as people, not necessarily bound by the changing laws of science, certainly can consider them.

lao tzu

January 11th 2006, 01:25 PM

What if you're faced with evidence that seems to contradict science? I think these would be along the lines of 'miracle' stories. Is it ever possible for you to consider something outside the realms of science? General Ripper?

Sorry, but that's something of an off-putting screen name you're using. I mean, really, you're identifying with somebody crazy enough to blow up the world in defense of his delusions.

The general scientific resolution of conflicting evidence is to look for repeatability. Run the experiment again and see if you get the same results. Unfortunately, miracles by their very nature are not repeatable.

As ever, Jesse

lao tzu

January 11th 2006, 01:26 PM

Faith is a creative method of making something true. Yeah! What he said.

Jedidiah

January 11th 2006, 02:53 PM

Faith is a creative method of making something true.That is pretty clearly not the same sort of faith I was describing.

Jedidiah

January 11th 2006, 02:57 PM

The general scientific resolution of conflicting evidence is to look for repeatability. Run the experiment again and see if you get the same results. Unfortunately, miracles by their very nature are not repeatable.
I don't think that you have responded to the point of his question. I will wait and see if the good general has any such response.

lao tzu

January 11th 2006, 03:39 PM

I don't think that you have responded to the point of his question. I will wait and see if the good general has any such response. Hey, Jed,

I do have a tendency to read too much into a screen name. It takes real effort for me to respond to someone with "Purity of Essence" displayed prominently next to his avatar. The finger just wants to move to that "submit to the quick-scrolling list" button all on its lonesome.

My response to Charleen in that other thread actually answers the point of the evil general's post. I remain open to the proof of Thomas.

As ever, Jesse

Hail Mary

January 11th 2006, 03:47 PM

Sorry, but that's something of an off-putting screen name you're using. I mean, really, you're identifying with somebody crazy enough to blow up the world in defense of his delusions.

I hear what you're saying, and sorry you were put off by it. However, its a comedy of a real world scenario. In other words, how did we really deal with people really poised with their fingers on the button? Not the fictional General Ripper, but real crazy people, like Kim Jung Il? Well, its not easy, but we have to learn to laugh about it, keep going to work and school and praying, and living like we always did, or we're going to go crazy ourselves. (And the eventual 'solution' in the movie was pretty funny too)

The general scientific resolution of conflicting evidence is to look for repeatability. Run the experiment again and see if you get the same results. Unfortunately, miracles by their very nature are not repeatable.

My question to you, as was your question for us, was a personal question. What would YOU do if you were faced with a miracle? You can legitimately say that I'm turning the question in your OP back around on you, but I think if you answer this question, you'll pretty much have my answer to your original question. (I could be wrong, but I bet you that I'm right!) (In fact I'll bet you 5 pearls, how about that?)

So, what would YOU do if you were faced with a miracle that contradicted science?

lao tzu

January 11th 2006, 04:20 PM

<snip>

My question to you, as was your question for us, was a personal question. What would YOU do if you were faced with a miracle? You can legitimately say that I'm turning the question in your OP back around on you, but I think if you answer this question, you'll pretty much have my answer to your original question. (I could be wrong, but I bet you that I'm right!) (In fact I'll bet you 5 pearls, how about that?)

So, what would YOU do if you were faced with a miracle that contradicted science? Yawohl, Mein Furhr ... umm, I mean ... Hi, general!

Which one of my original questions? And does the bet still stand if I've already answered yours?

Now I just went to the trouble to find the links referenced in my additional response to Jed so you can see what my position was. My position hasn't changed.

I would welcome (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1330772#post1330772) a miracle. But I'd also record (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1330942#post1330942) it.

Thus putting the "and" into faith and science. Of course, I'd accept an alternative miracle, but I would want it to be unambiguously related to a specific conceptualization of the divine. The one I've chosen I chose because of its biblical precedent specific to not only the new testament but to the divinity and resurrection of Jesus himself.

Good enough for Thomas would be good enough for me. But I want equal treatment with Thomas, no more and no less. It wasn't my choice to be born 2000 years later, ya know?

I don't see how my answer to this provides your answer to my original challenge. Maybe we need an independent judge, but I think you owe me some pearls, fella.

As ever, Jesse

Hail Mary

January 11th 2006, 09:51 PM

Which one of my original questions? And does the bet still stand if I've already answered yours?

The question in the OP of this thread: :smile:
What do you do when faced with physical evidence that contradicts your spiritual faith? Is it ever okay to believe something in your heart that can be proven untrue in your head?

Now I just went to the trouble to find the links referenced in my additional response to Jed so you can see what my position was. My position hasn't changed.

I would welcome (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1330772#post1330772) a miracle. But I'd also record (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1330942#post1330942) it.

Thank you for looking these up and posting the links! (I normally avoid those kind of threads :smile:)

Thus putting the "and" into faith and science. Of course, I'd accept an alternative miracle, but I would want it to be unambiguously related to a specific conceptualization of the divine. The one I've chosen I chose because of its biblical precedent specific to not only the new testament but to the divinity and resurrection of Jesus himself.

So you would welcome the miracle, you would record it, but how does this affect your scientific knowledge?

Good enough for Thomas would be good enough for me. But I want equal treatment with Thomas, no more and no less. It wasn't my choice to be born 2000 years later, ya know?

I don't see how my answer to this provides your answer to my original challenge. Maybe we need an independent judge, but I think you owe me some pearls, fella.

I agree that would be one possible miracle, if Christ appeared to you in the flesh.

But you haven't answered the reversed question yet, so I don't want to get sidetracked, and I don't know if I've won the bet or not. Admittedly I may be coughing up the pearls, but I don't know until you answer this:

How would a miracle affect your scientific knowledge?

Or, can faith trump reality sometimes in the natural world? (You discuss this a little bit later in your OP, but you never actually answer it)

Zarathustra

January 12th 2006, 12:02 AM

That is pretty clearly not the same sort of faith I was describing.

From a perspective of pure reason, faith is a fallacy. You are creative in placing together a subjective series of "adequate tests" then forgoing reason in the move to allow the conclusions therein to form your faith; the certain truth of your conclusions.

Think if it like painting a painting, your "tests" are the paint, and the canvas is your faith. At first the canvas is blank, and you have no faith. You start painting with "tests" and end up with a painted canvas which is your faith. It is creative because it is subjective which "tests" you use to paint your canvas.

lao tzu

January 12th 2006, 12:05 AM

The question in the OP of this thread: :smile:What do you do when faced with physical evidence that contradicts your spiritual faith? Is it ever okay to believe something in your heart that can be proven untrue in your head?
Thank you for looking these up and posting the links! (I normally avoid those kind of threads :smile:) Thanks, general,

Two questions with distinct answers from my point of view. The first was intended for those inclined to answer in more general terms while the second was intended for those who wanted something more specifically spelled out. I'm not usually able to get a thread of mine to last past a few responses, so I've been consciously trying to find ways to engage more people.

So you would welcome the miracle, you would record it, but how does this affect your scientific knowledge? I'd have to admit my previous conception of human mortality was wrong. People who have been dead for 2000 years shouldn't be able to walk into my living room wearing a physical body that I could examine in detail, let alone record on digital videotape. It would be a life transforming experience in every way.

I agree that would be one possible miracle, if Christ appeared to you in the flesh.

But you haven't answered the reversed question yet, so I don't want to get sidetracked, and I don't know if I've won the bet or not. Admittedly I may be coughing up the pearls, but I don't know until you answer this:How would a miracle affect your scientific knowledge? To continue my above answer: I would specifically have to abandon the idea that humans cannot be gods, or at the very least, something that could pinch hit for a god on most ball teams. I would also be forced to look for extra-natural influences on day to day events. I would lose the ability to have faith in repeatable phenomena, no matter how carefully recorded.

To go beyond your question, the most profound effect would not be on my scientific knowledge, but on my spiritual faith, which, though profoundly different from your own, is still more important to me than my scientific understanding.
Or, can faith trump reality sometimes in the natural world? (You discuss this a little bit later in your OP, but you never actually answer it) Perhaps some Cliff Notes are in order. Any time you see a thread started by me, it's safe to assume it's intended as a discussion thread, rather than as a debate thread. The more interpretations expressed, the merrier. I know people seem to enjoy the heated battle threads more, but it's just not my thing, and that could be why I never get more than a few responses.

As ever, Jesse

Hail Mary

January 12th 2006, 09:00 AM

Two questions with distinct answers from my point of view. The first was intended for those inclined to answer in more general terms while the second was intended for those who wanted something more specifically spelled out. I'm not usually able to get a thread of mine to last past a few responses, so I've been consciously trying to find ways to engage more people.

I love discussions rather than debates. Discussions are fun, debates are tedious. I'll try and watch for any of your threads, but if you're interested in discussion, drop a private message to me!

I'd have to admit my previous conception of human mortality was wrong. People who have been dead for 2000 years shouldn't be able to walk into my living room wearing a physical body that I could examine in detail, let alone record on digital videotape. It would be a life transforming experience in every way.

Okay, I'm definitely on the road to losing this bet! So I'll tell you what I was trying to work towards. Some people have faith that science will answer all questions of the natural world. Your above response still allows that interpretation, in that a 2000 year old body could be resurrected in some way by scientific means.

To continue my above answer: I would specifically have to abandon the idea that humans cannot be gods, or at the very least, something that could pinch hit for a god on most ball teams. I would also be forced to look for extra-natural influences on day to day events. I would lose the ability to have faith in repeatable phenomena, no matter how carefully recorded.

Wow, okay the bet is complete. You have won the pearls, congratulations!

I'm interested though, are you Jewish or Muslim in background with a 'conversion' to Taoism? The idea of humans can't be gods is Jewish or Islamic in origin. I think most Christians look at it as God can be human!

To go beyond your question, the most profound effect would not be on my scientific knowledge, but on my spiritual faith, which, though profoundly different from your own, is still more important to me than my scientific understanding.
Perhaps some Cliff Notes are in order. Any time you see a thread started by me, it's safe to assume it's intended as a discussion thread, rather than as a debate thread. The more interpretations expressed, the merrier. I know people seem to enjoy the heated battle threads more, but it's just not my thing, and that could be why I never get more than a few responses.

Perhaps this is a different thread, but without really knowing anything about my personal faith, how can you say we are profoundly different? Most of the time, I'm actually fairly shocked to find how similar are all of our faiths, but for Taoism, admittedly, I've only read the Tao of Poo, and that's about it :smile:

In this specific case, a miracle would have forced you to rethink your entire view of the natural and supernatural, that is one of the main concepts in Christianity, so I don't really see much difference there.

(Congratulations on the pearls, don't spend them all in one place!)

Jedidiah

January 12th 2006, 04:10 PM

From a perspective of pure reason, faith is a fallacy. You are creative in placing together a subjective series of "adequate tests" then forgoing reason in the move to allow the conclusions therein to form your faith; the certain truth of your conclusions.Are you suggesting my approach to life falls short of pure reason? :tongue: Substitute 'confidence in" for "the certain truth of" and you would be a little closer to my definition.

Think if it like painting a painting, your "tests" are the paint, and the canvas is your faith. At first the canvas is blank, and you have no faith. You start painting with "tests" and end up with a painted canvas which is your faith. It is creative because it is subjective which "tests" you use to paint your canvas.I have to say your analogy is creative. Not valid, in my opinion, but creative.

Think of it as building a building that will stand up under adverse conditions. You begin stacking block until they fall down. You modify your structure to improve stability. It keeps falling down. You evaluate the various bits and eventually you see something that would have been obvious at the first if you had only understood how things fit together. You tear down your entire building and make a new one according to your new vision.

For what it is worth.

Jedidiah

January 12th 2006, 04:18 PM

To continue my above answer: I would specifically have to abandon the idea that humans cannot be gods, or at the very least, something that could pinch hit for a god on most ball teams. I would also be forced to look for extra-natural influences on day to day events. I would lose the ability to have faith in repeatable phenomena, no matter how carefully recorded.
Please allow me to deal with this small part of your comments to the General.

I do not accept the idea that a human can be a god. I do accept the idea that the One God can, if He so chooses, take on humanity. The first take is that of Mormonism. The second is Christianity. Yes, looking at it from the ground the both look the same.

I believe that Jesus was resurrected after three days, but this does not change my normal faith in usual way of dealing with repeatable phenomena. It is possible that some things are just not normal repeatable events. Why give up something that works?

lao tzu

January 12th 2006, 05:54 PM

I love discussions rather than debates. Discussions are fun, debates are tedious. I'll try and watch for any of your threads, but if you're interested in discussion, drop a private message to me! Sure, Ripper,

(Subtle cognitive shift there, have you ever seen "Tank Girl"?)

http://www.alicia-logic.com/capsimages/tg_020jetflies1.jpg

No! The one on the left! (I wish we could link images in here, too.)

Okay, I'm definitely on the road to losing this bet! So I'll tell you what I was trying to work towards. Some people have faith that science will answer all questions of the natural world. Your above response still allows that interpretation, in that a 2000 year old body could be resurrected in some way by scientific means. Are you familiar with Clarke's Third Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws)? Pay especial attention to the corollaries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws#Corollaries).

Sure, since the effects result in something naturally observable, there's no reason the observations themselves can't be treated scientifically, but if it walks like a god, and talks like a god, the question reduces to one of semantics.

I take it as a given that a sufficiently advanced intelligence could fool me into believing anything it wanted me to believe. And there's not thing one I could do about it, so why bother trying? Better to suck up and see if the SAI or god or whatever you want to call it is willing to drop some fresh veggies in my stew. If it wants to poison me, I'm toast anyway.

Wow, okay the bet is complete. You have won the pearls, congratulations!

I'm interested though, are you Jewish or Muslim in background with a 'conversion' to Taoism? The idea of humans can't be gods is Jewish or Islamic in origin. I think most Christians look at it as God can be human! Being human, I've argued before, means accepting both human abilities and inabilities. Direct communication between natural and extranatural realms is a perquisite of gods. The inability to do so is part of what makes us human. While a god could probably mimic all of my abilities, mimicing my inabilities doesn't seem possible. On the other hand, I can't even mimic a god's abilities, and I have no reason to believe any human can.

Perhaps this is a different thread, but without really knowing anything about my personal faith, how can you say we are profoundly different? Most of the time, I'm actually fairly shocked to find how similar are all of our faiths, but for Taoism, admittedly, I've only read the Tao of Poo, and that's about it :smile:

In this specific case, a miracle would have forced you to rethink your entire view of the natural and supernatural, that is one of the main concepts in Christianity, so I don't really see much difference there. As a Taoist, I see what's beyond the horizon as naturally indescribable and accept those limitations. As a christian, you see what's beyond the horizon as taking on a describable personality. That's a pretty profound difference. My Tao involves pushing the horizon back, not jumping over it completely.

(Congratulations on the pearls, don't spend them all in one place!) (NOW you tell me! Heck, they were spent even before I got 'em! It's a taoist thing, y'understand. :lol:)

As ever, Jesse

Zarathustra

January 13th 2006, 12:02 AM

Are you suggesting my approach to life falls short of pure reason? :tongue: Yes.

Substitute 'confidence in" for "the certain truth of" and you would be a little closer to my definition.

The problem here is that you cannot know "the certain truth of" of the sun coming up tomorrow, because you may have missed a test that has a valid 'the sun won't come up tomorrow' conclusion. So subjectively to the tests you have done one applies faith to make them true and one applies faith to the tests one hasn't done to make them untrue. Thus you then create your faith on:

A. That the tests you have done are correct and pointing to conclusion.
B. The tests you havn't done\thought of have no bearing to validity of conclusion.

I have to say your analogy is creative. Not valid, in my opinion, but creative.

My analogy is the same as the one you have created below.

Think of it as building a building that will stand up under adverse conditions. You begin stacking block until they fall down. You modify your structure to improve stability. It keeps falling down. You evaluate the various bits and eventually you see something that would have been obvious at the first if you had only understood how things fit together.

If you change block to paint, tower to canvas and adverse conditions to artistic scrutiny. You would have the same analogy.

You tear down your entire building and make a new one according to your new vision.

Yes, you create a new one, according to your new subjective vision.

Thus you are creative in the faith you construct yourself.

Jedidiah

January 13th 2006, 12:24 AM

The problem here is that you cannot know "the certain truth of" of the sun coming up tomorrow, because you may have missed a test that has a valid 'the sun won't come up tomorrow' conclusion.
Exactly why I remove "certain truth" and replace it with "confidence."

Zarathustra

January 13th 2006, 12:39 AM

Exactly why I remove "certain truth" and replace it with "confidence."

Then you don’t have faith the sun will rise. You have justified true belief that it will rise.
There were a few more points to my post then just this, are they conceded?

lao tzu

January 13th 2006, 01:51 AM

Zarathustra

January 13th 2006, 03:54 AM

(Zarathrusta, I've been enjoying your comments,
but please do remember this is not intended as a debate thread,
and as such unanswered points are probably best described
as undiscussed, rather than conceded.)

G'day Taoist,

Sorry to have disrespected your previously stated intensions of this thread. :blush: Thanks for using a small font to point it out.

Zarathustra

January 13th 2006, 03:55 AM

Howdy Jedidiah,

It was uncalled for for me to make the inference that the points were conceded, this should be a discussion not a debate. I apologize for making in into the latter. Please disregard my comment.

Personally, I have been enjoying this thread and your comments, Cheers :smile:

Jedidiah

January 13th 2006, 04:53 AM

It was uncalled for for me to make the inference that the points were conceded, this should be a discussion not a debate. I apologize for making in into the latter. Please disregard my comment.
That is okay, it went over my head anyway.

lao tzu

January 13th 2006, 02:11 PM

I do accept the idea that the One God can, if He so chooses, take on humanity. Hi Jed,

I actually tried to incorporate a response to this in my last reply to the Ripper. Being human, I've argued before, means accepting both human abilities and inabilities. Direct communication between natural and extranatural realms is a perquisite of gods. The inability to do so is part of what makes us human.
In my view, insofar as a humanified god retains any divine abilities that surpass those of the humans around him, he fails to become fully human. I find a humanified god unsatisfying in the same sense a deified human is unsatisfying. As I personally possess no divine abilities, any attempt to emulate either of these seems pointlessly vain.

From a perspective of pure reason, faith is a fallacy. I fail to see how this does not apply equally to any theoretical science. Pure reason is a deductive process, where both faith and science are inductive, creating theories or theologies to link together discrete observations exactly because deduction leaves gaps to be filled.

As ever, Jesse

Jedidiah

January 14th 2006, 05:58 PM

Howdy,

I actually tried to incorporate a response to this in my last reply to the Ripper. Being human, I've argued before, means accepting both human abilities and inabilities. Direct communication between natural and extranatural realms is a perquisite of gods. The inability to do so is part of what makes us human.
In my view, insofar as a humanified god retains any divine abilities that surpass those of the humans around him, he fails to become fully human. I find a humanified god unsatisfying in the same sense a deified human is unsatisfying. As I personally possess no divine abilities, any attempt to emulate either of these seems pointlessly vain.

If you make your definition the only way to deal with the issue, I would have to agree with you. I, however, do not see any use to this aspects of your definition of "man" beyond eliminating the acceptabilty of Jesus as both human and divine. Seems to be somewhat circular to me.

Jed

lao tzu

January 14th 2006, 07:01 PM

Howdy,

If you make your definition the only way to deal with the issue, I would have to agree with you. I, however, do not see any use to this aspects of your definition of "man" beyond eliminating the acceptabilty of Jesus as both human and divine. Seems to be somewhat circular to me.

Jed

Hiya, Jed,

There are other uses.

Actually, I first formulated that principle in an entirely secular context, and I'd say it's a mark of its strength that it's useful here as well. I usually stress human inabilities when discussing moral and ethical principles.

Consider. Free choices are only as free as the available options. Everyone agrees with that. But I go further and say that the available options are conditioned by false knowledge. That's the origin of the "fantastic other" I inserted earlier.

More succinctly, trying to make sense of contradictory data is a fundamental part of the human condition. This is an important truth when discussing human ethics and morality. It also just happens to be an aspect of humanity not available to a god.

As ever, Jesse

Zarathustra

January 14th 2006, 07:37 PM

I fail to see how this does not apply equally to any theoretical science. Pure reason is a deductive process, where both faith and science are inductive, creating theories or theologies to link together discrete observations exactly because deduction leaves gaps to be filled.

It does apply to theoretical science as well, It was put there to show that even the reasoned conclusions from 'tests' can be brought into doubt.

Jedidiah

January 15th 2006, 02:47 AM

There are other uses.
It may have lots of uses, but the question I have is to it's meaningfulness. You just can't make such a definition of man or god in any meaningful way. You can use it once you make it, but you are in your own little world, not the real one.

Hail Mary

January 16th 2006, 12:12 AM

(Subtle cognitive shift there, have you ever seen "Tank Girl"?)

I thought it was going to be cool, but I caught a few minutes of it one day and it looked pretty boring. Its kind of a cult hit, but I guess I didn't get it in the short time I watched it.

I take it as a given that a sufficiently advanced intelligence could fool me into believing anything it wanted me to believe. And there's not thing one I could do about it, so why bother trying? Better to suck up and see if the SAI or god or whatever you want to call it is willing to drop some fresh veggies in my stew. If it wants to poison me, I'm toast anyway.

Being human, I've argued before, means accepting both human abilities and inabilities. Direct communication between natural and extranatural realms is a perquisite of gods. The inability to do so is part of what makes us human. While a god could probably mimic all of my abilities, mimicing my inabilities doesn't seem possible. On the other hand, I can't even mimic a god's abilities, and I have no reason to believe any human can.

Well, I don't believe that we can tell God what is or what isn't possible. I'm trying not to be argumentative, but if I state this in terms of my beliefs, then God can do anything. God can become a man, he can mimic inabilities, or even assume inabilities. Who am I to tell God what he can't do?

As a Taoist, I see what's beyond the horizon as naturally indescribable and accept those limitations. As a christian, you see what's beyond the horizon as taking on a describable personality. That's a pretty profound difference. My Tao involves pushing the horizon back, not jumping over it completely.

I don't really see the difference. As a Christian, I see God's creation as part seen and part unseen. I accept the unseen as indescribable.

lao tzu

January 16th 2006, 02:43 PM

Hi, Ripper,

I thought it was going to be cool, but I caught a few minutes of it one day and it looked pretty boring. Its kind of a cult hit, but I guess I didn't get it in the short time I watched it.

The Rippers followed something of a peace through strength motif, eschewing weapons for innate abilities, ironically genetically designed into them. Anyway ...

Well, I don't believe that we can tell God what is or what isn't possible. I'm trying not to be argumentative, but if I state this in terms of my beliefs, then God can do anything. God can become a man, he can mimic inabilities, or even assume inabilities. Who am I to tell God what he can't do? There are certain inabilities inherent in being human, and I'd argue the inability to rationalize beyond a contradiction is probably one of them. God can't uncreate himself and remain a creator god discernible by human rational processes, for instance.

(And you thought I was going to bring in created stones too big for a creator to lift, didn't you? Ha!)

Who are you to tell a god what he can't do? Well, why not? If you want an answer from someone who knows more than you do, it certainly seems justified to me that you ask it be placed in terms you can understand. An answer that doesn't make sense isn't an answer, independent of its truth.

"Why are you telling us things we can't understand?" asked a fourth grader of the taoist one day. She didn't disbelieve me. She was just pointing out that I was speaking over her head. It wasn't her fault I'd decided to do a couple months of substitute teaching in the Chicago public schools and it wasn't my fault I hadn't dealt with any fourth graders in years.

I don't really see the difference. As a Christian, I see God's creation as part seen and part unseen. I accept the unseen as indescribable.

*breaks to create new OP*

Thank you, Ripper. To me, this is intimately related to what aspects of god are describable. And with that, let's break off to address the theme in a separate thread.

The Attributes of Humans and Gods (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1342165#post1342165)