Alvin Plantinga’s new book on Science and Religion is out.

[Tassman]

Tassman, you are a naturalist, yes?

There is no viable alternative. There is the universe, we are a part of the universe and we have our extremely limited but exponentially growing knowledge about how it functions. There is no substantiated reason to think it comprises anything more than natural elements as studied by the natural sciences. This includes everything related to consciousness and the mind; there is considerable and growing evidence that this is the case.

Is there anything that excites you about naturalism? Anything that inspires you? Anything that moves you which would depend on naturalism being true?[/

But there is no reason to doubt that naturalism “is true”.

Earlier supernatural-based hypotheses, as found in the religions, cannot be supported by verified evidence and have been superseded by a methodology that IS supported by empirically verified evidence, i.e. science.

Is the acquisition of knowledge inspiring? Yes! But it would be no less true if it wasn’t.

[headheart]

There is no viable alternative.

Here are a few you might want to try out. (of course there's always "prayer" and "The Healing Game" by Van Morrisson)



On this subject I definitely recommend listening to Relating Theology and Psychology: Distinctive Features and Methodological Principles and Theological Issues Raised by Neuroscience by Revd. Dr. Fraser Watts. = Psychologising and Neurologising about Religion: Facts, Fallacies and the Future (video)
There are a couple of Fraser Watts’s book here: Templeton Press > Why The Science And Religion Dialogue Matters & Jesus & Psychology (more books by Revd. Dr. Fraser Watts at AMAZON BOOKS)

I remember when I met my first psychologist (I know you're not a real practicing one, but you said you're a qualified one so I thought this might be helpful to you).
When I was a young lad just after leaving the South African Navy and being a young spirit-filled, tongues speaking babe in the woods, I met a number of rather intriguing personalities and one such person was a bloke who'd completed a degree in Psychology (I suspect you have something along those lines, right?) and on the very day he'd actually got his cape and funny hat he happened to take lunch at the Y.M.C.A and well we (that is myself and another bloke) all ended up at the same lunch table and got to chatting. During the introduction part of our meeting he of course mentioned his degree. I guess he was excited and so I being a young and though grounded in a fairly good academic background only had a fleeting knowledge of what it was that Psychology could do for one. I mean I knew it was about "healing" and stuff, but that "stuff" part was not known to me. So I decided to ask him a question that had recently been answered for me. I asked him if he knew what it was that separated people, to which he replied "no". I was puzzled. Surely someone who did all this study about people and stuff would at least know the answer to such and elementary question. Of course he tossed the question back my way and not being very clued up in "Theology" I answered with the simple truth that I knew and said, "Sin" He nodded his head (or something that, I cannot remember exactly what happened after that, but no scene we basically ate, chatted and parted as per normal).
Well, the next morning I had been up for about an hour and suddenly there's this furious pounding on the door and I startled I rose and opened the door to my tiny room at the "Y" and there's this same bloke with a A4 pad in his hand (you know the wire spring hinge type) and he's beaming from ear to ear. I felt really awkward and did not need to ask a question, for he just overflowed with joy and after sitting down on my bed opened the A4 and revealed his journal entries, excitedly explaining how he'd returned to his room and even with all his years of knowledge had no idea what that word meant.
Most rooms in the "Y" have bibles in a draw and so he cracked it open and began reading and trying to discover what it was. Slowly he pieced together an understanding of what it was and well the rest is his story.

So there you have it Jamie. I trust you'll use the links and thoughts wisely and realize that though you have a what I think is called a physicalist howbeit a reductionist stance, I think that you might discover that healing and in particular prayer might serve to open you up to a few alternative in your future life.

I wish I had hours to spend on this sort of thing, but you are a big boy and I'm sure you'll figure it out.

Love you bye-bye.
Eric

[Tassman]

Here are a few you might want to try out. (of course there's always "prayer" and "The Healing Game" by Van Morrisson)



On this subject I definitely recommend listening to Relating Theology and Psychology: Distinctive Features and Methodological Principles and Theological Issues Raised by Neuroscience by Revd. Dr. Fraser Watts. = Psychologising and Neurologising about Religion: Facts, Fallacies and the Future (video)
There are a couple of Fraser Watts’s book here: Templeton Press > Why The Science And Religion Dialogue Matters & Jesus & Psychology (more books by Revd. Dr. Fraser Watts at AMAZON BOOKS)

I remember when I met my first psychologist (I know you're not a real practicing one, but you said you're a qualified one so I thought this might be helpful to you).
When I was a young lad just after leaving the South African Navy and being a young spirit-filled, tongues speaking babe in the woods, I met a number of rather intriguing personalities and one such person was a bloke who'd completed a degree in Psychology (I suspect you have something along those lines, right?) and on the very day he'd actually got his cape and funny hat he happened to take lunch at the Y.M.C.A and well we (that is myself and another bloke) all ended up at the same lunch table and got to chatting. During the introduction part of our meeting he of course mentioned his degree. I guess he was excited and so I being a young and though grounded in a fairly good academic background only had a fleeting knowledge of what it was that Psychology could do for one. I mean I knew it was about "healing" and stuff, but that "stuff" part was not known to me. So I decided to ask him a question that had recently been answered for me. I asked him if he knew what it was that separated people, to which he replied "no". I was puzzled. Surely someone who did all this study about people and stuff would at least know the answer to such and elementary question. Of course he tossed the question back my way and not being very clued up in "Theology" I answered with the simple truth that I knew and said, "Sin" He nodded his head (or something that, I cannot remember exactly what happened after that, but no scene we basically ate, chatted and parted as per normal).
Well, the next morning I had been up for about an hour and suddenly there's this furious pounding on the door and I startled I rose and opened the door to my tiny room at the "Y" and there's this same bloke with a A4 pad in his hand (you know the wire spring hinge type) and he's beaming from ear to ear. I felt really awkward and did not need to ask a question, for he just overflowed with joy and after sitting down on my bed opened the A4 and revealed his journal entries, excitedly explaining how he'd returned to his room and even with all his years of knowledge had no idea what that word meant.
Most rooms in the "Y" have bibles in a draw and so he cracked it open and began reading and trying to discover what it was. Slowly he pieced together an understanding of what it was and well the rest is his story.

So there you have it Jamie. I trust you'll use the links and thoughts wisely and realize that though you have a what I think is called a physicalist howbeit a reductionist stance, I think that you might discover that healing and in particular prayer might serve to open you up to a few alternative in your future life.

I wish I had hours to spend on this sort of thing, but you are a big boy and I'm sure you'll figure it out.

Love you bye-bye.
Eric

You have snipped virtually all my post, presumably the better to disengage in actual discussion and provide a personal testimony instead.

Now, leaving aside your pink-and-fuzzy, subjective nonsense there is no substantiated reason to think the universe consists of anything more than natural elements as studied by the natural sciences - human consciousness and the mind included. There is a growing body of evidence that this is the case.

Unless you can come up with any form of credible evidence to support your assumption that a supernatural universe exists and is populated by a triune god and angels et al - ALL of distinctively Christian hue - I’m not in the least interested in your sentimental ramblings or the labels you see fit to attach to me. This is a discussion Group, NOT a revivalist meeting.

[headheart]

snipped

Jamie,

Still stinging from 'There is no evidence for the biblical jesus' ( < that'd be with a capital "J" for _ _ _ _ _ ) and loaded with more and more and more preconceptions, misconceptions (weighted down way too much of that old "nieh chang" ??? > Jamie, it's time to let the "unbinding" begin ) It seems crystal clear that you are incapable of imagining that there might actually be "faith traditions" that don't rely as heavily as you do upon "dualism". You clearly have no desire for earnest dialogue and are basically just out to propagate your "little" version of Atheism.

Take some time out, Jamie and read back through the 1000s of posts where people have "patiently" tried to point you in the right direction and have a chat to your priest about the true benefits of prayer according to the Eastern Orthodox tradition. All of us need to mature and I think this forum isn't doing you much good as you seem to be sinking deeper and deeper into nihilism.

Take care and I hope you find your way onto the right pathway.

Laurel and Hardy.gif

Peace,
Eric.

[Tassman]

Jamie,

Not content with snipping most of my argument you now snip it all, highlighting your total disinterest (or inability) to engaging in debate, preferring to pontificate instead.

Still stinging from 'There is no evidence for the biblical jesus' ( < that'd be with a capital "J"

You haven’t said anything of substance. How can that sting? You take yourself way too seriously, Eric.

for _ _ _ _ _ ) and loaded with more and more and more preconceptions, misconceptions (weighted down way too much of that old "nieh chang" ??? > Jamie, it's time to let the "unbinding" begin ) It seems crystal clear that you are incapable of imagining that there might actually be "faith traditions" that don't rely as heavily as you do upon "dualism". You clearly have no desire for earnest dialogue and are basically just out to propagate your "little" version of Atheism.

What “preconceptions, misconceptions”, am I “loaded more and more” with?

I have been engaging in “earnest dialogue” like crazy. My “little version of atheism” is based on the lack of substantiated evidence for the existence of the supernatural and your complete lack of “earnest dialogue” has done nothing to change my mind.

Take some time out, Jamie and read back through the 1000s of posts where people have "patiently" tried to point you in the right direction and have a chat to your priest about the true benefits of prayer according to the Eastern Orthodox tradition. All of us need to mature and I think this forum isn't doing you much good as you seem to be sinking deeper and deeper into nihilism.

“The right direction” being the unsubstantiated belief in gods and demons, presumably!

Take care and I hope you find your way onto the right pathway.

And the same to you, Eric! Hopefully you will one day free yourself from the bondage of irrational supernaturalism.

[headheart]

-------> :0
....

I have been engaging in “earnest dialogue” like crazy. My “little version of atheism” is based on the lack of substantiated evidence for the existence of the supernatural and your complete lack of “earnest dialogue” has done nothing to change my mind.

....

Hopefully you will one day free yourself from the bondage of irrational supernaturalism.

-------> :0


You mean your "little" straw doggy. Keep on pounding your "little" drum.


Tassman's Supernaturalism Pinata.jpg

Let the "unbinding" begin.
Eric.

[Whag]

-------> :0
....

I have been engaging in “earnest dialogue” like crazy. My “little version of atheism” is based on the lack of substantiated evidence for the existence of the supernatural and your complete lack of “earnest dialogue” has done nothing to change my mind.

....

Hopefully you will one day free yourself from the bondage of irrational supernaturalism.

-------> :0


You mean your "little" straw doggy. Keep on pounding your "little" drum.


Tassman's Supernaturalism Pinata.jpg

Let the "unbinding" begin.
Eric.

Where you're done with this vile urinating contest, maybe you can explain what Plantinga says science should be doing about this "divide" that it's not doing.

Until then, we've demonstrated Plantinga's knowledge of science is sad and he has nothing to contribute. As far as I can tell, this book, like all creationist literature, simply preaches to the choir.

[headheart]

Where you're done with this vile urinating contest, maybe you can explain what Plantinga says science should be doing about this "divide" that it's not doing.

Until then, we've demonstrated Plantinga's knowledge of science is sad and he has nothing to contribute. As far as I can tell, this book, like all creationist literature, simply preaches to the choir.

I hope you're not going to add to the stench.

Have your read the book?

btw. I'm reading the book and shall reserve my judgement until I'm done. I'm done arguing with Jamie.

Bye-bye,
Eric

[headheart]

“I disagree with what some of what John Dominic Crossan has to say, but Crossan is an innovative and creative New Testament scholar. He marshalls his vast learning in an attempt to find out new things from the gospels. Contrast him with Dr. Craig who uses his own *formidable* erudition for one vast damage control operation.” -- Robert Price

I see you're a fan of Robert Price. (refer you signature, above) Interesting. Another new name for me.


Robert Price - The Case Against The Case For Christ

Are you and Agnostic-Christian?

Peace,
Eric

[Whag]

I hope you're not going to add to the stench.

Have your read the book?

btw. I'm reading the book and shall reserve my judgement until I'm done. I'm done arguing with Jamie.

Bye-bye,
Eric

I hope someone who's read the book can explain what Plantinga wants. No one has made that clear so far. It just sounds like he's grousing that philosophers and priests don't have a seat at the scientific roundtable.

That's not really that original a complaint, and it's easily shot down by explaining how scientific investigation works.

[Whag]

I see you're a fan of Robert Price. (refer you signature, above) Interesting. Another new name for me.


Robert Price - The Case Against The Case For Christ

Are you and Agnostic-Christian?

Peace,
Eric

My signature is a quote from a debate between WLC and Price. I'm not a fan of Price's or any author.

Here's a nice little video where Craig has the gall to call Dembski and Behe evolutionists:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8tZx...layer_embedded

[headheart]

I hope someone who's read the book can explain what Plantinga wants. No one has made that clear so far. It just sounds like he's grousing that philosophers and priests don't have a seat at the scientific roundtable.

That's not really that original a complaint, and it's easily shot down by explaining how scientific investigation works.

I'll try my best to present you with something, but here's what I wrote before I hit 'reply' and found I had to log in again.

.... like all creationist literature, simply preaches to the choir.

Put in a slightly different way. The more I read the book the less I want read it and find myself jumping around the 370 or so pages. It's not that it's bad thinking it's just that I find it grates me in certain areas, in particular III ARGUMENT where he asks the following question: Can you then sensibly think that our cognitive faculties are for the most part reliable?

Then he lays out his argument as follows:

'.... I say you can’t. The basic idea of my argument could be put (a bit crudely) as follows.

First, the probability of our cognitive faculties being reliable, given naturalism and evolution, is low. (To put it a bit inaccurately but suggestively, if naturalism and evolution were both true, our cognitive faculties would very likely not be reliable.) But then according to the second premise of my argument, if I believe both naturalism and evolution, I have a defeater for my intuitive assumption that my cognitive faculties are reliable. If I have a defeater for that belief, however, then I have a defeater for any belief I take to be produced by my cognitive faculties. That means that I have a defeater
for my belief that naturalism and evolution are true. So my belief that naturalism and evolution are true gives me a defeater for that very belief; that belief shoots itself in the foot and is self-referentially incoherent; therefore I cannot rationally
accept it. And if one can’t accept both naturalism and evolution, that pillar of current science, then there is serious conflict between naturalism and science. ....'

Now if you're reading the book (however difficult that might be) you'll be able to understand what follows. No, seriously I've heard this argument of his in the past but my real difficulty is with his earlier assumptions, in the same section DEEP CONFLICT II > III ARGUMENT, where he's discussing cognitive faculties.

The following definitely have me nodding my head - from left to right - that hurts:

'....Many would add that there is a moral sense, whereby we know right from wrong; and believers in God may add that there is also John Calvin’s sensus divinitatis or Thomas Aquinas’s “natural but confused knowledge of God” whereby we know something of God. ....'

This supernatural stuff is good in books but it's of no use to a contemplative. It goes into the box marked garbage and ends up on the fire of silence along with ten years of naturalism.

Peace,
Eric

[headheart]

My signature is a quote from a debate between WLC and Price. I'm not a fan of Price's or any author.

Here's a nice little video where Craig has the gall to call Dembski and Behe evolutionists:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8tZx...layer_embedded

Well everyone knows that they are not, unless that's a recent development. It won't be the first time that a CF has abandoned ship.
If my own experience is an indicator I was so afraid of ideas like the Big Bang, Charles Darwin and Evolution. The looked like this:

Big Bang, Charles Darwin and Evolution.jpg

[Whag]

I'll try my best to present you with something, but here's what I wrote before I hit 'reply' and found I had to log in again.



Put in a slightly different way. The more I read the book the less I want read it and find myself jumping around the 370 or so pages. It's not that it's bad thinking it's just that I find it grates me in certain areas, in particular III ARGUMENT where he asks the following question: Can you then sensibly think that our cognitive faculties are for the most part reliable?

Then he lays out his argument as follows:



Now if you're reading the book (however difficult that might be) you'll be able to understand what follows. No, seriously I've heard this argument of his in the past but my real difficulty is with his earlier assumptions, in the same section DEEP CONFLICT II > III ARGUMENT, where he's discussing cognitive faculties.

The following definitely have me nodding my head - from left to right - that hurts:



This supernatural stuff is good in books but it's of no use to a contemplative. It goes into the box marked garbage and ends up on the fire of silence along with ten years of naturalism.

Peace,
Eric

Okay, that's what I thought. Plantinga's books amounts to little more than philosophical gobbledigook. It suggests nothing as a way of correcting the supposed "divide" and offers nothing to get him a seat at the scientific roundtable.

Books such as these are pointless and only serve to keep a clearly useless idea alive by further liberalizing it.

[Whag]

Well everyone knows that they are not, unless that's a recent development. It won't be the first time that a CF has abandoned ship.
If my own experience is an indicator I was so afraid of ideas like the Big Bang, Charles Darwin and Evolution. The looked like this:

Big Bang, Charles Darwin and Evolution.jpg

Correction: Everyone except for Craig knows it.