Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So did David Koresh and Jim Jones. People can become so invested in their ideas about god that they will die for all sorts of stupid reasons and lead others to their deaths in the process.
I do grow weary of Christians pointing out that Paul or the other apostles or various saints through the ages were willing to die painful deaths and this somehow then validates what they died for. The argument completely fails upon more than the most superficial consideration. It doesn't even contemplate the countless people who submitted themselves as human sacrifices (or were subjected to it by extended family) for pagan deities, even in Biblical accounts. It ignores the people who are regularly induced to die in endless wars with nothing more than empty promises that they will be remembered as heroes and protectors of whatever country they are part of -- so it's not even uniquely about dying for religious or spiritual sentiments.
A willingness or desire to acquiescence to or die for a belief in NO way validates it.
After further contemplation, I've decided to write to NASA and I will ask them if I could use the JWST to study the Methuselah Star. I will see if I can calculate the age of it for myself. I will let everyone know their response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
So did David Koresh and Jim Jones. People can become so invested in their ideas about god that they will die for all sorts of stupid reasons and lead others to their deaths in the process.
I do grow weary of Christians pointing out that Paul or the other apostles or various saints through the ages were willing to die painful deaths and this somehow then validates what they died for. The argument completely fails upon more than the most superficial consideration. It doesn't even contemplate the countless people who submitted themselves as human sacrifices (or were subjected to it by extended family) for pagan deities, even in Biblical accounts. It ignores the people who are regularly induced to die in endless wars with nothing more than empty promises that they will be remembered as heroes and protectors of whatever country they are part of -- so it's not even uniquely about dying for religious or spiritual sentiments.
A willingness or desire to acquiescence to or die for a belief in NO way validates it.
In terms of the faith, these things are the expectation. Being seen as foolish is an expectation. Of course it is absolutely fair to say I don't understand the methodology of science. I agree. Yet I know enough to see it's limits. Now concerning faith, it should be based on evidence. I agree with everyone there. I have reason for my trust in the faith. (I believe there is reason for Jesus' resurrection, and the things Scripture points to concerning Jesus) Yet overall the wisdom of God is going to be seen as foolishness by the world. There is no way around that thinking. If God is the creator of all, He knows all the truth behind reality. However the world is in the dark about the absolute explanation of all things. Our observation alone will not obtain the full truth, it cannot.
This reminds me of the film Contact. When Jodie Foster's character finally met the alien character, he pretty much told her their civilizations were still trying to figure everything out. The technology they shared with the people of earth, they themselves didn't know where it came from or who created it. So these advanced civilizations, had as many question marks surrounding their heads as the people of earth. That is the expectation of science alone. Ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth.
Of course I would say people like Jim Jones and David Koresh are murderers.
After further contemplation, I've decided to write to NASA and I will ask them if I could use the JWST to study the Methuselah Star. I will see if I can calculate the age of it for myself. I will let everyone know their response.
In terms of the faith, these things are the expectation. Being seen as foolish is an expectation. Of course it is absolutely fair to say I don't understand the methodology of science. I agree. Yet I know enough to see it's limits. Now concerning faith, it should be based on evidence. I agree with everyone there. I have reason for my trust in the faith. (I believe there is reason for Jesus' resurrection, and the things Scripture points to concerning Jesus) Yet overall the wisdom of God is going to be seen as foolishness by the world. There is no way around that thinking. If God is the creator of all, He knows all the truth behind reality. However the world is in the dark about the absolute explanation of all things. Our observation alone will not obtain the full truth, it cannot.
This reminds me of the film Contact. When Jodie Foster's character finally met the alien character, he pretty much told her their civilizations were still trying to figure everything out. The technology they shared with the people of earth, they themselves didn't know where it came from or who created it. So these advanced civilizations, had as many question marks surrounding their heads as the people of earth. That is the expectation of science alone. Ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth.
Of course I would say people like Jim Jones and David Koresh are murderers.
"Our observation alone will not obtain the full truth, it cannot."
There is what we can obtain or learn or confirm as to what is true. The full truth about a great many things. About that which we cannot, yet, we should continue to strive toward better understanding based on the same sort of efforts to obtain or learn or confirm as to what is true. This requires critical thinking and an ability to be objective about what remains to be known. What we can and should avoid is all the past mistakes about filling the voids of our knowledge with what REALLY cannot be known, learned or observed to be true. AKA B.S.
"Our observation alone will not obtain the full truth, it cannot."
There is what we can obtain or learn or confirm as to what is true. The full truth about a great many things. About that which we cannot, yet, we should continue to strive toward better understanding based on the same sort of efforts to obtain or learn or confirm as to what is true. This requires critical thinking and an ability to be objective about what remains to be known. What we can and should avoid is all the past mistakes about filling the voids of our knowledge with what REALLY cannot be known, learned or observed to be true. AKA B.S.
I don't know about everyone, but I for one enjoy this discussion. Even though I'm not a scientist of any field, I will again say I know enough that through our observation, we will not know the truth behind existence. I may sound like a broken record, but it is inevitable. I disagree with the idea that we don't know something "yet" but we will either find the answer or possibly find the answer through the scientific method. When it comes to our origin, this will not be the case. We are going down an imaginary road.
What do I mean by an imaginary road in terms of origin? Take the study of life for instance. From my limited understanding, scientists believe the basic proteins and chemicals that make up life, came together through a process of abiogenesis. How it happened, scientists are not sure of course, but they believe life arose through these naturalistic processes. This is our best guess so far based on our observation of current day processes that we see all around us, and breaking down basic elements. We assume from this these elements came together through a process. How can we know this is true for certain? We haven't seen abiogenesis ourselves, and we haven't done it ourselves in an experiment. Though we do have the famous Miller-Urey experiment, where they managed to make protein compounds or what have you. Yet those compounds aren't what we consider to be life.
Now what if (and I know how everyone feel about "if") we were created specifically? From my perspective, what if we were created by God? How can I tell from my lack of observation, the difference between a long process of physical elements that make up my body coming together, vs God creating a finished and furnished body? All I can see are the elements as they are now. God Himself is no where to be seen. So if I simply trust what I can see, I will come to the wrong conclusion if indeed God did create reality. The process of abiogenesis will all be imaginary. Its the same concerning the cosmic scale of our origins. (Big Bang theory, the development of galaxies and our solar system)
So this is where I'm coming from with this. Science in terms of origin will never be able to come to a knowledge of the truth, if indeed God created us. I believe this is what the discussion of science and religion ultimately comes down to, and the problem between the two. Now there are plenty of Christians who accept science and see no problem. The famous scientist Francis Collins is a Christian, and he accepts all of science. Yet as for me, I see intense conflict. For instance, its true not all Christians take Genesis literal, but almost all Christians believe Jesus is coming back to the earth and we will be given eternal life. To me the aspects of eternal life and Heaven on Earth, sound a lot like the things mentioned in the Book of Genesis. How can we prove eternal life scientifically? Everything we observe, dies. (In terms of conscious beings) By what process would something have to go through, to stay alive forever? Scientifically speaking, how did Jesus walk on water? Some would say a miracle by God's power has nothing to do with testable science, but for a Christian, was it not by God's power that He created all of reality itself? Science (scientific method) disconnects God from His created order. The scientific method basically says we can know our origins without invoking God at all. The only real way for science and religion (essentially God or a god's existence) not to conflict, is if God was deistic in nature. I would argue at least in terms of Yahweh, He is not deistic.
That you in no way addressed my actual point is noted.
Your point concerning validation may have been different from why I brought Paul up. Paul was considered a fool by the world. All I was saying is, that is the expectation. I would say anyone who delves into the faith like Paul did, they will be considered a clown showing up to a gun fight. (Going back to Harry's comment) If Paul was alive today, would he accept science? (Specifically in terms of origin)
As for validation, I would agree devotion doesn't equate truth.
At the heart of the faith of Yahweh and the scientific method approach of studying the world, I would conclude science is the height of what it would mean to "walk by sight". As Christians we know a pillar of what we believe concerns not walking by sight, but by faith. Faith being the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. If Abraham was walking by observation of what was around him, he never would have received Isaac. Science would state Abraham and Sarah as being past the age of child bearing. However as the Bible points out to us, Abraham didn't consider his body, but trusted God and His power to accomplish what was considered impossible. This is why Abraham is considered the father of those who trust on Yahweh.
Science (observable) throws all that out. Science by its nature removes God from the equation. This is an interesting discussion, and I conclude this is the true problem with religion (for me is Christianity) and science.
I don't know about everyone, but I for one enjoy this discussion. Even though I'm not a scientist of any field, I will again say I know enough that through our observation, we will not know the truth behind existence. I may sound like a broken record, but it is inevitable. I disagree with the idea that we don't know something "yet" but we will either find the answer or possibly find the answer through the scientific method. When it comes to our origin, this will not be the case. We are going down an imaginary road.
What do I mean by an imaginary road in terms of origin? Take the study of life for instance. From my limited understanding, scientists believe the basic proteins and chemicals that make up life, came together through a process of abiogenesis. How it happened, scientists are not sure of course, but they believe life arose through these naturalistic processes. This is our best guess so far based on our observation of current day processes that we see all around us, and breaking down basic elements. We assume from this these elements came together through a process. How can we know this is true for certain? We haven't seen abiogenesis ourselves, and we haven't done it ourselves in an experiment. Though we do have the famous Miller-Urey experiment, where they managed to make protein compounds or what have you. Yet those compounds aren't what we consider to be life.
Now what if (and I know how everyone feel about "if") we were created specifically? From my perspective, what if we were created by God? How can I tell from my lack of observation, the difference between a long process of physical elements that make up my body coming together, vs God creating a finished and furnished body? All I can see are the elements as they are now. God Himself is no where to be seen. So if I simply trust what I can see, I will come to the wrong conclusion if indeed God did create reality. The process of abiogenesis will all be imaginary. Its the same concerning the cosmic scale of our origins. (Big Bang theory, the development of galaxies and our solar system)
So this is where I'm coming from with this. Science in terms of origin will never be able to come to a knowledge of the truth, if indeed God created us. I believe this is what the discussion of science and religion ultimately comes down to, and the problem between the two. Now there are plenty of Christians who accept science and see no problem. The famous scientist Francis Collins is a Christian, and he accepts all of science. Yet as for me, I see intense conflict. For instance, its true not all Christians take Genesis literal, but almost all Christians believe Jesus is coming back to the earth and we will be given eternal life. To me the aspects of eternal life and Heaven on Earth, sound a lot like the things mentioned in the Book of Genesis. How can we prove eternal life scientifically? Everything we observe, dies. (In terms of conscious beings) By what process would something have to go through, to stay alive forever? Scientifically speaking, how did Jesus walk on water? Some would say a miracle by God's power has nothing to do with testable science, but for a Christian, was it not by God's power that He created all of reality itself? Science (scientific method) disconnects God from His created order. The scientific method basically says we can know our origins without invoking God at all. The only real way for science and religion (essentially God or a god's existence) not to conflict, is if God was deistic in nature. I would argue at least in terms of Yahweh, He is not deistic.
I enjoy the discussion too, but the "disconnects" can be a little frustrating from a reasoned and logical standpoint...
I am tempted to reiterate the point I made in my last comment which you seem to ignore or somehow gloss over. The issue is not about what we can never know, but what we do with those areas of ignorance along the way to better understanding. And/or what to avoid. I can't remember whether I directed you to my "Ten Truths" before (as I have done with others), but this pretty well sums up what I'm trying to explain here again...
If you enjoy this discussion, I suspect you will also enjoy a review of my Ten Truths and a review of all the discussion that followed there. To which I encourage you to add your comment(s) as well if you like. The more the better!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
