.

Dear AJ Philips,

.

You wrote to George:

" ...there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the alleged Jesus actually existed ..."

I would be interested to have your comments on the following if it does not involve too much effort:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10496&page=0#178485

Thanks in advance for whatever comments you are prepared to make.

.

severE/quote..,,<<as/an..intelligent-species.>>>we..strive to know...why

WE STRIVE..TO FIND...THE CAUSE
THUS WE HAVE SCIENCE...

FOR THAT..WE CLAIM TO HAVE FOUND..REASON/CAUSE

and religion/belief..faith..for that..science/..hasnt a/clue..about

PLEASE NAME..ONE THING...that has/no cause
simply speaking..there isnt..even one..!

well/may..we say<<Believe/what you want,>>>because talk..is cheap

the lack..of rebuttal...and lack..of*faulsiyable/causes..
indicates the words/..herafter..are pure-spin

<<but at least/allow..the/rest of us...lol..to live..and LEARN,>>well knowing..there is so much/..being activly-ignored..

learning*..is far from/the true-intent..of..the words

this/can be..egsemplified by aj...having/gone..silent..ignoring completly..my laborious-explanation's...so..i will simply repeat..

name/just..one thing..without-cause

i type...cause..there/is..a reason/to type
and there/is..a keyboard/internet..and ability/cause..to put the thoughts onto..this page..

ie there is*cause/mean's..action

this morning/..i got a blue/screen...but..i know/it has a cause[the/powers-that-be..have inserted a bug/program/virus...into it...or the computer-designer..designed/it wrong..or..i/am..incompitant...

but..the_point_being...I KNOW;..there is..A CAUSE..!
even/if..i dont know/specificly..the causation..of/the..cause

i write..in an..illiterate/manner..
there/is..a reason..for this

ie/..to wit...a cause..for my shambolic-scribings..
it is for/you lot..to speculate..but/for me..*alone[and god]..to know the true-cause

hasnt life/taught you..about action/reaction?

jesus lives/and yes..he did live/too
i need only/point..at the words..as evidence..!
[it is/for you..who/say..he didnt..to make proof..of your case..!

all/i need do..is supply..*reason..a cause/of my belief..in him...
then..for you/to rebut it..with fact...!

but self-evidentially...his/quoted-words..are enough/reason..for him to be/a likely causation..of the words/written about him*...ie..beyond faith..because..i have a..*reason..in evidence before me..

till/rebutted..by fact..
the fact..it's..in words is enough..
till you..!..prove..*it..fraud..
with/fact

EVERYTHING/HAS..A CAUSE..!

that is the reason/we got this thing..called..*science
that presumes/cause...by theory..

[of evolution]..or theory of quarks..
be-cause..there is a..physical/attrributation
of evolution/..or quark..etc

thus..if science..it needs to/give..likely-cause...
but more..it declares..?claims..repeatability...
science..that cant/replicate..is pure speculation...an orphone-theory..

unless it has..*faulsify-ables
that if..*rebutted...rebut/the presumption*

yes/man..claims logic*{sic}...and..if able to be..*validated..
may claim science/..but the measure is so low...

so few..those..who really get/know..'science'...
that..the simpleminded..simply take it on faith

and thus end up..looking so foolish
in their silence..
and claim..to not get/what im saying

they have belief..not science..cetainly arnt/seeking learning

Dear Oliver,

It is amazing how this thread continues to evolve after I thought it was already dead or kept alive only by us two.

>>I think comparison between Zeus (scriptural gods) and cosmology is in error. <<
You can compare anything, but I agree that in the sense you apparently mean it, it does not lead to anything.

If you believe in the Zeus model of God (in distinction to the Abrahamic) one might try to compare the merits of one against the other keeping in mind that one is comparing only MODELS of the Unfathomable, but it takes faith to decide for one or another. However, that would be a task for a theologian that I am not.

According to the Christian point of view, the God, who is the subject of the Book of Scripture and the God whom the philosophers are speculating about (and some scientists see as the author of the Book of Nature that they try to read) are two faces, two manifestations of the same Something.

One may reject this understanding, many do; one may compare the two and find them incompatible, but I think one should not close one’s mind against a unifying “super-view”. Perhaps not unlike particles and waves, that are different (and comparison leads to nowhere), nevertheless some physicists found the courage (forced on them by observation) to think above this seeming contradiction, and came to the concept of particle-wave duality. [This is a metaphor, not mixing science with religion!]

Sometimes I have the impression that you are resisting attempts to convert you (e.g. to Christianity) when nobody does, certainly not I.

As I keep on saying, I find your comments helpful for our mutual (as I thought) attempt to clarify and rationally analyse what we agreed to disagree on. Obviously each one of us has his personal reasons for favouring or not the Sagan maxim.

I know nothing about Gell-Man’s writings outside physics - except that he was allegedly an agnostic - so I cannot see the relevance to our world-view alternatives.

Dear Severin,

Thanks for your post. If I understand you properly, you would want me to address topics other than the ones we have been discussing with Oliver. Well, there are many subjects to the understanding of which I do not see I can contribute anything, even if, admittedly, they are more important than those to which I think I can.

Dan,

I had to ask Wikipedia about “Special revelation” and found it was “a theological term used mainly by evangelical scientists and theologians which refers to the belief that knowledge of God and of spiritual matters can be discovered through supernatural means, such as miracles or the scriptures, a disclosure of God's truth through means other than through man's reason.”

It does not seem to deny “disclosing God’s truth” ALSO through means of reason and interpretation of scientific findings.

It goes without saying that I - and I would say a majority of Christians - do not share your low opinion about the ability of scientists “to produce an accurate assessment and come to unbiased conclusions”, of course, as long as they stay within their field of expertise. Without this ability of scientists - Christian and non-Christian - you would not be able, among other things, to communicate with me almost instantaneously across the globe.

I used the shepherds and the Magi as a metaphor, to be understood or not as such, not to be analysed, though I agree the Magi could not be regarded as scientists in the 21st century meaning of the word.

Dear david f,

>>My philosophical stance is that all supernatural entities are merely human inventions and have no existence outside of the human imagination.<<
This is what I called the Sagan maxim. Its opposite, of course, is not simply the belief in the God of Abrahamic religions. Perhaps indeed, naturalism would be a better name for it.

>>Why don't you accept the Bible as literal truth? <<
As Dan put it, “no one accepts the Bible as literal truth”. Only certain parts are or are not accepted as “literal truth” by different people, or “teachings”.

The Bible is about a message (kerygma in case of the NT, as I understand Christian theologian call it) written to be understood directly (perhaps indeed literally) by contemporaries of the authors, and interpreted to be understood by those living in more advanced times and cultures, while preserving the gist of the message. This “while” is a problem I am far from being an expert or even authority on.

“if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings and abandon those claims” (Dalai Lama, The Universe in a Single Atom, Morgan Road Books 2005, p.3).

I think that one difference between the Oriental and Western approach would be that If you replace Buddhism with Christianity (and probably also Judaism) in this quote, then the last part would say “accept the findings and REINTERPRET those claims”.

Sorry for this indirect answer to your question but I could not fit in less than 350 words an apology of my parallel acceptance and understanding of the two Books Galileo refered to.

>>Your answer may enlighten your co-believers who do accept it as literal truth.<<
Maybe, or maybe not. Like my answer to a question in algebraic topology will hardly enlighten people who need mathematics just to get along in their everyday lives.

AJ Philips,

I only objected to the “therefore” in the statement I disavowed. Now you have reformulated your question in personal terms, so of course, I knew the names Jesus and Yahweh before Sagan etc, and it was my Christian (and not other) faith that was - and still is - “seeking understanding” (Anselm).

I tried to sketch my attitude towards Bible in my posts to Dan and david f, and I cannot elaborate on this any more. If I could not persuade Dan, who is a Christian, that God wants us to think, you can hardly expect me to say anything that will make sense to you who do not accept the Christian outlook.

You suddenly turn the “ad hominem” approach from me to yourself. One thing is to try to analyse a world-view situation - though one can never completely ignore ones own world-view disposition or orientation - another things is to look for reasons WHY somebody is knowingly a “believer” or “unbeliever”, especially if that somebody is the interrogator himself.

>>Do you think the “religious education” … that you received from your parents played any role in this? <<
Of course it did: one acquires a sense for religion from one’s parents (unless one is an adult convert), that is the “bottom-up” approach to one’s faith. Later, if one is thus inclined, one seeks also a “top down” understanding of the belief system underlying one’s faith by trying to position it among other world-views, belief systems. Some loose their faith in the process, some reinforce it. For me it was the second case.

I do not remember calling “theological hair-splitting” a syllogism that goes from premise to conclusion. Neither did I claim that religious belief or unbelief are reason-based, only that they don’t go against reason. They may go against “common sense” but even recent developments in physics have shown that there are features of our Universe that seem to go against common sense. There are many things in our lives that are not reason-based, but can enrich our experience of being human.