...Continued

<<...some atheists are, and will remain, naive in their rejection of religion.>>

I’d ask you to justify this claim by enlightening us as to why our rejection is “naive”, but I think we both know that you can’t, and that this is just a more “sophisticated” version of the “You just don’t understand” argument, used in order to save face.

There’s one simple reason why your claims about a required sophistication don’t hold, and that is that an all-powerful, perfect being wouldn’t require sophistication or intellect to know or understand.

Why?

Because that would mean that he had failed on the most basic test of communication, and there’s nothing perfect or all-powerful about that.

It’s that simple.

Hi George

Continued from yesterday:

The reducibility of the tens of thousands of religions to historical and anthropological explanations is a Biggy for those whom indwell in scripture. Here, religion can learn from the pragmaticism of science.
On the other hand, the creation of physical (including non-classical), life (before evolution) and consciousness are Biggies for science. Here, the religion-like template of other realms can extend science beyond the classical.

Empirical investigation would have scripture in retreat; but, science is making forward steps. I suggest, the theist and atheist should not
ask: Does god exist?

Rather:

- Does existence require God?

It is perhaps only in the past eighty years, do we have the instrumentation to attempt the new question. Earlier technologies could not tackle the question, so this not a criticism of our ancestors. I guess Dan might disagree, yet I think the debate must move from religion to the generation of existence, wherein, God is a contender. One contender, that is.

From today:

I agree with you that Lakatos is addressing the philosophy of science and not metaphysics/religion. I don’t believe he intended to address religion. As for OLO, I was modifying his ideas, while recognising his inspiration. Squeers’ link to Freud’s last lecture provided interesting comment.

More later

to/re-quote..david..<<and said,..'Verily I say to you,..if ye may not be turned/and..become..as the children,..ye may not enter/into the reign/of the heavens;>>some may/use converted..but the intent/meaning
is

that/those..who are converted/to hisway..must be “child-like”.

There is a/vast difference..from being..“childish”..and being..“childlike”.

With these thoughts/in mind,..let us look/at three qualities/of children:

1)One of the most outstanding-qualities/of a young-child..is his humble spirit.

Young children/have not yet learned/what pride is...Those who wish to live for eternity.in the presence/of..Almighty Good..must employ this same attitude/of humility.

As adults,/we often trust..in our own/abilities..all too much,refusing..(because of stubborn-pride)..the help of those/who truly can help us.

This is all too/often..the case/when it comes to salvation...We must turn to the One,..and only One,..who can save us–...God.

We must never/think..that we are..“above”..that which God would have us do./Without humility,..we will never/access..the grace of others/without giving grace

2)..A young-child/trusts..with all his heart..that his parents will be there/for him..in his time of need...A child/trusts..that his father..will/be there..for him..A child trusts/that his mother..will be there/for him

Those who/would..enter into/that heaven must,..too,..manifest a simple,..loving-trust/..in the One who loves us

When God makes a promise,/we should trust Him..to see it through.

3)..Have you ever seen/two children engaged in a tussle,..shouting to each-other/that they hate one another,..only to see/them..five minutes later..playing together/as best friends,..as if nothing-ever happened.

Children/are so quick..to forgive one another,..while at the same time/they are very quick..to forget.

Those who desire/to live with God..for eternity..must manifest a similar attitude/of forgiveness.TO ALL OTHERS...to forgive/and thus be forgiven

The child/of God..must be willing to forgive/those who repent of their wrongdoing/if they wish to be forgiven/of their own/sins

we are all equally under/grace

In closing,/do we manifest..the same forgiving/attitude..toward others/that God manifests..toward us..?

god sustains..EVEN the MOST vile..their life
he dosnt judge ANYONE..it is we who chose to hold grudges

it is true..we must become as children
if we ever want/to see peace...in our own time

D S de M

I would never claim to be a theologian, however I do have a basic understanding of the OT and the NT as well as some study into other religions. Enough of an understanding to determine the difference between myth and fact. And probably a greater level of knowledge than many who describe themselves as Christians.

So when you make statement like:

>>> When you say evolution is a proven theory, you must be saying something specific. When and where was it proven? Do you have a date and place?

Or you say that evolution is ‘considered proven’. Perhaps by you but not by me. <<<

I can only conclude that you are deliberately yanking my chain or, as Rusty Catheter pointed out:

>>> If you do not accept the historical fact of biological evolution then you are a twit.

If you do not regard Darwinian natural selection as the fundamntal best and demonstrated theory explaining said evolution, you are very malignantly uninformed. <<<

You have been around OLO for many years now. And many, many people have explained rudimentary evolution to you. That you are still reiterating the same ignorant arguments, means that you either have no intention of treating others with respect (as in the title of this topic) or you are indeed well below average intelligence. Given the standard of your writing and grammar indicates the former.

As an example of how evolution continues to work and science continues to achieve more understanding of humans and other animals you may wish to read the following:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/08/05/2973348.htm

I won't hold my breath for any indication that you wish to be better informed than you have been since beginning to post on OLO.

That your brethren appear equally disinterested in enlightening you to the natural world speaks volumes about them also - yes, George I do mean you. How can you stand by and watch a fellow Christian make such an idiot of himself, leaves me speechless.

Hi George,

Some "a priori fixations" I would suggest Sells accommodates are Jesus is God (Zeus is not), there is a single trinity known to religion and the Nicaean decrees best represent Jesus. Jump back to Jesus' and we could very well other interpretations, within theism, without having to become an atheist. The Islamic notion of many prophets to all religions comes close to a more all-encompassing divinity. And we still have not become atheists. Fixation can occur "within" the religions, and, with a sect/denomination with a religion.

With science certainly intuition can precede experiement, and, physicists sometimes need the help of professional mathematicians. Here, the goal is provide an archetecture, an explanation of phenomena. Science does that well. Alertnatively, one might "feel" God's presence, as a conscious manifestation, akin to intuition; yet, what one might say about god's existence is limited to philosophy and metaphysics. With so many gods, perhaps we should put the scriptures aside. Even then, what could/should manifest, doesn't. Hence, my question:

- Do we need god to explain existence?

If the answer is no, after physical examination. We can ask is God an idea or a reality (in the common use of the word)? Does the elephant (a bounded universe) need to stand on a proverbial turtle (god). If yes, our psyche appears to transending physically with a physical instrument (the brain). It might take a neurologist to explain how a methematician undersatnds mathematics, yet how can physical neurons know the metaphysical?

I agree that a more from the God of the Gaps could include all contemporary science, yet super-add one last ingredient, God. The skeptic put the gentle retort, why? If it can be shown the cake can make itself, why look for a cook?

.

Dear Squeers,

.

That is quite a remarkable text. If Freud could re-read it today, there is not much he would find to change in the light of the additional 78 years experience he would have gained.

A modern text whose pertinence just goes to show how little progress we have made on the subject of what Freud considered to be a valid "philosophy of life", 78 years ago.

Would we be justified in deducing that our present "philosophy of life" will similarly remain largely valid in 78 years time ?

.