Normally I leave theologians alone when they squabble among themselves, but I can't let this go through to the keeper: "This runs counter to the contemporary understanding of the mind, courtesy of John Locke, that the mind is a clean slate."

John Locke died in 1704, Peter. You really need to catch up on your reading. Unlike theology, psychology doesn't acquire added authority with age. Original Sin -- no, thanks. But 'clean slate'? No, not that either.

And you're the one who says: "The book is strangely out of time."

Jon J, citing Locke is perfectly reasonable when discussing the "tabula rasa" model of the human psyche, just as it is perfectly reasonable to cite Newton (one of Locke's contemporaries) when discussing the mechanics of large bodies.

Just like physics, moral psychology and the theory of mind that allows us to consider morality as a "thing" is operating on the same raw materials as it did in the days of Locke and Newton. Some of the tools available have most definitely changed, which was the main point of Peter's piece, it seems to me, and as a result we can peer more closely, but what we're peering at is exactly the same.

Locke was trying to understand what made us into moral beings and how we might define the moral. This is precisely the same thing that motivated the great religious thinkers, and it somehow separates them from the prophets, who in their experience of something "ultrahuman" felt themselves able to "know" without always understanding or being able to explain. As a result, a lot of morality has always been handed down through authoritarian enforcement rather than authoritative explanation. Locke and his contemporaries were the ones who really started the work to change that.

The "blank slate" was a necessary assumption to start the work of approaching a proper theory of mind and that work continues today, with enormous vigour.

The problem I have with most of this is that some of the most moral people I know are also atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus or spiritualists.

Nor is it helpful when prisoners of belief try to impose their all too often entirely mistaken or erroneous belief systems on all others!?

Or use their considerable mental facilities to claim when a very plain speaking individual said this, he actually meant that; and at 180 with what he allegedly enunciated?

And what are we really talking about here, what Jesus taught or what he is purported to have taught!?

And what of an entirely Godless Constantine's involvement/control of the first council of Nicosia and its outcomes/stated objectives?

Or that of his allegedly, very influential wife?

And then, all that subsequently flows from that!

Including warrior popes at the head of conquering armies that spread their belief system via the sword and fear!

Surely both the very instruments Satan would prefer?

And if some of us chose to disbelieve that patently satanic spread by the sword message? What then?

And should the prisoners of this warrior code/belief, be entitled to declare all non believers as infidels?

When Jesus walked on this earth, there were no huge and costly castles/palaces that were built as edifices to glorify God, Idolatry?

And such wealth as he was able to acquire was redistributed to those who needed it most, not stored in vast underground vaults or bank accounts/investment portfolios!

When Peter and his ilk decide to follow that plain and unambiguous example, maybe their voluminous utterances will have more influence on those of us, who think most of today's religious teachings and consequent control outcomes, is mostly bunkum/odious obfuscation/mere politics!?

I mean and seriously, I just don't care what you think he or anyone thought; or did or didn't mean!

Speaking just for myself, I'd prefer to be taken at face value, than be verbalized entirely out of context, by clever Clergy? And if the shoe fits!?
Rhrosty.

I listened to the Spirit Of Things interview with David. It was all so twinkie, and as such had nothing to do with Real Spiritual Life.
Most, if not all that David said fits entirely within the realms described in this essay:
http://www.adidam.org/teaching/gnosticon/religion-scientism

Further more Real Spiritual Life only begins when one is stably established in the 4th stage of life, as described here:
http://www.aboutadidam.org/growth/seven_stages.html

These two references provide an esoteric Spiritual Understanding of the life & Teaching of Saint Jesus of Galilee
http://www.aboutadidam.org/articles/secret_identity/beyond_hidden.html
http://www.aboutadidam.org/articles/secret_identity/beyond_hidden2.html

This essay provides a profound critique of the Scapegoat "game" at the root of conventional cultic religiosity.
http://www.dharmacafe.com/spiritual-heroes/The-Worlds-Greatest-Unpublished-Spiritual-Book

.

Dear Peter,

.

You write :

« Belief cannot be equated with faith. »

There does not appear to be any significant distinction among belief, confidence or faith. However, there is quite a significant distinction between faith and blind faith :

"Faith" is belief where there is no material evidence, only circumstantial evidence or a credible eye witness (or both).

"Blind faith" is belief where there is no material evidence, no circumstantial evidence and no credible eye witness.

It seems that belief or faith in God, the extra-natural, the supernatural, the ultra-natural or the hyper-natural falls under the latter category.
.

« Indeed, relying on evidence for belief does not put us in the way of the Spirit. »

What spirit ? Is there such an entity as “the spirit” ? If so, how do we know that it exists ?
.

You concur :

« Tacey is also correct, in my opinion, in his refusal to countenance the existence of the supernatural. His statement: "The spiritual is ultra-natural, not supernatural." rings true. Thus he concludes that descriptions of biblical miracles are means of conveying the ultra-natural. »

Would you be so kind as to explain why you consider that Tacey’s statement “rings true” ? What distinction does he make between the “ultra-natural” and the “supernatural” ?

Neither the Oxford English Dictionary nor the Online Etymology Dictionary make any significant difference among the expressions extra-natural, supernatural, ultra-natural and hyper-natural.
All these expressions appear to have the same meaning.

“Extra” is from Latin extra: outside, beyond, changed from extera, from exterus outward

“Super” is from Latin super: ‘above, beyond’

“Ultra” is from Latin ultra: ‘beyond’

“Hyper” is from Greek huper: ‘over, beyond’.
.

Tacey :

« Once the imagination is functioning, we don't need the miracles to be literally true, because as soon as we perceive their meaning they have performed their function. »

True. Imagination can work miracles. We are capable of imagining that absolutely anything is true. Nothing is impossible – even if it is pure and utter nonsense !

Is imagination the basis of “faith” ?

.

Rhosty.
One day you may wish to enlighten me through these pages, the reasons for your obsessive hatred of all things spiritual. That would be preferable to your anti Christian rants!

Daffy Duck .
True. For there seems to me very little actual proof in an historical sense, that there was actually an identy in history called Jesus of Nazareth .
But the thread of Christianity runs very deeply through history...that is a fact!

.

Dear Peter,

.

You wrote :

« I will engage with you if you engage with me! » :

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17351#306885
.

You added in your latest article, “Supplanting the supernatural with the ultra-natural” (end of first paragraph) :

« Belief cannot be equated with faith. » :

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=17412&page=0
.

Please let me assure you that not only do I believe in you, Peter, but I also have confidence and faith and … I am very patient !

You will find my “engagement” on page 1 of this thread.

Now I am waiting quietly for you to engage with me, whenever you like, at your leisure. I know you are very busy. Please take your time …
.

I am quite happy listening to the gentle music while I wait for you, dear Peter …

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGj39oddhNE

.

Language is such a trial, isn't it.

"His [David Tacey's] statement: "The spiritual is ultra-natural, not supernatural." rings true. Thus he concludes that descriptions of biblical miracles are means of conveying the ultra-natural."

Researching "ultra-natural" is instructive, as the term appears to have been trademarked by the Red Bull company to promote a competition where people ski down mountains.

http://www.redbullsignatureseries.com/ultra-natural

Who knew.

"Ultra-natural" is also applied to a number of different products - I rather like this one.

http://www.needs.com/product/LifeExtension_Ultra_Natural_Prostate_w_ApresFlex_and_Lignans_60/vsrgb_LifeExtension

But no indication of any religious context, that I could find.

So the question remains, what interpretation should we apply to Mr Sellick's use of the term? Sadly, the article itself provides no clue. Without such elucidation, the entire article is rendered meaningless.

So please Mr Sellick, what exactly - or even vaguely - are the attributes that differentiate supernatural and ultranatural, that might give some meaning to this piece?

Given the shifting sands upon which our language operates, perhaps this will help:

"Such distinctions are, therefore, culturally constructed and, as such, are in no way universal. Phenomena that we would classify as supernatural, or paranormal, are not necessarily conceived of in the same way in other cultural, and sub-cultural, systems. Indeed, the founding sociologist Émile Durkheim highlighted precisely this issue when he noted that the modern notion of the supernatural is a recent one in the history of human thought, coinciding with the rise of enlightenment science in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries."

http://realitysandwich.com/162119/supernatural_natural_anthropology_paranormal/

Surely, there are better ways to convey the take-away from this article, which appeared to me to be simply:

"...insistence on the historical accuracy of biblical texts is a barrier to faith".

A sentiment that makes much sense to me, even from my perspective as an atheist. However, I would appreciate some more cogent supporting arguments, such that I could employ with, say, the young-earth creationists who pop up here every so often.

Dear Pericles,

I obviously cannot speak for Peter, but as to why "...insistence on the historical accuracy of biblical texts is a barrier to faith", I can contribute my own 2 cents:

The literal text of the bible if read as an historical account, depicts God as scary, so one who believes in the accuracy of biblical texts is likely to conclude: "Since this is all true, sigh, I guess I have to worship God or else I'm in big trouble".

One ought to worship God out of love, not out of fear and being scared of God doesn't help anyone to love Him.
Who needs this kind of devotees anyway?

Belief is superficial, an intellect-deep dry idea that something is such, whereas faith is a whole state of being where trust and acceptance are infused throughout all mind and body as well: even the posture of someone who has faith is different, and the shine in their eyes - the faithful has no fear!

Why, thank you indeed for the contribution, Yuyutsu.

>>I obviously cannot speak for Peter, but as to why "...insistence on the historical accuracy of biblical texts is a barrier to faith", I can contribute my own 2 cents<<

But while your observation may very well be accurate, you also point out that:

>>...one who believes in the accuracy of biblical texts is likely to conclude: "Since this is all true, sigh, I guess I have to worship God or else I'm in big trouble"<<

With the best will in the world, that isn't a response to my request for information, is it:

"I would appreciate some more cogent supporting arguments, such that I could employ with, say, the young-earth creationists who pop up here every so often."

I hardly think this is an argument that would impress a young-earth creationist, would it? As you yourself point out:

>>...faith is a whole state of being where trust and acceptance are infused throughout all mind and body as well<<

Hardly the state of mind that would respond to a threat of "big trouble", eh?

Dear Pericles,

<<Hardly the state of mind that would respond to a threat of "big trouble", eh?>>

Well, you assume that those "young-earth creationists" are indeed faithful.

If they are, then they probably wouldn't be interested in arguing with anyone anyway, no matter what argument(s) you bring, because they are content, too busy in their worship and do not require reassurances.

But if they are not faithful, only believers, then they are not in that state of mind and may listen to a good argument, one that can direct them to more spiritual wealth.

Banjo,
I think you miss the point; Peter is not asking you or anyone to "engage" on the basis that you are willing to agree with him if he can meet certain "proof" criteria that you stipulate. He is hoping to find people who are willing to accept his stipulations as axioms in his arguments, whether they agree or otherwise and to try to look at the implications. Having had some interesting discussions with Peter on matters philosophic, I know that he is untroubled by a lack of personal religiosity in his interlocutors. He is not a "religious nut" like runner et al, but a thoughtful man who hopes to be able to talk with other thoughtful people and is rarely satisfied in that ambition because most people just want an argument (with apologies to John Cleese).

I think that's an entirely reasonable. I share his ambitions in that regard and I share his dislike of having to fight off people who think that "knowing" is equivalent to "understanding".

With respect, Banjo, you provide an excellent example in your first response. After Peter goes to some trouble in the article to point out that he discerns a difference between "faith" and "belief", you go to some trouble to tell him that he must be wrong, citing your researches in the dictionary (although since you don't cite your references, you rely on his "faith" in your veracity to do so). You go further and insult him by implying he has "blind faith", which my dictionary tells me is a pejorative expression implying the one impugned has not actually thought about the matter.

Religion and science are not mutually exclusive, they are two sides of the same coin; strivings to understand the nature of the world of man and its workings.

Here are some interesting videos of Richard Feynmann discussing that difference between knowing and understanding. The first is especially relevant, but I urge everyone to watch the others, since spending time with Feynmann is never wasteful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkbuJNpxmqs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM-zWTU7X-k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkbuJNpxmqs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMDTcMD6pOw&index=4&list=PL5o8CJmKGI4VLp7bqTpuG8y-s-m_DCE_g

Dear Craig,

.

You wrote :

« Peter is not asking you or anyone to "engage" on the basis that you are willing to agree with him … »

That’s correct. He was just making a commitment to enter into a dialogue with anybody who sought one with him regarding his articles.
.

« After Peter goes to some trouble … to point out that he discerns a difference between "faith" and "belief", you … tell him that he must be wrong, citing your researches in the dictionary (… you don't cite your references …). »

When Peter wrote :

« Belief cannot be equated with faith. »

he did not cite any references. I presume he was expressing his personal view. I, in turn, observed :

[ "Faith" is belief where there is no material evidence, only circumstantial evidence or a credible eye witness (or both).

"Blind faith" is belief where there is no material evidence, no circumstantial evidence and no credible eye witness. ]

Like Peter, I too was expressing my own personal view – not some “researches in the dictionary” as you suggest. I have reflected on this question for many long years. I posted it, for example, on OLO on 15.11.2012, as well as on a few other occasions :

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14358#248255

According to Professor of Mathematics and philosopher of science at the University of Oxford, John Lennox: “We all know how to distinguish between blind faith and evidence-based faith. We are well aware that faith is only justified if there is evidence to back it up. Evidence-based faith is the normal concept on which we base our everyday lives.”

For C.S. Lewis, “faith is merely the virtue by which we hold to our reasoned ideas, despite moods to the contrary.”
.

You … insult him by implying he has "blind faith"

No. It’s a realistic assessment of the facts. Nothing personal about it. It’s generally true of theists, whatever their religion. “Blind faith” is an intimate conviction not based on evidence. It is a dogma held mainly of Christianity and Islam :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith

.

Hi Banjo,
Peter has made it clear what he meant by "engage". It is not what you wish to interpret it as.

"Faith" implies trust and trust implies good will based on sound evidence for the existence of that good will. "Belief" implies nothing.

You have made it clear that you think Peter has nothing meaningful to offer you other than perhaps an entertaining sense of your own intellectual superiority at being free of such nonsense as religious "faith", therefore, there can be no trust because there is no good will and hence, there is no point to Peter engaging.

Your comment vis a vis blind faith is I think generally untrue of theists, at least those I have known. Most have been deeply troubled by the idea of a deity and have given a great deal of thought to it. Don't be mislead by the pieticisms of self-serving hypocrites like runner and co.

You see, it's all very easy to poke fun at religion. All you have to do is say "show me the evidence" and "poof" it all disappears in a wondrous puff of logic. Except that it doesn't. Science doesn't have any better a handle on the genuine mysteries of this world than religion does. Even more importantly, for most people "blind faith" is what they have to rely on in their "knowing" about science.

Can you explain to me the "proof" of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle? What about Einstein's General Relativity and the geometry that Minkowski developed from Riemann's work which Einstein used?

Can you prove any of the competing theories of quantum mechanics?

Can you interpret a stream of data from a radio telescope and explain it to me?

Can you explain how the mind works?

If the world was to collapse into chaos tomorrow and the knowledge that is embodied in these things were lost, would these ideas also lose any reality they might embody, for lack of being able to be "proven"?

"Knowing" is not understanding.

.

Dear Craig,

.

You wrote :

« Peter has made it clear what he meant by "engage". It is not what you wish to interpret it as »

I must have missed that, Craig. I just re-read Peter’s post and I didn’t see anything where he defined what he meant by “engage”. He indicated the sort of comments he did not think “it worthwhile trying to answer”, i.e., what he calls “knee jerk reactions” or “comments that are simply prejudice and betray no or a shallow reading of (his) ideas” – but nothing about what he meant by “engage”.

He simply wrote :

« I will engage with you if you engage with me ! »

I can’t see how I could possibly have “misinterpreted” that. According to the OED “engage” means :

« Involve someone in (a conversation or discussion). Participate or become involved in. Establish a meaningful contact or connection with. »

That is precisely what I understood but you seem to think he meant something else. Perhaps you are suggesting that he did not mean what he wrote.
.

You also wrote :

« "Faith" implies trust and trust implies good will based on sound evidence for the existence of that good will. "Belief" implies nothing. »

I presume you are expressing your personal view on that, Craig. However, I am a bit surprised that you consider that “faith” implies trust but “belief implies nothing”. I have difficulty imagining that you would necessarily believe someone you did not trust. Personally, I should be a bit wary of somebody I didn’t trust. For me, “faith” and “belief” both imply trust and confidence.

IMHO, belief and faith are largely interchangeable but there is a subtle difference which can, perhaps, best be apprehended by comparing "faithful" to" believable".

Faithful means loyal or reliable (with particular relevance to all living species as well as so-called supernatural entities).

Believable means most likely, given the circumstances (with particular relevance to hypotheses).

.

.

(Continued ...)

.

You then wrote :

« You see, it's all very easy to poke fun at religion. All you have to do is say "show me the evidence" and "poof" it all disappears in a wondrous puff of logic. Except that it doesn't. Science doesn't have any better a handle on the genuine mysteries of this world than religion does. »

I was not aware that I was “poking fun at religion”. It was certainly not my intention. My definitions of “faith” and “blind faith” are not specific to religion. They apply to anything, whatever the subject, including science. You will note that “religion” is not mentioned anywhere in the definition.

I am inclined to agree with you that “science doesn't have any better a handle on the genuine mysteries of this world than religion does”, though I can speak neither for science nor for religion.

However, I note that the relationship between science and religion was highly conflictual for nearly 2 000 years before the latter finally took the wise decision to no longer oppose its dogma to the revelations of the former, but to content itself to providing an explanation of the vast unknown.
.

You conclude :

« "Knowing" is not understanding. »

Quite right, Craig. “Believing” is not understanding either. But, personally, the more I “know”, the better I understand.

Experience has taught me to keep my beliefs to a strict minimum. They tend to cloud my vision. And, quite frankly, to the maximum of my feeble capability, I prefer to see clear.

.

Banjo,
sophistry is a fun game, but it is not indicative of good will.

I grew out of playing that game a long time ago. Making the effort to come to a genuine meeting of minds is much more rewarding.

On the subject of science vs religion, the conflict has only been a real one since the Enlightenment. Prior to that there was no such thing as "science", just a quest for knowledge, which embraced all forms of understanding. "Science" is derived from the Latin "scientia", which means "knowledge".

Post-Enlightenment it was made a real one by a Catholic Church that was scared stiff of any challenge to its (secular) authority, and so it created a division where none exists. The current Pope is fast taking steps to redress that, after the work of Teilhard de Chardin.

My personal bugbear is the "scientism" of people who "know" that scientific "fact" is real, but have no idea why or what that means and will happily admit to it being "too hard" for them to understand, yet will deride those who claim to be able to grasp some understanding from religious knowledge or experience.

Dawkins and a few others have a lot to answer for. They are not the semi-literate priest class of the pre-Enlightenment, or the political priesthood of the Vatican, they are supposed to be scientists.

.

Dear Craig,

.

You wrote :

« sophistry is a fun game, but it is not indicative of good will.

I grew out of playing that game a long time ago. Making the effort to come to a genuine meeting of minds is much more rewarding. »

That’s a very sweeping statement, Craig. I presume you are referring to something I wrote. Perhaps you could be a little more specific in order to allow me to identify exactly what it is you consider to be fallacious in my reasoning.

I do not pretend to be able to “meet” anybody’s mind. But I do my utmost to get the facts right and to express my opinions as openly, precisely and honestly as possible. I have no hidden agenda.

I am not here to cheat, nor to attempt to manipulate anybody, if that is what you are inferring. I am here to exchange ideas, to learn from others, and to refine, revise and, possibly modify my own. I have no axe to grind and do not seek to proselytise my ideas. What other people do with them is their business.
.

You observed :

« On the subject of science vs religion, the conflict has only been a real one since the Enlightenment. Prior to that there was no such thing as "science", just a quest for knowledge, which embraced all forms of understanding. »

Quite so, Craig. Thales (624-546 BC) and Democritus (460-370 BC), each accredited by some to be “the father of modern science”, were known, not as scientists, but as ancient Greek “philosophers”. As you rightly point out, theirs was more broadly a “quest for knowledge”.

But, of course, in those days, knowledge was very much considered a “forbidden fruit”. Not just the later scientists, but even the philosophers, before them, were persecuted by religion. The list is particularly long :

http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/gbh_philosophers.htm

.

Banjo,
I'm not going to bother arguing with you. It's an entirely pointless pursuit. If you don't want to engage with Peter on Peter's terms, that's up to you.

The persecutions you mention were not as a result of "Christianity", but were the result of insecure secular power-mongers doing their best to preserve their own status. Since the state of the art in knowledge production was not particularly advanced, it was easy to justify a stance in which "my knowledge is as good as yours, and I'm in charge, so you can shut up".

This was also a period in history in which "might makes right" was the dominant paradigm and the "divine right of Kings" was derived from the King's force of arms and willingness to be brutal.

The fact that Christianity was the dominant religion in Europe at the time is not causal of the brutality, it probably helped to ameliorate it at least a little. As Hobbes put it, life for most people was "nasty, brutish and short".

The same thing applied in every other part of the world, except, for a few hundred years, under the Islamic Caliphate during the Abbasid period.

The time of the Enlightenment was also a time in which the secular power structures were under threat thanks to new technologies of warfare and of trade. The great universities had been in existence for some time and there was a sense that knowledge could be regularised and mastered, rather than merely being known. The Christian church was also greatly influenced and it was unfortunate that the fear of Protestantism and of losing secular control was to lead to a period of conservativism and rigid enforcement of church doctrine.

We live in a very unusual period in history and in trying to understand others, it is important to recognise that we have perceptual and cognitive biases as a result of that.

.

Dear Craig,

.

You wrote :

« If you don't want to engage with Peter on Peter's terms, that's up to you. »

“Peter’s terms”, as he expressed them himself are as follows :

« I am very happy to contribute to the comments on my posting if there is some degree of overlap in understanding. I do not think it worthwhile trying to answer comments that are simply knee jerk reactions to the fact that I am a Christian. Too many comments are simply prejudice and betray no or a shallow reading of my ideas. You can imagine what it is like to labor away at these pieces and get superficial and abusive comments that show no engagement with the topic at all. I will engage with you if you engage with me! » :

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17351#306885

I have no problem “engaging with Peter on Peter’s terms” as I indicated to him :

« Yes, Peter, I can “imagine what it is like”. As you may know, I have written a few pieces myself that have been published on OLO. I sympathise with you.

I also “labour away” on my comments to other people’s articles such as yours. I do not practise “knee jerking”. If I go to the trouble of commenting on something it is because (rightly or wrongly) I feel that I have something to contribute. I am sure I am not alone in that. »

I do not know why you persist in thinking that I “don’t want to engage with Peter on Peter’s terms”. I am quite happy to do so, Craig.

As everyone here can see, I have since attempted to “engage” with Peter but am still waiting for his reply :

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17412#307639
.

You also wrote :

« The persecutions you mention were not as a result of "Christianity", but were the result of insecure secular power-mongers doing their best to preserve their own status. »

That is a very personal interpretation of the historical facts, Craig. The “insecure secular power-mongers” were Christian leaders. Church and State acted in symbiosis :

http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/gca_symbiosis.htm

.

.

And indeed there will be time
For the yellow smoke that slides along the street,
Rubbing its back upon the window panes;
There will be time, there will be time
To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet;
There will be time to murder and create,
And time for all the works and days of hands
That lift and drop a question on your plate;
Time for you and time for me,
And time yet for a hundred indecisions,
And for a hundred visions and revisions,
Before the taking of a toast and tea.

In the room the women come and go
Talking of Michelangelo.

And indeed there will be time
To wonder, “Do I dare?” and, “Do I dare?”
Time to turn back and descend the stair,
With a bald spot in the middle of my hair—
(They will say: “How his hair is growing thin!”)
My morning coat, my collar mounting firmly to the chin,
My necktie rich and modest, but asserted by a simple pin—
(They will say: “But how his arms and legs are thin!”)
Do I dare
Disturb the universe?
In a minute there is time
For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse.
…

I should have been a pair of ragged claws
Scuttling across the floors of silent seas.
…


And would it have been worth it, after all,
After the cups, the marmalade, the tea,
Among the porcelain, among some talk of you and me,
Would it have been worth while,
To have bitten off the matter with a smile,
To have squeezed the universe into a ball
To roll it toward some overwhelming question,
To say: “I am Lazarus, come from the dead,
Come back to tell you all, I shall tell you all”—
If one, settling a pillow by her head,
Should say: “That is not what I meant at all;
That is not it, at all.”



[ Excerpt from “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock” by T.S. Eliot]

.

Banjo,
Bye mate.

.

“There's no lack of void.”

“Nothing happens. Nobody comes, nobody goes. It's awful.”

“Let's go." "We can't." "Why not?" "We're waiting for Godot.”

“ESTRAGON: Don't touch me! Don't question me! Don't speak to me! Stay with me!
VLADIMIR: Did I ever leave you?
ESTRAGON: You let me go.”

“POZZO:
I am blind.
(Silence.)
ESTRAGON:
Perhaps he can see into the future.”

“To every man his little cross. Till he dies. And is forgotten.”

“The tears of the world are a constant quantity. For each one who begins to weep somewhere else another stops. The same is true of the laugh. Let us not then speak ill of our generation, it is not any unhappier than its predecessors.”

“Let us do something, while we have the chance! It is not every day that we are needed. Not indeed that we personally are needed. Others would meet the case equally well, if not better. To all mankind they were addressed, those cries for help still ringing in our ears! But at this place, at this moment of time, all mankind is us, whether we like it or not. Let us make the most of it, before it is too late! Let us represent worthily for one the foul brood to which a cruel fate consigned us! What do you say? It is true that when with folded arms we weigh the pros and cons we are no less a credit to our species. The tiger bounds to the help of his congeners without the least reflexion, or else he slinks away into the depths of the thickets. But that is not the question. What are we doing here, that is the question. And we are blessed in this, that we happen to know the answer. Yes, in the immense confusion one thing alone is clear. We are waiting for Godot to come -- ”

.

(Samuel Beckett, “Waiting for Godot”)

.

All alone am I :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJHvYU_y6xQ

My happiness :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3lj8i6sFZE

Who’s sorry now ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ws60MDF7OY

.

Banjo, have you thought of a career as a disc jockey?

I was never a big fan of Beckett though, altogether too fatalistically miserabilist for my taste. When it comes to existentialism I'm much more strongly drawn to the muscular variety of Sartre in his full power.

To take charge of the perennially personal project of making the most of what you are is to be fully human.

.

Dear Craig,

.

Welcome back. That was a quick goodbye and hello. Just a stage exit I guess. Never mind, it’s great to have you back.

The post you refer to, which I wrote during your brief absence, was intended for Peter.

I imagined him backstage, peeping through the red velvet curtains. As I was alone on stage and there was no one in the audience whom I could see, I imagined a scenario à la Samuel Beckett. It was his “Waiting for Godot” that came to mind.

You’re right, it was a rather fatalistically miserabilist atmosphere but I figured I just had to bide my time and wait patiently until Peter was ready to emerge from behind the curtains.

His words kept running through my mind :

« I will engage with you if you engage with me ! »
.

You ask :

« Banjo, have you thought of a career as a disc jockey? »

I’m afraid I should not be much of a DJ. I doubt that anyone would want to dance to the sort of music that I am interested in. I know nothing of the hardware and software used by DJs in mixing and synchronizing sound recordings. Also, I understand that the introduction of the Pioneer SVM-1000 Audio and Video Mixer and other high-tech digital sound mixers have made a whole new culture of disco DJ integration.

The message I was trying to convey was that after your departure, I was all alone on this thread (“All alone am I”). And that “evening shadows make me blue, when each weary day is through. How I long to be with you, my happiness …), and to conclude: “Who’s sorry now? Who’s sorry now? Who’s heart is aching for breaking (his) vow …?”.

Apparently, it was a totally futile attempt at a metaphor but I couldn’t think of a better way to epitomize having to pass the time in a situation that offers no hope.

Thanks for kindly returning, Craig. Your company gives me courage and strength to carry on. I appreciate it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JByePXtnHU#t=169

.

.

Here is my favourite version of Joaquín Rodrigo’s “Concierto de Aranjuez” composed in early 1939 in Paris, interpreted by the Melbourne-born British guitarist, John Williams :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2Xdlgii-Rc

.

Thanks for that, Banjo, another beautiful piece and a perfect start to my last day this semester of wrestling with the beautiful intricacies of semiconductor theory.

.

Dear Craig,

.

I hope all goes well for you on this last day of your semester. I’m sure you have earned a good rest.

Here is another one of my favourites from the soundtrack of Peter Brook’s film “Mahabharata”, based on the ancient (5th century BC) Sanskrit text.

The Shvetashvatara Upanishad opens with metaphysical questions about the primal cause of all existence, its origin, its end, and the possible role of time, nature, necessity or chance as primal cause of the spirit.

It concludes that "the Universal Soul exists in every individual and expresses itself in every creature. That everything in the world is a projection of it, and that there is oneness, a unity of souls in the one and only Self". The text evokes the concept of a personal god (in Sanskrit: Ishvara) suggesting it to be a path to one's own highest self.

The text is embedded in Yajurveda, one of the four canonical texts of Hinduism, the Vedas. It is a foundational text of the philosophy of Shaivism (from the god, Shiva) as well as the Yoga and Vedanta (Hinduist philosophy in general) schools of Hinduism.

The 19th-century German Sanskritist, Theodore Goldstücker, saw similarities between the religious conceptions of the Vedanta and those of Spinoza :

« ... so exact a representation of the ideas of the Vedanta, that we might have suspected its founder to have borrowed the fundamental principles of his system from the Hindus, did his biography not satisfy us that he was wholly unacquainted with their doctrines [...] comparing the fundamental ideas of both we should have no difficulty in proving that, had Spinoza been a Hindu, his system would in all probability mark a last phase of the Vedanta philosophy.

Robert Ernest Hume (1877-1914), a scholar of Hindu religions, also interprets the Shvetashvatara Upanishad to be referring to a pantheistic God. »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VET84iPVcuE
.

In a much lighter vein, as it’s the summer solstice, it’s the day of the annual music festival here in France :

… at home :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqZKqaczcvE

... and in the streets :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pMVB1sE1JY

.

.

Estas Tonne is a modern day Troubadour, born in Ukraine. Reka Fodor is a Romanian actress, singer, dancer and percussionist.

Here is a brief biographical note on the guitarist :

http://www.sonicbids.com/band/estastonne/

… and an improvisation of the two artists that kicked off at the Russian Drama Theatre in Vilnius and continued a couple of days later at the VDU Great Hall in Kaunas (Lithuania’s second-largest city) in November 2014 :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUX8o7vK-Ac

.

Banjo, I'd love to take you up on the fascinating points in your first comment this morning, but I have a chemistry exam in 3 1/2 hours, then a break for 7 hours until my final exam for the semester, the previously mentioned semiconductors. If you don't mind I'll defer my comments until later, when I have more time.

In the meantime I'll enjoy listening to the lovely music while I study.

.

Dear Craig,

.

If you need a distraction from the stress of your exams, here is some pre-Christian music (Greek, Hebrew, Byzantine, Melkite and Gallican chant forms) :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGcvNcgltYs

… and some chant of the first Christians :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfth7akLvA0

… then, just for the pleasure, Isaac Stern and the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra with Prokofiev’s violin concerto N° 2 :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E-FQ9uFtC0

.

Thanks Banjo, the exam stress is now over for a little while.

I'm looking forward to listening to some of the pieces you've linked to through the day. I'm sad that I don't feel able to return the favour, since my own musical tastes, while eclectic, are in general probably not compatible with your own. Don't let that stop you continuing to share your own favourite pieces though!

.

« I will engage with you if you engage with me ! »

Posted by Sells, Thursday, 28 May 2015 12:34:51 PM

.

« Waiting for Godot ... but Godot never comes ! »

.

Banjo,
For what it's worth, I thought your question was valid and interesting. What is the difference between faith and belief? Is there a difference?

Peter says in his article that he sees some significant difference, but doesn't go into much detail or elaborate on the thought. So maybe it's right that you ask. But I'm not sure about your insistence that Peter respond. What are you looking for from him? I don't see his obligation to respond if he's not inclined.

I suspect he means that there are certain aspects to 'faith' that are more substantial or life changing than some light belief or mere mental assent. But on the other hand, I see much of this as mere words and semantics. On a dictionary level there isn't much difference between the words faith and belief.

The real difference is when you see effectual faith being put into action. Much of the Bible has been given to us in narrative accounts of people in real situations. We see examples of how faith is put into practice and the dictionary word is then fleshed out with meaning. We can also see examples of faith lived out in the lives those currently around us.

But on the word level, faith and belief can often be interchangeable. For example, Hebrews 11.6 uses the two words in the one context:
"And it is impossible to please God without 'faith'. Anyone who wants to come to him must 'believe' that he exists and that he rewards those who sincerely seek him."

Here, the original writer conveyed his idea using the noun for faith - pistis, and the verb for believe - pisteuo. From my very limited knowledge of Greek, I can see that he's using two pretty similar words (both in their root begin with the same four letters - pist.)

.

Dear Dan,

.

You ask :

« I'm not sure about your insistence that Peter respond. What are you looking for from him? I don't see his obligation to respond if he's not inclined.»

You will find my explanation of the problem here :

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=52506

Peter finally replied this :

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17351#306885

Since then, I have written a couple of comments to his articles but, contrary to his declaration “I will engage with you if you engage with me !”, he has never done what he said he would do.
The only people with whom he has “engaged” a conversation on OLO since he made that commitment are George and Craig Minns, both of whom apparently share the same basic religious beliefs as him, even though they may not always be in agreement with him.

As I understand you do too, I don’t think you will have any problems getting the occasional reply either.

Of course, you are right in thinking the he has no obligation to respond if he is not inclined and I guess I should never have taken his declaration seriously. I must confess that it had not occurred to me that a practising deacon of the Anglican church would not respect his word.

That’s life I guess. You learn every day.

Thanks for your interest, Dan. I'm glad to see that we agree that faith and belief basically mean the same thing.

.

I don't share Peter's religious beliefs, Banjo, but I am sympathetic to the view that there are human drives and experiences that may lead to religious explanations. Personally, I am atheist.

I read Tacey’s “Re-Enchantment” as part of a study course some years ago, and was deeply unimpressed. I found his style vey off-putting – highly opinionated, built on unsubstantiated assertions, using overblown rhetoric and abusive misrepresentation of the many people and ideas he disapproves of, and with the creepy fascination with authority that sometimes infects theologians strongly influence by Jung.

Sounds like he hasn’t improved.

Banjo,
Off the top of my head, I don't remember Sells ever responding directly to one of my comments.

As for you saying that I share the same basic beliefs as Peter, I would like to clarify: Peter claims to believe in the traditional creeds, and so would I. The Apostles Creed, as a succinct summary of biblical teaching, includes the resurrection of Christ.

"The third day he rose again from the dead;"

Yet I've often wondered and am not sure if Peter believes Jesus rose from the dead. He mentions in this article the appearance of Jesus on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24 in the context of needing to be interpreted poetically or metaphorically.

I would be happy for Peter to explain himself further. However, if Peter doesn't actually believe in the miracle of Jesus rising from the dead, as seems quite central and integral to the creeds, then I would count this as a pretty significant difference between what we believe.

.

Dear Criag,

.

You wrote:

« I don't share Peter's religious beliefs, Banjo, but I am sympathetic to the view that there are human drives and experiences that may lead to religious explanations. Personally, I am atheist. »
.

Thank you for that precision, Craig. I appreciate it.

George tells me that I am Christian, because I was baptised.

Here is some more on that if you are interested :

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17195#306204

Having finally arrived at the conclusion that there is no god, I nevertheless reject the label of “atheist”. It makes no sense to me to define myself by reference to something that I consider does not exist.

I prefer the appellation “just a very ordinary person”.

I agree , as you remark, “that there are human drives and experiences that may lead to religious explanations.” I understand that it was this particular phenomenon that engendered the concept of god and the supernatural in the first place. It was primeval man’s explanation of the awesome beauty and dreaded hostility of nature he had to deal with in his environment. Through submission, worship and sacrifice, he sought to show his appreciation to the gods and appease their wrath.

Religion has always been a self-serving trade-off with the forces of the unknown in order to obtain some desired advantage (though the pious would never admit it). That was why it was invented and remains its essential “raison d’être”.

Perhaps I should add that one of my best friends, still today, gave me religious instruction lessons in primary school. He is now a retired bishop.

As you have resolved to leave OLO, I take this opportunity to wish you “bon vent” and offer the following as a friendly souvenir :

To quote Brahms : « Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini » :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOlc2PAiWUU

And by the man who popularised Rachmaninoff’s Concerto N°3, playing it for the last time, at the age of 75 in New York in 1978. Not the best version but a very moving performance – a sentimental occasion, at the end of a long career :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5mxU_7BTRA

.

.

Dear Dan,

.

Nice to see you back.

You wrote :

« I don't remember Sells ever responding directly to one of my comments »
.

Welcome to the club, Dan. I guess the list of people to whom he responds is even smaller than I thought. I really don’t know what the criteria is to be included among the happy few and be graced - on some rare occasion - by his enlightenment.
.

You also wrote :

« … if Peter doesn't actually believe in the miracle of Jesus rising from the dead, as seems quite central and integral to the creeds, then I would count this as a pretty significant difference between what we believe. »
.

Quite frankly, Dan, I don’t think anybody really knows what Peter believes. In his latest article, “On resisting mythological consciousness”, he refers to “entirely invented narratives such as the Annunciation” which poses the question of his belief in the “virgin birth” of Jesus.

You mention that “The Apostles' Creed, as a succinct summary of biblical teaching, includes the resurrection of Christ.”

Allow me to also point out that the opening paragraph of The Apostles Creed in the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England clearly states :

« I believe in God the Father Almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth:
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord,
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
Born of the Virgin Mary, »

Peter seems to have a problem, not only with the death of Christ, but with his birth too. Just where that leads him I really don’t know.

As he has never responded to any of your comments or mine in the past, I doubt that this will inspire him either, so I’m afraid we’ll never know, Dan.

Never mind, it’s been nice chatting with you.

.

.

Dear Dan,

.

Following our recent conversation, I just came up with what would seem to me to be an excellent “sobriquet” (nickname) for Peter :
« L’insaisissable Sellick » (the elusive Sellick).
.

I should explain that, having lived in France for many years, I now think in “Franglais” (a mixture of French and English). I am not always aware of what language an idea occurs to me first.

The nickname for Peter actually came to me in French, though I was ruminating our recent conversation in my mind in English.

“Insiasissable” means impossible to seize, grasp or understand. In other words, “elusive”.

It sounds better in French because the combination of the two words pronounced together rhymes nicely. It is onomatopoeic and has a poetic effect.

In English, “the unseizable Sellick” might be better.

Yes. I think I’ll go for that.

What do you think ?

.

Insiasissable > Insaisissable

Que pense-je? Je pense que celui qui s'approche de Dieu doit croire qu'il existe et qu'il récompense ceux qui le cherchent. Alors, pendant que la foi de Peter Sellick est difficile à comprendre, il y a aussi ceci que je trouve fascinant ou surprenant : Il y a ceux qui se proclament non-croyants (Banjo et Craig) qui souhaitent discuter avec des croyants. Pourquoi prendre la peine? Qu'est-ce qu'ils cherchent par cet engagement?

Ils reconnaissent le fait que «there are human drives and experiences that may lead to religious explanations,» à la fois en essayant de l'incorporer dans leur logique irréligieux. Ça me rappelle le grand-prêtre d'athéisme, Richard Dawkins, qui reconnaît «l'apparence du dessein» dans la nature pendant qu'il se consacre d'expliquer comment c'est seulement illusion - dessein sans dessinateur. Quelques fois on risque de manquer voir ce qui est évident.

.

Dear Dan,

.

You wrote :

« Je pense que celui qui s'approche de Dieu doit croire qu'il existe et qu'il récompense ceux qui le cherchent. » (I think that he who approaches God must believe he exists and that he recompenses those who seek him).
.

You reminds me of what I wrote to Craig just two posts above :

« Religion has always been a self-serving trade-off with the forces of the unknown in order to obtain some desired advantage (though the pious would never admit it). That was why it was invented and remains its essential “raison d’être”. »

You ask :

« …Il y a ceux qui se proclament non-croyants (Banjo et Craig) qui souhaitent discuter avec des croyants. Pourquoi prendre la peine? Qu'est-ce qu'ils cherchent par cet engagement? » (There are those who declare that they are non-believers (Banjo and Craig) who wish to discuss with believers. Why bother ? What are they looking for by doing this ? »
.

I am happy to discuss with anybody, whether he is a believer or not, including Craig, for example, who indicated that he is atheist. I have had numerous discussions with George who is a “believer” and whose opinions I appreciate.

Religious beliefs and biases are present everywhere in our daily lives. There is no escaping them whether we like it or not. We all have to deal with that. It’s better if we try to understand each other rather than simply ignore each other.

In Peter’s case, I should be more than happy to discuss his articles with him but, apparently, he does not wish to discuss them with me.

As regards «l'apparence du dessein» (the apparent design) in nature, as you suggest, it is evident. But to conclude that there must be a “designer” is not so evident.

I have seen an object fall off a tree hanging over the still water of a lake and “design” a series of perfect circles – but there was no “designer”. It was just the result of a series of random circumstances and events.

.

Banjo,
It is interesting that those such as yourselves, Banjo, Pericles, Craig, self proclaimed atheists, want to come here and discuss religion in some detail. In some ways, it's a healthy thing; discussion promotes understanding, I suppose.

Yet I still find the deal a bit mystifying. If atheists truly thought that there was no God, then wouldn't they think all religions as all a little absurd, and all religionists wasting their time? Wouldn't they also consider chatting to them consequently a waste of their time. Unless maybe they hold some doubt about their stance or position? Or maybe they're trying to win the religionist over to the atheist position? Maybe you can explain it. I don't always understand.

With regard to design in nature, we might both appreciate that circles on the surface of a pond display the beauty of perfect symmetry. Yet those circles can easily be explained by the physical properties of the elements involved: water and energy, etc. What would be more interesting would be if the ripples on water caused by a random event dispersed waves towards the bank which wrote a coded message on the sand. What if ripples from water cut ordered letters of the alphabet into the beach? That might be an example of what some people call specified complexity.

This is more to the point of what design arguments are about. Design arguments, such as Paley's watch found on the beach, are not new. The intricacies of life, to our continual discovery and amazement go well beyond watches or other human technologies.

What I was suggesting about Dawkins was that he was fighting against the evidence rather than going with the flow. Going against the flow of evidence may be considered an aspect of time wasting. So thanks for your efforts in declaring yourself an atheist who sees value in spending time discussing religion. Sometimes in discussions I find the gulf in thinking between atheists and believers can seem pretty big, a bridge too far. But a bridge over anything can be built, I suppose, with sufficient willpower and ingenuity.

.

Dear Dan,

.

You wrote :

« It is interesting that those such as yourselves, Banjo, Pericles, Craig, self proclaimed atheists, want to come here and discuss religion in some detail. »
.

There are quite a number of people on OLO of both sexes who declare themselves to be atheist. In fact, I think there are probably more atheists than those who declare themselves to be believers.

That is not surprising as OLO is not a religious platform. It is predominantly secular, its forum having been created by Australia’s National Forum, as “an area for deliberative democracy” (http://portal.nationalforum.com.au/about.asp).

The platform is composed of 9 main themes ( Economics, Environment, Features, Health, International, Leisure, People, Politics, Technology ) and 13 sub-themes ( Arts, Cartoons, Humour, Media, Sport, Education, Indigenous, Infrastructure, Law & Liberties, Religion, Society, Domestic Politics, Philosophy). Religion is a sub-theme of People.

I suspect that the atheists and other non-believers (such as myself) “come here and discuss religion in some detail” because they have taken religion very seriously at some point in their lives and given it a lot of critical thought – which is not always the case of believers. Their atheism derives from a considerable personal effort – not necessarily to reject it, but, perhaps, to seek confirmation of it (which was my case).

Whereas, I think you will find that the atheists and other non-believers who are totally indifferent to religion and not interested in discussing it come from families that have never exposed them to a religious environment of any sort.

But as I wrote to Craig on page 7 of this thread :

[ Having finally arrived at the conclusion that there is no god, I nevertheless reject the label of “atheist”. It makes no sense to me to define myself by reference to something that I consider does not exist.

I prefer the appellation “just a very ordinary person”. ]

Thank you for introducing me to Paley’s teleological argument; It’s quite amusing.

I am not a fan of Dawkins. I have an aversion to militant atheism and militant religious belief

.

Banjo,
If I'm hearing you correctly, you've decided a long time ago (after making much personal effort) that there was no god. And you come to this Forum to seek to have that confirmed. How would you or have you had this confirmed?

Why do you find Paley's argument amusing?

.

Dear Dan,

.

You ask :

« If I'm hearing you correctly, you've decided a long time ago (after making much personal effort) that there was no god. And you come to this Forum to seek to have that confirmed. How would you or have you had this confirmed? »
.
No. What I wrote was :

« … atheists and other non-believers (such as myself) … have taken religion very seriously at some point in their lives and given it a lot of critical thought… Their atheism derives from a considerable personal effort – not necessarily to reject it, but, perhaps, to seek confirmation of it (which was my case). »

The "personal effort" is made to decide whether to reject or “confirm” religious belief. It has nothing to do with OLO.

My personal quest lasted almost a lifetime. I investigated religion during my youth then left it in abeyance during my working years and took it up again after my retirement. I was determined to settle the question, before I died, of the “whys and wherefores” of religion, and especially the question of the existence of a god or gods and the supernatural.

My expectation was that, at the end of my quest, it would all become much clearer in my mind, that everything would fall into place, and that I would finally arrive at the conclusion that there was good reason to believe that god and the supernatural really did exist.

After several more years of intense research and reflexion, to my surprise, I arrived at exactly the opposite conclusion. I finally saw the light. It came as a revelation. All the pieces finally came together. It was quite an exhilarating experience. There was neither god, nor supernatural. The whole concept had been invented by primeval man as an explanation of the awesome beauty and dreaded hostility of nature. Through submission, worship and sacrifice, he sought to show his appreciation to the gods and appease their wrath.

The concept has been handed down to us, always as a trade-off to obtain some desired advantage.

.

Dear Banjo,
I'm still wondering about my question. If you've come to the conclusion that there is no God, then wouldn't all believers be wasting their time in believing? Wouldn't chatting to them about their beliefs consequently be a waste of time. Maybe you think it worth your time discussing these things for the goal of trying to win some people over to the enlightened position held by you or your fellow unbelievers? I still don't understand why you bother.

And I think the answer to this question may go part of the way to giving a reason why Peter hasn't bothered answering your question.

And also, why do you find Paley's argument amusing?

.

Dear Dan,

.

Here are my answers to your questions - and I hope, this time, I have not overlooked anything :

« If you've come to the conclusion that there is no God, then wouldn't all believers be wasting their time in believing? »

No. I am convinced that “faith”, like “love”, is a powerful human ability. Religious faith is absolutely indispensable to some people to help them through the shocks, difficulties and dramas of life and death. It gives them a reason to live, to endure, and to hope. The fact that there is no god is of no consequence provided they have their faith.

It is their faith that is important, not the existence of a god. It is their faith that can sometimes work miracles, not some god, virgin Mary, or so-called saint.
.

« Wouldn't chatting to them about their beliefs consequently be a waste of time. Maybe you think it worth your time discussing these things for the goal of trying to win some people over to the enlightened position held by you or your fellow unbelievers? I still don't understand why you bother. »

I already answered this question :

« Religious beliefs and biases are present everywhere in our daily lives. There is no escaping them whether we like it or not. We all have to deal with that. It’s better if we try to understand each other rather than simply ignore each other. »

I learn a lot from these exchanges and appreciate them. I hope my fellow debaters get something out of it as well. I approach this with an open mind and consider that nothing is definitive. I cannot speak for the others.

I have no desire to become the mentor or guru of anyone.
.

« And also, why do you find Paley's argument amusing? »

I am sorry if I have offended you in some way, but It reminds me of Bertrand Russell’s famous teapot analogy. Like so many others, it seems to me that Paley’s teleological argument is a logical fallacy :

http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/design.htm

.

Banjo,
You haven't offended me. Sometimes it doesn't hurt to ask the same question twice. Thanks for making the effort to address these questions. Not surprisingly, I disagree with the angle you take on some of your answers.

I see Paley's watch argument as a powerful analogy. While obviously, you see it as far less, and not something terribly meaningful.

You seem to have respect for religion with regard to the practical benefits it brings believers, such as courage and hope. I too see some of the practical benefits. However, speaking for myself and most believers I relate with, what we are more concerned with is finding truth. If we're pleasantly living a fantasy or a lie, then we'd rather opt for something else. (I think this was covered in the theme of the well known movie, The Matrix.)

Earlier you spoke of how you thought religion was self serving and designed to bring personal advantage. You said this after I quoted the line,
'it is impossible to please God without faith. Anyone who wants to come to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who sincerely seek him.'
I would like to clarify that I interpret the 'rewards' spoken of here as being spiritual rather than temporal rewards, such as the peace of knowing truth and seeing the revelation of God himself.

As for religion being a 'trade-off' in order to obtain a desired advantage, this is not my experience. I would say that part of the reason I am a believer comes from the testimony of those I've seen gone before me who gave much sacrificially in love, faithfulness, and loyalty to God without regard to themselves.

You say your not a fan of Dawkins. But the content of the link you put in your last post was quite Dawkinesque, in my opinion.

Did I hear my name being called?

>>It is interesting that those such as yourselves, Banjo, Pericles, Craig, self proclaimed atheists, want to come here and discuss religion in some detail. In some ways, it's a healthy thing; discussion promotes understanding, I suppose.<<

Hello again Dan S de Merengue.

I obviously cannot speak for other atheists, but I tend to engage with you, specifically, on the topic of young-earth creationism. Contrary to your suggestion that I "come here and discuss religion in some detail", I contribute solely in order to try to elicit from you, as an individual, some idea of how you actually arrived at the conclusion that the earth was formed by someone you call "God", a mere handful of millennia ago. A concept that flies so contrary to that of the hundreds of thousands of scientists who argue for a figure closer to 4.5 billion years, that it must take an extraordinary effort to maintain such a belief for longer than a lunch-break.

The other persona with whom I occasionally conduct a (very one-sided, it must be admitted) conversation is Peter Sellick. In that instance again, I am far more interested in the intellectual gymnastics involved in his articles, than in the beliefs themselves. Which, interestingly, do not seem to fit with any of the other orthodoxies presented here. Including, of course, your own.

In a world of increasingly polarized religious views, understanding in abstract form the dynamics involved in the acquisition and maintenance of religious belief is, I would suggest, a valuable skill to acquire.

For me, there is nothing about religion itself that is at all worth discussing, except for its strange impact on, and hold over, the individual believer.

Pericles,
I'll give you a tip. Science isn't about counting noses. It's not a popularity contest.

.

Dear Dan,

.

You wrote:

« …speaking for myself and most believers I relate with, what we are more concerned with is finding truth. »

If you don’t mind, Dan, you can add me “and most of the non-believers I relate to” to your list. We all share the same objective.
.

You recall:

« … it is impossible to please God without faith. Anyone who wants to come to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who sincerely seek him. »

I interpret that to mean that God only “rewards” those who place their faith in him. A “reward” is an advantage. If you want that advantage, you have to place your faith in God – which is why I consider that the “raison d’être” of religion is to obtain some advantage, be it spiritual, material or otherwise.

.

You add:

« I would say that part of the reason I am a believer comes from the testimony of those I've seen gone before me who gave much sacrificially in love, faithfulness, and loyalty to God without regard to themselves. »

Naturally, I respect your opinion of the people of whom you speak. You knew them. I didn’t. Though I ignore their particular religious denomination I imagine they were Christians.

In most Christian denominations, heaven, defined as “eternal union with God”, is a reward for the faithful after they die. Judging from the description of the people you mention, the prospect of gaining “eternal union with God” must surely represent an inestimable reward.

What greater advantage could religion offer, particularly if they were reunited, for eternity, with their loved ones ?

While I understand and admire your veneration for these people, IMHO, you may well have known much (but not all) of what they did and said but you could only have guessed, or had a fair idea, of what they actually thought. Nobody could possibly have had access to their most profound, inner motivations.
.

You conclude:

« … the link in your last post was Dawkinesque. »

I prefer Russell:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8h-xEuLfm8

.

Banjo,
Those are some very wise words there from Russell. Though I've never read or studied anything from him. He says, let's keep to the facts. So, here are the facts as I perceive them:

There were four gospel writers who have described the life, the teachings, and the events surrounding Jesus of Nazareth. These accounts have been proclaimed, analysed, and often believed by countless millions over the centuries.

I choose to believe in these accounts as reliable and true. You choose otherwise. There is certainly an amount of faith entered into on my part, for I cannot know everything and the thoughts and motives of all involved.

Yet I deny what you've said earlier about blind faith. Those who have believed upon the message invariably have done so after thoughtful and considered reasoning. While our knowledge is not complete, for we can only see things in part and imperfectly, our faith is not blind. We acknowledge a body of facts, which is consistent with our experience.

Thanks for sharing those words of Russell. Though I don't follow in his path, I do know the facts which form the basis of my trust.

How true, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Pericles, I'll give you a tip. Science isn't about counting noses. It's not a popularity contest.<<

But you immediately try the same game yourself...

>>These accounts have been proclaimed, analysed, and often believed by countless millions over the centuries.<<

So we would find ourselves back in the realm of my-millions versus your-millions, which would be neatly, even poetically, pointless.

To extract us from that particular cul-de-sac, let's try a balance of probabilities approach.

When a perfectly cogent, well-supported and highly detailed account of the structure of the universe is stacked up against a narrative created by people who didn't even have the assistance of telescopes, were still fifteen hundred years from Newton's Principia, and couldn't even conceive of the electromagnetic spectrum, I feel that I am on much firmer ground with the former.

What keeps me interested in your version of religion is the sheer mental effort that you must expend on a daily basis, simply to maintain your commitment to it.

Pericles,
The point I was making with Banjo was that there was a cohesive body of data associated with the claims of the Christian faith (a set of facts) to which we can refer or examine (Bertrand Russell said we should try and stick to the facts.)

With regard to a more recent creation, it is precisely those physical structures and phenomena to which you speak, discovered through modern techniques, which we believe are supportive of the creationist model.

Yet the various proposed models for Earth's origins are all rather malleable and philosophically influenced. We've discussed this issue before, and you've always appeared doggedly closed to try and examine any of the underlying philosophical assumptions. Your previous post (on Thursday) openly states that you are philosophically closed to ideas outside of the atheist vision. So there's little point discussing detail here.

.

Dear Dan,

.

You wrote :

« I choose to believe in these accounts [ the narratives of the 4 Gospels] as reliable and true. You choose otherwise. There is certainly an amount of faith entered into on my part, for I cannot know everything and the thoughts and motives of all involved. »

That seems an honest assessment to me, Dan.

The only caveat I should add to your statement is that I never indicated that I “choose otherwise” so far as your belief in the reliability of the Gospels is concerned.

What I did state was that I have arrived at the very clear understanding that there is no god or gods or any such thing as the supernatural.

Perhaps, some day, a well-balanced group of reputed historians comprised of believers and non-believers will carry-out a serious study of the historicity of Jesus and the reliability of the scriptures and publish their findings.

I have no doubt there would remain some major points of discord - in which case, it would be appropriate for the opposing arguments to be clearly detailed for the reader’s consideration - but, I am sure there must be some honest academics, on both sides, capable of cooperating together in a collective study and arriving at a large consensus on that for which there is good reason to believe constitutes historical fact.

Until that day, I’m afraid I have to agree with you that “our knowledge is not complete, for we can only see things in part and imperfectly”. I have serious doubts about the neutrality of the various sources of information I have come across so far - though I must confess that I have not conducted an exhaustive research on the matter.

So, unless you have something further to add, Dan, I don’t think there’s much more I can say on this particular topic and shall leave it at that.

It has been nice chatting with you.

.

I totally accept that, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Pericles, The point I was making with Banjo was that there was a cohesive body of data associated with the claims of the Christian faith<<

And the point I was making is that there is a vastly more cohesive body of data that can be examined to support the view that the earth is considerably older than a handful of millennia.

>>With regard to a more recent creation, it is precisely those physical structures and phenomena to which you speak, discovered through modern techniques, which we believe are supportive of the creationist model.<<

Which bring me back to my overriding concern with your point of view, that you begin with the premise that the biblical narrative is literally accurate, and refuse to examine any case that might exist, given a different starting point.

>>Yet the various proposed models for Earth's origins are all rather malleable and philosophically influenced.<<

Perhaps. But since you have selected the biblical narrative, no other possibilities are available to you. If you examine the question with an "evidence first" approach, there are literally thousands of alternative answers. As has been demonstrated throughout history - as new information comes to light, the explanations update themselves, with increasing precision.

>>...you've always appeared doggedly closed to try and examine any of the underlying philosophical assumptions<<

That's actually quite an amusing accusation, coming from you. The fact that you refuse to examine this information outside your biblical frame of reference is surely a sign of the very narrowest possible field of vision.

>>Your previous post (on Thursday) openly states that you are philosophically closed to ideas outside of the atheist vision.<<

It is true that I find it impossible to include the concept of a deity bringing our world into being through an inexplicable divine will. But on the other hand, I have yet to see a post from you that demonstrates that you are philosophically open to ideas other than those indicative of a commitment to young earth creationism.

>>So there's little point discussing detail here<<

As you wish.

Pericles,
With regard to evidence for the evolutionary view of the earth's beginnings, you say that I refuse to examine evidence beyond my own philosophical frame of reference. And I will be saying the same thing back to you. You even admit to being incapable of seeing a theistic alternative. You say, "I find it impossible to include the concept of a deity bringing our world into being ,,,."

If I begin with the premise that the biblical narrative is accurate, I do so for the sake of argument, to see what results this might net. And in doing so, we find a lot falling into place, with many encouraging discoveries.

It is not that I refuse to look at the other side. I am quite familiar with the atheistic (materialist) view. It is, after all, the main view encouraged currently throughout most people's formal education. It's pretty much the only view people get shown on TV nature documentaries and when visiting guide centres at nature parks, etc. But you have asked me what is the evidence from the other point of view, so this is what I try to present. Several times, I have raised specific lines of evidence with you suggesting a more recent origin of earth or of mankind (on 'the balance of probabilities',) which don't easily fit with the 'old age' paradigm without much massaging.

That you say there are 'thousands of alternative answers', this confirms to me the way people usually think about these issues in practice. They start with a theory or an idea and see how the evidence fits into it, not the other way around. An "evidence first" approach is a nice idea, but evidence must be interpreted. It doesn't speak for itself. One alternative is the biblical one. We seek to discover what insights this approach offers, and we think it offers much.

Banjo,
Despite standing on different sides of the fence of belief, I think we do find some common ground in our assessment of several things. I admit our knowledge is not complete in the sense of it not being exhaustive. And I agree that finding neutral sources of information is rather difficult. Humans by nature are not neutral, but come holding cultural viewpoints, preconceptions and biases.

Yet I disagree that sufficient enquiry into the historicity of these ancient matters has not been sought and obtained. Though more discoveries could possibly be made, scholars of differing backgrounds throughout the centuries have invested their lives in researching the scriptures and their historical background. I doubt there is any document anywhere beyond those of the New and Old Testaments to have received anything near as much thorough analysis.

The baton through history has been passed on. The gospel message has found me. The invitation to believe has been given and undergirded with ample and sufficient grounds.

This discussion seems to revolve around the idea that "I think that he who approaches God must believe he exists and that he recompenses those who seek him":

I disagree that believing that God exists is necessary in order to approach Him. At times it helps but at other times it hinders.

Existence is cheap: a multitude of things exist, some of them not even so wholesome, so how does attributing this property (of existence) to God help in encouraging people to venerate Him and seek His ways and proximity?

What exists (and what doesn't), or how and when it was created, are scientific rather than religious questions - a religious person ought to base their life on faith and need not recourse to such irrelevant materialistic questions (unless they also happen to also be a scientist whose livelihood depends on such questions, but then it's not in their personal-religious capacity).

Regarding recompensation for those who seek God, this is provided by the miracle of faith itself because then the devotee is no longer concerned with the things of the world and is no longer troubled or hurt by them. On the other hand, a belief in God that is derived by evidence has no particular merit and does not create any miracle: such a belief becomes merely a part of ordinary materialistic life.

The mixing up of science and religion is unhealthy for both. One should separate what they do in the lab and what they base their life on at home or in church.

It is always interesting to try to follow your thought processes, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Pericles, With regard to evidence for the evolutionary view of the earth's beginnings, you say that I refuse to examine evidence beyond my own philosophical frame of reference... You even admit to being incapable of seeing a theistic alternative.<<

Indeed so. But I would point out that my approach only rejects one of the thousands of explanations that have been put forward over the years as the means to examine our history have expanded (telescopes, Newton's Principia, the electromagnetic spectrum etc.). I can see, given the hindsight of history, how they each arrived at their theories. You, on the other hand, have rejected the thousands in favour of the one.

And this, you have completely backwards:

>>That you say there are 'thousands of alternative answers', this confirms to me the way people usually think about these issues in practice. They start with a theory or an idea and see how the evidence fits into it, not the other way around.<<

The only way you could possibly entertain the many alternative possibilities is to avoid filtering them through a single "theory or idea". This single filter is exemplified in this statement of yours:

>>One alternative is the biblical one. We seek to discover what insights this approach offers, and we think it offers much<<

Once again, the only route available to you - by your own admission - is via a pre-commitment to rely upon the biblical narrative. I am genuinely unable to see how you are able to convince yourself that this is more "open" than the examination of the scads of evidence for alternatives to young-earth creationism.

I used the expression "balance of probabilities" in order to highlight this discrepancy. Can you explain how, in your mind, this doesn't apply here?

Pericles,
I'm struggling to follow what you're saying. Perhaps we have crossed wires with communication. I question why I bother keeping up my end when you don't seem to follow what I'm trying to say (and I wonder if you're really trying to understand, but you're possibly thinking likewise towards me.)

You seems to be saying I'm rejecting 'scads' of evidence. I'm not sure what evidence your referring to. I'm not rejecting anything.

Dear Pericles,

I don't think that Dan rejected thousands of other explanations - he simply selected one, that one which is most likely to progress his goals according to his own values. As you probably have different values and goals, it's not surprising and not contradictory that you select other theories.

Reality itself is not explainable by any theory anyway, so choose for yourself such an explanation that will forward your goals.

If one wants to achieve everlasting peace and joy in the company of God and the saints, then Dan's theory is valid (among thousands of other theories which you also would not consider) - and if one wants to achieve technological advancement and conquer this universe with it, then your theory is also as valid for that stated purpose.

It looks as though Yuyutsu understands what is happening here, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Dear Pericles, I don't think that Dan rejected thousands of other explanations - he simply selected one, that one which is most likely to progress his goals according to his own values.<<

My goal here is not to argue religion, simply to explore the thought processes that arrive at what - to me - appear totally unreachable conclusions.

So far, everything appears to be progressing along a predictable path. You continue to offer nothing by way of justification (we're not talking "facts" here, as Yuyutsu helpfully points out) of your selected stance other than the blind adoption of the bible as your scientific baseline.

Which is of course perfectly fine, so long as you don't expect it to have any value in explaining the cosmos.

>>You seems to be saying I'm rejecting 'scads' of evidence. I'm not sure what evidence your referring to. I'm not rejecting anything.<<

And that is nothing more than self-delusion. You have rejected, and continue to reject, five hundred years of careful, painstaking and carefully thought-through advances in human knowledge.

Pericles,
You ask me for justification for a biblical position on origins. But a biblical position can never be justified to you, for you've already said, "I find it impossible to include the concept of a deity bringing our world into being ..."

So, in that sense there's no openness or possibility for meaningful discussion, but I'm curious. You keep saying I'm rejecting all this 'evidence' or 'knowledge'. Perhaps you could give an example of what you're talking about. It may help the conversation if you really want to pursue it.

.

Dear Dan,

.

You wrote :

« The gospel message has found me. The invitation to believe has been given and undergirded with ample and sufficient grounds. »

That’s fine, Dan. I understand that scientists operate pretty much on the same basis. Science offers us the “best possible explanation”, or should I say the “most credible explanation” for something at a particular point of time. We “accept” or “believe” the explanation because we consider that it is “ undergirded with ample and sufficient grounds”.

We believe that explanation until we discover new evidence that either contradicts the explanation or obliges us to modify it to take into account the new evidence.

Science is a flexible process that evolves along with advances in new or more advanced research and technology, sometimes in domains not directly concerned with the matter in question.

A few examples are the invention in 1949 of radiocarbon dating by Willard Libby, as well as the invention of DNA sequencing by Frederick Sanger in 1975 and the considerable development since the 1990s of forensic anthropology and archaeology techniques.

The Dead Sea scrolls were discovered accidentally by a Bedouin boy in Israel's Judean Desert in eleven caves along the northwest shore of the Dead Sea between the years 1947 and 1956.

Archaeologists have barely scratched the surface of the immense potential of historical evidence that remains to be discovered. Nothing seems to be cast in stone so far as our knowledge of the past is concerned.

You indicated on page 9 of this thread:

« … speaking for myself and most believers I relate with, what we are more concerned with is finding truth. If we're pleasantly living a fantasy or a lie, then we'd rather opt for something else. »

That being the case, as I have just come across the following article in Wikipedia, I thought you might be interested in reading it as it seems to be a reasonably well-balanced, scholarly approach to “the historical reliability of the gospels” :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels

.

Religion is not about explaining the world, but about transcending that illusion as if the world is real and discovering that despite that façade, the only Reality is God.

Religion should also be a flexible process that evolves along with advances in new or more advanced research and technology - but instead of researching what exists, religion researches what is good and instead of developing material technology, religion develops spiritual technology that provides us with the best means to reach God, appropriately adjusted to the times and situations.

I thought I had already clarified this, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Pericles, You ask me for justification for a biblical position on origins.<<

Not really. You have no need whatsoever to justify your conclusions to me, they are entirely personal to you. I am simply attempting to understand better the process by which you arrive at that justification.

>>You keep saying I'm rejecting all this 'evidence' or 'knowledge'. Perhaps you could give an example of what you're talking about.<<

The expansion of our understanding of the universe came about over a number of centuries. I randomly picked three breakthrough events: the use of the telescope to refine our understanding of the positioning of the stars; the adoption of Newton's Principia to guide our thought processes ("We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."), and the use of the electromagnetic spectrum to explore the earliest phases of the cosmos.

It is of interest to me that the strength of your belief system can happily override the masses of contrary evidence that has accumulated over the past five or so centuries through the use of these discoveries.

The same tools are currently employed to send a man-made device to examine the surface of Pluto, after a journey of some nine years and three billion miles. So far, the results being sent back to us support our understanding of the origins of the universe, none of which involve the creation of our planet a mere handful of millennia ago, via a divine force.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/14/pluto_new_horizons_science/

"...it now seems that Pluto's moons were formed in much the same way as ours were, according to current data. Pluto appears to have suffered a massive impact from another body, causing its moons to form. Knowing this sort of data is crucial to cosmological theory about how the Solar System was formed."

To reject the entire body of science involved, in favour of the simplistic "God did it", seems to me to illustrate an inordinately narrow view, and a substantial absence of natural curiosity.

Dear Pericles,

<<To reject the entire body of science involved, in favour of the simplistic "God did it", seems to me to illustrate an inordinately narrow view, and a substantial absence of natural curiosity.>>

There is a difference between rejecting and being indifferent. Though simplistic, being content with "God did it" is virtuous; though narrow I prefer the straight-and-narrow over the crooked; and though natural, not everyone needs to be afflicted with curiosity.

Dear YuYutsu,

.

You wrote :

« Religion is not about explaining the world, but about transcending that illusion as if the world is real and discovering that despite that façade, the only Reality is God. »
.

You may, perhaps recall, Yuyutsu, that when you first expressed that idea in reaction to one of my posts, some years back, I took you at your word and became quite concerned at what might happen to you when crossing a busy street if you really believed that the world is only an illusion and that” the only reality is God”.

Since then, I must say that, happily, I am completely reassured by your constant presence here on the OLO forum, apparently still in one piece and in reasonably good spirits. I no longer fear for your safety and wish you a continued long and healthy life.

I guess the moral of the story is that, when all is said and done, there is some good in the much decried gap between theory and practice. – even when it is the preacher himself who does not put into practice what he preaches.

.

Very well put, Banjo.

Pericles,
You accuse me of rejecting five hundred years of modern science. This is not true. I very much appreciate the benefits and insights gained from modern science.

But before elaborating, I'm wondering about what you meant when talking about justification. You challenge me to justify my position, but then turn around and say that I don't have to justify my position to you. So to whom am I addressing my justification?

Banjo,
I agree with you that I think the world is real. I think Jonathan Sarfati put it quite succinctly, when speaking about certain essential features that make science possible, he said:

"The universe is real, because God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1). This sounds obvious, but many eastern philosophies believe that everything is an illusion (so is that belief an illusion as well?). There is no point in trying to investigate an illusion by experimenting on it."
JS.

Dear Banjo,

Seeing how long it takes and how difficult it is for people to quit smoking and drinking, gambling, drugs and all that, you can begin to appreciate how long and difficult it is to quit the whole world. We are addicts and kicking the habit usually takes several lifetimes of effort - this is what religion needs to deal with.

Understanding that the world is just an illusion is like understanding that "smoking is bad for you" - it's only a cerebral idea at this stage until it becomes a living reality, it's only the first step.

So long as we are still addicted to the world, we must keep our bodies and brains intact and as healthy as we can, because we use them to fight our addiction - if we shed our bodies earlier than our addiction, then our addiction would soon drive us to acquire a different body, there we will need to painstakingly re-acquire all the education we already got, so what's the use?

Once our addiction to the world is overcome and we experience the Reality of God, directly and 24/7/365, then and only then we may safely let go of our physical bodies.

---

Dear Dan,

"The universe is real, because God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1). This sounds obvious, but many eastern philosophies believe that everything is an illusion (so is that belief an illusion as well?). There is no point in trying to investigate an illusion by experimenting on it."

- But where does the bible state that the world is real? Illusions too can be created, in fact it's quite common.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

As I wrote earlier, I am pleased to see that your religious beliefs are not causing you or anybody else any harm.

If, on the contrary, they do you some good and help you through life, that’s even better.

I wish you all the best.

.

Not sure I did, Dan S de Merengue.

>>I'm wondering about what you meant when talking about justification. You challenge me to justify my position, but then turn around and say that I don't have to justify my position to you.<<

I specifically stated that you do not have to justify your position to me. Or to anyone else, as far as I am concerned.

There is no "challenge". You must have imagined it.

I did ask Yuyutsu a little earlier...

"I would appreciate some more cogent supporting arguments, such that I could employ with, say, the young-earth creationists who pop up here every so often."

But that was before you dropped in. I have been very careful, from that point on, to reassure you that the very last thing I mean to do is "challenge" you to justify anything. I am only interested in the thought processes you adopt in order to allow yourself to ignore the vast amounts of well-researched evidence that is undoubtedly available to you, as it is to me, that show the earth to be several billion years old. You don't have to justify your logic, simply describe it.

Here's another excerpt from the Pluto expedition.

http://www.iflscience.com/space/first-photograph-plutos-surface-released

"The mountains are young and thought to have formed no more than 100 million years ago – which makes them very young when compared to the age of the Solar System. "

These folk have mountains (sorry!) of science behind their assertions. To me, it takes mental gymnastics of the most energetic kind to dismiss it all with an indulgent smile, and a dismissive "it is just another example of God's mysterious ways".

As I mentioned before, such a commitment to a few words from an ancient text, in the face of five hundred years of painstakingly-accumulated knowledge, is not an easy thing for me to understand. How do you do it?

Pericles, - "You continue to offer nothing by way of justification"

For someone who says you're not wanting me to 'justify' my conclusions, you sure have a strange way of expressing yourself. Justification was your word, not mine.

But in terms of imagining things, when did I ever talk about, 'God's mysterious ways'? It doesn't help you to try putting words in my mouth. The book of Genesis, in giving an account of the world's beginnings and human history is not so mysterious. It actually gives quite a bit of detail in its accounting. Perhaps you should look at it, or look at it again if you already have before. It may throw some light on the questions you are asking me.

It is impossible for a Christian to justify themselves before an atheist. As you have said of yourself, "I find it impossible to include the concept of a deity bringing our world into being ..." The atheist has made a commitment to view the world (the evidence) in a certain way. Your preconceptions leave no room for the possibility God. The atheist will not allow the possibility of a divine foot in the door.

You are guilty of the same thing you accuse me of, that is, limiting yourself to a certain line of thinking. And that's not such a bad thing. If we're conscious and explicit about our pre-commitments, then this can be helpful in making adjustments to our prescribed beliefs as the measured evidence is brought to focus.

A Christian will never be able to justify himself before an atheist. At the first turn, they have each taken a huge philosophical step in opposite directions. It's this gulf that must be addressed if the two are going to come to any understanding. The best a Christian can do is to remain true to his principles and demonstrate clear and consistent logic.

Let's look at that more closely, Dan S de Merengue.

>>For someone who says you're not wanting me to 'justify' my conclusions, you sure have a strange way of expressing yourself. Justification was your word, not mine.<<

The confusion arose as follows:

I said:

"You continue to offer nothing by way of justification (we're not talking "facts" here, as Yuyutsu helpfully points out) of your selected stance other than the blind adoption of the bible as your scientific baseline."

You countered:

>>Pericles, You ask me for justification for a biblical position on origins.<<

There's the misunderstanding, right there.

You thought that I was asking for justification of the "biblical position on origins", when what I was looking for was some explanation of the thought processes that led you to your intellectual stance, in the face of centuries of evidence that leads to different conclusions.

Do you consider that the vast body of knowledge that has arisen over the past five hundred years has been simply a series of egregious errors? What is it about the science involved that causes you to reject it out of hand? Do you see it as being poorly performed? Insufficiently explained? Corruptly presented to further some specific agenda?

I can explain my own thought processes that have led me to reject the bible as the source of all there is to know about the birth of the universe. It wasn't always that way, of course. Up until the age of eight, or thereabouts, I gave the origins of the universe very little thought, and accepted the Genesis story as a pretty reasonable explanation. However, as I learned more about the science involved, and the knowledge obtained through the various methodologies, I changed my view.

Do you have a similar story to tell?

>>A Christian will never be able to justify himself before an atheist<<

Forget about "justification of the biblical position on origins" for a moment, and help me understand how you are able to exclude science from your thinking, and instead rely upon one particular ancient text for your understanding of our universe.

Dear Pericles,

Personally I am not a Christian and do not believe in the "young-earth" claim, yet I can see the merit of believing in the biblical story of creation while excluding science from one's thinking.

The secret is to, instead of "What is so?", ask "What is good?".

When you ask different questions, you are most likely to arrive at different answers!

When one is seeking material results and wants to be successful, one naturally asks "What is so?", so one way to practice under-cutting our worldly desires is to stop asking scientific questions and one method which helps us doing so, is to believe the Genesis creation story, or for that matter anything else which helps us to focus our mind on God instead. Hearing the stories of God purifies our heart and fills us with devotion to counter the corrupting influence of the world.

Do we want to be successful, or do we want to to be pure?
That is the pre-commitment that Dan was speaking about "at the first turn".

Thank you Yuyutsu for answering on behalf of Dan S de Merengue. I wonder how different his response might be.

Yours makes perfect sense to me.

>>...one way to practice under-cutting our worldly desires is to stop asking scientific questions and one method which helps us doing so, is to believe the Genesis creation story<<

If the objective is to reduce science to irrelevance, this is an appropriate path to take. It avoids all temptation to investigate the scientists' concept of the universe and its functioning, and in doing so replace curiosity over the world around us with a single, spiritual focus.

Not the way I prefer to live my life, but we are all individuals, capable of making up our own minds about these things.

Incidentally, I'm not entirely sure Dan would agree with your summary. Maybe we'll find out.

Pericles,
You ask me for an explanation for the thought processes that led me to accept the position that the world is thousands rather than millions of years old?

There's much in the history of philosophy of science to suggest as simplistic the view that science steadily progresses by adding new truths on old, or that later theories are necessarily closer approximations to the truth than earlier theories.

The influential philosopher of science, Thomas Kuhn, said that looking back at Aristotle's ancient writings concerning motion, it seemed full of egregious errors, both of logic and of observation. Judged by today's understanding of physics, Aristotle looked like an idiot. Yet we know he wasn't. To understand Aristotelian science, one must know about the intellectual tradition within which he worked.

For Kuhn, the development of science is driven by periods of stasis where researchers operate under what he called a ‘paradigm’, or a common intellectual framework, disrupted by periods of crisis where some scientists begin to question the dominant paradigm. Empirical evidence is always interpreted through an intellectual framework. The current paradigm which interprets evidence within deep geological time arose only about 200 years ago on the back of philosophical concerns,

Ultimately, if science is primarily concerned with observation, then we cannot measure anything older than ourselves. For elapsed time can only be measured while time is elapsing. Therefore, any long age conclusions are interpretations, not observations.

Thanks for getting back to me on this Dan S de Merengue.

>>There's much in the history of philosophy of science to suggest as simplistic the view that science steadily progresses by adding new truths on old, or that later theories are necessarily closer approximations to the truth than earlier theories.<<

In every case that I can think of, where old "truths" have been superseded, the new understandings have arisen through the use of tools and capabilities that did not exist in the preparation of the older theories.

Can you offer any counter-examples, where the revised explanations have contradicted earlier ones, while still using their "common intellectual framework"?

Aristotle actually illustrates this point, exactly.

>>Judged by today's understanding of physics, Aristotle looked like an idiot. Yet we know he wasn't.<<

He had neither the tools, nor a massive body of other people's work to work from, nor the ability to anticipate future discoveries. All that he achieved was within the "common intellectual framework" of his time.

And this observation interests me:

>>The current paradigm which interprets evidence within deep geological time arose only about 200 years ago on the back of philosophical concerns<<

What were the "philosophical concerns" that caused people to question the thinking on deep geological time? For me, it seemed to have been that the previous explanations - that the world was formed over a six day period - did not survive the arrival of newer, more accurate observations.

What is lacking in the modern approach to geology - and cosmology - that allows you to reject their findings? Do you see their interpretation of the facts to be error-prone? Or simply misguided?

>>Ultimately, if science is primarily concerned with observation, then we cannot measure anything older than ourselves.<<

Yet you accept the accuracy of Genesis.

You also seem to accept the results of the key discoveries in other manifestations - the computer on which you write your posts is a product of the same common intellectual framework, after all.

Where does your disconnect occur? At what point did you stop accepting what science has uncovered?

Pericles,
You ask me, at what point did I stop accepting what science has uncovered?

I'm thrilled and I marvel about what science has uncovered. As I've already said, I very much appreciate the benefits and insights gained from modern science. Perhaps the difference between me and you is in our understanding of exactly what modern science has uncovered in 'the last five hundred years' of which you speak.

It certainly hasn't uncovered any of the atheist ideals to which you hold dear. You speak of tools such as "telescopes", and the principles held by the men that use them, such as Newton. But this is what Isaac Newton actually said: "The most beautiful system of the sun, planet and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and domination of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

Much of the strength of the scientific method derived from biblical ideas present in the Christian West. As I alluded to above, certain ideas, such as a real universe, are essential before 'science' becomes possible. "The universe is real, because God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1). This sounds obvious, but many eastern philosophies believe that everything is an illusion. There is no point in trying to investigate an illusion by experimenting on it." Men then were encouraged to look for the normative laws prevailing in the universe after believing that they proceeded from a single law giving Creator.

So in my understanding, these acknowledged scientific benefits flow from a Christian worldview, and it's the atheists who are living off borrowed capital.

You ask about philosophical concerns. Looking back about 200 years, geologists were investigating the formation of valleys in Europe. Their lines of thinking could be split into two groups. Uniformitarians considered the slow and gradual erosion rates observed each year. Catastrophists considered the large scale effects of flooding or volcanism or other tectonic movement. They were both influenced by various positivist ideas of science, and came up with markedly different theories and time scales in their conclusions. A third group were the scriptural geologists, who looked at the evidence in terms of the Great Flood, and so would also be considered catastrophists.

The point is that despite having the same 'tools' available and looking at the same evidence at the same time, they each arrived at very different conclusions depending on their philosophical outlook. People tend to see what they're looking for. For the most part uniformitarian ideas dominated geology for more than the next 100 years, but in recent decades catastrophism has been making a comeback.

So different ideas are often vying for prominence, especially when it comes to questions of origins. Science doesn't think just one thing. Currently the Big Bang theory is popular in cosmology. But there exists many other theories. Popular theories can also become self fulfilling prophesies. For example, while the Big Bang theory is popular, it will attract most of the funding grants. While it attracts the funding, it will remain very popular, ipso facto.

The formation of the earth's moon does not have just one theory. The collision theory of which you speak has many detractors.

You ask what do I accept? Well, I'd like to think that I don't just gleefully follow the majority view, but wish to think of myself as a bit more rational than that.

Another important distinction is between operational and historical science.

Science gains its impressive reputation from the successes in technological advancement made from the ability to perform repeatable tests and experiments. Such is the case with operational or experimental science. For example, if I suggest a certain contraption or material will fly or float, we can test it under controlled conditions. We can test it repeatedly.

This is not the case with historical investigations, such as researching the origin of something. We can't repeatedly test the past. For example, if there is a glass of water on the table, we can conduct all manner of tests and analyses on the water. But the claim that I drank from the glass last Thursday becomes an historical claim which is more difficult to test repeatedly. For last Thursday can't be repeated. The claim becomes more theoretical and difficult to verify. It moves out of the realm of operational science.

On the subject of evolutionary biology one person put it like this: "Evolution is purported to be a single process of species splitting and progress. This part of the theory was about unique historical events, like the history of England, and unique events are not part of (operational) science because they are unrepeatable and so not subject to test."

Therefore, all historical claims, including those found in the Bible, fall into this category. Historical claims can be the subject of scrutiny and all manner of enquiry, such as in the fields of forensics or anthropology, etc. but these become more theoretical and subject to opinion, as they lack the possibility of repeated testing.

I don't find that odd at all, Dan S de Merengue.

>>But this is what Isaac Newton actually said: "The most beautiful system of the sun, planet and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and domination of an intelligent and powerful Being.”<<

(Incidentally, what he conspicuously did not add was "...when He created the earth in six days, within the past ten thousand years"...)

Newton, as did the vast majority of his contemporaries, believed that there was a God. He did not set out to "disprove" God's existence. It probably never even occurred to him that the discoveries enabled by his work would solve some of the abiding mysteries of how the universe was formed.

Your grasp of atheism, by the way, is somewhat self-serving...

>>It certainly hasn't uncovered any of the atheist ideals to which you hold dear.<<

There are no "atheist ideals" to "uncover". Atheism is simply the intellectual stance of accepting that there is no God. It is certainly not my position that the scientific theories dominating current cosmology somehow invalidate the concept that a God originally created the universe, many billions of years ago. Nor does it concern me that people do so believe, it is entirely their prerogative.

What does interest me, as I have said before, is how young-earth creationists brush aside the theoretical science that underpins, simultaneously, the examination of the earliest moments of the universe and the mobile telephone.

>>...these acknowledged scientific benefits flow from a Christian worldview<<

I also know that a number of "acknowledged scientific benefits" flowed from a Muslim worldview (algebra), a Confucian worldview (the compass, printing) a Hindu worldview (steel) etc. So I'm not sure what point you were making here. If there was anything uniquely "Christian" in his work, it escapes my notice.

>>So different ideas are often vying for prominence, especially when it comes to questions of origins. Science doesn't think just one thing.<<

Absolutely. Which leads back to my question - what thought process allows you to "think just one thing", when the nature of our understanding remains - fascinatingly - fluid?

Pericles,
I could quibble about a few things in your last post. For example, you wanted to highlight the wonders of scientific achievement 'over the last 500 years', and then you turn to examples such as algebra and the compass and a few other things that I think go back beyond those 500 years.

Yet I sense that your basic question to me is, why believe? Or more specifically, why should we have such a singular belief? I think that can only be explained as being in the nature of the gospel itself. To quote: "There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God and Father, who is over all and in all and living through all." (Eph: 4.5,6) Jesus sets up the challenge. He confronts the believer (or potential believer) with the question, do you believe in me (the specific, singular me)?

So over time, I've tried to give you many reasons why I think believing makes more sense than not believing. But if you're going to believe, you may as well accept the true faith and not some compromised, watered down version. In its essence, it is an all or nothing type of thing.

So while I'm convinced that the evidence in nature should draw any clear thinking person towards belief rather than unbelief, it is not possible to formulate arguments that amount to perfect proof. Such an idea is unrealistic. Yet I will continue to argue that the Faith is consistent with all we know of science and logic, and the evidence does point in a definite direction.

Yet for the question, why believe? For me, the answer does not rest in my views on science alone, but my reasons lie in several areas of understanding: science, history, morality and other areas of my experience. I'll repeat what I said earlier, "The best a Christian can do is to remain true to his principles and demonstrate clear and consistent logic."

As always an interesting duologue and I apologise for this sidebar...

But it is prompted by recent delvings into Cornelius Van Til's reformed theology and apologetics - my interest being why people think the way they say they do - and I suspect, Dan, he would agree with: "But if you're going to believe, you may as well accept the true faith and not some compromised, watered down version. In its essence, it is an all or nothing type of thing." I also suspect that he might not agree that yours is the true faith - a suspicion I admit is beyond any method of confirmation.

"Yet I will continue to argue that the Faith is consistent with all we know of science and logic, and the evidence does point in a definite direction."

My question is:

How do you know that you could not be wrong about that?

WmTrevor,
I don't have any argument with Cornelius Van Til. In fact, i'd probably say I'm a fan of his his teaching.

Not for the first time, Dan S de Merengue, I find your mode of discussion difficult to follow.

>>Yet I sense that your basic question to me is, why believe?<<

I thought that I had made it particularly clear that this is not in any way my question, basic or otherwise. I have on any number of occasions tried to separate the idea of belief in a deity, which I totally accept is held by many, from the complete dissociation with geology and cosmology that your - very precise and specific - interpretation of belief commands.

I can see the seeds of an answer in your personal philosophy that...

>>..if you're going to believe, you may as well accept the true faith and not some compromised, watered down version.<<

My problem with this is that it means that at some point, you allow yourself to stop comparing sources, weighing balance of probabilities, assessing witness credibility etc., in favour of the single lens through which to reach your personal truth.

It permits you to disallow such events as occur, almost daily, as a result of work performed by people who are not restricted in this manner.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/24/wham_star_punched_by_racing_pulsar_spatter_matter_goes_to_015_lightspeed/

Ignoring such events must take a great deal of persistence.

Pericles,
I agree that this can be a difficult discussion at times. We don't seem to be progressing very quickly. For I feel I have already addressed your concerns, though perhaps you don't think so.

I have said above, to understand the issue you must appreciate the importance of presuppositions and paradigms whenever evidence is normally viewed. You seem to think of your atheist viewpoint as beholding to some kind of neutrality and less biased than a theistic view. I don't think so. You say that I view the evidence through a particular lens. I would say you do also. We all do. But I would say I'm just a bit more open and acknowledging of the lens I bring.

In fact, the words you use against me, I could easily throw right back again. It is you who is allowing yourself to stop comparing sources, weighing balance of probabilities, assessing witness credibility etc., in favour of the single lens through which to reach your personal truth. It permits you to disallow such events...
creation.com
Ignoring such events must take a great deal of persistence on your part, etc.

I have difficulty understanding why you can't appreciate that two people can look at the same body of evidence and come to different conclusions about it.

I'm not so sure that's where the issue lies, Dan S de Merengue.

>>You seem to think of your atheist viewpoint as beholding to some kind of neutrality and less biased than a theistic view. I don't think so.<<

I don't view my position as having its foundation in atheism (even if that were possible; how can you base a view on the non-existence of something?). For the purposes of this discussion, it could have as its basis anything from atheism to agnosticism, Anglicanism, Catholicism, Buddhism etc.

The one thing I do not use as a source of my presuppositions is that the biblical description of a single, specific deity creating the "heavens" (presumably the cosmos), the earth, people, animals, plants and so on, in the space of six days, less than ten thousand years ago, has any relevance whatsoever to the reality of our existence in this tiny corner of the galaxy.

So please, ignore for the moment that I have declared my atheism, and respond as you might to, say, a Hindu, when considering my earlier question:

"...what thought process allows you to 'think just one thing', when the nature of our understanding remains - fascinatingly - fluid?"

Does that make more sense, now that you can see that it is actually based on the fact that there are many, many different interpretations, held by many, many different religions. And non-religions, of course.

And this is a misconception:

>>I have difficulty understanding why you can't appreciate that two people can look at the same body of evidence and come to different conclusions about it.<<

I do very much accept that people come to different conclusions, while looking at the same body of evidence. But there just seems to me that there must be some specific point at which you refuse to accept that the same scientific discoveries that allow you to post your views here, are those that bring us photographs of remote planets, or the billions of galaxies that are being explored, even as we converse.

Pericles,
It's true that on contentious issues, I don't necessarily just accept the majority view. Yet, as I've already said, I do very much value and appreciate the benefits and insights gained from modern science. I see these as consistent with a Christian worldview.

So, I'm not following your line of reasoning. You keep saying I'm rejecting scientific discoveries. Perhaps you could make it clearer what it is that you're saying I don't accept.

You say you don't view your position as having its foundation in atheism. Yet you do claim to be an atheist. You openly say you are not accepting of the theistic position described in Genesis. If you're alleging that I am not accepting of an atheistic worldview. Yes, I plead guilty. But I don't see how I'm much different to you in the sense of being any more singular or open or closed minded than yourself.

Fair enough, Dan S de Merengue.

>>You keep saying I'm rejecting scientific discoveries. Perhaps you could make it clearer what it is that you're saying I don't accept.<<

Ok.

Do you accept the definition of the speed of light?

http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/cosmic/p_roemer.html

Do you accept the use of the speed of light as a measure of distance?

http://www.answers.com/Q/How_can_the_speed_of_light_be_used_to_measure_distance

Do you accept that the distance between the earth and the closest galaxy, Andromeda, exceeds the timeframe in which you place the creation of the universe?

http://space-facts.com/andromeda/

If you do not, perhaps you would be good enough to explain how young earth creationists measure the speed of light, and determine the distance between ourselves and other celestial bodies.

As far as I can tell, you need to reject most of twentieth century science in order to reach your young-earth conclusions. Which is exactly what I meant when I asked "[w]here does your disconnect occur? At what point did you stop accepting what science has uncovered?"

And this is a well known logical fallacy:

>>You say you don't view your position as having its foundation in atheism. Yet you do claim to be an atheist. You openly say you are not accepting of the theistic position described in Genesis.<<

This is how that fallacy unfolds:

- I am an atheist, and don't believe in young-earth creationism
- My friend does not believe in young-earth creationism
- Therefore my friend must also be atheist.

Except - he is a Catholic.

>>I don't see how I'm much different to you in the sense of being any more singular or open or closed minded than yourself.<<

That is actually difficult to accept, given the evidence.

Regardless of my personal views, whereby science is a spoiler of faith and should thus be avoided as much as possible, I am surprised why Dan is not quoting the work of Dr. Gerald Schroeder, an Orthodox Jewish physicist.

I had the fortune to attend one of his lectures in the 1970's, where he proved that there is no contradiction between science and Genesis. What he said is: "If God is omnipotent, then why could He not, 57xx years ago, be able to create a world that is `old`, with all dinosaur-fossils, geological layers and expanding galaxies already built-in?".

Now, he added (in my own words as far as I can remember), "I am not that naive to believe that this is what God actually did, that He essentially committed forgery, but the fact that there is a consistent model where both theories can live in peace, proves that they are not logically contradictory. What actually happened, we may or may not find out one day, but this allows me to consistently practice science when I'm in my lab and pray to the Creator when I'm in synagogue."

I looked and found that since then he developed further theories that attempt to explain the apparent gap.

While I find the Judeo-Christian concept of God problematic, here are some interesting pointers which could perhaps help this discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Schroeder#Religious_views_and_scientific_theories

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZfgIFuoIBs

http://geraldschroeder.com/wordpress/?page_id=79

Pericles,
I never said your friend was an atheist. I said you were an atheist.

But there are plenty of Catholics too, who are totally committed to modern science, who favour the Genesis creation account than evolutionary theories. I say this because throughout your line of questioning you act as though you think my attitude is something terribly unusual, like I'm one out of the box.

Thanks for the reply, Dan.

I was disappointed though as Van Til's turgid word salad is reducible to 'I believe, because I believe, because I believe' and his presuppositions and logical arguments are all refuted or disproved.

As your writings are more exoteric I was expecting something more along the lines of Bonaventure's Disputed Question. "How is it that humans achieve certainty?"

"Only if there is no hint of unreliability on either side in the subject or in the object. The things we know must be guaranteed to be permanently knowable and our act of knowing must be guaranteed to grasp the truth about those things."

Of course, Bonaventure was arguing for divine illumination [does this mean apostates are delighted?] not for the speed of light.

Apologies, Dan S de Merengue, if I was being obscure

>>Pericles, I never said your friend was an atheist. I said you were an atheist.<<

I was presenting, in abstract, a sequence of statements that contain a logical fallacy, as follows:

"- I am an atheist, and don't believe in young-earth creationism
- My friend does not believe in young-earth creationism
- Therefore my friend must also be atheist."

Can you see that he two people who both declare themselves not to believe in a young earth, in fact start from different philosophical persuasions? This was to show you how your earlier statement...

>>You say you don't view your position as having its foundation in atheism. Yet you do claim to be an atheist. You openly say you are not accepting of the theistic position described in Genesis.<<

...falls into the same logical trap. The fact that I do not accept "the theistic position described in Genesis" is not at all dependent upon my atheism, as it is a position equally upheld by (some, at least) Catholics!

The same goes for:

>>But there are plenty of Catholics too, who are totally committed to modern science, who favour the Genesis creation account than evolutionary theories.<<

Which supports my point that atheism, Catholicism etc. are not relevant to an understanding and acceptance of modern cosmology.

I hope that is clearer for you.

Having (hopefully) sorted out that misunderstanding, let's get back to the speed of light.

You asked:

>>Perhaps you could make it clearer what it is that you're saying I don't accept.<<

To which I responded:

Do you accept the definition of the speed of light?

http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/cosmic/p_roemer.html

Do you accept the use of the speed of light as a measure of distance?

http://www.answers.com/Q/How_can_the_speed_of_light_be_used_to_measure_distance

Do you accept that the distance between the earth and the closest galaxy, Andromeda, exceeds the timeframe in which you place the creation of the universe?

http://space-facts.com/andromeda/

If you do not, perhaps you would be good enough to explain how young earth creationists measure the speed of light, and determine the distance between ourselves and other celestial bodies.

Pericles,
Assuming the speed of light as constant, and that Andromeda is millions of light years away, then taking into account those two facts alone one might presume the light arriving from there has been travelling for millions rather than thousands of years to get here. But cosmologists are going to try to factor in many other considerations (red shift, etc.) in trying to formulate an adequate theory for the origin of the cosmos. There are serious challenges and difficulties with all theories so far proposed.

Simplistically extrapolating backwards various observed phenomena often brings anomalous results. For example, I've mentioned before the rates of the moon's recession, which put the upper limit of the moon's age at a fraction of most naturalistic theories of its origin. And I've mentioned to you previously, human population growth models, which show our population to originate (on the 'balance of probabilities') more likely in the region of a few thousand rather than tens or hundreds of thousands of years. Assuming the present as the key to understanding the past has its limitations, especially when limiting an investigation to only a few factors.

When faced with anomalies, other concerns, often philosophical, are factored in. To estimate the age of the origin of anything relies on models of varying complexity. Thus, the intellectual framework which is used as the 'lens' to interpret the evidence. The only really reliable method of obtaining the age of something is to get an eye witness testimony. The book of Genesis is God's account of what happened.

I've often wondered if light only arrived here from stars of less than 6,000 light years away, what a tiny fraction of the heavens we'd now witness and what wonders we'd miss appreciating. Such a comparatively puny view of the universe would miss the amazingly magnificent grandeur of what God was able to accomplish. We'd be less impressed and less inclined to join with the Psalmist who said, "The heavens declare the glory of God."

The following discusses the light speed problem, dealing with points raised by you and Yuyutsu.

http://creation.com/starlight-and-time-a-further-breakthrough

WmTrevor,
I agree that Van Til is not easy reading. He's rather difficult to follow. I once read something from Greg Bahnson, one of Van Til's students, who makes Van Til easier to understand. I think the emphasis is on starting with the correct foundational presuppositions and carrying them through consistently within their own terms.

Dear Dan,

Certainly, the heavens (lit. "sky" or "there-water") are telling the glory of God, also the firmament tells of His handiwork.

Yet if you look at it scientifically, then where is that firmament? does it even exist, that barrier separating the water above from the water below?

Genesis 17:1 states: "I am God Almighty, walk before me and be `tamim`.
Deuteronomy 18:13 states: "You should be `tamim` with the Lord your God".

The word 'tamim' was translated to English as "whole", "blameless" and "perfect", which is correct when the word `tamim` applies to the requirements of sacrificial lambs, yet when applied to humans it cannot mean that one should be without any wounds, scars or lost teeth, so the Jewish commentary explains the word as "without questioning", especially without consulting magicians and fortune-tellers, so much that in modern Hebrew, the word 'tamim' came to mean "naive".

Modern science is the equivalent of the then magicians and fortune-tellers, so it is sinful to try relying on it for understanding God's ways. Speaking of God's word (in the context of creation), for you as a Christian that means Genesis, whereas for me as a Hindu I believe that the worlds are continuously being created and destroyed in cycles within cycles, with no beginning or end, where in the smaller inner cycles, creation and destruction are partial and limited in scale and in greater encompassing cycles, creation and destruction are more vast and complete.

If you work as a scientist, then your occupation demands sophistication, but when living your private religious life, it is best to be 'tamim', naive, unsophisticated - to accept God's word at face (faith) value and leave science aside rather than attempt to reconcile the two. I am not decided whether or not reconciling is possible, but even if it is, I consider it unwholesome.

All very interesting, Dan S de Merengue.

>>There are serious challenges and difficulties with all theories so far proposed.<<

In my view, the idea that these theories are more difficult and more challenging than that of a young universe is simply perverse.

And when you rely upon such statements as this one, from the reference you provided...

"...recent observational data that overwhelmingly leads to the conclusion that the universe must have a centre, with our galaxy somewhere near it."

...you are skating on extremely thin argumentational ice indeed. The "evidence" turns out to be a series of unconnected postulations, drawn together by a committed young-earther, as opposed to the more detailed conclusions drawn from meticulous scientific observation. Which is why the author needs to use verbal devices such as "must have" and "somewhere near".

I also notice that you did not commit yourself to an answer, preferring to refer me to your favourite website, although that might be expecting too much. Just let me point out, once again, that I have read all the arguments on that site, and have found every one of them to be seriously void of any substance whatsoever.

>>For example, I've mentioned before the rates of the moon's recession, which put the upper limit of the moon's age at a fraction of most naturalistic theories of its origin.<<

That "fraction" is actually quite illuminating too:

"The currently accepted parameters indicate that the moon would have required 1.3 Ga to move from its origin at the Roche limit to its present position."

So even using the casual logic employed in the calculation itself, the author accepts 1.3 billion years as a possibility - only to discount it, apparently on the basis that 6,000 must therefore be equally plausible

But the question remains, why you are happy to accept these heavily convoluted arguments against those proposed by cosmologists, when the latter are supported by a use of positive discoveries, as opposed to the invariable young-earth retort of "there is another way of looking at it"?

Yusutsu,
I do see the value of having a unity and consistency of thought. I don't want to wear different hats for different occasions.

Pericles,
When discussing any of life's deeper questions, it is often the case that, yes, there is probably another way to look at it, an issue or conundrum. That brings in the value of discussion. That's what makes OLO so interesting and attractive.

Yes, I do have some favoured websites. For the creation.com website I'd be surprised if you have read every argument it contains, as it has many thousands of articles.

I've tried my best to answer your questions in good faith. I believe my answers have been reasonably thorough, within the limitations here. And if you're not impressed, then I'm hardly surprised. I said at the beginning that, in declaring yourself a convinced atheist, you're already committed to that alternative. I'm not surprised you see a theistic alternative as 'perverse'.

But I don't see your view as any more or less open minded or convoluted than myself. I think you are as committed to your implicit biases as I am to mine (with the difference that I make mine a little more explicit.)

An interesting slant on the issue of atheism, Dan S de Merengue.

>>I said at the beginning that, in declaring yourself a convinced atheist, you're already committed to that alternative. I'm not surprised you see a theistic alternative as 'perverse'.<<

You once again place atheism at the centre of my interest in your young-earth views. But as I see it, simple "atheism vs theism" is not in play here.

As I pointed out earlier, my views on the impossibility of a young-earth creation are shared by any number of folk who believe there is a deity behind the actions of our universe. To employ the argument that my views are guided by my atheism is therefore, by its very nature, unsustainable.

>>For the creation.com website I'd be surprised if you have read every argument it contains, as it has many thousands of articles<<

I'm pretty sure I have read the most recent versions of the young-earth arguments, using the headlines provided. While I have probably not read every single article, I have certainly covered every one of the topics.

>>But I don't see your view as any more or less open minded or convoluted than myself. I think you are as committed to your implicit biases as I am to mine (with the difference that I make mine a little more explicit.)<<

That's as maybe. But when you boil your arguments down to their fundamentals, all that is left is your "explicit bias", whereas I am open to the continuous stream of scientific advances that allow us to learn more about our position in the cosmos. You are able - somehow, and this is what interests me - to reposition each new discovery in the sole context of your belief system. A process of reduction, rather than expansion.

I find that most intriguing, especially in a person as articulate and intelligent as you present yourself here.

Dear Dan,

Even within science there exist seeming inconsistencies, such as between relatively and quantum mechanics. When dealing with the macro, scientists prefer relativity and with the micro they prefer quantum-mechanics.

No matter how hard we try, surely our intellectual models of reality will always remain incomplete, if nothing else then for the finiteness of our brain.

Reality is one and fully consistent. The only possible discrepancies are in our ability as humans to consistently describe and formulate it, but why should we? Is it not the curiosity bug? Would you not agree with me that it is a human weakness rather than a religious imperative?

I'll give credit to the entries about cosmological relativity at Creationwiki for including detailed references and mathematics.

Since my maths is not up to the task of analyzing Moshe Carmeli's formulae I'll rely on his own words from The First Six Days of the Universe": "However, there are still doubts about the meaning, mentioned in the Bible, that the Universe was created in six days. We actually know from the study of anthropology and cosmology that any development of the kind mentioned in the Bible takes millions or billions of years. ...the days of our life now are not equal to the days at the time of the creation of the Universe"

He then demonstrates that these are the age of the universe which is the Hubble time in the zero-gravity limit of 11.5 billion years. [Observations since Carmeli's death now have this limit around 14 billion years.]

There are significant differences to John G. Hartnett's conclusions in that they do not translate to 6 twenty-four hour days. Ignoring the transformational aspects (mathematical rather than philosophical) as well as questions of the 5th dimensional assumptions and those of a finite bounded universe I don't follow his presupposition of a distance from the centre of 126 million kms or the selecting of different values for &#951; which is defined as a proportionality constant.

But in a field rife with agnotology Dr Hartnett's Nobel Prize will have to wait for appropriate publication and scientific review rather than via Creation Book Publishers' "Starlight, Time and the New Physics" from 8 years ago.

Time will tell... unless mentioning time as an aphorism is too ironic.

But this highly accessible science perspective sheds light on some of the issues including the speed of ignorance:

What Is The Speed of Dark?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTvcpdfGUtQ

"I think the emphasis is on starting with the correct foundational presuppositions and carrying them through consistently within their own terms."

You must, Dan, but only if you wish to never discover the truth or confirm that what you conceive it to be, is in fact so.

I typed lowercase eta... OLO displays that as &#951;

Pericles,
Atheism v theism is exactly what is at play here. There are various theories concerning the origin of things, and our conclusions are particularly influenced by philosophical and presuppositional preferences. For example, questions such as whether the universe is infinite or bounded are highly influenced by our philosophical perspectives.

When you say you've read the most relevant young earth creationist articles on creation.com, you might have noticed the scientific qualifications of these authors as clearly beyond those of yourself (or mine, or most of us here who join in discussion on this forum.) Yet you're quick to dismiss their theories as 'perverse'. Excuse me if I don't automatically fall in line with your summation.

You say there are theists also who discount young earth creationist views. Are you including people such as Peter Selleck in this category? You're already on record as saying Peter Selleck is illogical and inconsistent. In fact, in all of your comments, you don't hold much respect for theists at all, so why come now bringing in theists to support your argument?

I disagree, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Pericles, Atheism v theism is exactly what is at play here.<<

If that were the key consideration, then a) atheists would believe in a 13.8 billion year-old universe, and b) theists would believe in a 6,000 year-old universe. Since this is patently not the case, whether one believes in a supreme being or not is irrelevant to the discussion.

This too is beside the point:

>>...you might have noticed the scientific qualifications of these authors as clearly beyond those of yourself<<

As indeed are those of the scientists who disagree completely with their conclusions.

>>Excuse me if I don't automatically fall in line with your summation.<<

Once again, I do not expect you to agree with me on this. I am simply interested in the thought processes that allow you to compress the growing body of evidence into your selected religious blueprint of the origins of the universe. It seems to me that it takes far more effort to ignore, as opposed to explore.

>>You say there are theists also who discount young earth creationist views. Are you including people such as Peter Selleck in this category?...why come now bringing in theists to support your argument?<<

Only to demonstrate that the argument has nothing to do with theism/atheism per se. While we (Peter Sellick and I) may disagree on many issues of religion and religious belief, we are of one view on young-earth creationism. Much as I may disagree with some of the policies pursued by politicians of a different basic persuasion than myself, but agree on others.

Do you, for example, disagree with every stance taken by your political opponents, simply because they are your political opponents? I somehow doubt it. Even the politicians themselves don't do that.

So Pericles, where do we stand, in conclusion? There are those who view the world as billions of years old, atheists and theists amongst them. Among highly qualified scientists you will find a diversity of opinion on many issues. There is not 'one' scientific view. As you say, people sometimes find themselves in an odd or seemingly wrong camp. A few years ago we had Prime Minister, Julia Gillard though an atheist, standing firm with her party for retaining traditional marriage, despite that being the position held firmly by the religionists. Different beliefs are held for a variety of reasons: security, conviction, expedience, the pragmatic, and others.

You speak of what 'takes more effort'. It certainly does take more effort for a fish to swim against the stream. I think of the many great scientists who had to persevere and withstand the strain of popular opinion until the pendulum swung their way and opinion caught up with them.

You speak of the 'growing body of evidence'. Its true that evidence is not static. It grows, it accumulates, and in time eventually theories change.

God's word isn't going to change. Genesis 1:1 says that, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And then it goes on to say a lot more besides. If you think empirical evidence currently is running against this account, then so be it. One day you might think differently as evidence accumulates and theories change. I am of the conviction that the evidence currently as a whole fits better with the Genesis account than other accounts. I say this admitting that there are difficulties. There are difficulties with all accounts. What's not normal about that? Despite what you say, I have tried to weigh both sides and look at the issue from different angles.

That would seem to be a reasonable summary of the situation, Dan S de Merengue:

>>Different beliefs are held for a variety of reasons: security, conviction, expedience, the pragmatic, and others.<<

Yours are held because of your religious beliefs:

>>Genesis 1:1 says that, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.<<

And - presumably - because you revel in contrarianism:

>>It certainly does take more effort for a fish to swim against the stream.<<

But this is unlikely:

>>If you think empirical evidence currently is running against this account, then so be it. One day you might think differently as evidence accumulates and theories change.<<

The reason I feel confident in my view is that the accumulation of new evidence is consistently in favour of the multiple-billion year-old universe, over your multi-thousand year-old version. Each new discovery requires your scientists to justify a view that is consistent with your beliefs, rather than simply adding it to the store of knowledge available, and analyzing it without the religious overlay.

You insist that my approach is merely a product of my atheism, despite the majority of religious folk also subscribing to the idea. We will just have to differ on that point as well.

The majority of religious folk are heavily influenced by current popular culture (TV, newspapers, our school systems, etc.) It's not comfortable to swim against the flow. Or is making such a statement just another example of my contrariness?

And all generalizations are false, Dan S de Merengue.

>>The majority of religious folk are heavily influenced by current popular culture (TV, newspapers, our school systems, etc.) It's not comfortable to swim against the flow.<<

But that is so impenetrably vague as to be unworthy of you. Of course people are "influenced" by what goes on around them. But that does not necessarily confer instant credibility on those who "swim against the flow". There needs to be a little more meat in the argument than simply stating that being a contrarian must, by definition, have unique value in assessing the relevance of one's stated position.

>>Or is making such a statement just another example of my contrariness?<<

Not at all. As I said, it is an easy statement to agree with. But you appear to want to claim that contrarianism is in itself a virtue, instead of merely demonstrating a stubborn reluctance to accept the verdict of the majority. And if you are to take a stand in the face of said majority, you need to show a stronger hand than just "the Bible says so". Which is, after all, the sum total of the entire young-earth rationale.

You're right. Contrariness is not automatically a virtue. Yet, what is at issue is the philosophical approach one adopts in viewing the evidence. Many people, religious people included, have adopted the ideas of the mainstream culture without adequately considering the biblical approach.

Genesis 1:1 says that, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. I put that as a fact or proposition, not an argument. My argument in summary was that "the evidence currently as a whole fits better with the Genesis account than other accounts." To flesh that out would take rather long, as we'd be talking about the whole body of empirical evidence.

In the realm of cosmology currently often the 'big bang' is taken as a given. This is part of the current reigning paradigm. The assumptions underlying Big Bang cosmology are unverifiable (and I would posit that they're wrong.) Yet to make the calculations work, theorists have declared the universe to be made of 22% dark matter and 74% dark energy. So 96% of the substance of the alleged universe is yet to be verified. This is a huge fudge factor introduced to save a theory. We await the evidence that will ultimately be published against it.

My point is that people arrive at such anomalies because they are committed firstly to a philosophical idea. Available evidence is fitted into a paradigm. It never just speaks for itself.

Agreed, Dan S de Merengue.

>>My point is that people arrive at such anomalies because they are committed firstly to a philosophical idea. Available evidence is fitted into a paradigm.<<

And your own starting point is clear:

>>Genesis 1:1 says that, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. I put that as a fact or proposition, not an argument.<<

Your philosophical baseline is not directly comparable with my own, however, as you yourself - very nearly - admit:

>>In the realm of cosmology currently often the 'big bang' is taken as a given.<<

There is one highly significant difference that stands out like the proverbial sore thumb - your use of the words "currently", and "often".

The "big bang" may indeed be the current flavour-of-the month among cosmologists, but it has not always been so, and may just as easily be supplanted tomorrow with another theory, as more information on our cosmic surroundings is gathered.

You, on the other hand, are unable to shift from your biblical view, as you are personally committed to it as the permanent and unchangeable centrepiece of your thinking.

There's nothing at all wrong with that, of course. But the mistake that I believe you keep making in terms of my own position is to ascribe to atheism the same kind of static world view, to match your own static biblical view. Whereas in the same way that atheism is the state of not-subscribing to a religious view, it is also the state of not having to subscribe permanently to any specific philosophical view.

The absence of a fixed-point philosophy allows considerable freedom to assimilate and process new information without the need to marry it with one single, unchangeable view. An approach that can even - as it has done on numerous occasions in the past - cause a change to the philosophical idea itself.

After all this time, I'm glad we've agreed on something.

But as for your concept of 'freedom', we're probably not going to see eye to eye. Good guidance leads people into freedom. For example, I play piano. My teachers originally taught me the scales and the disciplines. Now I play with much freedom. Parents tell their kids to go play outside. But they limit them to within safe boundaries, e.g. they don't let them play near traffic. Within the boundaries, they can find much freedom.

The Bible is very liberating. Its guidance has released people into freedom in many areas. For example, you speak of the great things the Western world has achieved scientifically in the last 500 years. This time period followed the invention of the printing press, and the translation and proliferation of the Scriptures into the common languages of Europe. Subsequently, most of that 500 years saw the West encompassed in a biblical worldview of the nature of matter and reality.

Such a worldview gave a huge boost to the advancement of Western science. I've spoken to you before of how most of the recognised branches of modern science were founded by Christian believers with a biblical mindset. For example, the taxonomy of living things that we still use today (the basic categories of family, genera, etc.) was invented by biblical (not evolutionary) thinkers.

You claim you are not as committed to your view as you say I am. Yet atheists are very much committed to their view - the task of explaining creation without a creator.

Though you claim to be trying to understand my theistic view, I see a deliberate thrust within your posts to compare and defend your particular atheistic view. That confirms to me again the overall picture of what we are discussing is really about atheism versus theism.

My wife, a linguistic researcher, this weekend is in Kyoto, Japan, attending the World Congress of African Linguistics. She said she attended a plenary session given by a Japanese professor entitled, 'Evolutionary origin of human languages viewed from the study of chimpanzees.' Without attending myself, I would have guessed that researchers might find more value in researching the linguistic capabilities of dogs (for their ability to recognise meaningful sounds) or parrots (for their ability to produce sounds). But in the end, I suppose researchers who are restricted by the current paradigm will do what they find funding to do.

Today my wife confirmed with me that the professor admitted that humans and chimpanzees have very little in common in terms of the way they think or their linguistic capabilities. This shows to me how much time and effort can be wasted in science when starting off on the wrong foot within the wrong philosophical paradigm.

That argument is a fraction disingenuous, Dan S de Merengue.

>>For example, the taxonomy of living things that we still use today (the basic categories of family, genera, etc.) was invented by biblical (not evolutionary) thinkers<<

The theories surrounding the origins of the universe that emerged from the sixteenth century onwards were discovered, analyzed, and developed by "biblical thinkers". This certainly is evidence of a significant level of freedom in their thought processes, but it is not particularly realistic to describe this freedom as being the result of biblical thinking. If they had been restricted by the bible stories in the manner that you display, they would have spent their time fitting their discoveries into the biblical paradigm, as opposed to expanding the basis of research and experimentation in the way they did. In essence, I rather suspect that the freedom in their thinking patterns was in spite of, rather than a result of, the influence of the Genesis stories.

You define your "freedom" as follows:

>>For example, I play piano. My teachers originally taught me the scales and the disciplines. Now I play with much freedom.<<

The basics that allow you to play piano "with much freedom" are also applicable to the violin, or the bassoon. Developed in another direction, they could also lead you to the conductor's rostrum. No-one denies that there is much in the Bible that encourages a good life. But neither Christianity nor religions in general are unique in pointing out that sin is bad for society.

And I'm not sure you have this the right way around

>>...atheists are very much committed to their view - the task of explaining creation without a creator<<

It is certainly easier to tell oneself that "God did it". In my early years I thought precisely that. The disconnect arrives at the moment one thinks for oneself that the existence of a supreme being is not a prerequisite to the existence of the universe. From there, it all falls into place quite easily.

[contd]

>>Though you claim to be trying to understand my theistic view<<

I do understand your "theistic view", Dan S de Merengue. You have made it perfectly clear, across many, many posts.

What I find difficult to come to terms with is the manner in which you discard the evidence that has been collected, scrutinized and analyzed by atheists, Jews, Roman Catholics, Protestants and a whole brigade of random thinkers, in favour of your single principle that the universe was created 6,000 years ago, in six days, by a single metaphysical entity.

>>You claim you are not as committed to your view as you say I am.<<

Not exactly. I am committed to atheism, sure, but my "claim" concerns the finality of the current theories on the origin of our universe, which position is most definitely open to change. Sure, the theories may be informed by my atheism, but as I said before, they are shared by many theists. Whose views, incidentally, are as subject to change as mine.

You, on the other hand, are committed to the conclusion as a direct result of your belief system., which does not allow alternative interpretation.

>>I see a deliberate thrust within your posts to compare and defend your particular atheistic view. That confirms to me again the overall picture of what we are discussing is really about atheism versus theism.<<

Up to a point, Lord Copper. At base, there is undoubtedly this essential difference that informs each individual position. But in this particular case, my position is shared by a quite considerable number of theists, which effectively rules atheism out of the equation entirely.

>>Today my wife confirmed with me that the professor admitted that humans and chimpanzees have very little in common in terms of the way they think or their linguistic capabilities.<<

That would seem to be a useful insight. At the very least, it means that no-one else need waste their time on that line of enquiry.

Maybe dogs and parrots would indeed be a more fruitful path to take. You should suggest it.

A 'Scoop' for your information Pericles... only in case you were unaware of Dr. Ken Miller (Professor of Biology and Royce Family Professor for Teaching Excellence at Brown University) who is a Roman Catholic worldview theist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

It doesn't explain what chimpanzees think about their extra two chromosomes. Though, it is interesting to think that sometimes less is more, I'm not expecting any great apes to say so.

Thanks for this Wm Trevor, I was unaware of that research.

I have always had that nagging feeling that something was missing in my life, and now I know. I shall sleep well tonight.

I feel somewhat cheated, though. Who knows what humans might have accomplished, if only they had been able to hold on to those two chromosomes, and stop them from fusing.

I wonder if they felt it when it happened? Probably a bit like appendicitis, you'd think.