Dear Pogi,

I am glad that we agree that science is silent about metaphysics.

Morality is metaphysical.

On Friday I wrote: "nothing in the realm of material science indicates that one ought to seek the good and avoid evil EVEN IF/WHEN THEY COULD GET AWAY WITH IT".

Your reply, summarily, was that due to reciprocity it is rational for a human to imitate morality. The problems with this approach are:

1. There still are cases when it is rational and scientific to believe that despite reciprocity which works in general, in the particular situation, the prospects of one's human organism and/or its progeny would actually improve by behaving immorally. In other words, that one could get away with wrongful acts.

2. People in general are not rational. While they know many facts, they continue to behave irrationally, based on emotions and desires.

3. The initial assumptions regarding desirables and undesirables are arbitrary and irrational: why would the safety, health and prosperity of humans, individually and/or socially, be a good thing? After all, science tells us that no matter what we do, every human and every human society will eventually die. Not only is it irrational to consider the perceived interests of our human-animal body important, but rational analysis also shows that these are futile and cannot be successful, so why this irrational effort?

4. Material science is limited. While it knows much about physical matter (i.e. particles), it understands energy much less (recall that matter is actually condensed energy, E=mc²) and is yet to discover that energy itself is a condensed form of mind, then that mind itself is a condensed form of intelligence.

To be consistently moral, one needs either direct knowledge of the source of intelligence, which in turn is the source of mind, energy and matter, or otherwise, to have faith in the writings and teachings of those who delved within, discovered this source and referred to it as 'God'.

You seem to confuse the reality of God as the essence and source of all that is, with the useful/practical method of worshipping God through a deity.

To Pogi. You said:

<<It is inescapable that ALL faithful shall share a number of fundamental characteristics while vehemently claiming simultaneously that all other christian sects are illegitimate and their members are hell-bound.>>

Nope. Not correct at all. Look up 1 Corinthians 1:10-17. It basically confronts divisions among Christians that started back then, and Paul confront and corrects that kind of view. Any Christian who reads this passage and tries to apply it will likely come to the conclusion that though Christians see things differently and don't always agree doctrinally, we are all still saved by Jesus, not by a denomination or a sect. There is another verse that says to trust God's wisdom, not man's. If that is applied to our understanding as well, then our misunderstanding and disagreements on issues that are not salvation related, won't be a reason to be rejected by God and sent to Hell.

What you wrote is based on your philosophy of Christianity, and like I said of the cultures in science, philosophy is an issue. To many conclusions without enough data. Too many hypothesis without tests and observations being repeated to confirm them. It is a philosophy issue. Whether you like it or not. Would you like an example? Very well.

On Monday, 1 April 2019 12:56:21 AM you said to Yuyutsu:

<<it is in our interest as an animal living in a complex group that cooperation, fellowship and a sense of fairness/justice are more likely to be reciprocated than not, that our own actions prompt most intelligent humans to react in a similar manner. The safety, health and prosperity of societal groups were found by evolution to be enhanced by a largely benign reciprocity involving cooperation, fellowship and fairness/justice.>>

While I agree that fellowship, justice, and reciprocity/cooperation are in our best interests, there are still two things I would challenge you on in this quote. One is that these qualities are prompted by intelligence, and the second is that these qualities were found by evolutionary means.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Here's why I challenge these two ideas. Based on what I see, people are kind and fair (leading to fellowship, corporation and reciprocated), regardless of their intellect. A more intelligent person does not make them a kinder or fairer person. In fact instead often our intellect is used to get away with injustice, different schemes, and even cons and coverups. We do this at a young age when we don't know any better (hoping not to get in trouble with parents), and some do this more successfully at an older age because they can get away with it and don't care about our fellow human beings.

Therefore, I would counter that a sense of kindness and fairness (and by extension, corporation, fellowship and justice) is part of something different then intellect is. Both are important, but kindness is more important then intelligence, and not reliant on it.

Regarding evolution. There's no real evidence that we've evolved socially. We've changed with governments, cultures, technology, and society throughout the ages, and across the world. But the things that are counted as evolved could just as easily have always been there. As far as I can tell, people are the same as they've always been. Both the good aspects and the negative aspects.

What you've written on is a philosophical perspective, not a data based perspective. This actually occurs often enough in scientific communities just on the basis that rarely is a person's research and work second checked, by repeating them. They are quoted, and added to a peer review (that is if they come to conclusions that their peers can agree with based on other conclusions from research that may or may not have been repeated).

You also said:

<<Science itself declares you to be both wrong and a perpetrator of deceit.>>

Nope. Still wrong. Not only is science not a threat to my faith, your philosophy of science ("science declares") is not a threat either.

To Pogi and Yuyutsu.

This conversation is rapidly moving away from the article that Peter Sellick wrote. Therefore to bring it back a notch, here is a quote from the article.

"Any kind of faith that relies on certainties will be spiritually crippling and will make a mockery of faith."

I think on this point is a foundation that Yuyutsu congratulates Peter's article on, (because he often refutes any perspective to reliability and what is real), and is also a point that Pogi recoils to. I say that because from what I've seen in this conversation with Pogi, and from past conversations with Yuyutsu.

This is also a point I greatly disagree with and have discussed greatly with Yuyutsu about. There needs to be a reliable foundation to test and place other philosophies and conclusions on. Otherwise there is no reason to judge or justify and perspective if we remove a foundation of certainty that we can trust and rely on.

I can tell you through experience that God exists, and that he loves us. This is not through theological study, or from biblical study, but by experience to confirm these things. These lead me to search theological perspectives and read the bible, which lead to trusting the bible as a solid foundation as opposed to theological springboards that are not grounded in something solid like experience or the bible.

Without a foundation to hold you, there is no guide to rely on in our spiritual growth. It is therefore crucial to find what can be reliable in our journey of faith, and that is not a crippling factor, but a strengthening one.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

You touched on some fundamental and difficult questions, particularly the question of free choice.

Because in the past we have placed our faith in the world, only we can change our allegiance and turn it to God. Is this fair, given that at the time when we placed our faith in the world we were ignorant of God? I am still struggling with this question, but either way, what is certain is that nobody else will do it for us, that only we can make this leap of faith.

So long as we perceive God to be of the world, even with the best of proofs, we cannot leap and change our allegiance. We just cannot tread along the spiritual path only from certainty to certainty, for the path also contains leaps of faith. I think that this is what Peter Sellick meant by "spiritually crippling", that having too many proofs delays our leap of faith.

Once the leap is made, we find a level of certainty again, just as you have, through your own experience.
However, until you are fully bathed in the glory of God there are several leaps of faith to make, not just one.

Scripture is so important, but due to past contaminations of our mind, chances are close to zero that we could simply read the text and understand its depth of truth correctly. We also need a living guide, a teacher who has already leapt further than us towards God, so their certainty is more solid and their intellect purer than ours. Not everyone is fortunate enough as the twelve and others who were guided directly by Jesus himself, yet there are people on earth who are ahead on the path to God - seek their guidance!

I pray that you find a guide who will be able to teach you the scriptures correctly, the Christian scriptures in your case, who will remove your errors and answer your spiritual questions. You have already come a long way, you deserve even more!

To Yuyutsu.

I don't see the connection to the topic of free choice based on what I wrote, or on what Peter wrote in his article.

What I was responding to was that having a foundation on solid ground, on things you are certain about, is good for a person's faith. There is more to our beliefs, and our perspectives (including out faith) then what can be proven or disproven casually. Often it is through our ideas and perspectives being tested by life, that we can see if they are reliable and true. That takes experience, growth, and maturity. All of which takes time. However if you have something that actually is a solid foundation and doesn't change or break when life tests you, then that should be counted as a strength in both your faith and your views of the world. It will not cripple a person's faith but instead give a reliable foundation on that aspect that they know is true.

Yuyutsu, you said:

<<So long as we perceive God to be of the world, even with the best of proofs, we cannot leap and change our allegiance [by turning to God]. >>

I'm not saying that God is of the world or not. That is your wording. But God does act in our lives. Too many testimonies of people being saved, rescued, cured, strengthened in their struggles, or just answered when praying, to conclude that God is not active in the world. And if a person can see it for themself that God is there, then they can rely more fully on turning to God, because they know He's there. This "proof" can be a steady ground when life gets harder or darker. Remember that God is there, and that He has already overcome the world, like we can see by the example of Jesus living and dying for us. Even to overcome death itself. If God being real is a certainty in a person's life then the hardships and burdens can become easier and to persevere through them because of the knowledge that God is there.