George,

You may have misunderstood me. I was not promoting the idea that having a faith in a religion will ‘necessarily’ affect the reasoning involved in scientific disciplines.

Allow me to make it crystal clear so there is no confusion.

I am saying that the influence of genes and influences on memes produce the ideological positions humans take. It is therefore wise to use reason in establishing if those influences deliver good or bad results and are justified and reasonable. If they are not, then we must alter the influences.

David

Dear CJ... thank you for the continual reminders :)

Even though you poo poo the evidence for our Lords miraculous works, even you.. would find it difficult I feel to deny that the Church could not have emerged with the values it held without something rather miraculous occurring.. if ur fair minded that is.

I mean... as John said

<<Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.>>

The Gospel of John was compiled in the first century.. while eye witnesses were living (of which he was one) Papyrus P52 is the oldest Biblical fragment (early 2nd century) containing segments of John's gospel. (thus pointing to it being copied and distributed.. P52 was found in Egypt. Now an anthropologist should see quite a bit in that.. specially about what it says about widespread availability of the Gospels in written form very very early..and also on the matter of textual reliablity it speaks volumes..separated geographically yet.. the same as others.)

http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/greek/johnpap.html

There.. you can see it yourself :)

But.. what does evidence mean to those who prefer not to change their minds.. something I've heard a bit in Ludwigs anniversary thread.

God bless.. I'm off to fellowship/worship now.

George:

"I agree that “we are all born atheists“ the same as we are all born a-scientists, a-philosophers, a-mathematicians etc."

You are comparing vocations, which have a basis in fact, with religious belief?

I agree perhaps that philosophy is comparing like with like, but your point overall is nothing less than pure sophistry. Even philosophy is dynamic and can evolve as we understand more about the human condition, whereas religion remains static - while there are those like Shelby Spong who can combine contemporary knowledge with religion, most remain steadfast in their beliefs. Unable to look at the (frightening) possibility that their particular religion (out of the thousands) may not be true. Such a fragile foundation for an entire system of belief, I understand why religious defend it against all the evidence to the contrary, for your entire sense of self must fully integrated with these ancient beliefs.

David,
>> the influence of genes and influences on memes produce the ideological positions humans take. It is therefore wise to use reason in establishing if those influences deliver good or bad results and are justified and reasonable. If they are not, then we must alter the influences. <<

I agree (to a point, see below). That is an attitude a reasonable theist or atheist should take. Depending on how you define/interpret "ideological positions", "influences" and other terms contained in the statement, it could be used as an argument one way or the other: by an atheist defending his/her position as well as by a "theist" defending his/hers.

There still remains the question of "truth" (not easy to define) that not only philosophers (and theologians) but also scientists must ask. Steven Weinberg, a physicist and atheist, was in my opinion one of the best defenders of a scientist‘s need to pursue something he/she intuitively feels as truth (about the physical world) during the "science wars" controversies with post-modern "social constructivists" in the nineties. Much of his argument (of course, not all) could be applied also to what a “theist” intuitively feels as truth about the “metaphysical world”. That, however, touches upon rather complicated philosophy of science and philosophy of religion questions.

Fractelle,
I was just comparing different insights, information, skills etc that we lack when we are born.

As mentioned in a couple of posts ago, I already know that for some (fortunately not all) atheists my "point overall is nothing less than pure sophistry" (others call it mental gymnastics or condescension). You are obviously happy with your ideas about religion and religious, and I certainly do not want to interfere with your beliefs about the anything but simple phenomenon of religion.

Yes, I should have kept my original intention, namely that as an "outsider to atheism" I should just restrict myself to watching and learning from the interesting atheist-to-atheist discussions that David launched. So my apologies for not having kept my word.

Dear Poly,

Would he please complete the outstanding thread on suicide. You have not have addressed Hosea 6:6, nor have you addressed the matter of the Last Supper suggesting that Jesus was aware of "death by cop". Herein, recall Hosea states that Yewah wants Mercy/love (trans.) not sacrifice. And Jesus committing suicide is against Jewish faith and deliberately having body degraded is blasphamy. Crucifixation by the
Son of Man goes against the grain of the OT and the teaching that Man is made in God's image and therefore must not be descrated. {Sells left these matters unaddress too.]

Dear Philo,

The contruct of the Holy Spirit is a tricky one. Early notions of God of the First Cause, of which, Genesis, is an example, wherein in humanity can know the energies (enereiai) or powers (dynamaeis) of God, but not It's essence (ousia). Though, later, churches did try (the Trinity, borrowed from the Eygptians). Using this model, one cannot know intimately know god.

Your OLO namesake, Philo, saw eminations from God, but the true essence was outside of human reach.

Such a high reality was beyond human comprehension. Plato and Aristole saw the cosmos emanating from an eternal abstract First Cause, based on Perfect Forms in the case of Plato.

To a religionist, God's plan is logos, yet one's contemplation (theoria) means one cannot know the true existence of God, because God, in Its essence, transends human comprehension.

The Christian can only regress the dynamaeis of the prophets towards the source of said knowledge, and assume, without support, the exist of an alledged supernatural essence.

Regards.