Who Believes?

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS · August 31, 2005, 9:30am

[quote]pookie wrote:
I also dislike “militant atheists” and don’t want to be lumped in with that group, but the label “atheist” makes my position clear from the start and cuts down on long explanation.
[/quote]
Atheism does not mean there is no god just that one chooses not to acknowledge/believe in a god. I live my life as if there is no god–therefor I am an atheist. As a scientist I understand uncertainty–however, it is pointless to apply that to things that are not testable.

OllyB · August 31, 2005, 9:47am

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

The Bible IS MEANT to be taken literally. Any priest or pastor or whoever who says otherwise is standing on shaky ground in regards to their beliefs because science keeps “winning” these debates.

[/quote]

No it isn’t.

OllyB · August 31, 2005, 9:52am

That’s not exactly true. From Wiki:

On several occasions, apparently starting in 2001, rumours circulated claiming that Flew had converted from atheism. Flew refuted these rumours on the Secular Web website.[3] In 2003, he signed the Humanist Manifesto III.

In December 2004, an interview with Flew conducted by Flew’s friend and philosophical adversary Gary Habermas was published in Biola University’s Philosophia Christi, with the title Atheist Becomes Theist - Exclusive Interview with Former Atheist Antony Flew. Flew agreed to this title.[4] According to the introduction, Flew informed Habermas in January 2004 that he had become a deist [5], and the interview took place shortly thereafter. Then the text was amended by both participants over the following months prior to publication. In the article Flew states that he has left his long-standing espousal of atheism by endorsing a deism of the sort that Thomas Jefferson advocated (“While reason, mainly in the form of arguments to design, assures us that there is a God, there is no room either for any supernatural revelation of that God or for any transactions between that God and individual human beings.”). Flew states that certain philosophical and scientific considerations had caused him to rethink his lifelong support of atheism. However, it is clear from the interview that Flew is not comfortable with either Christianity or Islam.

Flew’s conception of God as explained in the interview is limited to the idea of God as a first cause, and he rejects the ideas of an afterlife, of God as the source of good (he explicitly states that God has created “a lot of” evil), and of the resurrection of Jesus as an historical fact. He is particularly hostile to Islam, and says it is “best described in a Marxian way as the uniting and justifying ideology of Arab imperialism.”[6]

Flew has subsequently made contradictory statements to those given in the Habermas interview as justification for his endorsing of deism. In October 2004 (before the December publication of the Flew-Habermas interview), a letter written to Richard Carrier of the Secular Web, stated that he was a deist and also said that “I think we need here a fundamental distinction between the God of Aristotle or Spinoza and the Gods of the Christian and the Islamic Revelations.”[7]. Flew also said: My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species … [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms.

In an another letter to Carrier of 29 December 2004 Flew went on to retract his statement “a deity or a ‘super-intelligence’ [is] the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature.” “I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction.” wrote Flew. He blames his error on being “misled” by Richard Dawkins, claiming Dawkins “has never been reported as referring to any promising work on the production of a theory of the development of living matter”. (Dawkins has - in “Evolutionary Chemistry: Life in a Test Tube,” published in the 21 May 1992 issue of Nature, with Laurence Hurst.) The work of physicist Gerald Schroeder had been influential in Flew’s new belief, but Flew admitted to Carrier that he had not read any of the scientific critiques of Schroeder that Carrier referred him to.

When asked in December 2004 by Duncan Crary of Humanist Network News if he still stood by the argument presented in The Presumption of Atheism, Flew replied he did but he also restated his position as deist: “I’m quite happy to believe in an inoffensive inactive god”. When asked by Crary whether or not he has kept up with the most recent science and theology, he responded with “Certainly not”, stating that there is simply too much to keep up with. Flew also denied that there was any truth to the rumors of 2001 and 2003 that he had abandoned his atheism or converted to Christianity.[8]

His most recent internet work, a letter on Darwinism and Theology to Philosophy Now, left the world hanging when it closed with, “Anyone who should happen to want to know what I myself now believe will have to wait until the publication, promised for early 2005, by Prometheus of Amherst, NY of the final edition of my God and Philosophy with a new introduction of it as ?an historical relic?.”[9]

But in 2005, when God and Philosophy was republished by Prometheus Books, the new introduction failed to conclusively answer the question of Flew’s beliefs. The preface says the publisher and Flew went through a total of four versions (each extensively peer-reviewed) before coming up with one that satisfied them both. The result is an introduction, written in a distinctly detached third-person context, which raises ten matters that came about since the original 1966 edition. Flew refrains from personally commenting on these issues, and basically says that any book to follow God and Philosophy will have to take into account these ideas when considering the philosophical case for the existence of God.

A novel definition of “God” by Richard Swinburne.
The case for the existence of the Christian God by Swinburne in the book Is There a God?.
The Church of England’s change in doctrine on the eternal punishment of Hell.
The question of whether there was only one big bang and if time began with it.
The question of multiple universes.
The fine-tuning argument.
The question of whether there is a naturalistic account for the development of living matter from non-living matter.
The question of whether there is a naturalistic account for non-reproducing living matter developing into a living creature capable of reproduction.
The concept of an Intelligent Orderer as explained in the book The Wonder of the World: A Journey from Modern Science to the Mind of God by Roy Abraham Varghese.
An extension of an Aristotelian/Deist concept of God that can be reached through natural theology, which was developed by David Conway.

In an interview with Joan Bakewell for BBC Radio 4 in March 2005[10], Flew rejected the fine-tuning argument, and retracted his earlier claims that the origins of DNA could not be explained by naturalistic theories. However, he restated his deism, with the usual provisos that his God is not the God of any of the revealed religions:

Q What view do you take of what is happening in America - where presumably you’re being hailed now as … one of them?
A Well, too bad (laughs). I’m not ‘one of them’.

STACK · August 31, 2005, 10:01am

I believe,

nuff said

Stack

TedK · August 31, 2005, 10:30am

I’m in!
Or on board… The “J” train that is…

TedK · August 31, 2005, 10:33am

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Buttered_Corn wrote:
Thousands of years ago god spoke. He supposedly did great and mighty exploits for men to see. Now he’s reduced himself to a distant relative that never returns your calls. Where is he today, like he was thousands of years ago? His silence is very loud.

I don’t think He is silent - I think we became “too smart” to listen.
[/quote]

Well said.

monkey_space · August 31, 2005, 10:46am

I believe. I am not ashamed of what I believe. The creed posted by Warrior Spirit is a good representation of my beliefs.

I don’t need someone to provide me with proof or the lack of proof.

I am not bothered by anyone who may make fun of me or call me an idiot simply because of what I believe. I do not call people who do not believe the same as I do idiots, but if I truly believe what I say I believe then I have no choice other than to believe they are wrong. And if they truly believe what they say they believe, then they have no other choice than to believe I am wrong.

I will respect those who do not believe what I believe, but I do not think it is too much to expect that respect to be reciprocated. If someone is not able to reciprocate the same respect, then that informs me of their character, and lets me know they are not capable of handling the fact that someone else believes something contrary to what they believe. I will still respect the fact that they believe something different than I believe, but it will be hard for me to respect them as an individual, although I will still try.

Christopher

[quote]Warrior Spirit wrote:
I believe…

I believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.

I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father. Through Him all things were made. For us men and our salvation He came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit, He was born of the Virgin Mary , and became man. For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate; He suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day He rose again in fulfillment of the scriptures: He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son, He is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.

Amen. [/quote]

Miserere · August 31, 2005, 11:07am

[quote]orion wrote:
Pookie,

I refuse to whorship the “Flying Spaghetti Monster”. A deity based on simple carbs is totally unacceptable.

That does not mean that I can PROVE that it does not exist.[/quote]

How do you know there’s not a protein-packed meatball (from grass-fed cows, of course) at the centre of the Flying Spaghetti Monster???

Have you no faith, Orion!?

The Flying Spaghetti Monster allows you to endulge in some healthy C+P worship. How many gods can claim that?

[center][b]The Flying Spaghetti Monster

A T-Man’s Post-Workout Deity of Choice[/b][/center]

makkun · August 31, 2005, 12:16pm

I believe … in humans, not in any god(s). I think it is our job to regulate our morals and lay down our laws and learn to treat each other and the surrounding nature with compassion and understanding. Not because we should, but because it just works better this way.

I used to be lutheran christian (until 18), turned more and more agnostic, until with about 21, I turned truely atheist - and it has been a very rewarding experience so far: I have had no spiritual questions, have not asked for a meaning of life, and have not resorted, when in despair, to prayer.

I have many christian, muslim, hindu, wiccan and buddhist friends, and we all enjoy discussing our world-views, but do not try to convert each other, but often respectfully disagree. And that’s alright.

My life without god(s), to me, has been as wonderful and fulfilling as many others who do believe in a higher power.

Makkun

DH1 · August 31, 2005, 12:36pm

[quote]Miserere wrote:
After reading your posts on this thread, I finally decided I had to answer this one.

Disc Hoss wrote:
The problem with Asimov and others who see the situation is myopia.

An atheist will say the exact same thing about you! :-)[/quote]

===========
Well that’s that. Glad we cleared that up. I am actually educated on what the Bible says, it’s history etc.. as well as university educated on many facets of science so I’ll go out on a limb here and surmise that I have a good bit of info to back my statements. And how familiar are you with your “opponent”? Your responses will bear this out quickly I’m sure. Everybody has an opinion on the Bible, but cannot even verbalize the basic structure,plot and tenets.

You can’t prove love, hate, the human mind, and a myriad of other realities that we experience everyday. We don’t question their existence just because we can’t “measure” them.

Therein lies the problem. Most of us experience love, hate, and a myriad of other realities; how many experience God? I suspect you believe you do, but many people don’t.[/quote]

=======
You made my point. The understanding of the complexity and supra natural nature of the above attributes shows more than sufficient proof for a supreme deity. You have reason, cognition, emotion, volition, and a myriad of other capacities. All that you are beyond your physical body is in a realm that science is too limited and by definition, incapable of going. We leave the world of the test tube and enter the world of the mind and spirit. Science is too rudimentary and clumsy. You cannot weigh love, find the temperature of hate etc..

You are born with an apriori assumption that you are unaware of even that is inherently given by your Creator as you are made in His image to the degree that the finite can reflect the infinite. Assumptions that life is rational, should be equitable, and that the material world should be compatible with itself and ourselves.

Funny you mention it like this. Christ explained to Nicodemus that the Spirit is like the wind. No one knows from where it comes or goes, but only it’s effects are known. It’s effects are the very occurrence of life and self-awareness.

You are trying to limit supra-natural and/or non physical realities by their ability to be proven by the scientific method. Apples and oranges. You’re forcing a square peg into a round hole, and when it doensn’t fit you claim victory. Kinda silly.

I don’t agree here. Just because something is supra-natural and/or non physical, should not make it unintelligible to Science. For example, before quarks were observed, they were postulated by theoretical physicists. Nobody could see them (and we still can’t), but they explained much of what was going on in the subatomic world.

==========

Just like the Bible. We can’t see God, Satan, Angels, etc.. but we can surmise their existence from intellignet extrapolation of known scientific and deducible/experiential facts. THAT is why the ID arguement is moving to the fore. More are beginning to see the demise of evolution and the absolute necessity of ID. The genome again is one example. Another is the shocking and unexpected/unpredicted complexity of micro-organisms. Honest science is on the verge of coming to a beginning understanding that the elephant in the room is again irreducible complexity.

========[quote]
In a way, they were supra-natural and non physical. Eventually bigger accelerators were built and evidence for their existence began to appear. Mind you, we still have not seen a naked quark, on it’s own.

=======
In a way they are NOT. They are theoretically able to be measured, tested, and quite possibly one day manipulated etc… They are limited to and homogenous with the universe. God is transcendent, independent, and infinite. Science falls far short. He cannot be caged by the likes of men’s intellect. Think of it like this: God is rational, but not limited to human reason. He both fills His universe and exceeds it’s bounds. Like a drinking glass in the ocean. God is the water, the glass is the universe.

Two problems: God is in accordance WITH but not subordinate TO reason. This a key concept. AND human reason is NOT the measuring stick. We can all agree that we are finite and therefore in no position to make demands of God’s nature. Because it doesn’t make sense to man doesn’t mean that it is nonsensical. Now you know what I mean by man being his own god. He makes himself the measure and filter of all truth, even though he knows that he is limited in capacity, and imperfect in practice. Now that is the height of absurdity. Think about that.
======[quote]

So, 6 quarks are postulated to exist, and each has certain unique characteristics (mass, charge, spin, etc.). Some scientists don’t believe they exist, but after experiments found evidence for their existence, they were accepted as real particles, but we’ve never seen one, even though we have seen its effects!

What I’m getting at is this: The reasons that you give for having seen the effects of God, are not good enough for many people to convince them that they should believe in something they cannot see. and I’m not only talking about scientists here.
[/quote]

Ulitmately, the Creator Himself says that even though there is more than enough evidence to deduce His existence AND His qualities, man will not aquiesce due to his hardened heart and blinded reason. I cannot do anything about what another man chooses to believe. I simply know that he is without excuse before His Maker. Ask Anthony Flew. When one truly understands the enormity of modern scientific discoveries and their rational implications, His existence and glory are well revealed as pointed out in the book of Romans.
==============[quote]
BTW, your assumption that only what you can measure with science is a religious belief that requires faith predicated upon a deity that is known to be both errant and finite. That is man.

You are wrong here in your assignment of belief. Science does not put faith in Man, Science puts faith in the scientific method. I think I’ll correct myself here, faith was the wrong choice of word! Faith is believing in something without a reason. [/quote]

====
No it isn’t. Not necessarily anyway. Faith is that last little bit that I need to realize that even though I can find ample reason (let me correct that and say overwhelming reason) to deduce God’s existence and characteristics. Faith in Christ is taking all the observable, material, relational, social, and internally discernable information and His asking you, upon the basis of such, to trust that last bit that cannot (at this time only) be seen or touched. It’s entirely different than believing in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and evolution for that matter. Because I can’t squeeze Him into a test tube, He’ll never be 100% proven by the scientific method. Of course we are well on our way to 99%.

In fact, the reality that God doensn’t roll back the clouds and send down a calling card, is proof of His character. He says Himself that without faith it is impossible to know and please Him. Faith is the final and necessary element in any relationship. Faith is an outworking of love.

=======
The scientific method, since it was written out and detailed by Galileo in the 16th century, had been proven to work. Every time. By its very nature and definition, it has to work, that is why scientists use it, because science is in the business of finding out how, when, why things work. There is no faith being placed in science, none at all![/quote]

=====
Wrong. There is the human element of interpretation. Now maybe we should debate semantics here. You see the evolutionary hypothesis is based NOT upon science but an imagination gone wild. It doesn’t follow the scientific method and yet proclaims itself king of science. The portal to all other scientific interpretation. That is ridiculous. SCIENTISTS are filled with bias and therefore the data they present comes packaged complete with blinders, assumptions, and limitations.

If I see a man with his head shoved in the anus of a horse then I only “know” what I see. Once I interpret this into my best guess as to the “how” or “why” of the scenario, then I have moved from science into biased, finite specualtion. How fast was that horse going anyway? We can see the same picture and come to at least two conclusions. The man ran into the horse or the horse sat on the man.

Science is great. Some scientists are the problem. GOOD OBSERVATION, BAD CONCLUSION. People come with all the baggage already in place. And secular humanism wants to tell me that we don’t make scientists into gods and deify the intellect and imagination of man? Come on, we see it all the time. The same people who can’t cure the cold, or figure out if you should eat low CHO or low fat are going to tell me the deepest mysteries of the universe! That takes some incredible faith. By assuming that man can FULLY know truth/reality, explain it, and put it to his use says that our base belief as humans is that we are gods in process. We are the measure, filter, and final judge on all that is and can be. Scoot over Jesus, Steven Hawking wants your seat.

I think that whole pride thing causing the fall of Satan and man is more than proven here. The only thing more jaw dropping than thinking that a limited, corrupt, finite entity is the end all be all of knowledge with it’s supreme scientific method, is the fact that they want everyone else to buy that junk too. Sorry I don’t have enough faith. I prefer the rational deduction of Jesus Christ as my God and then extend Him a little “faith” on good credit since I’m overwhelmed with His creation that can be measured and contemplated by the likes of me. He had to stoop pretty far. Says alot about Him.

Today’s fact is tomorrow’s fluke. That’s alot of faith to put into such an “unscientific” and inherently flawed god as a man.

If new evidence appears that does not match the prevailing theory, the theory is changed to fit the facts. There is nothing shameful in that. And I don’t think you meant to use “fluke,” which means “stroke of luck.” Did you mean that today’s fact is tomorrow’s mistake? that’s how I’ve interpreted it. And again, scientists are not placing their faith in Man, or indeed in anything. They are following a proven, logical, scientific methodology that works.

-=====
A method created by a limited being (whose use is good as God has made an orderly universe for man to discover His nature and glory in) based upon the apriori assumption that I can know, interpret, and master knowledge as the supreme gradient (<-- here is my problem) through which all truth/reality must flow. Any philosopher worth his salt would have a field day with your statement above. You’re attempt at a syllogism is off here.

Please forgive my misuse of the word “fluke”. Thinking out loud. Science (under the control of the priests of evolution who hate God despite the evidence) is often associated with the word “fluke” in my mind. I have a word association that isn’t Webster’s compatible on that one. A personal idiosyncracy.

Science in the hands of biased, fininte, selfish men is corrupt and misleading. Not the pure factual information that attests to God’s glory. The kind that presents the facts and leaves the conclusions as just that. With the integrity to say as much.

=======

Funny how atheists and agnostics don’t realize that we all have a god of some sort. You just happen to be your own. Not THAT is some flawed science and philosophy.

I have met just as many conceited atheists and scientists, as I have religious people. Again, scientists are not their own gods, neither do they believe to be so.

====
Addressed ad nasuem above. On the conceit issue, you are correct. The difference? The Christian sees his fault and need for a savior, the other thinks he’s still a pretty good guy who deserves good things. Blind conceit.
====[quote]
Your apriori assumption is centered upon the accepted “fact” that you are both capable of finding and understanding truth in an of yourself.

Thanks to men believing they could find truth, you now live in a house, and are typing into a computer, having a discussion with people living all over the globe, across a this thing called the internet. If Man hadn’t started believing in himself and sat back to expect everything to be done for him, we’d still be living in caves.

===
Thanks to God existing you live in an orderly universe, with a coherent mind, and faculties that are awe inspiring as a human being. I have no problem with men assuming they can know truth. In fact it is what is to be expected in a designed universe as unlike what should be in a chance universe. I said as much earlier. I have a problem with how they divorce that fact from it’s natural implication. And the thrust here, that man’s ego causes him to make his interpretations the dogma of a religion in disguise.

The object is orderly because the designer is orderly. Where did I suggest that man is not responsible for using what God gave? Our argument is not the ownership or use of our abilities, but rather the ignorant deification of said abilities. Use of God’s gifts are both good and dutiful, worship of them via making them godlike in reach and proclaimed dogma is pride. The root of all sin.

The mathematical odds have been shown to be impossible for evolution. Despite this fact, it’s still adhered to with blind faith. Darwin himself dumped the idea.

How long can I take a swiss watch, disassemble it, put it in a paper bag and skake it before I get it fully functional product again? We’re only talking a few dozen parts here. Shouldn’t be too difficult. I’ll even spot you an infinite amount of time, which we know is not possible in our finite universe. Want to wager? Now if that is absurd, then look around you. In fact look at the human brain alone. Again, the genome was enough to convince Flew and many others to come.

Evolution is unmerited faith at it’s finest. Not a shred of scientific proof (all sorts of pompous speculations though), not a shred of rational deduction in the realm of philosophy, and still learned men cling to evolution. Why? Because it is scientific? Hardly. And that is the terrible irony, here. They do so for the same reason man has always raged against God. Accountability. Man wants to be his own boss, his own man, his own lawgiver, and answer to no one. Well by definition that’s God. If there is a God, then I’m accountable to Him. That is too repugnant or scary for many to accept.
=======[quote]

We’d probably have great bodies too, according to Drs Berardi and Williams

That makes YOU god.

Not so. That makes me (or whomever you’re talking to) a very curious person who wants to know and understand by the power of his own mind. If I may use some of your weapons: If God didn’t want us to ask questions and seek out their answers, why did She give us such a curious brain?
[/quote]

I’ll not be taunted into a gender debate on a Spirit. That is nonsensical. As I’ve strained at in the above, reason, deduction, imagination and every other good gift is given of God. He simply asks that you use it instead of allowing an unscientific theory and it’s rational implications to damn your soul to hell. Use your gifts, don’t let arrogance cause you to unwittingly deify them. That is Satan’s modus operandi. It is specifically because we have these faculties that He expects us to put them to use to see that there is every reason to accept what little is needed in faith with all He has shown in creation, the pinnacle of which is man himself. We are without excuse. That should be a sobering thought.

===
Where are you going here? Man is not God, he is to acknowledge, revere, love and follow God. Man’s abilities give him this greatest of all aspirations. And God chooses to refer to Himself in the masculine, not for sexist reasons as man always wants to cast his flaws on God, but because in His sovereignty that is His perogative.

Best,
DH

DH1 · August 31, 2005, 12:44pm

Not of the particulars matter a lick, here. It is simply that Flew (like Einstein) is a deist not an evolutionist. Now as to his coming to understand the personal nature of God and accepting Christ is the gulf from being a deist or believer in the existence of God to being a Christian. I’m using Flew as an evolutionary opponent, not a Christian. Sorry if this was not made clear.

DH

[quote]OllyB wrote:

And of course your fellow countryman, Anthony Flew, who after his study of the human genome come to the conclusion of irreducible complexity. He now believes in creation/Intelligent Design. I just hope he returns to his father’s roots (Methodist pastor) before his death.