Religion Matters: Take 3

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: timothy42b on Jun 13, 2017, 01:28PMI don't see much difference between theists and nontheists on the amount of serious thinking they do.
Maybe your right Tim, however that's not my experience.  Then again, I don't hang with the believers that support Trump.

What John forgets (well maybe he just did want to hear my story.  Why would I be surprised?) is that I originally went to university to study theology.  However I was viciously ousted for my questioning mind.  He does not realize I have first hand experience with respect to the limits placed on the freedom of thought by religion.  To the extent that those theists only managed to create yet another atheist ... no ... anti-theist.  You see, their closed minds chased me into the physics and mathematics departments where minds are forced open in order to survive.  I finally saw the light!

I know for a hard won fact that free-thought (not free-will, as that is a nebulous thing) and religion do not mix.  "There are no new ideas welcome here, thanks.  Move along..."

All I know is, there is no God.  Everyone needs to get over it and start taking responsibility for their own life.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: BillO on Jun 13, 2017, 06:15PMMaybe your right Tim, however that's not my experience.  Then again, I don't hang with the believers that support Trump.

What John forgets (well maybe he just did want to hear my story.  Why would I be surprised?) is that I originally went to university to study theology.  However I was viciously ousted for my questioning mind.  He does not realize I have first hand experience with respect to the limits placed on the freedom of thought by religion.  To the extent that those theists only managed to create yet another atheist ... no ... anti-theist.  You see, their closed minds chased me into the physics and mathematics departments where minds are forced open in order to survive.  I finally saw the light!

I know for a hard won fact that free-thought (not free-will, as that is a nebulous thing) and religion do not mix.  "There are no new ideas welcome here, thanks.  Move along..."

All I know is, there is no God.  Everyone needs to get over it and start taking responsibility for their own life.

Here's an interesting case for those who like to do psychological studies on conversion.  As I said before the psychological explanation can work on unbelievers as well as some of you like to use in on believers.

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 13, 2017, 08:53PMHere's an interesting case for those who like to do psychological studies on conversion.  As I said before the psychological explanation can work on unbelievers as well as some of you like to use in on believers.
Nice try, but I know where from it comes.

You seem to not believe my 'story' - it does not support your POV, so ... this I understand.  I know you.  You will delude yourself to the grave.  I can't help you.  No human can.  Let's all hope your god is real.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: BillO on Jun 13, 2017, 08:56PMNice try, but I know where from it comes.

You seem to not believe my 'story' - it does not support your POV, so ... this I understand.  I know you.  You will delude yourself to the grave.  I can't help you.  No human can.  Let's all hope your god is real.

I know He's real and because of that I shudder for you-- I really do-- because you will have to give account before Him.  I say this in all seriousness; I was in no way playing a "gotcha" game with you because what we are talking about here is no game.  It is truly the most serious life and death discussion we could ever have.

Let me finish with the first Q and A of the famous Heidelberg Catechism because it truly is "my only comfort in life and death." I pray that you may come to know this same comfort.

Q. What is your only comfort in life and in death?

A. That I am not my own, but belong— body and soul, in life and in death— to my faithful Savior, Jesus Christ.
He has fully paid for all my sins with his precious blood, and has set me free from the tyranny of the devil. He also watches over me in such a way that not a hair can fall from my head without the will of my Father in heaven; in fact, all things must work together for my salvation.
Because I belong to him, Christ, by his Holy Spirit, assures me of eternal life and makes me wholeheartedly willing and ready from now on to live for him.

[ttf_BillO]

Yeah, heard it all before...

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 13, 2017, 09:26PMI know He's real and because of that I shudder for you-- I really do-- because you will have to give account before Him.  I say this in all seriousness; I was in no way playing a "gotcha" game with you because what we are talking about here is no game.  It is truly the most serious life and death discussion we could ever have.No, I'll not have to answer to anyone but myself in the end.  Your are right - it is not game.  Grow up and take responsibility for your own life.

QuoteLet me finish with the first Q and A of the famous Heidelberg Catechism because it truly is "my only comfort in life and death." I pray that you may come to know this same comfort.

Q. What is your only comfort in life and in death?

A. That I am not my own, but belong— body and soul, in life and in death— to my faithful Savior, Jesus Christ.  He has fully paid for all my sins with his precious blood, and has set me free from the tyranny of the devil. He also watches over me in such a way that not a hair can fall from my head without the will of my Father in heaven; in fact, all things must work together for my salvation.  Because I belong to him, Christ, by his Holy Spirit, assures me of eternal life and makes me wholeheartedly willing and ready from now on to live for him.
I pity you.  You push all your sins onto someone else, you count on him looking after you, and you allow yourself to be owned.  [s]You are pathetic.[/s]  Let me rephrase that, I feel nothing but pathos for you.  You give up too much life for this misguided faith of yours.  You do not allow yourself to live, nor to understand life.

For me ...

Q. What is your only comfort in life and in death?

A. I have warm and fulfilling comfort in life and in death.  In life I have the comfort of understanding and an open and agile mind that is willing to question and find the facts (the truth - if you will) and determine my own path.  I try to make sure I learn every day.  I feel joy in the revelation of the nature of things and revel in seeking the science behind how it all interacts.  In death I have no fear and understand it is a natural part of life.  My only goal is to leave behind a new kernel of knowledge to enrich the universe I have gained so much from being a part of.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: BillO on Jun 13, 2017, 10:39PMYeah, heard it all before...
No, I'll not have to answer to anyone but myself in the end.  Your are right - it is not game.  Grow up and take responsibility for your own life.
I pity you.  You push all your sins onto someone else, you count on him looking after you, and you allow yourself to be owned.  [s]You are pathetic.[/s]  Let me rephrase that, I feel nothing but pathos for you.  You give up too much life for this misguided faith of yours.  You do not allow yourself to live, nor to understand life.

For me ...

Q. What is your only comfort in life and in death?

A. I have warm and fulfilling comfort in life and in death.  In life I have the comfort of understanding and an open and agile mind that is willing to question and find the facts (the truth - if you will) and determine my own path.  I try to make sure I learn every day.  I feel joy in the revelation of the nature of things and revel in seeking the science behind how it all interacts.  In death I have no fear and understand it is a natural part of life.  My only goal is to leave behind a new kernel of knowledge to enrich the universe I have gained so much from being a part of.

I don't want you to pity me at all.  I have a wonderfully fulfilling life with a biblical worldview at its core.  I want others to enjoy that same "comfort in life and death" because it's the truth.

We could continue this sort of back and forth, but I don't know how fruitful it would be because you mostly seem to want to lash out at those who hold to traditional Christian faith and it comes off as angry which is not how I want to discuss these things.

Let me leave you with modern martyr Jim Elliot said: "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose."

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 14, 2017, 04:53AMI don't want you to pity me at all.  I have a wonderfully fulfilling life with a biblical worldview at its core.  I want others to enjoy that same "comfort in life and death" because it's the truth.

We could continue this sort of back and forth, but I don't know how fruitful it would be because you mostly seem to want to lash out at those who hold to traditional Christian faith and it comes off as angry which is not how I want to discuss these things.

Let me leave you with modern martyr Jim Elliot said: "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose."
Well, you have my pity all the same.

Angry, no.  As I said before, I feel pity.

Your 'faith' fools you.  You put faith every day in that car you drive, and in the technology that brings you the internet and the electricity that powers your house, yet your beliefs don't allow to see that the engineers and scientists that made all that happen used the same mathematics and theories to construct these things you rely on that proves the universe is indeed not 6,500 years old, it is 13.4 billion years old.

If the chronology depicted by taking your biblical worldview is correct then your car doesn't work, you have no electricity and we are not doing this at all because the internet is not possible.  So, don't worry about it dude.  I have no more desire than you to continue this conversation with someone unable to think his way though his own reality.

Let me leave you with the following words:

"He is a fool who abandons his responsibility to seek knowledge to faith."

Go on with your thing...

[ttf_timothy42b]

Quote from: BillO on Jun 14, 2017, 06:59AMIf the chronology depicted by taking your biblical worldview is correct then your car doesn't work, you have no electricity and we are not doing this at all because the internet is not possible.  So, don't worry about it dude.  I have no more desire than you to continue this conversation with someone unable to think his way though his own reality.

Not unable.  Unwilling to take the risk.

When we do safety evaluations we consider two things:  the likelihood of a failure, and the severity of the consequences. 

Something that is highly likely to happen but only produces small consequences - maybe gripping a tool wrong produces a blister - gets a low assessment.

Something extremely unlikely to happen, but with devastating consequences - like a dam breaking above a town - might get a high assessment.  You get the picture.

The consequence for getting belief wrong for the theist is being tortured in hell for billions and billions of years.  That consequence can be applied not only because of unbelief or wrong choice of God, but even to much smaller concepts of theology.  (lots of people were tortured to death in this earthly domain because of the three word filioque clause.) 

When you raise the stakes that high, you need to be very conservative about accepting any new idea.  Remember the Sturgeon principle. 

For the person who does not believe in hell the resistance to questioning anything can be quite incomprehensible.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: timothy42b on Jun 14, 2017, 07:25AMNot unable.  Unwilling to take the risk.

When we do safety evaluations we consider two things:  the likelihood of a failure, and the severity of the consequences. 

Something that is highly likely to happen but only produces small consequences - maybe gripping a tool wrong produces a blister - gets a low assessment.

Something extremely unlikely to happen, but with devastating consequences - like a dam breaking above a town - might get a high assessment.  You get the picture.

The consequence for getting belief wrong for the theist is being tortured in hell for billions and billions of years.  That consequence can be applied not only because of unbelief or wrong choice of God, but even to much smaller concepts of theology.  (lots of people were tortured to death in this earthly domain because of the three word filioque clause.) 


When you raise the stakes that high, you need to be very conservative about accepting any new idea.  Remember the Sturgeon principle. 

For the person who does not believe in hell the resistance to questioning anything can be quite incomprehensible.

Tim, you speak far too glibbly about the supposed unwillingness to take "risks" by theists.  You have no idea of my thought processes nor of any intellectual struggles I may have had nor does your analysis account for the many who actually took very life-threatening and even life-ending risks for their beliefs.  How is that an unwillingness to live with the consequences of their beliefs?  I actually find such "psychological" analysis from afar to be the real failure because it fails to treat people's beliefs with genuine integrity.

Yes, one or more of us is clearly wrong, but to dismiss the integrity of both belief and unbelief as simply willingness or unwillingness to take risks is a cop-out.  In today's climate where unbelief or at least an agnostic approach is very common on the street, it can just as easily be argued that a facile capitulation to agnosticism is very much the unwillingness to "take a risk."

[ttf_MoominDave]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 14, 2017, 07:44AMlife-threatening and even life-ending risks for their beliefs

Just dropping in to observe that in terms of risk, trading your life for eternal reward is a no-brainer if you're confident that the eternal reward is real.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: MoominDave on Jun 14, 2017, 07:50AMJust dropping in to observe that in terms of risk, trading your life for eternal reward is a no-brainer if you're confident that the eternal reward is real.

Agreed that it's a complete "no-brainer" from an eternal perspective-- hence the Elliot quote above-- but from an earthly perspective to say that such a person is afraid to "take a risk" strikes me as a very ludicrous statement.  When the ISIS soldier with the sword over your head says convert or you die and you don't convert, I would call that "taking a risk."

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 14, 2017, 07:44AMTim, you speak far too glibbly about the supposed unwillingness to take "risks" by theists.  You have no idea of my thought processes nor of any intellectual struggles I may have had nor does your analysis account for the many who actually took very life-threatening and even life-ending risks for their beliefs.  How is that an unwillingness to live with the consequences of their beliefs?  I actually find such "psychological" analysis from afar to be the real failure because it fails to treat people's beliefs with genuine integrity.
 
Yes, one or more of us is clearly wrong, but to dismiss the integrity of both belief and unbelief as simply willingness or unwillingness to take risks is a cop-out.  In today's climate where unbelief or at least an agnostic approach is very common on the street, it can just as easily be argued that a facile capitulation to agnosticism is very much the unwillingness to "take a risk."
I agree with your sentiment (in the process of writing another post at least sort of on that), but I'd argue you're only seeing one side of the picture.
 
First I'd like to remove this from the current discussion--I'm not interested in piling on here--but in my view you unwittingly ignore human psychology and sociology in order to express your certainties and dismiss believers' biases. The degree of investment believers make in their beliefs is a tangent. That's just what humans do. It doesn't say anything at all about the veracity or rigor behind the investment. The risks Tim's talking about are about serious intellectual honesty and courage--the willingness to subordinate even your world view to sound processes of epistemology. Very few seem able to pull this off in my experience. Many find ways to excuse themselves and theirs from this intellectual responsibility though. In fact many are heavily invested in this as a key foundation support for their world view. I'd say there's an obvious motive for doing this (not the same as this is the motive for doing this), particularly where the views in question don't do so well where rigor is fully and equitably applied. Also, this is one of the key vagaries all human brain owners have to navigate (or not).

[ttf_ddickerson]

You can't measure Faith with mathematics. Wrong tool. You'll never get good results when you use the wrong tool.

You guys need to put your Volt-Ohm meter down for a second and reflect on the real meaning of life.

Do you worship the Creation, or do you worship the Creator? Can't do both. You can Praise the Creator for His Creation, but to Praise the Creation and pretend it wasn't Created in the first place?

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Let's try not to go to the Dark Side here ...
 
Quote from: BillO on Jun 13, 2017, 08:56PMQuote from: John the Theologian on Jun 13, 2017, 08:53PMQuote from: BillO on Jun 13, 2017, 06:15PMMaybe your right Tim, however that's not my experience.  Then again, I don't hang with the believers that support Trump.
 
What John forgets (well maybe he just did want to hear my story.  Why would I be surprised?) is that I originally went to university to study theology.  However I was viciously ousted for my questioning mind.  He does not realize I have first hand experience with respect to the limits placed on the freedom of thought by religion.  To the extent that those theists only managed to create yet another atheist ... no ... anti-theist.  You see, their closed minds chased me into the physics and mathematics departments where minds are forced open in order to survive.  I finally saw the light!
 
I know for a hard won fact that free-thought (not free-will, as that is a nebulous thing) and religion do not mix.  "There are no new ideas welcome here, thanks.  Move along..."
 
All I know is, there is no God.  Everyone needs to get over it and start taking responsibility for their own life.Here's an interesting case for those who like to do psychological studies on conversion.  As I said before the psychological explanation can work on unbelievers as well as some of you like to use in on believers.Nice try, but I know where from it comes.

You seem to not believe my 'story' - it does not support your POV, so ... this I understand.  I know you.  You will delude yourself to the grave.  I can't help you.  No human can.  Let's all hope your god is real.
JtT does have a point in that the psychology works for everyone (i.e. the way human brains work effects all human brain owners), and there is reason from your story and your telling (brief as it is--more of a targeted outline for the purpose of this particular point in this particular discussion) to strongly suspect it's in play here. In short, BillO is, in fact, human. And as JtT points out this applies just as well to his comment.
 
I'm guessing you're not talking about an Episcopalian or Unitarian Universalist seminary or some such ... eh? I know you've posted about that before--I just don't recall the particular franchise.
 
I'm guessing we more or less agree on this, but I also take more or less the same issue with your characterization that JtT does. Let's just say I suspect your personal experience is less than entirely representative of the theist species overall.

[ttf_MoominDave]

Quote from: ddickerson on Jun 14, 2017, 08:28AMYou can't measure Faith with mathematics. Wrong tool. You'll never get good results when you use the wrong tool.

You guys need to put your Volt-Ohm meter down for a second and reflect on the real meaning of life.

Do you worship the Creation, or do you worship the Creator? Can't do both. You can Praise the Creator for His Creation, but to Praise the Creation and pretend it wasn't Created in the first place?

Why must one worship either thing? There is a third option - don't worship anything. And a fourth - worship something else entirely...

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: MoominDave on Jun 14, 2017, 08:41AMWhy must one worship either thing? There is a third option - don't worship anything. And a fourth - worship something else entirely...

Because the 3rd option is no real option.  To adopt a naturalistic worldview-- to say that the created reality is the only thing there-- is an act of worship because it is what you're placing your trust in. You're banking your whole existence on that trust.  No one can escape the role of faith in any epistemology no matter how loud the denial is. No one is a complete "just the facts, ma'am," because the "facts" need an interpretive system to make sense of them and commitment to that interpretive system is an act of faith.

We all trust in something and that trust is an act of worship

[ttf_ddickerson]

Quote from: MoominDave on Jun 14, 2017, 08:41AMWhy must one worship either thing? There is a third option - don't worship anything. And a fourth - worship something else entirely...

That's true theoretically. Maybe depends on how you define 'worship' too. Maybe there is another option: unconsciously worshiping something even though we're not aware of it. I think the trend today is to worship His Creation, because that's all we hear, at least in the realm of what matters to most to people. IOW, the people telling their politicians what they think is most important. Protect the planet. So, that is a form of unconscious worship. What matters most in your life is what you will pay homage to.

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

.

[ttf_ddickerson]

Dave your fourth option - to worship something else. Something else is part of His Creation.

[ttf_timothy42b]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 14, 2017, 07:44AMTim, you speak far too glibbly about the supposed unwillingness to take "risks" by theists.  You have no idea of my thought processes nor of any intellectual struggles I may have had
You took that too personally.

So back up a step.

I have seen stark, absolute terror on the face of believers when someone questioned the truth of a cherished belief - not in an internet debate, but accidentally in casual conversation.

The perception of threat is very real to them.  And it's not just fear of the ultimate - God not existing - it's the fear that any questioning may lead to a slippery slope.  Of course the Earth is 6,000 years old.  Of course woman was created from the rib of a man.  Of course Balaam's donkey spoke English. 

When I see fear like that in an acquaintance, or even a level of discomfort, I change the subject.

Not everybody changes the subject.  The slippery slope is real, too.  A lot of people lose faith altogether when they have to give up one element of belief.   

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: timothy42b on Jun 14, 2017, 09:24AMYou took that too personally.

So back up a step.

I have seen stark, absolute terror on the face of believers when someone questioned the truth of a cherished belief - not in an internet debate, but accidentally in casual conversation.

The perception of threat is very real to them.  And it's not just fear of the ultimate - God not existing - it's the fear that any questioning may lead to a slippery slope.  Of course the Earth is 6,000 years old.  Of course woman was created from the rib of a man.  Of course Balaam's donkey spoke English. 

When I see fear like that in an acquaintance, or even a level of discomfort, I change the subject.

Not everybody changes the subject.  The slippery slope is real, too.  A lot of people lose faith altogether when they have to give up one element of belief.   

I agree that the slippery slope is real, but it is just as real for the unbeliever as well.  I've seen the same response from those committed to naturalism. 

My complaint is that an overly psychologized approach often actually derails the discussion. That's what I've been seeing too much of here.

[ttf_MoominDave]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 14, 2017, 08:50AMBecause the 3rd option is no real option.  To adopt a naturalistic worldview-- to say that the created reality is the only thing there-- is an act of worship because it is what you're placing your trust in. You're banking your whole existence on that trust.  No one can escape the role of faith in any epistemology no matter how loud the denial is. No one is a complete "just the facts, ma'am," because the "facts" need an interpretive system to make sense of them and commitment to that interpretive system is an act of faith.

We all trust in something and that trust is an act of worship

You've repeated here an inaccuracy about the 'scientific' worldview that we've covered before, and quite recently. The point is not to assert that "the created reality is the only thing there" (letting slide for the moment the use of the loaded term "created"). It is to build a worldview from the ground up by only hypothesising those things that are suggested by what we can perceive - and then testing those hypotheses to destruction to see if they survive close scrutiny. Is this distinction hard to grasp? It's been gone over a number of times, but still things are asserted that assume that it isn't a distinction. If one postulated the hypothesis that you write: "The created reality is the only thing there", then one would be obliged to back that up with proof. One does not do this. Rather one fails to postulate things that don't match what one can perceive - for example, Yahweh. And then one sits and watches as some who are invested in such concepts perform logical contortions to try to make your position equivalent to theirs It seems to me that what we have is a clash between a top-down and a bottom-up way of looking at the world, ways that do not meet in the middle.

I am not sure that one can meaningfully say that one is placing "trust" in such a worldview, particularly when one defines the word as equivalent to the word "worship". What one is doing is refusing to admit ideas that don't seem necessary to explain what we see. What do you mean by "trust" in this situation?

Quote from: ddickerson on Jun 14, 2017, 08:54AMThat's true theoretically. Maybe depends on how you define 'worship' too. Maybe there is another option: unconsciously worshiping something even though we're not aware of it. I think the trend today is to worship His Creation, because that's all we hear, at least in the realm of what matters to most to people. IOW, the people telling their politicians what they think is most important. Protect the planet. So, that is a form of unconscious worship. What matters most in your life is what you will pay homage to.

Yes, the definition of "worship" is important here. Google gives me as its first definition "the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity". Certainly a non-deity worldview fails that definition in an obvious sense. But I think John is using a version of that that does not demand the inclusion of a deity - let's say: "feeling or expression of reverence and adoration" on its own. Is that close, John?

Quote from: ddickerson on Jun 14, 2017, 09:07AMDave your fourth option - to worship something else. Something else is part of His Creation.

Not if it's a competing deity concept. Did Yahweh create Moloch? I guess one could easily maintain so. No one will ever be able to say that one is wrong.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: MoominDave on Jun 14, 2017, 10:51AMYou've repeated here an inaccuracy about the 'scientific' worldview that we've covered before, and quite recently. The point is not to assert that "the created reality is the only thing there" (letting slide for the moment the use of the loaded term "created"). It is to build a worldview from the ground up by only hypothesising those things that are suggested by what we can perceive - and then testing those hypotheses to destruction to see if they survive close scrutiny. Is this distinction hard to grasp? It's been gone over a number of times, but still things are asserted that assume that it isn't a distinction. If one postulated the hypothesis that you write: "The created reality is the only thing there", then one would be obliged to back that up with proof. One does not do this. Rather one fails to postulate things that don't match what one can perceive - for example, Yahweh. And then one sits and watches as some who are invested in such concepts perform logical contortions to try to make your position equivalent to theirs It seems to me that what we have is a clash between a top-down and a bottom-up way of looking at the world, ways that do not meet in the middle.

I am not sure that one can meaningfully say that one is placing "trust" in such a worldview, particularly when one defines the word as equivalent to the word "worship". What one is doing is refusing to admit ideas that don't seem necessary to explain what we see. What do you mean by "trust" in this situation?

Yes, the definition of "worship" is important here. Google gives me as its first definition "the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity". Certainly a non-deity worldview fails that definition in an obvious sense. But I think John is using a version of that that does not demand the inclusion of a deity - let's say: "feeling or expression of reverence and adoration" on its own. Is that close, John?

Not if it's a competing deity concept. Did Yahweh create Moloch? I guess one could easily maintain so. No one will ever be able to say that one is wrong.

Dave, yes, you've said it before, but I believe that you are skirting over the element of faith in your own epistemology and that it is not really as "from the bottom up" as you think it is.  There are commitments to the regularity of nature, what constitutes valid evidence, etc. that I believe you have committed to even before the evidence is examined.  The kind of empiricism that you are claiming has been discussed by professional philosophers-- many of whom are not necessarily theistic believers-- and they have often pointed this out.  Pure empiricism, such as you seem to be advocating, if I understand you correctly, is not all that easy to uphold because it entails a number of assumptions that are not proven by empiricism itself, as I have mentioned before.

Theists are not oblivious to the "facts" nor do we simply "start at the top" with no concern for either the middle or the bottom.  What many us claim is that no one consistently "starts at the bottom" and those who claim to do so are unaware of the many assumptions that they make that don't come from the bottom.

In other words naturalists have a kind of circular reasoning of their own such as this:

1. I only accept evidence that I believe fits my definition of "scientific."

2. I define "scientific" in such a way that the supernatural is ruled out of court before I start.

3. QED, I've "proved" that the supernatural doesn't exist.

It may not be that conscious in your thinking, but I'm convinced that this is the reality of the naturalist train of thought and it's a circular way of thinking.

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 14, 2017, 11:11AM1. I only accept evidence that I believe fits my definition of "scientific."If you're one step more specific and accurate you should see a problem with this criticism--acknowledge that here "scientific" = verifiable/falsifiable (so we don't fool ourselves too easily, since we're so inclined).
 
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 14, 2017, 11:11AM2. I define "scientific" in such a way that the supernatural is ruled out of court before I start.Rather, I accept that what isn't verifiable/falsifiable (so we don't fool ourselves too easily, since we're so inclined) ultimately has to be presumed, which is problematic because we're inclined to fool ourselves too easily.
 
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 14, 2017, 11:11AM3. QED, I've "proved" that the supernatural doesn't exist.Nope ... this is as straw man.
 
The definition of "supernatural" makes it inherently unverifiable/unfalsifiable. In fact in many cases it seems pretty clear that's precisely the point.
 
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 14, 2017, 11:11AMIt may not be that conscious in your thinking, but I'm convinced that this is the reality of the naturalist train of thought and it's a circular way of thinking.How might you verify or falsify that position, so you don't fool yourself too easily since we're so inclined, rather than to presume it?

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jun 14, 2017, 08:31AMLet's try not to go to the Dark Side here ...

I'm guessing we more or less agree on this, but I also take more or less the same issue with your characterization that JtT does. Let's just say I suspect your personal experience is less than entirely representative of the theist species overall.
There is a very dark side here.  These religious zealots are not without 'sin'.  They are downright dangerous.  I was almost one of them.

Be aware Byron, the reporting of my story is brief, but not apocryphal.  You might want to think twice about drawing me out on this.  It was a major threat to my future, my well being and my very existence - I barely made it through intact.  If you want me to dig deep there is plenty of animosity to be uncovered.

Suffice it to say, I really don't want to delve into it to the biographic level in a public forum.  If you have some specific questions you need answered, PM or email me with them.

[ttf_ronkny]

Quote from: BillO on Jun 14, 2017, 08:57PMThere is a very dark side here.  These religious zealots are not without 'sin'.  They are downright dangerous.  I was almost one of them.

Be aware Byron, the reporting of my story is brief, but not apocryphal.  You might want to think twice about drawing me out on this.  It was a major threat to my future, my well being and my very existence - I barely made it through intact.  If you want me to dig deep there is plenty of animosity to be uncovered.

Suffice it to say, I really don't want to delve into it to the biographic level in a public forum.  If you have some specific questions you need answered, PM or email me with them.
BillO, Define religious zealot please.

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: ronkny on Jun 14, 2017, 09:20PMBillO, Define religious zealot please.
Someone that gives over their entire life to their religious beliefs.  Dave, I am sure you know what the word zealot means.  Are you being provocative?

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: ddickerson on Jun 14, 2017, 09:07AMSomething else is part of His Creation.
Bah... Your POV.

The major (or should I say 'Bigly' ... so you understand) detrimental creation in this universe has been man's creation of religion.

BTW. Who the heck is 'He'??  Did your god personally claim to be a sexual being?  Oh yeah.  I forgot for a second.  He made you in his image.  So, he was off topic, slow on the uptake, ignorant of the most simplistic elements of the universe he created and was definitely not Hillary.

[ttf_ronkny]

Quote from: BillO on Jun 14, 2017, 09:28PMSomeone that gives over their entire life to their religious beliefs.  Dave, I am sure you know what the word zealot means.  Are you being provocative?
Well zealot has traditionally been used as a less than affectionate term to describe a fanatic .  I would not call a RC priest a zealot.. Nor would I call JTT a zealot   Many tv evangelists I would call zealots.
And no claims to be without sin. I'm not sure what you're getting at.
Arguing "He"? That seems provocative.

[ttf_Piano man]

Quote from: ronkny on Jun 14, 2017, 11:23PMWell zealot has traditionally been used as a less than affectionate term to describe a fanatic .  I would not call a RC priest a zealot.. Nor would I call JTT a zealot   Many tv evangelists I would call zealots. 

I agree we need a better definition of zealot than that. Nun, priests, monks and ministers devote their lives to religious beliefs, and I wouldn't call them all 'zealots'.

[ttf_Piano man]

Quote from: ddickerson on Jun 14, 2017, 08:28AMDo you worship the Creation, or do you worship the Creator? Can't do both. You can Praise the Creator for His Creation, but to Praise the Creation and pretend it wasn't Created in the first place?

Many of our founders were Deists, who acknowledged the creator but distrusted man-made prophecy. Their interest in the creation--that is, the natural world, and the rules that seem to bind it--was that it was the only reliable work of God, and man's only reliable knowledge of God. They weren't pretending it wasn't created, but refusing to rely upon accounts of the creator written by the hand of man, and preferring the ones plainly written by the creator's own hand. Deism enjoyed a brief popularity during the Enlightenment era.

[ttf_Piano man]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 14, 2017, 07:55AMAgreed that it's a complete "no-brainer" from an eternal perspective-- hence the Elliot quote above-- but from an earthly perspective to say that such a person is afraid to "take a risk" strikes me as a very ludicrous statement.  When the ISIS soldier with the sword over your head says convert or you die and you don't convert, I would call that "taking a risk."

To be perfectly fair, the guy holding the sword and the guy refusing to convert are making the same risk calculation, in the long term if not in the next few seconds.

[ttf_ddickerson]

Quote from: MoominDave on Jun 14, 2017, 10:51AMNot if it's a competing deity concept. Did Yahweh create Moloch? I guess one could easily maintain so. No one will ever be able to say that one is wrong.

No men did. Don't ask me why.

[ttf_ddickerson]

Quote from: Piano man on Jun 15, 2017, 02:59AMTo be perfectly fair, the guy holding the sword and the guy refusing to convert are making the same risk calculation, in the long term if not in the next few seconds.

Which one takes more courage?

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: BillO on Jun 14, 2017, 08:57PMThere is a very dark side here.  These religious zealots are not without 'sin'.  They are downright dangerous.  I was almost one of them.We agree completely on that part (my comment about the "Dark Side" was general regarding the tone of the discussions going on at the time--and note that I was very specific in where I took issue with your comment). My complete agreement hinges on the term "zealot" though. As long as you're limiting this comment to zealots (more or less anyway), I agree, but I wouldn't consider most clerics "zealots" in the normal sense we use the term--technically perhaps, but if you meant the word in a strict technical sense you'd need to mention that, because if you don't the term will be taken in the common sense (i.e. you won't be communicating the intended idea). But yeah, with that stipulation, we agree completely.
 
Quote from: BillO on Jun 14, 2017, 08:57PMBe aware Byron, the reporting of my story is brief, but not apocryphal.  You might want to think twice about drawing me out on this.  It was a major threat to my future, my well being and my very existence - I barely made it through intact.  If you want me to dig deep there is plenty of animosity to be uncovered.No, it's not apocryphal at all. I've heard a number of similar stories (for some examples). I'm hardly unfamiliar with what you're on about. I just think you may see more zealotry (common usage) than is really there. Hard to say though, there's a lot just due to the shear numbers, and the general perception of it is skewed heavily in favor of zealotry.
 
Quote from: BillO on Jun 14, 2017, 08:57PMSuffice it to say, I really don't want to delve into it to the biographic level in a public forum.  If you have some specific questions you need answered, PM or email me with them.Can't blame you there either. I don't recall specifics, but I think you did discuss this situation somewhere in here, at least to some extent. My religious background is almost entirely quite pleasant though, so obviously we have very different pre-apostasy stories.

[ttf_timothy42b]

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jun 15, 2017, 05:59AMbut I wouldn't consider most clerics "zealots" in the normal sense we use the term--
Particularly since it is not so unusual for them to lose faith but remain in their positions. 

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: timothy42b on Jun 15, 2017, 07:20AMParticularly since it is not so unusual for them to lose faith but remain in their positions. 

That's a rather sweeping claim given my experience which is quite different.

[ttf_timothy42b]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 15, 2017, 07:25AMThat's a rather sweeping claim given my experience which is quite different.

Here's a rare one who came out:
http://www.npr.org/2012/04/30/151681248/from-minister-to-atheist-a-story-of-losing-faith

Here's a web site devoted to the phenomenon:
http://clergyproject.org/

Every Pew survey reveals large percentages of clergy who don't believe some of the basics (virgin birth, existence of Satan, hell, etc.)

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: ronkny on Jun 14, 2017, 11:23PMWell zealot has traditionally been used as a less than affectionate term to describe a fanatic .  I would not call a RC priest a zealot.. Nor would I call JTT a zealot   Many tv evangelists I would call zealots.
And no claims to be without sin. I'm not sure what you're getting at.
Arguing "He"? That seems provocative.
Sorry, but as Byron mentions, I guess should have qualified my use of the word zealot.  I meant it (as I usually do with any word I use) in it's dictionary definition meaning.  I'll try to remember these things for future discussion, but it is my norm to use a word that way and if I want to alter it's meaning I'll use an adjective.

However, I just wish folks would not attempt to 'read between the lines' when I write.  I don't put anything there so in doing so you are likely to get completely the wrong impression.

So, lets address the rest of your points.  I do not know JTT well enough to know if he is anything other than devoutly religious.  If he has ever tried to convert someone else, or admonish someone for holding beliefs different than his own (as he came perilously close to doing with one of his replies to me) then yes he is what I would call dangerous zealot.  The same would apply to anyone of any religion that has done the same (see my little story below).

I used 'sin' not sin.  So I was referring to the word rather than it's meaning.  Since I am not religious, the word 'sin' has no meaning to me.  So, when I say "These religious zealots are not without 'sin'" I mean they do bad things (again, see my little story below).

I was not arguing "He".  That was DD.  I was just questioning his use of it.

My little story:

When we lived in Ghana one of the projects my father took on was to build a recording studio and record factory.  The owner of the factory put us up in a rather nice home on the property, which was several miles out of the nearest town, Kumasi.  We were, however, close to a small village that had a chapel that was run by a Christian missionary.  About 1/3 of the village population had been converted.  Since the roads there were abysmal, we'd just attend to the chapel for our Sunday services even though I'm pretty sure it was not a Catholic mission.  There was an outbreak of dysentery caused by poor sanitary practices in the village and rather than do anything to help the villagers, the missionary used the opportunity to blame the outbreak on the villagers that had not converted telling them it was punishment from god for their heathenism.  Now, that's what I call a dangerous zealot.

My father was not impressed and ended up getting into a bit of a spat with the missionary.  We were asked not to darken the doors of the chapel again.  My father asked the owner of the record factory to help the villagers build a better sewer system.  A crew of the folks building the factory was sent over to dig a better sewer for them that lead the sewage away from their water source.  This solved their problem.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: timothy42b on Jun 15, 2017, 07:43AMHere's a rare one who came out:
http://www.npr.org/2012/04/30/151681248/from-minister-to-atheist-a-story-of-losing-faith

Here's a web site devoted to the phenomenon:
http://clergyproject.org/

Every Pew survey reveals large percentages of clergy who don't believe some of the basics (virgin birth, existence of Satan, hell, etc.)



Tim, 30 testmonials on a website are not signs of a mass movement.  These anecdotal posts make for some interesting reading, but should not be used to make sweeping statements about most clergy.

In my experience we've had no one in any presbytery that I've served in for nearly 40 years leave the big tent of historic Christianity.  Sure we've had a couple leave our denomination for other Christian bodies.  One man joined the Eastern Orthodox Church and another became an orthodox Lutheran and we've received former Baptists and Pentecostals into our presbytery when their beliefs on the matters that divide us from those bodies changed.  That's not the same as having massive numbers of disbelieving clergy as your post suggests.

There are also notable cases of those who started out on the far left side of the theological spectrum and moved to traditional Christian orthodoxy.  The one I'm most familiar with is the recently departed Methodist theologian Thomas Oden who started out very radical and moved to the right.

Here's a link to his bio:

 https://www.amazon.com/Change-Heart-Personal-Theological-Memoir/dp/0830840354/ref=la_B001HCWV9I_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1497536911&sr=1-5

The bottom line is that we need to be very careful about making generalizations from anecdotal stories.

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 15, 2017, 07:59AMThe bottom line is that we need to be very careful about making generalizations from anecdotal stories.
You mean like the Bible?

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jun 14, 2017, 08:31AMI'm guessing you're not talking about an Episcopalian or Unitarian Universalist seminary or some such ... eh?
University of Toronto.  Christian studies .. I never made it to seminary .. I was cast out early.  My intention was to get my primary degree in Christian Studies then seek admission to the Toronto School of Theology.

[ttf_ddickerson]

Quote from: BillO on Jun 15, 2017, 08:11AMYou mean like the Bible?

The stories in the Bible are there for a purpose. Therefore, it might be glib to just say they're anecdotal.

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 14, 2017, 07:55AMWhen the ISIS soldier with the sword over your head says convert or you die
This is a very ironic statement, don't you think?

Anyway, why did you use ISIS?  Why not "the Christian inquisitor" or "the witch trial magistrate"?

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: ddickerson on Jun 15, 2017, 08:24AMThe stories in the Bible are there for a purpose. Therefore, it might be glib to just say they're anecdotal.
No one ever tells a story without purpose.

The stories in the Bible are certainly anecdotal.  Many are personal accounts, many of these accounts disagree, and all are unverifiable.  That makes them anecdotal.

Folks, what words can I use without someone trying to take some special spin on them?  Is 'anecdotal' also an emotionally charged word?  (n.b. all my words in this post should be taken with their dictionary defined meanings, and not some regional colloquial meaning that I may not even be aware of.)

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: BillO on Jun 15, 2017, 08:25AMThis is a very ironic statement, don't you think?

Anyway, why did you use ISIS?  Why not "the Christian inquisitor" or "the witch trial magistrate"?

Nope, not ironic at all.  Just using a contemporary example that some real life Christians actually face today.

[ttf_Piano man]

Quote from: ddickerson on Jun 15, 2017, 05:50AMWhich one takes more courage?

That's a little off my point. Both the Christian and the Muslim have a similar motivation. Both think they are adhering to the one true religion, and both think their adherence will reap a reward in the afterlife. The sword yielder might have an interpretation of Sunni that's repellent to us, but he doesn't believe it any the less.

With respect to purely physical courage, the Muslims don't necessarily lack it, do they? A lot of them are leaving relatively comfortable lives elsewhere to gather in the desert and get shot at. They do this because they think they're fulfilling ancient prophecy and guaranteeing themselves a place in paradise. They're wrong on both counts, but it's still courage of some sort.

[ttf_timothy42b]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 15, 2017, 07:59AMTim, 30 testmonials on a website are not signs of a mass movement.  These anecdotal posts make for some interesting reading, but should not be used to make sweeping statements about most clergy.


I didn't claim it was a mass movement or a trend.

I was somewhat shocked you seemed unaware of it.  It has been discussed quite extensively in mainstream denominations. 

What I claimed was that it was not unusual, with which most clergy I know would agree.

Where I strayed a bit is in mixing two different concepts.

There are numbers of clergy who've slowly lost faith in the supernatural but remained in the church, because they believe their institution does a lot of good for the congregation and the larger community.  They keep their faith journey quiet.

Then there are the much larger number of clergy who still remain faithful, but no longer buy the miracles and some of the supernatural elements of the stories.  Some surveys show as few of half of clergy believe in virgin birth and only 2/3 in bodily resurrection.  Trinity is still around 75%. 

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: timothy42b on Jun 15, 2017, 12:42PMI didn't claim it was a mass movement or a trend.

I was somewhat shocked you seemed unaware of it.  It has been discussed quite extensively in mainstream denominations. 

What I claimed was that it was not unusual, with which most clergy I know would agree.

Where I strayed a bit is in mixing two different concepts.

There are numbers of clergy who've slowly lost faith in the supernatural but remained in the church, because they believe their institution does a lot of good for the congregation and the larger community.  They keep their faith journey quiet.

Then there are the much larger number of clergy who still remain faithful, but no longer buy the miracles and some of the supernatural elements of the stories.  Some surveys show as few of half of clergy believe in virgin birth and only 2/3 in bodily resurrection.  Trinity is still around 75%. 

Yes, Tim, I'm aware of it in the mainline denominations, but numerically they are moving to become the "side-line" denominations in recent years.  If  you factor in the many conservative denominations, the numbers would likely be different.  The actual number of students at mainline seminaries is dwarfed by the number of students at more conservative ones and some conservative denominations in the more revivalist traditions don't require seminary.  For example the Southern Baptist seminaries have student bodies that number in the thousands, while the consortium of mainline seminaries clustered around the University of Chicago have students numbers often below 100 for each seminary.  I did my some of my doctoral thesis reasarch there and I know how small they are.

It doesn't surprise me that the mainline denominations harbor many who don't believe traditional doctrines.  When you have a mushy foundation that will result.  The situation is mostly different in conservative denominations that I'm aware of.  Yes there area still theological issues that are discussed, but I don't see the wholesale theological movement there and I'm quite familiar with many of them.

BTW, here is a link to an article about seminary size in the US.  In my own conservative Presbyterian circles there are at least a dozen smaller and medium sized seminaries that serve our churches, many of which have large student bodies than most mainline seminaries, many of which are either closing or consolidating.

https://juicyecumenism.com/2016/08/01/americas-largest-seminaries/

[ttf_ronkny]

Quote from: BillO on Jun 15, 2017, 08:25AMThis is a very ironic statement, don't you think?

Anyway, why did you use ISIS?  Why not "the Christian inquisitor" or "the witch trial magistrate"?
Ummm.... maybe because militant Islam is the elephant in the room in the room?