I have a question I would like to ask the faith based community. I am the founder of the Church of Reality. The Church of Reality is a religion based on making a solemn personal commitment to the pursuit of the understanding of reality the way it really is. I am committed to believe in anything that actually exists. Science is my Bible. In my life the desire to understand reality is sacred to me. Reality comes first in my life and my moral values are based on the axiom the the pursuit of the understanding of the universe, the way it really is, has value. To me – Reality and Truth are the same thing.
My questions to the Faith Based Community is, assuming that the above statements are my sincerely held religious beliefs, will God reveal himself to someone like me? Can one find God on the path of the pursuit of the understanding of reality? Is it possible for me to find God in the real world where God is observable by non-believers? If not – why not? Can a Realist find God without having to give up putting reality first? Or – is belief without evidence a requirement?
A person may question the authenticity of the Bible without testing the question of the existence of God.
Am I to be expected to accept the written stories of Iron Age scribes as proof of a Supreme Being?
There is no question the holy scriptures were recorded by human beings thousands of years ago.
The narrative almost always begins with a verse like this:
Leviticus
23:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
23:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them …
In every instance where the Lord communicated to the children of Israel, he spoke through an intermediary human being. Back in those days, the population was illiterate and uneducated.
Nobody thought to question Moses about the idea of a Supreme Being using a nomadic tribesman to convey important information all human beings on Earth?
There is more than reasonable doubt that information conveyed by Iron Age scribes in the ancient Hebrew language, and subsequently translated into Greek and other languages, is a sufficiently accurate and truthful account of real History and events.
Believing that the Bible, as incarnated by King James, is the infallible Word of God is actually more of an article of faith than believing in the existence of a Supreme Being in general.
I have no basis for believing that Moses or Aaron or Isaiah or Jeremiah or any other spokesman for God was telling the truth in the first place, or that the events were accurately recorded by Iron Age scribes.
If there is a God, He must be bemused with reading the scribblings of ancient scribes and inherent contradictions or absurdities attributed to His word.
I was reading Prof. Susskind’s book on String Theory when my mother was dying. Pretty much solidified: There is a God, He doesn’t control any part of this infestation on Earth, organized religion (while awesome for community development and control) is an entertainment choice.
It is interesting that many particle physicist are Jewish. Maybe there is less philosophical barriers for non-christians to become “nano-astronomers.” The fact that the Proton Electron field in every atom of your body is stronger than any bomb is amazing.
@Taxed Enough Already Dude: Marc Perkel (Don’t let the name fool you) via very devious device, tricked a helpless squirrel make his home in the remnants of a UFO from area 51, doing hideous experiments with alien technology…and then doing Josef Mengele one better, video taped the process posting it here, gleefully…
And this illustrates the reason we need mandatory testing of intelligence, sanity and developmental level as a prerequisite for voting.
We think we are so logical, so intelligent, and have an inkling what the universe (micro and macro) are all about.
Two questions keep my pondering.
If life was happenstance, where’s everybody else out there in the universe? Lots of space, lots of opportunity for life. Some of it must have developed enough to ask similar questions.
Speaking of “out there”. What is out there? Is it really infinite? If it’s not infinite, what happens when it ends.
Explain these things to me, and I may settle into a comfortable relationship with what you call Reality.
Most of the universe, eg 99.99999999999999999% of it is HOSTILE to life.
Its that perfectly designed.
I believe there are the bits and pieces of life liberally distributed throughout the goldilocks zones of solar sysstems.
Intelligent life….. not so much. This forum demonstrates intelligent life is very rare.
Amen to that bobbo
Hmmm..interesting membership drive.
Hi Mark,
I think that you can find a basis for God in Science. I am assuming that you do not mean science based only on physical sciences but also include mathematics and other abstract things.
The question about the existence of God is answered by many philosophers from many different contexts. I would suggest looking at Aristotle’s argumentation or St. Thomas’s argumentation about the existence of God. Neither are faith base and are based solely on reason. There are compelling metaphysical proofs for the existence of God. Like math they are abstract and depend on reason.
Chesterton summarized Aquinus’ argument: “If you have selected the correct first principles, all your deductions must be correct” as the basis for Aquinus’ “reasoning” and proof of the correctness of the Church’s dogma. This is NOT a compelling proof for a scientist even though internally correct.
By your standards what would a compelling proof be for a scientist?
I used to believe in god then I grew up. That happened around the time I turned ten.
Why does anything exist? If you are about to spout the big bang theory you don’t even know the difference between the words how and why and your how only goes back to the big bang as well.
Does a deity/creator exist is an entirely different question than does it give a rats bleep about you. One or more could certainly exist without being in any way shape form or fashion concerned about you.
Two small observations. The big brains have noted that in some regards the Universe seems to resemble a holographic projection.
They have also noted that below a certain level, that is at the smallest scale we are able to sort of detect, reality may not be fully simulated.
These observations have led me to wonder if reality as we know it is actually some sort of simulation rather than…er…reality not that we are equipped to deal with reality outside the simulation.
A rather mind numbing trick is to use a light “door” like device to to change the route light took when bent above and below a galaxy by gravity. These galaxy lenses are fairly common and you can apparently decide which way the photon went, above or below the galaxy, even though the event in question actually occurred billions of years ago. How is it possible for you to change what happened then by doing something now?
There are other mind numbing tricks.
It appears at least to me that our reality may be what we know but what we know and understand is hardly the entire game.
That’s getting closer methinks, but I think the holographic universe model may be science beyond which Marc is willing to examine. My opinion is he needs to expand his horizons.
Fundamental to all human striving is the fear of death. While this is made clear in many biblical passages, I’ve found no better extra-biblical examination of this than the works of Ernest Becker (I assume he was a not a believer in Christ).
All our effort in life centers around the need to quell our anxiety about our own mortality. Our empirical selves seek universal answers through our senses. Our rational selves form logical constructs about our place in the cosmos. Our culture gives us a ‘meaningful’ role should we care to embrace the cultural norms.
As Becker concluded, these are all mechanisms by which we deny death. We can only achieve stability in our lives by attaching ourselves to an anchor in eternity. We fashion more-or-less durable anchors by building careers, developing our art, selecting a spouse, rearing children, becoming politically active, etc. These things give us meaning and many of these ‘anchors’ take us very close to the end. However, all eventually fail, in my opinion. We all must come face-to-face with death…and that means confronting eternity.
I think we all confront eternity at some point in our lives. I remember being reduced to tears by the concept of eternity when I was 7 years old. I wasn’t contemplating eternal glory or eternal damnation…just eternity. It’s a hard concept for my to wrap my mind around. It was especially difficult for me as a lad.
When we confront eternity we have to decide: Is there a being/power higher than I?
We can look at nature and the universe and decide that it was all coincidental and use our science to defend our choice. We can create a rationale to explain reality and base our decision on that. If we choose either empiricism or rationalism, we make ourselves the higher power. (e.g. Descartes – “I think therefore I am.” )
It’s an important choice, because where we place our faith determines how we live and die.
I apologize for taking so long to address one of your questions: “Will God reveal himself to someone like me?”
I believe the answer is: “Yes, He has and He will continue.” I believe in Christ and this provides me with the anchor in eternity…and answers to questions about human existence that are inscrutable to the scientific and philosophical disciplines.
The reasons these answers are available to me and not the unbeliever is because faith, as a system of perception (empiricism and rationalism are the other two), is not based on my flawed understanding of the universe. The merit belongs to God and his accurate Word and that is the basis of my view of the universe.
We can only access God through faith, because it is the only system of perception that doesn’t rely on me, but on Him. Faith is how were learn about the world. Mother tells you that the grass is green and you believe her. Father says that the exhaust pipe is hot and you believe him (or not, in my case). The merit lies in Mom and Dad for much of our early education, because our empirical and rational skills are underdeveloped.
I don’t think we will ever develop empirical or rational skills sufficient to probe eternity, or even a significant portion of time, as we understand it. Therefore, I’m left to conclude that a greater power is out there.
That’s the first step: God consciousness.
If we can, even for a moment, turn our uncertainty into a question directed to God…even a thought, such as, “God. If you’re out there, I want to understand you.”, then God owes you an explanation. And, He is faithful to provide you access to the information. The Gospel.
That’s the second step: What do you think of Christ?
If Christ came to restore humanity to eternal God, what is your choice?
Don’t know? Need more information? God will provide it.
Don’t buy it? You’ve made your choice.
I believe God is patient and gracious. He will provide you the information about Him and his plan for you. Your obligation (and mine as a believer) is to chisel away at our denial of death and all the constructs we’ve built around that fear. We must stand exposed to eternity and make a choice. While my eternal life is secure, I must still make the choice for God, everyday. It’s a simple choice, but not always an easy one.
Please use the email I submitted, if I can answer any questions.
With respect,
Ben
Don’t know? Need more information? God will provide it.
Oh, please. I spent 35 years looking. I didn’t get the “information” I needed. Now, of course, will come the myriad rationalizations – anything you can seize upon to make it my fault so that you don’t have to confront the contradiction.
Don’t buy it? You’ve made your choice.
And yes, of course – the alacrity with which you abandon the non-believer to his or her eternal fate. Utterly predictable.
Your entire comment above is an exercise in self-validation.
The non-believer is not abandoned. From birth to death he/she has every opportunity to believe in Christ, to accept God’s plan.
I certainly have no power over anyone’s eternal fate. I can share what I believe. I can show love to all people. I can live with grace, while the world falls apart. These are my contributions to the world and my witness for God.
Many won’t accept it, but they are rejecting the love of God. God rejects no one.
Everyone has the opportunity to access God’s plan of grace.
Grace seems to be the hardest part for many to accept, in my experience.
Ben
I’ll add that not all of us want to exist forever, which isn’t – no matter how desperately you’d like it to be – equivalent to making a choice against God.
Something isn’t true just because you really, really want it to be, and fear the consequences of it not being true.
I know this will fall on deaf ears but….
There are two kinds of knowledge: positive (empirical) and normative (of or related to norms, including culture and ethics). Science (and scientists) deal with the positive (what is), not normatives (what should be). The only place that normatives properly enter science (or “reality”) is when stating empirically the normatives that people hold and their statistical patterns.
Science is empirical and positive. It can never tell you what you “should” believe or “should” do because those things are normative. In other words, science cannot be about the most important things in life such as culture and ethics.
Empirically, there are numerous normative belief systems and “objectively” none can be any better or worse than the other. Therefore, objectively, a religious viewpoint based on one or more gods, is just as valid a basis for normative ethics as another or on any other basis. Real religions provide numerous metrics for life, culture and ethics as well as cosmologies supportive of those ethics.
As Kant discussed, however, when one presumes a hypothetical imperative, then one has a decision metric to evaluate particular belief systems. But, the adoption of a decision metric (on a non-hypothetical basis) is still normative. Nature imposes no particular metric function on reason. It does provide metric functions in terms of our emotions, needs and such, but our reason can ignore those.
Therefore, science and reality are not sufficient bases for ethics. Because one must always presume a normative premise for any ethical system.
People who try to use science as a basis for informing people of what their ethics and culture should be are most often illegitimately using their authority (or the authority of science) to advance their normative agendas.
The fact that you ask the questions in the way that you have done shows that you are either ill prepared to deal with the answer or you have an agenda.
My agenda for this discussion is this: To share my knowledge of God with anyone who asks.
My motives come from my love for humankind. A love made possible because God loved humankind, first.
I have no heart for debate. It’s almost always a tool for shoring up the ego. The ancient Greeks may have once employed it as a tool for understanding, but it devolved into sport.
Anyone who understands bible doctrine knows that I receive no prize for evangelizing. I have the opportunity to function inside God’s perfect plan. I may be a part of advancing His plan, but His plan is not dependent upon me.
Lately, I’m motivated to share this plan because I see so many struggling with the ‘vital lie’. The things we use to deny death are breaking down (economy, family/heritage, community, etc.) and we’re left with attempts to escape our immortality (antinomianism, legalism, reality TV).
I am not here to judge anyone. I am here to ask this: Will your belief system hold up at the moment of your death? It’s a personal question and probably should be an internal one. If I can share a perspective on eternity, I will.
We all choose our anchor in eternity. I’m glad to share mine and respectful of your choice, as well (unless you choose reality TV).
Kind regards,
Ben
Lately, I’m motivated to share this plan because I see so many struggling with the ‘vital lie’. The things we use to deny death are breaking down (economy, family/heritage, community, etc.) and we’re left with attempts to escape our immortality (antinomianism, legalism, reality TV).
You’re projecting your own fears upon the rest of humanity. Of course, you won’t acknowledge this even to yourself, as the moment you do, your belief system begins to break down.
There is evidence that my fears are fundamental human fears. Aside from the biblical statements to this regard, Ernest Becker’s work lays the foundation for a rich study of the ‘vital lie’.
His 2 books on the topic are “Denial of Death” and “Escape from Evil”.
Ben
Uh huh. Did it take you a long time to draw that target around the arrows?
I don’t agree. You can derive ethics from science and reality. Why would a fake deity be required for ethics?
I didn’t say that you couldn’t. I merely said that any ethics is still “normative,” not science.
Anyway, regarding the issue of a “fake deity”, you would still be setting up your own “fake authorities” no matter what. Who gets to choose what is or isn’t “reality” in your ethics and cosmology? Which principles are selectively enshrined in your ethics?
Reality is not normative, it is positive. People impose normatives on reality in order to satisfy their own political, social, cultural and other goals.
You would still be picking and choosing to satisfy particular goals. How more “scientific” or “realistic” is that?
Additionally, to what ends would you be setting up these fake authorities, cosmologies and ethics? Just to prove that you can? Because you don’t like the existing religious systems? You’d still be doing it for your own personal reasons and goals. At least some of the established religions have a track record to see their impacts on the long term.
So, all you’re doing is setting up another system of myth. Big wow. How hard is that? Politicians are doing that all the time.
The most important things in life are not facts, they’re myths. They’re what motivates all people to accomplish collective action. So you’re just saying you’re going to create another myth system. Publish a book. I may or may not read it. I’ve already got my own religion; I doubt that you have something better to offer.
I’m not saying that you shouldn’t do it. Actually, from my personal normative perspective, it’s not desireable. But I’m just stating that your proposal is no more “real” than any thing else. This is just “reality” as I see it.
Benji: “Fundamental to all human striving is the fear of death.” /// Recognize you speak only for yourself. Don’t smear others with your own reality/perception. You read books… that is a good thing. Some good ones about how accepting of death, and rejecting of medical science, physicians are as they are in their final process. DEATH===the great equalizer, the only thing that makes life fair. IMAGINE===the disgust of the anti-RICH like me when their money can buy near eternal life??? OHhhh–the HORROR!! But that is a ways off.
What else did you say after the FUD right from the start?……
2: “We can only achieve stability in our lives by attaching ourselves to an anchor in eternity. ” /// BS!! Lots of non-Christian philosophies worry/concern themselves with other issues. Read my own Nom de Flame for this thread: the universe is a meaningless place. Pragmatism recognizes our short sojurn here. Gives great comfort in many ways that simple recognition. No need for gods when we are stardust and return to star dust. Not that that means anything either.
3. “I remember being reduced to tears by the concept of eternity when I was 7 years old.” /// Rare, if even true. More likely—the layering on of an old man to his faulty memories. Severe child abuse otherwise. Let me guess your parents were religious? They were===whether you recognize now or then. That kind of stupidity rarely arises on its own. Its an infliction–like all the rest of religion.
4. “When we confront eternity we have to decide: Is there a being/power higher than I?” //// Of course there is, in reality or philosophically. But then we all die, so who gives a shit? Very vague terms though: dog whistles to those similarly inflicted: being, power, higher. All BS.
5. Belief in God/personal relationship with God====what it is. Telling other people your “story” and putting a burden on them?===BS politics. No matter how you try to wrap it. Your effort here is BS Politics.
I have not shared my own path for transcending death to burden you, or anyone else. It is not my role to convict or to convince. I do share. In this case I responded to a question posted in a blog I follow.
You’ve found no critique in my remarks (that reality TV jab was a joke). I am not judging or bashing or flaming anyone.
I believe that faith in Christ is the only anchor in eternity. But, I believe everyone builds an anchor in eternity, even if their anchor is believing that there is nothing after death. Denying eternity is one more way of coping with mortality.
I appreciate all the comments and the time you have taken to share. What I wish for you all is the peace that surpasses our human understanding.
Ben
If having faith in some mystical Juju or some 6,000 foot tall Red Jelly Bean* gets you through the night, fine.
But you might want to keep if from the crazier proselytizers on this board.
*) No personality represented a more radical, unscriptural, wild-eyed brandof Pentecostalism than Oral Roberts. He claimed apostolic healing power, but many died during his healing crusades, and after he claimed that a 900-foot-tall Jesus promised His blessing on the City of Faith hospital, it went bankrupt. From [ http://www.scribd.com/doc/101083315/Billy-Graham-s-Sad-Disobedience ]
You’re not afraid of death?
You’ve never seen someone die of old age?
A mighty shock in store for you, I think.
1: I am not afraid of death since I know it happens to everybody, whether we want it to or not.
2: My mother died at the ripe old age of 83, well tended to in a Québec nursing home. Does that count?
3: If she or my dad came back, that would shock me a great deal more.
http://imdb.com/title/tt0365215/
Everything gets commercialized. Money, power, politics, religion. Each has its currency.
I look forward to seeing this film. Freud, Jung, Becker? Ha, ha. Each Jag with his off.
I still say we live in a meaningless universe: a blank canvas open to each and every one of us to write upon….. and sheep to follow.
Yea, verily.
I suppose you and I could kill a 6-pack on these weighty topics.
To eternity and beyond!
Ben
Ahhh–well you are quite the succubus. Doth tease me to eternity. So my weakness is not fear of death, but love of scrambled neurons.
Be kind with me.
Benji walking once more in what is one of the deepest ruts ever created says:
8/21/2012 at 12:06 pm
//What do you think talking about “eternity” means? As if you “knew?” You don’t know. Your certainty on the issue is a measure of your antagonism against all that your protest otherwise.//
Is it my certainty on the issue of eternity that drives your antagonism? /// Basically, yes. But I’m pretty antagonistic about most things. People believing whatever they want to because they want to. Causes a lot of harm. As long as you keep it to religion and items of faith==no harm caused. But I’ve never seen that happen. The CERTAINTY slops over into things that actually make a difference. … Fetus Personhood Amendments, Abortion Restrictions, Gay Bashing…. whatever your real world concerns turn out to be. I’m Against IT!!!!
Why are you so ardent in your condemnation of my anchor in eternity? /// Ardent? I thought you perused this blog? I’m not even at half CAPS!!! I do get upset with the use of undefined, vague, meaningless terms though. Add certainty to the mix…. CALLS FOR COMPLETE CAPS IN MY BOOK!!!!! PROVE to all you are more than a Hall of Mirrors in this funhouse: what do you mean by “anchor in eternity?” Try to make sense.
Is it because of tragedy meted out at the hands of others professing Christ, but harboring evil? /// No, don’t think so althought that question always gets asked. Amusing. Who issues these talking points?
I shared my answer on a public blog. I knew my answer would be seen by others, not just the person who asked the question. However, I offered to take the discussion offline, because I wish to share my path with only those who are searching. /// Of course. I happen to be an inner city drug dealer. I only want to talk to those who have a monkey on their back.
Those who are happy with their anchor don’t want to hear from me. I respect that. /// I don’t know what that means. Waiting for your explication.
I still think we should have a beer. But, we’ll only talk about politics. Promise. /// I’ll buy the first round.
Ben /// Cheap drunk.
You’re right. I toss around ‘anchor in eternity’ like it’s age-old idiom. I borrow the phrase from Ernest Becker. I don’t think he was a believer in any particular faith. However, his analysis of death from anthropological and psychoanalytical sciences had a profound impact on how I view the human condition. It consequently strengthened my hold on my own faith.
The ‘anchor in eternity’ was what Becker viewed as an individual’s ‘causa sui’ project. The thing they did to transcend their mortality (the artist’s painting, the senator’s grand policy, the cabinetmaker’s craft). Any of these may be the ‘anchor in eternity’ if the person pours their soul into it. (I understand that politicians may not qualify).
The self-causation is the big “I AM” for the individual. It’s how the define themselves. It’s their raison d’être. It’s their anchor in eternity. It’s what gives meaning and purpose to their lives.
Many are able to function without the big ‘anchor’ through a series of small anchors. Kid pleases parents…kid goes to school and gets good grades…kid becomes football jock…kid gets into college…lands a good gig…marries a hottie…has kids…buys a sports car…has midlife crisis…shags a younger woman…divorces…starts drinking…etc.
Becker describes how we have a role given to us by our culture…and we can get along OK if we take up the American dream. The artist is an exception. His creative genius allows him to build another world…another god…another anchor.
If you lack genius and don’t embrace the cultural role handed you, you’re kind of stuck. For you it’s escapism…according to Becker. I rather agree.
So, I see our dilemma boiled down to the crafting of anchors. If you’re cut off from an anchor, I propose a different anchor. If you’re anchor is holding, I have little you would find of value (except for my views on reality TV, which should be imposed by brown shirts).
I take exception to ‘cheap drunk’!
I am of Scottish and Native American ancestry, and just because I can’t hold my liquor doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate the top shelf.
Bobo, he would be an incubus.
A succubus is…. Well, I guess a succubus is your one and only remaining hope of getting a date.
Yes, yes. but all my demons are female.
We each choose the form of our own torment.
Benjamin Atkinson seemingly fresh in this pursuit says:
8/21/2012 at 11:46 am
I have not shared my own path for transcending death to burden you, or anyone else. /// Definitional. Exactly what you have done is what I define as a burden on others. You may/will disagree===that doesn’t mean that others don’t disagree with you. Own it, or continue to be dishonest.
It is not my role to convict or to convince. /// Then why post at all?
I do share. In this case I responded to a question posted in a blog I follow. /// Yes, yes…. Why?
You’ve found no critique in my remarks (that reality TV jab was a joke). /// Yes, I smiled. You aren’t Alfie stupid but you arrive at the same place. The degree of difficulty for your double dismount does not change that result.
I am not judging or bashing or flaming anyone. /// Judging or bashing?===Yes, you are. Flaming?—Yes, you are–low settings. What do you think talking about “eternity” means? As if you “knew?” You don’t know. Your certainty on the issue is a measure of your antagonism against all that your protest otherwise. Its by your ACTION you are known, not your CLAIMS otherwise. Bites like a bitch… I know.
I believe that faith in Christ is the only anchor in eternity. /// What does that mean “exactly?” An Anchor? Silly talk.
But, I believe everyone builds an anchor in eternity, even if their anchor is believing that there is nothing after death. Denying eternity is one more way of coping with mortality. /// I accept the concept of eternity. I just die way before the introduction is over. Its only been 14 Billion Years so far in this interation of eternity. What was that number until everything is frozen at absolute zero and darkness everywhere?–Trillions of Billions of Years or whatever other incomprehensible is the fact of the matter? Have you BEEN to eternity and back? Was your anchor a Danforth, Claw, or double hinge—or just the love of god?
I appreciate all the comments and the time you have taken to share. What I wish for you all is the peace that surpasses our human understanding. /// I don’t want anything I don’t understand or the BS that does with it.
Ben /// bobbo
//What do you think talking about “eternity” means? As if you “knew?” You don’t know. Your certainty on the issue is a measure of your antagonism against all that your protest otherwise.//
Is it my certainty on the issue of eternity that drives your antagonism?
Why are you so ardent in your condemnation of my anchor in eternity?
Is it because of tragedy meted out at the hands of others professing Christ, but harboring evil?
I shared my answer on a public blog. I knew my answer would be seen by others, not just the person who asked the question. However, I offered to take the discussion offline, because I wish to share my path with only those who are searching. Those who are happy with their anchor don’t want to hear from me. I respect that.
I still think we should have a beer. But, we’ll only talk about politics. Promise.
Ben
Crap this posting system. DVORAK!!!!!!!!!
My response is one post thread above.
Sorry to reveal my needness/need/searching burning soul filled with the need for an anchor.
Hmmm….. Anchor Steam Beer. Any two people talking long enough should find common ground.
Deep analysis of one’s belief system is like trying to determine the position AND momentum of a quantum particle.
You’d like to resolve the unknowns to pure fact, but you can’t.
The uncertainty principle limits your precision.
Maybe God invented uncertainty to ensure mankind’s perpetual search for truth. If so, that’s pretty clever.
Thats an excellent point–the observation/consideration changes its values. And when the issue is the great mysteries… just the way it should be.
Hmmmm…. I don’t think I have much thought about my “belief system.” What I think about is the outside world, what works, what doesn’t work, what makes sense, what is knowable, what is unknowable and that results in a belief system centered on my Nom de Flame.
My Nom de Flame is not something I push for in itself (maybe a little bit in a certain way?). Its not an anchor in my eternity of …. how did JDE so aptly describe it…>>>self-validation? HAW< HAW!!! Just exactly what it is.
I'm on my forth beer, about to pass out.
Keep the faith.
1) There is no “faith based community”
2) Science is not the only tool to prove what exists.
Greg BABY!!!!! Where ya been?
Wrong on both counts. Firing on all eight again heh?
Same as it always is. Constant and unchanging about sums up your curiosity.
Ha, ha.
I check in now and again.
I see that you are still here, holding down the fort for the “anti-theist community.”
There is no anti-theist community. If I was more than ME and faith based, you could’ve been half right?
Wanna join Benjamin and Me for a drunken discussion about politics? I doubt it===so what do you think gives with Benji==religious but drinks? Sounds like some kind of subtle come on to me.
I only thank God he gave me a low tolerance for alcohol. I’m always asleep behind the couch when everyone else is out getting into trouble—swimming Nude in the Sea of Galalie (sic!) or sending pictures of my Shwantz to innocent victim constituencies of one sort or another. Perhaps a Triptych Icon of my spear wounds would be more appropriate?
Here is my problem with skinny dipping.
It’s always the wrong people who get naked.
Wrong on both counts?
I thought you might agree with #1, at least.
“the faith based community” if it existed, would be most of humanity (and maybe some of the animals!).
Of course, I knew you would disagree with #2. We’ve had that argument before.
My belief is that science does not do well with high levels of complexity.
For example, science has a hard time proving that beauty exists. Or Love. Or hope. Or comradery. Or hate. Or altruism.
But do they exist anyway? I vote yes.
To quote DEVO “God is in your head, right where he aught to be”
Are thinks in your head never real?
I’m absolutely positive that I’m not knowledgeable enough to answer most of the questions or address many of the beliefs here today, but after reading the words, intent and beliefs of the many that have commented here today, I find the convictions of those that believe in God, an all knowing, ever present and all powerful entity very troubling. The leverage point or method of delivery always seems to go back to the concept of FAITH.
Faith as it turns out is just a code word for those to separate out those that believe versus those that don’t believe in a God and all the benefits of God’s realm, here, now and after.
So on one hand, Faith means that you believe in what “I” believe which means you legitimize what I believe and therefore you are good. Alternatively, you don’t have faith, which means you challenge what “I” believe and therefore you are evil.
So my questions are:
Can Faith be so fragile that all without faith must be diminished, demonized or eliminated in order to bring complete verification to those that have this faith?
Are your beliefs in God so fragile, so tenuous so insecure that you care that someone believes in an alternative?
Why can’t we all have our own beliefs, so we don’t need to have “faith”?
To me, believing in God as stated diminishes the strengths, wisdom, intuition, emotions and knowledge of people. The ”he has a plan for me“ explanation for life trivializes the greatness of people and the physical universe. I would like to think that there is a new level of consciousness that will present itself after I die. If it does fabulous, if it doesn’t than I’m comfortable in the choices I’ve made and the life I lived.
As for the original question, I’m confident that if there is a Boss of the Universe, we will all feel peace in the end.
Well said Sam of Little Faith. Always nice to see one’s own beliefs restated in a slightly different way. Gives the subject more depth, more 3-D.
“♫ Is it Science or Religion, Science or Religion…”
(The Aria sung in the Fifth Element–excellent Movie Score/Album except when that Chris Rock rip off is jibber jabbering.)
Science or Religion==too great a gulf. If I were less drunk, I’d think of some declension between God and Religion. Could be some downhill progress made there?
If I remember correctly, I think what started our biggest argument, ever, is my believe that science and theology are looking at two ends of the same thing.
Both are trying to figure-out human perception.
Reminds me of the joke that kissing is sucking on a 30 foot long tube the last half of which is filled with shit.
That kind of two ends?
FINALLY!!!—I got that joke in. It is all perception, and enough distance to keep the stink away if you choose the wrong end.
If science is your bible, you don’t understand science OR the bible.
😉
Oh GREG BABY—I wish I liked candy:
GregAllen says:
8/21/2012 at 12:57 pm
Wrong on both counts?
I thought you might agree with #1, at least.
“the faith based community” if it existed, would be most of humanity (and maybe some of the animals!). //// It is most of humanity with just the caveat that the faith is broken up into 793 different opposing certainties. One of the key recognitions that destroys “faith” as a basis for anything except demonstrating where you grew up.
Of course, I knew you would disagree with #2. We’ve had that argument before. /// Argue? …. Never. ((Ok, I lie.))
My belief is that science does not do well with high levels of complexity. /// Yea, well your beliefs and a quarter can get you water or air at a filling station, but not both.
For example, science has a hard time proving that beauty exists. Or Love. Or hope. Or comradery. Or hate. Or altruism. /// No it doesn’t. More God in the Gaps BS. Beauty centers on bilateral symetry, youth, smoothness, and lack of bad smells. Haven’t you ever been repulsed by the opposite? Ha, ha. Love is a push of dopamine. Purley harmonal. Hope? Do a Lexis word count. Comraderie?==Easy–we comrad with those we have power over or those who agree with us and fight those who disagree with us. Like Red vs Black ants. Its Darwinian in its simplicity. Hate–talk to your god. Altruism==talk to those who aren’t afraid of gods.
But do they exist anyway? I vote yes. /// Yes–all as defined like anything else that is purely an artificial construct applied by a thinking longing yearning blob of self aware protoplasm. Its in the genes.
It seems that you DO agree that there is no “faith based community.”
>>Beauty centers on bilateral symetry, youth, smoothness, and lack of bad smells.
No. That is your subjective and arbitrary judgment. (not unlike faith!)
Seriously, bobbo, you aren’t even trying, if you honestly think you gave a scientific argument.
And, no, I’m not arguing the “God in the gaps” thing.
My belief is that God is too complex for science to prove or disprove. Like love or beauty.
Science is great but it’s the wrong tool to analyze a vast spectrum of the human experience.
Well, I’ll probably check in later but I gotta go.
Keep the anti-theist faith!
WHAT?!?!?!?! I OBJECT:
It seems that you DO agree that there is no “faith based community.” >>Beauty centers on bilateral symetry, youth, smoothness, and lack of bad smells. No. That is your subjective and arbitrary judgment. (not unlike faith!) /// Not mine… Its SCIENCE. Nice show on TV a few years back with John Cleese and Elizabeth Hurley regarding “What is Beauty”. Beauty is mostly mathematical and patterns all geared towards reproducing. Very pedestrian abstract concept.
Seriously, bobbo, you aren’t even trying, if you honestly think you gave a scientific argument. /// I direct your attention to my last comment. I agree these abstract concepts are somewhat apart from Science or Religion, but by rejecting Science, you are making the Gap argument. Science is the only way we have ever learned anything. Prove me wrong—. whatever you say, there are those other 792 religions in their certain disagreement. Only science brings people with differing/opposing points of view together. By Truth. Like evaporating black holes.
And, no, I’m not arguing the “God in the gaps” thing. // Yea, you are.
My belief is that God is too complex for science to prove or disprove. // Science proceeding from the null hypothesis is most helpfully understood to not be in the business of “proving.” Add that to the notion that you can’t prove something that doesn’t exist and you got your lock tight tautology going for you. Like Unicorns. God riding a unicorn in a candy sky. You can’t prove or disprove it.
Like love or beauty.
Science is great but it’s the wrong tool to analyze a vast spectrum of the human experience. /// Its the only tool. The tool belt holds up your pants. don’t embarass yourself.
Well, I’ll probably check in later but I gotta go.
Keep the anti-theist faith! //// Better yet—I’ll keep the beer cold.
After watching much of the excellent programing on The Science Channel, and reading Scientific American for several years, I have come to the conclusion that the more we know the more we don’t know. When you learn about the origin of the “big bang” and what preceded it, actually brings more questions then answers. I know as far as life as we know it goes the earth is a very special place where many conditions had to happen for life to form.
We must also ask if there are other Universes besides ours. I know that the bible was written before man even had a grasp of his own existence. I believe in forces that we can’t see such as Karma and other such energies. But it all comes down to who threw the switch that started the big bang, How do you make something out of nothing.
Read Bobo’s posts. You’ll get the hang of it.
Yes.
Sorry, but my mind is not deep enough to join this argument. I consider myself a free thinking person and feel no higher thinking guilt about it. If I were to believe the majority argument I guess “God” or the “Supreme Wizard” made me this way.
My apologies…
“The stage is too big for the drama.” Feynman, 1959.
From here we can see hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars. I find it hard to believe the creator of all this takes attendance, or cares who sleeps with whom.
Of course, that doesn’t mean I don’t believe in right and wrong — our sense of right and wrong is built into our brains and our genes, and is developed and nurtured by society.
The ten commandments and other systems of ethics are methods for building/maintaining a healthy, successful society — that is, allowing us to live together in groups larger than a dozen or two with a minimum of trouble and strife.
Much of ethics and religion is mankind still trying to adjust to the switch from hunter-gatherer bands to the larger, more permanent settlements allowed by the invention of agriculture.
Marc Perkel,
If you are truly seeking enlightenment, instead of creating controversy, you need to share what you may have learned from positing your question!
I think it safe to say, you are only after controversy if you don’t share your learning(s).
Anybody been persuaded yet, one way or another?
Whatever you seek, it’s not here.
“Whatever you seek, it’s not here.”
Amazingly you used “Whatever” making your statement all inclusive, from which you successfully created a tautology of illogical impossibility.
For instance, I was looking for “one way” and I found it in your post, disproving your statement.
You may be thinking, “everyone knows what I meant” to which I say, no I don’t.
Funny, I could have sworn this was Dvorak’s blog.
Oh Boy Theology, are you trolling your own site? If you looking outside yourself then you will never find the answer. Fath is either in you or. . . . .
God is Awesome! It’s his Fan Club that irritates me
The meaning of the universe is very simple – amazing how many words it generates that miss the mark.
Live in as big a house as you can afford and drive a full size 4×4 as far as you can. Eat meat and drink beer and have as many sexual partners as you can manage.
Do those things and you’ve lived to your full potential. Any worthy God would ask no less and a non-believer should also strive for no less.
Simple.
Very bold and forward of you to Judge “Any worthy God would ask no less and a non-believer should also strive for no less.”
You and “bobbo, the pragmatic” must be related or just a man of many masks like Ellinill.
“I am the founder of the Church of Reality.”
No, I am the founder of the Church of Reality!
This man Perkel is a fraud, impostor and false profit! He is the abomination the ancient algebraists warned us of! He is zero divided by zero! He is the statement: “This statement is false!” I anathematize and excommunicate him!
Shun him. Shun him as Pythagoras would a bean!
Nice.
Does Marc have the record number of posts elicited from a troll yet?
possibly
Actually several years ago I posted something here suggesting that Christianity wasn’t monotheism because Gods > 1. It got 600+ replies.
I see you are enjoying yourself.
That’s nice.
Not a truth seeker after all.
Actually I am. If someone proves God we will believe in him. We believe in anything that is real.
Marc, I have yet to see someone prove your existence to my satisfaction!
How do I know you are real or even exist?
As far as I can tell, these “By Marc Perkel” posting seem to be more by accident then by design!
Repost it just for giggles.
Some day I will.
But seriously, Marc, if you have reality why do you need a church?
Hawking says you don’t even need philosophy anymore. I’m sure he’ll post here and correct me if I got that wrong.
Have you tried karaoke? Seems to work for Schwartz.
Well, it started out as an idea I had one night when I got stoned. But it evolved. No one is looking for a way to answer the question of “what is the meaning of life?” in a reality/scientific based context.
Well….. if science can’t answer that question, and if religion can’t answer that question, then maybe the question itself is faulty or the wrong systems of thought are being brought to bear?
Why not existentialism? the best evidence is that the universe is a meaningless place. We all first learned this with Disney Cartoons. Fudd chasing Rabbit eating carrots. What does it mean?
Where is your own self actualization to form your own hypotheses and live them until better ones are found? Why are you looking “for authority” to “give” you an answer?
Very Blue State/Red State, leader/follower, self actualized/sheep phenomenon being demonstrated.
Be a man.
Yes, but a church?
Historically, not great engines of rational inquiry.
And to paraphrase your “question to the faith-based community”:
Can I meet your imaginary friend?
And the predictable answer:
Meet Him you will, and all too soon Heh Heh!
This is religion 2.0 where reality is god 2.0 and science is the bible 2.0. Doubt based rather than faith based.