Is science a religion?

[Fist and Faith]

The idea that non-existence must lead to existence is contradicted by everything that we do know from the natural world. Therefore, the most reasonable position is that it must not. The two propositions are not on equal footing from the get-go. Attempting to treat them as if they were simply ignores what we do know.

At the same time, suggesting that there is anything outside of our universe is speculation. To then go about describing that something's qualities... To say, "We are unable to explain X. Therefore, there must be Y." is not logic. And there's certainly no evidence to support it. At least my thinking does not speculate. Sure, I can speculate, and I have. But I do not say, "Yes, this speculation is the answer." It's just speculation. Until we get more information, the fact of the universe's existence remains a mystery. Your having declared one particular speculation as the truth does not make it so.

But as to your choice on faith, there is nothing especially reasonable about it. It is a good start that you agree to accept that the universe is real, that it does exist - although there are some particularly mad thinkers who think otherwise. And I agree that you need not "assume" that God exists. if you were able to make that assumption rationally, then we would not be speaking of faith at all, which is a choice. I question, again, what could possibly actually bring you to believe. Even if a dead man appeared to you, you could find a "rational" reason to deny the appearance. It could be a blob of mustard, caused by your digestion, extreme exhaustion, or whatever. You can explain anything away, if you want to explain it away, and most of us would desperately want to explain a weird event away, and to feel that what we experienced need not affect us or effect change in our lives.

If I ever experience anything remotely out of the ordinary, we'll see if I find some "rational" reason to deny it. Alas, miracles don't come my way. Never saw a ghost, angel, apparition, someone who was supposedly dead, waters parting, nothing. No idea how I'll react. Obviously, I'll consider the possibility that there is a reasonable explanation. You would be a fool if you didn't. I suspect the Orthodox Church does not blindly assume any strange occurrence is a miracle. I sure won't. But that doesn't mean I won't consider the possibility that there isn't a reasonable explanation; that something supernatural has taken place.

I agree. It is not necessarily madness to embrace contradictory propositions - a natural human tendency, imo. But to consciously do so, once the contradiction (as opposed to paradox) is perceived, is madness. It is unreason, unhealthy thought, insanity. If nothing has any objective meaning, then there is no objective reason to do anything. Why? is just as valid a question as Why not? and both equally meaningless. Our very reason becomes meaningless - a pointless dance of atoms (whatever they are) in the synapses of our brain (whatever they are). And THAT is what meaninglessness necessarily leads to. One can refuse to follow that that IS what it leads to, but that is one's choice to not think, that is all, a choice to wear blinders.

Yes, meaninglessness leads to a pointless dance of atoms. The flaw in your logic is in thinking that must lead to madness/despair. It need not. And, in my case, it doesn't. Odd that you don't see the logic that, since it doesn't in my case, it is a flawed premise on your part. When a theory is proven wrong, it must either be abandoned or refined. To continue to insist it is accurate shows which of us is choosing to wear blinders. You can think fire will result every time two specific chemicals meet. Then you see that fire does not result when those two chemicals meet under water. Do you then rethink things? Or do you simply continue to repeat that fire will result every time those two chemicals meet? Rethinking it, and looking into things more deeply, might reveal the role of water in it. Or it might show that there is actually a third chemical present in the air, and the combination of it and one of the other two is what causes fire - but that third chemical cannot exist under water. Or maybe some other explanation will reveal itself. In any event, insisting that the original theory is still correct is a conscious decision to abandon reason.

[rusmeister]

Rus -- Oh, I agree with you that there won't be many polytheists reading Lewis. And I did say that I kept reading after that point. As I said before, the dealbreaker for me was when Lewis cast The One as the (benevolent) male dictator over Mother Nature.

I feel that I've said this more than once, but I can only say that I believe you are assuming that Lewis holds a view about women that he doesn't actually hold. As soon as you perceive any kind of dominance (as you understand it) you interpret that perception according to your worldview, without ever really understanding Lewis's. You are prejudiced against Lewis - as in judging before really understanding, and therefore unable to consider what he says fairly.

And again, the convention of using the masculine pronouns was never, generally speaking, a form of 'patriarchal dominance', but was simply, from the Germanic aspect of our linguistic heritage, the form used to denote all people, without any intent to treat women differently. It is only our generation that has begun teaching the fiction that people did mean such domination by it.

Lewis deliberately picked "she" to refer to Nature. The sentence that set me off was far from his first use of it. And I noticed it right away -- specifically *because* English historically has used "he" as the third person singular pronoun when the gender is unknown. (I made a living as a writer for 20 years and I have a master's in fiction writing. So I'm kinda conversant with the conventions of the English language. )

I'm sure he did it because people often refer to Nature as "Mother Nature". I don't have a problem with that. In fact, I thought it was kind of nice when I read it the first time. What brought me up short was his offhand comment about it being totally normal and natural that male should dominate female.

Look, I'm not saying he placed the *misogynism* there deliberately. I'm saying that Lewis's comment is reflective of the mindset of the vast majority of mid 20th century white males. And it's likely that none of his peer reviewers noticed it because they, too, were mid 20th century white males.

Apparently it reflects your mindset as well, Rus, since you didn't notice it, either, and apparently it doesn't bother you even when it's pointed out to you. So I'm not surprised that you're on the defensive.

You keep saying I misunderstand Lewis's worldview, and I keep telling you that I *lived* it. I'm not prejudiced against Lewis; I don't care two pins about Lewis. But I *do* get kind of torqued at people who repeatedly tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.

Ali, I'm not saying that you don't know what YOU are talking about, but it seems certain that you do not really understand what Lewis is talking about - you say that they "didn't notice"; I'm suggesting that they actually had a fully conscious and formed view that you don't quite understand, because you perceive it through your particular worldview. Surely it is odd that doubters like Anscombe did not have the objections you have. Given the intense scrutiny this work was subjected to, why did people like her say nothing? Were they all as blind as you feel Lewis was?

Many modern words such as misogyny, discrimination, intolerance, homophobia, etc which are poorly defined, the meanings assumed and thus evade precise expression of thought, are heavily misused and applied indiscriminately. They are buzzwords, used to bait and switch, consciously or not, and to stop, rather than encourage actual thinking. I suggest more precise speech and clarification of exactly what is meant, using exactly the words that Lewis (or whoever) used, and then examining them in context. That will be shown to be fatal to the argument of misogyny. I am fully aware of my own cosmic view of the nature of men and women, just as you are, and I am quite sure that I understand the modern view, as I was bathed in it for much of my life. What I am totally unconvinced of is your understanding of the traditional, non-fundamentalist/whacko view of the sexes held by most genuinely practicing Christians (as opposed to nominal Christians) prior to the mid/late twentieth century. You see it in terms of domination - they do not. You say that you "lived" Lewis's worldview, something that I am extremely skeptical of (that is, do not believe for a minute), as unjust treatment is antithetical to serious Christianity. I do not doubt that you may have experienced unjust treatment - even at the hands of people calling themselves "Christian". I would deny that they actually believed what Lewis or the rest of traditional Christianity actually believes.

As I see it, you are just imposing your own understandings of what we believe onto us. We are probably at an impasse there, but I cannot admit that your view of our beliefs is a correct understanding of them.

(Edit) I found a pretty good rundown of the core issues of the 1948 debate:
www.lewisiana.nl/anscombe/

[aliantha]

Surely it is odd that doubters like Anscombe did not have the objections you have. Given the intense scrutiny this work was subjected to, why did people like her say nothing?

In Anscombe's case, maybe it was because she was a devout Roman Catholic with zero feminist leanings?

I am sorry that you feel that words like misogyny, intolerance, homophobia, etc., are "weasel words". They all seem pretty clear to me. Let's take misogyny. Dictionary.com defines it as the "hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women." I would say that "mistrust of women" certainly applies here, given that Lewis has cast Nature as irrational/non-rational (depending, apparently, on which edition of his work one is reading).

Of *course* your "genuinely practicing Christians...prior to the mid/late twentieth century" don't see their view of women in terms of domination, Rus -- that's what the whole consciousness-raising thing in the '60s was all about, for heaven's sake! That's why it was necessary -- because people didn't realize they were viewing women in this manner. They thought it was normal. They were profoundly uncomfortable with having their assumptions challenged.

Without going too far into it (because probably nobody here really cares...), my parents were both born in 1915 and came of age before WWII. (Dad served in WWII, stationed both in Europe and in Iceland.) Dad was raised Catholic and attended parochial school 'til his father died when he was 9, at which point he had to quit and go to work to support the family. Despite the fact that I had an above-average intellect (no brag, just fact -- I have belonged to both Mensa and Intertel), my father's life plan for me was to attend the local community college and get an associate's degree (maybe in nursing), then move back home with him and Mom 'til I got married, at which point I would quit working and stay home to raise the kids. As you have probably gathered by now, I had no interest in any of that. They were *very* unhappy with my choices and tried to force me to abandon them more than once.

And that's just one example of the ways my life was shaped by the early 20th century so-called Christian view of women.

Again, I'm less concerned about the underlying philosophy and more concerned with the concrete results. Regardless of what Christianity preached, this is how it was manifested. Or at least it's one example of how it manifested itself.

I get that you don't want me to throw the baby out with the bathwater. But (if you'll permit me to carry the metaphor to perhaps unconscionable lengths...) when the bathwater starts perverting the baby's message to this extent, maybe it's time for a different baby -- or at least some new parenting skills. Hence the feminist movement, and Neopaganism, and so on.

[rusmeister]

Surely it is odd that doubters like Anscombe did not have the objections you have. Given the intense scrutiny this work was subjected to, why did people like her say nothing?

In Anscombe's case, maybe it was because she was a devout Roman Catholic with zero feminist leanings?

I am sorry that you feel that words like misogyny, intolerance, homophobia, etc., are "weasel words". They all seem pretty clear to me. Let's take misogyny. Dictionary.com defines it as the "hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women." I would say that "mistrust of women" certainly applies here, given that Lewis has cast Nature as irrational/non-rational (depending, apparently, on which edition of his work one is reading).

Of *course* your "genuinely practicing Christians...prior to the mid/late twentieth century" don't see their view of women in terms of domination, Rus -- that's what the whole consciousness-raising thing in the '60s was all about, for heaven's sake! That's why it was necessary -- because people didn't realize they were viewing women in this manner. They thought it was normal. They were profoundly uncomfortable with having their assumptions challenged.

Without going too far into it (because probably nobody here really cares...), my parents were both born in 1915 and came of age before WWII. (Dad served in WWII, stationed both in Europe and in Iceland.) Dad was raised Catholic and attended parochial school 'til his father died when he was 9, at which point he had to quit and go to work to support the family. Despite the fact that I had an above-average intellect (no brag, just fact -- I have belonged to both Mensa and Intertel), my father's life plan for me was to attend the local community college and get an associate's degree (maybe in nursing), then move back home with him and Mom 'til I got married, at which point I would quit working and stay home to raise the kids. As you have probably gathered by now, I had no interest in any of that. They were *very* unhappy with my choices and tried to force me to abandon them more than once.

And that's just one example of the ways my life was shaped by the early 20th century so-called Christian view of women.

Again, I'm less concerned about the underlying philosophy and more concerned with the concrete results. Regardless of what Christianity preached, this is how it was manifested. Or at least it's one example of how it manifested itself.

I get that you don't want me to throw the baby out with the bathwater. But (if you'll permit me to carry the metaphor to perhaps unconscionable lengths...) when the bathwater starts perverting the baby's message to this extent, maybe it's time for a different baby -- or at least some new parenting skills. Hence the feminist movement, and Neopaganism, and so on.

Thanks, Ali.
Actually, I do find your story interesting.
But (starting with terminology) my whole point that the words, if taken literally, prove to be falsehoods as they are applied. Lewis (and all of traditional Christianity when genuinely believed and practiced - again, excluding nominalism) was/are NOT misogynist. The charge is simply false. Lewis does not distrust women - at least, any more than he distrusts man in general - as much as the Christian, in general, correctly mistrusts man in general, something confirmed every time we open the newspaper. It is your assumption that he distrusts women, and one that I maintain to be incorrect perception of what he does say.

"Intolerance" means, "to not tolerate something". Yet it is used in practice as if there were no such thing as things that should not be tolerated; the idea is enshrined as an absolute to mean "tolerate everything!" Yet, if I do that, I must tolerate poison and all kinds of evil, and the problem is precisely that we disagree on the nature of what is poison. The point is, there ARE proper objects for intolerance, and the question that is explicitly avoided is whether the phenomenon that is not being tolerated is one of them.

"Homophobia" means literally, "fear of man" - and I'll grant the more popular meaning, "fear of homosexual people". Yet this is simply not true. The rational forces that oppose the legitimization of homosexual behavior (as opposed to irrational ones) are decidedly not afraid of them, but have consciously come to the conclusion that such behavior will tear society apart, its prime assault being on the traditional family. Thus, the terms ARE 'weasel words', as you put it. They are used inaccurately and unjustly, to cast dissenting views as simply unreasonable before one even can take time to think about whether they are or not.

I say that, although some people did and do view women in this manner, it is precisely that they are NOT connected to the traditional Christianity that I speak of (again, I am being as inclusive as I think I can be - one of the central problems, in my worldview, is that all of western Christianity took a wrong turn). Genuine 'consciousness raising' would have involved making this fact clear; as it is, consciousness has not been raised much at all; it has only been replaced by a different - and equally mistaken - view of the relations of the sexes. It was precisely the (clash of) underlying philosophy that determined both your family's view and your own objections to it. (I'm NOT saying that your family's was necessarily correct, either, btw.) It is the underlying philosophy (and I mean the actual philosophy, which may not be the same as the stated philosophy) that produces the practical result.

I wonder who was actually uncomfortable and who was simply certain (at least in their own view) that the challenging of assumptions was itself in error.

I agree on the bathwater. I simply disagree about the direction.
To me, it's like someone saying that they think the communications industry is messed-up and extortionist, and insisting on tin cans and wire instead. The genuinely effective solution would be to find out how the telecommunications industry went wrong in the first place and right the error, working towards the ideal.

On feminist thought - the person I would steer you towards (and may have before) for an opportunity to understand, from someone who has been on both sides of the fence, how we really do see women, would be Frederica Mathewes-Green www.frederica.com/ She was a leading feminist in the 70's, and became Episcopalian, and later an Orthodox "matushka". It's an aside, but her brief "12 Things I Wish I'd Known" www.frederica.com/12-things/ is one of the most famous in American Orthodox circles. But you would be more interested in her feminist past and articles on women and society. Just click on the essays page (if interested). Brief, fairly quick readings, a folksy kind of tone, rather than academic. Generally shorter than my posts, and from someone you might find it much easier to relate to.
If I have to recommend one to you, I'd probably go with this one:
www.frederica.com/writings/three-bad-id ... women.html

She is a fairly busy speaker, with lots of engagements, but she does invite e-mails www.frederica.com/email/

One of the basic problems of having me as a primary or worse, exclusive source:

Reason is always a kind of brute force; those who appeal to the head rather than the heart, however pallid and polite, are
necessarily men of violence. We speak of 'touching' a man's heart, but we can do nothing to his head but hit it.

GKC, Twelve Types

One thing you can tell - this stuff means a lot to us - or we wouldn't spend so much time on it!

[Loredoctor]

The idea that non-existence must lead to existence is contradicted by everything that we do know from the natural world. Therefore, the most reasonable position is that it must not. The two propositions are not on equal footing from the get-go. Attempting to treat them as if they were simply ignores what we do know.

At the same time, suggesting that there is anything outside of our universe is speculation. To then go about describing that something's qualities... To say, "We are unable to explain X. Therefore, there must be Y." is not logic. And there's certainly no evidence to support it. At least my thinking does not speculate. Sure, I can speculate, and I have. But I do not say, "Yes, this speculation is the answer." It's just speculation. Until we get more information, the fact of the universe's existence remains a mystery. Your having declared one particular speculation as the truth does not make it so.

[Fist and Faith]

Thanks

[rusmeister]

The idea that non-existence must lead to existence is contradicted by everything that we do know from the natural world. Therefore, the most reasonable position is that it must not. The two propositions are not on equal footing from the get-go. Attempting to treat them as if they were simply ignores what we do know.

At the same time, suggesting that there is anything outside of our universe is speculation. To then go about describing that something's qualities... To say, "We are unable to explain X. Therefore, there must be Y." is not logic. And there's certainly no evidence to support it. At least my thinking does not speculate. Sure, I can speculate, and I have. But I do not say, "Yes, this speculation is the answer." It's just speculation. Until we get more information, the fact of the universe's existence remains a mystery. Your having declared one particular speculation as the truth does not make it so.

It is not speculation if it is claimed to be revelation. They are different animals. The qualities are described based on claims of special revelation by the Creator from outside this universe. (For Star trek:TNG fans: How could Jean-Luc Picard think he could know anything about the Q Continuum if he didn't accept what Q told him?) It is automatically granted that this is not subject to experimentation via the scientific method, something limited to the natural universe in any event, and is therefore a matter of faith. I'd say the difference between the naturalists and supernaturalists is that at least the latter admit that they adopt faith, and know precisely where they adopt it, whereas the naturalist tends to deny any faith in his view, and as a consequence, doesn't know where it IS faith (such as in an infinite C+E, or in an uncreated universe, or in a pre-existing (infinite?) blob a matter enabling a big bang, also matters of faith). The only question is whether you accept the revelation or not. (Abstaining necessarily means not accepting it.) So no claims of speculation here!

But as to your choice on faith, there is nothing especially reasonable about it. It is a good start that you agree to accept that the universe is real, that it does exist - although there are some particularly mad thinkers who think otherwise. And I agree that you need not "assume" that God exists. if you were able to make that assumption rationally, then we would not be speaking of faith at all, which is a choice. I question, again, what could possibly actually bring you to believe. Even if a dead man appeared to you, you could find a "rational" reason to deny the appearance. It could be a blob of mustard, caused by your digestion, extreme exhaustion, or whatever. You can explain anything away, if you want to explain it away, and most of us would desperately want to explain a weird event away, and to feel that what we experienced need not affect us or effect change in our lives.

If I ever experience anything remotely out of the ordinary, we'll see if I find some "rational" reason to deny it. Alas, miracles don't come my way. Never saw a ghost, angel, apparition, someone who was supposedly dead, waters parting, nothing. No idea how I'll react. Obviously, I'll consider the possibility that there is a reasonable explanation. You would be a fool if you didn't. I suspect the Orthodox Church does not blindly assume any strange occurrence is a miracle. I sure won't. But that doesn't mean I won't consider the possibility that there isn't a reasonable explanation; that something supernatural has taken place.

be careful what you wish for - you may get it...
Don't know if you have read any of Lewis's autobiographical stuff, or seen that great PBS video on him and Freud. www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/
He talks about how such an experience can hardly be wish fulfillment if you really didn't want it to happen.

I agree. It is not necessarily madness to embrace contradictory propositions - a natural human tendency, imo. But to consciously do so, once the contradiction (as opposed to paradox) is perceived, is madness. It is unreason, unhealthy thought, insanity. If nothing has any objective meaning, then there is no objective reason to do anything. Why? is just as valid a question as Why not? and both equally meaningless. Our very reason becomes meaningless - a pointless dance of atoms (whatever they are) in the synapses of our brain (whatever they are). And THAT is what meaninglessness necessarily leads to. One can refuse to follow that that IS what it leads to, but that is one's choice to not think, that is all, a choice to wear blinders.

Yes, meaninglessness leads to a pointless dance of atoms. The flaw in your logic is in thinking that must lead to madness/despair. It need not. And, in my case, it doesn't. Odd that you don't see the logic that, since it doesn't in my case, it is a flawed premise on your part. When a theory is proven wrong, it must either be abandoned or refined. To continue to insist it is accurate shows which of us is choosing to wear blinders. You can think fire will result every time two specific chemicals meet. Then you see that fire does not result when those two chemicals meet under water. Do you then rethink things? Or do you simply continue to repeat that fire will result every time those two chemicals meet? Rethinking it, and looking into things more deeply, might reveal the role of water in it. Or it might show that there is actually a third chemical present in the air, and the combination of it and one of the other two is what causes fire - but that third chemical cannot exist under water. Or maybe some other explanation will reveal itself. In any event, insisting that the original theory is still correct is a conscious decision to abandon reason.

I think here we are at an impasse. I would insist that you really have avoided a necessary conclusion in logical thought if you do not see that meaninglessness invalidates all reason, all thought. Your typing these words means nothing. If we avoid that conclusion, then yes, you could claim a flaw on my part. But if there is no objective meaning, then your words can mean nothing objective to me. There is no meaning; whatever YOU are simply has a fancy that we (whatever WE are) are somehow communicating meaning to each other. You admit the pointless dance of atoms - and if it is indeed pointless, then no thought has any validity at all.

But there IS objective meaning in what we communicate, and in our common human perceptions, and this principle immediately extends everywhere. If there is objective meaning in our communication, then there is objective meaning to our existence. It is not possible that a pointless dance of atoms could lead to meaning in communication, and yet deny it for our existence.

Regarding your analogy, I would say that it is a question of whether both people can perceive the fire or not. So I agree that your idea is generally applicable, but deny that it is applicable here. These sorts of arguments are probably for the audience, and those that have ears to hear will hear them.
As I see it, as soon as you admit meaningless, your arguments are dead in the water, because they don't mean anything. You have sawed off the branch of reason on which you are sitting. I need pay your arguments no heed whatsoever.
As soon as you admit meaning, then you admit it for existence (even if you have not determined what that meaning is) - as nearly all of humanity always has, except for a mad and extremely tiny minority.
Attempting to hold on to contradictory and mutually exclusive ideas and claim reason in doing so is illogical. It is possible to do so and not be insane, but only by not perceiving the contradiction.

[aliantha]

I suspect the Orthodox Church does not blindly assume any strange occurrence is a miracle. I sure won't. But that doesn't mean I won't consider the possibility that there isn't a reasonable explanation; that something supernatural has taken place.

be careful what you wish for - you may get it...

The guy's got a point, Fist.

Not to get all woo-woo on y'all...but a few nights ago I was up late, playing games on the computer, and suddenly felt a surge of loss and dismay. The first thought that occurred to me was, "Oh no. Furls is gone."

Later, of course, I learned that she had passed away.

I am hesitant to mention this here. I'm *not* claiming any sort of special relationship with Furls or her family; *lots* of folks here are closer to them. I've only known Furls as a fellow Watcher and have only "spoken" to her and her family via Facebook and the Watch. But there was a definite disturbance in the ether (or whatever you are pleased to call it) when she passed.

Just sayin', is all.

[Seven Words]

Rus--

their is a VAST hole in your logic there. The unprovable assumption that the revelation is genuine, and not a lie, or a product of mental illness, or even well-intentioned wishful thinking. Your revelation (which is the basis of your argument) is therefore every bit as speculative as what you're rejecting. Is teh revelation genuine? possibly. Is it an intention lie? also possible...lacking any proof, they are all equally valid, logically speaking.

[rusmeister]

I suspect the Orthodox Church does not blindly assume any strange occurrence is a miracle. I sure won't. But that doesn't mean I won't consider the possibility that there isn't a reasonable explanation; that something supernatural has taken place.

be careful what you wish for - you may get it...

The guy's got a point, Fist.

Not to get all woo-woo on y'all...but a few nights ago I was up late, playing games on the computer, and suddenly felt a surge of loss and dismay. The first thought that occurred to me was, "Oh no. Furls is gone."

Later, of course, I learned that she had passed away.

I am hesitant to mention this here. I'm *not* claiming any sort of special relationship with Furls or her family; *lots* of folks here are closer to them. I've only known Furls as a fellow Watcher and have only "spoken" to her and her family via Facebook and the Watch. But there was a definite disturbance in the ether (or whatever you are pleased to call it) when she passed.

Just sayin', is all.

My response is in the Hall of Gifts. That was the first I'd heard of it, though. I don't wander around the watch at large often, so it came as a slight surprise to me. I knew that she was seriously ill, and that was all.

My sympathies to all who knew her. I'm including her in my permanent prayer list (which only a few internet acquaintances have ever made it on to). An advantage of being Orthodox - we get to pray for the dead - who are alive in God.

For those who know the Gospels: Mark 12:26

And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
27. He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living

Death is real. But it's not game over. That's why the Gospel really is good news. Christ is risen from the dead - and therefore, Tracie can be, too, and that is cause for great hope and joy...

Please forgive me; I intend no offense whatsoever.
I'm not up to any debating tonight...

[aliantha]

Yeah, saying she was "seriously ill" in that post of mine was all I was up to. I don't think anybody around here had the heart to say "terminal cancer"...

[Fist and Faith]

Please forgive me; I intend no offense whatsoever.

You gave none. You do great honor to a woman who deserves all that goes her way. Everyone who cares for her is grateful to you for your words.

[Fist and Faith]

It is not speculation if it is claimed to be revelation. They are different animals. The qualities are described based on claims of special revelation by the Creator from outside this universe. (For Star trek:TNG fans: How could Jean-Luc Picard think he could know anything about the Q Continuum if he didn't accept what Q told him?) It is automatically granted that this is not subject to experimentation via the scientific method, something limited to the natural universe in any event, and is therefore a matter of faith. I'd say the difference between the naturalists and supernaturalists is that at least the latter admit that they adopt faith, and know precisely where they adopt it, whereas the naturalist tends to deny any faith in his view, and as a consequence, doesn't know where it IS faith (such as in an infinite C+E, or in an uncreated universe, or in a pre-existing (infinite?) blob a matter enabling a big bang, also matters of faith). The only question is whether you accept the revelation or not. (Abstaining necessarily means not accepting it.) So no claims of speculation here!

Again, I'm in this discussion to see if I can find evidence of a creator's existence. (And again again, that's because I surely would like to know if there is one. Not to say I would worship whatever creator I learned existed, but I'd like to know if there is. Also, exploring these ideas is more interesting than exploring ideas I already agree with.) As far as that goes, yes, you are speculating. Wildly so, even. Heh. Another person's personal revelation is nothing to me. It is not evidence of any kind. And I cannot base my beliefs on it. I'm sure any number of Hindus or Muslims could tell you that they had personal revelations that were as real to them as yours were to you. But you would dismiss them quite handily, because they do not reflect the Truth that you know. Same with me and your revelations. I have no reason to assume that we are the highest form of life in the universe. I have no reason to assume there are not things or beings outside our universe. But neither do I have reason to assume there are higher forms of life in, or anything outside, the universe. Evidence is not forthcoming. Your revelation is not evidence. Only my own revelation could be.

If I ever experience anything remotely out of the ordinary, we'll see if I find some "rational" reason to deny it. Alas, miracles don't come my way. Never saw a ghost, angel, apparition, someone who was supposedly dead, waters parting, nothing. No idea how I'll react. Obviously, I'll consider the possibility that there is a reasonable explanation. You would be a fool if you didn't. I suspect the Orthodox Church does not blindly assume any strange occurrence is a miracle. I sure won't. But that doesn't mean I won't consider the possibility that there isn't a reasonable explanation; that something supernatural has taken place.

be careful what you wish for - you may get it.

This is a silly aspect of this discussion. "Even if a dead man appeared to you, you could find a "rational" reason to deny the appearance." Do you think that's likely to happen? Do you think someone who I know died, but I knew well enough to be able to spot a phony, is going to come me? I would be thrilled beyond my ability to describe if my grandmother, dead twelve years now, walked through my door! Long before I was a teen, she and I would go camping together. Or to her sister's a few hours away for a weekend. And I used to spend the night at her house often. I have a brother and sister, but they didn't hang out with us. We used to play cards, walk in the woods, talk, whatever. The idea that her being alive at my house now would likely have HUGE religious implications wouldn't make the SLIGHTEST difference to me. I would be crying for joy to see her again, and that's all there is to that. Go ahead and say I'd later talk myself out of it somehow. You'd be wrong. And you don't have any reason to suspect I'd do that in the first place. I've never done such a thing before, so you have nothing to base that kind of suspicion on. Nothing that even hints of anything supernatural has ever happened to me, so I've not had the opportunity to accept or reject it. There have been no revelations in my life.

Don't know if you have read any of Lewis's autobiographical stuff, or seen that great PBS video on him and Freud. www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/
He talks about how such an experience can hardly be wish fulfillment if you really didn't want it to happen.

I found this on youtube, since I don't seem to be able to view it at that link. The discussion in the first (of six) part is good enough, if not anything I haven't heard and/or said before. But there's five more parts to go.

I think here we are at an impasse. I would insist that you really have avoided a necessary conclusion in logical thought if you do not see that meaninglessness invalidates all reason, all thought. Your typing these words means nothing. If we avoid that conclusion, then yes, you could claim a flaw on my part. But if there is no objective meaning, then your words can mean nothing objective to me. There is no meaning; whatever YOU are simply has a fancy that we (whatever WE are) are somehow communicating meaning to each other. You admit the pointless dance of atoms - and if it is indeed pointless, then no thought has any validity at all.

But there IS objective meaning in what we communicate, and in our common human perceptions, and this principle immediately extends everywhere. If there is objective meaning in our communication, then there is objective meaning to our existence. It is not possible that a pointless dance of atoms could lead to meaning in communication, and yet deny it for our existence.

Regarding your analogy, I would say that it is a question of whether both people can perceive the fire or not. So I agree that your idea is generally applicable, but deny that it is applicable here. These sorts of arguments are probably for the audience, and those that have ears to hear will hear them.
As I see it, as soon as you admit meaningless, your arguments are dead in the water, because they don't mean anything. You have sawed off the branch of reason on which you are sitting. I need pay your arguments no heed whatsoever.
As soon as you admit meaning, then you admit it for existence (even if you have not determined what that meaning is) - as nearly all of humanity always has, except for a mad and extremely tiny minority.
Attempting to hold on to contradictory and mutually exclusive ideas and claim reason in doing so is illogical. It is possible to do so and not be insane, but only by not perceiving the contradiction.

You are combining things that are not related, then insisting that one must accept the combination, or one is illogical.

-There are objective facts. Particles are often arranged into various patterns. Various structures. Those arrangements have certain characteristics. Some are hard; some are liquid; some reflect certain frequencies of light; some cannot exist away from another particular arrangement; and on and on...

-Some of those arrangements have certain characteristics that makes them what we call "living." These arrangements can cease to be living when they interact with certain other arrangements under certain circumstances. Some living arrangements cannot remain living under water. Some cannot remain living without being under water. Some cannot remain living if they impact with certain other arrangements at certain speeds. Etc.

-Some living things are aware of their own existence. Some can communicate with other living things. Of couse there's objective meaning in those communications. Communication developed in order to share the objective facts. Unless at least one of those communicating is insane, there's no reason to expect communication won't have objective meaning.

So what does any of that have to do with our lives being without any objective meaning? None of it even implies that our lives have an objective meaning. Heck, for that matter, none of that changes even if God does exist, and even if he did give our lives an objective meaning.

[rusmeister]

Rus--

their is a VAST hole in your logic there. The unprovable assumption that the revelation is genuine, and not a lie, or a product of mental illness, or even well-intentioned wishful thinking. Your revelation (which is the basis of your argument) is therefore every bit as speculative as what you're rejecting. Is teh revelation genuine? possibly. Is it an intention lie? also possible...lacking any proof, they are all equally valid, logically speaking.

(This is also a reply to one of Fist's points.) I'd say there is a world of difference between speculation and accepting revelation.

It is true that one cannot proffer empirical proof that you keep on demanding and will never, ever get (barring an experience like Saul of Tarsis's) from the acceptance of revelation. Faith is a choice. It is not based on proof at all (of the kind you demand), or else it is not faith.

But it is equally not speculation. You can hardly accuse a 3-yr old child of speculation if he accepts what his parents say about a coming winter when the ground will be covered with white. The child has no scientific or experiential "proof", so to speak, but he does accept his parents' authority to tell him truth. The first thing that needs to be grasped is that not all of our knowledge is based on "proof". We really do believe some authorities, even as adults, if only because they resonate with what we are inclined to believe. Heck, some even believe Richard Dawkins as an authority (and speaking purely as a biologist, he might not be a bad one - but when he goes into angry anti-God mode, he is no more well-informed about what intelligent people of faith believe than the next man). Point is, accepting revelation is a choice, and an affirmative one, and is therefore not speculation - which merely means, "Maybe..." or "If..."

So I should probably stress once again that faith cannot be proved - what the Christian apologist CAN do is show how some popular ideas used to deny faith are actually fallacies. That's what I try to do, and where I get my kicks. (in more ways than one! )

[Fist and Faith]

As I said, if I ever have/receive a revelation, we'll see if I accept it. I suspect I'm far more likely to believe what I experience than you suspect I am. I always have so far, after all.

Faith is a choice.

I don't have any personal experience with faith, but I don't think this is correct. We've talked about this a little, but I don't have a clear memory of your answers. IIRC, you were not able to choose not to have your faith, even though you tried to deny it for some time. Isn't that how it was? You gave it up, but you kept going back, talking to different priests, until one said things that resonated with what you were feeling. But the feeling was always there. It was not a choice, and you did not have a choice to not have it.

Of course, you could say that you did have the choice to not have faith. But we don't know that. We only know that you do have faith, despite trying to choose otherwise.

It is not based on proof at all (of the kind you demand), or else it is not faith.

This idea comes up from time to time. Even before you started posting, it had been discussed. I don't see why it should have to work this way. The story goes that Satan knew for a fact that God existed, right? Satan was God's right-hand angel, wasn't he? He didn't lose his faith because of any lack of proof. And even if God's existence was proven to me without any doubt, that doesn't mean I'd have faith. So why not let me have proof, and let me decide if I'll follow?

Of course, if you tell me it is more meaningful to believe in God's existence without proof, I'll disagree. I think it's more meaningful to choose which path to follow if I know with certainty which paths actually exist. *shrug* Another impasse.

[Seven Words]

Rus--

I can see your point..but that same logic MUST allow equally for the validity of OTHER faiths revelations as "Maybe". There is nothing about the Christian "revelation" that make sit any more or less plausible than any other. You seem (and if I am misunderstanding, please correct me) to be avoiding admitting this. Admitting it is not saying you think they are correct, it is being honest.

I have read a lot of apologists stuff online, a decent chunk of which at your urging. I found none of it persuasive due to logic gaps like I mentioned.

You did mention the circumstances under which I'm likely to convert (to ANY faith). A "Saul of Tarsis" experience, or actual objective proof. I did say "likely", no "only way". There may well be a line of reasoning I haven't heard yet which would persuade me...thus, I'm on here.

[rusmeister]

(Trying to get thoughts in as kids wake up and demand attention (I have four; the two little ones are up)...)

Fist, I don't pretend to know how you'd react in the face of personal revelation. Honestly, I had Scrooge in mind (the mustard blob).

We seem to have reached the crux - which is also the Cross (and this is not a coincidence ); that of faith as a choice to accept revelation. As such, it cannot be proved, and one does not have a special advantage over others except in terms of such reason and experience as we have. So far I agree with 7W. But there are no "logic gaps"; certainly, none have been shown. If reasoning has gone as far as it can, to where it can go no farther - what we can't know, what lies outside of the universe that we can perceive, for example, then there is an admitted gap of empirical knowledge, but if you make the choice to accept revelation, you need admit no gap of logic.

There is a point where even logic ends, and you must make a choice. That choice may be influenced by your environment, like Fist suggests, or it may be in spite of it. FTR, Fist, I spent twenty years in complete rejection, and one of the factors was a major weakness in Baptist theology - it was quite definite, and so it was not really a matter of my doubting and trying to free myself of it all the while. I rejected, and then mostly didn't think about it for two decades. I didn't 'keep going back to priests'. there was one point, at the ten-year mark, where I talked briefly with a priest - Fr Andrew Tregubov, in NH (at my first son's baptism that his mother insisted upon), and I was struck by the fact that his thoughts were much deeper than my own - the most that did, though, was plant a seed, also forgotten in the general hecticness of life, until the events unfolded at the 20-yr mark that brought down my house of cards and left me 'naked' before those thoughts. So I do see my faith as a free choice and I was not forced to believe by my environment or circumstances, although I was forced to confront the question.

7W, if you have set such a bar for yourself - you must have objective experience like Saul or empirical proof - you are unlikely to ever convert. These things just don't happen, except as miracles. But that's not how it generally works. It's usually an accumulation of experiences, usually little ones - a good friend, a good book, an incredible sunset, or whatever, that also chip away at an iron-clad faith in reason alone - those little things become proofs - not the grandiose scientific ones that we imagined, but things that can gradually convince in the absence of that proof. Like I said, I think the best outlay of what we DO know as an argument for faith that I have seen is "The Everlasting Man" - if seen, not as "proof", but as an explanation that really does make sense out of the Christian worldview and demonstrate its plausibility, then it can be very convincing to people who are genuinely seeking to understand how that can be. AFAIK, only Ali out of Watchers has actually read it, and she has a strong incentive to discount it - because she believes in the very thing that Chesterton's thesis most powerfully disputes.

On Satan and his angels, yes, they know for a fact that God exists. Therefore they believe (James 2:19). (Or you could say that they don't believe, because they know, but that's just semantics) But they do not have faith. It wasn't a question of Lucifer needing faith or losing it - it was a question of pride - of being the greatest of created things, and wanting to be more - wanting to be God (and this is something that, as a result of the Fall, is also something that humans struggle with.

I've already mentioned what I call 'the Godzilla problem' - that of not being able to withstand that actual proof, and of perceiving no choice at all in believing or following if that awesome presence did appear before us. For me it makes perfect sense why he doesn't just 'appear in front of us'. I won't say that it is 'more meaningful' without proof - I'll say rather that it does enable us to make a free choice without pressure - a choice that really is free and not forced.

Well, now three are up and I have to get involved in children moderation...
A pleasant day (or a good night) to you all!

[Seven Words]

Rus---

Saul's experience was SUBJECTIVE, not objective.

As far as the accumulation of little things..such an accumulation led me to stop being an atheist....but none of the little things were "flavored", for want of a better term, Christian. While they were subjective, they were enough to convince me that there IS something MORE. But while Christianity could explain them, equally so could they support many other faiths. And, touching back to atheism, they COULD equally have been many unlikely random occurrences, but I don't think so.

And getting back to the TOPIC....religion is faith....belief without empirical proof, which you said yourself there isn't, Rus. Science is only concerned with empirically provable facts. If it cannot be measured, tested, questioned...it's nothing science is concerned with. The only conflict comes when religion makes definitive statements concerning things which ARE empirically testable...such as the age of the Earth.

[Prebe]

The only conflict comes when religion makes definitive statements concerning things which ARE empirically testable...such as the age of the Earth.

Completely agreed, as ParanoiA and I discussed in another thread:

Any religion that relies on some untestable, unfalsifiable authority entity will enjoy no assault from science of any kind.

Not untill the religion assault science on it's own premises, which is EXACTLY what happens when you talk about intelligent design. That is when a huge gaping hole in the flank opens.

I'll give you one better: making such statements have proven to be innevitable so far in all the organised religions that I have seen.

[Seven Words]

playing a bit of Devil's Advocate here, Prebe...but I have never heard about Buddhism making any demonstrably false assertions concerning empirical things.