Britain, Evolution doubts grow...

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Cheese

This series that textcritic posted should not go unoticed.
Watch and share it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX6...x=0&playnext=1

Awesome

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

...3. What is at issue here is not "religion" but "creationism," which is a narrower subset of belief. Evolution and creationism are only at odds where creationism seeks to make predictions about the empirical universe that turn out to be wrong. This is an important point. If "creationism" made correct predictions, or if it were scientific, there would be no conflict--it would merely cause a reconsideration of existing paradigms to account for the novel data. The conflict only arises because people insist on believing this stuff in spite of the fact that the evidence contradicts them...

Perhaps to put a finer point on this—at least in a North American and a Western context—Creationism is not, and never was, about "science". Creationism is not, and never was, ultimately concerned with knowing about biology, abiogenesis, or even cosmology.

Creationism is about the Bible.

Virtually every so-called "creation scientist" is wholly and solely committed to manipulating scientific training, method and language in an effort to provide an apologetic for the Bible. Six-day, young earth creationism is but the most extreme example of how Christian apologetics operate, and maybe it is because most of those engaged in such discussions and debates present their ideas with a greater degree of subtlety that we ought to be deeply concerned.

By way of example, I am presently reviewing a new book that is being used in confessional universities and colleges around the country to teach concepts of a "Christian worldview" Here is a sampling from a chapter outlining the authors' vision of European history entitled "The Western Story: The Growth of Modernity":

"Science has played a central role in the development of the Western worldview that [Lesslie] Newbigen refers to as the 'modern scientific world-view.' Science (both as a body of knowledge and as a methodology by which to gain knowledge) is a powerful instrument, a good gift from God that can be directed according to either a Christian or a humanist vision of life..."

The authors define "humanism" rather arbitrarily as "confessional humanism": "A belief system in which human beings have replaced God as Creator, Ruler, and Savior". It seems that the "goal" for every humanist is material prosperity and comfort, which they might achieve through advances in science and technology, or through the conquest or "domination" of nature. The "Christian" vision or "worldview" is loosely defined according to a very narrow reading of the "Bible" as a single, structured and organized narrative. The basic premise is that God created everything, and it was good. He installed humankind as caretakers of this "good creation", but that humankind was corrupted by sin (It is never explicitly stated, but it seems that the authors actually believe that this "sin" was actually the result of eating an actual "fruit" from the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". One of the authors teaches at the same school I do, and in his classes jokes that he believes it was a mango). This "sin" resulted in a distortion of the good creation, and it is the ultimate goal of the creator to restore it. It is the task of Christendom and the "Church" to demonstrate what the restoration looks like: the Kingdom of God in which there is perfect justice, peace, intellectual, physical and spiritual well-being.

The authors rarely (if ever) speak specifically about science, or scientific breakthroughs and discoveries. They never define science, nor do they seem to have a firm grasp on what science is, yet it is somehow to remain in subordination to this view of the world. Consider what they write in the following:

"Both the Christian worldview and its humanist offspring in the Renaissance contributed views that would serve to remove medieval obstacles to the advancement of science. In biblical perspective, human beings are creatures uniquely created by God to explore and care for the good creation, and science can provide the means to do both well. In the humanist vision, the concept of stewardship can become skewed so that it seems the right of autonomous humankind to dominate and exploit the creation for its own social purposes. Science in the Western world of the Renaissance (and after) offered both the tools and the tradition by which humanity could come to understand the laws of nature. With such knowledge would come remarkable power, as nature itself could be harnessed to do the bidding of humankind. Thus the new science had the potential to advance either Christian stewardship or the confessional humanist domination of nature."

As if "Christian stewardship" and the "confessional humanist domination of nature" were the only two prevailing ideologies worth discussion. The authors have maintained the neutrality of "science" (despite the fact that they never attempt to define what it is), but have implied that unless proponents are firmly grounded in what they construe as "the Christian worldview" (again, as if there was only one!), this thing called "science" can be very dangerous and meet with disastrous results.

Humanism—and their employment of science and technology to "acheive" utopian sort of human autonomy—bears the brunt of blame for all the ills of the present world: poverty, environmental degradation, proliferation of weapons, psychological problems, and social and ecomonic problems. But in their estimation:

"It could have been different. Science could have equipped humankind for their proper role of caring for and developing the creation in a stewardly way. How, then, did science become so thoroughly co-opted by confessional humanism?"

The authors answer this question by blaming the Church for first, rejecting the "new science" of the Renaissance period, and second, by the splintering that resulted from the Protestant Reformation.

I'm about half finished the book, but I have so far noticed a couple of very disturbing trends: First, is an inordinate deification of the Bible and what the authors call the "biblical story." The basic premise of the book seems to be Bible = good / "pagan" "confessional" humanism = bad. Second, the authors appear to have constructed a straw-man to argue for this very narrow Christian worldview in their presentation of "confessional humanism." The Renaissance and the Enlightenment are rewritten as deplorable periods of human history which severely undermined their unilateral (and wrong) picture of "Christianity". They continue to speak about the religious and spiritual connotations of "humanism", but never offer any definition of religion, nor do they describe why humanism is religious outside of the fact that humanists are guided by a comprehensive ideology. Fourth, they have presented science and reason as value-laden endeavors. Here is where I find the greatest problem with the book: by never defining "science" or "religion", and by never writing explicitly about how science has been corrupted, or about how humanism is religious, they are attempting to manipulate their audience into seeing these things as interchangable. "Science" and "reason" are descibed as a part of "God's good creation", much in the same way as a tree or an individual culture might be considered as part of the creation. In so doing they have relegated EVERYTHING that is outside of their "biblical worldview" of God as an equal partner in the created order; science; religion; apples; marriage; automobiles; family; money; government; sex; technology are somehow all neutral. They obtain value, however, in how they are employed in the service of—or against—God. This not only implies, but encourages that an agenda underlie every human endeavor.

So, these authors are not necessarily "anti-science", but they are so "pro-Bible" as to obscure the real issues. I fear that the less erudite readers are prone to employ this fearful dichotomy between "God" and "EVERYTHING else" in such a way that they become cosmological dualists, envisioning all human (and natural) enterprises as either "good" or "evil".

[Thor]

lol the Economist published this new image of the New Scientist data taken in 2006 on various countries acceptance of Evolution with Monkeys in the image.

Neat how the Monkey image will evoke humour and remind those who refute Evolution that its an offensive suggestion that we share a common ancestor with apes/monkeys.



Original:

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

So, these authors are not necessarily "anti-science", but they are so "pro-Bible" as to obscure the real issues. I fear that the less erudite readers are prone to employ this fearful dichotomy between "God" and "EVERYTHING else" in such a way that they are become cosmological dualists, envisioning all human (and natural) enterprises as either "good" or "evil".

They know this and use it to their advantage.
Its much the same as the parents who are so absorbed in the religion of choice passing it on to unsuspecting children....the same children that look up to their parents for truth and guidance.
Those of us who wake up and smell the coffee tend to go through years of confusion and soul searching. Its unfortunate that we have to waste time on this planet simply wading through the garbage that unsuspecting and uneducated parents have hoisted upon us.

It gives me great satisfaction to read your well thought out and well written posts textcritic! It will be people like you that eventually turn the tide against these lies.

[Textcritic]

By the way, any feedback that any of you have on the ideas I cited from the book would be welcome and much appreciated. Particularly those of you who have a broad understanding of Western European history, and the development of "humanism". I fear that most of my expertise is restricted to the Classical era.

[Cheese]

Darwin Britains hero

This year marks the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, and to say Darwin mania is gripping England does not overstate the case.

Yet Christians still try to mangle the truth...

But in Britain, even those who see the hand of a creator in the natural world don't have a problem with Darwin. The reason is that science and religion answer different questions, says the Right Rev. Lord Harries of Pentregarth, a member of the House of Lords and the former bishop of Oxford for the Church of England.

"Science is trying to address the question, 'How do things happen?'" says Harries. "In answer to that you get the theory of evolution. Things happen gradually over a very long period of time by natural causes. But if you ask 'Why did things happen?' Then you get a completely different answer."

[photon]

Interesting post Textcritic!

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Here is where I find the greatest problem with the book: by never defining "science" or "religion", and by never writing explicitly about how science has been corrupted, or about how humanism is religious, they are attempting to manipulate their audience into seeing these things as interchangable. "Science" and "reason" are descibed as a part of "God's good creation", much in the same way as a tree or an individual culture might be considered as part of the creation. In so doing they have relegated EVERYTHING that is outside of their "biblical worldview" of God as an equal partner in the created order; science; religion; apples; marriage; automobiles; family; money; government; sex; technology are somehow all neutral. They obtain value, however, in how they are employed in the service of—or against—God. This not only implies, but encourages that an agenda underlie every human endeavor.

Of course they do; to a fundamentalist it always boils down to that. The foundation of their way of thought is divinely revealed truth through the Bible. If something contradicts the notion of revealed truth, it MUST be wrong, and any argument at all can be constructed against it with confidence because it's wrong, so the argument will by definition be sound.

The atheist buses are perfect examples. Some letters written to the editor (or wherever the objections are voiced) should be embarrassing to the authors and other faithful, but aren't because those arguments are, as you say, used in the service of God.

The response bus ads that are coming out are, predictably, "A fool says in his heart 'There is no God'." The scripture being taken out of context and being directed against atheists is ignored because it's in service of God. The implicit insult is ok because it's in service of God. The part of the beatitudes where Jesus says those who say to their brother "Thou fool" are in danger of hell fire can be ignored because it's in service of God (though I guess technically an atheist isn't a brother, not sure if brother means other Jew or other human).

Anyway, just ranting, but I think it all goes back to the idea of revealed truth. Science is opposite to this because science takes the position of ask the question and let the chips fall where they may.

There's an interesting set of short pieces I read recently about this:

http://edge.org/3rd_culture/coyne09/coyne09_index.html

So, these authors are not necessarily "anti-science", but they are so "pro-Bible" as to obscure the real issues. I fear that the less erudite readers are prone to employ this fearful dichotomy between "God" and "EVERYTHING else" in such a way that they become cosmological dualists, envisioning all human (and natural) enterprises as either "good" or "evil".

Isn't that a description of all of history with humans? Everything's classified as either for us or against us, and those against us eventually have to be eliminated. Religion is just one avenue that gets expressed. Kin selection run amok.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by photon

There's an interesting set of short pieces I read recently about this:

http://edge.org/3rd_culture/coyne09/coyne09_index.html

A few decent quotes there photon...

LAWRENCE KRAUSS There is too much ink spent worrying about this question. Religion is simply irrelevant to science, and whether or not science contradicts religion may be of interest to theologians but it simply doesn't matter to scientists. What matters are the important questions science is dealing with, from the origin and future of the universe to the origin and future of life.
All this talk about science and religion gives the wrong impression, as it suggests reconciling them or not reconciling them is a big issue... it isn't. As I once put it to theologians at a meeting at the Vatican: theologians have to listen to scientists, because if they want to try to create a consistent theology (and while I have opinions about whether this is possible, but my opinions about this are neither particularly important nor informed) they at least need to know how the world works. But scientists don't have to listen to theologians, because it has no effect whatsoever on the scientific process.



and of course Mr Dennett...


DANIEL C. DENNETT Belief in Belief
Jerry Coyne nicely dissects the urge of many people to persuade themselves that their religion can coexist peacefully with science in general and evolutionary biology in particular. And he shows just how hopeless this quest is. The question remains: why is this urge so strong, even in some people who have devoted their careers to science? I can discern more than half a dozen plausible reasons for belief in belief in God, and in some people these reasons are no doubt additive, not exclusive. I list them more or less in order, ranging from abject through feckless to noble-if-misguided:
(1) The fallacy of sunk costs: "I've already invested fifty years of my life in this position, and it would be excruciatingly embarrassing to acknowledge my error. In fairness to myself, I was entrapped in this view when I was too young to know better, and I've never been able to find a face-saving exit strategy."
(2) Err on the side of prudence: "I can conjure up enough uncertainty about these issues to excuse myself from drawing the invited conclusions, which might be mistaken, after all, and could, I suppose, do some harm to somebody. Where it doesn't itch, don't scratch!"

(3) Religion for art's sake: "The only cost-effective way to preserve the great music, literature, and art of the world's religions is to encourage all people to support these magnificent living museums with their weekly offerings."
(4) What would my mother think? "People whom I hold dear, and who depend on me emotionally, would be heartbroken to learn of my defection. I'm going to carry this white lie to the grave, or at least until my parents are safely in their graves and my children and loved ones give me clear signs of being able to take such a confession with equanimity."
(5) Credal calisthenics: "It keeps me modest, and fosters a desirable habit of moral reflection that helps me do the right thing ‘without even thinking'. It's a method of self-purification that keeps me morally fit."
(6) We must fend off moral chaos: "I myself don't need God to tell me how to live, but some people really do. Religious belief puts the fear of God into some who would otherwise behave reprehensibly."
(7) Don't make waves: "I have more than enough substantive controversies that I would rather spend my energies on. Why discard alliances, make enemies, lose the affection of powerful friends and associates by raining on their parade?"
(8) Dumbo's magic feather: "Religious belief is a moral prosthesis: it strengthens the resolve and courage of many who want to be good but don't have the true grit they need. If I recant, I contribute to the dissolution of an aspect of the world that they truly depend on. I have no right to take away their crutch."
The combination of any two or three of these is enough, apparently, to induce some very smart people to defend some very lame arguments. They would never tolerate such fuzzy and illogical thinking in their science–or, in the case of philosophers, in their analytic work in ethics or epistemology or metaphysics. They manage not to notice how they have transformed the object of their worship from the original Celestial Bio-engineer into a Divine Nudger of Randomness into an Omniscient Lawgiver into the (impersonal, but still somehow benign) Ground of All Being. Not only don't they notice this comical retreat; they applaud the deep sophistication of the theologians who have conducted it. (I haven't any idea what the Ground of All Being is, so I guess I don't have to be an atheist about that. Maybe the process of evolution by natural selection just is God! Now there's a way of reconciling evolution with religion! )
Each reason for belief in belief in Gd is defensible up to a point, but we need to weigh the indirect side effects of going along with tradition. First, there's the systematic hypocrisy that poisons discourse, and even more important, our vulnerability to those who abuse the "reverence" with which we are supposed to respond to their indulgences. We can continue to respect the good intentions of those who persist in professing belief in God, but we'll be doing them a favor if we stop pretending that we respect the arguments they use to sustain these fantasies.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by photon

...I think it all goes back to the idea of revealed truth. Science is opposite to this because science takes the position of ask the question and let the chips fall where they may.

There's an interesting set of short pieces I read recently about this:

http://edge.org/3rd_culture/coyne09/coyne09_index.html

A couple of thoughts:

First, I agree with Lawrence Krauss in this:

Originally Posted by Krauss

"... theologians have to listen to scientists, because if they want to try to create a consistent theology (and while I have opinions about whether this is possible, but my opinions about this are neither particularly important nor informed) they at least need to know how the world works."

The incompatibility between the empirical nature of science and the revelatory nature of faith is one-sided: that theology must depend upon a correct understanding of science is in no way a reciprocal matter, and it must remain so. To that end, the problem has to do with the nature of "theology", which is really a relatively new idea (not quite as new as science, and very quickly becoming obsolete). I am a religious historian, not a theologian (It's a bone of contention that never approaches a resolution in a community of faith: it's as if religious people cannot grasp that there is even a difference!) I, and at least a few others in my field are rapidly coming to believe that theology is a fruitless enterprise. And this is because theology presumes in its very existence to employ a rational method to understand what can not possibly be "known". If there is a God, then surely he must be inscrutible, and this is why any "knowledge" of God is not really knowledge at all; it is "revelation".

I don't think God can be known. He can be perceived, perhaps, or "glimpsed," but if there is a God, he must be so bizarre and so fraught with difficulty and paradox that he can only be "believed", but never really known.

Anyone who believes in God believes that he is some sort of "person": Not an organism as anyone would know it, but something that may bear some traits that might be considered "organic", in the same sense that we might consider the mind to be organic. We can empirically investigate the brain, consciousness, biochemical reactions, and patterns of behaviour, but these only give us glimpses of the mind, without ever being able to define precisely what it is. Nevertheless, I doubt that anyone would ever seriously doubt the existence of the mind.

I suppose what I am getting at is that I believe God is real, and I also believe that because he is unnatural (let's forget about the "supernatural"; so far as we know, there is only the natural world; whatever else there might be, it is not a part of it), and thus defies the rules that have been put in place through which we infer the natural world. So here is the rub: "Theology" requires a good understanding of the natural world in order to make sense, but at that point precisely, it stops becoming a study about "God", and only a study about a particular religion or belief in a god.

At this point, something about what Kenneth Miller said I found intriguing:

Originally Posted by Kenneth R. Miller

"While it's certainly true that a Divine author of nature could intervene in his world at any time, I have never argued for the sort of divine tinkering that Coyne finds so disturbing. In fact, I have argued exactly the opposite. Evolution is not rigged, and religious belief does not require one to postulate a God who fixes the game, bribes the referees, or tricks natural selection."

Herein is the problem with theology: it is an enterprise consumed with telling us who god is or isn't; what he can (or cannot?) do; what he should or should not be, and how we ought or ought not respond. And this is utter nonsense. With all due respect to Prof. Miller, how can we even know whether or not "God" could "intervene" with the natural world, especially when we are still without any clear understanding of his relationship to the natural world? Who in the hell are we to tell God who he is or what he can or cannot do, anyways? I realize that I am addressing predominantly a bunch of godforsaken atheists, and that most of you probably believe at this point that I am speaking in riddles and word-games. But bear with me: suspend your empirically justified absence of belief for a moment, and imagine the world, the cosmos, and everything as I might hope to understand it:

One of my long term goals is to write a "theology", but under a rather preposterous caveat: that theology is useless. An "anti-theology" or an "a-theology" if you will. For if I am to understand my relationship with the natural world, there really leaves no room for God. I can't ever hope to really gain or impart any sort of special "knowledge" about God, and the moment I attempt to communicate any sort of rational basis for revelation, it becomes nonsense. I believe that the future of theology is no theology at all. Not that I will ever abandon a belief in God, I don't think. Only that what matters is natural. I will continue to "worship" God; to "seek" God; to "communicate" to (with?) God, under the pretext that I don't pretend to understand him(?) in the slightest. But also that I believe what is most important is not God—and from what I've "glimpsed" in my own journey of faith, I think that I can confidently say that he/she/it would agree with me—rather, it is humanity. A useful theology—which is no theology at all because it cannot tell us anything meaningful about God—is really a treatise on the hope of humanity in the real world. It may maintain a belief in god without insisting upon his presence or interaction.

[photon]

Nice, that's the kind of theology I can get behind!

I think I'd agree, in that if there is a God, it's definitely not the God described by any one religion. Can a bacteria comprehend the person it is being carried around in?

I wouldn't call myself an atheist, though I'm getting pretty good at talking like one. I think a lot of that is due to the loss of grip on my earlier evangelical faith.. like any natural process when there's a change in equilibrium there's usually overcompensation on either side before finding a new steady state. I don't know what that steady state will be and if it will involve a God, or if it'll be more like a pantheist.

If God is so completely beyond our understanding and interaction, there's no real functional difference between that kind of theism and atheism, which is maybe why pantheism appeals to me. Or maybe panentheism or pandeism. God's out there but I can't touch it, but I can touch and understand and be in awe of creation.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

A couple of thoughts:



One of my long term goals is to write a "theology", but under a rather preposterous caveat: that theology is useless. An "anti-theology" or an "a-theology" if you will. For if I am to understand my relationship with the natural world, there really leaves no room for God. I can't ever hope to really gain or impart any sort of special "knowledge" about God, and the moment I attempt to communicate any sort of rational basis for revelation, it becomes nonsense. I believe that the future of theology is no theology at all. Not that I will ever abandon a belief in God, I don't think. Only that what matters is natural. I will continue to "worship" God; to "seek" God; to "communicate" to (with?) God, under the pretext that I don't pretend to understand him(?) in the slightest. But also that I believe what is most important is not God—and from what I've "glimpsed" in my own journey of faith, I think that I can confidently say that he/she/it would agree with me—rather, it is humanity. A useful theology—which is no theology at all because it cannot tell us anything meaningful about God—is really a treatise on the hope of humanity in the real world. It may maintain a belief in god without insisting upon his presence or interaction.

This "almost" sounds spiritual.
In response to both you and photon. Our minds are programmed and hard wired from youth. Part of that programming is the entire theology question, or non-question. As we move along in life we either fully accept this choice, using one or more of Daniel Dennett's eight plausible reasons <see previous post #208>, or we simply begin to question the theories and toss out anything that doesn't make sense. (This usually takes years). My thoughts were typical to both you and photon during these years of question and dismissal...I continued to believe that if the God of the Bible was false; there must be something else. Faith in "something" is ingrained into our systems.
I think that after awhile you begin to understand that the faith we put into any religion/spirituality is misdirected, and you begin to transfer that faith into yourself first, then your fellow human. You see others for what they are, not for their beliefs. Its clarity in its simplest forms.
That redirection of faith is where both of you are at right now.
Wow what a babble LOL

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Cheese

...As we move along in life we either fully accept this choice, using one or more of Daniel Dennett's eight plausible reasons <see previous post #208>, or we simply begin to question the theories and toss out anything that doesn't make sense...

Except that Dennett missed perhaps the most important one: Religious experience, or the revelatory nature of faith. I have had my fair share, and whilst I am well aware of the rational arguments leveled against religious experiences, they are meaningful enough in my own life for me to maintain a commitment to "faith."

Originally Posted by Cheese

...I think that after awhile you begin to understand that the faith we put into any religion/spirituality is misdirected, and you begin to transfer that faith into yourself first, then your fellow human. You see others for what they are, not for their beliefs. Its clarity in its simplest forms.

Isn't this a form of "spirituality"? You know, a couple of weeks ago a guy in the spiritual support group from my Church that I am involved in shared an experience he had had that week. He's a contractor and has been hit hard by the economic slow down. He's in rough shape and he is running out of money. He was invited out for coffee by another friend who gave him a sizable cheque that just happened to cover his most immediate and pressing expenses because "the Lord told him he needed it." No strings attached. No thanks neccessary. Just because it is what he was convinced was the right thing to do. How does one explain that as simply putting faith in his "fellow human"? Try telling that to either of these two men who sincerely believe that God cared enough about the situation to—dare I say it—intervene.

I'm not impressed by "miracles" simply because no one has ever seen anything that is really and truly "not explicable by natural or scientific laws." But it is usually those small, inexplicable coincidences of amazing good fortune that press home the point for me: that "God" may not be knowable, but some of the time he is actually believable.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Except that Dennett missed perhaps the most important one: Religious experience, or the revelatory nature of faith. I have had my fair share, and whilst I am well aware of the rational arguments leveled against religious experiences, they are meaningful enough in my own life for me to maintain a commitment to "faith."


Isn't this a form of "spirituality"? You know, a couple of weeks ago a guy in the spiritual support group from my Church that I am involved in shared an experience he had had that week. He's a contractor and has been hit hard by the economic slow down. He's in rough shape and he is running out of money. He was invited out for coffee by another friend who gave him a sizable cheque that just happened to cover his most immediate and pressing expenses because "the Lord told him he needed it." No strings attached. No thanks neccessary. Just because it is what he was convinced was the right thing to do. How does one explain that as simply putting faith in his "fellow human"? Try telling that to either of these two men who sincerely believe that God cared enough about the situation to—dare I say it—intervene.

I'm not impressed by "miracles" simply because no one has ever seen anything that is really and truly "not explicable by natural or scientific laws." But it is usually those small, inexplicable coincidences of amazing good fortune that press home the point for me: that "God" may not be knowable, but some of the time he is actually believable.

A wonderful and kind thing done from one good person to another. Ive written cheques, given cash and helped others in dire need as well. I cant say that "God" ever directed me though. I was either told by someone in my circle about the situation, or knew it myself.
Do you think its possible that "someone" in the church knew this person in dire straights and talked to the gent who wrote the cheque? Do you then suppose that this person who wrote the cheque did it for his "God"?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Cheese

A wonderful and kind thing done from one good person to another. Ive written cheques, given cash and helped others in dire need as well. I cant say that "God" ever directed me though. I was either told by someone in my circle about the situation, or knew it myself.
Do you think its possible that "someone" in the church knew this person in dire straights and talked to the gent who wrote the cheque? Do you then suppose that this person who wrote the cheque did it for his "God"?

I'm pretty sure this random act of kindness was performed simply because he likes his friend. "God" may provide the impetus without necessarily being the purpose.
Of course it is possible, and am not about to get into a silly debate about whether or not human morality is a result of some "Divine spark" or whatnot, because clearly this is not the case. And this is not really what I am getting at in my story. Maybe the best way to explain what I'm trying to convey about what I perceive to be the most basic (and probably the "purest[?]) forms of religious experience is to equate it with my "gut". We all make decisions with incomplete knowledge, and most of us probably depend upon our gut-feeling in making choices perhaps more than we would like to admit. Sometimes our "guts" react in strange and peculiar ways. Is it just the pepperoni pizza we had the night before? Is it a para-sympathetic sort of instinct? Is it something else altogether? Who knows? And are these sorts of experiences something that we can ever test empirically in the first place? I doubt it.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I'm pretty sure this random act of kindness was performed simply because he likes his friend. "God" may provide the impetus without necessarily being the purpose.
Of course it is possible, and am not about to get into a silly debate about whether or not human morality is a result of some "Divine spark" or whatnot, because clearly this is not the case. And this is not really what I am getting at in my story. Maybe the best way to explain what I'm trying to convey about what I perceive to be the most basic (and probably the "purest[?]) forms of religious experience is to equate it with my "gut". We all make decisions with incomplete knowledge, and most of us probably depend upon our gut-feeling in making choices perhaps more than we would like to admit. Sometimes our "guts" react in strange and peculiar ways. Is it just the pepperoni pizza we had the night before? Is it a para-sympathetic sort of instinct? Is it something else altogether? Who knows? And are these sorts of experiences something that we can ever test empirically in the first place? I doubt it.

LOL...in my case its likely...there isnt a good pizza in 2000kM from here!
Your right...nothing that comes from the gut can be tested.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

He was invited out for coffee by another friend who gave him a sizable cheque that just happened to cover his most immediate and pressing expenses because "the Lord told him he needed it." No strings attached. No thanks neccessary. Just because it is what he was convinced was the right thing to do. How does one explain that as simply putting faith in his "fellow human"? Try telling that to either of these two men who sincerely believe that God cared enough about the situation to—dare I say it—intervene.

For me, these are the kinds of things that push me away from a belief in God... not because of the act of kindness itself (I've witnessed and participated in such things before), but because of the other implications.

For the act of kindness itself, the whole giving a cheque to someone is almost a meme within the Christian community, I can't count the number of times I've heard it as an example from the pulpit of an example of charity or of God guiding someone. So it would make sense that someone would take that kind of action, it's programmed in. I don't see any requirement for God to be involved in this kind of action of kindness; to me it just shows the goodness inherent in people.

Where it becomes a problem for me is what this says about a potential God. If that God did in fact intervene, what does that say about God's choices about where he does intervene, and to what extent? A God that will provide for someone who lives in a wealthy country where there's a safety net for the most unfortunate so they don't miss some bills, but allows a child to die of starvation every five seconds... God may be inscrutable, but that kind of disparity in intervention really makes it difficult for me to believe in a God that actively intervenes in our reality.

I would rather say that the friend's belief in God inspired him to do an act of kindness to his friend, rather than God whispering in his ear to do it. That, in my mind, gives the act of kindness more value. When my son shares his toys by himself instead of me constantly reminding him, that shows maturity.

Theodicy is still something that is a problem for me.

EDIT: And I'm sure it's my prior view of God that helps drive this view.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by photon

For the act of kindness itself, the whole giving a cheque to someone is almost a meme within the Christian community, I can't count the number of times I've heard it as an example from the pulpit of an example of charity or of God guiding someone. So it would make sense that someone would take that kind of action, it's programmed in. I don't see any requirement for God to be involved in this kind of action of kindness; to me it just shows the goodness inherent in people...

And this is precisely why I wanted to keep this example out of any discussion surrounding whether or not a belief in God produces "morality" or "kindness". I have no qualms at all with insisting that people are innately "good"—but also, paradoxically, innately "wicked"—but what intrigues me is the instinct itself and the timing in it all: Are you not ever awed by what an amazing stroke of coincidences your life experience amounts to?

Originally Posted by photon

Where it becomes a problem for me is what this says about a potential God. If that God did in fact intervene, what does that say about God's choices about where he does intervene, and to what extent? A God that will provide for someone who lives in a wealthy country where there's a safety net for the most unfortunate so they don't miss some bills, but allows a child to die of starvation every five seconds... God may be inscrutable, but that kind of disparity in intervention really makes it difficult for me to believe in a God that actively intervenes in our reality.

No question. This is a problem. But what I think it does say about God, if such a God exists is two things: first, we are probably wrong to think that God ever "intervenes". Second, I think that if there is a God, he is not "all-powerful" or "all-knowing", at least not in the sense that we would expect.

I'll go back to Miller's statement about whether or not the "Divine author" can in fact "intervene in his world at any time". I am presently writing a dissertation which I intend to publish as a book after my graduation. It is my creation full of my ideas. I own it and I am free to do whatever I want with it. But does that really mean that I can "intervene at any time"? If I decided to insert on p. 37 the following sentance: "If you are reading this you are too close", or the following random sequence of letters: "ddcvbqipvbwovqsivb1wrcv1qpuivbquifv", this would be a mistake. Or consider this: If you ever choose to read my book, will you be capable of detecting where the "original" material exists? What parts have been supplemented? Expanded? Changed? If I am a good enough writer, you should not. Part of my work in dealing with ancient literature is detecting those places where authors and editors have in fact "intervened." I am presently working on six mss. from the Dead Sea Scrolls that all contain the same composition, and I have actually managed to locate three separate layers of tradition that have resulted from redaction, or "intervention." So, whether or not God does intervene or even can intervene is not the point. We probably would not nor could not recognize "divine intervention" even if it did take place. But the fact that there are promptings and "instincts" within us that move us inexplicably to act on behalf of humanity suggests that it is—as life is—so much more than merely the sum of its parts.

Originally Posted by photon

I would rather say that the friend's belief in God inspired him to do an act of kindness to his friend, rather than God whispering in his ear to do it. That, in my mind, gives the act of kindness more value. When my son shares his toys by himself instead of me constantly reminding him, that shows maturity.

I totally agree. I'm becoming wholly dissatisfied with the "God told me to" excuses on both sides of the coin.

Originally Posted by photon

Theodicy is still something that is a problem for me.

As it should be, and I completely understand why this will most frequently be the sticking point for those who cannot believe in God. It will (or at least it should!) remain an unresolvable tension for those of us who do believe.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

And this is precisely why I wanted to keep this example out of any discussion surrounding whether or not a belief in God produces "morality" or "kindness". I have no qualms at all with insisting that people are innately "good"—but also, paradoxically, innately "wicked"—but what intrigues me is the instinct itself and the timing in it all: Are you not ever awed by what an amazing stroke of coincidences your life experience amounts to?

I hear you loud and clear, however, the issue is that Religion, in all of its forms suggests, hell it screams, that it is the only moral guide around. Unfortunately one cannot enter into a discussion on religion without bringing up the morality issue.
Man can be born moral and kind, and unfortunately genetic disposition? can also bear "inately wicked" children or people. Can we also take those wicked people and retrain them or instruct them how to be moral again? I guess that depends on what one considers morality, and Im sure that changes in different parts of the world. I think that we can help some of these people, but others just have no hope. <eg Charles Manson, Adolph Hitler, etc etc> The funny thing is, we know these people are insane and evil, yet they find people to follow and believe in their particular brand of lunacy.
Its typical of religion isnt it? Followers need something to follow...religious people are referred to as a flock or sheep.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

And this is precisely why I wanted to keep this example out of any discussion surrounding whether or not a belief in God produces "morality" or "kindness". I have no qualms at all with insisting that people are innately "good"—but also, paradoxically, innately "wicked"—but what intrigues me is the instinct itself and the timing in it all: Are you not ever awed by what an amazing stroke of coincidences your life experience amounts to?

For sure, it's crazy sometimes what happens and what leads to that event, but it's only amazing when viewing it in hindsight.

But that's just our perception. People are astounded when the 6/49 has the same series of digits 2 drawings in a row, or pulls numbers all right next to each other or something.. sure it looks amazing, but only because of our perceptions. In reality that sequence of numbers is no more or less likely than any other series. Our perception gives the coincidence meaning.

I can't honestly say that I've noticed anything unusual in the random events in my life that would lead me to believe in some kind of providence, and even if I did I know the human brain fallible enough that I'd question my perception of that providence; I'd need a lot stronger evidence for it.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

No question. This is a problem. But what I think it does say about God, if such a God exists is two things: first, we are probably wrong to think that God ever "intervenes". Second, I think that if there is a God, he is not "all-powerful" or "all-knowing", at least not in the sense that we would expect.

Agreed, I hate terms like omniscient and omnipotent, they have no meaning. In math once I divide by zero and get infinity, what I'm working on usually looses any meaning. I think language has the same problems, once we say omniscient or omnipotent, it's like throwing an infinity into my trig equations. It breaks, there's no meaning anymore.

But that's an interesting view of God, and one that's necessary I think if you follow the logic through. Even general theology sometimes recognizes the necessity this, saying "God is bound by his word and cannot act outside of it".

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I'll go back to Miller's statement about whether or not the "Divine author" can in fact "intervene in his world at any time". I am presently writing a dissertation which I intend to publish as a book after my graduation. It is my creation full of my ideas. I own it and I am free to do whatever I want with it. But does that really mean that I can "intervene at any time"? If I decided to insert on p. 37 the following sentance: "If you are reading this you are too close", or the following random sequence of letters: "ddcvbqipvbwovqsivb1wrcv1qpuivbquifv", this would be a mistake. Or consider this: If you ever choose to read my book, will you be capable of detecting where the "original" material exists? What parts have been supplemented? Expanded? Changed? If I am a good enough writer, you should not. Part of my work in dealing with ancient literature is detecting those places where authors and editors have in fact "intervened." I am presently working on six mss. from the Dead Sea Scrolls that all contain the same composition, and I have actually managed to locate three separate layers of tradition that have resulted from redaction, or "intervention." So, whether or not God does intervene or even can intervene is not the point. We probably would not nor could not recognize "divine intervention" even if it did take place. But the fact that there are promptings and "instincts" within us that move us inexplicably to act on behalf of humanity suggests that it is—as life is—so much more than merely the sum of its parts.

Interesting, I'd sure like to read it when it's done, though I expect it might be beyond me, sounds like it would need a lot of specialized knowledge.

I think if there was divine intervention, it should be detectable. Anything that alters our reality is by definition under the domain of science, and eventually should be detectable. Of course there's a difference between should be and being able to, but studies like the ones looking for effects of prayer and such should show results if even minor levels of that kind of intervention is going on.

Maybe we're not looking in the right places, or maybe (more likely to me anyway) that intervention just doesn't take place.

I think our instincts and such can be explained through evolution as well, as we can see similar things in other animals. I marvel at the complexity and power of our emotions and our virtues, and that they arose naturally is even more amazing to me.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

As it should be, and I completely understand why this will most frequently be the sticking point for those who cannot believe in God. It will (or at least it should!) remain an unresolvable tension for those of us who do believe.

Heh, and I blame my upbringing in the church for the very need to require a resolution for the question of theodicy. I fight against the whole revealed truth I'm by definition right all the time, despite being more scientifically minded than 95% of the people I ever encountered in church. So my lack of ability to abide an unresolved tension pushes me towards a lack of belief, while that lack of ability I think comes directly from my upbringing in the church!

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Except that Dennett missed perhaps the most important one: Religious experience, or the revelatory nature of faith. I have had my fair share, and whilst I am well aware of the rational arguments leveled against religious experiences, they are meaningful enough in my own life for me to maintain a commitment to "faith."

He does address that in his book Breaking the Spell, highly recommend it if you get the chance, its very well laid out case of science looking at religion as a natural phenomena.

Isn't this a form of "spirituality"? You know, a couple of weeks ago a guy in the spiritual support group from my Church that I am involved in shared an experience he had had that week. He's a contractor and has been hit hard by the economic slow down. He's in rough shape and he is running out of money. He was invited out for coffee by another friend who gave him a sizable cheque that just happened to cover his most immediate and pressing expenses because "the Lord told him he needed it." No strings attached. No thanks neccessary. Just because it is what he was convinced was the right thing to do. How does one explain that as simply putting faith in his "fellow human"? Try telling that to either of these two men who sincerely believe that God cared enough about the situation to—dare I say it—intervene.

Charity I think comes from some partial evolutionary triggers, and of course empathy has many benefits to humans. Whether a person does such acts because they 'think' its God's will or if its done out of concern without such a claim is I think less important that looking at it as a example of human kindness, something we need more of.

I was struck by a fact that per capita Sweden and Denmark had some of the highest donations to charity/other countries of any nation in the world. A mostly unreligious nation being if not the most, right at the top in terms of generosity to their fellow man. Some of this socialigist's would also point out that democratic socialism has a bit to add to this, universal healthcare, free education, there is an underpinning of care for your fellow man in all aspects of that society from birth.

I'm not impressed by "miracles" simply because no one has ever seen anything that is really and truly "not explicable by natural or scientific laws." But it is usually those small, inexplicable coincidences of amazing good fortune that press home the point for me: that "God" may not be knowable, but some of the time he is actually believable.

Yeah, I agree there, especially with one of my favorite websites http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/ , which is quite simply the best line of argument to refute an intervening god, something I strongly think people of faith shouldn't claim.

I think that if you have faith, you should avoid believing in an involving god because that would create and for me disprove that there is a god. A non involving, completely incomprehensible 'thing' we could call god is a topic starter for me, but a biblical, 'we understand god', he listens to our prayers, he plops down a miracle here and there, he talks to me, etc.. This is a god that would make it easy argumentative wise to dispute and throw away.