Why history is a better argument against God than science

What is the difference between

"some (especially the fundamentalist variants), are impossible to reconcile with science."

and

"Sweeping statements suggesting that science has disproved religion"

What is particular to fundamentalism that isn't encompassed in the religious
category?

 

The first statement makes the need for the reasonable to be actual; and the second statement is already culture at the reason of a state of changing trends determined towards the Reason of applying (like app's., eh?) science to potential duties of Morality.


Now we're back at the prejudice against the enemy in that War.

 

Fundamentalism takes a literal reading of the bible and posits a 6,000 year old earth which is hard to reconcile with scientific cosmology.

 

So non-fundamental religion is more of a cultural-mythology thing?

 

non-fundamental religion is more of a flexible thing

i think the idea is that there is a god but that its earliest chroniclers might have misunderstood it, intentionally or otherwise

 

So non-fundamental religion is actually plain theism/deism.

 

Yeah, and more focusing on the subjective emotional experience and what you and people in your culture that also partake in it get out of it experientially. From a more psychological/philosophical angle.

 

Or maybe pantheism or panentheism, or "Higher Power"of the recovery groups. There are really two basic "non-fundmentalist" branches in Christianity, both agreeing that the Bible is not to be taken literally: Roman Catholics, who maintain that the Church is the ultimate authority; and Progressive Christians, who rely mainly on reason and science. For example, I embrace the historical/metaphorical approach to Scripture. I believe that the Bible is not the "Word of God", but simply the words of men seeking God. Some of them are profound and moving, others stupid or revolting, and only evidence, our judgment, reason and intuition can tell us which is which. I rely on faith, defined as intuitive risk taking, for the ultimate decision, but the result has to be consistent with reason and science. So the more we think and discover, the more likely it is that our original conceptions (or misconceptions) will change. Sometimes this is described as "cherry picking" but I think it's much harder than that; it's the difficult, painstaking job of subjecting beliefs to constant critical analysis, day by day, minute by minute, and deciding which ones to bet our lives on.

 

I think if you don't believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose from the dead, and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you're really not in any meaningful sense a Christian. Nor do I believe for one second that "Liberal Christianity", "Progressive Christianity", and Pantheism are grey areas. You might not be willing to call it a spade and that's fine, but I wouldn't expect people to understand what you're talking about.

Someone once told me they were a Christian Buddhist agnostic druid, and while
everything like culture is one big technicality, I just had to laugh (otherwise i'd cry).

 

I understand what he is talking about. Seems to me for information to be practically useful it need be somewhat less than controversial. What you have delineated in bold amounts to "taking an oath", which is prohibited in christ teaching.

 

I don't want to talk about the why's of "which is the one true death cult". If you think the bible is an allegory I don't consider you a Christian either, unless there is a component to this liberal Christianity that I don't have.

 

The counselor, the holy spirit, whom the father will send in my name, will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

Perhaps the component of counselor?

 

What you, an admitted atheist, consider to be a true Christian isn't necessarily definitive. Origen, one of the greatest theologians of the early Church , took an allegorical approach to Christianity. In fact, he introduced a method, widely in use by the early church, for interpreting the Bible. The first step is to interpret it all literally, in order to demonstrate what a mess of contradictions results. Then he uses the allegorical approach to resolve the discrepancies. (except, oddly, his literal interpretation of Matthew 19:12 which induced him to castrate himself). Likewise, St. Augustine, one of the most influential Christian theologians of all times,advocated non-literalism. As he said;"when I understood literally, I was slain spiritually". Luther used the metaphor of the manger to explain that not everything in scripture is literal truth, and some is straw. Some of the most respected Christian theologians, scholars and pastors of our time, such as Marcus Borg, John D. Crossan, Bishop Spong, Robin Meyers, and the Jesus Seminar take the same view of scripture and Jesus as I do. This is the view taught in most mainline Protestant seminaries today. I consider myself a Christian in the same tradition. I believe that: (1) there is evidence that our existence and the universe around us are not adequately explained by the fortuitous operation of blind natural forces; (2) in the absence of proof, there is sufficient evidence to make what Luther calls a "joyful bet" on God; (3) the example and teachings of Jesus, if followed, serve as exemplary guides for human salvation: (4) the "Good News " of the Bible is a gospel of universal love, tolerance and benevolence which, if taken seriously, could save humanity. The "literalist" Christianity of the creeds and dogmas, developed after the early church went off the rails, is in my opinion and that of others whom I respect, a distraction from the true fundamentals. This is far from a "death cult".

The feeling is mutual. What exactly are you talking about? My references to Pantheism and Progressive Christianity were in response to your cryptic comments trying to get a handle on fundamentalism. What do you mean theyre grey areas? Since you were non-specific about what kind of non-fundamentalism you were talking about, I covered the waterfront. There are some Pantheists in the scientific community, most famously, Einstein. Can a Christian be a Pantheist? I don't think so, but a Christian can be a Panentheist, which is prevalent in the Orthodox churches, as well as process theologians. Marcus Borg, one of my heroes, is a Christian Panentheist. [/Quote]

I guess what a person calls himself is up to him, as long as he explains his usage and it's consistent with that of an established religious community. my brand of Christianity is well-defended by my fellow Okie Robin Meyers in Saving Jesus from the Church: How to Stop Worshipping Christ and Start Following Jesus. Jesus gave us a test for false prophets: what fruit does their teaching bear? I do happen to accept your formulaic litmus test for Christianity, but probably in a different sense than you understand it. Faith and belief are two different things. I believe that the most important things about Jesus are His message and example. Those who call themselves Christians and believe all the formulas you identify but who are mean spirited and hateful, despise the poor, and pursue wealth, status and power are hypocrites and latter day Pharisees. This belief system bears bitter fruit, as is demonstrable in most of your criticisms of "Christians", which are accurate enough when applied to the fundies. Which Christian meme has the best chance of healing humanity--one that views Christianity as all about personal rewards and believing unbelievable doctrines, or one which preaches judgment-free, unconditional love, especially for society's rejects? I find it interesting that an atheist seems to prefer mind-crippling superstition to a loving,healing faith--maybe because the former is easier to defeat.
.

I might do the same, but actually it wouldn't be impossible for somebody to be all four. "Agnostic" would mean they didn't know. Such a person could accept Christianity and Buddhism as philosophies. I know people like that. Druidism is admittedly more far out, but it's basically a deep reverence for nature. And there are Druids. I attended one of their weddings. It went on forever, because they invoked every god in the pantheon. They'd have no problem fitting Jesus and Yahweh in, although the latter would be more standoffish. I tend to be ecclectic myself, although not to that extreme.

 

Up to this point, most of your posts read like some sort of Atheist-unitarian seminar and I might have overestimated how trivial and redeeming some of your earlier points were but that made it pretty clear. What you describe as your beliefs sound like more of a broad explanation of what religion is as a category. The scripture as an allegory is an aspect you share with most if not all atheists and 'religious progressives', but the four points you made sounds like the same fundamental Christianity you deem invincible to rational discourse. A lot of what I read came off as an infatuation with a superfluous idea.
Take for example your first point, stipulating that evidence indicates our existence isn't adequately explained by natural forces. I read it as someone claiming that the laws of gravity don't adequately explain what happens when you drop an object. I can only point you towards the Anthropic principal, and ask again why you are limiting yourself to Christianity. If its a cultural aspect your trying to insinuate, I would consider myself a Christian also.

You mis-quoted me. The sentiment was that Pantheism is "sexed up atheism", and 'liberal Christianity' is plain theism/deism.

Oh I know its possible to twist and bend a slew of ideologies in order to get them to mesh, but it sounds a bit too much like a 'tree car television studio'. Just try to imagine what that would look like. I can do it, but its funny to me and I'm guided by my sense of humour.

 

heeh2, I find good reason in you most times but in this instance you are insisting on a definition that does not allow for the diversity of facts, and then you rail against the very definition that you insist on.

There is an esoteric teaching that transcends but includes the incidence of one man, locale, or time. That is, the teaching did not come from jesus but from his father in heaven. That "father is heaven" is a non-local consciousness that touches the heart felt rhythms of every man. The secular expression of this pulse is the statement that every man is born with certain unalienable rights inherited from creation.

You must expect any system based on statute to be corrupted. Our financial systems excesses occurred because they were "legal". The same is true of religious systems. It is possible through the teaching of doctrine to fulfill the letter of the law without concern for the "spirit" of it. The law ostensibly exists to protect people not to give them advantage over others. It is the insistence on doctrine that allows for hypocrisy and protects those "in charge". Those who are well versed in the law are well versed in finding loopholes.

 

Beyond my definition, "Christian" becomes somewhat of a banality. If we believe
the same thing and you call yourself a Christian, what am I supposed to think?

 

I don't think there is a requirement for what you are supposed to think. Consistency of thought creates the greatest resonance. I do think seeds of wisdom become hijacked for nefarious purposes. I am heterodox in my approach but I have found even the fundamentalist on occasion who cannot deny good sense. Religion is not required for good sense but practical attention is. I am thoroughly rapt by the effects of non-local consciousness and yet we think the same. Maybe your humanistic sentiments lend a certain banality to the claim of atheism.

That we meet or that I may find solidarity with you is certainly not prohibited by christ teaching. I regard christ teaching as keys to the metaphysical, but by metaphysical I mean, of the essential nature of reality. Aphorisms that delineate how the human experience is generated, such as "the measure you give is the measure you receive", addressing the most basic law of cause and effect ages before Newton.

 

I don't have a great problem with banality. As I see it, the basic difference between you and me is that you think our experience and the universe around us can be explained by the fortuitous operation of blind natural forces and I bet there could be more to it. How big a deal is that, especially since neither of us can prove anything and probably won't be able to do so in our lifetimes? I don't know. It depends on what effect, if any, it has on our lives and the way we deal with other people. I think Progressive Christianity is plausible, gives meaning to my life, and makes me a better person than I would be otherwise. If your worldview gives you a sense of meaning and helps you to be a good guy, I sure have no problem with that. I do have a problem with belief systems that cause people to step on each other, to sell their belongings in the expectation of imminent rapture, to blow up planes in the expectation of virgins, to place the rights of a blastocyst in a Petri dish on a par with those of adult humans, etc. A friend of mine was recently kicked out of his house and disowned by his Nazerene parents for doubting the inerrancy of the Bible. I have a big problem with that.

I respect and have been influenced by a variety of other beliefs, including atheism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam. They're all manifestations of the same Spirit. The Qur'an tells us that God sent 124,000 prophets to the peoples of the earth, though their messages have been distorted by misguided followers. I follow Jesus as the champion of society's rejects.

 

Well it certainly helps. I was a humanist long before I would ever admit to being an atheist, but I like to think of them both as the fruits of reason. Its kind of hard to avoid naturalism once you've gone that far.

Seems like you're trying to demonize nature by calling it blind, and accidental when there is nothing blind and accidental if there is no intentional stance. You think there is some sort of conscious creator responsible for us being here, but what if you're wrong? Does your paradigm work in both situations?

You have a big problem with what? People getting emotional over their beliefs, or people acting on what they believe in? I think your contempt is unwarranted if its directed at anything but the fact that they believe silly shit in the first place. If someone believes the earth is flat, its going to influence their travel decisions.

 

Not at all. Demons are evil. There's nothing evil about a blind force. Fire can be useful or dangerous, depending on the circumstances and how it is used, but it isn't inherently evil or good. To a human trying to figure out how to relate to the universe, the relevant data is ambiguous. Atheists assume there is no purpose to the universe; other observers think they can discern evidence of intelligent design or fine tuning. To me this is not a choice between good and evil. It's a choice between which paradigm to accept, on the basis of available arguments and evidence.

I won't go for the cheap shot a la Pascal and say that if I'm wrong I'll never know it, but if I'm right I'll win the cosmic jackpot and/or avoid an eternity of unpleasantness. There's a good chance I'm wrong about lots of what I believe in--possibly most or all of it. All I can do is the best I can on the basis of the available evidence filtered through my experiences and fallible reasoning processes. I'm not exactly a complete relativist, because I'm pretty confident that some of the things other folks believe in are just wrong--for example, that Obama was not born in the United States, that Fox News is fair and balanced, or that Donald Trump, Sara Palin, Michelle Bachmann or Newt Gingrich would make fine Presidents. Also, that our reality is just a computer simulation run by aliens or robots, that a snake and a jackass could talk in biblical times, and that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. But I could be wrong.

I have a big problem with people taking harmful actions on the basis of "silly shit". If they start killing abortion doctors or innocent airplane passengers, passing laws restricting freedom, driving gays to suicide, etc., I think I need to take a stand. That's where I tend to differ from some of my Buddhist friends who may deplore such things but tend not to want to get involved. Not getting involved is sometimes immoral.(In fairness to Buddhists, some have gotten very involved, like the Vietnamese monks who immolated themselves in the sixties or the brave Burmese monks who stood up to the repressive military regime in that country during the nineties, aka,Myanmar.)