romansh

 

Rom, has science changed so much since I was in high school? I was taught that science was a method for testing hypotheses for truth or falsehood. If that is still true, I don't see how you can say that it doesn't prove things. It seems to me that it proves hypotheses to be either true or false, right?

No not really Bill. I would argree I have heard scientists use proof and its derivatives. I can't speak for your education but people's understanding of what is and is not science is improving. Science can disprove or prove a hypothesis false. It cannot prove a hypothesis true.

 

What you describe is what I call the "Nothing Buttery Syndrome." Love? Oh, that is "nothing but" this enzyme working with that enzyme. Justice? Oh, that is "nothing but" ideas formed by firing synapses in our brains? Compassion? Oh, that is "nothing but"...

Yes Bill I have that syndrome too, but goes more like this.. Love? that is hormones interacting in unision with the body. That is nothing but [add expletive here] amazing.

 

Again, to me what you describe is the notion that the material world can (and should) explain everything in life. As I've said, I do understand why some people take this point of view. But I think you misunderstand that God, for me, is not the "God of the gaps" that fills my lack of understanding (which would be a big God indeed). Rather, God, for me, is the epitome of our highest ideals. As to whether this is or comes from an actual Person, I do not know. But if it is true that our highest ideals are "nothing but," then, yes, I do find that sad and depressing. Why? Because despite the value we might find in our highest ideals, we would be self-deceived in thinking that there is actually some meaning or purpose in life and that we have any worth beyond the $4.50 that chemists tell us our body is worth. We are "nothing but" chemicals thrown together that have somehow become sentient, nothing more?

Bill you are wise enough to understand that you have biases. (see below). I do too. Just ask yourself where do these biases come from? Are they spontaneously created in your mind or are they a result of some sort of chain of cause and effect?

 

Like I said, I am biased and believe there is something More. I call this More, God. I can't prove God. But I also doubt that you can disprove the More.

The more we understand our universe, the more of our concepts of god will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. Or if you prefer Douglas Adams Resistance is useless. I don't have to disprove god. I would not know how to begin ... what evidence would work to disprove your concept of god?

Not to worry Rom ...... God does not require belief....

Funnily enough I did not use that word (belief or believe) in this thread except in reference to free will.

Fairies under my garden shed don't require belief either. If you see what I mean.

 

I have to admit that if God really is as much of the Bible says he is or as conservative Christianity says he is, I would be agnostic or atheist also. I'm not at all saying that this is why *you* are agnostic, I'm only speaking for myself. I don't care for the God found in much of the Bible and much of Christianity. I don't find him, to me, to be very believable or worthy of worship.

This I have to admit does not make sense to me Bill.

If god is transcendent and by happy unknowable chance evangelical Christians got it right ... how could one say I would be "X"?

Asking the question another way what if by unknowable chance there is no god, what would you be? You would be exactly what you are today in both cases. i would argue (philosophically).

 

But neither do I hold to a material, secular view that only things provable through the scientific method exist or are real. I appreciate the scientific method and the Newtonian way of looking at the universe. Nevertheless, I think there is more going on the what materialism can account for, much as astronomers say there is more "matter" to the universe than what we can currently measure, but we call it "dark matter" because it doesn't seem to conform to the normal laws of matter and how we know of its existence and influence.

Again science does not prove things!!! I cannot emphasize this enough. Science (or at least the process people carry out - for all their faults) gets a hypothesis and tests it to destruction. It took 250 y to understand that Newtonian Mechanics is only an approximation, a very good approximation.

If god was shown to physically or materially exist, scientists simply will refine their meters and scopes and models to include said god. God would join the material world.

Your dark matter analogy is no different than god. We have models of the world that don't fit ... we just plop in god that fills our lack of understanding. Of course this is just my opinion.

 

This is where, for me, "unprovable" notions like love and compassion and understanding and joy and patience (etc.) come into play. These things are, IMO, real, but they are not directly measureable. We can only experience their influence. Therefore, again for me, if we could take notions like love and compassion and connection magnify them as being the "biggest" or most important things we know (Love, Compassion, Connection), then these things, for me, become God to me. As to whether this is a conscious Being with a will, I don't know. I can only speculate and guess. But there seems to be, IMO, a More to life and existence that pure materialism cannot account for. It is this More that I call God, but it is sometimes like the God found in the Bible and Christianity, but often not.

Unprovable notions like love. I don't think any one is denying these emotions are real. And while the these experiences feel magical, there is a very "real" chemistry underlying these phenomena. Take oxytocin for example. Now for some people to understand that our positive emotions like love and altruism might be a result of simple chemistry is sad or depressing. For me it fills me with awe and wonder. And there likely is a chemical or combination for awe and wonder too.

I have no need to make a choice as to whether there is a god or not ... be it of love or something else.

Bill

 

I enjoyed your page. I also noticed that the "Jesus Sayings" didn't really talk much about the common themes of Christianity (such as how we are born sinners, need our sins forgiven through blood sacrifice, and have a destination of either heaven or hell). And, what, Jesus never talked about homosexuality? I will have to look into the Campbellian approach.

Apparently Jesus did not say much about God either ... except to be wary of those that claimed to speak for God. There is an irony here regarding the Bible. Regarding Campbell, I would recommend the Power of Myth it is a transcript of an interview with Bill Moyers and Joseph C. Available in DVD too. I preferred the coffee table version of the book myself. Myths of Light was good too and Pathways to Bliss.

 

Similarly (and again my opinion), it is extremely difficult (if not impossible) to get to the "real God." We can't even be absolutely sure God exists (by scientific proof, anyway).

As a scientist I am sensitive to having proof associated with science. Either the evidence corroborates the scientific theory or it does not. In the latter case the theory needs modification or we go back to the drawing board.

 

There is too much human subjectivity involved. Nevertheless, I think we can have confidence in the "kind" of God that exists from majority input of the best of our religions i.e. that God can be related to on some level and that God is behind the Golden Rule rather than the Darwinian approach of CYA. My faith in God (and it is faith) does not require "letter of the law" explanations or definitions. I make my best guess as to what I believe God is really like and try to live according to that guess. And, yes, my conservative brothers and sisters would (and have) disfellowshipped from me for not insisting that I agree with *their* explanations and definitions. But I have to live according to the light I have. When I know better, I will try to do better.

As a devout agnostic I do understand the need to make a best guess and moving forward. Funnily enough god or God is not one of those things I need to make a guess about to move forward. I seem to move forward anyway. I see no need to come to a general conclusion about the existence of god.

Or to use Laplace's words I have no need of such a hypothesis

CS Lewis's trilemma is more of a pentalemma ... I am sure there are other options to.

Bill

 

But for me it does as it is my belief (yes, bias) that Christianity should get as close to the historical Jesus as possible, not the mythical "Christ" who is the Jewish Yeshua deified into a God-man in order to make him palatable to the Greek world. To me, the gospel of John compared to the synoptic gospels is like the myth of Santa Claus compared to the real Saint Nicholas.

 

A few years back I was leaning the same way ... Now I take a more Campbellian view toward myth

Here is an excerpt as to what (Rex Wyler thinks) can be attributed to Jesus. from The Jesus Sayings

Related good-natured question:

 

If we all agree that God or god is transcendent (beyond all categories of thought or description), then why are we even discussing God at all? Why discuss what can't be known? Isn't that an exercise in futility, a waste of time? Isn't it, perhaps, like discussing "dark matter"?

I was wondering if anyone would ask this question?

There is a philosophy" called ignosticism as opposed to agnosticism that sort of asks the same question.

If god is transcendent ... we end up saying what god isn't and that is everything we can think of?

Interesting

 

BTW, Roman, I’m a Douglas Adams fan also! He was a very gifted and funny writer who could get us to seriously consider much of our human nonsense through wit, humor, and sarcasm.

I do like DNA, his writing pushed me from a vague deism to a devout agnosticism.

I find myself revisiting Adams' thoughts while searching for whatever. Incidently it's Romans (my middle name, prounounced almost like romance) or rom for short.

 

But I’m not a pantheist that believes everything is God or that God is everything. I am more of a panentheist. Of course, these are still human concepts of God, so I don’t know for certain who/what/if God is. I just believe that because there is something rather than nothing, and because we didn’t make it, it seems reasonable to believe in a Creator.

While I would not describe myself as a pantheist, I suspect my position would be difficult to tease apart from pantheism.

Panentheism ... hmmn? For me an enlightened form of deism but still a dualistic view. I can't help thinking this is a hangover from our traditional Christian beliefs (as you suggest below).

Simon Blackburn asked an interesting question in one his books ... why do we assume nothing as the default state? ie requiring a first cause?

 

Does this mean, as you have said, that I have some left over Christian beliefs? Yes, it certainly does. And that’s okay with me. Iope not to shove them down the throats of others (that wouldn’t be nice), but I do enjoy good conversations like we have here. Thanks for your part in this one.

Well now that I understand your position is more deistic rather than theistic (at least by my nomenclature) I might be able to avoid that faux pas. But you are right we cannot help but be influenced by our experiences.

 

People have different points-of-view, especially on religious matters. Myself, I believe Jesus was crucified for *not* taking on the role of the Jewish messiah in claiming the throne in Jerusalem for God. I think when he failed to literally fulfill the scriptures predicting messiah to rule, the crowd turned on him and demanded his death as a false messiah. My view.

Fair enough Bill. But I don't want devolve into some relativistic post modern point of view where everyone can be right.

Some interpretations of the Bible have to be more accurate than others. Certain ones like the Earth is six thousand years old, and closer to home Jesus was literally the son of god and was resurrected are tough to believe with the evidence that is available to us today.

 

But I see deeper meanings in some of the "unChristlike" events in the gospels than just Jesus getting pissed-off for his own selfish reasons or because he was mentally disturbed. So I wouldn't put these events in the same category as killing a little girl. On the other hand, the book of Revelation does tend to portray this kind of messiah, doesn't it?

Again fair enough ... but I never said it was unChrist like. I suspect that some people have an idealised view of Jesus/Christ.

Events like killing a little girl. They are sad and I think we should try and stop them. Having said that, passing judgement on these such as the killing children is evil we should avoid.

 

I believe that everyone is a child of God, but I don't believe that everyone equally reflects God's image or is Christ-like.

I believe this is a reflection of your belief in a traditional dualistic Christian God.

 

I don't buy into the dualistic notion that everyone is slated for either heaven or hell and that God has unchanging criteria by which he might make these determinations. But neither do I buy into the liberal stance that says, "I'm okay, you're okay. I'm God, you're God. I'm Christ. You're Christ." I don't think the solution is to put everyone into the same box. Rather, I think we can be more godly or less godly. Or more Christlike, or less Christlike. That's how I see it.

I personally don't believe in a literal heaven and hell. Heaven and hell are here and now! And we can avoid them if we can "unlearn" the concepts of good and evil that we have learnt from tasting the fruit of the tree of knowledge.

 

I would, respectfully, disagree. Our notions for who Christ is or what a Christ is are rooted in the Judeo-Christian viewpoint of someone annointed by God for a specific purpose. And, to me, I just don't see what I would call Christ-like character in each and every person I meet or hear about. Whoever killed the little girl in my neighborhood this week, I don't believe them to be "a living Christ" or "one with God."

 

Now, if we want to move our definitions of Christ beyond the Judeo-Christian viewpoint and make Christ mean anything we like, then (tongue-firmly-in-cheek), yes, I suppose that anyone is and can be Christ, from the murderer in my town to my cat to a cockroach in the breakroom where I work. But, for me, I just don't think the language or idea works that way. For better or worse, the notion of Messiah was a human being (not a deity) that was annointed by God to act as God's agent on earth in order to accomplish his will. I just don't find this child's murderer or my cat to meet that standard.

 

Just my 2c.

 

PS - Jesus himself is reported to have said that many would claim to be the Christ, but they should not be believed.

No problem disagreeing Bill

We can play the definition game if you want Bill. My definition of Christ is something like this ... Christ is a mythical character that is likely loosely based on a historical person (Jesus) who was crucified.

You don't see Christ like actions in us ... eg throwing hissy fits when a fig tree needs cursing, sending demons into pigs, and throwing merchants out of synagogues? Curious? It is the acceptance (I would use the "understanding") of these things in ourselves that is important.

Interpretations of Christianity, take on various shades ... from the completely literal to completely metaphorical.

And regarding your PS, what did Jesus say about people who claim everyone was Christ? Not the Christ. Jesus is supposed to have been crucified for saying he is one with god.

Why? By what rule does it have to be this way? How do you come to that conclusion?

 

(Not arguing or saying you're wrong, just trying to understand).

If god is transcendent (ie beyond all catergories of thought) then anything I manage to put into words is not god. If god is not transcendent then you are quite right to question my statement. Does this rule/logic work for you Paul?

 

I feel every person has the potential to be a living Christ

I would argue every person is a living Christ - not just has potential to be.

You are all Buddahs.

There is nothing that you need to achieve.

Just open your eyes.

-- Gautama Siddhartha

edit to add quote

If one can put god into words, it is not god?

It is entirely possible to reverse the question and ask "Why is God Not Love? If the first question is valid, as well as the second, then we know, to some degree, that we are human and not God. Not a bad fact to consider? It is not a new concept, BTW, as it has been around for a very long time.

Do we know we are not God?

John 10:31 ???

Many of us have a belief in free will which is pretty much godlike.

Actually I agree with I and the Father are one ... A wonderful monistic point of view. It is only literal interpretations that say this statement does not apply to you, minsocal. There is no distinction between me, a lump of coal and god.

Why is God love?

because God is (at least for some of us) a reflection of what we perceive as our better selves.

For some acceptance of everything ... while I agree it is a useful position, I question is it God.

Love? I had no choice but to love (and eventually accept) my wife.

God being love ... does not make sense to me.

I feel God is infinite so the Divine is in us and we are in the infinite. God's heaven and hell are also in the present infinite.

I would say not that the divine is in me ... but that I am divine. (ultimately there is no intrinsic I)

So my neighbour's cat is divine

A rock in my yard is divine

There is no separation between me and the divine. I would argue we need to work on the last vestiges of dualism that pervades most of Western culture.

If you see what I mean?

In the words of the great Zaphod Breeblebox

 

If there's anything around here more important than my ego, I want it caught and shot now!

Just take care when we give our egos qualities whether good or bad - just what is giving them those qualities?

I have often wondered about the death and resurrection of Jesus. Could it have been possible for Jesus not to have died on the cross?

Funnily enough this is what Islam believes. They hold Jesus in very high regard. He was born of god, by the virgin Mary, performed miracles and was crucified. Though he did not die on the cross, he was not resurrected, nor was he "god" in the shape of man.

I would bet Jesus was a historical character, though I don't think we can ever be sure. We can also bet that Christ is a myth. I don't mean this in negative manner. Myths can be extremely powerful with a "useful" interpretion.

Dr Don

Here's my take on things that are inerrant and infallible - not just the Bible.

We all interpret stuff and at some point we convince ourselves that we are inerrant or infallible, at least in certain aspects. So consequently we can have interesting view points from evangelicals who with honesty admit that they are not inerrant or infallible, but that their interpretation of the Bible being I&I is not. For me as a devout agnostic I find this very paradoxical.

But then we all fall into similar traps.

Joseph ... regarding evidence for god. We talk about about personal and impersonal gods. Ultimately our religious texts point to such a concept of god as being transcedent. So by definition (in the eastern sense of the word) - we don't know what we are talking about. So for me any god I have managed to conceive so far I have been able to dismiss, both from the scientific point of view and from a matter of logic based on using the definition of beyond all categories of thought for transcendent.

Anyway this is sort of my current I&I opinion.

rom

ps Welcome NiteWatchman -

To know is not to know. And not to know is to know.

It could be an agnostic's mantra.

Baggage? He ain't heavy he's my brother

Welcome Sean

I must admit I don't get our deep love affair with sin.

Adam and Eve got kicked out of the Garden of Eden for disobeying God's will and tasting the fruit from the tree of knowledge. Therefore when thinking in terms of good and evil all of a sudden we have a requirement for fig leaves etc. The result of this knowledge is we start having pain and suffering.

There is a parallel in the Upanishads two bird poem - where one bird partakes in the joys and sufferings of the world and the other sits quietly.

So to answer your question Rhino - I would say no. Just be aware of our actions and their consequences.

As to becoming addicted to our primordial instincts - I am addicted to breathing amongst other things.

In short ... the original sin is thinking in terms of good and evil.

rom

http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Gospel-of-Thomas-Scholars-Version.pdf

http://gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm

http://www.swami-center.org/en/text/gospelofphilip.pdf

Here's my take on heaven and hell - simply states of mind or at least metaphors for states of mind.

The tricky bit is is can we choose freely which state of mind we are in?

I would argue no. Sure we can choose, but freely? Nah!

Another similar view of eternity ending with a slightly different Campbell quote:

The static? It was the universe singing to you.

Thanks for your input Paul. What I read was just a small blurp in a ladies magazine but I went to Snopes this AM and read the whole story. Just another point of "Don't believe all you read"

I still believe I have a soul but am happy to be corrected as to the story re weight. with Love Alamar

I don't want to rain on JC's intro thread. But, I don't think you have a soul. But you do have something much better. You have the universe. The universe has made you the person you are today.