evo said:
I read it through and found it entertaining. My comment would be that in Christian theology 'good and 'holy' is what God is rather than what He loves.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Atheism
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
I read it through and found it entertaining. My comment would be that in Christian theology 'good and 'holy' is what God is rather than what He loves.
Six Pack said:
It's just standard undergraduate Arts degree in Philosophy
here is brief description of this particular subject,pretty good subject thus far.
Description
The first focus of this unit is 'Morality and the good life', which reflects on the nature of happiness, giving particular reference to Aristotle and later ancient philosophers. In the second section, you will focus on 'Morality and Objectivity'. What is the status of moral principles? Does morality depend on religion? Is morality relative to cultures and societies? The third section of the unit, 'Morality, Justice and Rights', considers Kant and the universality of reason, utilitarianism and animal rights, justice, immigration and refugees.
Looked at erveryone from the greeks to kant to nietzche, de bouvoir,satre camus and few of the new guys.Good value
evo said:
Surprise me whydoncha!
I have actually developed an interest in philosophy recently. Ever read anything by a fella called Plantinga?
yeah I've heard of him.
What he,and a number of other theistic philosophers don't seem to realise is just undermining one aspect of science doesn't necessarily prove God by default.
That science isn't necessarily describing reality may come as a shock to guys like Dawkins,it shouldn't come as a shock to any decent philosopher(IMO)
Having said that i do respect him for having a go.Some of his arguments from the brief read of him seem pretty clever.
What he,and a number of other theistic philosophers don't seem to realise is just undermining one aspect of science doesn't necessarily prove God by default.
That science isn't necessarily describing reality may come as a shock to guys like Dawkins,it shouldn't come as a shock to any decent philosopher(IMO)
Having said that i do respect him for having a go.Some of his arguments from the brief read of him seem pretty clever.
evo said:
OK, I probably need to read more widely than just him, but I find his writings both clear and interesting. Interestingly, surprisingly most scientists (myself included) are exceedingly ignorant of the philosophical/metaphysical basis of the science they practice. It is really not good. ATM I am wading through a paper he wrote on the shortcomings of Methodological Naturalism. Very interesting and enlightening, not just on what he is writing about but on the whole subject of what science is - it is actually very difficult to define.
I am also reading some of his stuff on the logical problem of evil.
Your course looks very interesting. What have you learnt from it?
Djevv said:
science's two main problems are : being limited by the 5 senses,and the 'problem of induction'
It can only ever be a best guess.
There's nothing wrong with that, as long as people realise its limitations.
It's only a problem if you believe in god. Or you think ion absolute dichotomies(as antman pointed out)
There, solved.
it's really about learning how to think.
evo said:
Indeed. As everyone is limited by these, science provides our best approximation.
Indeed. However such limitations are intrinsic to being a human, with the problems of perception and interpretation. Recognising the limits of our understanding by any mechanism (including science) is important.
antman said:
A question for you Anteater. You clearly don't believe that the Bible was God-inspired so my questions are - According to you, who wrote the Bible?
Why did they write it?
Was it a group of people or mainly 1 author?
Were they deliberately trying to deceive others? Were the events (any?) actual events or is it all made up?
If so, why are the writings so historically accurate regarding tribes and nations etc. some of which were considered myths until recent times when archaeological discoveries have proven their existence (e.g. The Hittites)?
If they were trying to deceive then why are the words so morally correct?
How did the writer(s) of the Bible do things like get the dimensions of the ark so accurate to enable it to be a perfect vessel for floating in flood conditions?
If it was several authors without any divine inspiration - How did they get all of their respective stories to collude and then be published together?
Why do Billions upon Billions of people today, and further Billions throughout history, believe this to be the guidebook for life? (I include Jews, Christians and Muslims together in this as the origin of man's interaction with God is the same for each of them)
If it is a fake, then surely it is the greatest hoax, greatest piece of literature and greatest conspiracy in all of human history, making it almost as incredible, from a secular point of view, as it is if it is valid?
These are just the tip of the iceberg as far as questions go and I'd love to hear from anyone else who wants to reply as well.
Panthera tigris FC said:
Whilst I may not sound like it, I am actually a great supporter of most scientific invention, research and their search for further knowledge. I just don't believe that they have it all right and would rather put my faith in God than men on some things, that's all. It is nice, however, to hear you say that "science provides our best approximation" as I agree with that in many circumstances. However in elements of faith, God gives those who believe in Him a "blessed assurance" which goes beyond any "approximation" that science may come up with. It is a certainty from within that He not only exists, but loves you, wants to have a relationship with you and that that is the reason that He created you. It is an incredible feeling.
Can you guarantee me that what we believe scientifically will be the same in 200 years as it is today? I can guarantee you that in 200 years, if the world is still around in it's current form and Jesus has not returned yet, that people will still believe in God as we do today. Religion has definitely passed the test of time.
jayfox said:
Many, many people. Let alone the many, many others who translated it from one language to another. God inspired? I have no doubt that most of the people who participated in the writing of the Bible certainly believed themselves to be inspired by God. This is a matter of historical record.
Unlike the Koran, the Bible does not claim to be the actual word of God - only the writings of people who were in various ways "inspired by God". I have no doubt that most of these authors were sincere in contributing to their religious traditions.
Many events occurred and have historical truth. Not all though - I used be told that there were Roman records from the time of Pontius Pilot that supported the actual existence of Jesus. In fact this is not the case though and there is no supporting evidence - outside the Bible and other third hand accounts - that he ever existed.
See above. Some of the Bible is based on historical fact, other bits are not. Much of it obviously parable and metaphor, written with very good intentions no doubt. Hmmm, the saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" suddenly springs to mind.
I don't really understand this question.
You mean Genesis 6:14-16
Fantastic design specifications there - I am sure even I could build a sea-going vessel with that comprehensive blueprint. What I found more troubling is how Noah managed to fit one pair of every species on earth into a boat made of wood, and keep them from eating each other. The rubbish that floats around "supporting" assertions in the Bible is mind blowing, even for a confirmed sceptic like myself.
The simple answer is that the story of Noah and the Ark is a fable - a metaphor. You can even be a Christian and accept this and not have your faith challenged.
It was more than several - the New Testament alone has all the books (27 of them) written by the Apostles which were written over a period of more than one hundred years and eventually collected together. Surely you know this? Let alone the old Testament based on the Jewish Tanakh, and the Deuteronomies (excluded from some Bibles depending on your flavour of Christianity).
The Bible you know and love today bears little resemblance to the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. The Bible is not a unified and integrated whole - it is a fragmented, jumbled, politicised, retranslated, patchwork of Christian and Jewish writings thrown together. As you'd expect from a document which had its origins around 2000 years ago. Surely you know this?
It's a religious tract. This makes it neither a hoax, conspiracy or anything else. It is a great work of literature, no question. Your choice to believe it is one of personal faith. This makes it "true" for you. I believe that many different people throughout history contributed to it as part of the great Judeo-Christian tradition and this is a matter of historical record.
evo said:
Plantinga also points out that there are issues with the meatphysical underpinnings of the science. There are some sciences that deal only in measurements and facts and have little to do with understanding our place in the Cosmos. He calls this Duhemian Science, science which everyone can access, regardless on their metaphysical leanings. An example might be anatomy or cell biochemistry or rock classification or analyitical Chemistry.
Other he fits under the umbrella of 'Augustinian' science which embraces a world view. They have a definite world view and trespass somewhat into the area normally reserved for religion. Psychology, the general theory of Evolution and other 'human' sciences might be examples of the latter. His point being that if it is legitimate for Naturalists to practice science purely from their POV, is should be permissable for Christians to do the same.
evo said:It's only a problem if you believe in god. Or you think ion absolute dichotomies(as antman pointed out)
There, solved.
Yes of couse from an Atheistic POV there is no issue, but there are many other problems which God solves very neatly.
antman said:
The rest is your opinion to which you are entitled, but I'm not sure what you mean by this? Surely you realise that, although we don't have the autographs the text of both the Old and New Testaments are very well known and well attested.
