[Dawnstorm]

Reading all this makes my head spin; and in all that swirling chaos a question emerges...

How does one defend God against Occam's Razor?

[Scott Bakker]

Stomping on strawmen again, are we Tex?

I'm really just a one trick pony. The only thing I have a problem with is certainty, not Christianity. My critique of religion almost entirely turns on this: that it so often confuses itself for knowledge.

Nobody knows. Not me. Not you. Not the priests. Not the imams. Nobody. So my question is simply, 'Why pretend otherwise?'

That's my one certainty. Actually I think it's painfully obvious. And I take the interminable nature of debates like this, as opposed to, say, debates over heart function, to be a pretty telling symptom of our collective ignorance on these issues.

[ironchef texmex]

Post #82 Maus -- "Certain stories in the bible have striking similarities to many other mythological stories, yet the Bible is taken as fact and all others dismissed at 'myth'. The most obvious is the flood story."

I know I've already given my take on this, but let me add one thing. Of the over 300 ancient flood accounts the Genesis account is by far the most detailed, including the 6 to 1 legnth to width dimension for the boat (which, thousands of years later, would become the standard of nautical stability). Now, does that prove the veracity of the Genesis account? No. Yes, it still requires faith. Blind faith, no, but faith, yes.

Post #84 Kongming -- (was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor)

Sorry, Kong, but I don't even know where to begin on this one. My guess is that you've confused two separate incidents -- Abraham meeting Melchizidek, and Ishmael wrestling with the angel of the Lord. Let's start with Abraham. The word Melchizidek comes from the Hebrew for "king of righteousness", we are told in the passage that he was the king of Salem, which is Hebrew for "peace". There has never been a kingdom on earth called "peace". Abraham worships him as God and tithes to Him. The passage is telling you that Abraham is meeting God in the form of man (which in the OT is referred to "the angel of the Lord"). The NT teaches us that the angel of the Lord is Jesus, what theologians refer to as the Preincarnate Christ. Hebrews is the book that talks about Jesus as Melchizidek. In the third century Gnostic writings began to claim that Melchizidek was a preist/king of the Greek pantheon, which I guess is where you're getting the Sumerian god bit. Ishmael was the one that wrestled the Angel of the Lord, and then had his name changed to Israel, which means "one who struggles with God". That's where the nation got its name.

No, christianity is not polytheistic. The Roman Catholic church incorporated elements of the Greek pantheon (worship of saints, that sort of thing) when the Emporer Constantine forced christianity on the largely pantheistic populous of Rome. None of the pantheistic additions are Biblical.

Post #95 Maus -- "what makes 'God' more right than the others?"

I remember reading an article written by a New Ager where he asserted that we should throw out the entire court system. How could we convict anyone? How could we know the truth? What Truth? Whose truth?

Just mindblowing.

The truth. The actual events as they actually happened. The words that were actually spoken. The actions that actually occurred. The actual trajectories of the bullets. You want to assert that we can never know everything a thing/event/whatever. Fine. But when you start to say that your opinion changes the fabric of reality, then you've stepped off into la la land. The same applied to God. If God is a being with distinct characteristics as the Bible says he is, then whatever anything thinks or believes about those characteristics has no affect on the nature of God Himself. That brings us to square one of apologetics. You show me the evidence for your god(s), I'll show you mine. But the number of believers themselves changes nothing.

Post #107 Gary -- "And we shouldn't rely upon the past to provide us with hints as to what today might bring, because there are no laws of nature that apply."

Like I've said before, this only applies to pantheism. Religions like christianity, judaism, and islam all seperate creator from creation. In the case of the Bible, the doctrine is that God made the universe and all of its workings and that none of them will change until he unmakes them (which comes after all that lovely Revelations stuff). In other words, if you believe the Bible then your not worries about that because the laws will only be changed once, and no one will care about the laws when it happens because we'll all be... uh... otherwise detained at the time.

[ironchef texmex]

Post #110 Maus -- "God claimed in the Bible (through Jesus) that once he was gone, there would be no further proof of his existence."

I actually agree most of the post, but just to clarify, I assume you're talking about Jesus' conversation with the disciples before his assention. He told that them that he would no longer be with them and wouldn't be coming back (until all that lovely Revelations stuff took place). So when someone tells us that they spoke to Jesus, and they mean it literally, they're contradicting scripture. It was not saying that there would be no further evidences of God. The apostles were charged with directing God's miracles in such a way as to provide evidence of His existence and character. Oh, and although it's not mentioned in the Bible, early church historians believed that the last living apostle was John.

Post #121 Maus -- "It's still a good guide, but it's no longer the dominant force it used to be. Even the most faithful can be shaken."

Hey Maus, aren't you glad you asked me to come over here. :D

I know, I know, it's easy to romanticize about how devout those simpletons with the plows and dirty fingernails used to be 'way back when'. But it doesn't hold up. After the Romans stopped sending Christians to the Coliseum we get all these dispatches from church leaders asking what they are supposed to do with all there members who ran to the hills. Marginal faith is as old as faith itself. Yes, many American christians are marginal believers. It probably has more to do with our affluence than anything else. Go to a country like China, find one of the underground churches, and try to shake their faith. My guess is the average level of faith would be markedly different between there and here. Again, that owing to differences in socioeconomics and that POV thing.

Human nature is human nature and no, it hasn't changed in the last 2000 years.

[clockwirk]

How does one defend God against Occam's Razor?


I think Intelligent Design is far more simple than some belief in random, chaotic luck or a multiverse or whatever.

Why is it so complicated to believe in a being that you can't, by nature of your being, understand?

[ironchef texmex]

Post #124 Maus -- "The Bible does say God will look out for those who look out for themselves."

Actually it doesn't.


Post #137 Gary -- "Faith precludes reason, doesn't it?"

If it did how could anyone's faith either grow or diminish? You may not agree with their rationale, but it exists nonetheless. And I've still never thought of a way to separate reason from quorum.

"Or is it viewed as mystery, sufficiently obscure to allow for believers, but not so obscure as to allow for blasphemers?"

It's definately not viewed as mystery. That's gnosticism.

"How important is it to one's faith to accept the bible as fact or as metaphor?"

That's not the question. It contains both, tells you it contains both. The question is purely one of intent. If someone comes with the mindset of "God, I want to know you better, I'm praying that you'll reveal yourself to me." Then opens the Bible with the attitude of "whatever it says is what I believe" they're going to get the main message. You can't miss the core doctrinal stuff. If they don't come to the Bible with that attitude, then the question is why not? And this goes back to something Maus said in the beginning -- The Bible teaches that you must accept Jesus (God) as both savior and lord. Most people pull out the metaphor tag when they see something they don't like. Has someone like that accepted Him as Lord? It would certainly seem not. If someone doesn't believe that Samson actually killed a thousand men with a donkey's jaw, then why not? If it's because they don't believe that God could give a man the strength, stamina, etc., then they're denying God's divinity. Period. If a person attaches the metaphor tag based on a reason (there's that word again) that does not reject God's lordship then who cares? Unfortunately, I don't think that last one happens very often.

"If one believes scripture to be metaphor, then why this particular book?"

Good question. I think the obvious answer is habit, it's what they grew up with. And I think you probably had that one worked out for yourself.

"If one sees it as fact, historical fact, then why not accept other fantasies as well as potentially factual?"

Gary, my father was a drug addict. When I was seven-years-old my mother threw him out of the house. A year later he came back. Seems he'd convinced her that he'd found Jesus. Then he convinced his children as well. He was a changed man. The drugs were gone. His temper was muted. He had stopped living for himself. All of the sudden I had someone to play catch with, then lift weights with, then take karate with (he started at age 54, just to spend time with me). Later my sister took the first step of faith. Then she changed too.

That was my reason. I know I sometimes make it sound like my journey of faith was a voyage of cold logic, but honestly, If my dad had of come back to us with a copy of LotR in his hand, I might be walking around now in some elf getup.

[Scott Bakker]

Why is it so complicated to believe in a being that you can't, by nature of your being, understand?

Okham's razor cuts against Intelligent Design theory because it introduces something supernatural into the explanation. Given the staggering success of science in answering questions without recourse to supernatural forces, the most conservative approach to things like the 'complexity problem' in evolution is to simply assume we have yet to fully understand the natural mechanisms at work. Aside from gratifying some kind of need to 'prove' God's existence, there really are no grounds to infer something as remarkable as human-like omnipotent intelligence, as a means to explain that complexity. To do so is to argue from ignorance (scientists don't know therefore God is the answer), a classic form of fallacious reasoning.

We humans are hardwired to anthropomorphize, to understand complicated phenomena in intentional terms, which is to say, in terms of reasons, motives, purposes, and so on. This is why it took us so many thousands of years to come to grips with the methodologies of science, and why so many of us has such difficulty accepting the results of science. The fact that things started happening as fast as they did once we did see our way past our hardwired shortcomings seems a pretty powerful indication that we're onto something.

Left to our devices, we humans are actually horrible when it comes to the evaluation of theoretical truth-claims - which is why science was so hard for our civilization to come by, and why even still, despite being the greatest instrument of discovery in the history of the human race, so many have so little understanding or appreciation of it. Our debility in this regard is a simple psychological fact, one which, I think anyway, should make us dubious of absolutely all traditional theoretical truth-claims.

Especially those that so obviously play to our weaknesses for things like flattery (you were made in God's image, he has a plan for you, you are one of the chosen, elect, etc.), certainty (believe as little children believe, just have faith), and so on...

[Gary Wassner]

Ironchef, I am truly glad that faith allowed you to overcome those painful situations that you had to deal with. And I am truly glad that you attribute your good luck to God. It certainly has made you a conscientous participant in your religion, as opposed to someone who merely makes the motions. But my point was very well summarized by you when you said if your father had come home with a copy of LOTR you might be walking around in elf clothes. Read your own words again. They were so very astute.

I just came home from seeing a movie titled Walk on Water. It's definitely worth seeing. It's not a religious movie, but it reminds me of why I don't have room in my life for god.

I also think you should all watch the show on NBC wednesday night called Revelations. I reviewed it in another thread. It too reminds me very poignantly of why I cannot throw my cards in with all those others who deal religion back to the people of this earth.

[ironchef texmex]

Post #142 Gary -- "Do you hate me for it? Do you condemn me for it? Do you pity me for it?"

No to the first two. Yes to the last one.

(God as a non-sports fan) "How in the world would you know that?

From this:
Joshua - "Are you for us or for our enemies."
Angel of the Lord - "Neither."
Joshua 5:13-14

The context is that of the upcoming siege of Jericho, but it applies just as well to The World Series. God isn't Republican or Democrat, not a Longhorn fan or a Sooner fan. And you can imagine how knowing the final outcome kind of takes the fun out of sporting events. So what is He interested in? No, not opera, not skydiving. Lots of other things though.

"I desire mercy, not sacrifice."

That one appears about 20-30 times throughout the Bible, a common theme. Most often you see it when someone is doing something for God, but their heart isn't in the right place. It means that you don't get close to him doing stuff, you come close by desiring to come close. See, according to the Bible, what He wants most of all is for us to acknowledge His love for us and to love Him in return. Anthropomorphic? Of course. It says we are made in His image (in terms of knowing the difference between right and wrong, that sort of thing, not physically).

Post #151 Dawnstorm -- "How does one defend God against Occam's Razor?"

There are only possible options for existence:
A) The universe is infinite.
B) The universe is finite and was created by an infinite.

With the limitations of subatomic examination we will probably never be able to derive the answer scientifically. So which sounds more reasonable? You exist through the random processes of a universe with no beginning, or that you exist because of the will of a sentient being with no beginning?

I don't know about you, but I can't wrap my brain around either one. Kind of goes back to that "understanding the infinite" thing. Miriamele and Gary have both said they disbelieve at least in part because that's what they want. I said I believe at least in part because that's what I want. I think it's that way for everyone. In other word, I think this is one debate where Occam can't help us.

Post #152 Scott -- "And I take the interminable nature of debates like this, as opposed to, say, debates over heart function, to be a pretty telling symptom of our collective ignorance on these issues."

Whereas I take it to be symptom of the underlying importance of this debate, as opposed to something like heart function. Were you 'freed' by the knowledge that the heart has four ventricles, not three or five? Freed in the same way that Gary and Miriamele spoke of?

Religion and science have fundamental differences. I agree completely with that statement. Science takes the observable world and reduces it into arithmetic form, mathematical equations for the simpler sciences (physics) statements of process for the more complex (biology). It can not, it will not tell us that nothing exists outside of that which can be observed. Ever. Science can't make the leap of metaphysical conjecture and still dwell in the realm of 'reductionist methodology of the observable' (the scientific method).

Religion, takes the position that the universe is a finite created by an infinite and then attempts to introduce humanity to the nature of that infinite. The statements of process are not of the nature that can be examined empirically. They're experiential. I'm certain of the processes that I've tested, and retested experientially (that when I turn my back on my relationship with God, all the joy drains out of my life. That giving really is more satisfying that receiving. Etc). My belief on the afterlife is a staunchly held theory extrapolated from the experiences and the book that guided me through them. I would still say that I am certain of it, even though it's with less certainty than the things I have tested in life. And since it won't yield to empiricism I can't give it a number value like 80 - 100 is certain 60 - 80 is belief, so really it's just how I use the word.

At the end of the day the facts are the same. I believe. You don't. But no, Scott, science doesn't back you up. It's just your beliefs.

Sorry.

[Gary Wassner]

Pity is such a seditious emotion, it's almost shameful. But sadly it empowers. I don't think you really mean that, Ironchef. No truly good man could ever pity; think about it.