 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
jratcliff
John W. Ratcliff
|
Posted: Mon Jul 23rd, 2007 02:23 pm |
|
I used to really enjoy getting into religious debates but mostly, these days, I have gotten over it. I shut down my religious discussion forum AARM after a few years. The forum still exists, but no one posts there any more. The discussions were supposed to move to a site called TalkBeliefs but it never seemed the same afterwards.
Since I became a Freemason I took an oath to be tolerant of the religious beliefs of others and I have tried very hard to follow through with that. My policy is that so long as a religion harms no others, I say people can believe any Tom Fool thing they want. (For the record, inquisitions, ritualized guilt, and sexual abuse I still consider 'harming others', so I haven't entirely given up the good fight.) Every now and then I get a twinge, like yesterday when I was listening to the radio and a comedy spot came on making fun of how illogical the beliefs of a particularly popular religious sect's are. I was amused, smiling ear to ear until, suddenly, the spot ended and I realized it wasn't actually a comedy act at all that I had been listening to! To my complete shock and dismay I discovered I had accidentally flipped to a 'Christian Rock' station and the commentator was completely serious. I won't go into the details of it online but, suffice it to say, it had something to do with a character who was actually a terribly nice young fellow yet was still subjected to threats of hellfire and damnation. Like I said, I thought it was a comedy act.
A part of me still wants to get into these debates for the simple reason that I am so frequently assaulted by what I consider to be irrational propaganda in the media. Just this morning I tried peacefully to watch one of my favorite TV shows, 'Ebert and Roeper' only to be proselytized by someone who knows not a damn thing about me but feels compelled to judge my person via the TV air waves. I wonder if he ever wonders that were it not for science, logic, and rational thought he wouldn't even be able to proselytize me via invisible (some might say imaginary, magical, or miraculous) electromagnetic waves in the time and space.
Yet, I know, that this desire for a debate is completely pointless. You see, this particular group of people have formed their belief system based on an entirely different set of principles than I have. It seems that while I refuse to accept their 'evidence' as evidential they, likewise, refuse to accept science, logic, facts, experience, and reason as evidential to their own models of reality.
I have to let that sleeping dog lie.
So, that's not the fight I want to pick. Just the other day I was looking for some new reading material and I saw Richard Dawkin's book 'The God Delusion' on the shelf. Personally, I don't like Richard Dawkin's because he previously has written a books titled 'The Selfish Gene' and 'The Blind Watchmaker', both of which I take offense to.
I'm kind of weird since I believe in evolution, but I don't believe evolution is either blind nor entirely selfish. I believe evolution is highly creative and expressive and I don't necessarily believe it is locked into linear sequences of time. But, hey, I'm getting ahead of myself.
While I was in the bookstore I picked up Dawkin's book on the 'God Delusion' and I opened it up. The first page that appeared to me, and the first line I read, echoed a sentiment I share so deeply that it really made me take pause. What Dawkins points out is the same idea that I have held for a long time. He makes the observation that when we, as human beings, used our minds to investigate the Universe and found out that God was so much greater, so much more profound, so much more incredible than the tiny, closed, cramped, confined, and limited vision previously promulgated by organized religions. Rather than embracing this greater, more powerful vision of God, the scientific world-view was suppressed by religious fundamentalists who treat thousands of year old documents written by, relatively speaking, primitives as carrying more weight than their own senses. (Here is a case in point; it hasn't been much over 70 years since we thought the Universe comprised, at most, the Milky Way. Today images from the Hubble space telescope and others blow us away with the massive scale and complexity of the Universe at large.)
The God revealed through science and experience is so vast, so grand, so mind boggling, that it makes that little terrorist creep in the Old Testament seem like a quaint and silly anachronism; a vestige left over from a primitive and ignorant race of men lacking such basic things as microscopes and telescopes to fully appreciate the audacity of the Universe they found themselves within.
Just reading this once sentence of Dawkins made me realize that whatever quibbles I might have with him over selfish genes and blind watchmakers, we have a lot more in common in terms of how we assimilate experience than how we may differ. (In fact, out of respect for that one sentence I went ahead and bought a copy of his book; hardback and all.)
Nevertheless, neither Dawkins or the bizarre non-satirical radio message I heard yesterday is the point of this post. The point of this post is to address those individuals who use their free will to argue with incredible vehemence that they lack free-will.
I currently subscribe to 'Discover' magazine and 'New Scientist'. I enjoy reading both but there is a trend in 'New Scientist' which is about to make my head explode. There continues to be a steady stream of articles and commentary on the topic as to whether or not free-will exists. I feel my mind will explode based on the simple observation that these (supposedly?!??) intelligent individuals choose to use their free-will to argument so vehemently that they lack free-will. Am I the only person who sees the irony in this!????
This, my friends, is where I am spoiling for a fight. I'm not certain this is even a 'scientific' discussion to begin with. It is clearly philosophical in my opinion. Moreover, science has demonstrated time and time again that God does, in fact, play dice. Albert Einstein did an incredible service in the later years of his life trying to prove that quantum mechanics was not, in fact, the true underlying order of the Universe. And, time and time again, the quantum uncertainty principle has been validated.
I am so frustrated by the exercise in bizarre theology I keep encountering in my so called 'science' magazines that I am, indeed, spoiling for a fight.
I really don't believe there is anything to even discuss!! Pick a number between 1 and 10. There you go, you just demonstrated free will. It matters not that, on average, most people pick the number 3. It's still your choice. We each make thousands of choices every day. And, on top of that, we think about thinking about thinking about the choices we might make. We hold mental constructs where we play out many scenarios weighing the pros and cons of each, often fast forwarding in our minds into an imaginary future playing out these hypothetical events. (In fact, I did so myself today when I was trying to decide if I wanted to make a post on this topic.)
From what I gather from reading these articles in my science magazines, the heart of the matter is determinism. Well, first of all, determinism a generally dead concept. The notion that we can 'predict' anything that ever could happen given a known set of pre-conditions is tenuous as best.
Nevertheless, that discussion generally relates to boulders rolling down a hill and not something as subtle as human consciousness. Maybe I'm stupid, but the mere fact that when I make a choice, any choice, that affects my reality I am exercising free will if evidence enough for me.
The only argument I have ever heard put forth from a scientific perspective that might rule free-will moot is the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics (see Copenhagen). Under the Copenhagen interpretation God does not 'play dice' because anything that ever can, ever will, and ever could happen does happen in an infinite number or parallel Universes.
The thing is, even if this is the base state of reality, it is itself a moot point. Science, and the Scientific Method, deal with experience; sense data and, to each of us, our experience is that we can, will, and do, make a myriad of free-will choices on a daily basis.
So, yes, I'm spoiling for a fight. If you are one of those guys who keeps writing articles or letters to the editor to various scientific journals, arguing with great force and conviction, that you lack any free will, that your entire life, purpose, and existence is pre-determined and predictable as rain (woops, bad example, rain isn't that predictable..) then please email me. First, I will ask you to pick a number between one and one trillion, and then I will hope to smack some sense into your robotic little brain.
____________________
For God so loved the world he created the quantum uncertainty principle.
|
Carol2
Dialogue Facilitator
|
Posted: Sat Aug 11th, 2007 06:43 am |
|
I agree with you on 2 points:
1. God is, indeed, a far greater Creator than our minds can ever conceive.
2. We certainly do have free will.
____________________
The righteous shall live by his faith (Habakkuk 2:4).
|
jratcliff
John W. Ratcliff
|
Posted: Sat Aug 11th, 2007 12:56 pm |
|
| Yeah, I kind of beat thiis debate to death on my blog.
____________________
For God so loved the world he created the quantum uncertainty principle.
|
complete
Registration Removed : Please Re-Register and Post
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Sat Aug 11th, 2007 03:50 pm |
|
I really don't believe there is anything to even discuss!! Pick a number between 1 and 10. There you go, you just demonstrated free will. It matters not that, on average, most people pick the number 3. It's still your choice.
I submit you do not have free will, however, you do have free choice per your last sentence above. It reads like you are defining choice instead of will.
Now, before you smack some sense into my little robotic brain give this some thought: You are bound to this universe.Last edited on Sat Aug 11th, 2007 05:16 pm by
|
Carol2
Dialogue Facilitator
|
Posted: Sat Aug 11th, 2007 04:31 pm |
|
Well, you know, history says Jesus walked the earth and was crucified under Pilate. I happen to believe he is who he says he is and that faith gives me hope that there IS a God who not only created us, but loves and cares for us personally.
I don't know what sort of god, creator or spirit you believe in, but I'm sure it's a cold one.
____________________
The righteous shall live by his faith (Habakkuk 2:4).
|
complete
Registration Removed : Please Re-Register and Post
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Aug 11th, 2007 05:15 pm |
|
Carol2 writes:
Posted: Sat Aug 11th, 2007 11:31 am
Well, you know, history says Jesus walked the earth and was crucified under Pilate. I happen to believe he is who he says he is and that faith gives me hope that there IS a God who not only created us, but loves and cares for us personally.
I don't know what sort of god, creator or spirit you believe in, but I'm sure it's a cold one.
To whom are you directing this post?Last edited on Sat Aug 11th, 2007 05:15 pm by
|
Carol2
Dialogue Facilitator
|
Posted: Sat Aug 11th, 2007 05:31 pm |
|
John. This forum isn't threaded, so it is sometimes hard to tell. I'll try to remember to address posters by name and/or use the quote feature.
Have we met, Complete?
____________________
The righteous shall live by his faith (Habakkuk 2:4).
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |   |
|
Posted: Sun Aug 12th, 2007 09:23 am |
|
jratcliff wrote: Yeah, I kind of beat thiis debate to death on my blog.
I thought you were spoiling for a fight?
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Aug 12th, 2007 09:24 am |
|
Carol2 wrote: Well, you know, history says Jesus walked the earth and was crucified under Pilate. I happen to believe he is who he says he is and that faith gives me hope that there IS a God who not only created us, but loves and cares for us personally.
Yup, I agree with you entirely Carol.
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Aug 12th, 2007 09:28 am |
|
Carol2 wrote: I don't know what sort of god, creator or spirit you believe in, but I'm sure it's a cold one.
I don't even think John knows who he believes in, but rather subscribes to a scientific idea (or more specifically, Dawkins idea) of who or what the god is.
I don't even think Dawkins acknowledges "spirit." Every time I've read his ramblings they are primarily concerned with the 'material' and what he can personally "see" and measure. The problem with him is that he doesn't acknowledge any underlying driving force for *why* life strives to exist - he thinks that the material explains the existence. So what he can't understand gets relegated to the "we can't understand this thing we don't know but is clearly more complex and intelligent but because it wont fit under our tiny microscope we will relegate it as unfathomable."
Last edited on Sun Aug 12th, 2007 10:32 am by Sally-Anne
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Aug 12th, 2007 10:13 am |
|
jratcliff wrote:
The God revealed through science and experience is so vast, so grand, so mind boggling, that it makes that little terrorist creep in the Old Testament seem like a quaint and silly anachronism; a vestige left over from a primitive and ignorant race of men lacking such basic things as microscopes and telescopes to fully appreciate the audacity of the Universe they found themselves within. SA: wow, so you regard spiritual enlightenment as evidenced by man-made telescopes and microscopes? I thought that was merely a matter of scientific advancement. So, there are many in the world who you must regard as "primitive and ignorant" because they still lack "basic things" such as telescopes and microscopes. So that would include peoples in many parts of the world in which we live TODAY, in fact, the majority of the world. But I think you're making a primitive, ignorant, not to mention "audacious" statement if you think God can be slid under a man-made contraption to be analyzed by his own creatures, that's pure comedy! Just reading this once sentence of Dawkins made me realize that whatever quibbles I might have with him over selfish genes and blind watchmakers, we have a lot more in common in terms of how we assimilate experience than how we may differ. (In fact, out of respect for that one sentence I went ahead and bought a copy of his book; hardback and all.) SA: wow, you should have just saved yourself some money and read the originators of his plagiarized ideas, the Secularist and Atheist movements of the 18th and 19th centuries, you can get them for free from the local library. Nevertheless, neither Dawkins or the bizarre non-satirical radio message I heard yesterday is the point of this post. The point of this post is to address those individuals who use their free will to argue with incredible vehemence that they lack free-will.
I currently subscribe to 'Discover' magazine and 'New Scientist'. I enjoy reading both but there is a trend in 'New Scientist' which is about to make my head explode. There continues to be a steady stream of articles and commentary on the topic as to whether or not free-will exists. I feel my mind will explode based on the simple observation that these (supposedly?!??) intelligent individuals choose to use their free-will to argument so vehemently that they lack free-will. Am I the only person who sees the irony in this!???? SA: Well, I think what you might be 'seeing' is the underlying acknowledgement that God is Sovereign, and not irony at all. Therefore, the understanding is this, that we are not in ultimate control over the destiny of the Universe as we might like to think of ourselves so highly. Does this mean that I don't have a will? No. Does this mean that I don't have choices to make and I'm not free to make them? No. It just means that the ultimate shaping and destiny of the Universe which includes humanity, is not according to my own free will or even my "choices" - but in God's Sovereignty, which means 'His will.' I really don't believe there is anything to even discuss!! Pick a number between 1 and 10. There you go, you just demonstrated free will. It matters not that, on average, most people pick the number 3. It's still your choice. We each make thousands of choices every day. And, on top of that, we think about thinking about thinking about the choices we might make. We hold mental constructs where we play out many scenarios weighing the pros and cons of each, often fast forwarding in our minds into an imaginary future playing out these hypothetical events. (In fact, I did so myself today when I was trying to decide if I wanted to make a post on this topic.) SA: That's right, but your perception of will and choices is limited because it only pertains to "us." But the world does not start and stop according to human free will, the earth does not spin according to any human "free-will," the oceans do not roar according to my "free-will" and I don't make a "choice" for the sun to shine in the morning. Those things (and life itself) operates regardless of my free will. The ultimate destiny of the Universe does not operate according to what my will and choice says on a daily basis merely because I have the intellectual capacity to pick a number, hold a mental construct, or think hypothetically. From what I gather from reading these articles in my science magazines, the heart of the matter is determinism. Well, first of all, determinism a generally dead concept. The notion that we can 'predict' anything that ever could happen given a known set of pre-conditions is tenuous as best.
Nevertheless, that discussion generally relates to boulders rolling down a hill and not something as subtle as human consciousness. Maybe I'm stupid, but the mere fact that when I make a choice, any choice, that affects my reality I am exercising free will if evidence enough for me. SA: Well, if you can "free will" the sun to rise and the "choose" for the moon to shine then you really will be affecting something outside of human consciousness. So lets face it, that aint ever happening. Last edited on Sun Aug 12th, 2007 10:36 am by Sally-Anne
|
Carol2
Dialogue Facilitator
|
Posted: Sun Aug 12th, 2007 06:33 pm |
|
Sally-Anne wrote: jratcliff wrote: Yeah, I kind of beat thiis debate to death on my blog.
I thought you were spoiling for a fight?
Perhaps John suffers from multiple personality disorder? That would explain all the new names being registered every day!
____________________
The righteous shall live by his faith (Habakkuk 2:4).
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Aug 12th, 2007 10:39 pm |
|
| Someone has the kooky name registering multiple personality, it's too weird, lol.
|
Torquemada
Yoda
| Joined: | Mon Aug 13th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1442 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 14th, 2007 02:50 am |
|
| So Dawkins believes that science is leading to a higher conception of "God?" I was under the impression that Dawkins was an atheist. Could you please explain this for me?
____________________
Let's Take a Vote.
|
jratcliff
John W. Ratcliff
|
Posted: Tue Aug 14th, 2007 03:40 am |
|
So Dawkins believes that science is leading to a higher conception of "God?" I was under the impression that Dawkins was an atheist. Could you please explain this for me?
Dawkins was saying, and I agree, that the Universe is a much more impressive and grand creator than the kind of Gods which are put forth by most organized religions.
____________________
For God so loved the world he created the quantum uncertainty principle.
|
jratcliff
John W. Ratcliff
|
Posted: Tue Aug 14th, 2007 03:53 am |
|
Sally-Anne wrote:
>>wow, so you regard spiritual enlightenment as evidenced by man-made telescopes and microscopes?
Yes. That is what I said. Man-made telescopes and microscopes help reveal the majesty of creation.
Math and a formal eduction in the sciences doesn't hurt either.
>>I thought that was merely a matter of scientific advancement.
And what is scientific advancement other than our better understanding of creation through logic, reason, and rational thought? What better way to understand God than by using the intellect we have been given to comprehend it?
>>So, there are many in the world who you must regard as "primitive and ignorant" because they still lack "basic things" such as telescopes and microscopes.
Yes, that is what I said.
>>So that would include peoples in many parts of the world in which we live TODAY, in fact, the majority of the world.
I disagree. I think the majority of the world has been exposed to the basic concepts of our shared understanding of the world via thousands of years in advancement of scientific knowledge. Even if they lack access to the specific tools most people have been exposed to the knowledge that the Universe is large, comprised of many galaxies, that we live on a planet which revolves around the Sun, that the Earth is billions of years old and the Universe older than that. I think most people are capable of grasping these concepts even across many cultures all over the planet.
>>But I think you're making a primitive, ignorant, not to mention "audacious" statement if you think God can be slid under a man-made contraption to be analyzed by his own creatures, that's pure comedy!
You are missrepresenting what I am saying. What I am saying is that the God promoted by the primitive writings contained in the Old Testament is a pale and weak concept when compared with our current understanding of the vastness and totality of all of the Universe and creation as a whole.
>>wow, you should have just saved yourself some money and read the originators of his plagiarized ideas, the Secularist and Atheist movements of the 18th and 19th centuries, you can get them for free from the local library.
You seem to be missing the point that, for practical purposes, I am an atheist since I don't believe in the same Gods (plural) that you do. I only believe in a single God, the creator of all things, the allmighty Universe.
>>It just means that the ultimate shaping and destiny of the Universe which includes humanity, is not according to my own free will or even my "choices" - but in God's Sovereignty, which means 'His will.'
God, i.e. the Universe, grants you, me, each of us, free-will within the fabric of reality. We find it best expressed in the quantum uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics. You live in a free-will Universe, and you can thank God for it.
>>But the world does not start and stop according to human free will, the earth does not spin according to any human "free-will," the oceans do not roar according to my "free-will" and I don't make a "choice" for the sun to shine in the morning. Those things (and life itself) operates regardless of my free will. The ultimate destiny of the Universe does not operate according to what my will and choice says on a daily basis merely because I have the intellectual capacity to pick a number, hold a mental construct, or think hypothetically.
You are exactly correct in all of this. However, whether or not *YOU* rise or fall, whether or not *YOU* do this or do that, is accomplished through *YOUR* personal free-will.
With your own free-will you could do great evil, great good, or amount of nothing of significance to society at a whole. Nevertheless, each tiny act you do creates a ripple in the fabric of the Universe which leaves a signature which is wholly your own.
Thank God that God gave you free-will. Behave accordingly.
John
____________________
For God so loved the world he created the quantum uncertainty principle.
|
AndreLinoge
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Aug 20th, 2007 12:12 am |
|
I don't know what sort of god, creator or spirit you believe in, but I'm sure it's a cold one.
As if the God who created eternal hell is not "cold".Last edited on Mon Aug 20th, 2007 12:37 am by AndreLinoge
|
Evelyn
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 956 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Aug 20th, 2007 04:58 am |
|
| Yeah and the funny thing is that there is no mention of this eternal after-death punishment by the tyrant God of the OT. No, it's not brought up until Gentle Jesus, Meek and Mild shows up. If you can believe that, I've got a bridge you might be interested in.
|
Carol2
Dialogue Facilitator
|
Posted: Mon Aug 20th, 2007 05:12 am |
|
| What I don't get is the Universalist's obsession with hell. I never think about hell myself.
____________________
The righteous shall live by his faith (Habakkuk 2:4).
|
Evelyn
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 956 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Aug 20th, 2007 03:48 pm |
|
| Probably because you don't actually, in your heart of hearts, believe it. If you actually believed that your two kids were in danger of spending all eternity in complete misery and suffering, it would haunt you. I'm glad you don't. It seems to me that the Holy Spirit prevents most Christians from actually believing that God tortures people.
|
Current time is 03:13 am | Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ...   |
|
|
|
|
