Points at Mark and laughs – practice what you preach before making demands.
1 Like
it’s in response to your and others’ slice and dice, champ!… you have an open job and Benni Hanna anytime!
I apologize for not having a formal well-thought out argument (so please critique my nonsense) , but I almost want to argue that a base layer self-prescribed meaning is a partially necessary condition to find God. At least in our post-Enlightened culture where gods aren’t taken for granted. My premise is this, if you aren’t taking the leap of faith in saying that life is worth living in order to pursue a greater meaning to life, can you actually find meaning in God? Like what I’m trying to say is people give meaning to their life (maybe an existential reason or otherwise) which allows them to pursue a potential greater meaning, which many people do find in God. So obviously in my opinion that would entail people never finding God or finding meaning elsewhere.
You could also potentially argue to that life has meaning because life is a miracle and all life is precious which seems to be a Christian value that could be argued as a precursor to a life of meaning found in God as well. God says that all life has meaning so in order for you to pursue a relationship with Him, you must believe that your life has enough meaning to not end that life and continue a further pursuit of meaning in God. So I’d would love to hear your thoughts but it seems to me in many cases a prior meaning to one’s life is necessary to take a pursuit in a greater meaning from God.
1 Like
That is reasonable if we are talking about a person like me who comes to believe in God. But there are many who are simply handed an understanding of God by those who raised them and thus God is known by presumption, I guess. Though since the latter isn’t me I cannot really speak to it with any great depth or precision.
I can hardly argue with that since this describes me. At least, it is not like I was struggling to find meaning in life and latched onto God as a way of getting it.
But… perhaps I can point out that this is hardly a static thing. People find meaning in life, then lose it, causing them to look for meaning elsewhere. Sometimes that is by believing in God and sometimes it is even by deciding the God they were taught doesn’t exist… or something else.
3 Likes
It is hardly “slice and dice” to squarely address the thesis of both the thread’s title, and its bolded first line.
Your “rule going forward” is an empty threat Mark – I have never received a “reply from” you. And you weren’t even subtle about it – you did not start with what I did say, and attempt to twist it to your conclusion. You simply erased everything I said, and substituted the “unbeliever” of your own preconceptions in its place.
[Addendum: I would also point out that this statement is incoherent. (i) It fails to state what it is that “the consequence” is a consequence of. (ii) It stands the original thesis on its head – it is no longer “Fear of God is the First Instinct Behind Unbelief in the Unbeliever” it is now “disbelief is the first instinct of fear of God”. Make up your mind!]
In this reality:
If you must engage in conversations with your imaginary unbeliever, then may I suggest that you do so on imaginary forums. That way you will not confuse any real unbelievers into thinking that you are actually addressing them.
1 Like
You believe in the ferry tail that all we observe today is all random chance through a random process. It cuts both ways T
You appear to have not the slightest clue about, nor the slightest interest in what I actually believe Mark.
“That all we observe today is all random chance through a random process” is a complete strawman of my beliefs.
Again:
Kindly take you continued replies to your imaginary unbeliever to an imaginary forum Mark.
1 Like
I think I’ll stay, thanks…. I’ve always colored outside the lines!
As a matter of interest, on what statement I have actually made, as opposed to your preconceptions about unbelievers, did you base your claim that I “believe in the ferry tail that all we observe today is all random chance through a random process”?
1 Like
You stepped into the conversation with that statement quoted, calling me out by saying “worth remind @remiel..,” you made the dialogue into a collective attack. You took a public comment or claim I made, and made yourself the victim. So when you framed it that way, it became an attack, not a dialogue between 2 people. Can you reflect on that and see why I came at you the way I did? I think we now live in an age of complete division, disagreement, cynicism, and condescension. Even specialized forums like this are reduced to X or IG rhetoric.
No Mark, I did not. I “stepped into the conversation with” the following statement:
Thereafter I made three further posts before the one you quoted.
I would note that you have repeatedly ascribed to me views that have no basis whatsoever in anything I have actually said.
I therefore have no qualms whatsoever about ascribing your behaviour on this thread to a similar mindset of those other apologists who “have told unbelievers [what] they must think o[r] feel, without a shred of supporting evidence”.
If the shoe fits Mark, wear it.
1 Like
I’m going to go out on a limb here, and suggest that apologists don’t typically base their understanding of what unbelievers think, feel and believe, on asking them, and listening to their answers, but rather on what they tell themselves, and other apologists, what they think unbelievers must think, feel and believe.
And they wonder that, when these ideas are run by actual unbelievers, it goes down like a lead balloon.
1 Like
Evolution does not deny Christianity. The need for a saviour has nothing to do with origins. Sin is about doing wrong deliberately. Salvation assumes that God is perfect and requires, even needs, us to be perfect to reside with Him. In truth that is the human perception of God
Call it accommodation or call it necessary, Salvation and the Cross have purpose that science is not interested in.
My only criticism of Evolutionary theory is that it does not leave enough room for God. That is not scientific, oh dear.
Richard
Could somebody tell me where, in the scientific method, or any other statement of scientific purpose, “leav[ing] enough room for God” was a primary purpose – or even a faint afterthought, of science?
That it does not leave such room does not appear to be so much a valid “criticism” of science, or of evolutionary biology, but rather an expression of sour grapes as to its outcome.
1 Like
It is not. And that is not the point.
forget it.
If God doesn’t matter to you then neither will His exclusion from scientific evolution.
Underpinning this, not very veiled, criticism of me is the belief that science has got evolution exactly right. Why must that be the case?
Oh dear.
Sour grapes would only apply if ToE were definitely true. Aw shucks, you believe that! Welcome to the religion of science.
Richard
I’m curious, how does Chemistry “leave enough room for God”? Meteorology? Do they have God-shaped-holes that somebody can point to?
If not, then why is evolutionary biology so special?
For that matter, do we have any evidence that Chemistry or Meteorology .. or any other scientific field outside Evolutionary Biology are “definitely true”? If not, why does Evolutionary Biology need to be so?
All science is provisional. That would seem to mean that Evolutionary Biology is also provisional. That does not however mean that it is likely to be all, or even mostly, wrong.
1 Like
Why must they? Because they are also science. Who is to say that God is not there? or that they contradict my or any other view of God?
I have had this argument quite often on this forum and it never ceases to amaze me how shallow it is.
Th difference is Life, and morality, compassion, and love, none of which have any impact on most of science. Evolution is about that life. Unless you think that rocks or clouds have life?
If you understood the criticisms instead of taking offence that they exist, you might understand the criticisms. Ah well, never mind.
Richard
If nobody can point to where Chemistry, Metreology, or other scientific fields, do “leave enough room for God” (as opposed to the assertion that they “must” do so because “they are also science”), then it would seem that the claim that it is a valid criticism of Evolutionary Biology that it does not do so is a special pleading, and thus fallacious.
At this current point, I am not arguing for or against the need for such room – merely for equal treatment for all scientific fields.
Such examples would also help me understand what constitutes "enough room for God” within a scientific field – as this concept seems currently to be poorly defined.
Likewise study of “morality, compassion, and love” would not appear to be a valid part of Evolutionary Biology, or any other scientific field, but rather of Philosophy. But even there, they are quite frequently discussed without “leav[ing] enough room for God”.
Addendum: admittedly, the subfield of Evolutionary Ethics may offer a grey-area. But its treatment does not appear to be an outlier in terms of “leav[ing] enough room for God” from either Evolutionary Biology or Ethics.
1 Like
And?
Why must the reason for criticising evolution be scientific? Even if the actual criticisms involve the scientific processes, why an I not start from philosophy instead of science? Or from religion? Are they somehow inferior or invalid thoughts?
You are assuming that I do not see God in their fields. That is the whole point. I do!. The methodology and processes reflect the personality and order of God. Evolution does not. You are not trying to understand my view.
It boils down to the “ethics” of Survival of the fittest and “might or organisational power is right”. So simple really, but not within the vision of science.
Richard
It would seem reasonable to require a criticism to have some basis in Science’s stated purpose and methods for it to be viewed as a valid criticism of science. Otherwise one could criticise Science for not requiring iambic pentameter in all its publications, on aesthetic grounds.
One can of course make any criticism one likes of science, but that does not necessitate that anybody else accepts them as a valid criticism.
As for whether some individual “see[s] God” or not in this field, or that – that would appear to be purely a matter of personal subjective opinion. There seems no reason that anybody else would feel any compulsion to accept this as a valid criticism, or to even care.
This would be especially true if the person in question has failed to articulate exactly how such fields as Chemistry are more ‘Godly’ to them than Evolutionary Biology.
1 Like