What do you say when.....?

Faith & Science Conversation
61

You had to know I’d find that intriguing. But, yeah …

Whatever it is which have given rise to God belief is first and foremost a mystery. I can imagine things natural, I cannot imagine things supernatural. No idea what that is even supposed to mean. Something like magic but equating one incomprehensible idea with another doesn’t really shed much light. I look forward to the day when religions can just let origins be the unknown that it is. Why insist on what cannot be demonstrated?

62

Christians believe in revelation. We can learn some things about God through nature, but other attributes and truths about himself he has to choose to reveal. We believe he has so chosen.

You have read about his interacting in present-day people’s lives through providence. Those interventions are extraordinary and consistent with a loving and omnipotent Father. I’m sorry that you disbelieve their source. I am somewhat amazed that you disbelieve their source. The way the events Maggie’s and Rich Stearns’ lives were ordered makes your disbelief seem unreasonable, but maybe rather a choice?

63

No, I don’t think any of us choose what makes sense to us. It does or doesn’t. As to providential events in people’s lives … sometimes bad things happen, sometimes good things do. Not really anything there to think about.

I guess I see why you would wonder whether my disbelief was a simple choice.

64

Sequences of multiple events that are otherwise disjunct from each other but are infused with meaning are not just “sometime things happen.” That is not explaining, that is just explaining away, and dismissal. Have you read either account lately?
 

That sounds like a decision not to think. Do you really not see the connectedness?

65

My getting kidney cancer was a good thing. The conclusion of Maggie’s job with NASA was a good thing.

66

Dale we just evaluate the world using different templates. I am always happy to hear good news and I’m glad you’re here to share yours. But I just don’t put any weight in what other people attribute their good fortune to.

  1. Maybe yours was just a case out on the fortunate whisker of your cancer’s distribution of outcomes.

  2. Maybe your faith was instrumental in achieving your outcome owing to some mysterious mind/body effect. Power of positive thinking and all that.

  3. Or maybe God just winked at you and said “take a mulligan, Dale”.

In the absence of conclusive evidence we either have a way to explain unusual outcomes or else we just file it under “don’t know”. I certainly don’t know but my template doesn’t include anything like #3.

67

I can only hope something compelling will happen to you. Some templates are walls that need to be broken down.

“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’” Luke 16:21

68

Sorry you feel that way. Wish you didn’t find our differences so upsetting.

69

I don’t think I’m upset. But it is concerning that your ‘template’ doesn’t allow for the reality of God, period.

70

“The phenomenon of God belief” is not just an academic curiosity. On the other hand, God (not God belief) does some phenomenal things in the here and now.

71

Not so. This is the ultimate false dichotomy. Energy is infinite and eternal. There has never been nothing.

72

That is interesting to ponder, regarding belief and understanding. I think “hope” begins to have perhaps a bit more choice about it, and you, Mark, seem like the quite hopeful person to me. I’m reminded of the native proverb of the grandfather telling his child that each person has two wolves inside him: one that is kind and considerate - wanting to see others flourish, and the other a selfish wolf that doesn’t care about others and sees them only as tools to be used for selfish purposes. And these two wolves are locked in a fight with each other. The child asks “which wolf wins?”. The grandfather’s answer: “the one you feed.”

2 Likes
73

That’s mighty nice of you to say Mervin and I feel like I am hopeful. But what I hope for is to know whatever it is which gives rise to God belief on its own terms directly, unprejudiced by convention. Maybe I’m aiming too high -or just plain off the mark- but I’d hate to miss out on the real deal. I wonder if that is worth losing the company of my fellow blindmen? :wink:

2 Likes
74

I doubt it’s possible for any of us to aim too high when it comes to ultimate life hope.

I’m not sure what that means … but keeping good company is fuel for good hope.

1 Like
75

Mervin, I think I have heard something of that example before —thought it was something like a native group saying they had a black dog and a white dog inside them (nothing racial meant by those colors, btw>>just sayin’) fighting…at any rate, interesting debate between you and Mark D…

As for Mark D knowing “whatever it is which gives rise to God belief on its own terms directly, unprejudiced by convention…” well, hmm…do not most religions at some level ascribe the genesis (small g) of their beliefs to some sort of divine revelation? that is, to an outside “intervention,” if you will? I have heard that when the youthful (but blind and deaf since infancy) Helen Keller was first “communicated with” in some form and the subject came to God, she said she already knew about Him. This is something I have “heard”—I read a lot but not everything. This also would give some credence to “whatever it is which gives rise to God belief” being somewhat revelatory — however defined. And this does not really suppose any special “thing” about the person who developed this knowledge or belief…

OK…my two cents worth…

76

We can choose what we allow as evidence. That means being careful not to disallow legitimate evidence because of habitual ways of thinking.

77

They are not assertions. They are logical statements.
I never said there was no measurements in biology. I said they were not as simple as in chemistry and physics.
And the last one is just a cheap shot at me. Unless you think that correlation is causation.

78

I meant to respond to that but forgot. Is this enough of a clue?

I think what I realized in my exchange with Dale is that I was getting caught up in focusing on what it is which gives rise to God belief rather than how we value that experience. Bickering over the details of how to classify what it is isn’t what I’m interested in. Not sure why I went down that hole.

1 Like
79

Please allow me to make aa few comments:

    • Proof is person variable
    • The “best” one can do is to provide clues, pointers that there is an adequate intelligence, i.e. “spaghetti monster”
    • Everyone has innate knowledge of God
    • There are three domains of knowledge:
    • o Science which explains how things work and is falsifiable
    • o Philosophy which attempts to explain “why”
    • o Faith which is neither, but can be argued for philosophically
      • § For example “The Trinity” is not scientific but it does explain the philosophical question of unity and diversity.
80

Hugh…thanks. I do appreciate everything I read on this thread. It gives me an idea of how various people are thinking…plus different perspectives on the whole subject. I can, if I want, also refer to the article “Existence of God” in the 2017 book Dictionary of Christianity and Science. But I like to hear other thoughts. I do agree with your first point — proof is not only “person variable” but you will get some philosophical types who want to run on at the mouth about their philosophical stance re the nature of proof… To me, you know it when you know it–which is probably also a philosophical stance.

So yes, I agree about providing clues and that in some sense or other we all have – if not an innate knowledge of God then at least a sense of right and wrong that (I suppose) may not entirely fit the expectations of a purely materialistic universe…

Interesting about the three domains of knowledge…

Again, thanks for your input.