Meanwhile, 100 million light yrs from home

[GDR]

Hm....I'm not the strongest in this area of historical thought or Greek gods either, but I do know that Plato never considered that, "all knowledge comes from "God". That would never have entered Plato's, or even Aristotle's consciousness I strongly suspect.

OK. I had to go and do some reading. I went to wiki and typed in Plato. I did find this which is about Socrates but seeing as how he instructed Plato maybe you can cut me a little slack.

"In several dialogues, Socrates floats the idea that Knowledge is a matter of recollection, and not of learning, observation, or study.[31] He maintains this view somewhat at his own expense, because in many dialogues, Socrates complains of his forgetfulness. Socrates is often found arguing that knowledge is not empirical, and that it comes from divine insight. He is quite consistent in believing in the immortality of the soul, and several dialogues end with long speeches imagining the afterlife. More than one dialogue contrasts knowledge and opinion, perception and reality, nature and custom, and body and soul. The only contrast to this is his Parmenides."

No, "deist" thought in Greek society did not lead to "dualist" thought. The separation of mind from body, man from the world etc is not deist in origin. The notion of "deism" is a religious term, not a philosophical term. The Greeks didn't believe in "God". "God" didn't exist for them, certainly not a "Christian God" anyway. They weren't deists at the time because they wouldn't have known what a "deist" was but they did believe in a universe "set in motion", a later deist/religious interpretation of belief.

Obviously they didn't have a concept of the God of Christianity as they lived well before the time of Christ but they did have their own gods. I agree that they didn't know what deism was but as I understand it they did envision their god or gods as being located at a distance, which is similar to modern deistic views.

The Greeks and Romans had many gods, and believed in all of them as informing their lives and their reality as strongly as believers in God do today.

And a pretty wild and woolly bunch they were at that. Actually I find it instructive that a little band of Hebrews could keep alive their faith, that at its core was about loving your neighbour, in the midst of all that paganism.

We can say that there are traces in Greek thought from 2000 years BC of early Christian beliefs. But we cannot attribute Christian thoughts to the Greeks, despite our discussions on what "time" really is... 

I'd be interested in the idea that there was even a trace of what we would call Christian thought back then, otherwise I agree and didn't mean to suggest otherwise.

The etymology of hermeneutics was interesting. I only knew of its usage in a theological setting.

I'm going to leave the last part of your post alone as I'm not able to enter into the discussion I haven't gotten around to reading Charles Taylor yet but next time I order books I'll order one of his.

I attended a series of lectures at U Vic recently given by John Polkinghorne. John Polkinghorne He was a leading particle physicist that went into the priesthood, (Anglican) in his late forties. I very much enjoyed them as well as enjoying the opportunity to talk to him directly. I had read three of his books so I had a good idea of his thinking prior to hearing him speak.

He had one idea which I hadn't heard expressed by others. His contention is that God has created a world of "becoming", in that he believes that God only sees our future in that he has total knowledge of past and present. In other words because at 9:00 on Thursday mornings I normally go and have coffee with the guys at Mary's so I probably will tomorrow but as I have operate in a world where I have the freedom of choice I may choose not to but God wouldn't know that ahead of time. Polkinghorne understand most of Biblical prophecy as falling into that category. It was very interesting.

I'm exploring as much as writing here Greg - I have no belief in god whatsoever but that does not mean I don't have a belief in god sometimes.

I find that the best way to learn is to actually put your thoughts into words. As a result I embarrass myself regularly but it's worth the price. Personally I left agnosticism about 30 years ago and accepted the Christian faith. Over the years I have questioned my faith but the older I get and the more I read, the more I find that Christianity makes sense of the world in a way that nothing else does. I do find though that many of the details of what I believe as a Christian have evolved considerably over that period of time, and they still continue to evolve. Of course that is the intellectual side of the faith and I don't mean to deny the experiential aspects of the Christian faith.

It's late.

Take care Don

Greg

[Say Again, Over!]

I find that the best way to learn is to actually put your thoughts into words. As a result I embarrass myself regularly but it's worth the price. Personally I left agnosticism about 30 years ago and accepted the Christian faith. Over the years I have questioned my faith but the older I get and the more I read, the more I find that Christianity makes sense of the world in a way that nothing else does. I do find though that many of the details of what I believe as a Christian have evolved considerably over that period of time, and they still continue to evolve. Of course that is the intellectual side of the faith and I don't mean to deny the experiential aspects of the Christian faith.

Greg,

I guess I would phrase it "try to put your thoughts into words". But I agree with your sentiments exactly Greg even if I fail at it more than succeed! And I can very much relate to your "path of faith".

Felix

[boestar]

And how does one measure time when travelling at or near the speed of light? Difficult to perceive time in that instance... a clock won't work the same in that example, will it?

From my BASIC understanding of the theoryu of relativity... The cloch would work just fine for the person travelling with it. Time however would seem to pass more slowly for the stationary person. Hence the time is relative thing.

of course that is just a small scratch at the surface of it all and I would never actually understand the whole thing.

[DEFCON]

"From my BASIC understanding of the theoryu of relativity... The cloch would work just fine for the person travelling with it. Time however would seem to pass more slowly for the stationary person. Hence the time is relative thing."

I believe you've hit it right on the head Boestar.

Edit

Oops...I thik a tiny correction is necessary.

The "stationary" person would be experiencing time in their own sphere of relativity. Therefore, time would appear to be normal on their clock as well?

It's the relative time between the two that's changing because of velocity.

[Don Hudson]

Thanks Greg - very thoughtful.

And a pretty wild and woolly bunch they were at that.

The Greek's gods were a "wild and woolly bunch"? And the Old Testament didn't have it's wild and woolly characters and violence?

Actually I find it instructive that a little band of Hebrews could keep alive their faith, that at its core was about loving your neighbour, in the midst of all that paganism.

Hm.."amidst all that paganism"? Let's unpack that expression and notion...is it not a bit dismissive in what we may both would have hoped was an inclusive dialog about belief?

It is interesting that the notion of pagans has emerged at all, let alone in this way - quietly, but there nonethless.

You see, this is the great difficulty I have with Christian thought. All goes swimmingly and Christian believers are comfortable until "difference" is introduced. When others don't believe, the subtle pejoratives emerge and "belonging" becomes important and even "in competition" with the dialogue which begins to narrow at this point.

Christianity, (and all religions) actively exclude non-believers and by that I mean, they shut down outside notions which question certainty. Why is that? Further, religions almost always have a "place" for non-believers to be condemned to, from which they may only be "saved" by falling into line with others. It is this attitude of religious thought that I find both philosophically impossible to embrace and personally impossible to find comfort in.

There are "acceptable" and "unacceptable" ways of thinking. Catholics certainly understand the notion of "heresy" - one takes the time to know one's "enemy". The expressions of inclusion/exclusion are very subtle in modern, "civilized" religions because they don't want to offend or cause to turn away, (something that millions are doing anyway, but has anyone taken seriously the question, "Why?"), but instead desire to leave open the possibility of conversion, nothing else. That is what the wall erected between those who belong and those who do not, does.

It is, quite frankly, the kind of thinking that permitted the Europeans to label indigenous people, "savages", and to slaughter the entire North American "native" population of "pagans" and later put them on reserves where they are "kept", still.

It is kind of thinking and belief that permits airplanes to be flown into buildings; - the violence we see from Islam, a traditionally peaceful religion.

It is the "automatic, sometimes romantic, sanctity" with which perhaps narrower religious dialog is imbued that the hermeneutic approach, (yes, agree it was originally a religious term and even formalized endeavour, now brought into philosophy) attempts to open up and keep certainty at bay while sensing the dialog. None of this "attempts" to deny the existence of deity(ies) but does attempt to "suspend judgement in favour of curiosity", if you will.

In the same way we today look back on "pagans", misguided philosophers and "ignorant savages" and their "wild and woolly gods" from within our own tiny slice of history and thought, what, after all, will those who look back a few hundred or a few thousand years hence, with the same barely-masked mixture of slightly humourous superiority, think of our own fully-convinced-we-are-right Christian thought?

One's own times are always mildly, at times humourously, contemptuous of the "ignorant" past. The notion of "progress", especially Christian "progress" assures a continuing inappropriate hubris when perhaps the grander questions remain held at bay.

The question is not a matter of "god-existing/god-not-existing". It is a matter of how we interpret our world through what we construct as our stage and how widely embracing it actually is.

[DEFCON]

Don

"Christianity, (and all religions) actively exclude non-believers and by that I mean, they shut down outside notions which question certainty. Why is that? Further, religions almost always have a "place" for non-believers to be condemned to, from which they may only be "saved" by falling into line with others. It is this attitude of religious thought that I find both philosophically impossible to embrace and personally impossible to find comfort in."

I share the sentiment.

“The question is not a matter of "god-existing/god-not-existing". It is a matter of how we interpret our world through what we construct as our stage and how widely embracing it actually is.”

I would imagine that both Greg & yourself might be in agreement on the body of the second sentence? Even so, the question of God's “existence” must remain.

I “believe” there is God. I’m just not fussy on the concept of organized religion.

I consider God to be something; lets call “It” a “force” or even, energy of some sort? My God definitely is not man like in form, and in being, It represents the “totality” of all that is.

[GDR]

Thanks Greg - very thoughtful.

The Greek's gods were a "wild and woolly bunch"? And the Old Testament didn't have it's wild and woolly characters and violence?

Hm.."amidst all that paganism"? Let's unpack that expression and notion...is it not a bit dismissive in what we may both would have hoped was an inclusive dialog about belief?

It is interesting that the notion of pagans has emerged at all, let alone in this way - quietly, but there nonethless.

Hi Don. Ok about the paganism thing. I read a secular book called "Don't Know Much about Mythology" by Kenneth C. Davis. Don't Know Much About Mythology"

I was referring to early religions of the Hebrews during the Babylonian and Egyptian eras.. There gods were more often than not involved in murder, incest etc. The Hebrew mythology did not worship a god like that even though they themselves were guilty of such things. I was not in any way shape or form referring to other modern day religions. I think it is more than a little unfair that because I call ancient religions and mythologies paganism that I'm accused of fostering an ideology that supports genocide.

You see, this is the great difficulty I have with Christian thought. All goes swimmingly and Christian believers are comfortable until "difference" is introduced. When others don't believe, the subtle pejoratives emerge and "belonging" becomes important and even "in competition" with the dialogue which begins to narrow at this point.

Christianity, (and all religions) actively exclude non-believers and by that I mean, they shut down outside notions which question certainty. Why is that? Further, religions almost always have a "place" for non-believers to be condemned to, from which they may only be "saved" by falling into line with others. It is this attitude of religious thought that I find both philosophically impossible to embrace and personally impossible to find comfort in.

There are "acceptable" and "unacceptable" ways of thinking. Catholics certainly understand the notion of "heresy" - one takes the time to know one's "enemy". The expressions of inclusion/exclusion are very subtle in modern, "civilized" religions because they don't want to offend or cause to turn away, (something that millions are doing anyway, but has anyone taken seriously the question, "Why?"), but instead desire to leave open the possibility of conversion, nothing else. That is what the wall erected between those who belong and those who do not, does.

I think that you have unfairly critiques mainstream Christianity and my own thinking in all of this. Yes there are people that want to exclude others in all religious groups. As regards Christianity however, an actual reading of the Bible will show quite clearly that it isn't one's theology that makes one right with God but it is the love of God's attributes of mercy, love, justice, peace etc. I have never in any of my posts suggested that people of other faiths including Atheism are all going to be consigned to hell.

I think that we all need to listen to each other and agree to disagree if we must and that includes agnostics and atheists.

As far as conversion is concerned I agree that I would try to convert people to my way of thinking. So does Richard Dawkins with his evangelical Atheism. We all do. Do I think that converting to Christianity would be a good thing for your life. Yes I do. Do you think that the world would be a better place if everyone thought like you do about these matters? I have a hunch that the answer is yes as well. What is wrong with that?

Frankly as far as other world religions are concerned I suggest that they all have a great deal in common. When I read the Book of Buddha I found that the original Buddha taught essentially the same thins as did Jesus. (Things like love your enemy etc.) I certainly don't lump all Muslims into the same group as the 9/11 terrorists. As a matter of fact if you go back over my posts I have stated more than once that the only way to defeat Islamic terrorism is to work with the vast majority of Muslims who also reject terrorism.

It is, quite frankly, the kind of thinking that permitted the Europeans to label indigenous people, "savages", and to slaughter the entire North American "native" population of "pagans" and later put them on reserves where they are "kept", still.

It is kind of thinking and belief that permits airplanes to be flown into buildings; - the violence we see from Islam, a traditionally peaceful religion.

I referred to the religions that existed at the same time as "a little band of Hebrews" as pagan. The Jews were only a little band of Hebrews centuries before the birth of Christ. I don't understand why when I refer to other world religions at that time as pagan, you characterize my thinking as that which led to the genocide of N. American aboriginals, and the ghettoization of those that weren't slaughtered, and then throw in 9/11 for good measure. Hmm

The question is not a matter of "god-existing/god-not-existing". It is a matter of how we interpret our world through what we construct as our stage and how widely embracing it actually is.

What it is really about is the the very human search for truth. We all favour our own versions of what truth is, we all try to convince others that we have the truth, and none of us are going to able to prove to anyone else that we have found it. That is just the way life is and frankly I think the fact that we are wired that way is evidence that there is an external intelligence.

Greg

[DEFCON]

" I think the fact that we are wired that way is evidence that there is an external intelligence."

That's a fascinating notion.

[deicer]

On a related note...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastro...res-of-2008/?BA

[Guest rattler]

Regarding the term "pagan", I thought I knew exactly what it meant until I read the information on the following web site.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/paganism.htm

[Don Hudson]

Hi Greg;

I think that you have unfairly critiques mainstream Christianity and my own thinking in all of this.

I regret that you have unfortunately taken personally, what is a discussion about religion and it's problems as I see them and not about your personal beliefs. If I have offended you I apologize unconditionally. If I have offended your beliefs, that is, I am afraid, unfortunate but fair in today's world which is struggling with such fundamentals and desperately trying to seek meaning.

My broaching of the notion of interpretation was meant to open up (air out) the dialogue such that those areas of religious thought which have traditionally been taboo to discuss certainly in the terms I employ, are accessible for examination of meaning and not for veracity. Again....it is not one's faith I am questioning for such is a personal matter.

I do not seek to alter your world view, I certainly don't preach (because I neither wish to lead, nor am I interested in being right), but am pleased for you that you have found a home in God. That kind of home is not mine and I would be strongly resistant, quite understandably, to anyone who would disrespect that choice by attempting to convince or convert. I fully comprehend and appreciate that you are not personally responsible for religion's darker and inhuman aspects. Such an assumption is folly and inappropriate.

Richard Dawkins if forceful in his presentations and if not wholly dismissive of religion's historically reserved right to unquestioned respect, nevertheless always is ready to accept challenges providing such challenges alter known facts about evolution and god. If undeniable proof of God's existence were seen, Dawkins would be the first to embrace such knowledge. However, I know no preachers who would not, even if gently, kindly if not with a scent of politely paternalistic tolerance conveyed in mock good nature but deeply earnest and serious, turn aside such challenges to religion's precepts and conditions of acceptance even in the face of forced interpretions which conform to religious doctrine. Dawkins has no such pre-conditions, nor does the notion of "not belonging" or the notion of "infidel" occur with evolution. He does not preach Greg, he presents ideas. Nor is "atheism" the cause of wars except that it is attacked for just existing.

But how we interpret this matters little I think. This has nothing to do with being a good and tolerant person who deeply, sincerely believes in his or her unshakable faith. Such personal commitment is unassailable. I was instead hoping to keep the question open but now sense that there are some aspects of religion though not personal belief, which remain "sealed in certainty".

I do not wish to further offend a friend even as such was wholly unintentional. I would rather set aside my views - A Merry Christmas and a toast to you and your family Greg. They are indeed fortunate, (is your son still working in Blaine?).

Don

[GDR]

But how we interpret this matters little I think. I was hoping to keep the question open but now sense that there are some aspects of religion, and not personal belief, which remain "sealed in certainty" and I do not wish to further offend a friend. A Merry Christmas and a toast to you and your family Greg. They are indeed fortunate, (is your son still working in Blaine?).

Hi Don

OK thanks. I guess I was a little too sensitive. I suppose it is partly because I find the idea of the rejection of others because of their beliefs as repugnant as you or anyone else and I felt that your post suggested otherwise. On the other hand, I do know you as a friend and I know that isn't how you think.

I think what you mean about certain aspects of religion are "sealed in certainty" hold some validity but that is true about any non-empirical knowledge isn't it? We all base our lives on something whether we be theistic, agnostic or atheistic. In the end none of us can prove our position but to hold to Christianity requires certain beliefs about the person of Jesus Christ and to hold to Atheism requires the belief that the material is all there is. (Or at least that there is nothing outside of the material that has impacted or is impacting our lives.)

I do not seek to alter your world view, I certainly don't preach (because I neither wish to lead, nor am I interested in being right), but am pleased for you that you have found a home in God. That kind of home is not mine and I would be strongly resistant, quite understandably, to anyone who would disrespect that choice by attempting to convince or convert. I fully comprehend and appreciate that you are not personally responsible for religion's darker and inhuman aspects. Such an assumption is folly and inappropriate.

I don't think I'm preaching either but I am trying to articulate my point of view. When we do that, whether it be about religion, politics or airlines, all of us are trying to show others why our point of view is correct. I do that; you do that. Often in discussion we hear something which maybe shows us a new way of looking at things, or gives us new information causing us to change our views or maybe we provide an insight to someone else. It seems to me we grow as individuals by learning from each other, but part of that is laying out the argument of why we believe that our own position is the correct one.

I'm glad that you don't hold me responsible for religion's darker sides and in return I won't hold you responsible for atheism or agnosticism's darker side's either.

Richard Dawkins if forceful in his presentations and if not wholly dismissive of religion's historically reserved right to unquestioned respect, nevertheless always is ready to accept challenges providing such challenges alter known facts about evolution and god. If undeniable proof of God's existence were seen, Dawkins would be the first to embrace such knowledge. However, I know no preachers who would not, even if gently, kindly, turn aside such challenges to religion's precepts and conditions of acceptance even in the face of forced interpretions which conform to religious doctrine. Dawkins has no such pre-conditions, nor does the notion of "not belonging" or the notion of "infidel" occur with evolution. He does not preach Greg, he presents ideas. Nor is "atheism" the cause of wars except that it is attacked for just existing.

I still do hold to my contention that Dawkins is evangelistic about his beliefs. He writes books and speaks all over the world promoting his beliefs. What is the difference between what he does and what Billy Graham does?

What do you think would be undeniable evidence for Dawkins to become theistic? If your belief is that there is only the material world and that the only evidence that counts is empirical then I can't see there being any evidence that would convince him. As we know Flew eventually did look at non-empirical evidence and became theistic. Others who were Christian have become Atheists. We can't prove that there is a god and we can't prove that there isn't.

I would disagree with the notion of "not belonging" is the exclusive domain of religious. We live in a secular society and whenever someone promotes views based on their religion then there voice is marginalized and discounted. They may not be called infidels but often they may as well be.

Wars are caused by a lust for power. Religion has been used for justification at times but I would say that Atheism was used as a justification for Soviet expansion in the last century. In the ned it is not about beliefs it is about power and self gratification.

Yes I hold to my Christian views but those views are evolving. I have changed my Christian views as a direct result of discussions on this forum. Actually, my views on the Christian faith have changed considerably over the last 10 years as a result of what I have learned through discussion, and through what I have read, utilizing both secular and religious sources. I have a hunch I'll have altered my views again over the next 10 years as well.

Thanks for asking about my son. He still works out of Blaine and I was at his place last weekend to celebrate his 40th. They are all doing well.

I hope all is well in the Hudson clan and Merry Christmas to all of you as well.

Cheers

Greg

[Don Hudson]

Hi Greg;

Another considered response, thank you.

Agree on "power" vs "religion", but as we both acknowledged, religion and belief are often invoked as the vehicle through which power is exercised. The United States is a perfect example of this beginning with the Bush Administration but by no means ending there.

I don't think I'm preaching either but I am trying to articulate my point of view. When we do that, whether it be about religion, politics or airlines, all of us are trying to show others why our point of view is correct.

No, you're not Greg - never have - it is why we can carry on the dialogue in such civil fashion. I am sure we have both had the opposite experience!

It is all about the dialogue and not at all about one's personal beliefs which is what "keeping the question open" means, in part.

If one is always "receiving" another's thoughts as though it relates only to oneself and one's personal views, then the possibility of giving offence or of reification of one's views is both real, and very limiting because everywhere there are philosophical/theological landmines and taboo areas.

A dialogue is "out there", on the table, for all to mess about with, without coming to any conclusions because one can never "conclude" for another. The moment one concludes and "answers" the question, the dialogue is over and stopped. Once we have named the bird as a "robin" we assume we ontologically "know" it and stop further engagement, (with exceptions, of course).

My comment about "not holding you personally responsible" was a clumsy attempt at a bit of humour and a bit of clarification about the intended dialogue which, to emphasize the point, isn't focussed on a personal faith.

I realize that this is far more to you than an academic discussion and I apologize for the apparent "clinical" approach which is not meant to "neutralize" passion but to take the dialogue beyond the personal. As such it is more philosophical than it is theological I realize but as mentioned, many philosophers currently working in such areas do this all the time.

When questions are posited about one's personal beliefs, that most personal and precious "place" in which we dwell and interpret the world, our first response is defence and perhaps even anger in a "how dare you" sense, that the underpinnings of our world view are even being challenged. I do not see you doing that with me or with others with whom you have engaged this most important discussion - I see changes certainly (and I always reserve the right to the same!). To take the dialogue beyond oneself does indeed open oneself to the push-and-pull of disagreement and alternative thinking/interpretations.

It is discomforting to not "conclude" and "answer" questions about one's world view but that is a "western" approach to the world and to "reality" - there are many who "travel" without even ever considering the question and for whom the world is "process" not material, (I tend to that view but, so what?! )

Religion today is in serious decline. It has retreated into a fundamentalism which shuts all dialogue out. It has been invoked to the uses of power politics and has worked against an ecological enframing of the social dialogue in which our very presence in the world is now in question. "Religion" has serious questions in the face of these very real concerns. That does not mean that personal faith is questioned or threatened - again, the dialogue is "out there".

Why is non-belief even possible let alone sought after today? Why can Dawkins and others draw and engage audiences of thousands? I am not asking this rhetorically but again as an open question within a religious enframing of discourse. Why is it that the church I practise the organ on draws fifty people, all over sixty? Why the need for a fundamentalist, literal interpretation of the Bible - why does that exist at all when the facts of the earth's 4billion-year (or so) existence is fact? Perhaps Carl Sagan was the most "religious" of us all?

I still do hold to my contention that Dawkins is evangelistic about his beliefs. He writes books and speaks all over the world promoting his beliefs. What is the difference between what he does and what Billy Graham does?

The answer to this question is "enframed" by the question itself and of course the answer is, "there is no difference whatsoever" if one is looking at publishing books, holding speaking engagements and having media debates - in other words, the question is about appearances. Someone from a foreign land would not be able to discern the differences, except that the observation might be made that Graham can fill a stadium of 50,000 people!

Allow me reframe the question, (NOT so I can answer it the way I wish but to enframe the differences), to what I think was really being asked which is, What is the difference between Dr. Graham's message and Dr. Dawkins' message? I think the differences are about belief and faith, and elucidating the reasons for questioning the arguments for belief, (not faith). The differences are substantive in that one remains open to new evidence as may be affirmed independantly by a scientific community well-versed in the scientific method, while the other intends to reify already-known "facts" about God and personal faith and not to open the question at all.

My own personal views are changing with reading as well. Finding a "home in homelessness" is one way of travelling which I find congenial in this very short little time of consciousness in this vast and inscrutable universe.

Is it Tuesday's you meet at Mary's?

[GDR]

A dialogue is "out there", on the table, for all to mess  about with, without coming to any conclusions because one can never "conclude" for another. The moment one concludes and "answers" the question, the dialogue is over and stopped. Once we have named the bird as a "robin" we assume we ontologically "know" it and stop further engagement, (with exceptions, of course).

I'm not sure whether this part of the discussion is about semantics or not. It seems to me that in discussion we all try to advance our own point of view which does not mean that our point of view can't be altered as a result of the discussion. At the end of a discussion we come to a conclusion of what it is we believe, AT THAT POINT IN TIME, which does not mean that it won't change again in the future.

It is discomforting to not "conclude" and "answer" questions about one's world view but that is a "western" approach to the world and to "reality" - there are many who "travel" without even ever considering the question and for whom the world is "process" not material, (I tend to that view but, so what?!  )

I have come to certain conclusions about life and reality. But like I just said, that doesn't mean that those conclusions will be exactly the same tomorrow, next week or next year. Roughly thirty years ago I was an agnostic and then over a period of few months I concluded that Christianity represented a reality that up to that point I had rejected. I agree that I had very little of the total information available to make that decision, however over the years through experience, reading and conversation, I have become more convinced than ever of the truth surrounding the person of Jesus Christ as expressed in Christianity. I also am in disagreement on many issues with many Christians. I am sure in many instances I'm way off base, but the problem is I don't which instances those are.

Bottom line I guess is that it's a bad day when you don't learn something. For example here is an object lesson for all of us men.

The Dog House

Religion today is in serious decline. It has retreated into a fundamentalism which shuts all dialogue out. It has been invoked to the uses of power politics and has worked against an ecological enframing of the social dialogue in which our very presence in the world is now in question. "Religion" has serious questions in the face of these very real concerns. That does not mean that personal faith is questioned or threatened - again, the dialogue is "out there".

Why is non-belief even possible let alone sought after today? Why can Dawkins and others draw and engage audiences of thousands? I am not asking this rhetorically but again as an open question within a religious enframing of discourse. Why is it that the church I practise the organ on draws fifty people, all over sixty? Why the need for a fundamentalist, literal interpretation of the Bible - why does that exist at all when the facts of the earth's 4billion-year (or so) existence is fact? Perhaps Carl Sagan was the most "religious" of us all?

I'm not sure that I agree that religion is in decline. This post modern era seems to have seen the emergence of the view that there is something beyond materialism. Time will tell how it all plays out.

I think that a lot of the justification for Biblical literalism comes from the defensive reaction to those like Dawkins who take the science of evolution and then go beyond that by expounding on things that are not scientific. Evolution for example may have come about by divine initiation and/or guidance or it may have come about through totally natural means. Neither position is scientific. I think when people like Dawkins do this the knee jerk reaction by some is to retreat into literalism and reject everything that Dawkins writes about including much of what really is actual science.

Allow me reframe the question, (NOT so I can answer it the way I wish but to enframe the differences), to what I think was really being asked which is, What is the difference between Dr. Graham's message and Dr. Dawkins' message? I think the differences are about belief and faith, and elucidating the reasons for questioning the arguments for belief, (not faith). The differences are substantive in that one remains open to new evidence as may be affirmed independantly by a scientific community well-versed in the scientific method, while the other intends to reify already-known "facts" about God and personal faith and not to open the question at all.

Sorry Don, but I have to call straw man on that one. For the majority of the world's Christians there is no division between science and Christianity. In my view, not is there only no division but I have found my reading of science to help me understand my Christian faith in ways that theology can't. In my view modern science actually compliments the Christian faith. I for one as a Christian am certainly open to new evidence whether it be scientific or theological. I have no problem with natural theology as I believe we can learn a great deal about the creator by learning about that which has been created.

I realize that this is far more to you than an academic discussion and I apologize for the apparent "clinical" approach which is not meant to "neutralize" passion but to take the dialogue beyond the personal. As such it is more philosophical than it is theological I realize but as mentioned, many philosophers currently working in such areas do this all the time

I'm just going to go back to this as I think that it is often the problem that you and I have in these discussions. I am not an academic. I made it through Medicine Hat High School alright. but I was definitely not one of the bright lights. For the next 40 years or so my main focus was my job and my family. Gradually over time I have come to appreciate the benefit to life of being better informed. I have found in discussion with others that university life teaches and invites a different type of dialogue. I think that as a result I don't only some time miss the nuances, but the whole thing goes over my head. However the exercise itself of trying to figure it all out is definitely beneficial and thank you for that.

Is it Tuesday's you meet at Mary's?

It's actually every day, not that I make it every day. Dick and Al are nearly always there.

Cheers

Greg

[GDR]

Just came upon this book which I'm going to have to order. This is the Canadian site but there is more information on (Amazon.com)

Quantum Enigma

This book discusses the link between consciousness and quantum mechanics. This ties into the point that we talked about earlier as to what happens if conciousness disappears. Does the universe still exist?

[Don Hudson]

Greg;

I mentioned it to Timothy and I'm sure you saw it as well, but Ruse's book, "Darwinism and its Discontents". Along with Quantum Enigma, it may be of interest. Dan Dennett has, (among many), written about consciousness and free will and for me is worth reading.

I'm not sure that I agree that religion is in decline. This post modern era seems to have seen the emergence of the view that there is something beyond materialism.

I would agree that evangelical religious fundamentalism has probably increased but, like Intelligent Design, that has little to do with religion but a lot to do with right-wing political power, lobbying and advocacy, their biggest ally the anti-science, anti-intellectual champion and occupant of the White House, George Bush who's only positive legacy is the illustration of that great American legend, that anyone can grow up to be president.

But church populations of the mainstream kind, (Lutheran, Protestant, Baptist, Catholic - not sure of Witnesses or LDS) are dwindling. From The Guardian, a few days' ago:

Church attendance 'to fall by 90%

'Jamie Doward, home affairs editor

The Observer,

Sunday 21 December 2008

In one of the most holy weeks in the Christian calendar, a report says that in just over a generation the number of people attending Church of England Sunday services will fall to less than a tenth of what they are now.

Christian Research, the statistical arm of the Bible Society, claimed that by 2050 Sunday attendance will fall below 88,000, compared with just under a million now.

The controversial forecast, based on a "snapshot" census of church attendances, has been seized upon by secular groups as proof that the established church is in decline. But the Church of England has rejected the figures, saying they were incomplete and ignored new ways of worshipping outside the church network.

According to Dr Peter Brierley, former executive director of Christian Research, by 2030 just under 419,000 people will attend an Anglican Sunday service. By 2040 the number will be down to 217,200, falling to 153,800 five years later. By 2050, if the trend prediction is correct, only 87,800 will be attending.

The figures stand in contrast to the picture of faith described by the prime minister earlier this month. In a preface to a new report, Faith in the Nation, Gordon Brown said: "Faith in Britain today is very much alive and well. At the last census, more than three-quarters of the population said they belonged to a faith ... people's religious identities go right to the heart of their sense of themselves and their place in society and the world."

Keith Porteous-Wood of the National Secular Society said: "Church attendance has already been in decline for over 60 years, all over Britain, in all major denominations and across all age groups, except the over-65s. Independent statisticians now have enough data to predict confidently that the decline will continue until Christianity becomes a minority sect of largely elderly people, in little more than a generation."

The forecast was made by Christian Research in its annual statistical publication, Religious Trends. Benita Hewitt, the organisation's new executive director, said she accepted that the figures were disputed and stressed she did not believe they showed people were turning away from religion. "As with all forecasting, we are living in rapidly changing times at the moment and it is very difficult to predict what things will look like in the coming years," she said.

The Reverend Lynda Barley, head of research and statistics for the Archbishops' Council, said the figures represented only a "partial picture" of religious trends, adding: "Church life has significantly diversified so these traditional statistics are less and less meaningful in isolation."

Studies suggest figures for Sunday attendance represent only 58 per cent of the number of people who attend in an average month. Attendance at Church of England cathedral services has been growing , while church groups have attracted new congregations by holding meetings in venues such as pubs or at car boot sales.

The article refers to the absence of examination of "new ways of worship outside the church network" and I would agree with that partially only because of a seemingly innate desire to meaning-make - to make sense of our lives on earth.

Sorry Don, but I have to call straw man on that one. For the majority of the world's Christians there is no division between science and Christianity. In my view, not is there only no division but I have found my reading of science to help me understand my Christian faith in ways that theology can't. In my view modern science actually compliments the Christian faith. I for one as a Christian am certainly open to new evidence whether it be scientific or theological.

Well, no straw man was intended as I do all I can to stay away from setting up my own conditions to "win" - If I write it, I mean it, and try to refer to examples I see and can reference for others.

Most religions are, in my view, not "unconditional" and many are harmful. That has been one of my points from the start of our discussions years ago. My other point is, there is no basis whatsoever for faith. That view neither denies the need for nor the possibility of, faith. Nor does it place a value on faith. There is just no external, non-human, compelling reason for it. But I can argue for it...

I have two very strong biases and both are obvious: I consider an evangelical view of the world, deeply flawed, badly limited, intolerant of differences with others' views, close-minded to facts which are demonstrably in disagreement with evangelical views and unwilling to "exchange information with it's environment", this last a sure sign, in biology anyway, of eventual suffocation and demise. I think faith may be found where one is; - one must come to faith on one's own, if at all. Although such social and cultural behaviours bring a strong sense of community, common purpose and a common view, one need not join or go to a church, one need not adhere to strict church doctrine, or obey priests' commands simply because "it is written".

My second bias kicks in when harm is done to people in the name of religion. By "harm" I mean anti-intellectualism, the fostering of ignorance, the invocation of god in support of "crusades" of the George Bush kind, exclusion of "certain kinds" of people by the usual boring "biblical" vices - sex, (in all it's million-plus variations - homosexuals, adulterers, fornicators), drugs, "evil" music and dance, and all manner of silly and immature restrictions. By far the worst aspect of organizated religion is ecological - a dualist "understanding" of "man in the universe but separate from (better than) the universe" has given us an ontology in which God will always see to our rescue and survival in heaven even as we trash our world-on-earth. Such a view of our "reality" gives us permission to foul the earth as we will and wantonly kill living things because we are "superior to all animals".

I don't think I'm the least bit unusual in any of these views - I think they're pretty ordinary within our secular society.

I'm not saying it's a good thing, nor am I saying that a secular society is a good thing. It is what it is.

To me the real work of the church is done silently, without comment or fanfare, in places like New Orleans during Katrina and on the streets of our cities. If I were to cite what I would truly call a religion in the original sense of the term, I would cite the Salvation Army who always help, never brag, never preach but act, and never go to war despite their name.

I have found in discussion with others that university life teaches and invites a different type of dialogue. I think that as a result I don't only some time miss the nuances, but the whole thing goes over my head.  However the exercise itself of trying to figure it all out is definitely beneficial and thank you for that.

You're welcome...I think!

The main difference I think is, keeping the question open. There are no circumstances in enquiries into the meaning of life in which absolute resolution and clear answers are necessary. Another way of stating this is, when the person with whom you are engaged in dialogue raises an actual or proverbial eyebrow, you know that you are no longer in an open discussion but are "going somewhere conclusive" and the notions of "winning" have quietly been invoked.

Unlike Plato's thought (I'm not an expert by any means), there are views today which hold that there are no underlying "realities - as - such". That doesn't mean we can't touch a table - it just means that both relationship and context are critical to a "reality-on-the-move".

If I might use an example from your last post, it is stated that, "This book discusses the link between consciousness and quantum mechanics."

The underlying assumption "in the unsaid" implicit in the word "the" as contextualized within that sentence is, that there is indeed some link between the two. It is "as though" the matter were settled, when indeed it is not. In fact, none of us has ever seen an atom even though we toss that notion and the notion of "molecules" about pretty freely these days.

The same applies with "religious" notions and philosophy. There is no "the"...there is only a tentative "a" or "an". There is always the "coming to be" and the hermeneutic gesture towards which we advance but never achieve because the question is always on the move.

In other words, there is nothing "underneath" the notions we are discussing here, to be "dis-covered" or uncovered if we only just had the right tools or the right techniques or were just bright enough or just educated in university enough!

We can't scratch the surface of these notions with the expectation that there will be an "Aha!!", moment. What is "there" is language, context and relationship.

So...does the universe "cease" when we die?

In what context and relationship is the question asked? To a dead person who has ceased to exist, the universe is no more. To the universe, that dead person's constituents are returning from whence they came - we are all "star-stuff", as we know and the universe is "re-claiming" temporarily (very temporarily!), it's due. To a blind person, the universe does not exist as it does for those with sight. The universe is different to plants/trees than it is for animals. The notion (and reality) of "universe" is, itself, forever "on the move" and isn't just "one thing" of which each sees a tiny portion of...it IS different for each.

So...the idea isn't to "convince" someone of an idea and get that someone just to "see it more clearly" - not at all. The idea is the discussion itself.

Nor does this "underwrite" a radical ontological or ethical relativism - again, not at all. Each universe is absolute in it's reality for us as it is for plants and trees.

Above all, our survival here on earth is contingent. It is NOT guaranteed at all. There is no necessity, no compelling evidence, no sign that there is "somebody", some "thing", an entity "out there" acting as the palace guard, a mythological dragon guarding the gates, a hell for "sinners", heaven for believers and an afterlife in which the few will be rewarded with a "better world" for "behaving" in this one. Language, not reality, informs behaviour as it does power and belief. If we believe in a soul and a heaven, then we are justified in destroying or at least not caring for our present world. We criticize extremist (what we would call "terrorist") aspects of Islam for this view yet we harbour the same views. Language permits us to think "ecologically" if we choose. If the present approach to global warming is any indication of how seriously we take other, more evident ecological questions, religion's presence in our lives will be wholly academic. The earth, "nature" and the universe does not care, does not know and would not notice the extinguishing of this tiny blue dot that Mitch so carefully tends when he posts his photographs.

Religion is so narrowly, inwardly, wantingly focussed that it has yet to see this let alone come to terms with humans as they are.

[GDR]

I mentioned it to Timothy and I'm sure you saw it as well, but Ruse's book, "Darwinism and its Discontents". Along with Quantum Enigma, it may be of interest. Dan Dennett has, (among many), written about consciousness and free will and for me is worth reading.

I read about the book on Amazon and it does look like a good book. Right now I have 6 books on order. Shoveling snow was what was on the agenda for today unfortunately. He seems as he is in agreement with my position that there is no disagreement between Darwin, or for that matter more recent biological science, and Christianity.

But church populations of the mainstream kind, (Lutheran, Protestant, Baptist, Catholic - not sure of Witnesses or LDS) are dwindling. From The Guardian, a few days' ago:

The article refers to the absence of examination of "new ways of worship outside the church network" and I would agree with that partially only because of a seemingly innate desire to meaning-make - to make sense of our lives on earth.

I would agree that is true as far as the western church is concerned but actually the church is growing rapidly in many parts of the third world. That is particularly true of my own Anglican denomination.

Most religions are, in my view, not "unconditional" and many are harmful. That has been one of my points from the start of our discussions years ago. My other point is, there is no basis whatsoever for faith. That view neither denies the need for nor the possibility of, faith. Nor does it place a value on faith. There is just no external, non-human, compelling reason for it. But I can argue for it...

I'm not sure which religion you would call harmful. In my view it is the twisting of and the misuse of religion that is harmful. Where we would agree is that the church itself should never be given actual governmental power as it is a disaster for government and even more so for the church. The church should not be a road to power. The church is there to serve. This does not however preclude people of faith from elected office which seems to be the thinking of many.

I have two very strong biases and both are obvious: I consider an evangelical view of the world, deeply flawed, badly limited, intolerant of differences with others' views, close-minded to facts which are demonstrably in disagreement with evangelical views and unwilling to "exchange information with it's environment", this last a sure sign, in biology anyway, of eventual suffocation and demise. I think faith may be found where one is; - one must come to faith on one's own, if at all. Although such social and cultural behaviours bring a strong sense of community, common purpose and a common view, one need not join or go to a church, one need not adhere to strict church doctrine, or obey priests' commands simply because "it is written".

We likely have different views of evangelism. St Francis of Assisi is quoted as saying, "preach the gospel at all times and if absolutely necessary use words". However, there is certainly more than enough western evangelism that makes me very uncomfortable. Frankly I suppose I'd say that I am evangelical but I'm not sure why. I think that western culture has very differing views of what it means to be evangelical.

As far as being closed to the exchange of information, and not being open to new or opposing information I'm inclined to think that you could find people like that within any group. As I said before my Christian views have evolved considerably over the last few years, with my thinking being informed by both religious and secular sources. I can even think of an exchange on this forum that got me thinking, then reading and eventually changing my mind completely.

Also, I for one am not a Christian just because it is written. There are a multitude of reasons I am a Christian. I use the Bible as a source of information, but it is not the reason for my believeing what I do. I believe that the basic Christian story is just as true as any historical event in human history, and I contend that there is good historical evidence to support that view.

By far the worst aspect of organizated religion is ecological - a dualist "understanding" of "man in the universe but separate from (better than) the universe" has given us an ontology in which God will always see to our rescue and survival in heaven even as we trash our world-on-earth. Such a view of our "reality" gives us permission to foul the earth as we will and wantonly kill living things because we are "superior to all animals".

I am very opposed to that view and I am convinced that it is a view not supported by scripture. Actual the Bible is quite clear that when time does come to a close, (and I have no idea of when or how), that there is to be a new heaven and a new earth. The creation is renewed and this world is part of that renewed creation. It is essential that we are good stewards of this creation because I believe that it has eternal consequences.

I find that makes sense. This world exists. I find that it takes far more faith to believe that this world and all of it's life forms exist by some great cosmic coincidence than it does to believe that there is an external intelligence behind it all. We can also see that this world is flawed and science even tells us that this world is going to come to an end, even if it isn't until the sun becomes a black hole. If it can be created in the first place, I don't see it as a stretch that it could be renewed or re-created if you like, at the end of time.

I believe that Christianity is in complete agreement with your views on this issue.

I don't think I'm the least bit unusual in any of these views - I think they're pretty ordinary within our secular society.

I'm sure you are right.

To me the real work of the church is done silently, without comment or fanfare, in places like New Orleans during Katrina and on the streets of our cities. If I were to cite what I would truly call a religion in the original sense of the term, I would cite the Salvation Army who always help, never brag, never preach but act, and never go to war despite their name.

Amen. I refer you back to my quote of St. Francis.

If I might use an example from your last post, it is stated that, "This book discusses the link between consciousness and quantum mechanics."

The underlying assumption "in the unsaid" implicit in the word "the" as contextualized within that sentence is, that there is indeed some link between the two. It is "as though" the matter were settled, when indeed it is not. In fact, none of us has ever seen an atom even though we toss that notion and the notion of "molecules" about pretty freely these days.

I don't mean to come across that way. Currently I believe that to be the case but I am more than open to new information. I certainly don't mean that because that is my current thinking, that the matter is in any way settled. Actually it is pretty esoteric theoretical science.

So...does the universe "cease" when we die?

In what context and relationship is the question asked? To a dead person who has ceased to exist, the universe is no more. To the universe, that dead person's constituents are returning from whence they came - we are all "star-stuff", as we know and the universe is "re-claiming" temporarily (very temporarily!), it's due. To a blind person, the universe does not exist as it does for those with sight. The universe is different to plants/trees than it is for animals. The notion (and reality) of "universe" is, itself, forever "on the move" and isn't just "one thing" of which each sees a tiny portion of...it IS different for each.

So...the idea isn't to "convince" someone of an idea and get that someone just to "see it more clearly" - not at all. The idea is the discussion itself

I'm in agreement with all of that. My current belief is that the universe is dependent on consciousness, (not just human), but frankly I could be convinced otherwise. It is definitely about the discussion. Incidentally, my thinking on this comes from secular sources not theological.

Interesting that you mention the blind person. If no one had sight we would have no frame of reference to even conceive of vision at all. We would be experiencing a very different universe. (One with no stars for example.) I wonder what other possible senses there are that exist that we know absolutely nothing about, but that would open up an entirely different world than what we currently perceive.

But church populations of the mainstream kind, (Lutheran, Protestant, Baptist, Catholic - not sure of Witnesses or LDS) are dwindling. From The Guardian, a few days' ago:

The article refers to the absence of examination of "new ways of worship outside the church network" and I would agree with that partially only because of a seemingly innate desire to meaning-make - to make sense of our lives on earth.

It all boils down in the end to "what is truth".

Above all, our survival here on earth is contingent. It is NOT  guaranteed at all. There is no necessity, no compelling evidence, no sign that there is "somebody", some "thing", an entity "out there" acting as the palace guard, a mythological dragon guarding the gates, a hell for "sinners", heaven for believers and an afterlife in which the few will be rewarded with a "better world" for "behaving" in this one. Language, not reality, informs behaviour as it does power and belief. If we believe in a soul and a heaven, then we are justified in destroying or at least not caring for our present world. We criticize extremist (what we would call "terrorist") aspects of Islam for this view yet we harbour the same views. Language permits us to think "ecologically" if we choose. If the present approach to global warming is any indication of how seriously we take other, more evident ecological questions, religion's presence in our lives will be wholly academic. The earth, "nature" and the universe does not care, does not know and would not notice the extinguishing of this tiny blue dot that Mitch so carefully tends when he posts his photographs.

Some of this I covered earlier. As a Christian I believe that we are called to be good stewards of our world.

Actually, I do find the evidence compelling, but I agree that the evidence is open to interpretation.

Religion is so narrowly, inwardly, wantingly focussed that it has yet to see this let alone come to terms with humans as they are.

As a Christian I believe certain things about our world that you don't. We have different views. Does that make my views more narrow than yours? I believe that nothing else is close to coming to terms with humans as they are as do basic Christianity. As I've said earlier, Christianity is about transferring self love to love of neighbour. Is there a problem with that? :

Thanks for the conversation Don.

Greg

[Don Hudson]

Thanks for the conversation Don.

Thank you too, for engaging the dialogue.

Merry Christmas, Greg - I look forward to a morning at Mary's some time.

Don

[DEFCON]

"By far the worst aspect of organizated religion is ecological - a dualist "understanding" of "man in the universe but separate from (better than) the universe" has given us an ontology in which God will always see to our rescue and survival in heaven even as we trash our world-on-earth. Such a view of our "reality" gives us permission to foul the earth as we will and wantonly kill living things because we are "superior to all animals"."

If I’m recalling the Bible claim correctly, God gave man, free will and dominion over all before him? In doing so, I doubt God’s intention included any right or direction to man to go forth abusing and destroying as we see fit?

“So...does the universe "cease" when we die?

In what context and relationship is the question asked? To a dead person who has ceased to exist, the universe is no more. To the universe, that dead person's constituents are returning from whence they came - we are all "star-stuff", as we know and the universe is "re-claiming" temporarily (very temporarily!), it's due. To a blind person, the universe does not exist as it does for those with sight. The universe is different to plants/trees than it is for animals. The notion (and reality) of "universe" is, itself, forever "on the move" and isn't just "one thing" of which each sees a tiny portion of...it IS different for each.”

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you here Don, but aren’t you “absolutely” limiting the experience of life to the physical reality we “know” (“ceased to exist”)?

How could we “know”, with scientific certainty, that death is nothing more than the re-cycling of “star dust”?

I’ll ask again; if there wasn't a "next" destination for ones consciousness (I don't like the term), how could you exist at all in the present sense (Newton’s 3rd Law etc)?