Talking Religion...

[muffler dragon]

Personally, I don't know why a belief cannot be based on reason and/or logic.

One more thing that came to mind regarding Brewtus' initial statement about irrational and BKB's subsequent discussion, I will never have any problem with acknowledging that I cannot substantiate nor prove the existence of G-d. Now, does that make the theistic belief that I maintain "irrational". I guess it depends on the definition. My understanding of the definition would preclude such usage.

Anyway...

 

[JimsSweaterVest]

I like Richard Dawkins in many respects. But, he also strikes me as some how "over the top" in some respects when it concerns the G-d issue. That is to say, I think his ability to explain the mechanics of evolution are very good, but he can also come across as grinding an axe.

Granted, the only Dawkins I've read front to back was the "Blind Watchmaker" (which, again, I quite enjoyed for the most part), so... I'm no expert on him. Just my impression. Edit: I guess what I mean is Dawkins seems to make a leap that if Evolution is true, there need not be a G-d. If there need not be a G-d, there MUST not be one. I believe such reasoning to be in error as a matter of fact, though it is a possible conclusion. If that makes sense.

You are putting your own words in Richard's mouth. Richard never said anything along the lines of "there MUST not be" a god.

He says is agnostic about the Christian god in the same way that he is agnostic about Zeus, or Thor, or fairies, or unicorns, or china teapots in orbit around Mars. He can't "prove" that they don't exist, but hasn't seen any compelling evidence for their existence either.

In "The God Delusion," he says that on a scale of 1 - 7 (where 1 is "I am certain there is a god" and 7 is "I am certain there is no god") he says he is a 6, i.e. "I think it's highly likely that there is no god."

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

You are putting your own words in Richard's mouth. Richard never said anything along the lines of "there MUST not be" a god.

He says is agnostic about the Christian god in the same way that he is agnostic about Zeus, or Thor, or fairies, or unicorns, or china teapots in orbit around Mars. He can't "prove" that they don't exist, but hasn't seen any compelling evidence for their existence either.

In "The God Delusion," he says that on a scale of 1 - 7 (where 1 is "I am certain there is a god" and 7 is "I am certain there is no god") he says he is a 6, i.e. "I think it's highly likely that there is no god."

I probably am putting words in his mouth, since I freely admitted I never read the God Delusion and could only speak to my opinions regarding The Blind Watchmaker. I have no idea why anyone would choose an arbitrary scale of 1 - 7 and I have no reference as to what a 6 is compared to a 7. For all I care, it's more or less the same...

 

[JimsSweaterVest]

So the debate about what's rational and what's irrational seems to have gone the direction of the color of chairs and so on.

If anything drives home the point of how breathtakingly irrational religion can be, behold exhibit A: The Vatican.

In a breathtaking display of stupidity and irrational dogma trumping both reason and compassion for a child, the Vatican has defended the excommunication of the mother of a 9-year-old girl in Brazil and her doctors for the crime of aborting twins. The pregnancy occurred because the 9-year-old girl was "allegedly" raped by her stepfather. She became pregnant with twins, and the 9-year-old girl's body can't survive a pregnancy with one child, let alone twins.

The Vatican feels more compassion for fetuses than for children. Better for this 9-year-old rape victim to die (and the unborn fetuses would probably die too) than the fetuses die (and they probably couldn't be carried to term any way).

Here's a link, you can find more via Google:

BBC NEWS | Americas | Vatican backs abortion row bishop

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

JSV,
Anyone can be irrational. I'm not sure how relevant that article is to the discussion. I'm not sure how this one example of irrationalism contributes ti the idea that religion, or a belief in God in particular, is irrational.

 

[JimsSweaterVest]

JSV,
Anyone can be irrational. I'm not sure how relevant that article is to the discussion. I'm not sure how this one example of irrationalism contributes ti the idea that religion, or a belief in God in particular, is irrational.

Where did I claim in this post that belief in a god is irrational?

My post has nothing to do with belief in gods. It has to do with religious dogma trumping not only reason, but also the right of that 9-year-old rape victim to live.

That is what is irrational. Since religion (in this particular case, Roman Catholicism) declares some of its ideas to be absolute Truth without any supporting evidence or reasons or grounding in reality, outrageously stupid conclusions can follow.

In this case, the absolute Truth that "every sperm is sacred" leads to the irrational and heartless conclusion that it is better for this 9-year-old girl to die (taking her fetuses with her) than she have an abortion and live.

How can you expect people not to call the Vatican irrational after that?

 

[Brewtus]

It also occurred to me on my drive home from work that what is "rational" and what is not is related to relativity.

For example (I hint at it in my edit above): You have no rational reason to believe me if I say I am sitting on a brown chair. There is no evidence you can point to, out there in computer land, other than my assertion to "confirm" or "deny" it... your decision to believe me is nothing more than a choice to do so.... (calling it a "hope" is too strong, to be sure.... but... it's still nothing you can independently verify) Believing me is "irrational"

On the other hand, if you were in this room with me, you could quickly and authoritatively determine if I am indeed sitting in a brown chair or not... and your decision on this would be "rational" in as much as it's based on "evidence" confirming my statement. Assuming I am indeed sitting on a brown chair, your accepting that would then be "rational"

So.. is believing I am sitting on a brown chair rational or irrational? It's all relative...

I disagree that I have no rational reason to believe that you are sitting in a brown chair. I've seen brown chairs before, I know they exist. I have no reason to doubt that you are sitting on a brown chair although the possibility certainly exists that you aren't.

However, if you told me that you were sitting on an invisible chair, then it would be irrational for me to believe you. I have no rational reason to believe that invisible chairs exist and even less reason to believe that you are sitting in one.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I disagree that I have no rational reason to believe that you are sitting in a brown chair. I've seen brown chairs before, I know they exist. I have no reason to doubt that you are sitting on a brown chair although the possibility certainly exists that your aren't.

However, if you told me that you were sitting on an invisible chair, then it would be irrational for me to believe you. I have no rational reason to believe that invisible chairs exist and even less reason to believe that you are sitting in one.

A difference in degree, not kind I think. I mean, I could tell you I'm sitting on an elephant... and I'm pretty sure you believe elephant's exist and have seen one before... Given that criteria, your opinion on whether I'm sitting on an elephant or a brown chair should obtain the same result, no?

Eh, six of one, half a dozen of the other...

I'm more interested if you have a response as to whether my attempt at showing why I believe my belief in a creator G-d can be understood as rational has any merit in your opinion.

 

[OCBuckWife]

So the debate about what's rational and what's irrational seems to have gone the direction of the color of chairs and so on.

If anything drives home the point of how breathtakingly irrational religion can be, behold exhibit A: The Vatican.

In a breathtaking display of stupidity and irrational dogma trumping both reason and compassion for a child, the Vatican has defended the excommunication of the mother of a 9-year-old girl in Brazil and her doctors for the crime of aborting twins. The pregnancy occurred because the 9-year-old girl was "allegedly" raped by her stepfather. She became pregnant with twins, and the 9-year-old girl's body can't survive a pregnancy with one child, let alone twins.

The Vatican feels more compassion for fetuses than for children. Better for this 9-year-old rape victim to die (and the unborn fetuses would probably die too) than the fetuses die (and they probably couldn't be carried to term any way).

Here's a link, you can find more via Google:

BBC NEWS | Americas | Vatican backs abortion row bishop

In a lot of ways, in my personal opinion only, the Vatican is just as much of an extremist religious organization, that rules through just as much terror, as any extremist Muslim terror cell group. They may not blow people up but they can destroy lives just as easily with words and proclamations. *shudder*

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Strictly from my POV, G-d is beyond my comprehension. The Infinite cannot be understood by the finite. But that's just how I look at it. I believe that to be quite close (if not right on) the Judaic perspective.

Ok so, I've been sitting on stuff in thread for over a week now, chewing it over. So I've got this one question.

If God is completely incomprehensible then how do you know He couldn't become a man?

Truthfully, I had hoped for more than this.

The reason why I ask is that there are more than three descriptors/expressions/visualizations of G-d in the Tanakh alone. Incorporating Jesus, from your POV, would obviously push this beyond the three by one more.

I figured you wanted more, but I've discovered that you and I differ on where we get our interpretations of the Bible from, therefore we would spend much time debating the sources, for which I'm honestly not prepared to do. Suffice it to say that I believe that all those descriptors/expressions/visualizations in the Tanakh fall into one of the 3.

 

[muffler dragon]

Ok so, I've been sitting on stuff in thread for over a week now, chewing it over. So I've got this one question.

If God is completely incomprehensible then how do you know He couldn't become a man?

Then G-d would be comprehensible.

I figured you wanted more, but I've discovered that you and I differ on where we get our interpretations of the Bible from, therefore we would spend much time debating the sources, for which I'm honestly not prepared to do. Suffice it to say that I believe that all those descriptors/expressions/visualizations in the Tanakh fall into one of the 3.

That's fine.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Then G-d would be comprehensible.

But the crux is you are saying you comprehend that God cannot become a man. So you comprehend something about God. You all also saying by this belief, at least as I see it, that God cannot reveal any of Himself to us, which would be limiting God.

Maybe you mean something I don't understand by incomprehensible.

 

[muffler dragon]

But the crux is you are saying you comprehend that God cannot become a man. So you comprehend something about God. You all also saying by this belief, at least as I see it, that God cannot reveal any of Himself to us, which would be limiting God.

Maybe you mean something I don't understand by incomprehensible.

Comprehend as defined by www.m-w.com:

1 : to grasp the nature, significance, or meaning of <unable to comprehend what has happened>

* emphasis by me.

I cannot comprehend the nature of G-d. Another descriptive that I have used in times past is "ineffable". I don't know if either of those assist in understanding my POV.

As for your assertion regarding what you feel is the crux and subsequent limitations by me, I would say that we are at a misunderstanding. Especially in light of your interpretation of the nature of G-d in a three-fold way instead of any other number.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Comprehend as defined by www.m-w.com:

1 : to grasp the nature, significance, or meaning of <unable to comprehend what has happened>

* emphasis by me.

I cannot comprehend the nature of G-d. Another descriptive that I have used in times past is "ineffable". I don't know if either of those assist in understanding my POV.

As for your assertion regarding what you feel is the crux and subsequent limitations by me, I would say that we are at a misunderstanding. Especially in light of your interpretation of the nature of G-d in a three-fold way instead of any other number.

Are you allowing for degrees? I certainly don't believe that I can fully understand\comprehend God's nature. (How could God be God if I could.) But I believe I can comprehend God to the degree that He has revealed Himself to me. For instance Psalm 145:17 ( I don't know where in your translation) "The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works." Since now I know something of God's nature doesn't that mean He is not completely incomprehensible right?

 

[muffler dragon]

Are you allowing for degrees? I certainly don't believe that I can fully understandcomprehend God's nature. (How could God be God if I could.) But I believe I can comprehend God to the degree that He has revealed Himself to me. For instance Psalm 145:17 ( I don't know where in your translation) "The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works." Since now I know something of God's nature doesn't that mean He is not completely incomprehensible right?

I'm afraid this is going to fail miserably, but I'll attempt to explain in more detail what exactly I mean.

In a way, I do allow for degrees; however, said degrees diminish much like what occurs as one approaches infinity in calculus. There are things in the texts you and I hold dear that give descriptives regarding G-d whether it be in describing nature or patterns by which G-d operates. Taking your example above, the passage essentially says G-d is righteous and holy. But what exactly does that mean? To me, I haven't a clue. I cannot ascertain G-d's righteousness nor holiness. The only thing that I can grasp from this is a consistency. G-d is both characteristics all the time. That's about all I can get out of it.

Now, when pegging it down to incarnation as a possibility. To me, G-d states explicitly in the Tanakh that G-d is not man. I take this in the same step as I do holiness and righteousness: a consistency.

Ultimately, BKB has touched upon a point that I have held to for a long time now: what's the point? I don't have need of a incarnated saviour. I don't need a mediator. Therefore, it's really irrelevant as to whether G-d can or cannot incarnate. However, considering the "consistency" that I hold on to above it seems to be a negator of the possibility.

Since leaving Christianity, I have espoused what I consider the "awe of G-d". In short, my breath is taken away just when I try to conceive of G-d and G-d's nature. All I can do is try, because I won't be able to actually conceive. I'm not saying Christians can't or don't do this, but my mind has opened since leaving.

Don't know if any of this makes a lick o' sense, but it's out there now.