Analytics Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 12 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Well hopefully we have a basis for discussion. Your original post said And so I referred you to the Rorty book. For Rorty "reality" - that which is supposed to exist outside of human minds- something "out there" independent of our perception, cannot be spoken about or observed. All we CAN observe is..... what we observe- what is ordered in our minds into perceptions, and feelings. That means that if we can "perceive" God, through feelings or visions, etc, his presence is among the set of "appearances" in much the same way as chairs and tables etc. There is no getting out of appearances. To distort the view in order to explain it, is the color "red" "real" or "produced by our minds"? What is red "really"? A wavelength of light? No- that leaves out the experience of it, which is produced within our minds. If a tree falls in the forest- some might say it produces "vibrations in the atmosphere"- but even that is subject only to them being perceived- perhaps by a measuring device which shows them in THAT context. My siggy says it all every time I post- look there again. What makes what multiple people CAN perceive and makes those perceptions different is that we put them into language, which is ambiguous automatically puts the perception int a category mentally and and indeed language itself has conditioned or programmed us to instantly name them, so much so that Rorty maintains there is no such thing as "pure feels"- or direct, unmediated perception of "reality". So when we see what we call a "chair" or "table" we can use that word to describe not the "Thing in Itself" but our perception as conditioned by language. What kind of chair is it? If we say it's black, is the perception "really" black, or charcoal grey with a little more blue than usual in it? Is it a kitchen chair, or a recliner? etc etc. We can keep describing it in language but it will still be ambiguous. A picture perhaps would give us the "same experience" but of course pictures can be deceiving as well, with optical illusions etc, and are still subject to interpretation. So there is NO "observable reality"- all there is is observations we can agree on, and some which are subjective we cannot agree on. When you have a pain somewhere, the doctor will ask you to rate it on a scale of 1 to 10. But what does "8" really mean?? One persons 8 may be another's 5. It's like the silly illusions on the internet of "what color is the dress?" It all depends So yes, science is the realm of perceptions and appearances we can agree on. But what about morality? Are there ANY perceptions at all we can agree upon that make abortion right or wrong? What about the stories we tell ourselves which give our life meaning? "I want to preserve freedom, and I will join the Marines and try to make the world safe for democracy" How does that differ from "I believe that Joseph Smith is a prophet and I will spend my life serving the LDS church?" Neither have any observations or perceptions we can agree upon - those judgements are all subjective and are up to the individual. Science works in areas where everyone can agree on the observations, but it is irrelevant where the observations and experiences are totally subjective. There is no basis for agreement The way I interpret Rorty is that yes, reality is out there, but the "truth" isn't out there because truth is tied with language. But there really is a real world out there, and to a limited sense we can observe it and try to understand it. We can't ever do that perfectly, but in limited, specific ways we can successfully understand what is going on. In any case, I'm simply claiming that science is the enterprise that attempts to understand the observable universe and to the extent something is in fact observable, it is within the purview of science. Humans have all sorts of biases which can lead to disagreement about what is observed. Disagreement about what is observed doesn't mean that what is observed is precluded from science--it simply means we need to try harder to observe better.
mfbukowski Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Analytics said: The way I interpret Rorty is that yes, reality is out there, but the "truth" isn't out there because truth is tied with language. But there really is a real world out there, and to a limited sense we can observe it and try to understand it. We can't ever do that perfectly, but in limited, specific ways we can successfully understand what is going on. In any case, I'm simply claiming that science is the enterprise that attempts to understand the observable universe and to the extent something is in fact observable, it is within the purview of science. Humans have all sorts of biases which can lead to disagreement about what is observed. Disagreement about what is observed doesn't mean that what is observed is precluded from science--it simply means we need to try harder to observe better. I am ok with that- no problem But that still leaves IN everything we DON'T agree about "what is observed" and that includes religion as well as why you love your significant other and your preference for chocolate over strawberry and political parties, the pain in your toe that cannot be verified and what that dream "really was", If I think I saw God or heard his voice, there is nothing much you can say about it, or any of my internal states. In other words, science literally has nothing it can say about religion except perhaps sociological data about believers etc, but nothing about the "contents" of religion, what stories bring me comfort, etc. THAT is what religion is- it is saying "These beliefs have been beneficial in my life and therefore I know they are true, at least in that sense." Because truth is linguistic and contextual within a given vocabulary and a given audience, there is absolutely nothing "wrong" or irrational in that sentence Did you look at the Nagel article as well? Edited June 1, 2016 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 I made many edits in that post, so if you are posting now please review the edited post
Analytics Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 19 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: I am ok with that- no problem But that still leaves IN everything we DON'T agree about "what is observed" and that includes religion as well as why you love your significant other and your preference for chocolate over strawberry and political parties, the pain in your toe that cannot be verified and what that dream "really was", If I think I saw God or heard his voice, there is nothing much you can say about it, or any of my internal states. In other words, science literally has nothing it can say about religion except perhaps sociological data about believers etc, but nothing about the "contents" of religion, what stories bring me comfort, etc. THAT is what religion is- it is saying "These beliefs have been beneficial in my life and therefore I know they are true, at least in that sense." Because truth is linguistic and contextual within a given vocabulary and a given audience, there is absolutely nothing "wrong" or irrational in that sentence Did you look at the Nagel article as well? It seems to me that "what religion is" depends upon the specific religion and person in question. It's one thing to say, "this is how I find meaning in my life," and another to say that despite all of the evidence to the contrary, you believe there was a literal worldwide flood that wiped out everyone on the earth except for 8 souls on an ark, because we have multiple testimonies of God's prophets that this is what really happened. If you think you saw God and heard a voice, I'd suggest you see a neurologist for an MRI and EEG. You might be suffering from Temporal Lobe Epilepsy. Science has a lot to say about this kind of thing. If God is really out there and is really sending you a message, then in theory a scientific instrument could detect the message, or at a minimum see that your brain was receiving an outside message rather than having a self-contained neurological event. Attempting to be clear, I'm not saying there is anything necessarily wrong or false about having narratives and rituals that add meaning to life. But on the other hand, science could observe believers and evaluate how well their personal narratives and rituals are enhancing the quality of life. My original point was to contest somebody who said that science intrinsically cannot answer big questions such as, does God exist? I'm pointing out that the fact that if God appeared to a team of scientists and subjected Himself to a full scientific examination, science would have A LOT to say about God. In principle, to the extent God interacts with observable reality, science can comment on God. So if somebody really believes that science cannot say anything about the existence of God, that is saying more about the nature of God than the limitations of science.
Guest Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 On May 27, 2016 at 0:25 PM, Atheist Mormon said: My perspective; Once I got good information about Darwinian Evolution I did not believe ID, which was still in my believing days. My question to you is, do you believe in ID? If not how do you reconcile your unbelief in ID with your faith in LDS/Christianity? From my perspective at no point of life ID makes sense; The rise of Animal Kingdom, Human Evolution at no point harmonizes with ID. Before giving you any pointers about pointing out the slippery slope of ID I'd to read your comments on this issue. Thank you. Creation and evolution do not have to be at odds. Indeed the world was not created in 6 days (24 hour days). The Church and in the Temple refer to the creation of the world's as "created periods". Joseph Fielding Smaith, who inspired his son-in-law Bruce R McConkie, point out in their writings with the same language (creative periods) that the tern"days" is a broad term...like "day of the dinosaurs" does not mean "day" but an unknown amount time. Our when people talk, and say things like, "back in my day". The earth is around 5.8 million years old the universe 13-14 million,,or,is it "billions". However the bid bang was cause by someone. So there were some elements involved, not matter how small, so something brought them together. If (and of course I do believe it did) God did so and knew what the end result would be, as plants, stars or people then he is still creator. Then when man through evolution when man became man (as we know him", God breathed the breath of like into him)...put into man and woman the Holy Spirit and or spirits. Even Church doctrine (via GA', former Presidents have taught the same. There is no conflict...but I am saddened at those who have left the faith. Some even returning to their original faith that teaches the "Young Earth theory", which teaches that the earth is only around (as well as the entire Universe) 6,000 years old.
Analytics Posted June 2, 2016 Posted June 2, 2016 6 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: Interesting video. She claims that methodological materialism is a scientific idea that is intrinsic to scientific thinking, but that philosophical materialism is simply a philosophical position that science is agnostic about. What's interesting on this forum is that Joseph Smith subscribed to philosophical materialism--all spirit is matter, only more fine and pure, God has a body of flesh and bones, and so forth. So if Joseph Smith is right about this, then these spiritual concepts are, in theory, subject to scientific scrutiny. Thinking about what Eugenie Scott actually said, I'm not sure I buy it. She claims that science limits itself to methodological materialism--the realm of matter and energy. She claims science has nothing to say about "God" because "God" is this omnipotent un-thing that is out there beyond the world of matter and energy. Saying that God is out there beyond the realm of matter and energy is necessary in order for her to ascribe to her polite position that science is agnostic about God, but how many believers conceive of God that way? 1
CV75 Posted June 2, 2016 Posted June 2, 2016 13 hours ago, Analytics said: What's interesting on this forum is that Joseph Smith subscribed to philosophical materialism--all spirit is matter, only more fine and pure, God has a body of flesh and bones, and so forth. So if Joseph Smith is right about this, then these spiritual concepts are, in theory, subject to scientific scrutiny. Yes, and the science has to be correspondingly fine and pure, and the observers also, which is why they must be "quickened" in order to use the right science for the job.
mfbukowski Posted June 2, 2016 Posted June 2, 2016 22 hours ago, Analytics said: It seems to me that "what religion is" depends upon the specific religion and person in question. It's one thing to say, "this is how I find meaning in my life," and another to say that despite all of the evidence to the contrary, you believe there was a literal worldwide flood that wiped out everyone on the earth except for 8 souls on an ark, because we have multiple testimonies of God's prophets that this is what really happened. If you think you saw God and heard a voice, I'd suggest you see a neurologist for an MRI and EEG. You might be suffering from Temporal Lobe Epilepsy. Science has a lot to say about this kind of thing. If God is really out there and is really sending you a message, then in theory a scientific instrument could detect the message, or at a minimum see that your brain was receiving an outside message rather than having a self-contained neurological event. Attempting to be clear, I'm not saying there is anything necessarily wrong or false about having narratives and rituals that add meaning to life. But on the other hand, science could observe believers and evaluate how well their personal narratives and rituals are enhancing the quality of life. My original point was to contest somebody who said that science intrinsically cannot answer big questions such as, does God exist? I'm pointing out that the fact that if God appeared to a team of scientists and subjected Himself to a full scientific examination, science would have A LOT to say about God. In principle, to the extent God interacts with observable reality, science can comment on God. So if somebody really believes that science cannot say anything about the existence of God, that is saying more about the nature of God than the limitations of science. The Nagel article covers that. Physicalism cannot explain consciousness. It cannot describe what it is like to be conscious. Your argument does not address that. It describes light wavelenths, but cannot describe the experience of color. I do not need an mri because I experience red. That was the point, sorry you missed it. 1
thesometimesaint Posted June 2, 2016 Posted June 2, 2016 15 hours ago, Analytics said: Interesting video. She claims that methodological materialism is a scientific idea that is intrinsic to scientific thinking, but that philosophical materialism is simply a philosophical position that science is agnostic about. What's interesting on this forum is that Joseph Smith subscribed to philosophical materialism--all spirit is matter, only more fine and pure, God has a body of flesh and bones, and so forth. So if Joseph Smith is right about this, then these spiritual concepts are, in theory, subject to scientific scrutiny. Thinking about what Eugenie Scott actually said, I'm not sure I buy it. She claims that science limits itself to methodological materialism--the realm of matter and energy. She claims science has nothing to say about "God" because "God" is this omnipotent un-thing that is out there beyond the world of matter and energy. Saying that God is out there beyond the realm of matter and energy is necessary in order for her to ascribe to her polite position that science is agnostic about God, but how many believers conceive of God that way? Unfortunately JS isn't here to explain what he meant. About 40% of all American scientists are theistic.
Analytics Posted June 2, 2016 Posted June 2, 2016 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: The Nagel article covers that. Physicalism cannot explain consciousness. It cannot describe what it is like to be conscious. Your argument does not address that. It describes light wavelenths, but cannot describe the experience of color. I do not need an mri because I experience red. That was the point, sorry you missed it. In my view, there are three really big questions that science hasn't figured out. How did the universe begin? How did life begin? How did consciousness begin? Personally, I think science might figure out #2, but I'm skeptical about the other two. My only point on this thread is that "Is there a God? What are his characteristics?" isn't on that list. To the extent God is real and interacts with the observable world, then science has a lot to say about God. If science has nothing to say about God, that says more about God than about the limitations of science. Your argument seems to be that God might interact with our consciousness without interacting with our brains. That in no way contradicts my point--I'm talking about observable reality--not what it's like to be a bat or to see red.
thesometimesaint Posted June 2, 2016 Posted June 2, 2016 36 minutes ago, Analytics said: In my view, there are three really big questions that science hasn't figured out. How did the universe begin? How did life begin? How did consciousness begin? Personally, I think science might figure out #2, but I'm skeptical about the other two. My only point on this thread is that "Is there a God? What are his characteristics?" isn't on that list. To the extent God is real and interacts with the observable world, then science has a lot to say about God. If science has nothing to say about God, that says more about God than about the limitations of science. Your argument seems to be that God might interact with our consciousness without interacting with our brains. That in no way contradicts my point--I'm talking about observable reality--not what it's like to be a bat or to see red. I let science explain how God did it, and my religion to explain why. Everything we hear, see, smell, touch, and experience is processed through our brains. How could God interact with our consciousness and have no effect on our brains?
Analytics Posted June 2, 2016 Posted June 2, 2016 1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said: I let science explain how God did it, and my religion to explain why. Everything we hear, see, smell, touch, and experience is processed through our brains. How could God interact with our consciousness and have no effect on our brains? Excellent question.
JLHPROF Posted June 2, 2016 Posted June 2, 2016 1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said: How could God interact with our consciousness and have no effect on our brains? Depends where you believe our spirits reside. I have no reason to think when I hear the still small voice that it is my brain and not my spirit that is receiving the communication. Perhaps it's both. But God can effect our spirits directly.
Ahab Posted June 2, 2016 Posted June 2, 2016 2 hours ago, Analytics said: In my view, there are three really big questions that science hasn't figured out. How did the universe begin? How did life begin? How did consciousness begin? You're jumping the gun by assuming there was a beginning. There is also the possibility that all 3 are eternal, with no ultimate beginning to any of those 3 things. That's what I believe and what I will continue to believe unless someday I see that there "must" have been a beginning to any of those 3 things.
mfbukowski Posted June 2, 2016 Posted June 2, 2016 21 hours ago, Analytics said: Interesting video. She claims that methodological materialism is a scientific idea that is intrinsic to scientific thinking, but that philosophical materialism is simply a philosophical position that science is agnostic about. What's interesting on this forum is that Joseph Smith subscribed to philosophical materialism--all spirit is matter, only more fine and pure, God has a body of flesh and bones, and so forth. So if Joseph Smith is right about this, then these spiritual concepts are, in theory, subject to scientific scrutiny. Thinking about what Eugenie Scott actually said, I'm not sure I buy it. She claims that science limits itself to methodological materialism--the realm of matter and energy. She claims science has nothing to say about "God" because "God" is this omnipotent un-thing that is out there beyond the world of matter and energy. Saying that God is out there beyond the realm of matter and energy is necessary in order for her to ascribe to her polite position that science is agnostic about God, but how many believers conceive of God that way? I think you have it backwards from what she said, which is understandable because she did not say it clearly. Listen again after reading this and you will see I am right about what she is saying. METHODOLOGICAL MATERIALISM says that all we can know about is matter and energy, and is agnostic about anything else. "ALL WE CAN KNOW" does not mean "God was not involved" as she says repeatedly. Science admits of unknown phenomena, but if those phenomena or beliefs are NOT about what is matter or energy, it admits it cannot carry on experiments about it. Instances of areas that science admits it cannot carry on inquiry, as she says, is morals and ethics, and I would include religion. That does not mean science conflicts with religion- it means that science has nothing it can say about religion. In the example of evolution she repeatedly gives, science does NOT say "God was not involved"- it says nothing either way about evolution. She later criticizes her friend for saying that because of materialism, God has nothing to do with evolution, and insists that he is violating the distinction she is making and should in fact have said nothing about God She says that PHILOSOPHICAL MATERIALISM says that "there is nothing but matter and energy". This is actually not a philosophical position but a metaphysical view that is quasi-religious. Anytime you hear an absolute statement about the nature of reality with the word "is" in it, you know you are talking about metaphysics- a statement which cannot be proven either logically or by observation and testing. "Everything is matter and energy" is the same kind of statement as "God is Everything" or "Reality is constantly changing" or "God is love" Joseph's materialism then, on this view, DOES fall into an absolute statement about the nature of reality and is therefore automatically not to be construed scientifically, but philosophically, or more accurately, as a metaphysical statement. It is a statement of belief and faith and cannot be shown to be a scientific statement, AND NEVER WILL BE BECAUSE science deliberately does NOT study "spirit" because there is no definition for it which can be tested. Now of course I consider myself a materialist in the same way Joseph was- I also believe that matter and energy are contiguous and I think that is shown now by E=mc2 in my limited understanding of it. I believe that spirit is a kind of actual energy- perhaps some kind of plasma field thingy - but that is itself a RELIGIOUS belief, and MUST BE because we do not have a testable definition of spirit. So science would have to change it's basic assumptions to experiment on the statement "Spirit is matter, but more refined" because that CANNOT be tested scientifically and is horribly ambiguous as a metaphysical statement. So there are six independent variables on this issue- one can be a materialist or non-materialist AND a theist or non-theist, AND a speaking in terms of philosophical materialism or methodological materialism. I won't list them all- you do have an analytical mind and can see what I mean. Joseph is unique in the world because, in my interpretation, he understood the materialist methodology AND metaphysical materialism and segregated those- my evidence is section 93: 30 where he speaks of "Spheres" of truth and knowing. He of course was also a theist and believed in metaphysical materialism because in 132 he is speaking as a prophet of God- and describing a RELIGIOUS POSITION, not a scientific one So he believes science has its sphere- but as a religious position, speaking as a prophet of God, he makes the metaphysical statements that "spirit is matter but more refined" etc. So no, Joseph's statements, as philosophical (metaphysical) materialism, are NOT subject to scientific scrutiny. Quote She claims science has nothing to say about "God" because "God" is this omnipotent un-thing that is out there beyond the world of matter and energy. No she doesn't say that anywhere. That is a perfect example of a metaphysical statement. "God is x" is in it's very formulation - see above- is a metaphysical statement which does not admit to scientific investigation. That is the same for the statement "God is an exalted Human". We will never send a space vehicle out and be able to take pictures of God and find out how much he weighs. It is a religious statement which enables us to think of him as "Our Father" as a perfected father would be. Yes I have a testimony he IS that in fact- but that is a religious statement. Quote Saying that God is out there beyond the realm of matter and energy is necessary in order for her to ascribe to her polite position that science is agnostic about God, but how many believers conceive of God that way? I am not quite sure what to make of this- I think it is quite confused. First, she doesn't say that that I recall. God can be immanent or transcendent, that statement if she made it would be a statement that God is transcendent. In fact Mormons do not believe that- they believe that there was a "time"- whatever that means- when God was not God as we believe today. How many believers conceive of God that way? All latter- day saints. I am not sure how that is relevant to anything though. I hope that clarifies things.
mfbukowski Posted June 2, 2016 Posted June 2, 2016 5 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: I let science explain how God did it, and my religion to explain why. Everything we hear, see, smell, touch, and experience is processed through our brains. How could God interact with our consciousness and have no effect on our brains? As you know, of course, that is what we believe, no problem. It seems Analytics was surprised you would say that, but I don't understand why. All human experience is synthesized in ways we do not fully understand by the brain. I happen to believe there is a "spirit" in there as well of course, functioning in unknown ways with the brain, but that is religion, not science. Man is a "soul" which combines body and spirit.
mfbukowski Posted June 2, 2016 Posted June 2, 2016 6 hours ago, Analytics said: In my view, there are three really big questions that science hasn't figured out. How did the universe begin? How did life begin? How did consciousness begin? Personally, I think science might figure out #2, but I'm skeptical about the other two. My only point on this thread is that "Is there a God? What are his characteristics?" isn't on that list. To the extent God is real and interacts with the observable world, then science has a lot to say about God. If science has nothing to say about God, that says more about God than about the limitations of science. Your argument seems to be that God might interact with our consciousness without interacting with our brains. That in no way contradicts my point--I'm talking about observable reality--not what it's like to be a bat or to see red. It seems you have not read the Nagel piece. If I have time and feel like it I will look up the exact quote. All those are scientific questions, and are not relevant to religion. Religion answers questions like "What is my purpose in life?" That is obviously a subjective question that has nothing to do with science.
DaddyRose Posted June 2, 2016 Posted June 2, 2016 On 5/27/2016 at 11:25 AM, Atheist Mormon said: My question to you is, do you believe in ID? I have yet to see a testable model that both the theist and non-theist community can agree on. The Darwinists with their holes in the fossil chain, and the impossibility that the non-theists propose asking me to believe in absolutely nothing. Unless a new testable model has been released for peer review that I have yet to hear about, creationism has still been verified to me through anecdotal evidence.
Analytics Posted June 3, 2016 Posted June 3, 2016 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: It seems you have not read the Nagel piece. If I have time and feel like it I will look up the exact quote. All those are scientific questions, and are not relevant to religion. Religion answers questions like "What is my purpose in life?" That is obviously a subjective question that has nothing to do with science. Some religious questions are subjective. Some aren't. I'm talking about the ones that aren't.
Analytics Posted June 3, 2016 Posted June 3, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, mfbukowski said: I think you have it backwards from what she said, which is understandable because she did not say it clearly. Listen again after reading this and you will see I am right about what she is saying. I think I understand her fine. I don't completely understand you, and I'm quite sure you don't understand me. Quote METHODOLOGICAL MATERIALISM says that all we can know about is matter and energy, and is agnostic about anything else. "ALL WE CAN KNOW" does not mean "God was not involved" as she says repeatedly. I NEVER said "God was not involved." I NEVER implied that either. What I did say is that since we can know about matter and energy, then to the extent that God is made up of matter and energy, we can, in principle, learn about God. Quote Now of course I consider myself a materialist in the same way Joseph was- I also believe that matter and energy are contiguous and I think that is shown now by E=mc2 in my limited understanding of it. I believe that spirit is a kind of actual energy- perhaps some kind of plasma field thingy - but that is itself a RELIGIOUS belief, and MUST BE because we do not have a testable definition of spirit. To the extent that the spirit is made of matter and energy, in principal, it is within the realm of science. The logic of this is simple modus ponens. I'm baffled as to why you argue that science can examine matter and energy, and that spirit is matter and energy, yet science cannot examine spirit. Of course there isn't a testable definition of spirit, but in principle if it is really composed of matter and energy, then science could find it. Edited June 3, 2016 by Analytics
mfbukowski Posted June 3, 2016 Posted June 3, 2016 48 minutes ago, Analytics said: Some religious questions are subjective. Some aren't. I'm talking about the ones that aren't. Name one. They all are. It is the BELIEF that makes the difference in our lives, not what is objectively observable. Show me one ethical or moral rule which is objective: NONE. That is the point of the video
mfbukowski Posted June 3, 2016 Posted June 3, 2016 31 minutes ago, Analytics said: I think I understand her fine. I don't completely understand you, and I'm quite sure you don't understand me. I NEVER said "God was not involved." I NEVER implied that either. What I did say is that since we can know about matter and energy, then to the extent that God is made up of matter and energy, we can, in principle, learn about God. To the extent that the spirit is made of matter and energy, in principal, it is within the realm of science. The logic of this is simple modus ponens. I'm baffled as to why you argue that science can examine matter and energy, and that spirit is matter and energy, yet science cannot examine spirit. Of course there isn't a testable definition of spirit, but in principle if it is really composed of matter and energy, then science could find it. As the video shows, there are two senses of "materialism" one of which is subject to science and one which is NOT If you cannot understand that from the video, I can't help you. The words have two meanings, you are seeing only one. "Turn on the fan" can sometimes me "Rub his leg" My parents made their Mark in the world. The small business men's convention allowed no one in the door over 5 feet tall. Did you understand the video at all? Can you explain her point and what was wrong with her point? I never said you said "God was not involved" THAT IS WHAT SHE SAID TO SHOW THE DISTINCTION.
mfbukowski Posted June 3, 2016 Posted June 3, 2016 (edited) 51 minutes ago, Analytics said: I think I understand her fine. I don't completely understand you, and I'm quite sure you don't understand me Well I guess I will let you off the hook then- thanks for the discussion Just this exchange above: I said: Quote METHODOLOGICAL MATERIALISM says that all we can know about is matter and energy, and is agnostic about anything else. "ALL WE CAN KNOW" does not mean "God was not involved" as she says repeatedly. Your reply? Quote I NEVER said "God was not involved." I NEVER implied that either. What I did say is that since we can know about matter and energy, then to the extent that God is made up of matter and energy, we can, in principle, learn about God. Notice I said that SHE said that repeatedly- not YOU. You are either not listening, not understanding or not caring enough to do either. I am taking this seriously, you are not apparently or just not on the same wavelength- I don't know. Best wishes Edited June 3, 2016 by mfbukowski
Analytics Posted June 3, 2016 Posted June 3, 2016 45 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Name one. They all are. It is the BELIEF that makes the difference in our lives, not what is objectively observable. Show me one ethical or moral rule which is objective: NONE. That is the point of the video Some people believe that Jesus Christ--the real-world historical figure--was resurrected. Literally. That is a religious belief about objectively observable facts.
Recommended Posts