I watched this show once, that was discussing these things. Anyways, it was a bit interesting because their theory (based on findings and whatnot, I don't recall all the specifics) was that we did pretty much evolve, but that Adam was the first intelligent human being placed on the earth. I found it extremely interesting because this idea sort of put the two theories that have been debated for years together into one. Just thought I might throw that out!
Kari
The point is this: people who claim that belief in God is no more credible than believing in "green men" The Matrix or fairies oversimplify the issue: Christianity is based on God's word - The Bible. People who say it is composed of nothing but "myths" and such really haven't read it closely or considered what it actually does and claims. No other mythical narrative deals with the scope of issues that the Bible does; no other narrative answers our fundamental questions and provides insight into all areas of life; no other narrative offers answers to the questions of existence, morality, sin, human nature, creation and God like the Bible.Originally Posted by Guzmán
Sure you could - and then what?
No: there is a larger difference that you are conveniently ignoring: the Bible is a unified whole that verifies and validates itself. Your work would be derivative. The Bible is unique in its answers to the questions of where we came from, why we're here, and where we're going. As well, credibility is established by the veracity of the claims. The Bible's teachings on human nature and morality are spot on.
Popularity has nothing to do with it unless the "popularity" has morphed into something more substantial; things don't stay merely "popular" for a few thousand years. Paris Hilton is "popular." The Bible is far more.
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
I don't know how to quote something on here yet, but to redzeppelin, I do consider myself to be a very religious and spiritual person. And I do believe in God. After reading through this last post, I think that you are forgetting free agency. People that are LDS (mormon) may also feel to other religions that they don't believe in the Book of Mormon because they haven't truly read it with an open heart, or truly considered what is says and claims. Or acknowledge that it offers answers to the questions of existence, morality, sin, human nature, creation and God. I will just take a guess, that you are not Mormon considering I haven't seen you mentioning the Book of Mormon. So what would that mean about you? Everything you are saying about people that find the Bible to be fabrications and myths. They are allowed to think so, that is their free agency to do so. I think though, you are focusing on the wrong thing...as to why someone would put God into the same catagory as green men....and that is lack of faith. You will never be able to prove your beliefs to be true, and there is a reason for that. So someone on here trying to get your to prove it...is really only going to get a smile at your efforts, because it is really impossible. God wants people to believe without proof....He wants them to have faith. Just because the Bible gives us so much guidance and truth...doesn't mean everyone will think so. Just because the Book of Mormon can give so many guidance and truth, doesn't mean everyone will think so.
Kari
I'm not suggesting that my belief system is true - and I've never tried to prove that it is; for some reason people do not seem to understand my argument. It goes like this: in response to people who try to "equalize" the Bible by comparing it to mythical/imaginative narratives, I am countering that the Biblical narrative is distinctly different from most other mythical/imaginative narratives or "beliefs" (green men, fairies, Santa Clause, et al) in that its cohesive narrative has a cosmic scope that other narratives and/or "beliefs" cannot match. That in no way implies that I'm right, that Christianity is true or that God is real; it simply suggests that the comparisons being made are inaccurate in terms of the content, scope and results of the Biblical narrative lived out in one's life (as opposed to living out, say, some sort of Greek mythology narrative as a guide to life, the universe and everything).
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
I guess I don't understand your argument. Even after that explanation, I would still say the same things. That it doesn't matter the content to some, that it is still free agency to pool the Bible in with mythology type literature if they see it as the same. People that are Christians, of course view it differently, and most times probably can't understand how others would view it as mythical. Anyways, I would just be repeating myself. Sorry to have stepped in then...I still don't see what you are saying is any different than my original view of it...so I will leave it to others to comment more!
Kari
I'm trying to say this: saying that all mythological narratives (and those that seem mythological) are equal without regards to content is like saying that all books are equal because they contain stories - so Harry Potter is equal to The Grapes of Wrath. No - content matters. The Bible offers a narrative that reflects the reality of life; it offers prophecies (many of which have come true); it names historical dates and people; it offers a cohesive narrative dealing with the fundamental questions of existence; other writings compared to it do not do so. That is all I'm suggesting. I'm primarily responding to those who equate the content of the Bible with mere fairy tales. Mere fairy tales do not provide answers to the questions of existence like the Bible does - they can't.
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
I seriously am pretty sure I understand you. I get that you are saying you feel the Bible is on a different level of literature than other mythical type of books.
Kari
Yes - in terms of the questions it attempts to answer, the picture of reality it presents, and the cohesion of the world-view it gives (in terms of creation, human nature, evil, and the identity of God). I didn't say "better" or "more truthful" - I'm simply pointing out that if one wishes to make comparisons to the Bible, one should pick examples that are comparable (rather than fairy tales or Santa Clause - which do not answer the questions that the Bible does).
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
I think that maybe people might catagorize their books a bit differently. I know you say content matters...and that the Bible is on another level. But it sounds like if someone was comparing the Bible to other mythical books, that maybe the way you catagorize them is not as broad as theirs. For example, someone may just lump all children's books together. But of course, there are others that might have different catagories of books within children's books, such as books on weather, counting, bedtime stories. Others might think the Bible is comparable to mythical books...maybe not in the sense of answering those questions the Bible does, but in the sense of it being nonsense to them. That was pretty much where I was coming from...they can group them however they choose to.
Kari
I again ask you what is the point if your cosmic origin can't be verified? I can give you cosmic origins from Quran which is more in line with science ie Earth not 6000 years old or Bhagavad Gita etc...but what is the point? Without verification we will not go anywhere.
I sent my Soul through the Invisible,
Some letter of that After-life to spell:
And by and by my Soul return'd to me,
And answer'd "I Myself am Heav'n and Hell :"
Blog: Rubaiyats of Lote-Tree and Poetry and Tales
Ho-hum: still on the "verifiable" kick, eh? If you only believe that which you can empirically verify, then there are many things in life that you don't believe in: love, hate, thought, the psyche, imagination, creativity, et al. Life requires faith on all sides. Only since the Enlightenment did humanity develop the highly restricted idea that only what is verifiable is real. Please. Please.
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
That is the only way to make progress. That is the only way to agree on. This is the way we make computers work and send probes to distant planets. This is the way we banish superstitions to the pages of myths that they belong to. This is the way we remove the fear of ghosts and goblins and other magical and hellish creatures that inhabit our nightmares.
We should only accept the verifiable and keep treat the unverifiable with a degree of skepticism until they become verifiable.If you only believe that which you can empirically verify, then there are many things in life that you don't believe in
All these love and hate behaviour are verifiable. We observe it. We see it in action. We can quantify the oxytocin in the brain and the mao inhibitors in the synapses etc...there is nothing unverifiable about these behaviours.: love, hate, thought, the psyche, imagination, creativity, et al.
What we can't do is "experience" how another individual "feels" love or hate. These are subjective experiences of the individual.
As for Psyche - we can now capture thoughts in the brain and direct them to operate a mechanical device...early days yet...but we have made a start.
As for creativity - with neural networks we can now have the creativity of a 2 year old - early days yet but we have made a start.
Life did well for billions of years without any faith. The faithless dinosaurs came and went...in their passing others took over their old stomping grounds...life finds it's own way...Life requires faith on all sides.
Only since the Enlightenment did humanity develop the highly restricted idea that only what is verifiable is real. Please. Please.
Only verifiable is something that we can agree on. Rest is just subjective experience of the individual.
Last edited by Lote-Tree; 05-10-2007 at 12:40 PM.
I sent my Soul through the Invisible,
Some letter of that After-life to spell:
And by and by my Soul return'd to me,
And answer'd "I Myself am Heav'n and Hell :"
Blog: Rubaiyats of Lote-Tree and Poetry and Tales
True. But my contention and what you've expressed are not mutually exclusive claims. Both can be true.
I am fine with a "degree of skepticism." It is the flat-out denial of possibility based on "unverifiability" that I dislike.
Here you are wrong: we may observe external behaviors that may be a manifestation of these emotions, but the emotions themselves cannot be verified. I might spank my child out of love, out of anger, out of a feeling of helplessness. Chemicals do not indicate the presence of an emotion - they indicate the presence of chemicals.
Right: so since you cannot verify what someone is feeling, does that negate the validity of that experience for the individual?
You may capture electronic impulses - but you're not "directing" thought itself.
No: you can duplicate a "neural network" in a computer but that doesn't mean it will possess creative ability.
You assume this to be true. Your statement is unverifiable.
But we can accept the reality of subjective experience that we collectively experience in our own subjective way; thus, things that we cannot exactly verify we do accept the existence of.
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
We should only accept the verifiable truth the rest is only guess-work and should be treated as such.
That is all you need. Accept the verifiable and treat rest as guess-works.I am fine with a "degree of skepticism."
No am not wrong. We can verify the behaviours that is what I said.Here you are wrong: we may observe external behaviors that may be a manifestation of these emotions, but the emotions themselves cannot be verified.
Not only we can observe external behaviours but we can also monitor the internal brain chemistry. We can also study which parts of the brain lights up when you feel angry or in love. We can give you chemicals that make you more angry and we can give you chemcials that make you more peaceful.
Wrong. It is the levels of the chemicals that generates the emotion. That is why people take drugs that give them the feeling of "euphoria".I might spank my child out of love, out of anger, out of a feeling of helplessness. Chemicals do not indicate the presence of an emotion - they indicate the presence of chemicals.
But if I give a chemical that makes you angry or peaceful? What then?
I can give you chemicals that makes you feel nothing - what then?
It is the presence of chemcials that give rise to emotions don't they?
People with low serotonin in the brain "feel" very depressed. It is the chemicals that generates this mood.
Subjective experiences of an individual are just that - subjective. That is what I have always said. We can't agree on subjective experiences. It is the objectively verifiable that we can agree on and make progress. Subjective experience remains just that subjective. To you strawberries may taste bland or even bitter to others it is very sweet. So you are both right in your subjective experiences of strawberries. But objectively we can verify the level of sugar content in the strawberries - this is the thing we can agree on. You may "feel" it is cold inside the room and someone else may "feel" it is hot. Both are right in your subjective experiences. But objectively we can measure the temperature with a thermometer - this is the thing we can agree on. So what this points to? Subjective experience has no beareance on the objective reality.Right: so since you cannot verify what someone is feeling, does that negate the validity of that experience for the individual?
Are thoughts are just that - electrical impulses.You may capture electronic impulses - but you're not "directing" thought itself.
So far it has the creative ability of a two year old. Here is an example.No: you can duplicate a "neural network" in a computer but that doesn't mean it will possess creative ability.
http://www.psych.mcgill.ca/labs/lnsc/html/art7.jpg
LOL :-) - We have not found Dinosaur Temples in the fossil record where dinosaurs worshipped their Dino-God :-)
Yes accept it of course - but we can't agree on any of these things. The only thing we can agree on is the objectively verifiable.But we can accept the reality of subjective experience that we collectively experience in our own subjective way;
I sent my Soul through the Invisible,
Some letter of that After-life to spell:
And by and by my Soul return'd to me,
And answer'd "I Myself am Heav'n and Hell :"
Blog: Rubaiyats of Lote-Tree and Poetry and Tales
I should expect to hear you banging the "verifiable" drum - fine: but what you miss is that the "verifiable" is occasionally obvious (gravity works) but, at other times, the "verifiable" is in need of interpretation (i.e. the fossil record, the complexity of life forms, etc); once interpretation is required, we are now off of the platform of objectivity and wading into the ever-deepening waters of subjectivity. That is the primary point that allows me to keep resisting your insistence on "verifiable" reality - and the examples I listed in terms of interpreting the external behaviors makes my point.
Legitimate feelings are a result of our interaction with the world around us. That we can manipulate our feelings with chemicals does not make the feelings legitimate.
This is where your reliance on objective reality falls apart: we - the assessors of objective reality - are incapable of being completely objective - our assessment of reality will always be colored by our biases and subjective tendencies.
I think you confuse the vehicle with the passenger.
Very pretty - but this is a product of a mathematical equation.
"Creation" that is a product of a human mind behind the programming. Creativity is more than product - it is also inspiration, communication, interaction between artist and audience. I'm not convinced. The computer is a tool to create with - it itself cannot be a creative entity without a human will behind it.
I covered the holes in this idea above.
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
Posting Permissions
