Spirit vs Science Discussion, continued

[gbh]

Zzyzx, I do not draft replies on the actual posting because I have heard it ties up the server too much, and because these are such long postings, it is easier to work with...so fortunately, I have some of them saved.

Where we last left off I was going to revisit some of the comments you had made in the thread that got deleted and ground you had covered in other threads. It is a pity that the thread was lost but such is life.

I find it curious that you are declaring me a rational theist. I suppose I am a theist, although rational may be stretching things a bit...at least by some people's estimation of my ideas.

Anyhow, here was my last response:

Z: Are you positive that you have supplied the correct answers to the last two questions? 1) Is your “proof” in the form of testimonials or relaying of personal experience (neither of which meet a reasonable definition of proof)? 2) Are you qualified to answer for me with certainty? It might be better to say that you expect (but not know) that I would reject your proof. In fact, if your proof is convincing I will at least strongly consider accepting. Do you realize that it is unconvincing because it is not proof?

GG: Not testimonials, but since the burden of proof is on me, I can safely state that my case is quite circumstantial, which in some trials is good enough depending on the defense counsel. As my adversary, I have decided that your closing argument to the jury would definitely win an aquittal.

Therefore, I’m not even going to chance it, but since this discussion originated with the idea of discussing your ideas, this is not about proving my theory right, but understanding your ideas in an effort to ascertain where the line is drawn in the sand between what I know of my beliefs and absolutes and yours. In short, it will be as if I am trying to prove your theory false, which is something you decried in the flood debate. That being said, “as if” does not mean actually doing so, but, in essence moving us towards a middle ground of understanding and perhaps resolve that line or walk away, perhaps a little wiser and gain more insight into each other’s positions.

Z: There is some evidence to suggest that humans developed large brains to compensate for lack in speed, agility, endurance, strength, eyesight, hearing, etc. Are you positive that our mental ability is at or beyond need fulfillment (or, more accurately, beyond what provides an advantage in survival and reproduction)?

GG: So, are you intimating that perhaps thoughts of God are a compensation that gives us an edge in survival and reproduction? I wonder about this especially with the guilt factor that the Catholics instill in their young. It would seem to me to be one thing that would cause one to die younger due in part to anxiety and grief over transgressions. There and again, if one had no worries at all about their actions and the corresponding ramifications, they may engage in reckless behavior and die young anyhow.

Further, we cannot generalize because clearly there are those who have such little ability that they cannot even provide for their own basic needs, while there are others who surpass their needs whether they become wealthy and have the luxury to ponder thoughts OR they find a simpler life and do the same. Nevertheless, these individuals would seem to have exceeded their basic need level and transcended into another realm...one of consciousness, and perhaps a different level of need.

Z: By chance alone some individual organisms (including people) will be outstanding in various ways – some positive, some negative. Why is that surprising?

GG: It is not surprising, but why? You say positive and negative, but do not express which direction is positive and negative. What is the point of consciousness, why delineation from animals? Animals have not evolved, why man? What is the purpose if we are just here scraping along if not to be conscious of something? Even if not God, one is conscious of creation itself which then leads one to step further and consider how it was created...even if but speculation and never to be more than just that, God is on the table...God would have to be considered.

Z: I reach the conclusion that some need “god” based upon the words and actions of religiously committed people I have observed. They often exhibit a great dependence upon their religion. Members of this forum have taken the position that without religion they would be totally lost and possibly immoral.

GG: And some would, which is why I cannot hold complete disdain for religion...it keeps some honest or honest enough. One can still have a need for God without being involved in religion...the two are not joined at the hip, despite what some would think.

Z: Perhaps it is easier to not believe, but I don’t see why that should be true (except if one is required to participate in ritual in order to “believe” or to demonstrate their belief to others).

In our society (and evidently others) there is great social pressure to at least appear to be religious. I can state with certainly that associating with people in the Ozark region would be far easier if one at least feigned religion. I do not do so because that would be against my ethics.

GG: Yes, I understand.

*********

Z: Thus, perhaps we can compromise on there being FOUR options (including keep the job and take another).

GG: I’ll still stick with two, the first seven are selfish and the last is selfless.

*********
Z: It is possible that your understanding of god is coming close to my philosophy of life.

Z: BTW, I do NOT recommend my lifestyle for anyone. I suggest that everyone keep their nose to the grindstone, stay in high stress situations, continue accumulating toys and possessions for heirs to fight over, then retire at a “proper” age and die soon thereafter. That keeps the economic system at least limping along (with plenty of work for salesmen, doctors, attorneys and undertakers).

GG: But this is not quite my understanding of God. Let me argue this point a bit:

Altruism and asceticism can be as dogmatic and ritualistic as the best organized religion. Being a martyr for the “greater good” garners favor and sympathy from the masses as being honorable and noble when the intent COULD BE neither, but self-serving. Organized religion contains many of these seemingly “do gooders” that have no altruistic motive other than to feed their ego. No, there must be a reason for true altruistic and ascetic lifestyles, otherwise, it seems as empty and meaningless as religion. So, the question is: What is that reason?

I have come to the conclusion that one doesn’t have to change the fact that one is wealthy and possesses many things, but more importantly, the focus is on one’s attitude and how they live their life. For I believe that a wealthy philanthropic man can have what you have and do a lot of good with his wealth and position, IF HE HAS THE SAME OUTLOOK ABOUT LIFE...an outlook that he could stand up and walk away from it all and never look back.

BTW, this relates to a very quotable Scripture about the young rich man who could not give up what he had to follow Jesus. Jesus knew this about him, for the young man claimed that he had lived by the letter of the law. Jesus knew the one thing holding him back from living the Spirit of that law...and that is that one cannot serve two masters.

This particular Scripture gets completely misinterpreted and used by organized religions to bring guilt upon the heads of those who have and how one should “give until it hurts” to the poor. It is not about that...it is about where your heart is, there lies your treasure.

This, too, is alluded to in the Scripture, wherein Mary Magdelene was to annoint Jesus’ feet with oil. The Apostles scolded that the oil could be sold and used to feed the poor. Jesus stated that the “poor will always be amongst us,” but that he would not...and instructed her to save it for his burial.

One may have given up all things in life and given everything they have to the poor, but still suffer in the throes of ego-centric behavior. There is more to being righteous than just doing good deeds, there must be a change of heart and mind. I believe this to be the most important struggle man attends to in life.

Z: Think about that, G. Do not be too confident that you have the answer and that I am struggling. The reverse might well be true.

GG: I am not confident in anything I am saying and if I gave that impression it is most likely the style in which I argue, but certainly not by authority. And indeed, I do believe I have a lot left to learn.

Z: I actually live by what I write here. This is NOT theoretical or hypothetical to me, nor is it a new role.

GG: Yes, nor is it to me. I have whittled down what I used to believe into something very basic and simple, which I have found recently to actually be a philosophical tool developed by a Franciscan monk by the name of William Ockham. They call it Ockham’s Razor.

You wrote in another thread elsewhere:

Z: However, religion is very popular. Common sense is not. If all it took to eliminate religion was common sense, if people were willing to question “miracles” and magic and invisible super beings, there would (IMO) be little appeal to religion.

GG: What about a religion without miracles and magic, but common sense? Or...what about theism without miracles, magic AND religion? Do you not think that one could be a theist, and yet, not follow the herd?

You also wrote in another thread elsewhere:

Z: Agree. Part of the reason for debating is to make “light” available for those who are looking for truth. In our society pro-religion sentiments and advertising dominate. Everyone is exposed to strong promotion of religion – “Jesus Saves” propaganda is far more common than “Jesus is a Fraud”.

GG: What concerns me about this statement, and I may be taking it out of context but: why does Jesus equate with falsity in your mind? In the above question regarding theism without the rest of the trappings, is there a place for the teachings of Christ without it being propaganda and a fraud?

Frankly, I think that what was attributed to Christ, after taking into consideration what the quotes have been through, could possibly have different meaning than what has currently been assigned to them. If you take the two most important commandments he uttered, they deal with love...a spiritual love that transcends brotherly, spousal, friendship and the like. A love that despite what is dished out, the person embracing this type of love can see past another’s egocentric flaws while he recognizes his own and still love this other person with sincerity and honesty.

If you take this as his number one priority, what has funneled down through the years to become modern day Christianity comes up a bit short. Further, Christ used people who were outcasts to show their redemptive qualities, such as the Samaritans, who were ostracized by the Jews, and the regular “sinner” crowd, who some of Christ’s Apostles were incensed over.

We also spoke of the “force of nature.” You stated that it was a closer definition to God than any other, but God is not bound by just this force. The mountains you study are but dense bodies of energy holding together particles that only a Physics Phd could explain properly. As matter, we too are held together by forces of energy, but we are also given something many other things in nature do not have and that is conscious awareness. Not all people utilize this ability and some have more than others, but this consciousness enables us to be cognizant of the magnitude of creation and held in awe of it as we lack the capacity and capability to recreate it.

We are given time on this earth to have this awareness and what occurs after life is but gentle supposition on anyone’s part. But if part of this “force” resides within us, enabling us to comprehend that something much greater than ourselves exists, then why would it destroy itself?

There was a story where the Pharisees accused Jesus of being Satan, but Jesus replied: "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? Using this same logic, if God exists within and without each one of us, why would God destroy that part of himself (the Spirit indwelling in man)? So, either there exists God and at least to the extent that we are conscious of God, and we have those properties somewhere within us to coexist with God, or God doesn’t exist and this is as good as it gets.

At this point in time, I do not see myself ever belonging to an organized group for the reason being that any organized group, including Atheism, distracts from the Truth and leads one back into the world of a false reality. Surely things exist in material form, but for how long? Even the mountains are not the same day after day with the subtle erosion from rivulets and streams winding their way down taking particles along the way and depositing them into the ground far below where it originated, as you described in the debate. Organized religious groups, as you have stated before, create absolutes that are unfounded...and this should also include atheism.

[Zzyzx]

.

The one thing that has not yet been proven to my satisfaction is your denial of a “right” way of life - that is, an absolute - and that there are no absolutes as the right action is relative to each person. Here is my argument for your consideration should you choose to discuss it:

You make a decision to do X.

X turns out to be an unwise decision and has deleterious effects.

The value system instilled within you, prompts you to take responsibility for those effects, caused by “decision X.”

This responsibility is unarguably the “right” thing to do.

We can even go so far as to establish that this responsibility is an absolute right thing to do and place it on our list of absolute truths.

I do not think in absolutes, but will agree for the moment.

I accept taking responsibility for my decisions as the right thing for me to do. I do not inflict that upon others – unless they choose to accept my thinking on the matter.

Perhaps there are people who have not been prepared to accept responsibility for their decisions. Coercing them to do so without learning might be very traumatic and very unfair. I am not authorized to undertake such ventures.

What we cannot claim is that “decision X” was the “right” thing to do nor can it be an absolute, AND YET, the responsibility taken for it, IS.

So, what lingers on my mind is that there must be an absolute right decision, but the only way we would ever know IF it was right is if we had omniscience.

Perhaps if we were omniscient we would be able to make correct decisions every time. However, I have no real concept of “omniscient”. I know the definition, but that is “two dimensional” (simplistic).

Why not settle for “the best we can do” – and get busy doing it? If we later learn to do better, great. That is something to strive for. Absolutes or perfection is NOT something to strive for in my opinion. I leave perfectionism to others.

But this is not to say that there is no right path, it is only to say that we are incapable of omniscience, and therefore WE can never know the right path with absolute certainty.

I agree completely with, “we can never know the right path with absolute certainty”. Therefore, I suggest that we make the best decisions we can based upon the best information available.

A right path can exist because we can achieve right decisions based on absolute truths we hold. These truths can be a realistic endeavor when we reflect back onto our own lives to see where we have made the same bad decisions time and again and adjust accordingly.

My realistic attitude says that I am obligated to behave ethically, with integrity, and to do the best I can with the decisions I make.

GIA stated that God knows we are imperfect and for that we have been forgiven. However, it is not enough to say, "I am imperfect" and so continue to live in imperfection or even use it as an excuse when we fail – that is an absolute truth as well.

GIA has a unique way of looking at things. I do not agree with any supernaturalism but I respect what he has to say and the way he has of saying things.

So, Z, there are “absolutes” in this life, we just have to figure out what they are. These absolutes arise when we keep hitting that same brick wall and finally thinking, "This hurts too much, why do I keep doing it?"

I must decline the opportunity to seek absolutes. I am far too busy living and enjoying life with my wonderful wife to worry about such things. We do the best we can, treat people right by our own standards, live by our own decisions and treasure our time together. We may make a few mistakes, but nothing monumental as far as I know.

I make every effort to avoid hitting brick walls. There is no reward in doing so – ESPECIALLY after the first time. One should be able to predict the brick encounters most of the time and identify the actions that lead to collisions. Once one knows the conditions and the causative actions, avoidance is simple.

Note: Simple is not necessarily easy (like quitting smoking – said by someone who loved smoking a pipe – but decided to give it up in favor of spending more pleasant years with a lovely wife).

I do not need a god to supervise me, I need God to walk with me and show me that path.

I do not want or need anyone, including gods, showing me the path. I have ALWAYS sought my own path, made my own decisions, fought my own battles, appreciated my successes and taken responsibility for my failures.

Why would I want to follow paths set forth by gods or humans?

If one does wish to follow paths shown by gods, how is it possible to know which god to follow? The gods of the NT and OT are VERY different. Then there are gods worshiped by other religions. How does one KNOW they are following the right path?

God does not show up in the clouds to show me (another of your wise realist/rationalist posits) rather God does show up in people like you to lead me there.

If gods are somehow acting through me, it is news to me. Gods and I have not been on very good terms for a half century or so. If their influence is present, it is doing its best to work against religion. I’d say that the chance of gods using me as a “conduit” are quite minimal.

All I can do is encourage you to use your own mind. I cannot make your decisions or choose your path. You are quite capable of doing that yourself – without any external guidance.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with seeking approval from others, but it has everything to do with sharing that part of God you possess with others...and that is one of my absolute truths.

I, of course, look at it somewhat differently. I identify no part of me as being from gods, therefore what I share is part of myself that has been developed as a result of genetics, environment and my personal adjustments to both.

As to Madman Jesus Christ…Jesus Christ is the Right Path, the Right Way

I respect your right to believe that; however, I do not share the view. I have seen no extra-biblical evidence that such a godman existed, much less was a source of a path or way that I would consider following.

I’ll quote the scripture again for clarity:

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

I have heard various religious “explanations” of this – but to me it is obviously the babbling of an insane person who is consumed with egomania.

Rather than thinking of him as a man, which is what he scolded Peter for doing when Peter wanted to save him from persecution, think of him as a Right Way of living. I think about this Scripture as it affects my child or my spouse. If I love them more than the Right Way of living, then I shall suffer the consequences of that bad judgment – that is, if I allow by either absence of action or condoning behavior that is clearly wrong in my child or spouse without attempting to correct it, I am as responsible for the consequences of the behavior as if I did it myself…and I will suffer those consequences, such as bad marriage or bad child.

I agree that if we encourage negative behavior in spouse or child (or fail to reinforce positive behavior) there will very likely be negative results. I do not consider that as related to gods. It seems like human nature at work.

The “madman” scripture might be interpreted as you say – or I might be right in considering it as words spoken by an insane person (assuming that they were spoken at all – which I question).

However, if I live the Right Way and cause a decision to be made by the child or spouse to either live the Right Way or go away, they have a choice. If they choose the wrong way, there is the sword.

And “the sword” means what?

It does not imply that this sword must take permanency at that moment and for eternity for the child or spouse can see the error of their ways, and be redeemed. It is YOUR absolute truth – that is, to take responsibility for one’s actions…the problem is that had they known the right action to begin with, no responsibility would have had to be met.

Perhaps true, not necessarily. Many deliberately choose negative actions.

I do not regard taking responsibility for one’s actions as an absolute truth – but an ethical decision that I live by as best I can.

So, if John goes to Susan for guidance and Susan decides X, then Susan must take responsibility for X, as per the absolute truth. If Susan does not take responsibility for Decision X, then she is violating an absolute truth AND is not living the Right Way. There is a moral imperative. This is what I believe to be the meaning behind what this particular Scripture means. To me, it seems to support your way of living. Am I wrong in this conclusion?

I am not sure. When we are talking about “absolute truths” I tend to “hang back a little” because that is not part of my thought processes.

I suppose the difference between you and me is that you live your moral imperative, and I think about it too much!

Some of us have had a LOT of years to think about these things. A few of us with the years have actually done the thinking (rather than occupying the mind with “chewing gum for the mind” promoted by society – entertainment, group-think, emotionalism, etc)

Sometimes it is difficult to see the black and white in the shades of gray, but apparently, based on what you have said, you can see the contrast quite well.

Thank you for recognizing that I see many shades of color (not gray). Very few things in life turn out to be “black and white”, “right or wrong”, “true or false”.

Almost always there are a multitude of alternatives available to those who look for them. “I had no choice” is, IMO, almost always a false statement (unless there is a gun to one’s head – and even then there was at least one other alternative). Often the visible alternatives are unpleasant, but they exist. Others may exist but be unseen by the person making the decision.

My approach has been to gather information about unobvious alternatives – and to consider them in addition to the obvious. As a “risk taker”, I am not afraid to explore or to choose an unconventional alternative – one that no one else may see or seriously consider. Given a choice of A or B, I often see possibilities out to “M” and decide to go with one of them. This has produced a unique path – and after nearly seventy years I can truthfully say that the path has been wonderfully rich and rewarding.

I cannot imagine making “standard” decisions or living a “standard” lifestyle. I have known many people who lived their lives according to the wishes and dictates of others (including gods), and had a relatively narrow range of experience. Many simply cannot accept that I have done so many things in life, had so many experiences. Perhaps they are satisfied, but it does not seem so when we talk. They “played it safe” and “took few chances” – and always followed the plan set forth by others. They were “successful” and have a lot to leave to their descendents – and are waiting to die.

I lost the “rule book” immediately and thereafter enthusiastically looked at all the alternatives. How exciting the world is, how wonderfully complex.