avi

Amen

Roger Pearse

Do chemistry, physics and engineering involve making theological statements about God?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

spin

No, they don't. They only deal with real things.


spin

Vinnie

"Real" being defined by electrical signals in the brain?

They are real, just not tangible. Is logic a real thing? Pass me a handful of it then.

Oh wait, I'm discussing this in the wrong forum :wave:

Vinnie

driver8

Of course they do. They establish reasonable constraints within which the observable universe operates. And, along with the biological and other sciences, they establish mechanisms that explain this observable universe, and negate both a requirement and any probability of divine intervention. They establish nature and extent of existence, which does not well support the supposed revelations of the prophets. Honestly, there's no magic.

But if you think they don't, then what does? Theology? What is that, really? What are the methods and sources of theology? What that is supposedly divine is verifiable? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Its a null set, void. All you have is the written word of someone who you can't even verify, writings whose history you cannot trace, and which offer nothing extraordinary in their nature, much less having a consistent coherent message, making the biblical god appear to me quite incompetent. That in summary is the strongest theological statement I can imagine. There's no "there" there.

Again I must ask, what god has there ever been that was not created in man's mind? The moment you attempt to answer this you are forced to engage your imagination to describe what can only be "your" god, though colored by your aquired bias.

Again bias. Roger, your own personal biases appear to me to include an exceptional understanding of the writings of antiquity, to which I commend you, and which I much appreciate, along with a theistic belief system, to which I would say you have no reasonable means of supporting. You cannot easily shake those biases.

Sorry for the bias-driven derail. Back to BC&H.

spin

That wouldn't be a sophistic switch to metadiscussion, would it? :Cheeky:

This is what provoked the comment I responded to:

My own personal bias of chemistry, physics, and engineering tells me that man created god

Logic outside your metadiscussion has no relevance to any analysis on the subject. It is merely the starting criterion for most discussions.


spin

Roger Pearse

Indeed not. This is why the first statement is nonsense.

The humanities are not real?

Roger Pearse

No, they do not.

No, they do not. They describe how the observed universe operates.

No, they do not. These statements form part of the creed of 19th century rationalism, and are unscientific. Scientists have no opinion on the question of divine intervention, as scientists, any more than with history or politics. They are concerned with what their methodology allows them to see.

I would only point out that all the atheists I ever met live by a belief system which they are often incapable of stating, never mind supporting, so this is a very unfortunate argument. Since they do not state it, and most change the subject swiftly, we have to infer from how they live and speak. And, after all, I live in the same society. But convenience seems to me to be one pillar of the way of speaking and presumably living of most of them; and the other is to appeal to whatever happen to be the societal values of the time and place in which they happened to be born. When I look back at atheists of past days, this is what I see. The precise values depend, of course, on the menu of values available at the time.

But I happen to remember a different set of societal values, and I remember the shibboleths of today being invented, by people I despise, and promulgated by methods that were certainly not an appeal to logic and reason. (Probably the same is true in every age, which is why merely period values must be wrong). Thus I cannot believe in them.

It is useless to defend atheism by rubbishing Christianity. Atheism must be defended for itself, for what it would be if no Christians existed. If a single atheist was the only man alive, what values would he live by? What would his philosophy lead him to do, and think, and believe? That question is one that every religious position must answer to be credible; and the atheism espoused online fails it at the first hurdle, usually with some statements such as "I don't have to prove anything" or "you don't understand that atheism is just a negation."

You will appreciate, then, that the claims you repeat here to superior rationality seem somewhat shallow, when I see so many atheists living by a set of values that are certainly temporary and certainly wrong and that those who live by them cannot discuss. And that is the real alternative which we are offered, the silent default presumed in every debate. It won't do. Not that this proves Christianity is true -- although I think it is -- but that we must look beyond alternatives which merely reflect period values.

Often people shout at me when I say these things, or complain they cannot understand me. Independent thinking does disturb or baffle, I know, and for that I apologise. My inability to communicate clearly is something I wish I could rectify.

But as you rightly remark, this is nothing to do with BC&H.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Yellum Notnef

From listening to Roger one has to wonder how hummanity could have possibly survived until Christianity was invented. The Human race should have been dead in a ditch within a year without the wondeful moral guidance of his god.

Yellum Notnef

I think I can safelty speak for all the atheists here when I tell you that we understand you perfectly. That you believe we don't is your problem and something you might try and work on.

You communicate quite clearly. We just think most of your opines are passive aggresive attacks at things you hate and/or can't comprehend due to your very conservative Christianity. And this, once again, is your problem.