abaddon

You have me confused with someone else. I was in the other thread where you were discussing this same topic, and I recall you repeatedly asking someone else for a "standard of discourse". I recall you calling more than one person's words "evasive" when they didn't fit exactly what you are wanting people to say.

What I did say in the other thread is that your insistence on literalness and the authoritativeness of the Bible is very similar to many fundamentalist's viewpoint. We had an old earth creationist recently who was very adamant about TE's not being "real Christians."

Donnmathan

Before I start, please understand that I'm not trying to insult anyone here, either individually or collectively, merely trying to illuminate a problem typified by the responses in this thread. The one quoted above is merely one example.

I feel I must ask...where did you ever get the idea that religion had to obey the rules of science and logic? We're talking about supernatural events/beings, here, which by the very definition of "supernatural" are bound to neither the laws of science or logic. If it's logic you want, stick to science. If you want to deal with only what is logical, that's great, get all warm and fuzzy from your rationality. I'm happy for you. But don't go attacking others because something in their make up makes them more comfortable with the idea of supernatural "greater power" that they think they've seen acting in their lives.

I honestly think that is the greater part of the problem those that frequent these boards have with most theists. Instead of sticking to totally scientific arguements, they tend to toss in something on the lines of "and your god is irrational," or "I can't believe you actually buy into that crap!" They are attacking something that makes the theist comfortable, and at the same time are asking them to make a radical shift in their worldview. Small wonder the theists tend to turn nasty, aggressive, and rock-stubbron. Deal with the scientific problems, and stop telling them or implying they're stupid/gullible/foolish at the same time. I'm betting that most of the folks that have become atheists through exposure to facts didn't have someone coming down on them at the same time.

Mordy

First of all, without logic you cannot even define natural or supernatural or any kind of concept, once you abandon logic you abandon meaning and definitions. It's like me abandoning the dictonary definitions of these words I am now using to communicate. So what did I just say if I abandoned their logical definitions? Supernaturalism is tantamount to abandonment of anything meaningful.

Second of all, supernaturalism is not a real world concept.

Main Entry: su·per·nat·u·ral
Function: adjective

1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil

2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

Just what exactly is supernatural? This definition doesn't even make clear how you could even determine in principle if a message was supernatural (from outside the visible, detectable universe, since the message itself wouldn't be detectable unless it was inside the universe and thefore natural!).

Since all human being and thought is natural, and all information we get about claims to god is natural, therefore there is no supernatural message in existance.

Imagine I said I have a pink unicorn pinky but she exists outside the universe. What did I just say? I said nothing, that is in anyway comprehensible. One can't even conceptualize if there is even existence "outside the universe" (whatever that means).

PhilVaz

Mordy << In conclusion, I'd have to say that Miller's position seems pretty confused and that he seems willing to say almost anything to attack ID and defend his own theology. >>

First, I would suggest instead of reading Amazon.com reviews, I would get Ken Miller's book and read it yourself. I agree atheists can and will find problems with Miller's acceptance of God, while some Christians find problems with his "Darwinism."

This thread was moved to Bible criticism so I'll skip answering your points on Ken's book specifically, except to encourage folks to get the book. There are plenty of positive reviews at Amazon also. Both atheists and theistic evolutionists can appreciate Miller's cogent scientific critique of creationism.

And Darwin himself affirmed a Creator (about 7 times) in his Origin of Species, although becoming agnostic at the end of his life. See this article by (theistic evolutionist) Denis Lamoureux on Charles Darwin and Intelligent Design. It appears Darwin was a "theistic evolutionist" of sorts at least at the time he wrote his famous book.

Phil P

Jobar

Mordy, I agree that theistic evolutionists are irrational- because they're theists.

However, they are less irrational than the ones who believe in a literal Genesis; and for the most part their irrationality is not the sort of thing which screws up their lives. They aren't the sorts who tend to fly planes into buildings, or encourage their followers to drink poison, or even poison the minds of children against science and secular government. In fact they are usually our dependable allies against the loonies who do those things.

Therefore, I think that making a big deal of attacking TEs is bad strategy for us unbelievers. It may be that you can convince some of them that theism in and of itself is irrational and incoherent, and so swell the ranks of unbelievers; but I think it's likely that you'd swell the ranks of the fundie creationists even more, because as others have said, religion is held for emotional reasons and not for intellectual ones.

Let's deal with the dangerous fools who want to ban the teaching of evolution before we worry about the not-dangerous fools who just believe in God, heaven, and all that rot, eh? Or at least, as a matter of practical politics, keep your disrespect of TEs under your hat.

Cynical? Maybe. Or maybe I'm an optimist; if they have enough rationality to see that creationism is bullshit, maybe if we're gentle with 'em they'll be quicker to realize that theism is also bullshit. After all, they're not as crazy as the hard-core fundies!

added- Isn't this a GRD kinda topic, instead of a BC&H one?

Donnmathan

Logic can be used to create a set of phenomina - the natural, those within the pervue of science. Anything which falls outside this set, whether we understand it or not, is termed supernatural. (See the definition you provided!)

I don't think so...let's take a good look at the definition.

No...enter, the definition YOU provided!

Okay...first off, it obviously has a definition, so the word is not illogical in and of itself, as you seemed to imply in your first statement - we have NOT abandoned meanings, here.

Actually, the definition makes it very clear how to determine if a given thing was supernatural...a simple process of elimination. We have the set of natural things, things which science is able to attempt understanding and which follow the laws of the universe as we understand them. According to the definition, the supernatural is the set of things which fall outside of the first set. It says, "appearing to transcend the laws of nature," giving us a very solid guide for classification.

It then proceeds to give a clue as to an example of something that falls within the set of "supernatural". Ghosts, which science has no way of explaining to anyone's satisfaction - especially those which seem to interact with the viewer! So, now we have a definition, a logical means to apply the definition, and even a good example of something that fits the definition. Seems like your charge of abandoning logic and "not a real world concept" is refuted.

As far as how would we determine if a message is supernatural, I don't think you're looking at it the right way. If a god's voice spoke in my mind and told me "Beware the one-legged man!", the message itself is quite intelligable, and lagically understandable - I'm supposed to avoid a guy with only one leg. The method of delivery, and the source, are the supernatural aspects. So...to answer your other question - assuming you recognize a message, apply our definition to the delivery method and source. Your confusion seems to be in thinking the christains think the bible is supernatural - it's the point of origin they consider supernatural.

You missed a bit of the definition there, and a major assumption. First, it was "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe." That bold bit is important. A ghost, for example, may produce effects that are quite observable, and even be visible, but since no natural law explains it, it is considered supernatural. Most folks think that ghost dwell at least partly outside our physical universe, and so relate to wherever that is. Same goes for gods and the like. The christians claim their bible came from a being that dwells in another order of existence. The claim can be scoffed at, laughed at, or whatever, but it CAN'T be disproven by modern science, because the being in question is a supernatural one. How do they know it exists? They don't "know", in the way science "knows" that trees exist; they must have faith, which throws the whole mess into the relms of philosophy and theology, where science cannot tread. It also means conventional logic is a bit difficult to apply, as we have no clue what the rules for that "other order of existence" are.

Donnmathan

One might want to tone down the insults and obvious disrespect, then. We fools are liable to take offense. On the practical side, it is just this attitude that is making so many theists dig in their heels. No one is going to take well to being told, "you're views are wrong, I can prove it, and you're a fool who doesn't deserve respect until you abandon your fool beliefs!" You may not agree with someone, but you'd better show some respect for their convictions if you expect it in return.

[Edit] I myself am not a christian theist, but the attitude normally gets dumped on all of us theists more-or-less equally, so I feel I have a right to stand up, here.[/Edit]

Mordy

I measure someones level of self-deception as greater or lesser as a person's intelligence goes up while they still hold onto ignorance that is trivial to resolve for their level of ability. But yet TE's still hold onto their "ignorance blanky" (belief in the bible/christian conception of god). The problem for TE's is that they have no excuse, if they spent some time reflecting on what they really believed, they would without fail stop believing in christianity. Since their whole criteria for belief in god is entirely different from the standard the christian god lays out in his writings, not believing the writings as authoratative is tantamount to believing in another god that has nothing to do with christianity and is basically deism. i.e. god reveals himself through many religions. The thing the TE doesn't see of course is that if that is the case, then there is no point in talking about what gods qualities are because there is no authoritative definition or conception of what god is, who he/she/it is, and what it wants.

So yes nutcases can use religion to crash planes into buildings, but this doesn't mean they are less self-decieved then theistic evolutionists. This is what I mean when I say theistic evolutionists are "more ignorant" is because they are perfectly capable of exposing their self-deception.

It's like a genius student in the class that purposefully answers every question : "2+2" with "=5", but he really believes 2+2=5, thats a Theistic evolutionist. The problem is he has no excuse because he's getting A's across the board in all other subjects and to make such a trivial mistake exposes his own level self-deceptive ignorance.

Peter Kirby

Mordy, "Since their whole criteria for belief in god is entirely different from the standard the christian god lays out in his writings, not believing the writings as authoratative is tantamount to believing in another god that has nothing to do with christianity and is basically deism."

What do you mean? The Bible does not say that the proper basis of a belief in God is a belief in the authority of the Bible.

best,
Peter Kirby

Mordy

Actually it does. Many times over, the people in the bible say their words are the very words of god, so therefore they are gods words. Otherwise what you're believing in is not the christian conception of god. The authors claims that the christian god put all these words in their mouth and the words they speak are not their own. How clear does it have to be?

The problem is TE's approach the bible with their own pre-concieved framework for how it should be interpreted. The problem becomes then: If the characters within the bible are the authority on biblical teaching, how can TE's claim their personal judgement is the last word on the authority of what the bible teaches? You see contradiction I hope.