I believe in God because I believe what the Bible tells me, and most of all, I believe in Him because I can feel his Holy Ghost/Spirit inspiring me to do his will from day to day. Does that answer your question?
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
May I ask precisely which God you are talking about? The "Christian" God? Even the people who call themselves Christians often mean very different things when they say "I believe in God." Perhaps I'm seeming a bit nitpicky here, but I think you really have to have your definitions in place. Unless you mean, "do you believe in whatever god is to you?"
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with suntranafs. Though many of us believe, who believe in G-d, that he is one, the idea of G-d is ever-changing. My idea of G-d is not yours or the next person's.
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I belive in the existence of beings greater than humanity, and that such a being could be misconcieved as God. The universe is many billions of years old, and the human race--at about 10,000 years--is very young. By a little mental math, an ancient race could have as many as one million years of evolution for every one year the human race has been around. I think it's quite likely that some multibillion-year old race has messed with us at some point in some way.
I know it's not very satisfactoy for those looking for "the answer", the meaning of life, or whatever, but I stopped looking the moment I realized that "the answer" is whatever you want it to be, but that's another story altogether...
Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wheat Puppet, I have a comment about your post... You said that the "answer" meaning if there was a god, or how the human race was created, was whatever we wanted it to be. I apoligize for questioning your judgement but that statement is no more true than 5+5=14 because "I want it to." Events such as human evolution or, heavenly creation(the two main arguments) are not things we imagine, they are not fantasies, they are events that actually took place(only one of course unless you are a religous person who will not allow science to disprove religion and then you start to accept evolution as the means in which "God" developed man over the years( that is another issue). So you see, we can not be correct in saying that "the answer" is whatever we want to be when "the answer"is an event that took place. Furthermore, to help prove my point, one cannot say Abraham Lincoln assassinated Martin Luther King Jr. because they want it to be so. All one can do is pick which ever theory seems more likely to them; which ever theory has more evidence; which ever theory is closer to the truth. And if one chooses the wrong theory then they are wrong because it is false, therefore they can't be right simply because "they want to be." Thank you.
Posts: 11 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe in god. Since I don't believe in free will, I believe that something had to tip the dominoes that we are. I believe that thing is god.
But I personally don't beat myself up about it since there is no way to know whether god exists or not. Its an arrogant thing to say that god exists. Its an arrogant thing to say that he doesn't.
In matters of faith, you only have what you believe.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And this how to do with OSC in.. what.. way????
Am I the only one who thinks its okay to post non OSC realated things in this forum. I mean really, OSC fans should be some of the most interesting people to talk about this with, so why not post ideas that you find interesting?
Posts: 247 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Laurenz, you believe in god and yet not free will, didn't god (certainly the christian god) give us the gift of free will?
Erm also tis true that the river has two sides but people have being posting non OSC topics here for years. Why bother worrying about it now?
Posts: 200 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe in God, i think all the things he's done for us are fairly obvious. I believe it's fairly obvious the things he lets us figure out for ourselves are things we cant be taught, he's my other father. I feel him around me, though through my own mistakes he cannot always dwell within me. That makes me sad when i think about it and it's a real sadness not the guilt of someone whom is taught to obey the true guilt of someone who knows what they did is wrong and honestly regrets it.
~Brock
~A dishonest man you can always trust to do the dishonest thing, but an honest man... an honest man you hafto worry about doing something REALLY stupid!
Posts: 46 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Elohim translates as gods(little g), not God YWVH translates as "God of the Firey Mountain"
In Sumer "God of the Firey Mountain" was set to rule over lesser lands which could be, and most likely are the lands of the Jews. Older jewish stories tell of rivals gods and a war among them. In the end YWVH won. He proclaimed himself the only God and that worshipping of any other gods would be punishable by death. Firey Mountain also has some meaning that i wont get into in this short little post.
Our history is lost and undeniable proof is also lost.
Do i believe in a vengeful, judging God. No. Quite frankly its very small minded and only reflects the mind of man. Is there a divine being, i dont think so, something as grand as our creator could not be called a "being". Is there some creation force that moves through out the universe and beyond in all likelihood yes. Does he care what we call him or how we worship him (dont get carried away with that, im not saying that you should sacrafice your dog to some divine power) i highely doubt it, as long as your morals are strong and your ideas and thoughts are honest that you will be OK.
There is SO MUCH of our history that has been edited out because we are a christian based society. SO MUCH so that the ideas seem ridiculous and strange, which usually causes anger or spite. If people took the time to research pre-bible documents you would see more than you ever thought possible. The bible was compiled by men looking to create a religion from diffrent documents. If you seriously dont think they edited it, then you give way to much credit to humankind.
Ill even use an Orson Scott Card refrence. Remeber the story of Gloriously Bright or Qing-jao, his ideas may have just been fantasy to him at the time but those ideas of have rang true since the dawn of time. People that are raised on an belief become so overwhelmed with that belief that all else is FALSE. -=] provable or not the idea will always be false. ex:) creationism vs darwinism (btw i believe neither)
"only one of course unless you are a religous person who will not allow science to disprove religion and then you start to accept evolution as the means in which "God" developed man over the years"
I'll take really stupid assumptions for 500, Alex.
Not all people who believe in God were born taking The Bible literally, and not all religous people call themselves Christians.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm inclined to say that I don't believe in any force which can change the physical laws of the universe. Evolution and modern science virtually disprove most of the beginning of the Old Testament, and many people are willing to say that the Old Testament was wrong, but the new testament was right simply because they act on faith. I believe that the universe is a magnificent place, but I do not believe that when we die, we will go to a perfect place and spend all eternity there (just think of how many observable physical laws that would violate). And please, none of that "aha, so you believe physics and evolution are God!" stuff.
Posts: 10 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, so you don't believe in God. And you expect to be attacked for it. That's kind of sad, actually. I don't think there's any reason to try and accuse you of anything, as long as you recognize that the folks here who disagree with you have a legitimate opinion, albeit one different from yours.
Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
In what way does modern science rule out anything in the Old or New Testament? I ask this as a practicing physicist at CERN and the son of one who works at Los Alamos, whose formative years were spent going to a ward (Mormon equiv. of a parish) almost entirely populated with physical sciences PhDs. In the opinion of a significant fraction of mature scientists, there is a whole lot of room for God (yeah, a literal being, not a figment of some collective imagination) in the universe. Yes, I know the Big Bang is on a firm footing - I saw the MAP results. Yes I've heard about <standard disproof of religion topics>.
Your scope is too narrow. Don't just emote, THINK. Science in its present form is very cool, and gives us a lot of neat handles on the world. It is critical to understand the _limitations_ of both our knowledge and of the method. There are very few problems that we can solve analytically, only a few more that we can model reasonably. We can't account (yet) for what makes up the lion's share of the universe. Our biology is extremely primitive. The archaeology and palentology with which we justify our theories on the origin of life are not even close to ironclad... though I happen to believe they are in the right ballpark.
There are no arguments to be made for or against the existence of God in the gamut of present knowledge. Speculations (wild guesses) are free game, but there is not one iota of actual evidence within the canon. Make your religious decisions by honestly examining your own heart... you can't excuse philisophical laziness by appealing to the "obvious" facts of science.
Now, there are experiments one _can_ do to ascertain the existence of God - but those entail some dedication and a desire to know the truth, whatever it may require of you. Thus, the admonition to examine yourself.
In reply to some spurious comments:
It is not inevitable that some higher race has messed with us - the chances are pretty low, in fact, if you really think about it.
Free will is subtle - I don't think we necessarily see it in action every day. I can quite understand why Laurenz0 doesn't believe in it. Not that I agree.
It seems fairly obvious that if there is a God (as I will assert) He is not subject to the whimsy of human belief. As for changing laws of the universe - why? The idea of a " force which can change the physical laws of the universe" is recursive to the point of meaninglessness. And, IMHO, there is plenty of room for Him to do a whole lot.
While we keep in mind the niceties and neat handles on the universe afforded to us by modern science, I think it's also useful to keep in mind that religious texts afford us neat handles via narrative (i.e. stories) on our experience in that universe.
posted
Full and unconditional agreement. I'll take it further and say that since the data were given by one who really understands the universe's underlying principles, it'll contain hints not only "on our experience in that universe", but on the nature of the universe itself. If you're equipped to pick up the hints. I operate on the assumption that nobody really is, though.
Religious philosophy question, if anyone's interested in playing - does God understand all principles of the universe, or all events in the universe, or just those principles/events that pertain to godhood? I'm asking for specific references to the Christian/Mormon scriptural canon - no reason to reference human philosophers, after all, who can have no basis to comment. And please, no Gödel citations - we don't have enough of a reference to know whether God resides/operates totally within our universe, which may or may not be closed.
Posts: 90 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
PhysicsGriper, what observables are affected by an afterlife? Just wondering. Extra points if you can tell me which terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian have problems with that.
The Big Bang isnt on firm ground really, it is the accepted theory by most academic physists but the real truth seekers are out there coming up with diffrent ideas.
If one were to look at the big bang and compare it with Genesis, youll realize they are very far off from one another. One physists even said it have would take 7 days to create the universe at the time of the big bang, because time was a little diffrent then than it is now. I dont have the link to his exact calculations but im sure you can google for it.
However Genesis is a book that was written after 1000 years of oral history and that history is derived from Sumerian Texts. Genesis differs more from the original in my opinion only because they wanted to create their own history, so they took the original and chopped it up and edited it. THere are also 70 diffrent translations/versions of Genesis. All of which were never translated correctly.
The fact remains as was said before, the truth if looked at through books and research would most likely prove god's existance is NULL and Void. Though that is the silliest reason to not be spiritual. There is a creational force in the universe/universes. The only thing i have to prove it though is some senses science says doesnt exist and a will to back it up.
Posts: 10 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
One of the common arguments that occurs between atheists and theists is a kind of chicken and egg thing. Namely, if atheism is merely the lack of belief in God, then every child is an atheist until they are taught otherwise.
Another way of looking at this is that (assuming that there is no god) if no one had invented religion, then everyone would be an atheist, and no one would know it.
Atheism itself has no other characteristics, but we are constantly accused of "evangelizing our belief," when really, you can only walk silently through life for just so long before you get sick of being told that you're wrong.
Christianity is specifically evangelical, and atheists are frequent targets of that evangelism. But when we react to it, we are accused of being the aggressor.
Which gets me back to the original question in the thread. It's quite natural for a theist to ask if someone believes in god. It's also quite natural, when the answer is "no" to respond by asking: "Well, why not?"
It's a perfectly honest question. I'm not accusing anyone of "atheist baiting" or anything, but what follows is often that the atheist answers the question, and gets accused of attacking the person's faith. Why? Because the atheist presents a sequence of observations, systematically arranged in order to demonstrate the reason the atheist lacks belief. In other words, an argument, in the academic sense.
Of course, for one whose faith is important to them, the logical argument often sounds like a fighting argument, since it's based in disagreement, and next thing you know, a fight ensues. So who started it? (this is the chicken and egg thing I was talking about)
So, short answer: Yes. We atheists expect to be attacked. Happens all the time. From our perspective, it is the theists who fail to respect our right to an opinion.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Wheat Puppet, I have a comment about your post...
There's a story to my belief system, which I'll forego for the purposes of brevity, but I would like to further explain why the answer is whatever you want it to be.
Basically, we live in a universe that is beyond human conception. Don't tell me you can because you can't. You can give me numbers and distances and laws and theories, but that's merely a way of describing what we sense.
Take, for instance, the Moon. How far away is it? Do you know? Of course, it's x-number of miles away (I didn't bother to look it up, but you know what I mean). But do you really know how far that is? If we made a walkway to the moon (a perposterous idea, but bear with me a second), could you concieve of travelling--by land--all the way there? It's a huge distance, and that's just to the moon.
The universe is greater than we can ever imagine, in all parameters. Looking back down at humanity makes our greatest efforts--wars, the great wonders, progressions in society--seem meaningless and petty. So I decided that I would decide what was important for me, and urge others to do the same. It's not about 5+5=14, it's about whether to care about math at all. I know a lot of people who hated math, but took advanced calculus all the same. They felt like they had to, but they weren't acting on what was important to them, only what other people said was important. I decided to figure out for myself what I thought was important, and made it clear what those things were.
As an example, I took an Modern American Literature class at school last year, which I thoroughly hated. All but one of the books we read and discussed I really hated. All of these books were highly acclaimed works of literature, but I hated every last one of them. I made it very clear that I didn't think that our selected readings were "great" literature, and supported my argument fully. I didn't get a great grade for the first few assignments. Later, I think the professor realized that there was no winning with me (and most of the other people in the class were doing poorly for other reasons), so I got higher marks afterward.
Anyway, what I'm trying to say is, don't let anyone tell you what's important. Spend time and figure it out for yourself. Don't do what's cool, or right, or even moral, do what you think is important for you. You won't always be right, but you'll always be happy. I am.
EDIT Glenn Arnold: Yeah, usually when I get asked the question, "Do you belive in god?" by the average person, my response is, "No, don't want to talk about it." Because it inevitably ends up in the theist getting angry and me getting frustrated.
You seem to make an equivalence between a "closed" universe and Goedel's "completeness" with the last few comments in your post. I'm unsure of the relation between the two that you are drawing.
1. Copy and paste. On a Mac or a PC I can do better, but I haven't bothered in Linux yet.
2. I'm drawing a rough analogy between a logical system and the universe - which I suspect might be reducible to a set of rules. It's certainly a point I would expect to see in the commentary here. Thus Kurt. I'm not real interested in debating topics on which we have NO information, and that would apply quite thoroughly to whether the universe can be described as a Gödel-type system. So I tried to head off the IMHO inevitable tangent.
OK - J0ntar, I'd recommend reserving comment on things you're not familiar with - I am always embarassed when I fail to do it. Big Bang is (as of a few months ago) in very good shape - it went from being a theory to a theory with a _very_ strong experimental result behind it. It isn't a proven _fact_ (unlikely it ever will be) but it is well beyond, say, evolution in terms of solidity. As for truth seekers elsewhere, how are they going about this search? You're awfully quick to dismiss some of the world's most competent and experienced truth-seekers.
Before anyone breathes fire in return to the Big Bang thing - just remember: a Big Bang says nothing about the Bible or God or anything. Nothing. No connection. Remember - in science, unless you can specifically disprove the null hypothesis, science has nothing to say. It can opine, but that's useless. In actual fact, the BB is describing a VERY different thing from the Creation. Created, in translation = formed (roughly).
I believe Genesis literally - I'll understand what it literally means when I understand the terms it's written in. I know God didn't lie to Moses. What I don't know is what he meant by what he said. In school, people who don't understand the topic (students) often sieze on an apparent "contradiction" by the professor, and leap about with glee - until they find out they just weren't understanding what was said, and they sit down and start learning again. People do that to God (especially in Genesis) a lot, either for or against. Remember the idiot who tried to explain to his classmates what the professor meant, but got it all wrong. I hope that's not self-indicting.
I know that God is, and is our father. It's an experimental result. I can wait on the rest until I have a basis to understand it.
Alden
ps - we Mormons are lucky. We get a clean copy of Genesis from the source.
What is this nonsense about Sumerian texts? All of which were not translated correctly? Regurgitating speculation doesn't help the discussion go forward. As if I couldn't think of several ways off the top of my head to poke holes in that argument. Come on.
Posts: 90 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And yes, I am specifically excluding other religions and worldviews and philosophies and all that. Why? 'Cause I'm not asking the question to instigate a philosophical love-fest where everyone ooohs and aaahs over each other's theologies and teleologies - I want an answer to the question in specific terms that I care about. Applied religion is of central interest to me, and I don't believe that Hindu or Zuni theology will give me results that can pass the test of having been given by a prophet that speaks with the God of Israel. Neither can any other significant Christian religion, except Catholicism, and I challenge the validity of that claim. Just like they always challenge mine.
So - no religion-bashing - I 'm just looking for a very specific answer which will be meaningful to me. Seeing as how I'm not Taoist, Mormon theology will have to do.
Allow me to clarify, BTW; you're quite right. I do want a definitive basis. I continue not to want philosophers. They're sort of a meta-religion in and of themselves, and not one that I think can answer the question.
"Well, there's the whole exothermic/endothermic question . . ."
posted
Judaism has no central authority, to the best of my knowledge, and I've certainly never heard of anyone since Malachi who's been able to say Thus saith the Lord... but that could well be my lack of experience. In any case, lack of central structure in prophetic authority kills validity for me, as in the case of Islam. If ten fatwas can be issued by ten "inspired" clerics, each with the same apparent authority to speak for God, and the ten contradict each other roundly, I can't look to that as a source of information from God.
to copy and paste in linux, depends on what desktop enviroment your running, but usually its always Right click or 3rd mouse button.
also. i am famaliar with the big bang, and its alternative theories. Just because you read steven hawking dont assume you know all there is to know. If you dont want to compare and contrast the simliarities between Genesis and the Big Band then ignorance is your gift to yourself. Use your left and right brain together. If you only think with the left then you will see nothing but a bunch of molecules floating around in a quatum field.
I am not religious nor ever will be, so if your assuming that i am defending Genesis then your wrong. I am trying to point out that Science and Religion will and are coming together to create something new. I do know that you are trying to rationalize God and that left brain thinking isnt working. Your big words are confusing you and you have yet to make any point other than to post your opinion on the matter (me either for that matter)
Posts: 10 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: if no one had invented religion, then everyone would be an atheist, and no one would know it.
If there was no God it would have been neccessary to invent him. (Can't remember who said it, but it sprang to mind).
It seems such a shame that a perfectly good conversation about a/the supreme being(s) has to have religion dragged into it. But it seems so difficult to keep the two mutually exclusive.
My major gripe is that religion of every kind is man made. Whether there was a divine command to create the religion or just a large number of people who believed the same thing - therefore creating it through their belief(s). (Just wondering, how many more people need to believe Elvis is still alive before it fulfills one of the tenets for becoming a religion?).
It is possible to argue this point back and forth but when it comes down to it, the problem lies in the translation. Whichever religious text it may be it was created in the first volume by mortal hands. Let me give an example of what i'm trying to say.
I'll use two examples of which i know more about and what seem to be the main case arguments here:
The Bible. Firstly - not just one book ergo not just one author. Written in countries and times rife with sexism and racism and across a large period of time. The translation would have been done almost, if not, completely by men; and after... 2000 years? (New Testament alone) the amount of editing (perhaps not altruistically so) could well be substantial. Issues and stories may have been removed, added or edited by any writer as it was changed from Hebrew to Arabic, to Latin, to German, to English etc... (I don't even want to get onto the subject of The Book of the Apocalypse, one of several books not included in the standard purchasable Bible but still available to buy - just no-one mentions it's there). The old testaments story of seven days: Isn't that just a metaphor for the seven stages of the creation of the world. The great flood which turned the whole world into an ocean - wouldn't the whole world to the writer have been the few hundred miles around where they lived? Aren't many of the stories told in parable and metaphor, the way in which knowledge was passed down at the time? Are these methods of communication relevant to be followed in a literal sense today?
The Book of Mormon As many of you are Latter Day Saints you'll be more knowledgeable on the subject than I but I'll just go by what i learnt at school and from my LDS ex-girlfriend.
Translated in the last one or two centuries by Joseph Smith though not a new book by LDS accounts, this is the 'missing testament' (?) which Smith received from Moroni on Golden tablets, translated and dictated to his wife (without her ever seeing the tablets) through a curtain in the next room (That is the point which always bothered me. Especially as my ex had never been taught this particular fact and disagreed heartily before checking with her parents and finding i was infact right). The tablets came direct from heaven no? But still they had to be translated by mortal hands and by a young man who, by his own admission, was poorly educated (although i have a strange feeling he was given the gift of Babel???).
I think some of my points apply to many religions and their religious texts.
Book I digress onto God. I could never understand why people see many religions as mutually exclusive. Its not a matter of "all religions are wrong" but more why can't all religions be right?
If you get 500 people to look at a picture from a different angle. And in front of this picture is a transparent, multi-sided crystal(I might need to be more specific here but i reckon you knpw what sort of object i'm getting at), obscuring the picture completely. The only view of this picture you get is what you see through your particular side of the crystal, each person will see a different thing, however slight this differnece may be. 500 different views of the same picture; not wrong - just not complete; and all different.
Posts: 200 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
For me, science and religion were never apart, in the sense to which I think you refer. God lives in the same universe we do. I think it's safe to assume that he obeys its rules as well.
In describing the universe right now, there's a debate on as to how to proceed. On one side, reductionists, who say we can reduce the behaviors of reality to a set of rules, then apply those rules to eventually explain everything that happens. On the other, "collectivists" (I guess) who assert that in collective behavior (large groups of particles) behavior emerges which can't be extracted from a knowledge of fundamental physical constants.
When God talks to man, He is much more interested in teaching man his place in the universe and explaining his responsibilities. I kind of sympathize with the collectivists, and think perhaps God IS describing some physics to us - just on the ultimate level of "collective behavior" descriptions. He tells us how to interact with it in such a way as to become like Him. Apparently the way we treat our fellow creatures and our ability to exercise self-control have something to do with that. Of course, this bears no resemblance to photon exchange between electrons, which have no apparent self-control.
In sum: modern science is very reductionist. God seems to be more interested in the other end of the spectrum of knowledge. Combining the two seems ill-advised, at least to me, under present conditions. I have an image in my head of Dilbert's pointy-haired boss replacing a controller chip with "Moby-Dick" in a circuit diagram. If you're going to combine two things (usefully, anyway) you must understand the behavior of both, and you must be able to make them talk.
There - I believe I've made a point. I also avoided all those nasty big words. Sorry I was too loquacious before.
Big Bang and Creation really do describe two different things - just think for a minute. The earth is a tiny bit of fairly exotic material as far as BB is concerned. It's where the action is as far as Genesis goes.
Hawking's theories (as of a few years ago) are alternatives to the Big Bang. He doesn't like it. I don't know where he stands now. May I suggest again that you examine some serious works on any given subject before you dismiss it. Again... what are these alternatives?
I have no need to rationalize God - he's already rational, in the non-mathematical sense.
I was very clear on the fact that you're not terribly biblical yourself - my comments on Genesis were aimed at a more general audience.
Fire away. Can't guarantee I have any good answers. Good point, BTW - natural selection is pretty clear on a short time scale. Case in point, cows and chickens (and turkeys! My goodness! They could never live away from a farm!)
You aren't opening the door to a discussion of the genetically modified organisms upon which the whole of civilization is dependent are you?
One of my questions isn't really a question so much as a bit of confusion about one of the points you make.
You mention that modern science leaves a lot of room for a god, God, or G-d, or "big pink pixie in the sky". I completely agree, but the magnitude of room left over for even the "20 scandanavian men in tights who control the universe" is staggering. (refs to other threads) So, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this? (apologies for being vague and confused)
posted
Simply illustrating that animal morphology can change with the selection of breeding pairs. Nothing groundbreaking. Natural selection follows the same vein.
Certainly. My point is simply that there are no data in the scientific canon to make any useful comment on God's existence or lack thereof - in response to the silly assertions of others.
One must look to data-gathering channels outside the realm of present scientific understanding to understand the nature of God. That doesn't, of course, imply that He is not constrained by the universe. Again - we don't know much at all. I know enough through the channels aforementioned to assure all involved that Scandanavian men are NOT running the universe. 'Course, nobody'll believe me unless they do the experiment. Oh, well.
I was replying to the specific assertion in j0ntar's post - that science and religion were somehow merging together to create something new. This, IMHO, unlikely, considering the points I have made concerning their respective natures. I think they are widely separated parts of the same thing - something we haven't even the first idea how to imagine.
Perhaps it can be described as follows: I don't believe there will be any great advances coming anytime soon from a merger between interior design and cross-sectional measurements of the Z boson weak coupling.
quote: The Book of Mormon As many of you are Latter Day Saints you'll be more knowledgeable on the subject than I but I'll just go by what i learnt at school and from my LDS ex-girlfriend.
Translated in the last one or two centuries by Joseph Smith though not a new book by LDS accounts, this is the 'missing testament' (?) which Smith received from Moroni on Golden tablets, translated and dictated to his wife (without her ever seeing the tablets) through a curtain in the next room (That is the point which always bothered me. Especially as my ex had never been taught this particular fact and disagreed heartily before checking with her parents and finding i was infact right). The tablets came direct from heaven no? But still they had to be translated by mortal hands and by a young man who, by his own admission, was poorly educated (although i have a strange feeling he was given the gift of Babel???).
This is a point which is little known (or seems to be) outside of strictly Mormon circles, and makes for some very aggravating discussions: the Book of Mormon did NOT come direct from heaven. For some reason the methods of teaching about it and the LDS church in school have rendered this fact almost unknown, and obviously reduces most people's view of its credibility. The Book of Mormon is, very simply, a HISTORY. In fact, it is an abridgement of very extensive histories kept by the societies of the Nephites, Lamanites, and Jerodites, although predominantly the Nephites. When it was on the Earth in the posession of Joseph Smith, its credibility as a historic record was confirmed more than once. It is sacred text because these peoples went through many important spiritual experiences, both as individuals and as societies as a whole, and these express universal truths as the bible does. There are many benefits to the knowledge in the Book of Mormon, more than I could relate here, but one of the major ones is that it was translated only ONCE, direct from the original abridgement, which was done by the prophet Mormon. (that's why it's called The Book of Mormon... notbecause we worship a guy named Mormon! ) I was just reading through this thread, noticed your misconception, and had to get this off my chest!
I think you touched on my second question (now that that synapse has fired again). Again, not so much a question but an opinion.
I've never really understood the science vs. religion debate(s), as I've never personally viewed them as being in opposition to one another. As you note, they seem like very separate human activities and so it's an apples vs. oranges comparison to begin with. (oversimplifying?)
quote:My point is simply that there are no data in the scientific canon to make any useful comment on God's existence or lack thereof
Stradling...Am I to assume, then, that you accept Gould's idea of science and religion as non-overlapping magisteria?
I'm not so sure that science and religion have nothing to say to each other about the question of God; however, it is true that up until the present science hasn't said much that would really contribute to the debate. Maybe science just has not learned yet how to ask the right questions, or to ask them in the right way.
I know you said that you give no credit to non-Mormon speculations; however, you might be interested in (if you have not already discovered) Sir John Polkinghorne's speculations about how God acts in the universe and some things he has said about God following the rules he set up. Polkinghorne is an Anglican clergyman who was a physicist in his first career. I found some of the things he has had to say on this topic to be awfully Mormon for an Anglican. Maybe it was just me, or maybe I was misinterpreting what he said. I don't know. I wish I had the link to the specific interview in which he was addressing this issue. If I can find it tomorrow, when I am more fully awake, I will post the link.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
A quick parousal of Gould's definition of majesteria indicates to me that we're in material agreement. I get the impression that he feels that never the twain shall meet - I think the gulf is simply to wide for us to cross right now.
I specifically _didn't_ say anything about religion not having anything to say to science. That being said, I'm skeptical of most attempts by religious people to take the scriptural canon and extract "proofs" of its accuracy by appealing to science. I am sure, however, that God is well aware of the laws of the universe, and that indications DO exist in His words of things we have recently discovered or have not yet seen.
I believe in a principle called 'personal revelation'. In that sense, I think religion can be a great source of scientific knowledge. My personal opinion is that this is a large factor in our present whompingly fast advances in out understanding of the world's workings. Acknowledged or not.
I'm quite interested in the speculations of all philosophers and religions - I know for a fact that all humans have access to God, and that most theologies and philosophies contain lots of true principles. The question, however, wasn't about _speculations_ - it was a request for authoritative statements. I'm not trying to formulate a theory - I want to look at the raw data. In that sense, even Mormon speculation is verboten because it is also NOT authoritative. It may be moot, however - no responses so far. I guess everyone thought I was a such-and-so religious fanatic/bigot and left.
I would love the link on Polkinghome, though. I've enjoyed the few things I've read from him.
The debate is IMHO the result of jumping to unwarranted conclusions on both sides. People do that when they feel threatened (at least I do). It takes a bit to calm down and figure out just what is really going on. Some people never really get past their first assumptions, though.
Others get mileage out of holding onto their first idea. One might say, Well, enough of the hard work and obligation - science tells me I can go do what I want. One might also say, well, I don't have to think about this - I can just use the same old ideas and call anyone who disagrees with me an enemy to God. Both are examples of laziness. Easy outs are fun in the short term, but you get left behind - you stagnate. Progression, again IMHO, is a fundamental human need. If you don't get it, you begin to regress.
To be more careful about definitions, though:
Reality and revelation don't come into conflict.
Science's practitioners and religious people often come into conflict.
A caveat - I've just noticed an enormously imprecise point in all of my posts. When I say religion, I'm talking with the actual dealings of God with man on the earth. I can't say that the tenets of religions other than LDS and the parts of Christianity which agree with LDS theology are not in conflict with science. I haven't examined the tenets involved with enough thoroughness. I am sure there are theological points that are ruled out by science because they stray too far into science's domain to be interpreted back out.
I also need to be very specific about whom I am calling God. He's the one that spoke to Adam, Abraham, Moses, Christ, Joseph Smith and Gordon Hinckley, and that identifies Himself as our Father.
As mentioned before, other God types are not ruled out... but where the characteristics of God are important to my argument, I'm only using a particular case. (The one around which reality is built)
Sorry I misunderstood or mischaracterized what you said. It was very late when I was reading this thread last night, and I haven't had a good night's sleep in almost two weeks because it's been so hot and humid around here. I'm used to the heat, but this humidity is out of character for this part of the country.
I haven't found the Polkinghorne link yet, but I'm still working on it. I ran across it a little over a year ago when I was working on a paper about the relationship between science and religion for a theology class I was taking at university. While I am LDS, I attended a Mennonite Brethren university for my upper division work. It was an intersting experience. Anyway, if I find the link I will most definitely post it.
By the way, I've been enjoying your posts a great deal.
Edit: to deal with a stray comma that just didn't belong.
posted
I wasn't really expecting to be "attacked" so to speak, but generally, I believe that people tend to twist my views around for the sake of twisting them around. Not just religious views, but many different views. In fact, pretty much everyone tries that, I just wanted to close all loopholes before they started. And to sum it up as Isaac Asimov did, while there may be a God, it cannot be proven yet, and there's no real evidence to support his existance, so I have doubt. It's possible that in time it will be proven that a god could exist, but not for now.
Posts: 10 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
Agreed on the some of the sources of the debate(s). Jumping to conclusions, holding onto the first independently-realized thought on the issue, among others.
You've mentioned a couple of times, I think, a possible common basis for what would appear to be distinct human activities. understanding, progression, etc? Am I misreading you?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
then you start to accept evolution as the means in which "God" developed man over the years( that is another issue). So you see, we can not be correct in saying that "the answer" is whatever we want to be when "the answer"is an event that took place. Furthermore, to help prove my point, one cannot say Abraham Lincoln assassinated Martin Luther King Jr. because they want it to be so. All one can do is pick which ever theory seems more likely to them; which ever theory has more evidence; which ever theory is closer to the truth. And if one chooses the wrong theory then they are wrong because it is false, therefore they can't be right simply because "they want to be." Thank you.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
This is a point which is little known (or seems to be) outside of strictly Mormon circles, and makes for some very aggravating discussions: the Book of Mormon did NOT come direct from heaven. For some reason the methods of teaching about it and the LDS church in school have rendered this fact almost unknown, and obviously reduces most people's view of its credibility. The Book of Mormon is, very simply, a HISTORY. In fact, it is an abridgement of very extensive histories kept by the societies of the Nephites, Lamanites, and Jerodites, although predominantly the Nephites. When it was on the Earth in the posession of Joseph Smith, its credibility as a historic record was confirmed more than once. It is sacred text because these peoples went through many important spiritual experiences, both as individuals and as societies as a whole, and these express universal truths as the bible does. There are many benefits to the knowledge in the Book of Mormon, more than I could relate here, but one of the major ones is that it was translated only ONCE, direct from the original abridgement, which was done by the prophet Mormon. (that's why it's called The Book of Mormon... notbecause we worship a guy named Mormon! ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)
