God

[ttf_B0B]

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jul 09, 2017, 11:41AMI'm seeing some semantic issues here.
 
There's a tendency to use the term "religion" sort of like we use the term "shite". Religion vs. Religious Institutions are both referred to as "religion". The many aspects of religious communities and all that goes down in them is referred to as "religion". Few ever try isolating their variables. What is it that makes a community religious? That would be a good candidate for "religion" rather than the many other aspects that fall under "community" and/or "organization" or simply "human" instead.
 
It's very common for people to credit religion with the positives and negatives of "community" which may or may not be appropriate, but when it's done fluidly without any awareness all it does is muddy an already complicated subject. Pro-religion types conflate the good stuff but not the bad, and anti-religion types tend to conflate the bad not the good, so we have all sorts of disagreements that are flying under the radar because of the loose ways people are using the term.
 
So what is it that makes a religious organization religious, and what is it that makes religious ideology religious?



Do you add anything except blatant logical fallacies?

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jul 09, 2017, 11:41AMI'm seeing some semantic issues here.
 
There's a tendency to use the term "religion" sort of like we use the term "shite". Religion vs. Religious Institutions are both referred to as "religion". The many aspects of religious communities and all that goes down in them is referred to as "religion". Few ever try isolating their variables. What is it that makes a community religious? That would be a good candidate for "religion" rather than the many other aspects that fall under "community" and/or "organization" or simply "human" instead.
 
It's very common for people to credit religion with the positives and negatives of "community" which may or may not be appropriate, but when it's done fluidly without any awareness all it does is muddy an already complicated subject. Pro-religion types conflate the good stuff but not the bad, and anti-religion types tend to conflate the bad not the good, so we have all sorts of disagreements that are flying under the radar because of the loose ways people are using the term.

I agree completely.

QuoteSo what is it that makes a religious organization religious, and what is it that makes religious ideology religious?

Its the set of beliefs and practices held the group if people that sit in the 3rd and 4th row of the left hand bank of seats at the 9:30 service in our church.  Its not what those heretics on the other side of church think! 

Just kidding.  But it could be interesting getting a definition.  There are lots of sites on the web with different definitions pointing out the difficulties in tie-ing it down.

eg http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_defn1.htm
   http://www.humanreligions.info/what_is_religion.html
   http://atheisme.free.fr/Religion/What-is-religion-1.htm

You guys can talk about them while I work out the right answer

[ttf_BGuttman]

Quote from: B0B on Jul 09, 2017, 01:19PM...

When King George broke from the catholics and created the anglican church... it was really about not wanting to submit to authority of another. He never intended to keep his promises of marriage and such, but he wanted to be able to freely break them when they no longer suited him. And therein lies the crux of the issue..
It can, but rarely ever is. Mostly, it is done on a level of convenience. When you offend, ties may be completely severed, so try to offend as little as practical.

...

I believe it was King Henry VIII who broke from Rome in order to divorce from Katherine of Aragon (mother of Mary I).

The line of Georges date to the House of Hanover, much later.

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: BGuttman on Jul 09, 2017, 05:10PMI believe it was King Henry VIII who broke from Rome in order to divorce from Katherine of Aragon (mother of Mary I).

The line of Georges date to the House of Hanover, much later.
Yup.

[ttf_BillO]

Arghh!  I wrote a nice long reply with fancy words, and something happened - it got zapped.

Anyway, the gist of what I wrote was

Religion:
An institutionalized (or even personal) system of religious attitudes, beliefs, practices and rules held with faith and in the service to and worship of a supernatural God or Gods.

Religious:
Pertaining to religion.


Yes, that's the simple answer, but if you could point out posts of particularly rampant semantic disorder, perhaps we can make an attempt at putting them in order with a better answer.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: BillO on Jul 09, 2017, 05:17PMArghh!  I wrote a nice long reply with fancy words, and something happened - it got zapped.

Anyway, the gist of what I wrote was

Religion:
An institutionalized (or even personal) system of religious attitudes, beliefs, practices and rules held with faith and in the service to and worship of a supernatural God or Gods.

Religious:
Pertaining to religion.


Yes, that's the simple answer, but if you could point out posts of particularly rampant semantic disorder, perhaps we can make an attempt at putting them in order with a better answer.

The problem with your definition is, as we've said before, it is narrower than most academic definitions of religion.  The 3 links Martin posted all demonstrate a broader definition of religion, even the one from the atheists where they talk about religions without a god.

While in graduate school, as I also said before, we spent a whole semester trying to define it and came up with the extremely broad definition of "ultimate concern."

All in all, I don't think trying to define "religion" is all that helpful.  I would rather talk about a specific faith or whatever you want to call it such as Judaism or Christianity.

I taught in a department of "religious studies" and I know most of us think that intuitively we can "feel" when something is religious, but trying to find an all-compassing definition is difficult.

[ttf_B0B]

Quote from: BGuttman on Jul 09, 2017, 05:10PMI believe it was King Henry VIII who broke from Rome in order to divorce from Katherine of Aragon (mother of Mary I).

The line of Georges date to the House of Hanover, much later.
That's the point when I started losing focus during a priest's spiel... but you are correct. Henry VIII.

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jul 09, 2017, 05:24PMWhile in graduate school, as I also said before, we spent a whole semester trying to define it and came up with the extremely broad definition of "ultimate concern."
I know you think that my views on religion are, shall we say, naive.  That's okay.  I've also been told by a brass technician on this site that I don't have a clue about physics, which would come as a surprise to those that awarded me my degree.  In both cases I am not about to get "down and dirty" with whatever knowledge or understanding I have, or lack thereof on an internet forum.  I have other things to do with my time.

I was not trying to come up with an all encompassing definition of religion.  I had a better one in my fist attempt to post, but it got blown away by a slip of the finger.  I simply ran out of time and could not re-write it.  That said, you would undoubtedly have pointed out how it would not suffice even if it did get posted.  Indeed, the definition of religion is almost immaterial for my current intent.  I was just trying to show the semantic relationship between religion and religious.  Something that was also done better in the lost post.

To get to BvB's questions (again, a better answer was lost)... Religious organization could refer to anything from a bucolic rural chapel congregation to a multi-faith recurring ecumenical gathering to something as large as the Catholic Church.  They are religious because they concern themselves with religion and/or the practice of one or more religions.  Religious ideology is just another way of saying religion.  It would then be religious by definition.

Some more brief definitions (not meant to be all-comforting, exact or designed to please all, or intended to be a correction to anyone's doctrine or ideology.  Merely illustrative):

Christianity - a classification of specific related religions
Catholicism - a religion belonging to the Christian classification
The Roman Catholic Church - a religious organization pertaining to Catholicism

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jul 09, 2017, 05:24PMQuote from: BillO on Jul 09, 2017, 05:17PMReligion:
An institutionalized (or even personal) system of religious attitudes, beliefs, practices and rules held with faith and in the service to and worship of a supernatural God or Gods.
 
Religious:
Pertaining to religion.
 
Yes, that's the simple answer, but if you could point out posts of particularly rampant semantic disorder, perhaps we can make an attempt at putting them in order with a better answer.The problem with your definition is, as we've said before, it is narrower than most academic definitions of religion.  The 3 links Martin posted all demonstrate a broader definition of religion, even the one from the atheists where they talk about religions without a god.
 
While in graduate school, as I also said before, we spent a whole semester trying to define it and came up with the extremely broad definition of "ultimate concern."
 
All in all, I don't think trying to define "religion" is all that helpful.  I would rather talk about a specific faith or whatever you want to call it such as Judaism or Christianity.
 
I taught in a department of "religious studies" and I know most of us think that intuitively we can "feel" when something is religious, but trying to find an all-compassing definition is difficult.
To say the least ... the exercise will help to isolate variables though.
 
I suspect the biggest problem with finding a solid definition is that we're already programmed with one that doesn't come very close to cutting it. Then, here in the West at least, when we learn about Asian religion we get wrenches thrown into the works and it comes apart. But by then we have a pretty established set of "religions" that we know, so adding a few to the list still maintains a category even if some don't seem to belong according to how we understand religion here. We also reify religion--we tend to think of religion as a thing unto itself--as if it exists independently of the mind. On top of that we have other things we call religious (habitual, ritualistic--usually cherished--elaborate and/or cherished belief detached from/independent of evidence). So religion is far more complicated than the institutionally approved practice of it, but those are the parameters to which we want to isolate our definition, and we know we can't just ignore the East, and its wrenches.
 
I further suspect that if we consider it from a functional angle (what is it that informs us that "religion" is an appropriate term to apply to all these cases) that may make it a lot easier. Of course the problem then is that we're working against a haell of a lot of established inertia. If nothing else though, it should help us to understand the big picture better--perhaps much better than if we just stay with the established, traditional thinking that clearly doesn't really work very well.
 
The religious going with the "religion vs. relationship" mindset will certainly be a huge help ... or rather it will mitigate a huge obstacle.
 
 --
 
BillO:
Should this sub-thread be moved to the Religion Matters topic?

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jul 10, 2017, 05:09AM 
BillO:
Should this sub-thread be moved to the Religion Matters topic?

I tend to treat the Religion thread as a cage where anything goes.  No offence to those that try and put serious stuff there for discussion.

So I'd keep this thread out of there as its hopefully something a bit less controversial.

And for an early take on Religion from a Jewish Christian PoV

Quote from: James 1:27 English Standard Version (ESV)
Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

Which seems more about how you live in the light of your beliefs (aka world view so we can include those who don't have any beliefs)

So based on that I'd propose that Religion is the set of practices that we adopt in the light of our world view.

Which doesn't beg the question 'what is a world view' and how do you identify what yours is

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: BillO on Jul 10, 2017, 04:49AMI know you think that my views on religion are, shall we say, naive.  That's okay.  I've also been told by a brass technician on this site that I don't have a clue about physics, which would come as a surprise to those that awarded me my degree.  In both cases I am not about to get "down and dirty" with whatever knowledge or understanding I have, or lack thereof on an internet forum.  I have other things to do with my time.

I was not trying to come up with an all encompassing definition of religion.  I had a better one in my fist attempt to post, but it got blown away by a slip of the finger.  I simply ran out of time and could not re-write it.  That said, you would undoubtedly have pointed out how it would not suffice even if it did get posted.  Indeed, the definition of religion is almost immaterial for my current intent.  I was just trying to show the semantic relationship between religion and religious.  Something that was also done better in the lost post.

To get to BvB's questions (again, a better answer was lost)... Religious organization could refer to anything from a bucolic rural chapel congregation to a multi-faith recurring ecumenical gathering to something as large as the Catholic Church.  They are religious because they concern themselves with religion and/or the practice of one or more religions.  Religious ideology is just another way of saying religion.  It would then be religious by definition.

Some more brief definitions (not meant to be all-comforting, exact or designed to please all, or intended to be a correction to anyone's doctrine or ideology.  Merely illustrative):

Christianity - a classification of specific related religions
Catholicism - a religion belonging to the Christian classification
The Roman Catholic Church - a religious organization pertaining to Catholicism

Not claiming that your views are necessarily naive, just that once you start trying to define a category as broad as "religion" it gets very tricky trying to find a definition that fits everything.

Your example of Christianity is actually closer to what I had in mind and called a faith.

In other words we can talk about family resemblances in what we've called the monotheistic religions and certainly within Christianity.  However, that's quite different than trying to fit those religions into a broader category called religion and then trying to fit the Oriental religions into the same category.  I'm not sure it's worth the effort here since my experience was that a lot of time was spent that resulted in such a broad definition that it really wasn't that useful.

However, if you want to take a shot just remember that what a lot of some people think are religions might not fit into your definition.

[ttf_BillO]

As I said, I don't really want to define religion in such a way that includes all practices that wish to be known as religions, but not those that do not want be be known as religions.  Others might - and this one seems to be pretty good:

QuoteA system of social coherence based on a common group of beliefs or attitudes concerning an object, person, unseen being, or system of thought considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine or highest truth, and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions, traditions, and rituals associated with such belief or system of thought.
That one that I came up with - I was thinking of the Abrahamic religions but not necessarily trying to be accurate, just being illustrative (as in - here's a definition...). I should have just put [place your favorite definition here].

I think nearly all my comments and goals within this thread were pertaining to Abrahamic monotheism and God(s?) so for further discussion there is no need to suppose that I mean anything else unless I specify otherwise.

[ttf_timothy42b]

QuoteReligion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.
I like that.

But, sorry, it reminds me so much of another quote:

QuoteTo crush your enemies, see them run before you, and hear the lamentations of the women.

[ttf_drizabone]

Ok Conan, behave.

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: drizabone on Jul 10, 2017, 02:34PMI tend to treat the Religion thread as a cage where anything goes.  No offence to those that try and put serious stuff there for discussion.
 
So I'd keep this thread out of there as its hopefully something a bit less controversial.That's why I tend to think of moving anything that seems likely to get contentious over there. This is both slightly off topic if you're being focused about it, which is why I asked BillO (not at all to suggest that weighing in isn't welcome).
 
Pretty much any topic on religion is liable to get contentious, so from time-to-time I may recall something setting someone off, and that may raise a yellow flag, which will likely suggest to me that a given post or sub-topic might best be moved. It's always a good thing when it's not necessary though.
 
Quote from: drizabone on Jul 10, 2017, 02:34PMAnd for an early take on Religion from a Jewish Christian PoV
 
Which seems more about how you live in the light of your beliefs (aka world view so we can include those who don't have any beliefs)
 
So based on that I'd propose that Religion is the set of practices that we adopt in the light of our world view.
 
Which doesn't beg the question 'what is a world view' and how do you identify what yours isIf it's specifically about the behaviors though--the products of the belief, that separates religion from the world view itself--from the actual beliefs. No? Just making sure that's where you're intending to go with it.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jul 11, 2017, 05:07AMThat's why I tend to think of moving anything that seems likely to get contentious over there. This is both slightly off topic if you're being focused about it, which is why I asked BillO (not at all to suggest that weighing in isn't welcome).
 
Pretty much any topic on religion is liable to get contentious, so from time-to-time I may recall something setting someone off, and that may raise a yellow flag, which will likely suggest to me that a given post or sub-topic might best be moved. It's always a good thing when it's not necessary though.
 If it's specifically about the behaviors though--the products of the belief, that separates religion from the world view itself--from the actual beliefs. No? Just making sure that's where you're intending to go with it.

This exemplifies the confusion.  When the biblical text in the book of James is using the term religion it is talking about the actions that the believer is taking and not about the content of the faith.  That's the whole focus of the book of James. James, BTW, has plenty of room for content for his faith.  It's just not what he's focusing on.

However, the use in James is not a comprehensive definition of religion such as academics or perhaps some on this forum might desire to have.  It's another example of the slipperiness of the word and why it often becomes difficult to define.

Here's a link to a definition of the Greek word, threskeia, the one used in James.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/threskeia.html

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jul 11, 2017, 05:07AMThat's why I tend to think of moving anything that seems likely to get contentious over there. This is both slightly off topic if you're being focused about it, which is why I asked BillO (not at all to suggest that weighing in isn't welcome).
I'm fine with side-bar conversations.

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jul 11, 2017, 05:36AMThis exemplifies the confusion.Awesome ... another layer to help us clarify things!
 
Are we past first day material from that class yet, by the way?
 
Heh ...
 

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jul 11, 2017, 05:36AMWhen the biblical text in the book of James is using the term religion it is talking about the actions that the believer is taking and not about the content of the faith.  That's the whole focus of the book of James. James, BTW, has plenty of room for content for his faith.  It's just not what he's focusing on.
 
However, the use in James is not a comprehensive definition of religion such as academics or perhaps some on this forum might desire to have.  It's another example of the slipperiness of the word and why it often becomes difficult to define.
 
Here's a link to a definition of the Greek word, threskeia, the one used in James.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/threskeia.htmlCool! Keep the Greek and Hebrew links coming man!
 
I strikes me as a good idea to separate the cognitive from the behavioral. I think the cognitive is the driving force, but the threshold of cognition to application can vary a great deal, and it can be a pretty fine line, but consistency between belief and action seems to be the most healthy or credible posture, not to mention consistency of beliefs and actions, which often isn't even happening (just a human thing really, but obviously a religious thing is always a human thing ... which may help those who seem to have difficulty with why those of us who aren't "religious" can still be interested in religion).

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jul 11, 2017, 07:59AMAwesome ... another layer to help us clarify things!
 
Are we past first day material from that class yet, by the way?
 
Heh ...
 
Cool! Keep the Greek and Hebrew links coming man!
 
I strikes me as a good idea to separate the cognitive from the behavioral. I think the cognitive is the driving force, but the threshold of cognition to application can vary a great deal, and it can be a pretty fine line, but consistency between belief and action seems to be the most healthy or credible posture, not to mention consistency of beliefs and actions, which often isn't even happening (just a human thing really, but obviously a religious thing is always a human thing ... which may help those who seem to have difficulty with why those of us who aren't "religious" can still be interested in religion).

The kicker is that the James text that Martin referenced and used the Greek word threskeia-- translated as religion in most translations of the James text-- includes a statement about keeping oneself unstained or unspotted from the world depending on the translation.  In the Biblical framework that will always include a very strong Godward emphasis to defined what being unstained means.  In other words stain is anything opposed by God and keeping oneself unstained is obediently living according to God's standards, so beliefs invariably are involved.

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jul 11, 2017, 05:07AMIf it's specifically about the behaviors though--the products of the belief, that separates religion from the world view itself--from the actual beliefs. No? Just making sure that's where you're intending to go with it.

Yeah, that reference is about behaviour. 

And I think that in the paragraph I quoted from he is critiquing behaviour that doesn't match The Faith and pointing out behaviour that does.  Its interesting to note that its similar to Jesus' summary of the law "Love God with all your heart and your neighbour as yourself"  Consistency is good.

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jul 11, 2017, 07:59AMI strikes me as a good idea to separate the cognitive from the behavioral. I think the cognitive is the driving force, but the threshold of cognition to application can vary a great deal, and it can be a pretty fine line, but consistency between belief and action seems to be the most healthy or credible posture, not to mention consistency of beliefs and actions, which often isn't even happening (just a human thing really, but obviously a religious thing is always a human thing ... which may help those who seem to have difficulty with why those of us who aren't "religious" can still be interested in religion).

I pretty much agree.  I'm surprised.

Some of my thoughts on the subject:
 - I think religion is 'human' because its our actions in response to our beliefs. 
 - Pure Religion ie "Love God with all your heart and your neighbour as yourself" is a statement of intent but not humanly achievable
 - Our actions may be consistent with our beliefs or not.
 - Sometimes what we say isn't always what we really believe.  That may because we're are deliberately putting on a face or because we don't really understand what we're saying, or have ideals that we believe are desirable but that we don't always meet.
 - Our actions may be driven by our sub-consciousness or consciousness .  they are not always consistent. So we may find ourselves doing things that aren't consistent

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: drizabone on Jul 12, 2017, 05:30PMYeah, that reference is about behaviour. 
 
And I think that in the paragraph I quoted from he is critiquing behaviour that doesn't match The Faith and pointing out behaviour that does.  Its interesting to note that its similar to Jesus' summary of the law "Love God with all your heart and your neighbour as yourself"  Consistency is good.I couldn't agree more.
 
Quote from: drizabone on Jul 12, 2017, 05:30PMI pretty much agree.  I'm surprised.Huh ... why?
 
Quote from: drizabone on Jul 12, 2017, 05:30PMSome of my thoughts on the subject:
 - I think religion is 'human' because its our actions in response to our beliefs. 
 - Pure Religion ie "Love God with all your heart and your neighbour as yourself" is a statement of intent but not humanly achievable
 - Our actions may be consistent with our beliefs or not.
 - Sometimes what we say isn't always what we really believe.  That may because we're are deliberately putting on a face or because we don't really understand what we're saying, or have ideals that we believe are desirable but that we don't always meet.
 - Our actions may be driven by our sub-consciousness or consciousness .  they are not always consistent. So we may find ourselves doing things that aren't consistentYeah, but there's also willful and/or negligent compartmentalization, when we simply hold different paradigms to fundamentally different rules and standards, often quite consciously. In fact I'd argue that religious faith requires this, even if only limited to the core aspects of the existence of the supernatural. It's also why I see no functional difference between "supernatural" and "magic". There's a social difference, but I'd be willing to bet compartmentalization has a whole helluva lot to do with that--shines a spotlight on rationally arbitrary compartmental boundaries, and that's very uncomfortable if one of the compartments is cherished and the other trite (i.e. when the fact is that the compartments are effectively the same, but the rules by which they're considered say one is deeply personally cherished and meaningful and the other is silly and anachronistic).

[ttf_timothy42b]

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jul 13, 2017, 05:47AM It's also why I see no functional difference between "supernatural" and "magic".

I make a distinction, but it may be one that doesn't matter.

To me, supernatural means that someone interfered with the set of existing scientific laws.  Someone, probably a deity, performed a miracle.

Magic on the other hand rejects scientific reality and substitutes their own, a set of laws whereby spells may be cast, etc.  Pseudoscience is a subcategory. 

The reason I make the distinction is that critical thinking can reject magic while still compartmentalizing enough to retain supernatural. 

[ttf_MoominDave]

Quote from: timothy42b on Jul 13, 2017, 07:19AMcritical thinking can reject magic while still compartmentalizing enough to retain supernatural. 

But why would it seem a good idea to?

[ttf_timothy42b]

Quote from: MoominDave on Jul 13, 2017, 07:56AMBut why would it seem a good idea to?

There are at least three major routes you could go (and lots of shading between them).

Pure critical thinking that rejects all supernatural.

Pretty good critical thinking that accepts some supernatural provisionally, but stays rational outside the church door.

Rejection of critical thinking in favor of the supernatural, superstition, and ignorance. 

In the first category I put the atheists.  In the second, the progressive religions like Episcopals, UUs, other nonchristian varieties.  In the third I put the fundagelics, the new agers, etc. 

When religion was more universal it was easier to stay in two.  Now, maybe not so much. 

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: timothy42b on Jul 13, 2017, 07:19AMI make a distinction, but it may be one that doesn't matter.
 
To me, supernatural means that someone interfered with the set of existing scientific laws.  Someone, probably a deity, performed a miracle.
 
Magic on the other hand rejects scientific reality and substitutes their own, a set of laws whereby spells may be cast, etc.  Pseudoscience is a subcategory.Yeah, I'd argue that's just two ways of saying exactly the same mechanics, but I suspect you're already there.
 
Quote from: timothy42b on Jul 13, 2017, 07:19AMThe reason I make the distinction is that critical thinking can reject magic while still compartmentalizing enough to retain supernatural.I have no real world problem with that, just academic, but I also doubt that level of awareness can be sustained along with the continuation of the compartmentalization. If you know that's what's going on I don't see the result as genuine belief but rather ultimately the pretense of belief. I don't see that as either very functional or necessary. A religious community that's a good fit isn't likely to have any problem with a member of that community "only" participating in what I'd argue the community actually offers (i.e. with a member who's not into the game (most) everyone else is playing). Most congregations certainly do expect all members to play the same game (and of course they don't see it as a game at all) but someone who recognizes what's going on isn't very likely to be interested in those religious communities anyway. This is why apostasy isn't a necessary result of truly examining one's religious beliefs from the perspective of genuine agnosticism/objectivity (i.e. when you're genuinely more or less equally open to any conclusion toward which your investigation leads).

[ttf_timothy42b]

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jul 13, 2017, 08:58AMMost congregations certainly do expect all members to play the same game (and of course they don't see it as a game at all) but someone who recognizes what's going on isn't very likely to be interested in those religious communities anyway.
I would love to know the extent to which that's true, but it's a question you can't ask without the potential for disaster.

"you don't really believe in a virgin birth do you?"

"Nah, but this is a cool church and the pastor is so inspirational, plus the pot lucks are awesome." 

versus

"Are you freaking nuts?  You're going to hell.  We're not having anything to do with you ever again." 

Gotta be careful what you ask. 

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: timothy42b on Jul 13, 2017, 09:19AMQuote from: Baron von Bone on Jul 13, 2017, 08:58AMMost congregations certainly do expect all members to play the same game (and of course they don't see it as a game at all) but someone who recognizes what's going on isn't very likely to be interested in those religious communities anyway.I would love to know the extent to which that's true, but it's a question you can't ask without the potential for disaster.
 
"you don't really believe in a virgin birth do you?"
 
"Nah, but this is a cool church and the pastor is so inspirational, plus the pot lucks are awesome." 
 
versus
 
"Are you freaking nuts?  You're going to hell.  We're not having anything to do with you ever again." 
 
Gotta be careful what you ask.
Heh ... yeah. No kidding.
 
I had a few people come to me about doubts when I was a believer. One guy in the Christian Student Association at Macon State told me he'd carefully brought up the matter to a few other fellow Christians and gotten unanimous cautions and/or warnings (basically you have to suppress them) before getting with me. I told him I think we have to face them--we can't just ignore or suppress doubts and be sincere at the same time, and suppressed doubts don't go away in any case, they cause dissonance which just becomes anxiety if you try to ignore it. One of the other members of the group caught a bit about doubts in part of a comment in our discussion and he said something like you've got to put that stuff behind you. So yeah, it's touchy, particularly in more conservative franchises. You can't generally just lead with the Full Monty, as they say.
 
We know about a lot of this from testimonials, which aren't the hardest data to work with, but we know it's not anywhere near as rare as I expect the hard core types who doubt their fellow brethren have any doubts (i.e. the types who function in a perpetual state of proactive denial) would ever allow themselves to accept. But to what extent? I'd like to know too ... definitely not an easy question to answer.

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jul 13, 2017, 05:47AM Huh ... why?

Cause we normally disagree.  But I'm just funning. I should have used an emoji to make that clear

Quote Yeah, but there's also willful and/or negligent compartmentalization, when we simply hold different paradigms to fundamentally different rules and standards, often quite consciously. In fact I'd argue that religious faith requires this, even if only limited to the core aspects of the existence of the supernatural. It's also why I see no functional difference between "supernatural" and "magic". There's a social difference, but I'd be willing to bet compartmentalization has a whole helluva lot to do with that--shines a spotlight on rationally arbitrary compartmental boundaries, and that's very uncomfortable if one of the compartments is cherished and the other trite (i.e. when the fact is that the compartments are effectively the same, but the rules by which they're considered say one is deeply personally cherished and meaningful and the other is silly and anachronistic).

(I'm trying to get familiar with the concept of WorldViews to see if it helps me understand how we think about things.)

So I guess that you would consider "supernatural" and "magic" the same as they are both non-natural and imaginary (assuming that everything is some form of matter-energy) From my WorldView they could be different. But it depends on what you mean by magic.  Is that right?

I don't deliberately treat magic different but do think in terms of magic being non-christian and super-natural originating from a 'spiritual' being.

So, assuming that by magic you mean something that works by non-natural means: in my WorldView the Cosmos operates with the uniformity of cause and effect but there are spiritual beings that also have power to act on things. I don't know much about this except a few examples: God can do anything possible, angels and demons can appear and disappear, demons can posses people and give them special abilities... This may be equivalent to your definition of magic but I see it as being restricted to the personal ability of the beings.  What I think may be different is that inanimate matter doesn't have magical properties, like wand's shooting magical rays, rings that can make you invisible and give you longer life, stones that can communicate with each other ...

I would also note that Clarke's 3rd law "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." messes with your argument by inferring that magic could actually be natural technology rather than something that is not natural.

[ttf_BillO]

I've always thought of the concept of magic as a fanciful literary tool.  Fairy tale stuff.

I think of supernatural merely something outside our current knowledge of nature.  In other words, supernatural can eventually understood and hence move into our understanding of natural.  The spherical earth, the heliocentric solar system and exceeding the speed of sound were all once 'known' to be impossible in nature.

[ttf_B0B]

"Supernatural" or "magic" in this sense is mostly a way to pigeonhole something as impossible.

Next month, we are expecting a major solar eclipse. To societies long ago that did not understand the basic of orbit and the solar system... the moon blocking out the sun could very well be seen as magical or supernatural. Now we know it's perfectly natural. Did it change? Nope. Just our understanding.

There is really nothing to say that God is "supernatural", but rather that term has been imposed on the concept to say that there's what we know and then there's God. When in truth... If God is there, He is there, and that would be "natural".

As such, these issues deal more with our comprehension of the world at large than the world itself. Highlights the handicap of the "intellectual integrity" crowd. If you are limiting yourself by your own comprehension, than you can never accept anything bigger than yourself... And since we know there is a tremendous amount we don't know or understand...

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: B0B on Jul 14, 2017, 08:58AM"Supernatural" or "magic" in this sense is mostly a way to pigeonhole something as impossible.

Next month, we are expecting a major solar eclipse. To societies long ago that did not understand the basic of orbit and the solar system... the moon blocking out the sun could very well be seen as magical or supernatural. Now we know it's perfectly natural. Did it change? Nope. Just our understanding.

There is really nothing to say that God is "supernatural", but rather that term has been imposed on the concept to say that there's what we know and then there's God. When in truth... If God is there, He is there, and that would be "natural".

As such, these issues deal more with our comprehension of the world at large than the world itself. Highlights the handicap of the "intellectual integrity" crowd. If you are limiting yourself by your own comprehension, than you can never accept anything bigger than yourself... And since we know there is a tremendous amount we don't know or understand...
I pretty much agree.  The place I think we diverge, and I could be mistaking your idea, is in your statement about our own comprehension.  I guess people with scientific training or those that understand scientific process...  well, at least from my perspective I am perfectly willing to work within the scope of my understanding, put that does not limit me from looking beyond it.  That is in fact how good science is done.  Any new science must be accessible from the old.  There must be a path from one to the other that everyone (with the skills) can follow.  We don't have to allow that anything and everything that pops into anybody's head is possible in order for our understanding to grow and discover things beyond where we are.

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: drizabone on Jul 13, 2017, 07:03PMCause we normally disagree.  But I'm just funning. I should have used an emoji to make that clear I see a lot more agreement than otherwise, personally, just not on actual doctrines and such.
 
Quote from: drizabone on Jul 13, 2017, 07:03PMSo I guess that you would consider "supernatural" and "magic" the same as they are both non-natural and imaginary (assuming that everything is some form of matter-energy) From my WorldView they could be different. But it depends on what you mean by magic.  Is that right?I'd consider them both violations of the laws of nature, by definition. If they're just natural then they're not magic or miracles. I'm not including the imaginary part because magic and the alleged supernatural are inherently metaphysical matters.
 
Quote from: drizabone on Jul 13, 2017, 07:03PMI don't deliberately treat magic different but do think in terms of magic being non-christian and super-natural originating from a 'spiritual' being.Yeah, the alleged mechanisms are technically different, but the alleged differences are also indistinguishable. It's a theme that a lot of fantasy novels and movies get into. Is the magic accomplished by the wizard or sorcerer or cleric, or is a deity working through the magician?
 
Quote from: drizabone on Jul 13, 2017, 07:03PMSo, assuming that by magic you mean something that works by non-natural means: in my WorldView the Cosmos operates with the uniformity of cause and effect but there are spiritual beings that also have power to act on things. I don't know much about this except a few examples: God can do anything possible, angels and demons can appear and disappear, demons can posses people and give them special abilities... This may be equivalent to your definition of magic but I see it as being restricted to the personal ability of the beings.  What I think may be different is that inanimate matter doesn't have magical properties, like wand's shooting magical rays, rings that can make you invisible and give you longer life, stones that can communicate with each other ... I'd say both are really the result of presuming causes that are immediate and complete "answers". Unfortunately when people invest enough in those "answers" it can result in a serious chilling effect on seeking actual answers.
 
Quote from: drizabone on Jul 13, 2017, 07:03PMI would also note that Clarke's 3rd law "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." messes with your argument by inferring that magic could actually be natural technology rather than something that is not natural.Exactly ... we can't just presume supernatural or magical causes are behind phenomena we don't yet understand.

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: B0B on Jul 14, 2017, 08:58AM"Supernatural" or "magic" in this sense is mostly a way to pigeonhole something as impossible.Rather, presuming an observed phenomenon is impossible and therefore requires a magical/supernatural explanation rather than accepting it as currently unknown. One reason for this is when the observed phenomenon is unaccounted for by and/or creates problems for existing beliefs, combined with the observer's investment in those beliefs/lack of intellectual humility.
 
Quote from: B0B on Jul 14, 2017, 08:58AMNext month, we are expecting a major solar eclipse. To societies long ago that did not understand the basic of orbit and the solar system... the moon blocking out the sun could very well be seen as magical or supernatural. Now we know it's perfectly natural. Did it change? Nope. Just our understanding.Exactly. Yesterday's presumption of magic/supernatural is now understood, and it's not magical or supernatural.
 
Quote from: B0B on Jul 14, 2017, 08:58AMThere is really nothing to say that God is "supernatural", but rather that term has been imposed on the concept to say that there's what we know and then there's God. When in truth... If God is there, He is there, and that would be "natural".Yup. In fact I'd argue the concept of "supernatural" is incoherent. Even if something exists outside of this dimension, for example, it's still natural, just extra-dimensional. So Heaven and Hell would at most be other dimensions, not somehow outside of nature.
 
Quote from: B0B on Jul 14, 2017, 01:09PMWe attempt to classify the natural world for our own sake... though it's really just imaginary classifications. Pretending there is structure to what we don't understand.
 
As such, these issues deal more with our comprehension of the world at large than the world itself.Exactly ... and presuming what we in fact just don't know.
 
Quote from: B0B on Jul 14, 2017, 08:58AMHighlights the handicap of the "intellectual integrity" crowd. If you are limiting yourself by your own comprehension, than you can never accept anything bigger than yourself... And since we know there is a tremendous amount we don't know or understand... You need to unpack "limiting yourself" in that second sentence. Limiting in what sense?
 
Because one of my main issues is the failure/refusal to accept the unknown for what it is, but instead inserting "answers" that are really just socialized and/or comforting presumptions, which fits your argument much better than the demand of intellectual integrity--accepting unknowns for what they really are. It seems the vast majority of humans are very uncomfortable with the unknown, and most will create means by which to perceive it as known, even if by proxy (much more plausible, and plausibility structures are very important aspects of belief mechanisms). I don't know if that's a learned or a genetic/physiological thing, but I suspect it's physiological to some significant extent.

[ttf_timothy42b]

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jul 14, 2017, 10:21AMExactly ... we can't just presume supernatural or magical causes are behind phenomena we don't yet understand.

I mostly agree, with a caveat:  the phenomena we don't understand must actually exist.  Usually that requires some evidence.  

For the purely supernatural, where we postulate no evidence can exist, that's problematic.

If God can be converted from supernatural to natural, like all the other examples, then it can be presumed he has limitations.  The supernatural God may not, because he's mostly a dictionary definition, but all natural beings have characteristics and limitations.    

[ttf_BillO]

Technically, it is supernatural until we understand it.  Maybe I just attribute anything special to the word.  Saying that we've observed a supernatural phenomenon just means it's something we can't yet explain.  It's not any more special than that.  Since it has been observed it follows it exists.  If it hasn't been observed, either directly or by its effects, it's not worth discussing.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: BillO on Jul 14, 2017, 10:58AMTechnically, it is supernatural until we understand it.  Maybe I just attribute anything special to the word.  Saying that we've observed a supernatural phenomenon just means it's something we can't yet explain.  It's not any more special than that.  Since it has been observed it follows it exists.  If it hasn't been observed, either directly or by its effects, it's not worth discussing.

Why?  So many of the greatest scientists are clearly thought there were many things worth discussing beyond what could be observed.  The Newtons, Maxwells, etc. of this world.

Even much of theoretical science isn't so much observed as mathematically deduced.

I really don't understand your truncating the scope of intellectual inquiry.

[ttf_timothy42b]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jul 14, 2017, 12:31PM

I really don't understand your truncating the scope of intellectual inquiry.

People are not only 100% certain that a spiritual being that cannot be observed exists, they are 100% certain of its characteristics. 

I can buy the possibility of existence, but not the certainty of knowledge of character. 

[ttf_B0B]

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jul 14, 2017, 10:41AM Yup. In fact I'd argue the concept of "supernatural" is incoherent. Even if something exists outside of this dimension, for example, it's still natural, just extra-dimensional. So Heaven and Hell would at most be other dimensions, not somehow outside of nature. To note: you are the one who continuously bring up the labels "supernatural" and "magical". Shows a lot that you continually attempt to bait with terms you consider incoherent.

We attempt to classify the natural world for our own sake... though it's really just imaginary classifications. Pretending there is structure to what we don't understand.
  
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jul 14, 2017, 10:41AMLimiting in what sense?They are artificial constructs based on human understanding that we use as crutches to pretend we understand the natural world more than we do. In short: you're reliance on terminology falls into the same category your critique about religion.

because byron, the issues you rail against are human... and your approach is no different.

[ttf_B0B]

Quote from: timothy42b on Jul 14, 2017, 12:43PMPeople are not only 100% certain that a spiritual being that cannot be observed exists, they are 100% certain of its characteristics. 
Who says it cannot be observed? Because you cannot see God? Maybe you're looking with the wrong senses.

Can you see the wind? But you can see it's impacts, watch it move the world around you, and feel it yourself.

Many would say that about God as well.


Seems about as limiting as demanding that God fit into a logical understanding. Logic is just one method we use to understand ourselves and the world... and certainly not the strongest. Love is not logical. Why should we attempt to cripple ourselves, and attempt to limit us to only what we imagine we should be?

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jul 14, 2017, 12:31PMWhy?  So many of the greatest scientists are clearly thought there were many things worth discussing beyond what could be observed.  The Newtons, Maxwells, etc. of this world.

Even much of theoretical science isn't so much observed as mathematically deduced.

I really don't understand your truncating the scope of intellectual inquiry.
Those things were observable John.  Not directly, but by their effects.  They then pondered at their nature, and went on to develop mathematical models that would predict their behavior.  I am in no way truncating the scope of intellectual inquiry.

There is more to observing a phenomenon than seeing it itself with your eyes.  Newton observed the apple falling and wondered what model would accurately predict that motion.  Maxwell observed the behavior of charged particles and currents in metals due to a magnetic field, and then, like Newton, thought of what model would predict these actions.  Newton did not 'see' gravity - Maxwell did not 'see' the the electromagnetic field, but they did observe them through their effects on the world about them.

Many observations is science are made this way.  Because it is impossible to directly observe what it is you a 'looking' at.

Again, another way the universe is just like your God.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: BillO on Jul 14, 2017, 03:22PMThose things were observable John.  Not directly, but by their effects.  They then pondered at their nature, and went on to develop mathematical models that would predict their behavior.  I am in no way truncating the scope of intellectual inquiry.

There is more to observing a phenomenon than seeing it itself with your eyes.  Newton observed the apple falling and wondered what model would accurately predict that motion.  Maxwell observed the behavior of charged particles and currents in metals in due to a magnetic field, and then, like Newton, thought of what model would predict these actions.  Newton did not 'see' gravity - Maxwell did not 'see' the the elector-magnetic field, but the did observe them through their effects on the world about them.

Many observations is science are made this way.  Because ti is impossible to directly observe what it is you a 'looking' at.

Again, another way in the the universe is just like your God.

No quarrels with what you've said except that ruling out the divine seems completely inconsistent because all of your reasons are what so many have said about God, including the scientists mentioned above.  I don't understand your line of thinking in what you exclude.

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: B0B on Jul 14, 2017, 01:09PMQuote from: Baron von Bone on Jul 14, 2017, 10:41AMQuote from: B0B on Jul 14, 2017, 08:58AM"Supernatural" or "magic" in this sense is mostly a way to pigeonhole something as impossible.Rather, presuming an observed phenomenon is impossible and therefore requires a magical/supernatural explanation rather than accepting it as currently unknown. One reason for this is when the observed phenomenon is unaccounted for by and/or creates problems for existing beliefs, combined with the observer's investment in those beliefs/lack of intellectual humility.
 
Quote from: B0B on Jul 14, 2017, 08:58AMNext month, we are expecting a major solar eclipse. To societies long ago that did not understand the basic of orbit and the solar system... the moon blocking out the sun could very well be seen as magical or supernatural. Now we know it's perfectly natural. Did it change? Nope. Just our understanding.Exactly. Yesterday's presumption of magic/supernatural is now understood, and it's not magical or supernatural.
 
Quote from: B0B on Jul 14, 2017, 08:58AMThere is really nothing to say that God is "supernatural", but rather that term has been imposed on the concept to say that there's what we know and then there's God. When in truth... If God is there, He is there, and that would be "natural".Yup. In fact I'd argue the concept of "supernatural" is incoherent. Even if something exists outside of this dimension, for example, it's still natural, just extra-dimensional. So Heaven and Hell would at most be other dimensions, not somehow outside of nature.
To note: you are the one who continuously bring up the labels "supernatural" and "magical". Shows a lot that you continually attempt to bait with terms you consider incoherent.So you're arguing that God isn't supernatural? Are you also suggesting I'm just big on the notion of the supernatural for my own purposes and that I'm not getting it from believers/religious doctrine/dogma? That this whole supernatural thing I'm on about is mostly just a ploy I'm using to discredit religion despite its lack of importance in religious world views (particularly, for the purposes of these OTF topics, Christianity)?
 
 
Quote from: B0B on Jul 14, 2017, 01:09PMWe attempt to classify the natural world for our own sake... though it's really just imaginary classifications. Pretending there is structure to what we don't understand.Science (reified) doesn't just imagine classifications. The specific lines that are drawn around a given classification can be fairly arbitrary in the purest sense, but they're useful for our understanding of the real distinctions they're used to clarify and categorize. The important thing though, is that they're not just imaginary--they're about real, observed distinctions. And the last sentence there applies well to religion, not at all to science (both being reified for the purpose of discussion).
 
 
Quote from: B0B on Jul 14, 2017, 01:09PMQuote from: Baron von Bone on Jul 14, 2017, 10:41AMQuote from: B0B on Jul 14, 2017, 08:58AMAs such, these issues deal more with our comprehension of the world at large than the world itself.Exactly ... and presuming what we in fact just don't know.
 
Quote from: B0B on Jul 14, 2017, 08:58AMHighlights the handicap of the "intellectual integrity" crowd. If you are limiting yourself by your own comprehension, than you can never accept anything bigger than yourself... And since we know there is a tremendous amount we don't know or understand... You need to unpack "limiting yourself" in that second sentence. Limiting in what sense?
 
They are artificial constructs based on human understanding that we use as crutches to pretend we understand the natural world more than we do. In short: you're reliance on terminology falls into the same category your critique about religion.So:
If you limit yourself to [artificial constructs based on human understanding that we use as crutches to pretend we understand the natural world more than we do], then we can never accept anything bigger than ourselves.
 
That doesn't really work. It's arguing that if we limit ourselves to a means of pretending to know more than we do we can never accept anything bigger than ourselves. It doesn't make sense. It seems to be arguing against itself (pretending to know more than we do would likely lead to believing in more stuff rather than less), but mostly it's completely non-sequitur in any case. There's nothing about using artificial constructs to pretend we know more than we do that would suggest we can't then accept anything bigger than ourselves. If anything it would suggest the contrary.
 
 
Quote from: B0B on Jul 14, 2017, 08:58AMbecause byron, the issues you rail against are human... and your approach is no different.That's a floater--doesn't connect at all to the ideas you presented that preceded it, but you've posted it in response to my comment that you needed to unpack those ideas, which pretty clearly implies it's supposed to explain them somehow.
 
How does this follow from the idea of limiting myself by my own comprehension? What does this have to do with limiting myself to [artificial constructs based on human understanding that we use as crutches to pretend we understand the natural world more than we do]? Because that's what I'd said you need to unpack--the comment to which this was written as a response.
 
In any case, again this sounds like you're trying to take a point I often make to argue against the very same points I often make--that religion is a human thing--part of our nature--not something that exists all on its own independently of the mind, and that humans (human brain owners) exist in uncertainty, and we have to vet our own perceptions and such with evidence. Or in other words, the issues I raise are human, and I point out how those who claim certainties beyond what human brain owners can really claim are claiming to be somehow beyond or above the limitations of being a human brain owner, and are therefore denying their own humanity.
 
My point is about accepting uncertainty, not the reverse. It's a point that we need to accept the unknown for what it is rather than pretending we can be somehow certain of things we can't connect to anything that's reasonably considered evidence (i.e. gods and other heavenly type beasties).
 
Or as I put it in that same post:
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jul 14, 2017, 10:41AMBecause one of my main issues is the failure/refusal to accept the unknown for what it is, but instead inserting "answers" that are really just socialized and/or comforting presumptions, which fits your argument much better than the demand of intellectual integrity--accepting unknowns for what they really are. It seems the vast majority of humans are very uncomfortable with the unknown, and most will create means by which to perceive it as known, even if by proxy (much more plausible, and plausibility structures are very important aspects of belief mechanisms). I don't know if that's a learned or a genetic/physiological thing, but I suspect it's physiological to some significant extent.

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: B0B on Jul 14, 2017, 01:12PMWho says it cannot be observed? Because you cannot see God? Maybe you're looking with the wrong senses.
 
Can you see the wind? But you can see it's impacts, watch it move the world around you, and feel it yourself.
 
Many would say that about God as well.Actual evidence is measurable, not just observable, and we have relatively mundane, well established sociological and psychological (and psychiatric) phenomena that have to be eliminated as explanations before we look to rather extremely more extraordinary ones (unless of course you're now going to argue that God somehow isn't extraordinary). Positing a supreme creator being in order to explain the "evidence" that a believer might cite reminds me of Immanuel Velikovsky's stuff. It's not an equivalent because we're not socialized to believe notions about Venus being somehow ejected from Jupiter, taking a rather wild course around the solar system to end up where it is now, conveniently explaining all the extraordinary Old Testament events along the way ... in a comic book science way at least.
 
Quote from: B0B on Jul 14, 2017, 01:12PMSeems about as limiting as demanding that God fit into a logical understanding. Logic is just one method we use to understand ourselves and the world... and certainly not the strongest. Love is not logical. Why should we attempt to cripple ourselves, and attempt to limit us to only what we imagine we should be?Evocative, but who's trying to cripple themselves, and who suggested anything at all about limiting us to what we imagine we should be? From where are you getting this stuff? It seems as if you feel like you need something more than you've been able to come up with so you invent something else to tack on the end of your post even though it has absolutely nothing to do with the post to which you're responding.

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jul 14, 2017, 03:31PMNo quarrels with what you've said except that ruling out the divine seems completely inconsistent because all of your reasons are what so many have said about God, including the scientists mentioned above.  I don't understand your line of thinking in what you exclude.
Are you suggesting there are mathematical models explaining God?
 
There's a world of difference between excluding an explanation from consideration and that explanation never suggesting itself.
 
What do you make of the fact that religious belief is dramatically reduced in the modern science community as compared to the general public?

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jul 14, 2017, 06:10PM
Are you suggesting there are mathematical models explaining God?
 
There's a world of difference between excluding an explanation from consideration and that explanation never suggesting itself.
 
What do you make of the fact that religious belief is dramatically reduced in the modern science community as compared to the general public?

I think that the stats are not quite as clear cut as you might think.  There are a number of nuances that must be considered in your last claim.

Here's some discussion of the data:

https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/07/post-29.html

[ttf_B0B]

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jul 14, 2017, 04:58PMSo you're arguing that God isn't supernatural? Are you also suggesting I'm just big on the notion of the supernatural for my own purposes and that I'm not getting it from believers/religious doctrine/dogma? That this whole supernatural thing I'm on about is mostly just a ploy I'm using to discredit religion despite its lack of importance in religious world views (particularly, for the purposes of these OTF topics, Christianity)?Mostly just saying that your fixation on supernatural and magic is a ploy... putting religion in a hole. 

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jul 14, 2017, 04:58PMThe specific lines that are drawn around a given classification can be fairly arbitrary in the purest sense, but they're useful for our understanding of the real distinctions they're used to clarify and categorize.Again... mostly about your understanding. What you call it doesn't change it in the least. Only how you think of it.

 
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jul 14, 2017, 05:22PMActual evidence is measurable, not just observable, and we have relatively mundane, well established sociological and psychological (and psychiatric) phenomena that have to be eliminated as explanations before we look to rather extremely more extraordinary ones (unless of course you're now going to argue that God somehow isn't extraordinary).How much do you love people close to you? How good does it feel on the first warm, sunny day of spring? If you are only looking to the measurable, you miss a tremendous amount... simply because it doesn't fit into your narrow, limited view.

At the same time, higher physics has mathematical models that posit far more than 4 dimensions. Can you say what the 9th dimension is? Just because something can be measured or modeled doesn't mean it can be understood.

So goes life.

You approach people with a human problem of trying to limit the world to something you can control, and the criticize others for ways that you say they attempt to exert control other than your way.

Where's the logic in that? The intellectual integrity? Boils down to the same ol human, I'm right and you must be wrong. And so your mission to convince everyone that they are wrong continues on well into it's what? second? third? fourth decade?

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jul 14, 2017, 06:28PMQuote from: Baron von Bone on Jul 14, 2017, 06:10PMAre you suggesting there are mathematical models explaining God?
 
There's a world of difference between excluding an explanation from consideration and that explanation never suggesting itself.
 
What do you make of the fact that religious belief is dramatically reduced in the modern science community as compared to the general public?I think that the stats are not quite as clear cut as you might think.  There are a number of nuances that must be considered in your last claim.
 
Here's some discussion of the data:
 
https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/07/post-29.html
That's about modern scientists getting less religious, and it supports the notion that where religious apologists can create doubt they're quite comfortable forming strong conclusions (the fact this one can raise some legit questions about the data is enough for him to unambiguously conclude that science doesn't lead to atheism--or perhaps just to go with a misrepresentative but catchy title ... or rather opening).
 
But my statement was that that the science community is dramatically less religious than the general public, which is easily verified, not that they're getting dramatically less religious all the time (I didn't think much of the objections to Francis Collins' appointment to head the NIH, by the way, though I also sympathized with them and noted that I may well be mistaken about that).

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: B0B on Jul 14, 2017, 07:12PMMostly just saying that your fixation on supernatural and magic is a ploy... putting religion in a hole ...
Now you're just preaching, and never mind what I really think or what I've actually posted.

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jul 14, 2017, 03:31PMI don't understand your line of thinking in what you exclude.
I think Byron covered this, but I'd like your words on what it is you feel I'm excluding.

[ttf_ddickerson]

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jul 14, 2017, 06:10PM
Are you suggesting there are mathematical models explaining God?
 

Well, scientists, engineers, and mathematicians recognize that there is a limit on what man can do with math, and they use 'infinity' to plug into their math models.

We realize that there is no limit as to how big or small a number can be, likewise, it is obvious there is no limit on how big God is and how small our comprehension of God is. We just have to use the infinity symbol as a place holder and move on.

You might say that the infinity symbol is our mathematical God symbol.