Nicker on 26/1/2007 at 05:44
So Alchemist - what you are saying is that god occupies the spaces created by our ignorance. What a perfect dwelling place for an evasive, undetectable being.
BTW your God of the Gaps argument is hardly original (it has a name already) and is even less convincing. Science at least admits it's uncertainties, it doesn't make a virtue of them.
The Alchemist on 26/1/2007 at 06:01
Quote Posted by Nicker
So Alchemist - what you are saying is that god occupies the spaces created by our ignorance. What a perfect dwelling place for an evasive, undetectable being.
BTW your God of the Gaps argument is hardly original (it has a name already) and is even less convincing. Science at least admits it's uncertainties, it doesn't make a virtue of them.
I wasn't arguing for the God of the Gaps, because I don't believe in that either. I'm afraid I've failed in expressing myself, but at no point did I claim this to be some unique concept. What I meant simply was that scientific evidence that debunks the existence of God doesn't exist. So just in the same way that lack of evidence doesn't prove God, it doesn't disprove of him/her/it either. And you're absolutely right about this being unoriginal, a lot of points in this thread are simply being revolved. Does my unoriginality discredit me? Whats your point?
I'm afraid I channeled both my agnostic beliefs and the former statement in the same post. thus your confusion.
Anyways I'm going to stay out of this, much praise to those who have the patience.
Uncia on 26/1/2007 at 12:35
Quote Posted by the_grip
Uncia, in my continued (but apparently failing) effort not to drag the abortion thing out too far i won't try to drum up citations that i have used for my own study in the past (unless you'd like to see them, i could PM or something).
At any rate, if you read the conclusions of the studies you cited, you will see quotes like the following:
*snip*
All true, but again, that (lack of partner support) is just one facet of one broader issue (financial liquidity). It alone is not enough of a factor for most women to have an abortion despite their wishes- that only happens when it's a major factor, which is less than 1% of the time. For the remaining 99% of the time it's a judgement call by them about whether or not they're capable of raising a child in a safe environment, which is
A Good Thing. Having a child regardless of circumstances is irresponsible.
I'm all for a better safety net for young parents, but that's a separate part of a larger problem. In fact, having better support would actually work
against the pro-life argument as presented right now, since it would mean that partner pressure would be lessened; who cares if he refuses to pay for the child when she can support one on her own?
fett on 26/1/2007 at 13:25
Quote Posted by Ko0K
I do have to admit that the way I put it comes across as though I'm making believers out to be blatant liars, and I realize that is completely out of line. To be fair, I do not consider factual knowledge to be of higher value than belief is. After all, we are where we are now because we had beliefs and inspirations.
Why don't you consider knowledge of higher value than belief though? One is tangible and appeals much more to our senses, while the other, is at best only an extrapolation based on incomplete knowledge (since god can't be known). Even the bible teaches that faith should not be blind, but rather placed in the direction of evidence (Heb. 11). That's my hang-up, I have compelling knowledge of things that lead me to believe that god is real, but the evidence falls short IMO. I don't understand where 'we are now' because of beliefs and inspirations - are you meaning the U.S. or the human race or what?
Uncia on 26/1/2007 at 14:01
Quote Posted by fett
Even the bible teaches that faith should not be blind, but rather placed in the direction of evidence (Heb. 11).
What, seriously? Info nugget: stored.
the_grip on 26/1/2007 at 14:23
Quote Posted by Uncia
All true, but again, that (lack of partner support) is just one facet of one broader issue (financial liquidity). It alone is not enough of a factor for most women to have an abortion despite their wishes- that only happens when it's a major factor, which is less than 1% of the time. For the remaining 99% of the time it's a judgement call by them about whether or not they're capable of raising a child in a safe environment, which is
A Good Thing. Having a child regardless of circumstances is irresponsible.
I'm all for a better safety net for young parents, but that's a separate part of a larger problem. In fact, having better support would actually work
against the pro-life argument as presented right now, since it would mean that partner pressure would be lessened; who cares if he refuses to pay for the child when she can support one on her own?
Uncia, i don't think we are going to come to terms on the results of studies in this thread, so we'll have to save it for a rainy day. i do appreciate the dialogue - this topic is of great interest to me, so here's to hoping that some day we can explore this further in a separate thread.
the_grip on 26/1/2007 at 14:31
Quote Posted by fett
Why don't you consider knowledge of higher value than belief though? One is tangible and appeals much more to our senses, while the other, is at best only an extrapolation based on incomplete knowledge (since god can't be known). Even the bible teaches that faith should not be blind, but rather placed in the direction of evidence (Heb. 11). That's my hang-up, I have compelling knowledge of things that lead me to believe that god is real, but the evidence falls short IMO.
fett, while i definitely do not discount what is being referred to as "knowledge" here, are you thinking that Heb. 11 is requiring empirical, objective evidence for faith?
(in case anyone is interested, (
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2011;&version=50;) here is Hebrews 11)
i would tend to view Heb. 11 more as referring to perserverence, not simple belief. As i said, empirical evidence (i.e. "knowledge" in this thread) has a place and is important - including for faith - but faith by definition takes at least some form of step beyond what is known into trusting something unknowable.
For example, when i consider things like the M-Theory (i.e. there are multiple dimensions, gravity is a force eminating from one of these, and what have you - okay, very *very* terse definition) then faith really doesn't seem that far-fetched in the face of science.
All that said, i do think Epos Nix hit on a very good point re:religion and its misuse to control people. Religion is not the only thing that is used in this manner - political ideologies are just as suspect as are cultural trends and all kinds of things that man has available to him.
Uncia on 26/1/2007 at 14:36
Quote Posted by the_grip
Uncia, i don't think we are going to come to terms on the results of studies in this thread, so we'll have to save it for a rainy day. i do appreciate the dialogue - this topic is of great interest to me, so here's to hoping that some day we can explore this further in a separate thread.
Roger roger! .:)>
fett on 26/1/2007 at 14:52
My comments about faith being placed in the direction of evidence is based on Heb. 11 but there seems to be a consistent thread throughout the bible that this is what god expects. Firstly, no one is ever chastised or rebuked for demanding evidence, and god seems to think it reasonable that such proof of his power, existence, etc. be presented. Secondly, there are numerous accounts of god willingly putting the evidence forth for his claims. All this is of course assuming you take the biblical historical accounts to be at relatively factual.
Examples:
*God provided 'proof' to the Egyptians through Moses in the form of signs and plagues, and expected that they would ask for them.
*God continually provided proof of his power through the OT prophets to both the Jews and other semitic groups, though never condemns them for demanding it - though he *does* condemn them (Ahab, the Philistines, etc.) for rejecting the evidence (and thus him) once it has been overwhelmingly provided.
*Jesus does not condemn 'doubting' Thomas for demanding to see his scars from the crucifixion (he merely observes that many came before Thomas who believed even though they didn't have the detailed, first hand information that Thomas had).
There's probably about 100 other examples of stuff like this, but my conclusion based on these and Heb. 11 (faith is the *evidence* of things hoped for - not the *hope* itself) that god expects faith to be placed in the direction of evidence. Faith has become in many ways a scapegoat for anything that can't be explained scientifically, and thus has stopped believers from properly looking to science, archeology, and other historical evidence to confirm many of their beliefs (read: Intellectual Laziness).
the_grip on 26/1/2007 at 15:12
fett,
Gotcha, i'm with ya and agree 100%. i think i misunderstood what you were saying.
