STP: you and I have locked horns before. I ask you one simple question: what do YOU believe?

Hello “Simian”,

Thanks for your remarks in post#1, page#3 at 6:32 am May 26.

No need for a overly polite entry in to a public conversation. Everyone is welcome, and most certainly if they are honest and civil. Thanks for joining in!

In parg#2, you suggest that there is a “full spectrum of Christians” from literalists to some that deny an afterlife. I’m not sure if afterlife deniers actually qualify as “Christian”, because I was under the impression that to be a “Christian” one had to believe that Jesus “death” allowed one (or all) to “live forever”. While I’m unsure of this extreme of your spectrum, it’s evident that there are a huge variety of Believers. Here’s another spectral dimension: some Believers are at peace with themselves, their “God(s)”, their neighbors, and tolerant of individuals and groups with competing views, while at the opposite extreme adherents are so rabidly self-righteous they easily justify war upon “non-believers”.

Religion is used in a variety of ways by individuals and leaders to motivivate, organize, and manipulate. It does so by using stories, psychology, trickery, among the many devices of social engineering to exploit human weaknesses. Some find comfort, some a tool for leadership, others fertile ground for exploitation. Science cultivates repeatable, verifiable evidence to explain natural phenomena and produce and exploit solutions with predictable outcomes.

Challenging religion easy, but getting straight answers from Believers approaches the impossible. They don’t know what they’re talking about, so they can’t tell you. Also, since none have a firm grasp, they all seem to have different answers to the same question. Challenging science is often much more difficult, but find the right expert, and explanations are definitive where the evidence is clear and an honest “cannot say” where evidence is lacking. Believers thrive on lack of evidence.

Hello “hs”,

Thanks for the favor of your reply in post#1, page#3 at 4:29 pm May 26.

Have we “locked horns”? Oh, ha, ha, the joke’s on me… I don’t have any horns, and probably you lack them too;. You’re just being “metaphorical”, right?

Wow, I ask several questions, but your response is to duck by asking one instead? Like I just observed to “Simian”, getting answers from Believers is next to impossible. However, from me they’re easy.

But, “hs”, haven’t I already made is clear as glass what I believe? I believe what the abundance of evidence suggests. So for instance, a sun-centered solar system, not earth-centric. Regarding the existence of “God” (the “money question”, right?), “God” is imaginary, a fictional character invented by humanity as a moral authority. Contrary to Believers, though, my belief arises from the evidence. All of it compels this conclusion, none of it suggests that “God” is real. Surely this explanation is simply a refresher.

Now, back to some unanswered questions I recently posed to you…

How do you determine which parts of the Bible are accurately “the Word of God”, and which are simply metaphorical substitutions. Who decides/decided? Does introducing metaphorical interpretation introduce or reduce distortion, and more or less than translation?

Did “God” meet “Moses” in person? If not what was the metaphor? Did “God” work literally or metaphorically turn Moses’ staff into a snake? If not literally, then what is the metaphor?

You probably sense a trap, so I’ll tell what it is aforehand: You are going to answer with one answer (that you either were told, or you make up) while some other Believer will have a different answer (that was either learned or made up), and then I will say, yet again: here is more evidence that Believers are inconsistent and don’t know what they are talking about. It is more evidence that “God” is just an imaginary being because there are no clear, definitive answers even in the passages of the hallmark documents.

No motivation to step into a trap? Maybe here is some: I am earnestly seeking evidence for the existence of a real “God”. You have heard me ask for it before. Maybe your explanation will offer some. Probably not, but here’s a chance. I’m still searching despite the utter lack of success so far. Please help!

Well, Stirring, allow me to answer a question with another question: what kind of evidence will you accept as proof of the existence of God?

I am convinced that God exists. In the same way, I suppose, that I can be convinced that a brilliant painter and sculptor named Michelangelo Buonoratti existed some 500 years ago. Can his existence be PROVEN in court of law? No, not at all. There are, after all, no witnesses alive today who actually saw him with chisel in hand. And yet, we have much evidence of his handiwork.

Like all analogies and metaphors, this one has obvious flaws and shortcomings.

After all, using logical proof, God cannot be proven to exist (or to not exist either). I want to be careful here with my language. I do not subscribe to what might be called “God of the gaps” Theology, where God is invoked to explain all those things we cannot explain. (One of the great failings of so-called “Intelligent Design”)

At this point, STP, I will accept that I cannot provide the kind of proof you are demanding. I will refrain from holding your position to the level of ridicule you insist on holding over those who believe.

This is getting quite far afield of the original posting on this thread, however, a word about the interpretation of ancient texts:

There is an entire branch of philosophy called hermeneutics, or the philosophy of translation. This study persuasively argues that because of the shades of meaning that exist in one language over another one, it is impossible to translate any text from one language to another without bias. Without, in fact, loosing something of value. Consider: if you have ever heard a recorded or live performance of Beethoven’s 9th symphony, I’m certain you noted that the Chorale is sung in 18th century German. As far as I know, it has never been performed in English, and for many good reasons. For one, getting the meter to work in the poetic German would be almost impossible, as well as fitting it properly to the music.

Second, my understanding of Biblical Interpretation is guided by a basic principle: There is much in the text that is important, valuable, and beneficial. If I read it and study it searching for those things, then the questions, for example, of whether Moses was a real historical figure are no longer as important. I understand and accept, for example, that the text of what we label the “Law and the Histories”, were probably not written down in their final form until after the restoration of the Kingdom at the time of Ezra the scribe. Before that, there may have been some written text, but most of it was passed on as Oral Tradition. So, I read that material with the understanding that it was, in fact, oral history. Genesis is neither a science nor a history text.

Last, but not least, at the end of the day, whether or not God exists is ultimately a matter of faith, not reason. Either a person believes, or does not believe. A person who believes is rarely going to be convinced to stop believing because of some reason or other. By the same token, the person who does not believe is rarely going to be convinced to come to belief by study or logic. The theological principles I hold to indicate that Faith is a gift at any rate. Some are granted the gift, and some are not.

Hello “hs”,

Thanks for the favor of your reply in post#4, page#3 at 9:36 pm May 26.

You wonder what kind of evidence I will “accept”. “hs”, any that you provide! Of course, low quality evidence is much less convincing than than high quality evidence! What’s the difference? Low quality evidence is hearsay, speculation, wishful thinking, make-believe; it is not verifiable, repeatable, unequivocal, or falsifiable. High quality evidence possesses these latter attributes, and thus is more convincing. Show what convinced you! Maybe it will convince me, too!

Where in my posts have I ever “demanded proof”? All I seek is evidence. Obviously, “proof” is a threshold that is unlikely to be reached. Indeed, I once proved that a particular attribute assumed for “God” (omniscience) was mutually exclusive with a particular attribute assumed for creatures (free will). You rejected it out of hand because you did not like the results, so I know that proof is neither convincing nor forthcoming. (Of course, it was a proof that required clear thinking and several steps. Maybe my language lacked clarity?)

Evidence, on the other hand can guide reasonable folks toward reasonable, if tentative, conclusions. There is an abundance of evidence indicating that “God” is imaginary, and virtually none (except hearsay, speculation, wishful thinking, and make-believe) suggesting that “God” is real. “God”, if real, could easily remedy this situation. His complete and total absence (except by ancient anecdote) is compelling evidence of his imaginary existence on its own. Indeed, “God’s” complete and total absence calls for yet another story! Myriad explanations have been crafted; how many do you want recounted?

Proving the truth of former lives of historical figures is easier than you suggest. Eye witnesses are unneccesary; there is abundant and convincing forensic evidence! In the case of Michelangelo the artist, there is a vast store of contemporary records and enduring products. The preponderance of evidence is clear. While he “still lives” in some abstract sense, it is not expected that the artist will produce further works to “prove” his existence was real. Furthermore, he is not regularly employed as the basis of human morality. Yet Believers regularly claim “God” really is alive and active and everywhere and acting and reacting and involved with human affairs, and the moral authority establishing the standard for human behavior. If true, clear and convincing evidence should abound! Yet where is it? According to the stories, “God” met with people on a regular basis. Where is “God” now? Did “God” die like an ordinary creature? Surely not! The answer is simple: “God” is a fictional character, little different from, say, Luke Skywalker, or Hercules, or Zeus, or Santa Claus, except by assigned attributes and functional institutional support by zealots, acolytes, and Believers.

That’s why, when asked, Believers must go to extraordinary lengths to explain why “God” is absent, yet still real; and why inconsistencies and contradictions are either labeled as “meaningless” or “nonexistent”, thus safely brushed aside and ignored. That’s why some Believers claim “oh, the stories aren’t literally true; they are simply metaphors”. It’s why you have such difficulty providing answers to simple questions regarding the source documents of your supposed wisdom. It’s why you change the subject and dodge answers. You want to believe it’s all real and true (whatever “it” is), but you sense the ridiculousness and weakness of your position when it’s held up for scrutiny.

Sound a bit judgemental? Of course! I am judging and concluding on the basis of evidence in my possession. Do you have any to the contrary? You claim you do, yet you never display it! What else can I conclude?

I understand your discussion about the flaws of translation and necessity of faith and all. Ultimately, people believe what they want, regardless the truth of the matter. (Ask Galileo why he was imprisoned!) The trouble is, people are more easily manipulated when they believe that falsehoods are true. That’s why it’s important do determine if “God” is real or simply imaginary. If real, then some behaviors are better than others; if imaginary, then different behaviors are better. If real, then certain expectations are valid, if imaginary, then other expectations are valid. We can talk a lifetime (humanity has already done so) about what is “good” and “right”, but the framework used to produce the answers must be accurate, consistent, and reliable in order act as a credible authority to produce quality answers.

It’s abundantly clear to those who are rational and employ evidence to formulate conclusions that “God” is merely a fictional character, incapable of performing actual miracles or asserting active control over human affairs. Those who say otherwise are trying to manipulate people for their own ends. Sure, there is plenty of social value contained in the Biblical stories, just as there is plenty of social value contained in Aesop’s Fables. I find nothing wrong with using fictional characters to teach morality, however the basis for morality should not rest upon the dictates of fictional characters because this merely represents the morality of the authors. Obviously, there is something wrong when fictional characters are employed by crafty orators to manipulate human behaviors. Aesop’s characters are not abused in this manner, so they are seldom the target of scrutiny. “God” is regularly abused in this manner, so it is important for his true nature to be exposed. Will you help; or will you perpetuate the insanity?

STP:

Faith is a choice. I choose to believe that there is a God. You choose to believe that there is no God.

I have had situations in my life that you would consider coincidence or chance, that I choose to attribute to the actions of a Power Greater than Myself.

I have known many people, myself included, who were struggling mightily with life situations that were completely beyond my, or seemingly anyone else’s power to control or heal. Then, I was faced with a proposition: there MIGHT exist a Power Greater than Myself that COULD do exactly that. All that was asked of me was to consider the possibility and acknowledge that “I” was unable to do these things on my own.

You know what? It has worked for a number of years, and for many years for many others like me.

Now, is that “proof”? Nope. But it works for me.

hs,

hs,

Thanks for your work on this post. I find it useful. Good stuff.

STP,

I assume you are a non-believer. Who are you to judge who is and who is not a Christian? It is easy enough to find the dogma of any given denomination, it is much tougher to determine the beliefs of any given person. As I have met people who label themselves Christian, believe in some sort of deity, believe in some of the messages of Jesus (though may not believe in his physical existence), I have to say such people do exist.

I find the viewpoint that you, as a non-believer (again, I am making an assumption here) can define what it is to be a Christian to be every bit as arrogant as a Christian who defines all atheists as amoral because they don’t see how non-believers can be moral.

People believe all sorts or odd things, various groups exploit people. Why single out religion as a problem? I happen to believe that hard work, knowledge, and skill are the basis for professional advancement. This flies in the face of experience - who your parents are and the contacts they start actually matter much more than what is internal to you. Yet, I hold the belief. Not because of the world works, but because it is the way I feel it must work, and will work to make the world move closer to this ideal.

Simian

Often we must rely on the listening of others to hear what we are saying.

STP is a believer. The belief is in an imaginary God. The request is for more than this. STP’s ruthless persistence in this matter is faith.

For me, the creation museum occurrs as a lack of faith in our scientists.

The Greeks acknowledged this ageless tragedy of being human, that our greatest strength is our greatest weakness.