Religion & Morality

[conversationpc]

Rip, what's your take on atheists who've gone the other direction? I've heard a good number of stories of unbelievers coming to faith.

Haven't heard too many except for Lee Strobel, and Mike Warnke (who turned out to be a fraud). I'm sure they exist, but who knows the reasons.

It's not completely uncommon and I actually know of one who was a lawyer, extremely intelligent, and converted from Atheism to Christianity over the course of some conversations he had with a former pastor of ours. Like Strobel, he was an antagonistic atheist and began writing letters to our pastor on questions he had and why the Christian faith could not be true.

It would be very interesting to hear his story first-hand, or from an eyewitness. Not to doubt you, but to clarify -- did you know him personally or only know of him? I'm asking because of my experience also with miracle stories -- they are always a "friend of a friend" type of things, so the exact details are often questionable.

I knew him personally. He shared his story with us. He mentioned that he was an atheist but had visited the church we attended for some reason or another (I think because the woman he was dating, who eventually became his wife, invited him to come). He began writing letters to the pastor in an attempt to justify his own non-belief and to try to prove Christianity wrong, much like the story of Lee Strobel and this was long before Strobel's story became known in the Christian community, so it's not one of those deals where others glom onto the story in an attempt to make it into their own.

[Gideon]

I think you're perceiving what you want to see in Dawkins' agitation.

Respectfully, this is something of a baseless accusation. Though I am a believer and identify with Christianity, my attitude in this thread has been not only sympathetic with agnosticism and atheism, but rather munificent:

Agnosticism is the only rational worldview when it comes to religion. (And I say that as a Christian.)

?
As someone who is simultaneously a logician and a religious person, I stand by my assessment. Certainly faith (or mature faith) requires a level of cognition. Ultimately, though, it assumes certain facts that are not in evidence. One can't conclude there is a God through strict application of logic, which is why I say it's an issue of emotion.

I'm not saying that there aren't logical questions or pursuits to be answered or found in religion nor am I suggesting that people who are religious don't examine things logically. For example, I came to the personal belief that God exists because I simply couldn't conclude that the complexity of the modern world is the result of a random accident without a higher power behind it. What I am saying, though, is that basic logic dictates that one cannot assume facts not in evidence. As there is no proof that God exists, a completely rational person looking at this strictly logically would not be able to say that He does.

As far as your questions, I suggest reading more into epistemology, a really fascinating branch of philosophy.

The evidence strongly swings in favor of evolution, so yes. I'm definitely not an ideal Christian.

There are more, I believe, but I think this is sufficient to properly illustrate the point: I've been pretty darn objective here, if I do say so myself, so it isn't a matter of what I want to see. Perhaps it's you who is the victim of selective perception, given your apparent amusement with Christian blunders such as the video you just recently linked us to? Not to mention that you make a credible argument in favor of Dawkins' agitation in an effort to justify it here: "If you're perceiving anything in his facial expressions, we all evidence a little agitation sometimes in conversation, especially if we feel we're having to repeat ourselves, have been asked a silly question, if the conversation takes an unexpected curve, or if we're being misunderstood, misquoted, etc. He also mentioned that he felt Lennox was jumping around from point to point a bit,"



As far as the issue of rhetoric vs. logic is concerned, while one's rhetorical skills does not undermine the validity of one's arguments, it is essential to one's skills as a oral debater. Dawkins and Lennox were engaged in a classic debate and communicating verbally; it's fair game to criticize weaknesses in Dawkins' approach: Lennox didn't indulge in sarcasm, was completely affable, and demonstrated superior patience. His presentation was much better.

Remember one thing -- the burden of proof is on Christianity, because it's the one making the positive claim for something

Incorrect, the burden of proof lies on anyone who makes a claim at all. The topic in question was a question: "has science buried God?" Dawkins, who in point of fact was the first to speak, said yes. The burden of proof, in this case, is on him, because he was the one to make the claim.

[parfait]

but I am almost through watching their 2nd debate called "Has Science Buried God", and don't believe Lennox is coming out on top at all.

I do, for a number of reasons: Dawkins' demeanor was visibly agitated the entire way through (as a debater, I can tell you that is usually not the hallmark of a victor, or at least someone confident of victory) whereas Lennox was completely calm and affable, Dawkins failed to properly articulate the point regarding agents and mechanisms (Lennox correctly pointed out that the existence of a mechanism in evolution-by-natural-selection does not preclude the existence of an agent), Dawkins conceded on the issue of the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth, etc.

All of the concessions or failures to properly articulate one's points were largely on Dawkins. As logicians, it was close, but Lennox carried the day. As rhetoricians, it wasn't especially close here: Lennox was more articulate and more charismatic.

I agree. Dawkins has never been one to win others over. Why? Because he has somewhat the same attitude as me: "If you're not up with facts, then fuck yourself right off!" All the rhetoric, arguments and whatnot is all fun. But at the end of the day there's one big difference between religion and science; science is based on experiments and recorded data, while religion is based on some book written hundreds of years after the supposed incidents took place, as well as being re-written and edited numerous times. Not to mention all the crazy bullshit that's actually in it, that Christians just seem to disregard. The second commandment says: You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me. Ever been to a church lately? It's filled with idols. But fuck the commandments, right? After all; that Jesus statue sure looks sweet.

The bible is so clearly written by men in what was a tribal society. I mean, there's so many errors and fallacies in the Bible and religion in total, that it'll make your head hurt. What will hurt even more, is the religious side's way of completely ignoring them. "You can't have a moral or ethical framework without the bible?" Let's overlook the old testament here, because it's basically Friday the 13th in writing, and point to the fact that societies thousands of years before the bible had their set of ethical and moral laws. An example is the Code of Ur-Nammu, written 2100 years BC. Here's a couple of excerpts: If a man commits a kidnapping, he is to be imprisoned and pay 15 shekels of silver. If a man commits a murder, that man must be killed.

Try to win arguments by "keewl" rhetoric and misinterpretation and misleading use of science all you want. Who cares? Because at the end of the day, the difference still is; the motherfucking truth is on our side. See religion for what it is: a way for humans to cope with what's not understood and the fear of death. The Christian God was created thousand of years ago, when no one knew shit. If you still want to believe in it, fine. But don't try to fool yourself or anybody else with that Mandingo-sized, fairytale cockshit.

[S2M]

Gideon, you seem like one of the more intelligent, and well-spoken posters here. That being said, even you must admit that folks that get wrapped up in the periphery of presentation - often miss the point entirely. Style over substance, if you will. Even an ostentatious attorney may sway a jury if his oration is showy, colorful, and tricksy....while a dull, monotonous defense, exacting the truth, be overlooked for lack of style....in picking winners and losers - style should play a supporting role to substance.

[Gideon]

but I am almost through watching their 2nd debate called "Has Science Buried God", and don't believe Lennox is coming out on top at all.

I do, for a number of reasons: Dawkins' demeanor was visibly agitated the entire way through (as a debater, I can tell you that is usually not the hallmark of a victor, or at least someone confident of victory) whereas Lennox was completely calm and affable, Dawkins failed to properly articulate the point regarding agents and mechanisms (Lennox correctly pointed out that the existence of a mechanism in evolution-by-natural-selection does not preclude the existence of an agent), Dawkins conceded on the issue of the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth, etc.

All of the concessions or failures to properly articulate one's points were largely on Dawkins. As logicians, it was close, but Lennox carried the day. As rhetoricians, it wasn't especially close here: Lennox was more articulate and more charismatic.

I agree. Dawkins has never been one to win others over. Why? Because he has somewhat the same attitude as me: "If you're not up with facts, then fuck yourself right off!"

That's the vibe I got from him as well. Which is perplexing, because I'm not sure why Dawkins engages in these debates if he's not seeking to promote atheism, i.e. recruitment. Clearly his goal is to persuade others to adhere to his cause; it's ironic that he should probably take a page out of Christianity's book there.

[Gideon]

Gideon, you seem like one of the more intelligent, and well-spoken posters here.

I could have done without the "seem" in favor of: Gideon, you are without question the most intelligent and well-spoken poster here. Bastard, are you always stingy with compliments?

That being said, even you must admit that folks that get wrapped up in the periphery of presentation - often miss the point entirely. Style over substance, if you will. Even an ostentatious attorney may sway a jury if his oration is showy, colorful, and tricksy....while a dull, monotonous defense, exacting the truth, be overlooked for lack of style....in picking winners and losers - style should play a supporting role to substance.

Absolutely, there is a vast and fundamental difference between rhetoric and logic. One can be the finest rhetorician on the planet (Hitler) and simultaneously the poorest logician (Hitler, again). That said, Dawkins engaged Lennox in a public debate ostensibly to spread the merits of atheism, debunk Christianity, and undermine religion as a whole. It is for that reason that he needs to brush up on such skills, because rhetoric is how he'll be able to communicate his logic to the masses.

[brandonx76]

Gideon, you seem like one of the more intelligent, and well-spoken posters here.

I could have done without the "seem" in favor of: Gideon, you are without question the most intelligent and well-spoken poster here. Bastard, are you always stingy with compliments?

That being said, even you must admit that folks that get wrapped up in the periphery of presentation - often miss the point entirely. Style over substance, if you will. Even an ostentatious attorney may sway a jury if his oration is showy, colorful, and tricksy....while a dull, monotonous defense, exacting the truth, be overlooked for lack of style....in picking winners and losers - style should play a supporting role to substance.

Absolutely, there is a vast and fundamental difference between rhetoric and logic. One can be the finest rhetorician on the planet (Hitler) and simultaneously the poorest logician (Hitler, again). That said, Dawkins engaged Lennox in a public debate ostensibly to spread the merits of atheism, debunk Christianity, and undermine religion as a whole. It is for that reason that he needs to brush up on such skills, because rhetoric is how he'll be able to communicate his logic to the masses.

Not sure I agree with that and maybe I'm oversimplifying to think of them as mutually exclusive...doesn't religion or faith have a built in non-confirmable sales factor? I.e. if you believe, if you are faithful, you'll be rewarded in heaven...if you don't you turn to nothingness and the world ends (or go to hell)...Which side of the fence is it easier to sell someone on if they're looking for that 'missing piece in their life'...I think rhetoric and 'style' as you call it may more apt for certain messages of extremism - messages of hate and divisiveness (us vs. them), or church revival, or anything discussed politically (the very nature of politics), are easy to rouse a crowd and whip up excitement. Logic is typically, not as colorful...I dunno, just some thoughts...

[Gideon]

I'm heading out for a little while, but I'll do my best to explain the concepts when I return.

[majik]

I'm heading out for a little while, but I'll do my best to explain the concepts when I return.

I had to laugh out loud at this. Just how will you explain the concepts to us only by using more concepts. Religion and science is all conceptual and needs to be propped up with more concepts and ideas...... forever. When all these concepts and ideas ( the monkey mind in action ) are let go of what remains .... can it be said ? no, but it can be known experientially and is beyond words and ideas.

[majik]

Atheism a byproduct of religion, seeming polar opposites, both based in concepts.

[verslibre]

But don't try to fool yourself or anybody else with that Mandingo-sized, fairytale cockshit.

Somebody's true colors are showing.

[Gideon]

I'm heading out for a little while, but I'll do my best to explain the concepts when I return.

I had to laugh out loud at this. Just how will you explain the concepts to us only by using more concepts.

I was talking about rhetoric vs. logic, not religion vs. science. Brandon indicated that both of them (rhetoric and logic) were mutually exclusive and I was going to explain how that wasn't the case.

[Rip Rokken]

It would be very interesting to hear his story first-hand, or from an eyewitness. Not to doubt you, but to clarify -- did you know him personally or only know of him? I'm asking because of my experience also with miracle stories -- they are always a "friend of a friend" type of things, so the exact details are often questionable.

I knew him personally. He shared his story with us. He mentioned that he was an atheist but had visited the church we attended for some reason or another (I think because the woman he was dating, who eventually became his wife, invited him to come). He began writing letters to the pastor in an attempt to justify his own non-belief and to try to prove Christianity wrong, much like the story of Lee Strobel and this was long before Strobel's story became known in the Christian community, so it's not one of those deals where others glom onto the story in an attempt to make it into their own.

It can happen, and I forgot to mention, I led an atheist kid to Christ once. He was an amazing, brilliant guy, 18 or 19 at the time. He ended up really digging in, and within a year he was already studying Greek. His life totally changed in every way, and he was one of these believers who really had that light in their eyes - the type that when you see them, you "know" they have Christ inside. A very, very dear friend. A few years later, he became very discouraged for some reason and I understand he went back to atheism. Only caught up with him once since then, still several years ago, and I was still a believer. We didn't even bring the topic up - I was just trying to go easy to spark the friendship again. I heard recently he tried to look me up on Facebook and sent a message to a friend, and I'd love to talk to him again and find out what really happened. Looking back, my guess is the love, acceptance, and total sense of worth and belonging that he had from our group of believers were what really grabbed him. We were like family to him. If his conversion wasn't sincere, then nobody's is. It's easy during that time to see God in everything, but eventually, God has to hold up on his own, without "two or three" gathered in his name to feed off of each other. God just flat out doesn't hold up well for some people. I never understood it, and had a very hard time believing he could have gone back to unbelief -- he'd become one of the finest examples of a Christian I'd ever met.

Back to the guy you knew, I don't want to be disrespectful at all -- glad it happened to him and hope his life is wonderful. The mention of a female love interest definitely raises a flag in my mind though, because no matter how sincere the guy was in his belief, I'm tellin' ya from personal experience -- it's a factor. I just don't know a polite way to put it and say it with the same effect -- _______ has made 'believers' out of many a heathen, the same way it's made heathens out of believers (the example of King David comes to mind). God has a great way of opening a guy's eyes up in these circumstances, especially in those cases she doesn't plan on being unequally yoked. And we've mentioned before, Lee Strobel's wife's conversion played a part in his conversion too. Coincidence, maybe... but both guys had a vested interest in belief.

I hypothesize that an ex-believer who has been there before will be much harder to sway toward faith than an atheist who has never experienced "salvation" before.

[Rip Rokken]

I think you're perceiving what you want to see in Dawkins' agitation.

Respectfully, this is something of a baseless accusation. Though I am a believer and identify with Christianity, my attitude in this thread has been not only sympathetic with agnosticism and atheism, but rather munificent:

I can accept that. I do try to be objective, and just saw nothing like you and a few others apparently took away from that debate. That being said... I did watch a full 2.5 hour debate with Dan Barker vs. James White today, and Barker got his ass HANDED to him. I thought his opening argument was pretty strong, but White is seriously well-educated in all things Bible, including ancient history, etc., and just spanked him pretty good. Barker's problem was that some of his asserted parallels between Christianity and earlier religions were a little shaky, as well as some sources he'd used in earlier versions of his book "Godless", and White really creamed him on this -- hey, Barker's not a historian, and not nearly as well versed on the stuff.

But as articulate and prepared as White was, there was one huge thing that stuck out to me that discredited what he was selling to me -- the guy was dripping with smirky spiritual pride, and he seemed to enjoy beating on Barker a little too much. He reminded me more of a prosecuting attorney trying to make a fool out of someone than a gentleman, and sorry to say... it's just not what someone "filled with the Holy Spirit" is suggested to be. No meekness, no kindness. Even as a believer I would have had a problem with him. Hell, just watch this little exchange... not surprising he doesn't allow comments on his vids.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJ-NBFFMm90

Full debate is here in 2 parts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00WOGeGcjYo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bw1gVAWaRVw

[majik]

I'm heading out for a little while, but I'll do my best to explain the concepts when I return.

I had to laugh out loud at this. Just how will you explain the concepts to us only by using more concepts.

I was talking about rhetoric vs. logic, not religion vs. science. Brandon indicated that both of them (rhetoric and logic) were mutually exclusive and I was going to explain how that wasn't the case.

Rhetoric vs. logic, is only putting a new label on it and is also meaningless.

[Gideon]

I can accept that. I do try to be objective, and just saw nothing like you and a few others apparently took away from that debate.

One of the seemingly counter-intuitive truths about debating is that one need not actually have full command of the facts in order to successfully argue his or her case. Dawkins vs. Lennox is a great example of that; clearly when it comes to hard evidence, Dawkins and non-believing worldviews at large have the advantage in that while there is evidence for evolution, gravity, and the physical constants Dawkins constantly mentions, Lennox hasn't that much in his corner.

The problem is that Dawkins is unable to preclude the notion that there is an agent (God) behind the mechanism (the physical constants), even though he regards the idea of an agent as superfluous. Similarly, Dawkins argument was weak concerning the origin of the universe: When Lennox asked him, "Do you simply believe the universe is a brute fact?", Lennox responded: "It's a hell of a lot easier to believe in that than a god." That's a non-answer and remarkably weak for such a strong rationalist. It's an admission that Dawkins doesn't know the nature of the universe's origins, acknowledges the gaps in science, but is steadfast in his certainty that it wasn't God. It's tantamount to saying: "I haven't the foggiest as to what created the universe, but it definitely wasn't God!"

It's the sort of weakness that a clever rhetorician and logician can exploit, which Lennox did in a rather gentlemanly fashion.

Rhetoric vs. logic, is only putting a new label on it and is also meaningless.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Rhetoric and religion are two separate things, as are logic and science, and only superficial thinking would conclude that they are somehow interchangeable labels because of their relation to one another. Rhetoric is the use of language for persuasive purposes, religion is a system of cultural and spiritual beliefs, logic is the study of correct reasoning, and science is the study of the universe and all it encompasses through experimentation and tests.

As for explaining these concepts through other concepts, I'm fairly certain that that sort of thing happens all the time in education (or at least mine). It's similar to how we explain words by using other words. Rhetoric and logic are both fields that have been exhaustively explored and studied, so clearly their meanings can be articulated properly.

The only question here is can I successfully explain what it is. Perhaps, perhaps not. But I'd hope so.

[Rip Rokken]

I can accept that. I do try to be objective, and just saw nothing like you and a few others apparently took away from that debate.

One of the seemingly counter-intuitive truths about debating is that one need not actually have full command of the facts in order to successfully argue his or her case. Dawkins vs. Lennox is a great example of that; clearly when it comes to hard evidence, Dawkins and non-believing worldviews at large have the advantage in that while there is evidence for evolution, gravity, and the physical constants Dawkins constantly mentions, Lennox hasn't that much in his corner.

The problem is that Dawkins is unable to preclude the notion that there is an agent (God) behind the mechanism (the physical constants), even though he regards the idea of an agent as superfluous. Similarly, Dawkins argument was weak concerning the origin of the universe: When Lennox asked him, "Do you simply believe the universe is a brute fact?", Lennox responded: "It's a hell of a lot easier to believe in that than a god." That's a non-answer and remarkably weak for such a strong rationalist. It's an admission that Dawkins doesn't know the nature of the universe's origins, acknowledges the gaps in science, but is steadfast in his certainty that it wasn't God. It's tantamount to saying: "I haven't the foggiest as to what created the universe, but it definitely wasn't God!"

It's the sort of weakness that a clever rhetorician and logician can exploit, which Lennox did in a rather gentlemanly fashion.

I think debates on the existence of God are so popular because everybody knows they can't really be won -- at least, when kept at the level of the cosmos and creation. It can be milked for all it's worth without anyone taking it on the chin too hard (if they have their arguments in order). But it's also to me one of the most boring discussions I've had to listen to, and it's simply not practical.

I don't see many debates at all focused on the important and truly practical issue -- are the claims of Christianity (in this case) trustworthy and effective? This is a religion that promises and in-dwelling, guiding, fruit-bearing God, joined to us in spirit. And with this in mind, it goes on to make a whole host of promises about prayer and the fruits of faith. It's a grand topic for debate, and I think it's also a huge target for skepticism. I honestly believe it's the lynchpin that threatens to pull the whole thing apart. People can say that the resurrection of Christ is the central issue proving the truth of Christianity, but there you're talking about an easily debatable story from over 2,000 years ago. With the Holy Spirit, you supposedly have God in the hear and now, active in our lives, and in my opinion that's really the Achilles' Heel of faith. I think the Holy Spirit is nothing more than a combination of wish-thinking, miscredited intuition, and the placebo effect of adrenaline and dopamine.

[majik]

I can accept that. I do try to be objective, and just saw nothing like you and a few others apparently took away from that debate.

One of the seemingly counter-intuitive truths about debating is that one need not actually have full command of the facts in order to successfully argue his or her case. Dawkins vs. Lennox is a great example of that; clearly when it comes to hard evidence, Dawkins and non-believing worldviews at large have the advantage in that while there is evidence for evolution, gravity, and the physical constants Dawkins constantly mentions, Lennox hasn't that much in his corner.

The problem is that Dawkins is unable to preclude the notion that there is an agent (God) behind the mechanism (the physical constants), even though he regards the idea of an agent as superfluous. Similarly, Dawkins argument was weak concerning the origin of the universe: When Lennox asked him, "Do you simply believe the universe is a brute fact?", Lennox responded: "It's a hell of a lot easier to believe in that than a god." That's a non-answer and remarkably weak for such a strong rationalist. It's an admission that Dawkins doesn't know the nature of the universe's origins, acknowledges the gaps in science, but is steadfast in his certainty that it wasn't God. It's tantamount to saying: "I haven't the foggiest as to what created the universe, but it definitely wasn't God!"

It's the sort of weakness that a clever rhetorician and logician can exploit, which Lennox did in a rather gentlemanly fashion.

Rhetoric vs. logic, is only putting a new label on it and is also meaningless.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Rhetoric and religion are two separate things, as are logic and science, and only superficial thinking would conclude that they are somehow interchangeable labels because of their relation to one another. Rhetoric is the use of language for persuasive purposes, religion is a system of cultural and spiritual beliefs, logic is the study of correct reasoning, and science is the study of the universe and all it encompasses through experimentation and tests.

As for explaining these concepts through other concepts, I'm fairly certain that that sort of thing happens all the time in education (or at least mine). It's similar to how we explain words by using other words. Rhetoric and logic are both fields that have been exhaustively explored and studied, so clearly their meanings can be articulated properly.

The only question here is can I successfully explain what it is. Perhaps, perhaps not. But I'd hope so.

You proved my point with this attempt to answer your own question.

"The only question here is can I successfully explain what it is. Perhaps, perhaps not. But I'd hope so."

This can not be successfully explained using words at all because the limitation that is language is reached here, and hoping so is a false hope as I'm sure you can see. Thats not to say words and concepts are not useful but believing them is where the problem starts. This is beyond words and ideas, you can say water all day long but it won't quench your thirst, the word is not the thing. Water can't be explained in words you gotta drink it to know it experientially where words will only fail. This IS-ness is it and is what the fuss is all about, there is literally nothing else.

[Gideon]

This can not be successfully explained using words at all because the limitation that is language is reached here, and hoping so is a false hope as I'm sure you can see.

I don't.

"As for explaining these concepts through other concepts, I'm fairly certain that that sort of thing happens all the time in education (or at least mine). It's similar to how we explain words by using other words. Rhetoric and logic are both fields that have been exhaustively explored and studied, so clearly their meanings can be articulated properly."

As I explained above, it can be and has been done, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here other than the question of "can language capture the complete essence of a concept?" The answer is no, but I fear you're drowning in epistemology here. Water can be explained with words in that it can be defined even down to its scientific, molecular components.

[steveo777]

This can not be successfully explained using words at all because the limitation that is language is reached here, and hoping so is a false hope as I'm sure you can see.

I don't.

"As for explaining these concepts through other concepts, I'm fairly certain that that sort of thing happens all the time in education (or at least mine). It's similar to how we explain words by using other words. Rhetoric and logic are both fields that have been exhaustively explored and studied, so clearly their meanings can be articulated properly."

As I explained above, it can be and has been done, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here other than the question of "can language capture the complete essence of a concept?" The answer is no, but I fear you're drowning in epistemology here. Water can be explained with words in that it can be defined even down to its scientific, molecular components.

How old is the water in the ocean?

[Rip Rokken]

This can not be successfully explained using words at all because the limitation that is language is reached here, and hoping so is a false hope as I'm sure you can see.

I don't.

"As for explaining these concepts through other concepts, I'm fairly certain that that sort of thing happens all the time in education (or at least mine). It's similar to how we explain words by using other words. Rhetoric and logic are both fields that have been exhaustively explored and studied, so clearly their meanings can be articulated properly."

As I explained above, it can be and has been done, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here other than the question of "can language capture the complete essence of a concept?" The answer is no, but I fear you're drowning in epistemology here. Water can be explained with words in that it can be defined even down to its scientific, molecular components.

The longer this conversation goes on, the more firmly convinced I am that if God exists, he's only made himself capable of being perceived by highly learned, abstract, and deeply philosophical types. Or people who don't engage the use of their noodle at all when it comes to faith. No middle ground.

[steveo777]

This can not be successfully explained using words at all because the limitation that is language is reached here, and hoping so is a false hope as I'm sure you can see.

I don't.

"As for explaining these concepts through other concepts, I'm fairly certain that that sort of thing happens all the time in education (or at least mine). It's similar to how we explain words by using other words. Rhetoric and logic are both fields that have been exhaustively explored and studied, so clearly their meanings can be articulated properly."

As I explained above, it can be and has been done, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here other than the question of "can language capture the complete essence of a concept?" The answer is no, but I fear you're drowning in epistemology here. Water can be explained with words in that it can be defined even down to its scientific, molecular components.

The longer this conversation goes on, the more firmly convinced I am that if God exists, he's only made himself capable of being perceived by highly learned, abstract, and deeply philosophical types. Or people who don't engage the use of their noodle at all when it comes to faith. No middle ground.

Get an education dude!

<------quickly exits thread

[Gideon]

This can not be successfully explained using words at all because the limitation that is language is reached here, and hoping so is a false hope as I'm sure you can see.

I don't.

"As for explaining these concepts through other concepts, I'm fairly certain that that sort of thing happens all the time in education (or at least mine). It's similar to how we explain words by using other words. Rhetoric and logic are both fields that have been exhaustively explored and studied, so clearly their meanings can be articulated properly."

As I explained above, it can be and has been done, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here other than the question of "can language capture the complete essence of a concept?" The answer is no, but I fear you're drowning in epistemology here. Water can be explained with words in that it can be defined even down to its scientific, molecular components.

The longer this conversation goes on, the more firmly convinced I am that if God exists, he's only made himself capable of being perceived by highly learned, abstract, and deeply philosophical types. Or people who don't engage the use of their noodle at all when it comes to faith. No middle ground.

I'm not even talking about religion and science now, but simply rhetoric and logic. Those were the concepts that I was wanting to explain to Brandon, who believed them to be mutually exclusive. Edit: Which will have to be done on the morrow, as I'm heading to bed. I think majik's epistemological pursuits are distorting the actual conversation. I don't consider myself abstract or deeply philosophical at all, that's more of S2M's area than mine. I'm a strict rhetorician and logician by trade.

[Rip Rokken]

The longer this conversation goes on, the more firmly convinced I am that if God exists, he's only made himself capable of being perceived by highly learned, abstract, and deeply philosophical types. Or people who don't engage the use of their noodle at all when it comes to faith. No middle ground.

Get an education dude!

<------quickly exits thread

LOL - just making a point. Average people of faith (previous self included) sort of shut off the rational part of their brains to believe it, and the people who make a living selling faith jump thru all sorts of mind-bending hoops to create a convincing argument for God's existence just to keep the flock intact. Doesn't stand to reason that a personal God who wants everyone to know him would hide himself so well, leaving his detectable presence subject to easily questionable perception.

[majik]

This can not be successfully explained using words at all because the limitation that is language is reached here, and hoping so is a false hope as I'm sure you can see.

I don't.

"As for explaining these concepts through other concepts, I'm fairly certain that that sort of thing happens all the time in education (or at least mine). It's similar to how we explain words by using other words. Rhetoric and logic are both fields that have been exhaustively explored and studied, so clearly their meanings can be articulated properly."

As I explained above, it can be and has been done, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here other than the question of "can language capture the complete essence of a concept?" The answer is no, but I fear you're drowning in epistemology here. Water can be explained with words in that it can be defined even down to its scientific, molecular components.

Epistemology, the concept of epistemology is vital in the modern study of quantum mechanics, I must be more educated or maybe its less educated than I thought if you believe I'm drowning in it ( must be water based or is it wet molecules ). As its another concept and another label that you have introduced I'm not interested in repeating the above. Keep up the re-labeling if you like and just like the mouse on the wheel go round and round in ignorance, all the while you have not moved a jot from the wonderment of what-is.

This whole thread of 20plus pages only serves to show the gobbledegook that the human mind can dish out and amazingly believes itself to be accurate about.... nothing. Cheers

Edit: by ignorance I mean ignoring the experience of reality itself, not in a personal context.

[conversationpc]

Back to the guy you knew, I don't want to be disrespectful at all -- glad it happened to him and hope his life is wonderful. The mention of a female love interest definitely raises a flag in my mind though, because no matter how sincere the guy was in his belief, I'm tellin' ya from personal experience -- it's a factor. I just don't know a polite way to put it and say it with the same effect -- _______ has made 'believers' out of many a heathen, the same way it's made heathens out of believers (the example of King David comes to mind). God has a great way of opening a guy's eyes up in these circumstances, especially in those cases she doesn't plan on being unequally yoked. And we've mentioned before, Lee Strobel's wife's conversion played a part in his conversion too. Coincidence, maybe... but both guys had a vested interest in belief.

No, I don't think so at all. I certainly know of instances where's that's happened but the evidence in the two cases here seems to point another direction. If anything their significant other's belief was a source of friction rather than an impetus towards belief. In Strobel's case certainly, it fueled him towards proving his wife's faith to be unfounded.

[conversationpc]

I think the Holy Spirit is nothing more than a combination of wish-thinking, miscredited intuition, and the placebo effect of adrenaline and dopamine.

Rip, you took some offense to what Stu said to you earlier in this thread about perhaps it's your own fault for not having faith. Don't you think what you're saying above here is pretty much the same type of statement coming back the other direction? If it's wrong to tell someone who's lost faith that perhaps they need look at themselves instead of blaming God, doesn't it hold true that it's also wrong to tell someone who DOES believe that their perception of faith is nothing more than what you said above? I'm just sayin'...

[Rip Rokken]

No, I don't think so at all. I certainly know of instances where's that's happened but the evidence in the two cases here seems to point another direction. If anything their significant other's belief was a source of friction rather than an impetus towards belief. In Strobel's case certainly, it fueled him towards proving his wife's faith to be unfounded.

Gave him a great career too -- books, videos, speaking engagements... Hey, I'm not trying to be skeptical just to be difficult, and Strobel may be very, very sincere. When people say they've "examined all the evidence" and it leads them to faith though, makes me think there is a lot left out, such as the trustworthiness and inerrancy of our scriptural manuscripts. Those alone plus the extremely human ways that books of the Bible were canonized and doctrines were formed over time doesn't point to any kind of divine guidance in my opinion.

[conversationpc]

No, I don't think so at all. I certainly know of instances where's that's happened but the evidence in the two cases here seems to point another direction. If anything their significant other's belief was a source of friction rather than an impetus towards belief. In Strobel's case certainly, it fueled him towards proving his wife's faith to be unfounded.

Gave him a great career too -- books, videos, speaking engagements... Hey, I'm not trying to be skeptical just to be difficult, and Strobel may be very, very sincere. When people say they've "examined all the evidence" and it leads them to faith though, makes me think there is a lot left out, such as the trustworthiness and inerrancy of our scriptural manuscripts. Those alone plus the extremely human ways that books of the Bible were canonized and doctrines were formed over time doesn't point to any kind of divine guidance in my opinion.

He already had a fairly decent career going before his conversion.

[Rip Rokken]

No, I don't think so at all. I certainly know of instances where's that's happened but the evidence in the two cases here seems to point another direction. If anything their significant other's belief was a source of friction rather than an impetus towards belief. In Strobel's case certainly, it fueled him towards proving his wife's faith to be unfounded.

Gave him a great career too -- books, videos, speaking engagements... Hey, I'm not trying to be skeptical just to be difficult, and Strobel may be very, very sincere. When people say they've "examined all the evidence" and it leads them to faith though, makes me think there is a lot left out, such as the trustworthiness and inerrancy of our scriptural manuscripts. Those alone plus the extremely human ways that books of the Bible were canonized and doctrines were formed over time doesn't point to any kind of divine guidance in my opinion.

He already had a fairly decent career going before his conversion.

I've only heard Strobel summarize his story without a lot of details, but a few things I've read indicate that Strobel describes his atheism more for reasons of lifestyle choice than intellect -- that he was just "running from God". I'd love to read more about his story if anyone has a link.

Gotta say this too -- the material I've watched from him doesn't really seem to come from the perspective of an intellectual atheist -- it's rather fluffy and easy to dispute. I know some people feel his stuff is written more for Christians than for serious doubters, and I can definitely see that.