The burden of proof is on believers to prove God exists (according to atheist philosphers)

[CHRISTINE77]

Next, you’ll be telling us that Morris Alberts’ song Feelings (Nothing More Than Feelings) is a great spiritual classic because it makes many children and adults get in touch with their deepest feelings.

It isn’t that Morrisette had some “weird ideas,” it is how prominent those have become as determiners of her life which is the troubling part.

Not sure which evangelists you are speaking of, but I would think that if Paul had permitted his early “weird ideas” about Christians to dominate his actions such that he continued to hunt Christians down, I wouldn’t just complain that he had “weird ideas,” I would begin to wonder about the man himself as the fount from which the totality of his ideas proceeds. Clearly, Paul wasn’t the “feelings” type.

As for children, Paul also spoke of young Christians being weaned off milk and onto solid food.

What, precisely, does it mean to be “human” according to those so affected by Morrisette’s song? I suspect a wide range of leftist ideology about human nature will be forthcoming. At least philosophers, even the best of the secular bunch, can focus their thoughts rather than being carried away by their feelings.

Personally, I think you are confusing mature spirituality with adolescent emoting, the kind that spawned lots of teen hits back in the late fifties and early sixties - remember how the Beatles or Beach Boys affected teen girls back then, eventually leading to hippiedom and the Woodstock era? Is that the kind of influence you want evangelists to have on mindless creatures and children?

Adolescent angst… yes that was my thought too. Grow up already!!

 

[CHRISTINE77]

And the question remains: What precisely did she let go of and what did she get that she couldn’t handle?

I would suppose that a Christian thinker like Kierkegaard, along with Catholic theologians – at least, the good ones – could flush that out just a little.

Now, of course, keeping it open ended is what some would prefer because for them it is better not to let go of some things while quite permissible to let go of others.

What if Morissette means letting go of all ethical principles and morality in general to obtain all the immorality that is “more than” she could handle? How do you know that isn’t what she meant?

I don’t mean to be a prude here, but aren’t her words so completely open-ended as to possibly mean whatever anyone wants them to mean? Completely subjective and relativist in meaning and implication?

Is that where you want theologians and evangelists (and philosophers) to go?

Also what is to original about letting go? “Let go and let God” is a Christion motto. Total surrender to God’s will is all that is required.

 

[inocente]

You need to read the complete discussion to judge whether I failed or succeeded, but particularly the last two posts:

(To which there was no reply…)

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6259001&postcount=107

Looking at that thread, I bet he didn’t reply because clearly he had got frustrated that you kept misunderstanding him. For instance in post #86 he explicitly tells you he’s not reducing anything to atoms, but you keep on ignoring him.

He seems to be talking emergentism, which is a perfectly coherent view of the mind, but you never appear to understand him, and think instead that he’s saying something plainly absurd. So you end up mocking him for something he never says and never intends.

He doesn’t seem to completely understand what you say either. Two people divided by a common language. A common issue to be sure.

 

[Bradski]

Not trying to make Genesis fit into science. What I am saying is that it is pretentious to assume science can explain stuff it cannot possibly access sufficiently to apply its method. The data isn’t properly explained by what science offers precisely because science has attempted to step beyond its reach. A little more humility would be a good thing among the scientists. Admitting we don’t know would be a start.

One is presented with evidence from which one draws conclusions. This, as far as I can see, is the way things normally work. Except when it comes to matters of religion when quite often i hear variations on this theme:

‘That’s not the conclusion I want, therefore I reject the evidence’.

Any sensible discussion from that point onwards is a waste of time, effort and bandwidth.

However, if the evidence did actually show that there was a reasonable chance that we all descendd from a specific couple, then you would find quite a few comments in my posts such as ‘fair point’ and ‘I’ll grant you that’ and any number of admissions that the account in Genesis does appear to match what actually happened.

But it doesn’t. And all I get is: ‘That’s not the conclusion I want etc’.

 

[PRmerger]

One is presented with evidence from which one draws conclusions. This, as far as I can see, is the way things normally work. Except when it comes to matters of religion when quite often i hear variations on this theme:

‘That’s not the conclusion I want, therefore I reject the evidence’.

Oh, the irony!

Haven’t you said that you endorse the possibility of the multiverse?

When, in fact, you have actually acknowledged that there’s not a shred of evidence for its existence?

Yes?

 

[Bradski]

Oh, the irony!

Haven’t you said that you endorse the possibility of the multiverse?

When, in fact, you have actually acknowledged that there’s not a shred of evidence for its existence?

Yes?

Do I need to spend my time explaining the difference between endorsing the possibility of a concept and drawing conclusions based on evidence?

 

[PRmerger]

Do I need to spend my time explaining the difference between endorsing the possibility of a concept and drawing conclusions based on evidence?

Of course you don’t.

But you do need to be consistent.

You can’t say: I don’t believe because there’s no evidence!

AND also say: I endorse the possibility even if there’s no evidence!

Pick one, and stick with it.

 

[Bradski]

Of course you don’t.

It seems the answer is: ‘Of course I do’.

If there was no evidence for the origin of homo sapien then anyone would be free to endorse the possibility of a single couple from whom we are all descended. I would be quite happy to accept that position from anyone.

But you cannot draw any conclusions if there is no evidence. I am exceedingly careful in how I represent my position so please do not imply that I am not being consistent.

That said, there are bucket loads of evidence for where we came from and there is but one conclusion one can draw. And it does not match the conclusion that many religious people would want. Rather than change their position to match the conclusion, they reject the evidence.

It’s not what I would call an honest approach.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

It seems the answer is: ‘Of course I do’.

If there was no evidence for the origin of homo sapien then anyone would be free to endorse the possibility of a single couple from whom we are all descended. I would be quite happy to accept that position from anyone.

But you cannot draw any conclusions if there is no evidence. I am exceedingly careful in how I represent my position so please do not imply that I am not being consistent.

That said, there are bucket loads of evidence for where we came from and there is but one conclusion one can draw. And it does not match the conclusion that many religious people would want. Rather than change their position to match the conclusion, they reject the evidence.

It’s not what I would call an honest approach.

I thought you’re not allow to discuss evolution here.

 

[Bradski]

I thought you’re not allow to discuss evolution here.

This is geneology as opposed to evolution.

 

[tonyrey]

Looking at that thread, I bet he didn’t reply because clearly he had got frustrated that you kept misunderstanding him. For instance in post #86 he explicitly tells you he’s not reducing anything to atoms, but you keep on ignoring him.

He seems to be talking emergentism, which is a perfectly coherent view of the mind, but you never appear to understand him, and think instead that he’s saying something plainly absurd. So you end up mocking him for something he never says and never intends.

He doesn’t seem to completely understand what you say either. Two people divided by a common language. A common issue to be sure.

An “isomorphism” of atomic particles is a clear example of reductive materialism. Do you really think he believes in an** independent **mind? NB:

Your “self”, in contrast to a materialist view, is an utter, impenetrable mystery, entirely magical.

In other words he doesn’t believe persons exist, just naked apes… You obviously haven’t read the whole thread.

 

[tonyrey]

An “isomorphism” of atomic particles is a clear example of reductive materialism. Do you really think he believes in an** independent **mind? NB:

In other words he doesn’t believe persons exist, just naked apes… You obviously haven’t read the whole thread.

NB:

It’s an isomorphism. A map. In human brains, it is made of neurons and axons and synapses, in fantastically huge arrays interconnected in stupendously complex patterns. But if you draw a map, say a crude drawing of the floorplan of your home, it is isomorphic to the structure of your home (from the top down, looking at the vertical walls) to the extent your drawing skills obtain.

So it is an entirely deterministic system. We play no part in the emergence of isomorphisms. In fact “we” are “stupendously complex patterns” of atomic particles which have no insight into, and no control over, events…

In that case, the physical state could be grooves in the sand which you made with a stick to draw the floor plan of your home. It has meaning, because it is isomorphic; it corresponds to the plan of your house to some significant degree, where comprehending one leads to comprehension and understanding of the other, to the point (perhaps) where one is recognizable from familiarizing oneself with the other.

All the highlighted words refer to nothing in a world composed of nothing more than material objects!

That’s what meaning is – isomorphism and symbolic representation. The brain does it one way, but there are innumerable ways to effect isomorphisms – the light arriving from a far away star is a kind of crude (but enormously useful) isomorphism to the chemical make up of the star – via spectroscopy we can “read the map” of the light for the star and understand something significant about its makeup. The light has meaning in that way, as an isomorphism to its source.

You are conjuring up “meaning” from nowhere in your atomic system. Atomic particles do not understand or grasp meaning; they just move in accordance with the laws of physics.

EditedToAdd: Sorry forgot to answer your last question. Information has many different meanings, which is one reason it’s such a source of confusion, and sadly, too often, deception and obfuscation by the intelligent design apologists and other forms of creationism. But here’s a rigorous and useful definition for our purposes here:

Information is the reduction in uncertainty. Given a phase space, a set of probabilities of what could occur, information is anything that narrows down the actual from the outermost scope of probabilities to the specific configuration and selection of elements from that phase space. So, if you have a deck of cards, randomly shuffled, every card dealt to you face up yields information to you, except the last one, which you can deduce outright. Each in turn reduces your uncertainty about what might be to a narrower version of what is.

It seems miraculous that atomic particles are capable of all this intangible activity! I think you are living in a totally different world from that inhabited by the vast majority of human beings… It is worth repeating that intangibles do not exist in your scheme of material things.

 

[Peter_Plato]

This is geneology as opposed to evolution.

So your point being, then, that there is lots evidence for where our genes came from (genealogy), but not so much about how our genes got to be the way they are (evolution)?

So this was your point all along: we have ancestors, but not sure how many would have been required to kick things off because we weren’t speaking of evolution, just genealogy?

I see.

 

[Aloysium]

Do I need to spend my time explaining the difference between endorsing the possibility of a concept and drawing conclusions based on evidence?

What you call evidence is processed information - stuff in text books, on YouTube, on atheist sites, in the common world-view to which people have given their minds over. Evidence even at the cutting edge is determined by theoretical frameworks. And, trust me, none of the basic premises includes an all powerful, all knowing, all loving, Creator. We see what we know. If you do not know God, if you do not seek Him, do not answer His call, you will know nothing but illusion.

The thing about science is that if the results do not support the hypothesis, the threory from which it arises is called into question. Current scientific definitions of what constitutes data, the assumptions and understanding on which it bases its analysis of the record that should document our past, as well as the scarcity of anything close to definitive proof fail to establish any reasonable explanation for our beginnings. The failure is especially evident in light of the one true aspect of human nature that we all know if we pause, sit, and meet one another - the human spirit. It remains unacknowledged and it’s reality calls into serious doubt current understandings of how we came to be. I can’t say what the specifics were that brought into existence the first man and first woman, but it was surely God’s work.

 

[inocente]

Not sure which evangelists you are speaking of, but I would think that if Paul had permitted his early “weird ideas” about Christians to dominate his actions such that he continued to hunt Christians down, I wouldn’t just complain that he had “weird ideas,” I would begin to wonder about the man himself as the fount from which the totality of his ideas proceeds.

So we’re agreed that someone’s history doesn’t affect the validity of their statements.

*What, precisely, does it mean to be “human” according to those so affected by Morrisette’s song?

I suspect a wide range of leftist ideology about human nature will be forthcoming. At least philosophers, even the best of the secular bunch, can focus their thoughts rather than being carried away by their feelings.

Personally, I think you are confusing mature spirituality with adolescent emoting, the kind that spawned lots of teen hits back in the late fifties and early sixties - remember how the Beatles or Beach Boys affected teen girls back then, eventually leading to hippiedom and the Woodstock era? Is that the kind of influence you want evangelists to have on mindless creatures and children?*

The “what it is to be human” was quoted from someone’s comments on the YouTube page. You’ll have to ask him, you’ll see that his name is Thomas Smith. Given that Morissette’s hits were in the early nineties, the average fan is probably now a parent aged around 40, but you could always let Mr Smith know you judge him to be a leftist emoting adolescent.

The Pink Floyd novelty song in your sig. turns out to have been recorded one year after Morissette was born, so her father may have sung it to her in her cradle, just as your mother may have crooned Andrews Sisters novelty songs to you. Remember how they affected teen boys back then, eventually leading to Twitter? No, I don’t either. You seem to be projecting your own tastes onto another generation and thereby confused correlation with causation.

But I get the general idea that in your estimation, a place at God’s table must be earned by repressing all feelings and purging all emotions to reach some kind of puritan maturely reasoned spiritual nirvana.

So are you saying leftist emoting adolescents have a burden of proof to you that they are worthy before they will be welcome in your church?

 

[PRmerger]

It seems the answer is: ‘Of course I do’.

Ok…

If there was no evidence for the origin of homo sapien then anyone would be free to endorse the possibility of a single couple from whom we are all descended. I would be quite happy to accept that position from anyone.

But you cannot draw any conclusions if there is no evidence. I am exceedingly careful in how I represent my position so please do not imply that I am not being consistent.

Fair enough.

So what evidence is there for the multiverse?

 

[inocente]

“Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” - Luke 18

Okay, so here you describe the entry requirements – which appear quite the opposite from those to get on rides at DisneyWorld.

On the other hand, Jesus says of John the Baptist that he is the greatest among men but the least in the Kingdom of Heaven.

This makes me wonder how long those so overcome by the vapors at Morissette’s music would last living in the desert on locusts and wild honey, wearing a hair shirt and tempted by Satan all day long. Would Morissette’s fans even dare to venture out into the desert to see John the Baptizer, even if he were advertised on Billboard as a reed shaken by the winds of emotional music?

I take it you’re referring to Matt 11:11: “among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he”.

Have a look at some commentaries. Suppose your leftist emoting adolescent receives the message of the cross, and (as in Charles Elliot’s commentary) is “in communion with Him, in His revelation of the Father”. Therefore he is “less than John in fame, work, the rigour of ascetic holiness, yet above him in the knowledge of the truth, and therefore in blessedness and joy”.

And by the same token, in the kingdom yon leftist emoting adolescent is above Aristotle, and above a host of philosophers, since he has the foolishness of God and they have only human wisdom.

 

[inocente]

And the question remains: What precisely did she let go of and what did she get that she couldn’t handle?

I would suppose that a Christian thinker like Kierkegaard, along with Catholic theologians – at least, the good ones – could flush that out just a little.

Now, of course, keeping it open ended is what some would prefer because for them it is better not to let go of some things while quite permissible to let go of others.

What if Morissette means letting go of all ethical principles and morality in general to obtain all the immorality that is “more than” she could handle? How do you know that isn’t what she meant?

I don’t mean to be a prude here, but aren’t her words so completely open-ended as to possibly mean whatever anyone wants them to mean? Completely subjective and relativist in meaning and implication?

Is that where you want theologians and evangelists (and philosophers) to go?

Seems you forgot the golden rule not to mine quotes but to read them in context .

The context is in the rest of the lyrics, and in googling them I found her explaining that it’s autobiographical (explanation on one tab, lyrics on another, at songfacts.com/detail.php?id=622):

“I felt that I lived in a culture that told me that I had to consistently and constantly look outside myself to feel this elusive bliss. And I achieved a lot of what society had told me to achieve and I still didn’t feel peaceful. I started questioning everything, and I realized that actually everything was an illusion and it was scary for me because everything I had believed in was dissolving in front of me and there was a death of sorts, a really beautiful one ultimately, but at first a very scary one, and so I stopped. I stopped for the first time and I was overcome with a huge sense of compassion for myself first, and then naturally that translated into my feeling and compassion for everyone around me and a huge amount of gratitude that I had never felt before to this extent. And that’s why I had to write this song, ‘Thank U,’ because I had to express how exciting this was and how scary it was and all of these opportunities for us to define who we are.”

So, some kind of epiphany in the life of a (then) 24-year old, which resonated with many others. But the lyrics speak for themselves, and are moral, about letting go of what society demands, letting go of blame, letting go of excuses, and in so doing coming to clarity in remembering your divinity. It’s not Shakespeare, and if you look down the YouTube comments there’s a link to a skit version. (Which took me to her spoofing another of her own songs here).

Maybe it’s the gushing imperfections, the stumbling, the warts and all, that draws people. But whatever the theory, people will find spirituality where it is offered, and if they don’t find it in churches they obviously go elsewhere.

 

[inocente]

Adolescent angst… yes that was my thought too. Grow up already!!

It’s rained here all day long, in a part of Spain so dry we have to import water, and so perhaps I’ve got cabin fever but the reading today is from Luke 10:

*On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

He answered, “‘Grow up already!! -]Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[c]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’/-]”*

You should suggest putting it up over the alter to welcome visitors for Christmas services: “GROW UP ALREADY!!”

PS: If you work out the average age of those most likely to have written those comments, you’ve just extended adolescent angst by 20 years.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

So your point being, then, that there is lots evidence for where our genes came from (genealogy), but not so much about how our genes got to be the way they are (evolution)?

So this was your point all along: we have ancestors, but not sure how many would have been required to kick things off because we weren’t speaking of evolution, just genealogy?

I see.

Exactly, pretty sneaky, in my opinion.