Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Ludwik

Atheists versus theists

48 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

It's a good read, Ludwik.

I agree that the realms of science and theism do not overlap. However, I do not get the impression that much of the disagreement between atheists and theists stems from science, although certainly some does. It has been my experience that most of the more heated disagreement derives from the different approaches to applying Law to society.

You deliberately chose to not include religion in your article, and that was a reasonable decision given it's brevity. It is religion, however, with it's inherent codification of behaviours (laws) which is the target of most of the atheistic aggression. By it's nature the Law inherent to religion cannot change, as it is divinely mandated, but society is not static and so laws must change to accommodate that evolution.

In an ideal secular society this would not be an issue, but religions are comprised of people and in a democracy those people are voters. Not all may vote based on their religious outlook, but enough do to make the religion a political force and politicians are loath to confront the influence religion has in 'secular' politics.

Edited by Leonardo
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree with some of Ludwik's hypothesis when it relates to "Any" invented, out of thin air , "Mythology's that are presented as "Real" for those who possess common sense. (Lets how they can determind the difference)

The issue I believe he should address, is, removing "All" labels related to all and any belief systems because they simply don't (nor have never) existed.

What our ancient forebear's provided for the uneducated masses was their very own depiction of how things should be and why you should follow those rules or laws or what ever because you would be damned to some location where you would suffer for what they said would be an eternity.

If you "Remove" the lables you remove the "LIE".

rfj1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great article Ludwik! You should be very proud.

While I agree with points being made about non-overlapping of science and theism,I must also be truthful and say that I do believe theism and atheism debates do have value.When presented respectfully from both parties.

As i see it each sides take their hits,dust off and come back fighting harder.Much can be gained by such transactions.It teaches us to reach farther and search harder for answers to our questions.

It is only when one side or the other strives for a personal victory that the cause is lost and discussion ends.Most find the way of ad hom attacks and fallacies thrown around a'plenty.lol

But,every once in a while, a pearl of wisdom is discovered that could be for mutual gain.After all,we're all seeking the same goal.Truth

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way we teach it here (that being in the Catholic school system in Australia) is that religon answers the "why" questions and science answer the "how" questions. You ask a piest if you want to know why the world exists, but a aicentist if you want to know how it came to be - that sort of thng.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting and well thought out article.

I agree the material realm and the spiritual are two separate dichotomies and the psuedo battleground between science and theology is futile and distracting from the true aims of both parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

An interesting and well thought out article.

I agree the material realm and the spiritual are two separate dichotomies and the psuedo battleground between science and theology is futile and distracting from the true aims of both parties.

But what is the "spiritual realm"?

It seems to me that this is where the clash [between religion and 'science'] is taking place. That which was once thought to be the preserve of 'spirit' has become 'despiritualised' through both scientific discovery and other fields of knowledge such as psychology. This does not sit well with religious people who rely on 'inerrant, divinely-inspired texts' to mandate to them what constitutes the realm of the spirit/divine.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But what is the "spiritual realm"?

It seems to me that this is where the clash [between religion and 'science'] is taking place. That which was once thought to be the preserve of 'spirit' has become 'despiritualised' through both scientific discovery and other fields of knowledge such as psychology. This does not sit well with religious people who rely on 'inerrant, divinely-inspired texts' to mandate to them what constitutes the realm of the spirit/divine.

There is no "clash". What it seems to you is based only on trying to logically apply material knowledge in a material fashion.

Spirituality incorporates a journey into alternate realms of personal epithany and experience through visions, synchronicities for some and altered states as per meditation. Science can see what occurs in the brain when these states occur and recognise chemical processes taking place but it does not inform as to the intimate significance of the experiences on the individual nor can it account for the deep seated knowledge which is the outcome of some of these experiences, although it posits and theorises based on the chemical processes and material changes that take place.

It simply offers it's results to those who pursue the journey, intellectualising does not apply any level of true comprehension. That is lacking to someone reading this but unavoidable in it's intrinsic nature - I have tried both paths btw and on applying myself steadily to the meditative experience was astounded at the results

And then there is the other experiences which I spent many a year reasoning away until the body of personal evidence just failed to allow any room to do that any further.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no "clash". What it seems to you is based only on trying to logically apply material knowledge in a material fashion.

Spirituality incorporates a journey into alternate realms of personal epithany and experience through visions, synchronicities for some and altered states as per meditation. Science can see what occurs in the brain when these states occur and recognise chemical processes taking place but it does not inform as to the intimate significance of the experiences on the individual nor can it account for the deep seated knowledge which is the outcome of some of these experiences, although it posits and theorises based on the chemical processes and material changes that take place.

It simply offers it's results to those who pursue the journey, intellectualising does not apply any level of true comprehension. That is lacking to someone reading this but unavoidable in it's intrinsic nature - I have tried both paths btw and on applying myself steadily to the meditative experience was astounded at the results

And then there is the other experiences which I spent many a year reasoning away until the body of personal evidence just failed to allow any room to do that any further.

Sorry on my iPhone I don't really know how to use most emoticons so; ( clap clap clap).... I'm claping.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spirituality incorporates a journey into alternate realms of personal epithany and experience through visions, synchronicities for some and altered states as per meditation. Science can see what occurs in the brain when these states occur and recognise chemical processes taking place but it does not inform as to the intimate significance of the experiences on the individual nor can it account for the deep seated knowledge which is the outcome of some of these experiences, although it posits and theorises based on the chemical processes and material changes that take place.

And if we can 'see', through science, the activity that happens in the brain when people report being in a 'spiritual state', then who is to say there is anything more to that 'spiritual state' than brain activity? Couple this with psychology, and there is no reasonable cause to claim religiousity/spirituality happens anywhere except in our brains.

This is where science and religion (and spirituality) clashes. People claim there is more to the religious/spiritual experience than brain activity. Science, of course, cannot measure peoples beliefs - but add psychology into the mix and we have an explanation that contradicts the thousands of years of cultural conditioning.

There are, of course, 'real things' that exist, yet are not measurable by scientific enquiry. Abstracts such as Law, Art, Philosophy, etc. While these things are 'real' and exist in a sense, they are entirely products of our imaginations. Everything that doesn't exist in our imagination is concrete, and so measurable through science, this is how we discover the universe. Unless we are arguing that the 'spiritual realm' is within our imaginations (i.e. is an abstract concept, rather than a concrete 'thing'), then science precludes this 'realm' from existing in the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally feel that clashes between Atheists and Theists tend to more center around Theist's abuse of religion as justification for any slack-jawed belief they choose to construct. Be it homophobic, creationistic, etc... The problem is that Atheists are far too quick to not just see these are people that would find any excuse for these behaviours and they're far more socially grounded than religious, the same goes for religion. I personally believe that the social construct of religion is almost all we're left with in Western countries, the level of cherry-picking and lack of reading the material has left us where saying one is a 'Christian' is more-or-less the same as 'Atheist' as it's likely the two have no issue beyond God, they both behave, act and treat others the same way. I know many, many Christians and they are good friends of mine, sometimes we debate God but only jovially, one even took me on a pilgrimage with her. I have no issue with Christians by-and-large however I take issue with social positions held with many Christians who believe there book to be justification for any number of ridiculous ideas.

That is when Atheists and Theists clash the most, in discussions wherein religion or anti-religion is used in matters scientific, somewhere they don't honestly belong. Atheistic principles when it comes to homophobia (for instance) are based on logic and reasoning, there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and as far as the validity of it as genetic is contended the alternate option of it being psychological (and in turn, heterosexuality being psychological) does not give reason to distinguish and impede their rights. On the other hand somereligious people take what they think they know of the bible and what their pastor says as law and wont budge even in the face of contrary proof. This leads to Atheists having very negative opinions of Theists and it's purely due to the fact that one does not argue with logical and reasoned theists, only those who hold alternative viewpoints.

It's a simple case of tarring all theists with the same brush.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It's a good read, Ludwik.

I agree that the realms of science and theism do not overlap. However, I do not get the impression that much of the disagreement between atheists and theists stems from science, although certainly some does. It has been my experience that most of the more heated disagreement derives from the different approaches to applying Law to society.

I have to agree with you Leonardo. Science vs. Religion is this big strawman thing that doesn't face the real issue. My experiences in the debates has led me to conclude it is a matter of applying Law as well. I'll get even more specific. When I encounter atheist and we discourse a long time and get past all the strawman issues, I have consistently found that at the root of their objections to religion is really about sexual prohibitions. The other aspects of the debate end up being facades on the part of atheist proponanants. You strip away at the facades and you end up with a person who has a burr under their saddle about religion being against their pet sexual agenda. This may sound too simple, but I have consistently found that it distills down to this. It is religion vis a vis social law.

It's kind of a revelation to not find an intellectual foundation atheism that can stand upon. For all the pretense and bluster, the sophistry only frustrates the simple. But by not allowing atheist to lead the topic around in circles, and to focus on any point with tanacity, the atheist intellectual facade just crumbles and you find the real agenda was about sex all along.

Edited by Vatic
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's kind of a revelation to not find an intellectual foundation atheism that can stand upon. For all the pretense and bluster, the sophistry only frustrates the simple. But by not allowing atheist to lead the topic around in circles, and to focus on any point with tanacity, the atheist intellectual facade just crumbles and you find the real agenda was about sex all along.

It's common that people confuse, or associate, science with atheism. I understand why, given there is no room in science for 'matters spiritual' and, as science is our tool for discovering the universe, the supernatural is excluded from being part of 'our universe' by science.

However, atheism is a belief regarding the supernatural (at least, the divine aspect of the supernatural) whereas in science, anything involving discussion of 'the supernatural' is simply irrelevant.

To your point on the clash in Law being based in sexual mores, however. I am not in total agreement on that. There are many cultural/societal aspects where religious law and secular law clash, and sexual mores are just one of those areas. We also have; the definition of human life; freedom of personal lifestyle; moral and ethical relativity vs absolutism; freedom of religion; dietary law; equality law; to name a few.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My theist-atheist article appears in the April 2012 Issue of

American Atheist Magazine. The link is:

Comments will be appreciated.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

I must admit I was surprised by your post, well done, thoughtful.

peace

mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if we can 'see', through science, the activity that happens in the brain when people report being in a 'spiritual state', then who is to say there is anything more to that 'spiritual state' than brain activity? Couple this with psychology, and there is no reasonable cause to claim religiousity/spirituality happens anywhere except in our brains.

This is where science and religion (and spirituality) clashes. People claim there is more to the religious/spiritual experience than brain activity. Science, of course, cannot measure peoples beliefs - but add psychology into the mix and we have an explanation that contradicts the thousands of years of cultural conditioning.

There are, of course, 'real things' that exist, yet are not measurable by scientific enquiry. Abstracts such as Law, Art, Philosophy, etc. While these things are 'real' and exist in a sense, they are entirely products of our imaginations. Everything that doesn't exist in our imagination is concrete, and so measurable through science, this is how we discover the universe. Unless we are arguing that the 'spiritual realm' is within our imaginations (i.e. is an abstract concept, rather than a concrete 'thing'), then science precludes this 'realm' from existing in the universe.

We have theories from science and psychologists NOT explanations, Leonardo. You ask how can we know there is more to the spiritual state than "brain activity"? Brain activity is an indicator that something is going on not WHAT is going on. I already explained that personal evidence is the only means by which one can truly know what that brain activity denotes is occurring.

You are locked into material explanations and posits about what is going on here due to a lack of experience in the arena that is perfectly understandable. It does not, however, provide a position from which to comprehend what is going on in this sphere. Psychology, like science seeks a "mechanical mind" type universal explanation for human experiences, it groups them and labels them but not from a position of experiential data just 3rd party observer data, it is hardly a definitive area of science and it's capacity to do real harm to the mental conditions of it's patients precedes it abundantly - not unlike many "dogmas".

As advised, no "mechanical" discussion or debate of words can offer the explanation - every word/idea has it's refutable opposite, personal experience for those that have taken the journey is what provides the evidence. I truly believe this "inadequacy to explain" is there for a very good reason, the "intellectualisation" of the spiritual experience is intrinsically counter to it's purpose and nature.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have theories from science and psychologists NOT explanations, Leonardo.

Theories are explanations, libstaK.

I didn't say they had to be true, just that science and psychology provide an explanation. Just as religious doctrine provides an alternative explanation.

It is the incompatibility of those explanations which provides the 'meat' for the clash.

I truly believe this "inadequacy to explain" is there for a very good reason, the "intellectualisation" of the spiritual experience is intrinsically counter to it's purpose and nature.

You are assuming the 'nature' of the spiritual experience is non-mechanical? Do you have any evidence to support this assumption?

And what is the 'purpose' of the spiritual experience?

As I said, we have views built upon thousands of years of cultural conditioning. These views are therefore very difficult to 'step outside of' and consider alternatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Theories are explanations, libstaK.

They're posits, if we had the "explanation" for all this there would be nothing to disagree over.

I didn't say they had to be true, just that science and psychology provide an explanation. Just as religious doctrine provides an alternative explanation.

It is the incompatibility of those explanations which provides the 'meat' for the clash.

But this is where I disagree, understanding the mechanics of the human brain has it purpose it does progress our understanding. The "clash" only exists in those who believe this understanding explains spiritual experience - it doesn't.

You are assuming the 'nature' of the spiritual experience is non-mechanical? Do you have any evidence to support this assumption?

I'm not assuming it I am saying it is not mechanical. You already have the evidence it's inside you.

And what is the 'purpose' of the spiritual experience?

To know that there is a God and he is right here working with us all.

As I said, we have views built upon thousands of years of cultural conditioning. These views are therefore very difficult to 'step outside of' and consider alternatives.

What you are really saying that based on lack of material and scientifically repeatable evidence the atheist view is the correct view and why can't we just see that? The sacred is not so easily profaned as to be placed at the feet of those whose purpose is to negate and ridicule it, hence I repeat only a sincere attempt to discover the actual truth of the matter will provide insight and revelation - it's just the way it goes, in Christianity the "Kingdom" is WITHIN, in Buddhism enlightenment arrives when one overcomes ONESELF, the Oracle at Delphi state to KNOW THYSELF, even Carl Jung a Psychologist made the statement "He who looks within Wakes".

I've considered many alternatives, including that its all bunkum - I've discarded a variety of views, I am not in any way shape or form obliged to adhere to the atheist or materialist view, only a wish to "conform" and have an easy life would send me down that path, it's alot harder than you think to take a spiritual position in a material world. Fact is no amount of discourse can change the fact that the evidence placed before me would make a liar of me to state that there "is no God" it doesn't work unless I ignore what I've experienced and that's not possible.

Edited by libstaK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

What you are really saying that based on lack of material and scientifically repeatable evidence the atheist view is the correct view and why can't we just see that?

No.

I am saying there is more than one view on the subject, and that is why there are clashes.

You have demonstrated this fact here, by your insistence on promoting a single interpretation of what the 'spiritual' is.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

I am saying there is more than one view on the subject, and that is why there are clashes.

You have demonstrated this fact here, by your insistence on promoting a single interpretation of what the 'spiritual' is.

I have simply supplied my understanding of what "spiritual" is, if you ask another you will receive another response based on their current experiences - I'm not "insisting on promoting" either I am stating my position in response to your specific posits and questions, please don't misrepresent my intent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have simply supplied my understanding of what "spiritual" is, if you ask another you will receive another response based on their current experiences - I'm not "insisting on promoting" either I am stating my position in response to your specific posits and questions, please don't misrepresent my intent.

And that's fine, but you do appreciate that your understanding is not comprehensive of what 'spiritual' may be?

I gather you do appreciate that from what you wrote next.

So, why baulk at the 'mechanical explanation'? Is it not as likely to be true as your own explanation?

As I have maintained in many posts, I am agnostic - and this applies to all matters 'spiritual'. Would I like there to be a soul that survives my bodily death, and would I like what I am to be something 'more' than chemical-electrical interactions?

Yes, of course. But wanting something to be true cannot be allowed to determine what I know, and what I know is that no-one knows definitively what the 'spiritual realm' is and so all options have a possibility of being true. That does not mean all options have equal possibility of being true, however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And that's fine, but you do appreciate that your understanding is not comprehensive of what 'spiritual' may be?

I gather you do appreciate that from what you wrote next.

So, why baulk at the 'mechanical explanation'? Is it not as likely to be true as your own explanation?

Leonardo, with due and sincere respect I am not "baulking" I have explained repeatedly my experience does not allow for it to be the "explanation". A mechanical understanding of the mind and it's functions has it's place but what I have experienced does not lend itself to being explained by these mechanics.

As I have maintained in many posts, I am agnostic - and this applies to all matters 'spiritual'. Would I like there to be a soul that survives my bodily death, and would I like what I am to be something 'more' than chemical-electrical interactions?

Then I have a sincere wish that you are destined to discoveries that will help you understand what I have been trying to say.

Yes, of course. But wanting something to be true cannot be allowed to determine what I know, and what I know is that no-one knows definitively what the 'spiritual realm' is and so all options have a possibility of being true. That does not mean all options have equal possibility of being true, however.

We currently have different pieces of knowledge, we know different things I don't see the problem.

Edited by libstaK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And if we can 'see', through science, the activity that happens in the brain when people report being in a 'spiritual state', then who is to say there is anything more to that 'spiritual state' than brain activity? Couple this with psychology, and there is no reasonable cause to claim religiousity/spirituality happens anywhere except in our brains.

This is where science and religion (and spirituality) clashes. People claim there is more to the religious/spiritual experience than brain activity. Science, of course, cannot measure peoples beliefs - but add psychology into the mix and we have an explanation that contradicts the thousands of years of cultural conditioning.

There are, of course, 'real things' that exist, yet are not measurable by scientific enquiry. Abstracts such as Law, Art, Philosophy, etc. While these things are 'real' and exist in a sense, they are entirely products of our imaginations. Everything that doesn't exist in our imagination is concrete, and so measurable through science, this is how we discover the universe. Unless we are arguing that the 'spiritual realm' is within our imaginations (i.e. is an abstract concept, rather than a concrete 'thing'), then science precludes this 'realm' from existing in the universe.

ah so the law is not real/physical, hey. Does that mean i can break it with impunity? While art music law and philosophy may indeed exist with a human mind, they are also transformed through human endeavours into environmental realities, eg a song, a painting, a statute, or a philosophy to live by.

And besides that, of course there are many evidences that; spirituality, the supernatural, the paranormal etc are all existent, not just within human minds but also within the same physical reality we all experience. It is just that they are not universally or sometimes even commonly experienced. There ARE peole who read minds, see the future, see and hear "ghosts", find lost objects, travel via obe, AND can demostrate convincing proofs of these things. MAny books have been written on all these subjects and others. Naturally those without such experiences may deny them, for a variety of honest legitimate or other reasons but that does not invlidate their reality.

Explain, for example, how a dozen people, separated over almost 100 years and many hundreds of kilometers, and totally unaware of the other peoples experiences can have an identical experince of a haunting in the proximity of a singular object such as a bed. Explain how one person can travel by obe to another group of people many kilometers away and report back accurately on their conversations, dress, and activities. Explain how people can have dvd accurate visions of future events. Explain how they can know someone is about to die. Explain how they can know where lost or stolen objects are located. And those are only examples i have personal experience and knowledge of. Explain how they can accurately and precisely describe the contents of a room on the other side of the world which they have never physically seen. Explain how a shot glass can stay suspended in mid air for several minutes, while observed by several people, before falling to the floor. Explain how an invisible presence can push so strongly on one side of a half open door that a young, strong, mother can not open that door any further, with all her weight and strength, and yet there was found no physical impediment blocking the door. Explain how a voice and physical presence can push a grown man backwards either to make a point or to save their life.

Again, all these things are either personal experinces or were related to me by people I trust and who have no reason to lie. There were three independent witnesses to the floating shot glass. I spoke to two separately who both gave similar accounts of what happened.

A family was moving out of a house which had constantly been "haunted" by a real and powerful malignant presence. In moving a sofa a mother and daughter saw a shot glass just stationary, "floating" in mid air behind the sofa. They observed it for several minutes, and even had time to call in the third witness, from another part of the house, before it just fell to the floor.

It doesnt matter what science says is possible, especially as western science has never expended much energy or money investigating such things, when/if you have experienced or observed all these things, along with confirmatory independent evidences for their grounding in a commonly experienced reality. Actually science doesnt say any of these things are impossible. Where it does bother to comment at all, it just says they have not yet been scientifically validated/ proven, and seem to transcend known scientific laws making them, in the eyes of science , improbable.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very good article. I wouldn't have posted the topic I did if I had taken the time to read this one first. By the title I thought it was a very different kind of thread. I completely agree with you about major churches acknowledging that the Earth wasn't created in a week. There are obviously other parts of the Christian bible that are not obeyed, a lot from Deuteronomy, and it would be something truly special to acknowledge the fact that human beings wrote the bible, and if they were able to get divine inspiration or talk to God then why can't we do the same today? Why can't we make revisions after accepting that our ancestors perceptions of reality might have been more applicable to their times.

The specific views on eating shellfish for example. Obviously a lot of people have allergies to shellfish so it does make sense for a priest to say that it would damn you if you ate it. Damn in that case meaning really harm you. Homosexuality may have been looked at similarly due to health concerns. I think that organized religion has some catching up to do, and I think that will help the problem of fundamentalism. Separating the two realms first really makes sense when you take into consideration the status of U.S. culture. What we consider absolute divine laws varies from person to person, and sect to sect, but we can't seem to come to any consensus on allowing people to live their own lives, and those divine "laws" existing to be experienced or learned from by an individual. Let the weeds come up with harvest, etc. (Not using weeds as a derogatory term) It is almost like forceful conversion is a commandment, when it is not.

Keeping science and religion separate may also help to develop a more socially acceptable separation between church and state. With better education perhaps the U.S. at least will be able to more readily digest scientific evidence. Some people can look at DNA replication, mutations, and selection and say that that proves that God doesn't exist because it points to all life forms evolving from the same source, but someone could still conclude that life is sacred. Then arguing that life is not sacred would probably come up in discussions of genetics.

Believers and non-believers can both object to some forms of genetic research. With better education, again this problem will probably become easier. Sometimes it seems as though a few arguments try to do away with morality all together because collectively, science being performed and reviewed by so many people excludes the need for moral oversight. I think we have the idea that our society, especially when it consists of a group of well educated people, embodies morality perfectly. Looking at what scientists are asked to do by some governments throughout history I can't quite agree with this. Scientists themselves are not always in control of where they can find work, and what they end up doing. So, I still have to wonder if human beings have a need for some form of higher power, or a third magisterium of government, law, or philosophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And if we can 'see', through science, the activity that happens in the brain when people report being in a 'spiritual state', then who is to say there is anything more to that 'spiritual state' than brain activity? Couple this with psychology, and there is no reasonable cause to claim religiousity/spirituality happens anywhere except in our brains.

This is where science and religion (and spirituality) clashes. People claim there is more to the religious/spiritual experience than brain activity. Science, of course, cannot measure peoples beliefs - but add psychology into the mix and we have an explanation that contradicts the thousands of years of cultural conditioning.

I would like to chime in on this, if that is okay. You said that science and religion (and spirituality) clash over beliefs. This I must disagree with. Beliefs clash over science. One man may look at evidence of the Big Bang and say, "See? Genesis was wrong!" And another may retort, "And God said, 'Let there be light.' and it was so."

Science is discriminatively and unfairly used by both beliefs to justify worldviews that science alone says nothing about. It is not science that atheists and theists clash over, IMO. It is all deeply personal and widely political: From personal experience, to upbringing, to education, occupation, and personal interests. A study of the development of Christian Orthodox thought will reveal this. Tertullian, Origen, and Iranaeus all greatly contributed to Christian thought, but all were drastically different in philosophy, occupation, experience, upbringing, etc. Tertullian was praised by the Western Empire, whose Stoic background praised the glory of law and order while Origen was praised by the Eastern Empire, whose Neoplatonic background praised the transcendence of the Ineffable One and man's endeavour through philosophy to contemplate that Being. But Iranaeus' theology was discarded almost altogether by the Roman Empire because the aristocratic and ruling class could not maintain their privileges and wealth through a theology that praised even the most humblest and unworthy of men in the lowest social classes.

And so, history shows that science is just a victim in a giant political scheme where men seek to maintain their privilges through the development of thought in discussions like these among men and women like us. As social structure changes, so does the manner by which the people understand and treat certain beliefs and practices.

And as a theist, I must argue that atheists ought to spend more time doing exegetical investigations into the books of the Bible themselves before they make conclusions about what the books actually say instead of relying on strawman arguments that have not progressed the conversation between atheists and theists for the last three hundred years.

There are, of course, 'real things' that exist, yet are not measurable by scientific enquiry. Abstracts such as Law, Art, Philosophy, etc. While these things are 'real' and exist in a sense, they are entirely products of our imaginations. Everything that doesn't exist in our imagination is concrete, and so measurable through science, this is how we discover the universe. Unless we are arguing that the 'spiritual realm' is within our imaginations (i.e. is an abstract concept, rather than a concrete 'thing'), then science precludes this 'realm' from existing in the universe.

Their is a philosophy behind the men using science that states that science is the only way to truly know something. And that is what has been argued against here; not science, but the philosophy many prop it up with.

Edited by Bluefinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

They're posits, if we had the "explanation" for all this there would be nothing to disagree over.

But this is where I disagree, understanding the mechanics of the human brain has it purpose it does progress our understanding. The "clash" only exists in those who believe this understanding explains spiritual experience - it doesn't.

I'm not assuming it I am saying it is not mechanical. You already have the evidence it's inside you.

To know that there is a God and he is right here working with us all.

What you are really saying that based on lack of material and scientifically repeatable evidence the atheist view is the correct view and why can't we just see that? The sacred is not so easily profaned as to be placed at the feet of those whose purpose is to negate and ridicule it, hence I repeat only a sincere attempt to discover the actual truth of the matter will provide insight and revelation - it's just the way it goes, in Christianity the "Kingdom" is WITHIN, in Buddhism enlightenment arrives when one overcomes ONESELF, the Oracle at Delphi state to KNOW THYSELF, even Carl Jung a Psychologist made the statement "He who looks within Wakes".

I've considered many alternatives, including that its all bunkum - I've discarded a variety of views, I am not in any way shape or form obliged to adhere to the atheist or materialist view, only a wish to "conform" and have an easy life would send me down that path, it's alot harder than you think to take a spiritual position in a material world. Fact is no amount of discourse can change the fact that the evidence placed before me would make a liar of me to state that there "is no God" it doesn't work unless I ignore what I've experienced and that's not possible.

Bravo brother.... The mobile version dosnt have the like button.

Edited by Seeker79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.