India and Christianity

sigod wrote: This is turning into a really interesting thread It also confirms to me that there is a lot of depth to the people who inhabit the forums despite the huge amount of flippancy on display at times.

Well,the curse of man is that he's bright enough to ask the questions but not bright enough to find the answers. All I know for certain is that there's no rhinoceros in this room and that's good enough for me. 

Velvetclown wrote: Well we all know that Sigod is one of the worst !!

Guilty as charged Velvet  

Pixel:

At the risk of sounding extremely un-ministerial, you show a seriously willful ignorance with regard to the question of "empirical truth," and the "rhinoceros" question.

You state, categorically, that there is no rhinoceros in the room.  However, many scientists - eminent, rational, award-winning, atheist scientists - believe that ours is not the only "universe" there is.  Indeed, the theory of hyperspace (which is only one of many "multiple universe" theories) allows for as many as 10 separate universes.  And according to this theory (and others), those universes may co-exist with ours in "time-space."

Thus, simply because you don't see a rhinoceros in your room - in the universe presently visible to you - does not mean that, in another universe that also "exists" in your room at this moment (though you cannot see it), there is not a rhinoceros.  Thus, you cannot, with scientific, empirical certainty, state, without reservation, that there is not a rhinoceros in your room - even from a rational, scientific perspective.  All you can state is that you do not see - in the limited amount of time-space that your eyes perceive "physically" - a rhinoceros in your room.  However, you cannot, with scientific certainty, state that there is not a rhinoceros in your room.  Thus, Wittgenstein was correct in not answering: because he was correct: "empirical truth" is not as "empirical" as many would like to believe.

Nice try.  Perhaps you should read more "hard science."  Or didn't you know that many "people of faith" are also well-grounded in "hard science," and are not simply "sheep" with no knowledge of anything except the Bible?

Peace.

All:

You will, I'm sure, be pleased to know that Reed Lover and I have "settled this" () via PM.  This was not meant to leave anyone out, but rather to decide whether a continuation of this thread would be of any positive value.  We have both agreed that it would not, and have "agreed to disagree" about some of the outstanding questions and issues.

We do both agree, however, that this was a wonderful, thoughtful, informative, valuable discussion.  We also both agree that everyone has comported themselves with characteristic aplomb (), and thank everyone for their comments, criticisms, witticisms and, mostly, their indulgence.

On a personal note, I really appreciate everyone's input, even where I disagreed with it.  As I noted to Reed Lover in a PM, "'Open-mindedness' does not mean suddenly or radically 'switching sides,' even based on a wealth of evidence.  It simply means being willing to consider other points of view from an 'ego-less' perspective.  Needless to say, that is very difficult to do.  For example, I doubt (as Pixel suggests) that anyone is going to make me give up my faith (unless, of course, it could be proved beyond question that there is not, and cannot be, a God).  However, that doesn't mean that I am incapable of 'modifying' my belief (to certain degrees) based on what I learn from what I read or hear."  It was very important for me - as a person, as a Christian, as a minister - to "hear," listen to and consider all of the various posts.  and although my answers were not always what people might have wanted or looked for, I did try to answer honestly and consistently.  If I failed in that regard, forgive me.

Below is the text of an article which appeared recently in a major publication.  I believe it is an excellent assessment of something that has been running through this thread - on both sides of the issue.

Since it has basically run its course at this point, after this post I will leave this thread open for 24 hours, after which I will close it (but not delete it).

Peace to all.

----------

Wow.  That article makes me feel terrible about my country.

How can we claim to have faith in something we know nothing about?  It is because of the groups like the ACLU that we have no mention of religion in schools outside of a few historical references. Not the ACLU is wrong we should not be teaching Religion at all the need for some knowledge of religion is essential to understand other cultures.  I have been blind to this ignorance in our country because I went to Catholic School and then had attended a non- denominational church where the Pastor felt teaching the bible was essential. I learned a lot from him.   I wish I had learned more about Islam. How can that incident in Arizona happen? This is a sad evaluation of America. 

To Both Reed and Maani thank you for sharing your time, knowledge and civility on this most important of subjects.  

Maani,you missed my point,or I was obtuse in making it. One CAN say categorically that there's no rhinoceros in the room because a parallel dimension that might contain one is merely a possibility,not a proven fact. I have read more hard science than most here probably and I am perfectly aware of the theory of the multiverse and similar theories but that's all they are:Theories. Since we humans dwell exclusively within a three dimensional reality,that's what we must have as basis for what exists and what doesn't exist,not what might possibly,maybe,perhaps be true. That's just speculation,things that are still to be proven. Only that which is proven can be said to be a fact. Only when a theory has been proven does it make the transition from theory to fact,until then it remains a theory which is not something on which to base your life. I'll admit that the room is crawling with rhinoceroses of all kinds when it is PROVEN to be so,until then there are none. One cannot base one's life on what might possibly be,only on what actually IS. But I'm an empiricist and pragmatist,you're not so we live in separate worlds and never the twain shall meet.

And of course I'm aware that many "hard" scientist are christians. No surprise there since fear has always been the basis of religion and why should scientists be any less afraid than anyone else? I think Desmond Morris' explanation of the origins of god is the one that comes closest to hitting the nail on the head: The need for a Super Parent.

Pixel:

Fair enough.  Let's say I accept your position that a theory is just that - a theory - until it becomes fact.

OK, then let's talk about a little thing called the theory of evolution...  Because it remains theory - no matter how much supporting evidence it might have (and much of that evidence is not as "sound" as people think) - it is not fact.  Which means that a counter-theory of "intelligent design" (or any other, for that matter) is perfectly acceptable - and equally possible - until the theory of evolution becomes the fact of evolution.

I love when people make my arguments for me...

Peace.