JWeinCom said:
Not to jump in... but I couldn't help myself. "First you have to understand what Christianity and christians claim, what internally is the claim. Does Christianity claim that it is based on faith, as in blind faith? Yes, undeniably it does! Very much so. But it also claims that faith is to some extent based on rational thought." Why do we care what it claims one way or the other? Christianity can claim it is based on rational thought, but it is not, because there is no rational evidence. Misunderstanding due to terminology here. By faith in that sentence I mean "belief". You could say that Christianity claims that the belief system is based on both "faith" and a little bit of "rational thought". Also, if my post was worded in response to STAGE, about internal claim which he didn't seem to get. ------------------------------ "It's another issue then whether that rational thought, that rational attitude, leads to discovery of truth. But you can't deny that the attitude is there. While "blind faith" is more important, it's not the only basis for Christian belief, some of it is also based on rational thought, logical reasoning and search for evidence." Of course you can deny the attitude is there. If rational thought does not lead to god or religion, and religious people are led to god, then they are not employing rational thought. Please explain how logical thinking or rational thought is employed in christian thinking. All those apologists and ther philosophical arguments for example! And there's tons more. "There's a lot of Christian apologists who use sophisticated philosophical arguments to prove the existence of God. I'm sure you have seen at least some of the debates on YouTube between Christian apologists and atheist philosophers, and they cover a broad area of topics, including philosophical arguments." Not really. There are apologists who use sophisticated *sounding* pseudophilosophical arguments, but despite watching many debates I've not seen a good argument. All I've seen are variations on the flawed cosmological argument, the ridiculous transcendental argument, the even more ridiculous ontological argument, and various forms of presuppositionalists. I can't recall the exact names, but I've seen quite a few of William Lane Craig, Matt Slick, Eric Hovind, Sye... his last name escapes me but the really retarded guy, and a few others. If you know of any interesting debates with apologists that provide actual evidence, let me know, but I haven't seen it yet. But, no philosophical argument has or can prove god. Present any you'd like, but they all contain various logical fallacies. Personal incredulity and special pleading being chief among them. You're not intellectually honest. You eat arguments by Sam Harris and Lawrence Krauss, based on the same type of philosophical argumentation, that end up in believeing in "something from nothing" and "multiverse theories" and "objective morals can be proved scientifically", and those are perfectly fine for you I assume, but somehow the Christian arguments about our existance are "pseudo" and flawed. ----------------------------------- "Christians talk about general revelation and special revelation, where the first means that the creation itself, our world, testifies about God, physically and morally (special revelation is where God revealed himself as Yahweh to the Jewish people and through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus). The Apostle Paul claims that nature testifies about God, that you can see traces of God in nature, and he claims that human moral, every human's understanding about good and evil is ingrained by God and thus proof of God." Creation is not evidence of god, and I believe we've talked about the blind watchmaker already. The bible is unverifiable, obviously fallacious, and so abominable that we should all sincerely hope it is false. The concept of good and evil can be explained much better through naturalistic means (certain traits are necessary for a social species. We don't last long without empathy) and the idea of laws handed down by a static god is not consistent with the moral variation we see across cultures and time. Aside from this, the bible is a moral cespool where god commands murder and rape, among other things. If you had studied this issue in depth, you would have discovered that Dawkins contradicts himself, and argues as if there exists objective morals while at the same time claiming it's all subjective because it's a result of evolution. Yes, God commands murder and rape in a context. Context is everything. ---------------------------------- "Also, many Christian apologists argue that the Bible is quite pro science and has inspired people to study nature. In fact there's a lot of myths about Christianity's relationship with science, like you say, that it has been at odds with science for the longest, which simply isn't true." That argument is obviously wrong. A literal interpretation of the bible is definitely at odds with scientific facts. The idea of faith is inherently incompatible with the scientific method. It may be overly simplistic to say Christianity is at odds with science, but while there have been great christian scientists, science has generally been supressed by science. Galileo, Kepler, Copernicus, evolution, to stem cell research, aids prevention, and other issues in moern times. I said that the Bible apparently has inspired many religious people to study nature, hisorically. I've heard that claim. I don't make a big deal out of it though, because it doesn't have that effect on me. ---------------------------------------- "For example, modern science was born in Christian Europe. If you look at the world's cultures where science and innovation historically has been strongest, it's in Christian cultures. All of the famous historical scientists up until the time of Darwin where Christians. Why is that? Is it just coincidence? No. For example it is said that the whole scientific mindset, that the world is governed by laws and allows itself to be studied, is also rooted in Christianity and that this way of thinking got a boost historically thanks to Christianity. It's not fair to say that Christianity is at odds with science." What are you calling modern science? Greeks had figured out a round earth, its circumferance, a heliocentric universe, and the existence of atoms. There were scientific advances made in the early islamic world, india, and the rest of asia as well. I would certainly not say all of the famous scientists were christians, but more of them were back then than today. Why? First off, things like the inquisition. Secondly, the church had the money. So you had to play ball. Thirdly, scientists had less information to draw on, so their decisions were less informed.
Modern science as in the 17th and 18th centuries where we saw the first systematical approaches for study and the origin to the scientific method.
The inquisition was far less nasty than modern myth has it. Something like 5000 people were killed by the Inquisition when people imagine it was millions. And again context, The Church Inquisition was actually more tolerant towards heretics than the authorities where. If the authorities were to decide - and authorities at that time believed in a divine order just like the church did, but they were also very serious about threats toward that divine order - many more people would have been killed. ------------------------------------- Christianity held back science for quite a while, and science was kickstarted again during the renaisance when greek and roman culture was being rediscovered. The enlightenment period coincided with further weakening of the church's power, and a rise in deism and rational thought. This happened to occur in a christian europe, but that's simply because christianity dominated so much of the world, that it was incredibly likely to happen in a christian world. There is no reason to say that christianity is the cause of this, and the idea that the scientific mindset is rooted in christianity is ridiculous.
And why did christianity dominate so much? All in all, there's a positive correlation between the prevalence of christianity and a beneficial environment for science, historically. And that's an important point to make towards the nasty accusations that are made against Christianity. ------------------------------------------ You're alluding to a lot of arguments that apologists have made, but those arguments range from flimsy to plain stupid. If you think there are any actual good arguments apologists have made, feel free to present them, but I've yet to hear one. The cosmological argument, depending on its particular phrasing, is probably the strongest they have, but even that falls far far short of being actual evidence. It's not solid proof for God's existance (the cosmological argument among other philosophical arguments), and I doubt anybody made that claim, but I classify it as evidence towards a theistic worldview versus an atheist worldview. |
Response in italics.
