Where there are difficulties with the plain interpretation of the text we reason with them to resolve the contradiction with a deeper, more nuanced understanding of God
You're assuming Yahweh exists and the bible is his word.
Seems to me the only way to believe Yahweh exists is to accept the bible as something other than a collection of ancient myths(which is what it most resembles). And conversely, the only way to accept the bible as something other than a collection of ancient myths is to believe Yahweh exists.
The reasoning seems a little too circular to for my liking:-)
Given that we both accept that our brains are capable of "logical" thought, there seems to be no reason nor evidence (you've certainly not supplied any) as to why a purely physical mind/brain would not discover those procedures.
We've both agree that matter is able to carry out these processes (ala computers, organisations of neurons etc) and it would seem to be uncontroversial that such general rules which would are likely to give rise to "reliable" reasoning are just those which would have wider applicability than more nonsensical "beliefs" (such as Plantinga's running away from friendly tigers examples).
You've leapt from asserting we have no reason to expect rationality on naturalism, to asserting that postulating a supernatural agent who, being logical, would have made us logical.
You give no (and I'm not aware of there being any) convincing evidence or reason to suppose this supernatural agent exists, that should it exist it is what we'd call "logical", that we were created by this being or that it created us with a similar "logical" ability.
While your argument may be valid, the premises upon which you're basing your conclusion seem unsupported, and in light of modern science and philosophy, including evolutionary theory, neuroscience, psychology, philosophy of mind, seems to be rationally unsupportable, at least if you would like your argument to correspond with reality as we're able to discern it:-)
You've also supplied absolutely no argument as to how the supernatural component you're arguing for is able to provide this rational capability, while there is much evidence from both study of the simple brains of animals along with simulation, that such as we call "rational" can result from the physical.
Now, given the greater simplicity of the naturalist account (doesn't involve the additional of the supernatural ontological category, and all of the difficulties that involves, such as the interaction problem), as well as the seemingly firmer epistemological footing of the (intersubjective empiricism seems to trump personal subjective testimony), surely the naturalist account is to be rationally preferred?:-)
Heh, the "will" is the part of an organism that makes decisions
You mean the brain in organisms which have them?:-)
A purely deterministic set of data is always smaller than a set that includes access to random data.
Perhaps, but the deterministic data set is not likely to be inferior to one which includes random data - that sort of thing is often called "noise", for good reason:-)
The key point is that if just one non-deterministic decision can be made, then the entire philosopy of Determinism is proved to be wrong, and free will becomes allowed, regardless of how we argue definitions.
How does one show that this has occurred, and that the appearance of "non-determinism" isn't simply the result of the number of factors going into the "decision" process and the process itself being so complicated that even though it is completely deterministic (or perhaps statistically deterministic) the only way to "predict" the outcome is to run the full process with the full data?
I am perfectly aware that I hold a minority position on this point.
Depending on your actual position, it may warrant a far less flattering label.
I think its a perfectly rational position,
Of course you do, as I do mine, just that my position seems far better supported by the scientific evidence:-)
Earlier you stated your worldview was coherent. I'd go so far as to say that if your worldview doesn't allow for something much like the theory of evolution, then while it may be internally coherent, it doesn't correspond well with reality:-)
what intrinsic reason is there to believe that you have evolved a logical brain rather than an illogical one?
No "instinsic reason" apart from a somewhat logical brain tending to be more "useful" (like the animal calculating sin values I mentioned). There's plenty of empirical evidence giving us great confidence that our brains are somewhat logical.
Maybe an illogical brain has some survival value we're just not completely aware of and none of your thought processes actually make sense.
I hope you're not relying upon Plantinga's somewhat incoherent argument that naturalism and evolution are incompatible, are you?
However, if the reasoning process is rooted in a supernatural reality beyond mere matter and energy, then we would have some foundation upon which to rest the starting axiom that we are capable of rationality in the first place.
No you wouldn't. You've simply tried to shift the problem to someplace which meshes with your beliefs and places it out of our ability to investigate. As such, I think it's something of a nonsense position.
You've given no support to your position, simply tried to show the "mind is what the brain does" position isn't tenable (and failed at that I would think).
If your position places the "mind" outside of the causal chain, how are the "decisions" it makes able to be distinguished from randomness?
You've also provided no reason to think this "supernatural realm" actually exists:-)
I wonder, if the supernatural is so "necessary" for a belief in a rational mind, why does modern neuroscience, psychology and philosophy of mind tends to eschew substance dualism (the position you're promoting), and prefer monism or property dualism?
I'm not sure you've got much of a leg to stand on if you claim neurons, say in a lobster, can't be accounted for by the modern theory of evolution, nor that such a collection of neurons doesn't process information.
What I was trying to get at was that the "supernatural" component, in the analogy of a logic circuit, is the humans who made them.
Which is why I added the example of simple collections of neurons. If you're arguing against the theory of evolution in being able to account for this, then you're welcome to your state of denial:-)
There is nothing inherent in (at the "natural" level of) the circuit that means it must be functional/useful/logical.
An "AND" gate performs a specific process which we deem "logical". If you're arguing about "meaning" having to come from outside the system(s) being discussed, then you're on your own again.
you will have a hard time justifying the belief that it consistently produces logical output.
We label it "logical" because it corresponds, in greater or lesser degrees, to the rules of logic which we've come up with. The logic circuit was made by us to correspond to these useful rules, groups of neurons not so much.
find that it does consistently produce logical output, you will find it very difficult to justify the belief that it is not man made.
I remember reading some time ago about a basic animal (nematode perhaps?) which could calculate sin values. If it was poked between 2 nerve endings, it's small collection of neurons could figure out where you actually poked it from the different signals from those nerves.
My memory of the details is a little hazy, but the concept isn't very outlandish I'd think.
I'd think that sort of information processing counted against your position on this:-)
Any indication of how adding a supernatural component to a brain solves this problem of rationality, or are happy to simply argue against my position and not support your own?
It was you, after all, who claimed without the supernatural we have to throw out all rationality:-)
Electrical circuits which process information manage to do so, only because they were engineered with this purpose in mind.
A simple collection of neurons can do the same, with no need for a soul, and can be accounted for by evolutionary processes with no need for a designer. A simple extrapolation from that simple network to our own complex network can be made, strongly implying our own collection of neurons makes up our mind with no need for a supernatural component.
I find it reasonable to extrapolate this explanation of ordered electrical circuits up to an intelligence qualitatively beyond ourselves that explains our own mental "circuitry".
You've changed your argument.
You were arguing that our minds must have a "supernatural" component, else we'd need to throw out rationality. I showed a simple instance where logical/rational processing takes place without the need for a supernatural component.
Now you're claiming that out minds must have been designed, even though evolutionary processes can account for the complexity of our brains.
Apart from the obvious introduction of an entirely new "substance" without evidential justification, nor requirement, you have issues with the interaction between the two substances in both directions. Postulating this substance doesn't actually get you out of the bind either, as you still need to explain how the introduction of this "component" explains minds, something neither you, nor anyone I'm aware of, has done.
In short, as far as can be discerned at present, there is no need to introduce an immaterial "mind/soul", doing so introduces difficulties which seem incredibly difficult if not impossible to overcome, and you're still left with an explanatory hole to fill, you simply managed to push it back into the "unexplainable".
It doesn't seem to be an acceptable tactic, really:-)
You assume it to be. Given the errors and inconsistencies, it looks to me like the work of men inspired (not divinely) by the idea of a god or gods.
and it's contents therefore reflect what He wants us to know about Him and about ourselves.
Or it simply reflects the times and beliefs of the all too human authors, like the epic of Gilgamesh before it.
In that sense it is a single work.
In your opinion.
It seems to be a collection of ancient religious writings by peoples of a similar region of differing time periods. There doesn't seem to be any indication that it is different from other similar writings which are viewed as myth, apart from the number of people who claim its special status.
Strange, no?:-)
How should we read the accounts of the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan?
To me they read as "history", but external evidence shows them to be fantasy/legend rather than factual.
We could say the same thing about parts of the NT ie. Jesus being born both during the reign of Herod the Great (>= 4BCE) and the census of Quirinius (6CE).
Believing the bible to be "special" somehow seems to lead to absurdities. Surely we're better of viewing it as myth, the same way we do Homer's works, etc?
For example, problems with one theory equal missing pieces, but problems with a competing theory make it incorrect.
Missing pieces in one theory make it plausible, possible and even probable. Serious logical and evidenciary problems with another theory make it absurd.
Is that better?:-)
After all, if there is nothing but matter and energy, if nothing higher is behind my thoughts, why would I assume that the paths of electrons through my brain actually make real sense and lead to logical conclusions?
I doubt we can be certain that our thoughts make sense, regardless of what metaphysics and ontology you subscribe to. Under a Christian ontology you can't be certain that Satan isn't completely messing with you every minute of every day.
Electrical circuits manage the process of information processing without too much problem and without the need for a "soul". Why would our brains/minds be any different (in kind)?
What do you make of this question?
It's a lame duck, as far as I can tell. How exactly does postulating some "supernatural" agency save you from this problem (lets ignore the additional problems it introduces).
Oh, you also seem to be treating the bible (literally, a collection of writings) as a single homogeneous work from a single author. Even if we were to accept divine inspiration, claiming it to be a single work is a bit of a stretch:-)
Actually, even accepting that the book of Genesis is the work of a single author is a stretch, given the contradictory nature of Genesis 1 & 2;-)
I think the emphasis is clear, which is why the description of it is so vague and clearly not intended to be a literal text.
And yet something more accurate, similarly poetic would have worked just as well as a non-literal text, and been much more accurate. Omniscience doesn't seem to be a trait of this being:-)
The Jews never understood it to be literal in that way, and it has only really started to be though of like that in the last few hundred years.
That's a very big statement. The Jews, as far as we can tell, around the first century (and perhaps a couple of hundred years before that) didn't understand it to be entirely literal. What they thought of genesis around 1500BC (assuming it existed then) is completely up for grabs as far as I can tell:-)
normal parts of the creation of a single God.
Then why the explicit and implicit mention of many other gods in various parts of the mash-up that is the pentateuch?:-)
That's the important stuff, because it's what the Israelites were faced with, and what they needed to know at the time.
I thought the bible was timeless? Why pay so much attention to something which was intended for a specific time and people?
Also, it seems that favouring a specific ancient tribe in a tiny part of the world goes against this beings supposed love for all persons. Can we scratch omni-benevolence off the list of divine attributes of your god?
All the historical evidence points to it if you come to the question with an open mind.
It's always fun to be accused of having a closed mind because you don't accept something with pretty flimsy evidence.
You have 2 somewhat independant accounts (synoptics and Gospel of John), written by unknown persons decades (some put John and Luke in the early to mid second century) after the events they claim to describe, written for obvious theological (The events in Mark seem almost entirely midrash of existing scripture) rather than historical purposes.
The earlier epistles (including Paul's) seem to speak more about a "Christ Jesus" (or "Annointed Saviour") in a cosmic/spiritual sense, not as a man who walked the earth a short time prior to the writing.
There also don't appear to be any external independant references.
Some evidence you have there my friend;-)
His disciples almost all died violently proclaiming that fact, and they would have had to know it was a lie if it were not true.
You have tradition (which is known to be unreliable) and late, legends (Acts of Peter) to rely upon for this.
Lets not forget that Mohammed and his followers risked their lives (and many died) for Islam - it must be true!
You've also got various cults whose members have committed suicide, including the cult leader. They must be true too!:-)
Besides, if it were not true then wouldn't the Jewish authorities merely produce the body?
Who's to say they didn't? Producing actual evidence often does little to dissuade a true believer, and often reinforces their belief.
Also, Christians were a small sect of Judaism, not worth worry about. And lets not forget that according to acts, it was 40 days before the risen Jesus was preached - what sort of body could the authorities have produced after that time?
those to whom it has happened don't need to question it and get a mere doctors opinion.
"mere" doctors know more about the human body than laymen do, know more about the conditions (perhaps there was an eye infection causing the cloudiness?).
If you're actually interested in checking whether something "miraculous" occurred, then seeing a doctor would be the first thing on your agenda.
If, however, you're simply wanting to have your existing beliefs validated and reinforced, well, simply proclaim the happy "truth":-)
I wonder whether God is actually preventing hard undeniable evidence from being gathered because of the effect that would have on us.
Or perhaps there is no god, or at least not the one you think:-).
Doesn't your god supposedly want everyone to come to him and know him? What better way than providing hard evidence? According to the bible he didn't have much trouble doing that in the past:-)
If Jesus rose from the dead, then He is who He said he was, The Son of God, and then the rest of the Bible is also true because He testified to it in his teaching.
Not really. All it really shows is that Jesus rose from the dead.
Perhaps it was actually Satan (or some other supernatural being) who raised Jesus from the dead?
Perhaps there is some unknown biological function which can cause revival of an otherwise "dead" body (Jesus isn't the only person to have "come back from the dead" you know. Saithya Sai Baba has apparently brought at least 2 people back, and he's alive today).
You've got a lot more to show than simply resurrection to demonstrate Jesus is actually big "G" God.
my point was to help people to see that a different prespective gives me a heightened appreciation for this subject.
How does that work then?
I'd think you could have the same level appreciation for this subject whether you posited a designer without sufficient evidence, or whether you accepted it as being far more likely to have been the result of mindless natural processes;-)
Actually, seeing these amazing structures and materials as being the result of mindless processes would likely lead to a far greater level of appreciation than seeing this as the result of some hyper-intelligent being tinkering around. After all, if you're that smart, making some incredibly complex material or structure is dead simple, right?
In between asserting that science can't answer these questions you have, any chance you could enlighten me as to how religion actually does answer them with anything other than wishful thinking?
If there is a lot of evidence in favour of life spontaneously arising, I would hardly call that "speculative".
It's speculative because there are many pieces still missing. The paper referenced by this story is one piece which adds to the puzzle, but the puzzle has branches (did the building blocks come from space? Was it layers of clay, or ice crystals or porous ferrous rocks, or some combination which aided concentration etc of the organic molecules, or something else?) and so it is still in the land of "hypothesis" and not a "theory".
It seems there are many theories, but each has its own share show-stopping problems.
If there are truly unsolvable problems, then eventually we will run up against them, and be forced to conclude ignorance. As yet there are difficulties and challenges, but there doesn't seem to be anything impossible (or even improbable) about the idea.
If such a thing happened, it still wouldn't mean that there was some supernatural agency or intervention, as there would need to be evidence *in favour* of that hypothesis for it to be accepted. We'd simply have to say "We don't know" and be done with it:-)
And, the question must be raised, what would be admissable, "credible" evidence for the supernatural?
No idea. I'm not even sure the concept of the "super natural" is coherent.
For instance, a philosophical line of reasoning, leading to the conclusion that the supernatural, as a category, must necessarily exist?
Probably not, as we'd still only be doing thought experiments. Reality - "out there" - would need to be checked for this existence, I'd think:-)
And if there is no way to check this existence in reality, then surely the supernatural, even if it *must* exist, is completely redundant to us:-)
Would such a thing count, in your opinion, as evidence that the supernatural exists?
It might mean that it was something worth investigating, assuming you could come up with a coherent interpretation of what the category of "supernatural" meant:-)
Genesis 1 & 2 seem to be pretty big on some of the "how" parts (though they don't quite agree on all the details). Something about dust and then being breathed upon? There's also something about a woman being formed from a rib...:-)
As for a loving god, I'm not sure the whole garden of Eden scam this Yahweh set up shows him to be loving. Lets take a couple of naive, ignorant persons, with no knowledge of good and evil ie. unable to understand that Yahweh's statements/commands=good and the serpents statements=bad, and then when they mess up, punish them and every person ever to descend from them with incredibly dire consequences. Sounds a lot like "love" to me;-)
because the questions of "why are the laws of physics what they are?" are fundamentally unanswerable.
Are you quite sure of that? Personally I wouldn't commit to that level of certainty:-)
You may have an answer you can believe in, but it doesn't actually answer the question.
And if/when science does provide an answer (perhaps a future theory will show they can't be any other way), what then? Sure you'll be able to ask further questions, but your current one will be answered, right?
Are you just after a final answer for all time? If so, I suggest "We don't know" for whatever level of questioning you/we get to. It sums things up nicely without resorting to wishful thinking;-)
The ability to predict and control macro and cosmological scale events from the quantum level is awesome in the extreme.
Perhaps, though I'm not convinced - a deity indistinguishable from statistical randomness doesn't seem that great to me.
Such a deity, should it exist, is certainly not one that people today worship, such as Yahweh|Jesus|Allah|Vishnu etc.:-)
A god who relies merely on overt displays of power is crude and weak by comparison.
So we're basically talking about a deistic, not a theistic deity, right?
In other words, all miracles are anomalies at some level from the quantum to the macro, but not all apparent anomalies are necessarily miracles.
You're assuming that miracles happen, even though it seems they are/would be indistinguishable from non-miraculous anomalies.
Having said that, I'd love to know what kind of anomaly can make someone's cataract go from opaque to transparent in moments, as a good friend of mine saw happen in the summer as he prayed for a woman.
Anecdote isn't fantastic evidence.
Do you have the details of the woman, her medical reports prior to the event, as well as photo's pre and post event of her eyes, possibly even a video of the cataract clearing, and a medical report post event?
Do you also have statistics regarding spontaneous remission of cataracts for whatever condition had caused it in this woman, as well as a discussion of possible naturalistic causes of the remission, all of which can and have been ruled out?
Do you also have knowledge of all future advances in biology/science in general, so as to rule out some currently unknown but "natural" process from having occurred?
Rather, the question was whether the notion that life spontaneously arises and the notion that life exists as the result of a deity intervening are equally logical (since both are given the label "speculative").
If you're asking from a purely deductive logical stand point, without taking into account prior probabilities, plausability etc, then you may be able to say they're on equal footing, simply because both are logically possible outcomes.
If you do take into account that we have quite a lot of evidence in favour of life "spontaneously arising", and zero credible evidence for the supernatural, for the intervention of a deity, and for this intervention in the development of "life" from "non-life" (whatever those two terms mean), then the "divine" account doesn't even come close:-)
Due to the success of inter-subjective empirical investigation, of which science is an example, supernatural accounts are on a far weaker epistemological footing, generally speaking
So I guess to answer your question, no, they don't appear to be on an equal footing:-)
You might be interested in reading some research by some people actually involved in this research, as opposed to people ideologically opposed to it:-)
Considering the paper shows that uracil could occur in space (I'd assume that there is existing research showing it can form on a planet naturally) I don't think you're attacking the right target.
You seem to be taking this finding as being as far as abiogenesis research has come, which is as far as I can tell, incorrect by a large margin. There is still much to be worked out, but you might be surprised at how far along we currently are:-)
then what more perfect way of describing DNA forming in the dust of space.
Perhaps something about it being created in the heavens above (not the immaterial heavens which had to be substituted in when we figured out that there was no "heaven" above), and stating it was bright light (instead of breath)?
I'm sure if we sat down and thought about it we could come up with some much more suitable metaphorical tale which could be basically understood by bronze age peoples and yet not look ridiculous as scientific evidence of reality came in. An omniscient would surely figure that out as well. I wonder why this Yahweh character didn't manage to do that for the prophets of his desert tribe?:-)
Usually only a few levels of recursion are required before the answer essentially boils down to "we don't have a clue why it does that, we just know the data says it does that".
And why is that sort of answer less preferable to simply making stuff up?
Slashdot Mirror
Where there are difficulties with the plain interpretation of the text we reason with them to resolve the contradiction with a deeper, more nuanced understanding of God
You're assuming Yahweh exists and the bible is his word.
Seems to me the only way to believe Yahweh exists is to accept the bible as something other than a collection of ancient myths(which is what it most resembles). And conversely, the only way to accept the bible as something other than a collection of ancient myths is to believe Yahweh exists.
The reasoning seems a little too circular to for my liking :-)
Given that we both accept that our brains are capable of "logical" thought, there seems to be no reason nor evidence (you've certainly not supplied any) as to why a purely physical mind/brain would not discover those procedures.
We've both agree that matter is able to carry out these processes (ala computers, organisations of neurons etc) and it would seem to be uncontroversial that such general rules which would are likely to give rise to "reliable" reasoning are just those which would have wider applicability than more nonsensical "beliefs" (such as Plantinga's running away from friendly tigers examples).
You've leapt from asserting we have no reason to expect rationality on naturalism, to asserting that postulating a supernatural agent who, being logical, would have made us logical.
You give no (and I'm not aware of there being any) convincing evidence or reason to suppose this supernatural agent exists, that should it exist it is what we'd call "logical", that we were created by this being or that it created us with a similar "logical" ability.
While your argument may be valid, the premises upon which you're basing your conclusion seem unsupported, and in light of modern science and philosophy, including evolutionary theory, neuroscience, psychology, philosophy of mind, seems to be rationally unsupportable, at least if you would like your argument to correspond with reality as we're able to discern it :-)
You've also supplied absolutely no argument as to how the supernatural component you're arguing for is able to provide this rational capability, while there is much evidence from both study of the simple brains of animals along with simulation, that such as we call "rational" can result from the physical.
Now, given the greater simplicity of the naturalist account (doesn't involve the additional of the supernatural ontological category, and all of the difficulties that involves, such as the interaction problem), as well as the seemingly firmer epistemological footing of the (intersubjective empiricism seems to trump personal subjective testimony), surely the naturalist account is to be rationally preferred? :-)
Heh, the "will" is the part of an organism that makes decisions
You mean the brain in organisms which have them? :-)
A purely deterministic set of data is always smaller than a set that includes access to random data.
Perhaps, but the deterministic data set is not likely to be inferior to one which includes random data - that sort of thing is often called "noise", for good reason :-)
The key point is that if just one non-deterministic decision can be made, then the entire philosopy of Determinism is proved to be wrong, and free will becomes allowed, regardless of how we argue definitions.
How does one show that this has occurred, and that the appearance of "non-determinism" isn't simply the result of the number of factors going into the "decision" process and the process itself being so complicated that even though it is completely deterministic (or perhaps statistically deterministic) the only way to "predict" the outcome is to run the full process with the full data?
I am perfectly aware that I hold a minority position on this point.
Depending on your actual position, it may warrant a far less flattering label.
I think its a perfectly rational position,
Of course you do, as I do mine, just that my position seems far better supported by the scientific evidence :-)
Earlier you stated your worldview was coherent. I'd go so far as to say that if your worldview doesn't allow for something much like the theory of evolution, then while it may be internally coherent, it doesn't correspond well with reality :-)
what intrinsic reason is there to believe that you have evolved a logical brain rather than an illogical one?
No "instinsic reason" apart from a somewhat logical brain tending to be more "useful" (like the animal calculating sin values I mentioned).
There's plenty of empirical evidence giving us great confidence that our brains are somewhat logical.
Maybe an illogical brain has some survival value we're just not completely aware of and none of your thought processes actually make sense.
I hope you're not relying upon Plantinga's somewhat incoherent argument that naturalism and evolution are incompatible, are you?
However, if the reasoning process is rooted in a supernatural reality beyond mere matter and energy, then we would have some foundation upon which to rest the starting axiom that we are capable of rationality in the first place.
No you wouldn't. You've simply tried to shift the problem to someplace which meshes with your beliefs and places it out of our ability to investigate. As such, I think it's something of a nonsense position.
You've given no support to your position, simply tried to show the "mind is what the brain does" position isn't tenable (and failed at that I would think).
If your position places the "mind" outside of the causal chain, how are the "decisions" it makes able to be distinguished from randomness?
You've also provided no reason to think this "supernatural realm" actually exists :-)
I wonder, if the supernatural is so "necessary" for a belief in a rational mind, why does modern neuroscience, psychology and philosophy of mind tends to eschew substance dualism (the position you're promoting), and prefer monism or property dualism?
I'm inclined to disagree.
I'm not sure you've got much of a leg to stand on if you claim neurons, say in a lobster, can't be accounted for by the modern theory of evolution, nor that such a collection of neurons doesn't process information.
What I was trying to get at was that the "supernatural" component, in the analogy of a logic circuit, is the humans who made them.
Which is why I added the example of simple collections of neurons. If you're arguing against the theory of evolution in being able to account for this, then you're welcome to your state of denial :-)
There is nothing inherent in (at the "natural" level of) the circuit that means it must be functional/useful/logical.
An "AND" gate performs a specific process which we deem "logical". If you're arguing about "meaning" having to come from outside the system(s) being discussed, then you're on your own again.
you will have a hard time justifying the belief that it consistently produces logical output.
We label it "logical" because it corresponds, in greater or lesser degrees, to the rules of logic which we've come up with. The logic circuit was made by us to correspond to these useful rules, groups of neurons not so much.
find that it does consistently produce logical output, you will find it very difficult to justify the belief that it is not man made.
I remember reading some time ago about a basic animal (nematode perhaps?) which could calculate sin values. :-)
If it was poked between 2 nerve endings, it's small collection of neurons could figure out where you actually poked it from the different signals from those nerves.
My memory of the details is a little hazy, but the concept isn't very outlandish I'd think.
I'd think that sort of information processing counted against your position on this
Any indication of how adding a supernatural component to a brain solves this problem of rationality, or are happy to simply argue against my position and not support your own? :-)
It was you, after all, who claimed without the supernatural we have to throw out all rationality
Electrical circuits which process information manage to do so, only because they were engineered with this purpose in mind.
A simple collection of neurons can do the same, with no need for a soul, and can be accounted for by evolutionary processes with no need for a designer. A simple extrapolation from that simple network to our own complex network can be made, strongly implying our own collection of neurons makes up our mind with no need for a supernatural component.
I find it reasonable to extrapolate this explanation of ordered electrical circuits up to an intelligence qualitatively beyond ourselves that explains our own mental "circuitry".
You've changed your argument.
You were arguing that our minds must have a "supernatural" component, else we'd need to throw out rationality. I showed a simple instance where logical/rational processing takes place without the need for a supernatural component.
Now you're claiming that out minds must have been designed, even though evolutionary processes can account for the complexity of our brains.
Apart from the obvious introduction of an entirely new "substance" without evidential justification, nor requirement, you have issues with the interaction between the two substances in both directions. Postulating this substance doesn't actually get you out of the bind either, as you still need to explain how the introduction of this "component" explains minds, something neither you, nor anyone I'm aware of, has done.
In short, as far as can be discerned at present, there is no need to introduce an immaterial "mind/soul", doing so introduces difficulties which seem incredibly difficult if not impossible to overcome, and you're still left with an explanatory hole to fill, you simply managed to push it back into the "unexplainable".
It doesn't seem to be an acceptable tactic, really :-)
But as a whole, the Bible is the work of God,
You assume it to be. Given the errors and inconsistencies, it looks to me like the work of men inspired (not divinely) by the idea of a god or gods.
and it's contents therefore reflect what He wants us to know about Him and about ourselves.
Or it simply reflects the times and beliefs of the all too human authors, like the epic of Gilgamesh before it.
In that sense it is a single work.
In your opinion.
It seems to be a collection of ancient religious writings by peoples of a similar region of differing time periods. There doesn't seem to be any indication that it is different from other similar writings which are viewed as myth, apart from the number of people who claim its special status. :-)
Strange, no?
history as history, allegory as allegory.
How should we read the accounts of the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan?
To me they read as "history", but external evidence shows them to be fantasy/legend rather than factual.
We could say the same thing about parts of the NT ie. Jesus being born both during the reign of Herod the Great (>= 4BCE) and the census of Quirinius (6CE).
Believing the bible to be "special" somehow seems to lead to absurdities. Surely we're better of viewing it as myth, the same way we do Homer's works, etc?
For example, problems with one theory equal missing pieces, but problems with a competing theory make it incorrect.
Missing pieces in one theory make it plausible, possible and even probable. Serious logical and evidenciary problems with another theory make it absurd. :-)
Is that better?
After all, if there is nothing but matter and energy, if nothing higher is behind my thoughts, why would I assume that the paths of electrons through my brain actually make real sense and lead to logical conclusions?
I doubt we can be certain that our thoughts make sense, regardless of what metaphysics and ontology you subscribe to. Under a Christian ontology you can't be certain that Satan isn't completely messing with you every minute of every day.
Electrical circuits manage the process of information processing without too much problem and without the need for a "soul". Why would our brains/minds be any different (in kind)?
What do you make of this question?
It's a lame duck, as far as I can tell. How exactly does postulating some "supernatural" agency save you from this problem (lets ignore the additional problems it introduces).
Oh, you also seem to be treating the bible (literally, a collection of writings) as a single homogeneous work from a single author. Even if we were to accept divine inspiration, claiming it to be a single work is a bit of a stretch :-)
Actually, even accepting that the book of Genesis is the work of a single author is a stretch, given the contradictory nature of Genesis 1 & 2 ;-)
I think the emphasis is clear, which is why the description of it is so vague and clearly not intended to be a literal text.
And yet something more accurate, similarly poetic would have worked just as well as a non-literal text, and been much more accurate. Omniscience doesn't seem to be a trait of this being :-)
The Jews never understood it to be literal in that way, and it has only really started to be though of like that in the last few hundred years.
That's a very big statement. The Jews, as far as we can tell, around the first century (and perhaps a couple of hundred years before that) didn't understand it to be entirely literal. What they thought of genesis around 1500BC (assuming it existed then) is completely up for grabs as far as I can tell :-)
normal parts of the creation of a single God.
Then why the explicit and implicit mention of many other gods in various parts of the mash-up that is the pentateuch? :-)
That's the important stuff, because it's what the Israelites were faced with, and what they needed to know at the time.
I thought the bible was timeless? Why pay so much attention to something which was intended for a specific time and people?
Also, it seems that favouring a specific ancient tribe in a tiny part of the world goes against this beings supposed love for all persons. Can we scratch omni-benevolence off the list of divine attributes of your god?
Because Jesus rose from the dead.
Because Mohammed dictated for Allah.
Because the Buddha attained enlightenment.
Because Krishna was the incarnation of Vishnu.
Because statues of Ganesh recently drank milk.
All the historical evidence points to it if you come to the question with an open mind.
It's always fun to be accused of having a closed mind because you don't accept something with pretty flimsy evidence.
You have 2 somewhat independant accounts (synoptics and Gospel of John), written by unknown persons decades (some put John and Luke in the early to mid second century) after the events they claim to describe, written for obvious theological (The events in Mark seem almost entirely midrash of existing scripture) rather than historical purposes.
The earlier epistles (including Paul's) seem to speak more about a "Christ Jesus" (or "Annointed Saviour") in a cosmic/spiritual sense, not as a man who walked the earth a short time prior to the writing.
There also don't appear to be any external independant references.
Some evidence you have there my friend ;-)
His disciples almost all died violently proclaiming that fact, and they would have had to know it was a lie if it were not true.
You have tradition (which is known to be unreliable) and late, legends (Acts of Peter) to rely upon for this. :-)
Lets not forget that Mohammed and his followers risked their lives (and many died) for Islam - it must be true!
You've also got various cults whose members have committed suicide, including the cult leader. They must be true too!
Besides, if it were not true then wouldn't the Jewish authorities merely produce the body?
Who's to say they didn't? Producing actual evidence often does little to dissuade a true believer, and often reinforces their belief.
Also, Christians were a small sect of Judaism, not worth worry about. And lets not forget that according to acts, it was 40 days before the risen Jesus was preached - what sort of body could the authorities have produced after that time?
those to whom it has happened don't need to question it and get a mere doctors opinion.
"mere" doctors know more about the human body than laymen do, know more about the conditions (perhaps there was an eye infection causing the cloudiness?). :-)
If you're actually interested in checking whether something "miraculous" occurred, then seeing a doctor would be the first thing on your agenda.
If, however, you're simply wanting to have your existing beliefs validated and reinforced, well, simply proclaim the happy "truth"
I wonder whether God is actually preventing hard undeniable evidence from being gathered because of the effect that would have on us.
Or perhaps there is no god, or at least not the one you think :-). :-)
Doesn't your god supposedly want everyone to come to him and know him? What better way than providing hard evidence? According to the bible he didn't have much trouble doing that in the past
If Jesus rose from the dead, then He is who He said he was, The Son of God, and then the rest of the Bible is also true because He testified to it in his teaching.
Not really. All it really shows is that Jesus rose from the dead.
Perhaps it was actually Satan (or some other supernatural being) who raised Jesus from the dead?
Perhaps there is some unknown biological function which can cause revival of an otherwise "dead" body (Jesus isn't the only person to have "come back from the dead" you know. Saithya Sai Baba has apparently brought at least 2 people back, and he's alive today).
You've got a lot more to show than simply resurrection to demonstrate Jesus is actually big "G" God.
my point was to help people to see that a different prespective gives me a heightened appreciation for this subject.
How does that work then? ;-)
I'd think you could have the same level appreciation for this subject whether you posited a designer without sufficient evidence, or whether you accepted it as being far more likely to have been the result of mindless natural processes
Actually, seeing these amazing structures and materials as being the result of mindless processes would likely lead to a far greater level of appreciation than seeing this as the result of some hyper-intelligent being tinkering around. After all, if you're that smart, making some incredibly complex material or structure is dead simple, right?
but to declare that we are creations of a loving God, who created us to love Him, and to be loved by Him...what we really need to know about.
And you know this is the case, and not the imaginings of another human being how exactly?
Or is it simply the case that this is your belief? :-)
In between asserting that science can't answer these questions you have, any chance you could enlighten me as to how religion actually does answer them with anything other than wishful thinking?
Thanks :-)
If there is a lot of evidence in favour of life spontaneously arising, I would hardly call that "speculative".
It's speculative because there are many pieces still missing. The paper referenced by this story is one piece which adds to the puzzle, but the puzzle has branches (did the building blocks come from space? Was it layers of clay, or ice crystals or porous ferrous rocks, or some combination which aided concentration etc of the organic molecules, or something else?) and so it is still in the land of "hypothesis" and not a "theory".
It seems there are many theories, but each has its own share show-stopping problems.
If there are truly unsolvable problems, then eventually we will run up against them, and be forced to conclude ignorance. As yet there are difficulties and challenges, but there doesn't seem to be anything impossible (or even improbable) about the idea.
If such a thing happened, it still wouldn't mean that there was some supernatural agency or intervention, as there would need to be evidence *in favour* of that hypothesis for it to be accepted. We'd simply have to say "We don't know" and be done with it :-)
And, the question must be raised, what would be admissable, "credible" evidence for the supernatural?
No idea. I'm not even sure the concept of the "super natural" is coherent.
For instance, a philosophical line of reasoning, leading to the conclusion that the supernatural, as a category, must necessarily exist?
Probably not, as we'd still only be doing thought experiments. Reality - "out there" - would need to be checked for this existence, I'd think :-)
And if there is no way to check this existence in reality, then surely the supernatural, even if it *must* exist, is completely redundant to us :-)
Would such a thing count, in your opinion, as evidence that the supernatural exists?
It might mean that it was something worth investigating, assuming you could come up with a coherent interpretation of what the category of "supernatural" meant :-)
Window dressing, really?
Genesis 1 & 2 seem to be pretty big on some of the "how" parts (though they don't quite agree on all the details). Something about dust and then being breathed upon? There's also something about a woman being formed from a rib... :-)
As for a loving god, I'm not sure the whole garden of Eden scam this Yahweh set up shows him to be loving. Lets take a couple of naive, ignorant persons, with no knowledge of good and evil ie. unable to understand that Yahweh's statements/commands=good and the serpents statements=bad, and then when they mess up, punish them and every person ever to descend from them with incredibly dire consequences. ;-)
Sounds a lot like "love" to me
because the questions of "why are the laws of physics what they are?" are fundamentally unanswerable.
Are you quite sure of that? Personally I wouldn't commit to that level of certainty :-)
You may have an answer you can believe in, but it doesn't actually answer the question.
And if/when science does provide an answer (perhaps a future theory will show they can't be any other way), what then? Sure you'll be able to ask further questions, but your current one will be answered, right?
Are you just after a final answer for all time? If so, I suggest "We don't know" for whatever level of questioning you/we get to. It sums things up nicely without resorting to wishful thinking ;-)
The ability to predict and control macro and cosmological scale events from the quantum level is awesome in the extreme.
Perhaps, though I'm not convinced - a deity indistinguishable from statistical randomness doesn't seem that great to me.
Such a deity, should it exist, is certainly not one that people today worship, such as Yahweh|Jesus|Allah|Vishnu etc. :-)
A god who relies merely on overt displays of power is crude and weak by comparison.
So we're basically talking about a deistic, not a theistic deity, right?
In other words, all miracles are anomalies at some level from the quantum to the macro, but not all apparent anomalies are necessarily miracles.
You're assuming that miracles happen, even though it seems they are/would be indistinguishable from non-miraculous anomalies.
Having said that, I'd love to know what kind of anomaly can make someone's cataract go from opaque to transparent in moments, as a good friend of mine saw happen in the summer as he prayed for a woman.
Anecdote isn't fantastic evidence.
Do you have the details of the woman, her medical reports prior to the event, as well as photo's pre and post event of her eyes, possibly even a video of the cataract clearing, and a medical report post event?
Do you also have statistics regarding spontaneous remission of cataracts for whatever condition had caused it in this woman, as well as a discussion of possible naturalistic causes of the remission, all of which can and have been ruled out?
Do you also have knowledge of all future advances in biology/science in general, so as to rule out some currently unknown but "natural" process from having occurred?
Rather, the question was whether the notion that life spontaneously arises and the notion that life exists as the result of a deity intervening are equally logical (since both are given the label "speculative").
If you're asking from a purely deductive logical stand point, without taking into account prior probabilities, plausability etc, then you may be able to say they're on equal footing, simply because both are logically possible outcomes.
If you do take into account that we have quite a lot of evidence in favour of life "spontaneously arising", and zero credible evidence for the supernatural, for the intervention of a deity, and for this intervention in the development of "life" from "non-life" (whatever those two terms mean), then the "divine" account doesn't even come close :-)
...but rather to point out that no evidence exists that life *wasn't* created by an intelligent being...
There doesn't appear to be any evidence in favour of that hypothesis either. :-)
I suggest use of Occam's Razor
...and for all we know, life was created 6,000 years ago with all the ancient artifacts we find even today already in the ground?
I'll see your misdirecting deity and raise you "last tuesdayism" :-)
Due to the success of inter-subjective empirical investigation, of which science is an example, supernatural accounts are on a far weaker epistemological footing, generally speaking
So I guess to answer your question, no, they don't appear to be on an equal footing :-)
You might be interested in reading some research by some people actually involved in this research, as opposed to people ideologically opposed to it :-)
Considering the paper shows that uracil could occur in space (I'd assume that there is existing research showing it can form on a planet naturally) I don't think you're attacking the right target.
You seem to be taking this finding as being as far as abiogenesis research has come, which is as far as I can tell, incorrect by a large margin. There is still much to be worked out, but you might be surprised at how far along we currently are :-)
then what more perfect way of describing DNA forming in the dust of space.
Perhaps something about it being created in the heavens above (not the immaterial heavens which had to be substituted in when we figured out that there was no "heaven" above), and stating it was bright light (instead of breath)?
I'm sure if we sat down and thought about it we could come up with some much more suitable metaphorical tale which could be basically understood by bronze age peoples and yet not look ridiculous as scientific evidence of reality came in. An omniscient would surely figure that out as well. I wonder why this Yahweh character didn't manage to do that for the prophets of his desert tribe? :-)
Usually only a few levels of recursion are required before the answer essentially boils down to "we don't have a clue why it does that, we just know the data says it does that".
And why is that sort of answer less preferable to simply making stuff up?