Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Login | What's Hot
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons

Comment on: Dullhammer-- Back of the Post

What I say they say he says . . .

130 Comments
Friday, March, 28, 2008 10:17 AM lonestarblues writes:

DH

Actually, it went like this:

Norman "Murder is wrong because God says it is wrong."
Gabriel "Murder is wrong because I say God says it is."
me "Murder is wrong because I say they say God says it is."

I thought Gabriel's version more insightful, and, having argued the idea, before added my version.

To be clear, I was not claiming Norman said either restatement. Nor was I arguing against either restatedment. That would have been a straw man argument. Rather pointless.

Also to be clear I do not know if Gabriel intended the insight I got out of his restatement of it, so it might have been my insight.

And, further, Norman's statement is a common theistic statement gazillions of theists say.

So we can cut personalities out of the discussion and focus on the ideas expressed.


"I see such a reinterpretation as undercutting not only Norman's statement of presupposition for morality, but it undercuts all language itself as being unable to get beyond hearsay. For example, in order to accurately state the information I have just stated above I would have to actually spell out the fact that-- I SAY "LSB and Gabriel Hanna critiqued it by reinterpreting WHAT I SAY THEY SAY Norman SAYS to essentially say . . ." etc..

"You get my point?"

Yes, but that was not the point I was making. Let me explain.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, March, 28, 2008 10:18 AM lonestarblues writes:

DH, 2

This is the insight I saw in Gabriel's restatement. Lon had argued utilitarian ethics and Norman countered bottom line because you say so. I'd argued natural law and Norman countered because you say so. I'm paraphrasing, but that's the basis of his presuppositional argument, we all have presuppositions we believe in. Then he believes he solves the problem by claiming it's because God says so. But that's just a deus ex machina exposed by exposing his presupposition with "he says God says". All 3 ethical systems suffer the same thing, presuppositions. It's not a matter of hearsay at all.

To resolve the issue of which ethical system is more rational and which less, one needs to examine presuppositions and their basis. That's where my restatement comes in, he says they say God says. It's point is that the theistic ethical system rests ultimately on a chain of beliefs, the theist's belief in the the Bible's authors' beliefs in, we might add, Jesus' beliefs in His Father's beliefs. Bottom line you cannot establish truth by means of belief or faith. It's not a matter of hearsay but of faith.

I can't argue faith doesn't lead to truth, nor can you argue it does, for then you would know and not need faith.

I realize my "he says they say God says" was cryptic. It's interesting that rather than sparking questions like what do you mean, it sparks all sorts of straw man arguments, including one that accused my statement of being a straw man.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, March, 28, 2008 1:11 PM dullhammer writes:

lonestarblues-- Chain of Beliefs (1/6)

lonestarblues-- Chain of Beliefs (1 of 6)

LSB-- "To resolve the issue of which ethical system is more rational and which less, one needs to examine presuppositions and their basis. That's where my restatement comes in, he says they say God says. It's point is that the theistic ethical system rests ultimately on a chain of beliefs, the theist's belief in the the Bible's authors' beliefs in, we might add, Jesus' beliefs in His Father's beliefs. Bottom line you cannot establish truth by means of belief or faith. It's not a matter of hearsay but of faith."


DH
First, I wonder if you accepted the first criticisms of "you say so" as valid or not. Rather than my trying to scan your previous posts, could you direct me to that area? It's not crucial, but might be helpful.

Second, your point of there being a "chain of beliefs" is understandable. What I don't understand is why one can not still discuss the ramifications of what God says (even in theory) without the added "you say so" and "They say you say" etc.? Suppose we were discussing Socrates. Must we always refer to Plato in the discussion? I realize if the issue were the existence of Socrates one would have to bring up Plato. But if the issue was what the ramification would be if Socrates said murder is wrong, then one would not need to refer to Plato. At least not initially. For one response to the claim could be: "So what? Even if Socrates existed his statement does not somehow establish the right or wrong of murder."

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, March, 28, 2008 1:12 PM dullhammer writes:

lonestarblues-- Chain of Beliefs (2)

It seems in the discussion of the presupposition "Murder is wrong because God says it is wrong" you point to a necessary chain of beliefs in order to say the presupposition is not rational. Is that fair?

If so your chain is premature. Like this discussion itself, what difference does it make who says God says? The issue at hand is the abstract concept of "If God says it, then . . ." There is no need to introduce anyone else in a chain of authority.

God's actual existence would certainly be an important follow up to the matter. But that is secondary to this first issue.

Also, on the matter of there being a chain of beliefs. There are two ways I look at that as a Christian. 1) There is religion, with Judaism being the "authorized" version if you will. And 2) there is Christ.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, March, 28, 2008 1:13 PM dullhammer writes:

lonestarblues-- Chain of Beliefs (3)

All religions must have a starting point. And that starting point can not be "He said God said" or any variation of that. The starting point has to be either an actual revelation or something that is mistaken for a revelation whereas at least one person does not merely accept second hand what God (or the gods) says, but hear it for themselves first hand. Two examples:

a) There was ancient worship of a Greek god (I've misplaced the magazine for details) which has recently been connected to the discovery of a geological fault near a cave in Greece. Earth tremblers would release a gas which evidently gave people who discovered the cave hallucinatory experiences. People interpreted the whole thing as a religious experience and built a temple there. The tremblers ceased long ago, but the religion persisted for many, many years afterward. After the gas stopped and people can only have second hand experiences of other people's word, that is where a chain of beliefs becomes the only link to the actual history of the event. And, in this case, a mistaken interpretation from the beginning IMO.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, March, 28, 2008 1:14 PM dullhammer writes:

lonestarblues-- Chain of Beliefs (4)

b) There is the modern worship of the God YHWH in the religion of Judaism (I do have THAT book at hand). I would grant that there is a chain of beliefs (via traditions and writings and the belief in them) which is on the surface the same as the worship of the mistaken Greek god mentioned earlier, or any other religion. But my point is that this chain of beliefs must ultimately go back to some actual first hand encounter. NOT a second hand "He said God said" type of thing. I grant that one is free to argue whether or not a person's first hand encounter is valid or mistaken, but I would not grant that it should be dismissed as lost by the distance of a chain of beliefs. In the case of Judaism, for example, one must consider the Seder Supper. Indeed it is a chain of beliefs going back to a day when, according to those beliefs, God rescued Israel from bondage in Egypt via many miracles. Not the least being the parting of the Red Sea. I do not bring this up to argue the specifics of that parting, or the other miracles. I do so only to point out that the chain of beliefs go back to something which had to be a first hand experience to someone originally related to the subsequent traditions, writings and beliefs. After that you do indeed have people believing via a chain called religion. And in the case of Judaism, I do believe those miracles took place. This is why I consider Judaism to be the "authorized" religion of the world. For it is the one God himself started and built. Which brings me to my next point.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, March, 28, 2008 1:14 PM dullhammer writes:

lonestarblues-- Chain of Beliefs (5)

As a Christian I do not believe in the parting of the Red Sea because I was there. Nor do I believe it because of the traditions of the Seder or even because the Hebrew Bible says it's so. I believe the event to be historical and faithfully recorded because I believe in Jesus as the Christ. My way of believing is different from that of the religious Jew. And that difference, according to my belief, does not come from a second hand experience of tradition, writings or authority of a leader. It comes from Jesus Christ directly. I have a first hand experience with Jesus Christ, not a second hand experience. All those who are in fact Christians have in fact a first hand experience with God through Jesus Christ.

One factor to that is the Holy Spirit, which I will not get into here. This is already quite long. But the other factor I will touch upon and then stop. The other factor is the nature of words.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, March, 28, 2008 1:15 PM dullhammer writes:

lonestarblues-- Chain of Beliefs (6)

Words are such that they can give people a first hand experience, not necessarily with an event, but with another person, even when that person is not physically present. Words are also such that they can faithfully express the unseen heart and mind of another person. Not without some effort, but it can be done. Our very conversation here at TH assumes this to be true. So, in the case of the Bible's words pointing to Jesus as the Lord and Savior there is a chain, but a chain in practicality with only one link, like this conversation having to go through the chain of what I type and you read; not all the electronics in between. And then, even that one like is removed when a person receives the Biblical word pertaining to Christ. For Jesus himself is God's Word in the most immediate sense. It doesn't even go through the linkage of textual criticisms or cyberspace.

And because of Jesus Christ a Christian can say: "Murder is wrong because God says it is wrong" in a way that is more the first hand experience than a long chain of second hand beliefs.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, March, 28, 2008 2:46 PM lonestarblues writes:

DH, 1

"First, I wonder if you accepted the first criticisms of 'you say so' as valid or not."

In the case of natural law theory it is debatable for it is not what one entity or man says it is. The source of moral law is what is. It does not matter if I believe or not, the law is the law.

In the case of theism, God says it is, it is. The source of moral law rests upon belief.

"What I don't understand is why one can not still discuss the ramifications of what God says (even in theory) without the added "you say so" and "They say you say" etc.?"

We certainly can if ramifications were the topic. That's why I have no problem with faith, it, in general, results in much good. But we were talking source of moral law, not consequences. The source must also be moral.

As for Socrates, I don't think who he was is important at all, even if Plato made him up out of whole cloth, but what he said would, or could be what is important.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, March, 28, 2008 3:05 PM lonestarblues writes:

DH, 2.1

"...you point to a necessary chain of beliefs in order to say the presupposition is not rational. Is that fair?"

Yes, belief is not rational, faith lies outside reason. I say that without implying one is better or worse than the other, just as a statement true by definition. Reason is not a be all and end all, it is limited, and man's use of it even more limited and flawed, and so on. For all I know faith might change on the truth that reason cannot reach, but how know that? Anyway, my point is just that faith is not rational, and that was the challenge Norman issued.

"...what difference does it make who says God says?"

Everybody says God says and/or means something different by God and God says.

"The issue at hand is the abstract concept..."

I'm not so sure it has meaning as a concept, not sure those of faith can talk about it as an abstract concept, for to those of faith it is first and foremost a matter of faith. If it were a meaningful concept, then it would be known through reason. Reason and faith are not the same.

"God's actual existence would certainly be an important follow up to the matter. But that is secondary to this first issue."

If the issue is the source of moral law, and God is claimed as the source, it begs the question.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, March, 28, 2008 3:06 PM lonestarblues writes:

DH, 2.2

"Also, on the matter of there being a chain of beliefs. There are two ways I look at that as a Christian. 1) There is religion, with Judaism being the "authorized" version if you will. And 2) there is Christ."

It's sort of what I was getting at with the he says they say he says. I think elsewhere on the forum thread I expanded on this, how it seems many want to cut the chain short and assume direct contact with God. But you know through the NT authors Christ (you say they said he said).

A thought that might clarify some: The chain of belief I'm pointing out is more a comment on the necessary syntactic embedding rather than the semantics expressed.


All the time I have now. I'll be back in a while...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, March, 28, 2008 6:15 PM lonestarblues writes:

DH, 3

"All religions must have a starting point. And that starting point can not be "He said God said" or any variation of that."

Could be. Christianity started on Christ's word. Mormonism might be easier to see, or Christian Science.

"And God said, 'Let there be light'..."

Religion is based on belief, mistaken or not.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, March, 28, 2008 6:15 PM lonestarblues writes:

DH, 4

"But my point is that this chain of beliefs must ultimately go back to some actual first hand encounter."

Well, I would argue it would go back to the first belief, belief that encounter was with God and God's word.

I think that's just the inherent nature of religion. That belief may be based almost entirely on reason, evidence, proof, but for it to be religion, it must reserve some aspect of belief, of faith, in what is not reasonable, evidenced, proven.

I don't know why that's not OK with believers, those of faith. Why it's necessary for some to argue scientifically, or philosophically, or to insist science, or atheism are based on faith.

The strongest Christians I know don't do that, they rest firm on their faith. They can argue religion, theism vs atheism, freely, unafraid, because it's no challenge to their faith that they have faith. I say strongest because I truly respect and admire that.

I think the same holds for an atheist, you reach a point where you know you don't know the answer, the limits of knowledge, limits of reason, and you speculate, knowing you might be wrong, or just say you don't know, but are confident that everything I do know and can reason leads to this or that conclusion.

Sort of wandering here, but I hope you get what I'm getting at.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, March, 28, 2008 6:25 PM lonestarblues writes:

DH, 5

5? Trying to parallel your numbers....

"My way of believing is different from that of the religious Jew. And that difference, according to my belief, does not come from a second hand experience of tradition, writings or authority of a leader. It comes from Jesus Christ directly. I have a first hand experience with Jesus Christ, not a second hand experience. All those who are in fact Christians have in fact a first hand experience with God through Jesus Christ."

And I don't doubt that, I believe you. But it's believe you believe it. And believe each Christian believes it for him- or herself.

But it is belief.

And it is personal.

So I can't go there. Won't. I might ask you questions about it, ask you to tell me--like with Clay. And I might say that doesn't make sense to me. But that's because I don't have faith, in Christ, God, and because faith is not by definition reasonable, so how could I understand it. And I have to wonder how one Christian understands another, because without reason you can't understand or communicate. Even if you believe it is revealed.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, March, 28, 2008 6:39 PM lonestarblues writes:

DH, 6

"Words are such that they..."

Can communicate ideas, concepts, and trigger emotions, but not experience, not in the sense of actually experiencing it in a physical sense. OK, maybe, you might give me instructions to do this and that and thereby experience it.

But God, no, God is beyond our limitations--if God exists. That's why the best people can do is use analogies and metaphors. But you can't know, only believe--language, communication requires reason, and faith lies outside that.

"Our very conversation here at TH assumes this to be true."

That's what argumentation ethics.

"So, in the case of the Bible's words pointing to Jesus as the Lord and Savior there is a chain, but a chain in practicality with only one link, like this conversation having to go through the chain of what I type and you read; not all the electronics in between."

OK, yeah, I understand your point very well now. I see what you mean by God says and your rejection of he says they say God says.

But your point is a very personal one, and morals are not personal or between you and God, but between you and others.

For, for me personally, the electrons, neurons, and all the rest are there between.

But I see your point.

Hope you see mine.

Enough for now...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, March, 28, 2008 11:32 PM western bondbeam writes:

dullhammer

Just thought I would pop over and check out the discussion going on here (I picked up on it from Norman's blog).

I'll refrain from commenting on your current conversation with lonestar for now except to say I will be stopping in later to check up on it.

I am finding this blog thing a little more intersting lately as opposed to the article threads. I haven't quite figured out how to find a fresh blog though.

Also thanks for the comment over on Normans. (to which I just recently responded to).

Might be a day or two before I get back though. Carry on.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, March, 28, 2008 11:55 PM dullhammer writes:

western bondbeam

You are welcome to comment any time. We could exchange more here if you wish. Though I am still checking out those other sites too.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, March, 28, 2008 11:58 PM dullhammer writes:

lonestarblues-- 1/2

LSB-- "OK, yeah, I understand your point very well now. I see what you mean by God says and your rejection of he says they say God says.

But your point is a very personal one, and morals are not personal or between you and God, but between you and others.

For, for me personally, the electrons, neurons, and all the rest are there between.

But I see your point.

Hope you see mine."
------


DH
Glad for the sense of actually communicating-- and on SUCH a topic!

I hope I do understand your POV too. I think I do, about the electrons, neurons and all the rest in between.

And I grant that my point has a very personal nature about it. But I do not think it is limited to being strictly within the confines of my subjective self. We've been down this road before, so I'll try not to repeat myself too much. Between you and me there is some point of agreement and disagreement which is still unclear. It's somewhere in the fog of words like faith, reason, belief, knowledge and knowing. (Let alone words like God.)

So, for a change of pace I have been working on a rather elaborate definition of faith. A key word in all of this. I will post it and would be curious as to what aspects you might agree or disagree. It might be revealing. Revealing of my own understanding of the word (I purposely did not consult any dictionaries) and of how that may or may not fit in your rather frequent use of the word.

It may also serve as an illustration of how I am presenting something to you which is indeed coming from me subjectively and personally, but is not limited to the personal borders of dullhammer's life alone. That is if the definition has any merit. And it does come back to the issue of dealing with what God says.

After some feedback from you we may proceed further or call it good for the time being.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, March, 29, 2008 12:01 AM dullhammer writes:

lonestarblues-- on Faith 2.5/3

Faith-- is the connecting point between what is true and what is hoped for and where there would be no apprehending of that truth were it not for the connection through faith. Faith has no strength in itself, but when connected to what is true it has all the strength of that truth. What's more it is only real faith when there would be no apprehending of the truth hoped for if it were not for the reality of one's faith in that truth.

So, for example, one can speak of having a hope and faith in a car to start on a cold morning. But such faith only requires that the driver turn the key. Something he or she might do with or without faith. The battery actually connects to the starter, not to the faith.

OTOH, a person who's hope is to win a spelling bee must exercise faith in the truth that he or she can and will win the spelling bee. And the tension between one's faith vs one's fear of losing could actually make a difference in the outcome. It should also be noted that the one person who in fact wins has their faith proven true. The others have their faith broken. (If, instead of a spelling bee, one is facing a giant Philistine, the faith of an entire army can be proven or broken. :-)

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, March, 29, 2008 12:03 AM dullhammer writes:

lonestarblues-- on Faith 3/3

continued . . .

Faith is ultimately defined and proven in relationships between persons. This is why scripture so often combines the three elements of faith, hope and love together in a Christian's life.

Faith in God does not originate within the person; it is given by God like a seed by way of His Word. Faith, however, is the combination of that seed and the fertility of the person's heart. Like a garden, or a womb, a new life of faith is born. Even so, it then takes one's entire lifespan to ultimately prove the true connection between one's faith, hope, love . . . and the Truth. Upon the day of such proof, then, a life of faith has rewards which would otherwise be impossible. And even before that day of proof, there is the present reality of a relationship with God-- through faith rooted in the past, hope anchored in the future and love in the now . . . as well as in the forever.

In short, faith is taking God at his word and never letting go.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, March, 29, 2008 7:41 AM lonestarblues writes:

western bondbeam

Hiya! Just jump right in. I'd be interested in hearing your ideas.

Haven't been back to Norman's blog. Too much flattery one minute and ridicule the next. When DH and I get irritated with each other, we just end the discussion, and start afresh another day.

I won't have much time today either. Gun show this morning, yard work and gardening in the afternoon.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, March, 29, 2008 8:18 AM lonestarblues writes:

DH

"But your point is a very personal one, and morals are not personal or between you and God, but between you and others."

How so if we're discussing faith and God as ideas and concepts--I can't imagine discussion any other way in fact. We're not talking about you or western or, when I made my he says they say God says observation, Norman, but about faith and God and things.

That doesn't mean I don't see some take it personal and I can allow for that and back off and be respectful--I think you know me for that. Long as in taking it personal, someone doesn't make it real personal, questioning integrity, sincerity, motive, psychology, the only purpose I can see for doing that is to stifle free speech, to try and dominate what is otherwise a free market place of ideas. It shows fear and hatred.

But enough of that....let's go on to faith. I will give my honest reactions and thoughts....
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, March, 29, 2008 8:19 AM lonestarblues writes:

DH

"Faith-- is the connecting point between what is true and what is hoped for and where there would be no apprehending of that truth were it not for the connection through faith. Faith has no strength in itself, but when connected to what is true it has all the strength of that truth. What's more it is only real faith when there would be no apprehending of the truth hoped for if it were not for the reality of one's faith in that truth."

So does faith have two meanings then? For one I see what you're saying the same as I see what Clay is saying back in the Adam's thread, faith as connection, from what is true and know to what is hoped for, it's a reaching out, it's directs how to go from here to there. But, for the other meaning, it is also the hoped for, is it not, it's the point you want to reach, for that is what Jesus says saves, if I understand correctly.

The Adam's thread's discussion of leap of faith comes to play here. Kierkegaard never said leap OF faith, he said leap TO faith. I think what you're describing (and Clay too) is leap OF faith, in the first sense above, but I also think it's a leap TO faith.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, March, 29, 2008 8:20 AM lonestarblues writes:

DH

The car starting and spelling bee analogies work to a point, but, to me, faith in God has another sense. One can demonstrate, show, perhaps prove those things, but not God. I can also find alternatives, telecommute to work that day or find another spelling bee. Nor, in the bigger picture, do accomplishing those things matter, life goes on. But there's another difference, and that's the notion of faith in faith, the notion that having faith saves you, you have faith it will, you have faith in faith itself. Like GK Chesterton says in _Orthodxy_, faith and reason are both grounded in faith--which is also Norman's point, and Birdman's. Faith in faith. But faith in a car starting or winning a spelling bee or reasoning out the truth of something, is different because you do not put faith in faith, it's not faith that gets you there, it's maintaining your car, practicing spelling, or exercising your brain that do, and that's what you put faith in. We all make assumptions (presuppositions) but faith accepts them in hope, while reason questions and establishes them as true of false. The two kinds of faith slay different kind of goliaths.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, March, 29, 2008 8:20 AM lonestarblues writes:

DH

"Faith is ultimately defined and proven in relationships between persons. This is why scripture so often combines the three elements of faith, hope and love together in a Christian's life."

This is territory I'm discussing with Clay back in the old thread. So, briefly, while I can understand you faith, hope and love for your family by analogy with mine for mine, that for God is something more that I can't understand, something the analogy does not, and I think cannot, accomplish.

Yes, I know, thus it is something I must d on my own. OK, but then is what I might accomplish regarding a relationship with God what you have, or something different--Clay says different. And if that is so, then wouldn't my God, my meaning for, my concept of God be likewise different. --But that cannot be with monotheism, with one God. Or can it?

"In short, faith is taking God at his word and never letting go."

How unless I know Him first can I put that faith in Him. Seems like the proverbial chicken and egg problem.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, March, 29, 2008 9:15 AM western bondbeam writes:

lonestar/dullhammer

Thanks for the invite from both of you.

I have enjoyed both sides of the conversation going on here and there is a lot to comment on so wasn't sure where to even jump in.

I am intersted in the faith/reason discussion forming as this is what has caught my attention with lonestar on public threads in the past, but as lonestar has a gun show, I have an equally pressing engagement (son's baseball practice) so I have little time to put the effort in that the topic deserves today.

I will be checking in though when time permits. It may also allow me to gather my thoughts somewhat on the subject.

Enjoy your weekends people.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, March, 29, 2008 2:06 PM dullhammer writes:

lonestarblues-- just a note

Your first reply at Saturday, March, 29, 2008 8:18 AM regarding "But your point is a very personal one . . ." is a misunderstanding. I did not make that remark; you did. The remark makes sense when you see it coming and going appropriately. I have no problem with it as is.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, March, 29, 2008 2:07 PM dullhammer writes:

lonestarblues-- 1/6

LSB-- "So does faith have two meanings then? For one I see what you're saying the same as I see what Clay is saying back in the Adam's thread, faith as connection, from what is true and know to what is hoped for, it's a reaching out, it's directs how to go from here to there. But, for the other meaning, it is also the hoped for, is it not, it's the point you want to reach, for that is what Jesus says saves, if I understand correctly."

DH
I don't see two meanings there. Faith is faith and hope is hope. But the two work closely together like Q and U in the alphabet. Hope can certainly exist without faith. Such is the undoing of many an "I do." I'm not sure, though, if faith can exist without hope. Seems faith is most faith-like when it is stretched, not when it is confined within the bounds of the obvious. The latter might better be described as trust. I'm actually working this out, so don't think I've got it all mapped out.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, March, 29, 2008 2:08 PM dullhammer writes:

lonestarblues-- 2/6

LSB-- "The Adam's thread's discussion of leap of faith comes to play here. Kierkegaard never said leap OF faith, he said leap TO faith. I think what you're describing (and Clay too) is leap OF faith, in the first sense above, but I also think it's a leap TO faith."

DH
As in how does one get to have faith in the beginning? If that is your question I would answer with it depends on what you are hoping for. If you are hoping for your car to start it almost doesn't matter whether you have a leap of faith or even a leap TO faith. If you are hoping for that spelling bee, then a leap to faith might involve an experience of some sort. Maybe a teacher encourages you in a way that you've never been encouraged before. And this creates a faith which sustains you for the duration of the contest. If you were hoping for a marriage the leap to faith (more commonly referred to as 'taking the plunge') would hopefully be the very person you fall in love with (notice the word 'fall'). That person would inspire you to put your trust in her. That's an oversimplification because there is also the matter of your own capacity to inspire her and your mutual ability to be faithful, loving and a lot more. Try as people do to spell it all out in "How To" books, it simply is too complicated-- and personal-- for a formula to replace the key words of faith, hope and love.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, March, 29, 2008 2:08 PM dullhammer writes:

lonestarblues-- 3/6

Finally, if your hope was to know God then the leap to faith would have to come from God. Keep in mind, if you have no such hope in the first place then there's not going to be much of a reception for any inspiration of faith God might provide. But if there is hope, then that is what leaps when faith in introduced to your heart. And where does one get the hope? That is something that comes out of who we are. It's not something we can work at directly. But indirectly it can develop. Maybe without our even realizing it for some time.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, March, 29, 2008 2:09 PM dullhammer writes:

lonestarblues-- 4/6

LSB-- "Faith in faith. But faith in a car starting or winning a spelling bee or reasoning out the truth of something, is different because you do not put faith in faith, it's not faith that gets you there, it's maintaining your car, practicing spelling, or exercising your brain that do, and that's what you put faith in."

DH
But in the example of the bee I referred to faith vs fear. Even with natural talent a person can be hindered by fear. Whereas faith could overcome such a hinderance and therefore make the difference between reaching the reality of the hope or not. Granted there are other factors beyond the student and beyond the student's faith. I only give the example to show rudiments, or progressions, of faith according to the objects in which faith is . . . hoped. See next post.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, March, 29, 2008 2:10 PM dullhammer writes:

lonestarblues-- 5/6

To be consistent I should have also included an example of marriage (see above). That is a much more faithful example of how faith works. Marriage best works through hope and faith and love. And it takes the good part of a lifetime to complete. Marriage as a business contract or a share the rent arrangement is a poor excuse for marriage, IMO. Interesting too, how Jesus' exception clause regarding divorce centered on "marital unfaithfulness". A pregnant term (no pun . . . never mind) which goes beyond just adultery.

Divorce breaks a marriage, whereas death only brings it to an end. That is because death does not break the faith of the marriage. It could also be said that at the point of death the marriage is finally "proven". But it would be absurd for the couple to wait until death to enjoy the fruits of the marriage. Faith enables the marriage to exist in the first place; faith allows the fruits to come before the full proof; and faith, when true to the end, enables more fruit to go beyond the confines of the temporal duration of the relationship.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, March, 29, 2008 2:12 PM dullhammer writes:

lonestarblues-- 6/6

LSB-- "How unless I know Him first can I put that faith in Him. Seems like the proverbial chicken and egg problem."

DH
How, unless you take me at my word can you possibly get to know me? What is so different with God . . . other than that invisibility thing. Hey, I'm invisible to you too, really.



Sounds like there's more fuel for discussion yet to come. I will be busy Sunday in the morning and part of the afternoon. But I will be sure to use part of the day for at least one reply. Then Monday should be fairly normal. A possible hiccup, if we go long onto Tuesday, etc. is that I will be going on vacation in Maine for about a week. I am optimistic that I would be able to post from there, just not frequently and easily. I know I could read the posts from there though. And if you didn't hear from me at all, please be patient and carry on without me here at my blog-- say with western bondbeam (who will probably just be getting started), or maybe even with LNC. Or we could just stop. But I don't want that to happen just because I'm off to Maine.


EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, March, 30, 2008 12:25 PM lonestarblues writes:

western bondbeam

"I am intersted in the faith/reason discussion..."

A favorite theme of mine. :-)

First, a definition, of sorts.

No, first, a definition of definition, as DH considers definition vital to discussion. There are two definitions of definition as I see it. One, dictionary definitions, description of usage, what most people mean when they use a word, descriptive, not prescriptive. Two, what I mean when I use the word, iow, the word will stand or symbolize this meaning when I use it. You can't question my usage because it doesn't conform to standard usage, you can point that out, but not challenge my usage as nonstandard. You may of course challenge my meaning, whether it makes sense, is true and so on.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, March, 30, 2008 12:39 PM lonestarblues writes:

western bondbeam

OK, now the definition I wanted to introduce so you understand what I'm getting at with the faith/reason distinction.

By reason I do not mean anything special. I do not mean highly formal, precisely logical reasoning, as you might see in a geometry proof--though this is included. To me reason also includes what we all do everyday thinking things out, learning concepts, discovering ideas, communicating opinions, in short common sense, what we do mentally, cognitively to establish the truth of things.

Faith lies outside that. Faith is what you employ when reason will take you no further and you need an answer. I don't have a reason to choose this or that, but here goes, I choose.... That may give you, lead you to the truth, but you can't know that, only believe it. And you can't argue unknowns.

Reason is also limited in two ways. One, while you can reason the truth of this and that, and use those truths to establish the truth of other things, there's no guarantee you will ever reach THE truth, whatever that may be. Two, man is fallible, flawed, corrupt and cannot be a perfect reasoner, so will make errors in his reasoning, and may end up far from THE truth, further perhaps than when he started.

So why do I rely on reason? Because it is a part of man's nature, it is grounded in our nature, it's all we have. Faith is grounded in faith--which takes us back to DH and my discussion so far.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, March, 30, 2008 12:46 PM lonestarblues writes:

wb & DH

Given discussion yesterday I've concluded he says they say God say is ambiguous regarding whether it means chain of hearsay or chain of belief. Hearsay has negative connotations, that could be taken personally, so I will amend my observation on God says to he believes they believe He believes God says. He being modern man, they being the authors of the New Testament, and can include church leaders and religious apologists, He being Jesus, God being undefined.

My point going back to the reason/faith distinction. In short, belief cannot be the foundation of a moral system.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, March, 30, 2008 1:01 PM lonestarblues writes:

DH

(If I missed or miss a point you make, let me know and we can backtrack.)

"I don't see two meanings there. Faith is faith and hope is hope. But the two work closely together like Q and U in the alphabet."

Perhaps that is a misunderstanding I have about faith, but if that is so, given I lack faith and do not know what it means, I have been lead to that misunderstanding by those of faith, who may be using the two terms interchangeably.

Bottom line to me is Jesus said you must have faith (1) to be saved. I'm told to achieve that faith, and be saved, I must have faith (2), I must begin with faith (2). Thus a leap of faith is a leap to faith.

Which, faith (1) or faith (2) is hope?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, March, 30, 2008 1:35 PM lonestarblues writes:

DH

"If you are hoping for your car to start it almost doesn't matter whether you have a leap of faith or even a leap TO faith."

To put that kind of faith is your car starting is utter foolishness. You don't put faith in that, not really, you put enough money and research into buying a good car and maintaining it, and you put effort into developing contingency plans, all of which work to the same effect--telecommuting, public transportation, ride from a coworker.

The analogy works to a point, but fails on closer examination. Or do you have contigency plans in place for the possible failure of faith itself?

"...it simply is too complicated-- and personal-- for a formula to replace the key words of faith, hope and love...."

Complicated and personal enough applied to human relationships, too esoteric or plain ineffable when it comes to God it seems. Analogy helps me understand your personal relationships with people in terms of mine, but not your spiritual one with God. That might work with another Christian, who might take his concepts of God and faith in God and believe yours are alike, whether or not they actually are.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, March, 30, 2008 1:42 PM lonestarblues writes:

DH

"Finally, if your hope was to know God then the leap to faith would have to come from God. Keep in mind, if you have no such hope in the first place then there's not going to be much of a reception for any inspiration of faith God might provide."

How would one recognize it? This is where reason comes in again.

"But if there is hope, then that is what leaps when faith in introduced to your heart."

Sorry, doesn't make much sense. One, it's the person who must make the leap. You metaphored hope into an entity unto itself, and it's not. Two, you've interchanged faith and hope and intermixed their meanings.

"And where does one get the hope? That is something that comes out of who we are."

If it were natural, a part of man's nature, we'd all do it--there'd really be no point.

"It's not something we can work at directly. But indirectly it can develop. Maybe without our even realizing it for some time."

Then it can't be known or explained or communicated or argued.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, March, 30, 2008 1:46 PM lonestarblues writes:

DH

"But in the example of the bee I referred to faith vs fear."

Right, right, understood, but all in an effort to equate or analogize faith in known things (self, others, cars, etc) to an unknown thing. that remains unknown, lying outside reason as it does.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, March, 30, 2008 1:50 PM lonestarblues writes:

DH

Marriage is a good analogy. But again it is just that, an analogy. I can relate my marriage to yours and understand your relationship there, but the same just doesn't apply with God, God, faith, relationships with God, and so on, involve something more, something for which nothing in the experience or knowledge of man do we have anything with which to form an analogy.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, March, 30, 2008 1:55 PM lonestarblues writes:

DH

"How, unless you take me at my word can you possibly get to know me? What is so different with God . . . other than that invisibility thing. Hey, I'm invisible to you too, really."

I have your words and through them your thoughts, opinions, feelings and pretty much all else that makes us human. I don't have to doubt your beliefs, I accept it as true they are your beliefs, I accept them as beliefs.

Where even are the words of God? And, no, the Bible is man's words, however inspired you may believe them to be.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, March, 30, 2008 1:56 PM lonestarblues writes:

DH

Let's just commit to finishing up Monday, last post before Monday.

Loose ends can be picked up next time we meet to discuss.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, March, 30, 2008 6:54 PM dullhammer writes:

lonestarblues-- (1)

LSB-- "Which, faith (1) or faith (2) is hope?"


DH
Neither.

I have tried to refer to only one kind of faith, though I do think the word is subject to abuse like our word "love". I will try to elaborate a little further.

The analogy of marriage shows why it can be said one must have faith in order to have a saving relationship with Jesus Christ. One must have faith in order to have marriage. One must have faith in order to have a relationship with God through Jesus Christ.

The "achievement of faith," as you put it, would be a matter of one's living faithfully, such as in a marriage, according to that which has already been established by faith. But in a real sense these are not two different faiths. They are one, yet appearing different due to time and maturity (or lack thereof).

In the analogy of marriage a leap of faith would be expressed in the willful commitment of one's life to a person who is considered worthy. It would not exactly be a "leap of faith to faith" in that case. It would be a leap, or step even, of faith to a decision of commitment. Followed by faithfulness from the original faith.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, March, 30, 2008 6:55 PM dullhammer writes:

lonestarblues-- (2)

LSB-- "To put that kind of faith is your car starting is utter foolishness."

DH
The car analogy is deliberately trivial. It's also something I've heard you make reference to once in a while.



LSB-- "The analogy works to a point, but fails on closer examination. Or do you have contigency plans in place for the possible failure of faith itself?"


DH
Yes, it would be to have faith not in chariots and horsepower, but in God the maker of both. And a good mechanic as well.


LSB-- "Analogy helps me understand your personal relationships with people in terms of mine, but not your spiritual one with God. That might work with another Christian, who might take his concepts of God and faith in God and believe yours are alike, whether or not they actually are."

DH
To some extent. I would think, though, that the complexity of human relationships demanding the employment of faith would easily translate into the divine demand for faith in a relationship with God. I don't see a huge disconnect there.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, March, 30, 2008 6:55 PM dullhammer writes:

lonestarblues-- (3)

LSB-- "Sorry, doesn't make much sense. One, it's the person who must make the leap. You metaphored hope into an entity unto itself, and it's not. Two, you've interchanged faith and hope and intermixed their meanings."


DH
You are correct in pointing out some inconsistencies in my wording on faith and hope. I'm not going to correct them right here, but I'll note them and try to improve on the matter in the future.


LSB-- "If it [hope] were natural, a part of man's nature, we'd all do it--there'd really be no point."


DH
As for something being natural, a part of man's nature, being something we'd all do-- I don't follow that assumption. Human nature is to love one's parents. Not everyone does though. It is human nature to communicate through language. And most do. But it would have been possible for Helen Keller to have never met with Anne Sullivan and never discover "water".

Regarding hope, though, I think it would be something already within us as a part of our being made in the image of God. But still something which needs to be uncovered (or buried further depending on one's reaction to God's overtures).

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, March, 30, 2008 6:57 PM dullhammer writes:

lonestarblues-- (4)

LSB-- "Marriage is a good analogy. But again it is just that, an analogy. I can relate my marriage to yours and understand your relationship there, but the same just doesn't apply with God, God, faith, relationships with God, and so on, involve something more, something for which nothing in the experience or knowledge of man do we have anything with which to form an analogy."


DH
I disagree. Marriage itself, I believe, is actually an analogy from God himself. A person who experiences marriage does not only have the ability to relate to yet another person who also experiences marriage, but a person who experiences marriage has an experience which gives some analogous ground for relating to God. In this case it is in the area of faith's important role in actually creating a relationship of marriage and also in benefiting of its fruits before the whole thing is proven in a lifetime of reality. As discussed previously.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, March, 30, 2008 7:01 PM dullhammer writes:

lonestarblues-- (4.1)

It's also unfair to restrict analogy to only parallel experiences such as marriage to marriage or car to car and bee to bee. You are not able to relate to my analogy of marriage because we are both married. You are able to relate to it because we are both human. And humans have the capacity to relate beyond their own limited personal experience through the wonder of words. I am not married. Never have been. But there is much about marriage I do understand (much I don't too.) You do not have a relationship with God. But there is much you can understand about such a thing, despite your protestations to the contrary. And you do have the capacity for a relationship with God through Jesus Christ. Not because you are smart or good or loving or whatever, but more fundamentally because you are human. And because Jesus is God's Word in human flesh.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, March, 30, 2008 7:02 PM dullhammer writes:

lonestarblues-- (5)

LSB-- "Where even are the words of God? And, no, the Bible is man's words, however inspired you may believe them to be."


DH
This is a rather important area of discussion. I can understand your appeal and to your immediate attempt at overruling my option of saying the Bible is the word of God. I understand that. But it's a bit like asking "where are the words of dullhammer . . . and no, the postings at TH are the property of TH; they do not belong to dullhammer." It is not an either-or situation in either case.

Don't get me wrong. I would not expect you to accept the Bible as the inspired word of God in order to get anywhere with taking God's word to heart. That's not how I started in my own life, so why should I expect it of you or anyone else?

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, March, 30, 2008 7:03 PM dullhammer writes:

lonestarblues-- (5.1)

Consider this though: to some extent words have a certain AUTHORity in their own right. Again TH provides an example. Here we operate anonymously with pseudonyms of various sorts. Besides names like "TheLeftIsEvil" (who I respect, btw, as a Vikings fan, but she does give us a head start with her name), our words start out in a personal vacuum of identity. And yet they still can work. And they actually end up over time giving our pseudonym a sense of identity-- for better or worse. In this regard TH is something of a world where the inhabitants all exist exclusively via their words and only their words. Incarnate every one.

If you want to find the words of God I would direct you, not necessarily to the whole Bible to start, but simply, the printed record of Jesus as a "posting" with a Name which could be that of God. The words themselves, I believe, can hold their own in communicating to you that behind those words is the reality of a Person who's identity is nothing less than that of God himself. You don't even have to fully believe it either. You might read and find yourself drawn for some reason to a hope that it be true. That alone would be tremendous progress. For such a hope would give God something to follow up. If the words of the Gospel are true, then there is a living Lord behind them who can and will respond to a reader who's heart welcomes even a mustard seed of the truth.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, March, 30, 2008 7:03 PM dullhammer writes:

lonestarblues-- Epilogue

Finishing up on Monday sounds good. It's especially good to be clear about ending. I like that; it makes it better for when things have a chance to start up again later. My intention will be to give you the last word on Monday. Or if I do post, I will try to be brief.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, March, 30, 2008 7:10 PM dullhammer writes:

LNC

If you bring your discussion with LSB here please feel welcome and at home. I have been following your discussion over at Normans with interest. I have always liked the intense way you and LSB challenge one another. I myself will be in Maine from Tuesday to Tuesday. It's possible I could still interact, but not necessary for you two to carry on here as you wish. And I will be reading for sure.

DH
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 31, 2008 7:53 AM lonestarblues writes:

DH

"The analogy of marriage shows why it can be said one must have faith in order to have a saving relationship with Jesus Christ. One must have faith in order to have marriage. One must have faith in order to have a relationship with God through Jesus Christ."

That does not elaborate but only repeats an analogy already responded to. Again, the analogy works to help one understand another's human relationship because we're mapping knowns to knowns, that's how analogy works. But you're trying to map knowns, personal relationship, to unknowns, spiritual relationship, and it doesn't work to define what you mean by faith in God. Another analogy should show why: My faith in my car being a good car is not the same as my faith in my wife being a good wife. To say it does demeans my relationship with my wife. The same is true of faith in God. It means something more, doesn't it?

"The "achievement of faith," as you put it, would be a matter of one's living faithfully such as in a marriage, according to that which has already been established by faith."

Now you're back to faith leading to faith except you've added faith is also the starting point. Also, remember, faith does not establish truth.

"...willful commitment...."

Not saying you intend it but that could be read as Nietzsche's will to power.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 31, 2008 7:53 AM lonestarblues writes:

DH

me "The analogy works to a point, but fails on closer examination. Or do you have contigency plans in place for the possible failure of faith itself?"

you "Yes, it would be to have faith not in chariots and horsepower, but in God the maker of both. And a good mechanic as well."

The intent of my question was, do you have similar contingency plans should faith in God fail?



"I don't see a huge disconnect there."

The strength of a good analogy rests not only on the similarity of two concepts being compared but also on their differences. Yes, I understand the similarities, but what are the differences? I venture to say they cannot be explained. These analogies are not good to explain faith in God.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 31, 2008 7:54 AM lonestarblues writes:

DH

"As for something being natural, a part of man's nature, being something we'd all do-- I don't follow that assumption. Human nature is to love one's parents. Not everyone does though. It is human nature to communicate through language. And most do. But it would have been possible for Helen Keller to have never met with Anne Sullivan and never discover 'water'."

You have a point there (see also my citations on elephant and bird nature in Adam's thread), but only if lacking hope/faith in God were the exception. Faith in the Christian God is relatively new in man's evolutionary history and shared only by a portion of the population that has existed in that time. Here faith is the exception, not the rule.

"Regarding hope, though, I think it would be something already within us as a part of our being made in the image of God."

You're counting on your anlogies to carry more weight than they can. Hope in my marriage is similar to but not the same as hope in salvation.



"Marriage itself, I believe, is actually an analogy from God himself."

See above. What are the differences? Being in God's image, likeness, implies differences.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 31, 2008 7:54 AM lonestarblues writes:

DH

"It's also unfair to restrict analogy to only parallel experiences such as marriage to marriage or car to car and bee to bee."

It is not I but language itself that limits. It's just the way language works. I don't control that, no one controls language--it is not designed, but emerges spontaneously from how people use it.

You can stretch analogy, but eventually it reaches a breaking point and snaps like a rubber band. It's good for insight, but you need then to go back and trace your steps in a reasonable argument if you want others to reach the same conceptual place.

"But there is much about marriage I do understand (much I don't too.)"

Bingo! Except the differences are not parenthetical, they're the whole point. You've reached the breaking point, you can;t stretch it further.

"You do not have a relationship with God. But there is much you can understand about such a thing, despite your protestations to the contrary."

I have said I understand the similarities, what I don't understadn are the differences.

Definition itself requires similarities and differences. Similarities allow you to categorize, differences analize uniqueness. A relationship with a human and a relationship with God are both relationships, but what makes them unique are one is human, or natural, and the other supernatural. It's the supernatural I don't understand, the supernatural that has no meaning. There is no analogy for the unique aspect of a relationship with God.

"And because Jesus is God's Word in human flesh."

In previous discussions I have said I have no problem with Jesus having historically existed as man. It's His belief in being also God that I don't understand, has no meaning since I can formulate no reasonable concept of what God could be. Again, I understand Jesus as human based on similarities, but He was also God, which is different, and the differences I don't understand.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 31, 2008 7:54 AM lonestarblues writes:

DH

"But it's a bit like asking 'where are the words of dullhammer . . . and no, the postings at TH are the property of TH; they do not belong to dullhammer.'"

That's actually true. Except I would go further and say the words and opinions and ideas are public property. I doubt TH would lay claim to them for fear of lawsuits. These matters will eventually be settled in the courts.

And again, you're looking at words (hearsay) and I'm looking at ideas (beliefs). What's important is not the words--I could say I am God but the words and my saying it's so don't make it so--but the fact that words express opinions, ideas, beliefs which need to be examined to determine their truth value. That cannot be done through faith, but by reason alone.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 31, 2008 7:54 AM lonestarblues writes:

DH

"Consider this though: to some extent words have a certain AUTHORity in their own right."

Yes, words have meaning, they have consequences. But it holds true only for those who are honest, intellectually and personally. If you believe everything you hear on the Internet you're in for a big shock someday. Believe me the aninimity of the Internet is it's weakest point. Same holds for the "real" world.

"If you want to find the words of God I would direct you, not necessarily to the whole Bible to start, but simply, the printed record of Jesus as a "posting" with a Name which could be that of God."

Jefferson already did that. My thoughts are similar to his in his letter to his nephe comparing Jesus with Socrates.

"The words themselves, I believe, can hold their own in communicating to you that behind those words is the reality of a Person who's identity is nothing less than that of God himself."

His basic message was the golden rule. I accept that as has every cicilization since the dawn of history. There's a lot of good in what He said. There's a bumper sticker, though, that reads, Jesus, Save me From Your Followers! No insult intended in mentioning that, some followers are good, some not. We see that everyday on TH.

"If the words of the Gospel are true, then there is a living Lord behind them who can and will respond to a reader who's heart welcomes even a mustard seed of the truth."

But that same truth, if universal, absolute, should be found everywhere. It shouldn't matter of you read Jesus or Socrates, the Bible or the book of nature. If Christianity wasn't such an exclusive club it would be better. I don't think Jesus intended it to be. From my reading of history, it wasn't until you read Roger Williams that man remembered liberty of conscience extends even to atheists, fortunately that's the sort of freedom this nation was founded on.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 31, 2008 7:56 AM lonestarblues writes:

DH

Just remembered, Saturday a book on Edmund Burke on Natural Law came in and yesterday read the intro. In it the prof says explicitly "if we read what Plato has Socrates say". Had to chuckle at that.



Setting discussion limits is something I've learned is effective. Gives you time to stretch and gather thoughts.

Willing to extend it if western bondbeam joins in of course. LNC too.


Hi ho hi ho, it's off to work I go....
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 31, 2008 8:40 AM western bondbeam writes:

lonestarblues/dullhammer

Looks like all have been busy. It is a lot to grasp on a Monday morning however I thought I would start with a comment from lonestar.

"To me reason also includes what we all do everyday thinking things out, learning concepts, discovering ideas, communicating opinions, in short common sense, what we do mentally, cognitively to establish the truth of things."
--------------------

Using reason as lonestar describes it, I can pose the following question and concluding answers. Does God exist?

In answering we have two choices. Yes, He exists, and no, he does not. For myself, one is reasonable, the other is not. Lets pick "no" first.

No, he does not exist. God does not exist so what then are the odds of life developing into what we have today as a natural part of the physical natural world? Very large. So large in fact it seems very unreasonable (again to myself) that this could happen. How is it reasonable that we have defied such odds that we exist? There are so many "ducks" that would have had to line up "in a row" perfectly that it simply can't be comprehended except somehwere beyond the impossible (if that is possible). Now we can still believe this has happened, but is it reasonable? (Again speaking for myself, I say no it is not reasonable to choose this route).

Continued....

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 31, 2008 9:03 AM western bondbeam writes:

lonestarblues/dullhammer

Now we move on to "Yes" God exists.

Now if God does exist, what then are the odds of life developing into what we have today as a part of God's plan? Reason says, very small. Common sense says that if God exists, then there is a 1 out of 1 chance He started this whole thing.

Back to lonestar's original comment regarding reason. This is of course MY reasoning behind the existance of God vs Nature (or man). With my limited brain and passive/lazy nature, it is much easier for myself just to say God did it. I can't get my head to comprehend the volume of "things going the right way" for me to reasonably conclude that it all happened by random chance.

I think with the discussion that has happened here so far, one thing we can all agree on is that faith and reason do not fit into a one size fits all container. These terms are fluid and have different meanings for each of us.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 31, 2008 10:02 AM western bondbeam writes:

lonestarblues/dullhammer

Now of course we bring up an obvious third answer.

Does God exist? Yes.....No......MAYBE.

The "maybe" answer does imply a yes or no answer at some point but for many, the "Maybe" or more common "I don't know" answer is where a lot of people are at. Doubt is a "reasonable" response because we have all experienced doubt and this I can relate to. This I understand so I can comprehend this answer to the point that "Doubt" itself is always reasonable, even if the reasons behind the "doubt" are not.

Is it "reasonable" to doubt your car starting if it started yesterday and the day before? NO it would not be reasonable to doubt the car from staring. Is it reasonable to doubt the sun will come up tommorrow?...No.

Is it reasonable to doubt the existence of God?....Yes. It is reasonable because of the UNKNOWN. That which we do not understand or know, causes doubt. This is reasonable and an understandable position.

Our inability to "trust" others is what causes doubt. As our society advances and trust gets removed from relationships..."doubt" will always take it's place. What causes trust to be removed? Lying.

This again is just MY reasonable response to why the "MAYBE" answer holds so much of the world's population. The problem with the MAYBE answer is that none of the MAYBE people are content. They want PROOF for one or the other so they can pick sides.

Choosing one side or the other always takes faith....staying on the fence takes no faith.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 31, 2008 10:04 AM western bondbeam writes:

lonestarblues/dullhammer

Now of course we bring up an obvious third answer.

Does God exist? Yes.....No......MAYBE.

The "maybe" answer does imply a yes or no answer at some point but for many, the "Maybe" or more common "I don't know" answer is where a lot of people are at. Doubt is a "reasonable" response because we have all experienced doubt and this I can relate to. This I understand so I can comprehend this answer to the point that "Doubt" itself is always reasonable, even if the reasons behind the "doubt" are not.

Is it "reasonable" to doubt your car starting if it started yesterday and the day before? NO it would not be reasonable to doubt the car from staring. Is it reasonable to doubt the sun will come up tommorrow?...No.

Is it reasonable to doubt the existence of God?....Yes. It is reasonable because of the UNKNOWN. That which we do not understand or know, causes doubt. This is reasonable and an understandable position.

Our inability to "trust" others is what causes doubt. As our society advances and trust gets removed from relationships..."doubt" will always take it's place. What causes trust to be removed? Lying.

This again is just MY reasonable response to why the "MAYBE" answer holds so much of the world's population. The problem with the MAYBE answer is that none of the MAYBE people are content. They want PROOF for one or the other so they can pick sides.

Choosing one side or the other always takes faith....staying on the fence takes no faith.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 31, 2008 11:06 AM western bondbeam writes:

lonestarblues

The next question would then be....if there is a God...WHICH GOD?
-------------
LSB-"His basic message was the golden rule. I accept that as has every cicilization since the dawn of history. There's a lot of good in what He said. There's a bumper sticker, though, that reads, Jesus, Save me From Your Followers! No insult intended in mentioning that, some followers are good, some not. We see that everyday on TH."
--------------

This is without a doubt an issue for Christians. My father to this day still complains that Christians are good on Sunday, but will cheat you on Monday. He is not a Christian.This is a very reasonable response in which all Christians do face at some point. We are expected to live a higher standard and when we fail, the world is waiting to pounce(with good reason no matter how misunderstood).

The misunderstanding, I explain like this. When the people asked Jesus what must be done for eternal life, Jesus quoted the golden rule to prove a point. His point being that NOBODY can reach the golden rule standard and thus we NEED somebody who CAN reach this standard to bridge the gap between man and God. Jesus was saying HE is the bridge...NOT the golden rule.

In other words we can't gain eternal life through good works. To do so would undo what HE accomplished at the cross.

A Christian will always try to meet that standard NOT IN ORDER TO BE SAVED but BECAUSE of their relationship with Christ. The fact that they fail at it only proves Christ's point.

Continued.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 31, 2008 11:22 AM western bondbeam writes:

lonestarblues

This statement gives Christians at least one good leg to stand on when it comes to Christianity over any other major world religion.

For the Christian, it is done. The gap has been filled for us. For everyone else, it falls on man and what they must DO IN ORDER TO GAIN ETERNAL LIFE. Using reason, one can understand the concept that there is NOTHING they can DO to gain the GRACE of an eternal God. Grace can only be GIVEN as a gift. It can not be earned. Therefore a reasonable person CAN conclude the other religions to be incorrect.

Again, these are just some of MY "reasonable" reasons for coming to the conclusion that God exists.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 31, 2008 2:27 PM western bondbeam writes:

lonestarblues/dullhammer

LSB-"Faith is what you employ when reason will take you no further and you need an answer. I don't have a reason to choose this or that, but here goes, I choose.... That may give you, lead you to the truth, but you can't know that, only believe it. And you can't argue unknowns."

--------------------
I agree and accept this definition of faith.

I have heard it argued before that proven faith is merely knowledge. Up until your car starts, you have faith it will start. After it starts....it's knowledge. No further faith required.... until you go to start it again.

If God supernaturally informed each of us alive today of His existence so that everyone believed, no further faith would be required on our part. This would simply be knowledge. Now we have children, next generation etc... and they are born without this knowledge. We of course knowing the knowledge tell our kids about it but they in turn MUST rely on faith (faith in parents/grandparents or faith in God makes no difference...mustard seed and all that) to believe it. Generation to Generation etc... until all with the actual first hand knowledge are gone and all that is left is the reliance of faith that the original knowledge was indeed true.

This then leads us to the conclusion that the idea of God came from people that had some sort of experience that was either God or Godlike to people of the past and they passed it along from generation to generation. Instead of chain of beliefs, I would call it chain of events. Events that actually took place and the details of said events get passed to children etc...until at some point they become a chain of beliefs.

LSB stated-"Religion is based on belief, mistaken or not.". I would say religion is based on events...mistaken or not.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 31, 2008 2:50 PM western bondbeam writes:

lonestarblues/dullhammer

Again there was a lot of comments to discuss so I limited my choice to the one's that helped me understand the logic/reason/faith perspectives of God and how these topics related to myself.

A couple of points I did not comment on but could have were the follwoing.
Lonestar has some intersting points about understanding likeness but not differences in analagies although I admit I didn't quite follow it completely so I wasn't sure on how to respond to it.

Dullhammer had some interesting marriage comments that I found worked well for the faith argument and can see how this does help in the understanding of a God/Jesus relationship.

It's all the time I can spend here today but will check back in if I get a free moment.

Dullhammer...I hope you enjoy your trip to Maine. I hear they do well in the Maple Syrup industry up there.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 31, 2008 9:18 PM lonestarblues writes:

western bondbeam

Great to see you comment. WHile DH and I were going to wrap up, I say keep discussion going a bit longer....

"In answering we have two choices. Yes, He exists, and no, he does not."

False dichotomy from the start. Showing one to be false does not show the other to be true.

Besides, existence is not an attribute, God exists is not an assertion the way God is God is, or God is not Great is. Until God is defined in some way what are you asserting the truth of?

And thus I stand between the horns of your dilemma say I don't know God to answer the question.


"God does not exist so what then are the odds of life developing into what we have today as a natural part of the physical natural world?"

Miniscule, and yet because we are talking probabilities, the possibility, however small, exists. Here we are after all, this we know.

"Now we can still believe this has happened, but is it reasonable?"

Yes, by the laws of nature it is reasonable. It is not random or accidental at all.

"Now if God does exist, what then are the odds of life developing into what we have today as a part of God's plan? Reason says, very small."

Nay, reason says the probability would be very large, if God exists as creator. But how do we escape the hypothetical? Reason cannot while faith can.

"I can't get my head to comprehend the volume of "things going the right way" for me to reasonably conclude that it all happened by random chance."

But it's not random chance, it's happened according to the laws of nature--physics, chemistry, biology, etc. What would be random, accidental chance would be God creating the universe.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 31, 2008 9:19 PM lonestarblues writes:

western bondbeam

"I think with the discussion that has happened here so far, one thing we can all agree on is that faith and reason do not fit into a one size fits all container. These terms are fluid and have different meanings for each of us."

Sure, meaning is dependent on people's usage, no one designed language, no one controls it. Dictionaries simply try to capture and describe in a place and time.



"The 'maybe' answer does imply a yes or no answer at some point but for many, the 'Maybe' or more common 'I don't know' answer is where a lot of people are at. Doubt is a 'reasonable' response because we have all experienced doubt and this I can relate to. This I understand so I can comprehend this answer to the point that 'Doubt' itself is always reasonable, even if the reasons behind the 'doubt' are not."

I should have read ahead for this is the third answer I suggest as a possibility. However, while maybe seems to be doubt, I'm not to sure I don't know is a form of doubt, not if you really just don't know, in this case, God. Was that pitch a ball or strike? I don't know, I was watching Joe stealing second.

"Yes. It is reasonable because of the UNKNOWN. That which we do not understand or know, causes doubt. This is reasonable and an understandable position."

Yes, what I'm getting at. Note, too, that this implies one limitation of reason, it can deal with only the known, whittling away at the unknown, one known at a time, perhaps, but always faced with the unknown. That's where faith comes in, I think.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 31, 2008 9:20 PM lonestarblues writes:

western bondbeam

This limitation of reason is even greater than it first seems, for every question answered raises more questions, every truth discovered reveals more unknowns. This I call the paradox of reason. It is commonly know in science.

The other limitation of course is man is flawed, fallible, corrupt, he cannot reason perfectly. This, though, he overcomes if he grounds reasoning in man's nature and is guided by his traditions, institutions, and so on.

Sorry, sort of wandered...

"Our inability to "trust" others is what causes doubt. As our society advances and trust gets removed from relationships..."doubt" will always take it's place. What causes trust to be removed? Lying."

Lying undermines everything that is or could be good among people. I wonder, is it possible to distrust each individual, for man is flawed and corrupt, but to trust the traditions and institutions of society? I think so.

"Choosing one side or the other always takes faith....staying on the fence takes no faith."

Yes, agreed. But staying on the fence is ultimately reasonable. For faith cannot establish truth and you cannot reason about unknowns.

Minor point, but I would argue both sides of the fence, both answers, God exists, God does not, are one and the same answer in faith. This, I think is the basis of St Anselm's ontological argument, denying God's existence admits it, and most who deny God seems to hate him for some reason.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 31, 2008 9:20 PM lonestarblues writes:

western bondbeam

"My father to this day still complains that Christians are good on Sunday, but will cheat you on Monday."

Because some Christians seems to believe you can do anything and just ask for forgiveness and be saved. I will agree if you say they are not true Christians.

'In other words we can't gain eternal life through good works. To do so would undo what HE accomplished at the cross."

Don't want to get into the faith v works argument, it's not mine to argue, but in two sense the golden rule is itself important. One, what is moral or not has to do with our choices and action towards each other, so it is a good, universal, absolute moral. Two, how else in this world can you express faith if not by works, that is, your moral choices and actions? To me, faith is what saves attends to ends but ignore means. Means must be as moral as the ends. Faith should be lived. Moral works without faith, I understand, will not save.

"A Christian will always try to meet that standard NOT IN ORDER TO BE SAVED but BECAUSE of their relationship with Christ."

But shouldn't it also be because it is the right thing to do, the moral thing to do, regardless of ends, of salvation?

"For the Christian, it is done. The gap has been filled for us. For everyone else, it falls on man and what they must DO IN ORDER TO GAIN ETERNAL LIFE. Using reason, one can understand the concept that there is NOTHING they can DO to gain the GRACE of an eternal God. Grace can only be GIVEN as a gift. It can not be earned. Therefore a reasonable person CAN conclude the other religions to be incorrect."

Resonable as that may be it is grounded in faith, which cannot establish truth. You believe these things to be true, but so does every believer of every faith, and upon that foundation of faith they can be just as reasonable, those faiths, that is, that have stood the test of time, for in that time they have been ever tested.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 31, 2008 9:21 PM lonestarblues writes:

western bondbeam

"I agree and accept this definition of faith."

Good. When I speak of reason and faith I do not intend to elevate one and denigrate the other. Faith, as I explained about, has limitations.

"I have heard it argued before that proven faith is merely knowledge. Up until your car starts, you have faith it will start. After it starts....it's knowledge. No further faith required.... until you go to start it again.

"If God supernaturally informed each of us alive today of His existence so that everyone believed, no further faith would be required on our part. This would simply be knowledge...."

Exactly. A while ago D'Souza debated Dennett and during the debate he argued just this distinction. I have a brother in law, he said, I know him, I know he exists, I have no need for faith in him, but God I do not and cannot know, and must therefore have faith in Him.

"I would call it chain of events. Events that actually took place and the details of said events get passed to children etc...until at some point they become a chain of beliefs."

OK, but also a chain of beliefs that the original event has something to do with God let alone which God if not a god or just something unknown that needed explanation to bring and keep the group together to continue on generation after generation.

IOW, as you say, "I would say religion is based on events...mistaken or not."

Does it matter if mistaken or not when as such it has proven value?

What we are talking about is the reason I respect the faith of others. It takes strength of faith to talk about these things openly, and I admire that strength. I'm glad you jumped in.


Here's a question for you that many of faith seems to see as problematic, as untrue, as misunderstanding faith: Is it not true that you put faith in faith? Jesus' message you see as if you put faith in Him you will be saved, so do you not put faith in that?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 31, 2008 11:55 PM dullhammer writes:

lonestarblues and western bondbeam

Sorry to end even more abruptly than anticipated.

Tune in again for these and other questions:

What are analogies like?

Are all dissimilarities the same?

And you'll also hear Jesus say, "I tell you the truth, before Socrates was born, I am!" At which point the crowd picks up a lot of hemlock to throw at him. (see John 8:58f)

-----
LSB, you certainly get me to thinking. I do hope it works both ways.

WB, you have a way of summarizing that is greater than the parts of the whole. Keep it up. And yes, it is "sugaring season". Lots of maple syrup being boiled right now.




EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 01, 2008 6:19 AM lonestarblues writes:

DH & wb

"And you'll also hear Jesus say, "I tell you the truth, before Socrates was born, I am!" At which point the crowd picks up a lot of hemlock to throw at him. (see John 8:58f)"

I'm reading an interesting book by a Jewish scholar explaining why most Jews would have done just that. Been reading a number of Jewish scholars lately. Sheds a whole new light on Christianity.

"LSB, you certainly get me to thinking. I do hope it works both ways."

Certainly.


wb, I'll check in later if you'd like to continue.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 01, 2008 2:52 PM western bondbeam writes:

lonestarblues

I'll give it another round...time permitting.

LSB ” False dichotomy from the start. Showing one to be false does not show the other to be true.

Besides, existence is not an attribute, God exists is not an assertion the way God is God is, or God is not Great is. Until God is defined in some way what are you asserting the truth of?

And thus I stand between the horns of your dilemma say I don't know God to answer the question.”

-----------------------------------------

I understand what you mean here. Sorry if I oversimplified the question. It was not intended as a trap so to speak but merely a starting point, leading to some of my actual reasoning that forced me to question the reality of God (as described in the OT and NT). In other words, when I faced this question for myself…these are some (actually just the tip of the iceberg) of the things that led me (in faith) to step off the fence.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 01, 2008 2:56 PM western bondbeam writes:

lonestarblues

LSB “Yes, by the laws of nature it is reasonable. It is not random or accidental at all.”

-------------
My reasoning tells me otherwise (and this is where reason has limits as you pointed out earlier). Your reasoning tells you one thing, where my reasoning tells me the opposite. I can understand your point that we somehow beat the statistical odds of existing “Here we are after all”, I just conclude that God did it.

Just as a side note, when I was posting the points about odds etc..when I say the “odds of life developing…very small” I was talking about the number ratio 1 to 1 vs 1 to 1,000,000,000 add several million zeros. The first being a small number, the second being a large. After your response, I realized that my original posts seem confusing as to what I mean by large vs small number. I know what I meant when I was thinking about it, but somewhere between my brain and the keyboard it came out looking backwards. I apologize for the confusion here .

LSB-“Nay, reason says the probability would be very large, if God exists as creator.”
----------
This is what I meant of course. Odds are 1 to 1 as Creator, in my head I see this as a small number so that is why I put it down that way in my post. My fault and thank you for the grace here. Had this been in a more public thread…the trolls would have had me for lunch. Maybe another point for the blog forum.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 01, 2008 3:02 PM western bondbeam writes:

lonestarblues. #3

LSB“ But how do we escape the hypothetical? Reason cannot while faith can.”

LSB “But it's not random chance, it's happened according to the laws of nature--physics, chemistry, biology, etc. What would be random, accidental chance would be God creating the universe.”
---------------------
I am not denying any laws of nature, physics chemistry etc…and things happening according to these laws. What I have trouble wrapping my head around is that these things could have happened despite the odds. The complexity of it is too great for there NOT to be a God who put the whole thing in motion. I realize this is the ID argument but that is where my reason leads me.

In terms of stepping off the fence, yes it takes faith. Reason just tells me which way to lean, using the already confusing statistical odds that I previously stated. Our reasoning just gives us different conclusions is all.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 01, 2008 3:08 PM western bondbeam writes:

lonestarblues #4

LSB” I don't know is a form of doubt, not if you really just don't know, in this case, God. Was that pitch a ball or strike? I don't know, I was watching Joe stealing second.”
----------------
This statement just slapped me upside the head. Very profound and I am glad you brought this up. Let me explain a little deeper. The world (or Joe in your analogy) is very good at distracting us from knowing God (pitch: ball or strike). While I don’t expect you to take scripture as God’s word the way I do…scripture tells me that that the world will distract us from seeing God. This statement reinforces my own need to try harder at keeping my eye on the ball so to speak as it is so easy to get distracted. One could argue that God spoke to me through you but I won’t venture there as we could get into the whole he said they said God said scenario thing again.



LSB”Yes, what I'm getting at. Note, too, that this implies one limitation of reason, it can deal with only the known, whittling away at the unknown, one known at a time, perhaps, but always faced with the unknown. That's where faith comes in, I think…

Sorry, sort of wandered...”
--------------
I can be the king of wandering (or spider-webbing as my wife likes to do a lot).All good points though. Reason does have limits and yes faith at some point must become the vehicle if you are going to drive on one side of the fence or the other.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 01, 2008 3:16 PM western bondbeam writes:

lonestarblues #5? Did I lose track yet?

LSB“Lying undermines everything that is or could be good among people. I wonder, is it possible to distrust each individual, for man is flawed and corrupt, but to trust the traditions and institutions of society? I think so.”
---------------
I like this statement because of the expressed hope and faith in it. For myself this really brings home the importance of keeping the eye on the ball. Traditions fade, not because the stories/memorials/traditions don’t exist, but because the world distracts us from repeating them to the next generation.


LSB” But staying on the fence is ultimately reasonable. For faith cannot establish truth and you cannot reason about unknowns.”

“Minor point, but I would argue both sides of the fence, both answers, God exists, God does not, are one and the same answer in faith. This, I think is the basis of St Anselm's ontological argument, denying God's existence admits it, and most who deny God seems to hate him for some reason.”
-------------------
I concede my knowledge and understanding of St Anselm is limited to what you just wrote so will leave it with this. This reminds me of a scripture from Revelations I believe, where Jesus said something about spitting out the lukewarm water. Give him hot or cold, but nothing in between. This lends weight to St Anselm’s argument from what I can tell by your statement however does not lend well for staying on the fence. May have misrepresented here with the cherry picked scripture but still makes one think.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 01, 2008 3:24 PM western bondbeam writes:

lonestarblues #6

LSB-“Don't want to get into the faith v works argument, it's not mine to argue”
-------------------
Agreed. I was just talking out my thought process for Christ over Mohammed etc and your original statement could lend some weight to the works crowd so this seemed like a good place to start.


LSB” But shouldn't it also be because it is the right thing to do, the moral thing to do, regardless of ends, of salvation?”
-----------
Yes and again my oversimplification shows. My fault here. Our motivation is not for salvation…that is already taken care of through Christ. Our motivation is to honor God (again speaking for the Christian) by obeying His moral standard. Why do we want to honor God?...because of our relationship with Jesus. The flip side is that many feel duty to God. IMO this is the wrong side of the coin. Duty implies that we owe God our lives so we feel a duty to repay Him for that debt. Christ says we can’t pay that debt on our works. Quick analogy: Do we want our children to help us in or old age out of DUTY or HONOR. Many will do it out of duty, many will do it out of honor...the point being that our goal as parents is to raise our children to respond to us out of honor. Duty works, but honor is much better. Sorry for the spiderweb here and again I don’t want to get you into the works vs faith debate. I was just following up on the comment is all. Choose to ignore or comment either way is fine.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 01, 2008 3:37 PM western bondbeam writes:

lonestarblues #7

LSB“Reasonable as that may be it is grounded in faith, which cannot establish truth. You believe these things to be true, but so does every believer of every faith, and upon that foundation of faith they can be just as reasonable, those faiths, that is, that have stood the test of time, for in that time they have been ever tested. “
--------------------------
I concede that I bit a little too big here (again my debate inexperience shows). I guess my underlying point throughout is that for myself, reason got me to ”lean” off the fence toward Christ over the other choices, and yes the choosing part does rely heavily on faith. For many faith is all it takes to step off. For me, reason played a big part in pushing me in a direction. Without going through a whole new debate on which faith is more grounded in reason (again my fault for bringing it up to begin with), I will simply stop there.


LSB” When I speak of reason and faith I do not intend to elevate one and denigrate the other. Faith, as I explained about, has limitations.”
--------------------
Not my intention to elevate one over the other as well. I see limitations in both faith and reason that both of us have pointed out.


LSB” Exactly. A while ago D'Souza debated Dennett and during the debate he argued just this distinction. I have a brother in law, he said, I know him, I know he exists, I have no need for faith in him, but God I do not and cannot know, and must therefore have faith in Him.”
---------------
Yes, to know God takes faith, but reason can point us in His direction.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 01, 2008 3:41 PM western bondbeam writes:

lonestarblues #8

LSB “OK, but also a chain of beliefs that the original event has something to do with God let alone which God if not a god or just something unknown that needed explanation to bring and keep the group together to continue on generation after generation.”
------------------------

I think I used the term God or Godlike event that caused the belief, but I might have split the hair here. At some point, faith or trust in the generation before takes over, but the original event must have been significant enough to cause one to form a reasonable opinion. I see this as faith carried, not faith based. Event occurred, reasonable conclusion to event…carried throughout history in faith. All are part of the equation.

LSB “Does it matter if mistaken or not when as such it has proven value?”
--------------
I suppose not…silver lining and all.


LSB“What we are talking about is the reason I respect the faith of others. It takes strength of faith to talk about these things openly, and I admire that strength. I'm glad you jumped in.”
--------------
Thanks. Unfortunately my inexperience in debating faith/reason can get the better of me. I am my own worse enemy it would seem. LOL. I do appreciate your openness as well.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 01, 2008 3:49 PM western bondbeam writes:

lonestarblues...final of series.

LSB-“Here's a question for you that many of faith seems to see as problematic, as untrue, as misunderstanding faith: Is it not true that you put faith in faith? Jesus' message you see as if you put faith in Him you will be saved, so do you not put faith in that? “
-----------
Isn’t faith in faith that eventually leads one to God, ultimately a faith in God...faith merely playing the role of the vehicle, not the driver or destination. If a person has faith in Jesus, then Jesus is the root of that faith and not faith itself. To quote another baseball (or sports analogy) there has to be follow through on the swing. After ball meets bat or club….following through on the swing is just as important. Follow the message through completely and you end up as Jesus as the root. To answer your question then I guess would be Yes faith in faith is what it is, but again I don’t see this as an issue because faith and trust are merely a means to the end.

Thanks for the responses. In essence I do see and understand most of your points. To save time if you wish to summarize a response, I would be okay with that. I find myself now getting to the repeating phase of debate and am sure you feel the same. Feel free to pick and choose though if you find any specifics objectionable. Will check back soon.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 01, 2008 4:58 PM western bondbeam writes:

lonestarblues

I won't have time to check until Thursday I think, (guessing here) so if there is no response tommorrow, allowing some patience may be in order. Probably a negative against the blog forum but sometimes can't be helped.

Will check back though as time permits.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 01, 2008 7:30 PM lonestarblues writes:

western bondbeam

"Your reasoning tells you one thing, where my reasoning tells me the opposite."

But right reasoning leads to one answer. Not only have we beat the odds, so to speak, the odds were computed on a false premise, namely, that the process is completely random and accidental, when it is not. The process, which after all is natural, must follow the laws of nature--physics, chemistry, biology, and so on. A monkey typing Hamlet is highly improbable, but with an editor rejecting what doesn't work and accepting what does, much more probable.

"Odds are 1 to 1 as Creator"

Say God created the laws of nature that made development of life possible. Certainly the probability of success would be higher than a random, accidental process. If the laws of nature are truly universal and absolute, then you can take away God from the equation and you have the same laws of nature, and the much higher probability of life being created. They laws of nature are what they are, we know this, and we know they are not random or accidental.

"Had this been in a more public thread…the trolls would have had me for lunch."

I'm not hear to win an argument, just exchange ideas. I can think of other blogs where the purpose is winning arguments, by any means, at any cost. It's not the blog or forum but the people talking. You learn to block out the noise for the signal after a while.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 01, 2008 7:31 PM lonestarblues writes:

western bondbeam

"I am not denying any laws of nature, physics chemistry etc…and things happening according to these laws. What I have trouble wrapping my head around is that these things could have happened despite the odds. The complexity of it is too great for there NOT to be a God who put the whole thing in motion. I realize this is the ID argument but that is where my reason leads me."

But the great odds exist only for a completely random and accidental process. Anything is then possible, and the odds of any one thing are infinitesimal. The laws of nature, however, limit the possibilities.

If you talking about the Drake Equation it's really just an order of magnitude SWAG. I've heard it predicts, depending values assigned to variables, anywhere from 10 to 10000 other planets with life just in our galaxy. Once you put it in context of the vastness of the universe, your numbers become small.

If you want to play with it there's an interactive version here @ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/drake.html
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 01, 2008 7:31 PM lonestarblues writes:

western bondbeam

"Reason just tells me which way to lean, using the already confusing statistical odds that I previously stated."

Does it now? Then let's take the numbers a little further and consider additional implications. If that low a probability results in from 10 to 10000 instances of life, then how much lower must be the probability that that God exists? So then, following, your reasoning, we must posit some entity that created God. This thinking, however, quickly leads to an infinite regress, and first cause arguments are logically flawed to begin with.

Complexity, which the latest form of the teleological argument, is a different matter. How do you measure it? The answer Behe, Dembski and others give is really no more than a tautology: Irreducible complexity is not natural becuase it's defined as supernatural. When they come up with a way of actually measuring it in a testable way, I'll give it more serious attention.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 01, 2008 7:57 PM lonestarblues writes:

western bondbeam

"Let me explain a little deeper. The world (or Joe in your analogy) is very good at distracting us from knowing God (pitch: ball or strike). While I don’t expect you to take scripture as God’s word the way I do…scripture tells me that that the world will distract us from seeing God. This statement reinforces my own need to try harder at keeping my eye on the ball so to speak as it is so easy to get distracted."

Ah, but what if the world is truth and the Bible distraction? What if Joe is the winning run and the batter a sacrifice bunter? Your argument runs a risk that I see as the most egregious error in thinking of the creationist, that God would create a universe of distraction, or worse, deception. If there is a God then He would have to be revealed in everything, not just the supposedly inspired words of men.

"I like this statement because of the expressed hope and faith in it. For myself this really brings home the importance of keeping the eye on the ball. Traditions fade, not because the stories/memorials/traditions don’t exist, but because the world distracts us from repeating them to the next generation."

I suggest caution in how you state that, for reasons just stated. Btter, I think, to say man fools himself, deceives himself--a limitation of both reason and faith, as I'm sure you believe only one faith true.

St Anselm's argument goes something like this: Even the fool understands God is something than which nothing greater can be imagined. IOW, imaging, think of God proves He exists, and he is foolish who contradicts himself. Problem is of course the imaging, the thinking created this God. In faith St Anselm has also fooled himself.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 01, 2008 8:02 PM lonestarblues writes:

western bondbeam

"If a person has faith in Jesus, then Jesus is the root of that faith and not faith itself. "

But don't you put faith in your faith in Jesus?


I'll check in a couple, few times, but may get distracted by the world out there. ;-)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 01, 2008 11:45 PM Rich D. writes:

I'm having trouble here (1)

understanding just what faith is to either western bondbeam and lonestarblues. For example:

LSB” Exactly. A while ago D'Souza debated Dennett and during the debate he argued just this distinction. I have a brother in law, he said, I know him, I know he exists, I have no need for faith in him, but God I do not and cannot know, and must therefore have faith in Him.”
---------------
WB: Yes, to know God takes faith, but reason can point us in His direction.

I don't see the value of D'Souza's argument. What faith would be required, anyway? That his brother-in-law exists? It would never occur to me to use the word "faith" in this context. The word seems to be too over-loaded to carry the burdens placed on it, as does the word reason.

Also, LSB, I'm still uncertain as to the meaning you wish to convey with your repeated statement "Faith does not establish truth." Except for clearly artificial systems, truth to me seems quite probabilistic.

Can we be certain that truth can be established or even needs to be? One can say that we have faith in reason, or even that an infinite number of reasoners can arrive at truth, but so-called "universal" truths seem to be less than universal upon closer inspection.

I even disagree with WB's statement regarding knowing God. The infinite is unknowable - my dim glass allows me only to make certain assumptions about His nature based on numerous revelations to me and others. From that nature, I can erect enough of a foundation to be assured about my future and be comfortable enough to get through my occasional doubts.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 01, 2008 11:51 PM Rich D. writes:

I'm having trouble here (2)

Do I believe IN God? I don't entertain that question - I believe God, and have been convicted internally through multiple revelations that He will do as He promised. So, my faith is not in God, nor in faith (!?), nor even my ability to reason, but in His promise based on past performance. And, yes, it all seems eminently reasonable to me.

Could I be mistaken about the revelations? Yes. Am I? No. Fifty-plus years of seeing it all add up is enough for me. If one could see what I see, one would know what I know. What adds up is the consistency of my relationship to the world and to others in it, and the transcendent meaning.

The monkey/Hamlet illustration (which actually goes back to a Bob Newhart LP in the 50's) is interesting. LSB injects an intelligent filter to make his point, but has to postulate intelligence on the part of the editor in order to retain the dumb creator. (He ignores the time problem, but that is another matter. What strikes me is that even if a monkey did come up with the complete text of Hamlet, I venture that we would think less of it as a work of art knowing that it was purposeless and unintentional.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, April, 02, 2008 12:54 PM dullhammer writes:

Greetings from Maine

Guess I figured out how to telecommunte. But even so, I am going to try to confine myself to the peanut gallery.

More snow still here than even in New Hampshire.

Just imagine if the global village idea grows to where there's ultimately a weatherperson who says, "Well, the five day forcast shows . . . everything will be happening in the upcoming week."

On the Drake Formula. A must read book is "_Rare Earth_ Why complex life is uncommon in the universe" by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee. There's a rather lengthy look at it available by googling "Rare Earth" and then clicking on the google book link just under the music album of the same name. It is one of the first serious presentations which counters the growing assumption (Carl Sagan, et al) that life (complex life) is probably common in the universe given the vastness of both time and space. Discoveries since the 80s have not been kind to the expectations of Trekies.

The Drake Formula, though, has entries which just can not be known at the present time, or at all. So it's still just a good guesswork guide.

It is not unreasonable to consider that life as we know it on Earth could be unique in all the universe. Evidence thus far points to its being rare indeed.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 03, 2008 8:00 AM lonestarblues writes:

Rich D.

"I don't see the value of D'Souza's argument. What faith would be required, anyway? That his brother-in-law exists? It would never occur to me to use the word "faith" in this context. The word seems to be too over-loaded to carry the burdens placed on it, as does the word reason."

That's exactly the point. I see so many arguing faith in God is the same as faith in cars. It's not. One wouldn't normally speak of cars that way. This, I think, goes back to a point I repeatedly try and make. These are all useful analogies and metaphors and models, but they are not the reality they merely hint at, don't fall prey to belieivng they do.

"'Faith does not establish truth.' Except for clearly artificial systems, truth to me seems quite probabilistic."

Faith doesn't establish probabilities either.

My meaning is simple. It is by reason that we establish the truth or falsity of things, and they thereby become known, knowledge we can then discuss and argue and recombine in the process of dicovering new knowledge. Faith does deal with knowns--"What faith would be required, anyway?" It deals with beliefs, with hopes. Problem is you can argue from unknowns, you can, but it won't make sense.

"Can we be certain that truth can be established or even needs to be? One can say that we have faith in reason, or even that an infinite number of reasoners can arrive at truth, but so-called "universal" truths seem to be less than universal upon closer inspection."

See earlier discussion in the thread on the limitations of reason and man. One limit to reason is arguing from knowns. Only faith can deal with unknowns. Reason can whittle away at it--see above discussion.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 03, 2008 8:01 AM lonestarblues writes:

Rich D.

"The infinite is unknowable - my dim glass allows me only to make certain assumptions about His nature based on numerous revelations to me and others. From that nature, I can erect enough of a foundation to be assured about my future and be comfortable enough to get through my occasional doubts."

Built on assumptions believed and a foundation of faith, yes, I don't disagree, if that's what you're saying. I have no argument with that, unless you try and tell me it, the assumptions and foundation, are reasonable. You can of course build reasonable structures upon those assumptions and foundation, just as in geometry you can construct different geometries based on different assumptions about lines.

"Do I believe IN God? I don't entertain that question - I believe God, and have been convicted internally through multiple revelations that He will do as He promised. So, my faith is not in God, nor in faith (!?), nor even my ability to reason, but in His promise based on past performance. And, yes, it all seems eminently reasonable to me."

Then you could tell me about God. I would expect it to be reasonable, how else can you understand revelation but through reason? But you say is it not based on reason, and yet you say it is reasonable. Seems mysterious, paradoxical, and doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

"Could I be mistaken about the revelations? Yes. Am I? No. Fifty-plus years of seeing it all add up is enough for me. If one could see what I see, one would know what I know."

Yet another cannot. In order for that to happen, you would have to frame and formulate your faith in reason. You cannot communicate it any other way. You quickly run into the limits of human language, human reason, and human understanding.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 03, 2008 8:02 AM lonestarblues writes:

Rich D.

"LSB injects an intelligent filter to make his point, but has to postulate intelligence on the part of the editor in order to retain the dumb creator."

No, you introduce intelligence into the equation where none is needed. Same intelligence ID argues for. But all it is is human intelligence, the same human intelligence that created Hamlet. Nothing divine about that. But in the Hamlet/monkey problem, intelligence is not needed, only pattern recognition, the filtering agent need not understand a word--much the same as early scribes who copied the Bible.

"He ignores the time problem...."

The Hamlet/monkey thought experiment is usually raised to deal with just that. Arriving at this, us discussing, by random accidental processes is temporally improbable. Adding in the laws of nature reduces the improbability even temporally. The Hamlet/monkey problem might be reduced to a dozen iterations.

"What strikes me is that even if a monkey did come up with the complete text of Hamlet, I venture that we would think less of it as a work of art knowing that it was purposeless and unintentional."

Familiar with the Turing Test? Apply the same here. Put the monkey and editor behind a curtain. When he's done, the text is put in your hands to read. Tell me how you would know it was type by monkey or man?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 03, 2008 8:08 AM lonestarblues writes:

DH

"On the Drake Formula. A must read book is "_Rare Earth_ Why complex life is uncommon in the universe" by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee. There's a rather lengthy look at it available by googling "Rare Earth" and then clicking on the google book link just under the music album of the same name. It is one of the first serious presentations which counters the growing assumption (Carl Sagan, et al) that life (complex life) is probably common in the universe given the vastness of both time and space. Discoveries since the 80s have not been kind to the expectations of Trekies."

The authors also dispel the uses Creationists make of such arguments as utter nonsense.

"The Drake Formula, though, has entries which just can not be known at the present time, or at all. So it's still just a good guesswork guide."

Right, there's a paper by Drake out there somewhere where he points this out. It's just not a good argument for the improbability of life.

"It is not unreasonable to consider that life as we know it on Earth could be unique in all the universe. Evidence thus far points to its being rare indeed."

Ah, the keys words, "as we know it". Most of _Rare Earth_ is about life we have only recently come to know. Whole new branches in the taxonomic tree of life. It really is a good book.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 03, 2008 9:37 AM dullhammer writes:

LSB-- car talk

LSB-- "That's exactly the point. I see so many arguing faith in God is the same as faith in cars. It's not. One wouldn't normally speak of cars that way."

DH
I hope you don't see me as arguing that. If you do then I need to correct that. My use of the car example was to minimal/negligible similarity (even difference) to the previous definition of faith. (Read it again at Saturday, March, 29, 2008 12:01 AM) And the specific example came from conversations where I've heard you make reference to cars and faith (also for illustration of difference).

One might use the comparison of defining love and then using examples of loving a car, one's neighbor and then God. The first example is indeed a use of the word 'love', but there is a significant difference between that love and the two following examples precisely because of the objects of love involved. Those 'objects' have much to do with the character of the love itself. And the same can be said for faith.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 03, 2008 11:33 AM western bondbeam writes:

lonestarblues #1

LSB” But right reasoning leads to one answer…. the odds were computed on a false premise, namely, that the process is completely random and accidental, when it is not.”

LSB “The laws of nature are what they are, we know this, and we know they are not random or accidental.”

LSB” But the great odds exist only for a completely random and accidental process. Anything is then possible, and the odds of any one thing are infinitesimal. The laws of nature, however, limit the possibilities.
------------------

How can this be established except through faith since “computed on a false premise” is a conclusion based on incomplete laws and data. An orderly set of laws gives reasonable weight to an orderly designer where as disorderly set of laws gives weight to random process. My reason + faith points me to God as the editor for the monkey’s Hamlet. To argue natural law (on reason alone) as the editor is flawed. Faith is also needed.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 03, 2008 11:37 AM western bondbeam writes:

lonestarblues #2

LSB “So then, following, your reasoning, we must posit some entity that created God. This thinking, however, quickly leads to an infinite regress, and first cause arguments are logically flawed to begin with.”

LSB” Complexity, which the latest form of the teleological argument, is a different matter. How do you measure it? The answer Behe, Dembski and others give is really no more than a tautology: Irreducible complexity is not natural becuase it's defined as supernatural. When they come up with a way of actually measuring it in a testable way, I'll give it more serious attention. “
---------------------------
If proof is needed, then this does pose a problem for one who lacks faith. In the natural world this is an issue. “Something from nothing” is not reasonable.

However in the supernatural world the laws are not yet known. First cause of God implies that God had to be created. Scripture tells me He was not created. Something not created needs no first cause.

If though your argument is that the natural world always existed without a first cause (which seems like the most reasonable route), how do you get there without faith? It seems your cart is passing the horse here.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 03, 2008 11:40 AM western bondbeam writes:

lonestarblues #3

LSB ”Ah, but what if the world is truth and the Bible distraction? What if Joe is the winning run and the batter a sacrifice bunter? Your argument runs a risk that I see as the most egregious error in thinking of the creationist, that God would create a universe of distraction, or worse, deception. If there is a God then He would have to be revealed in everything, not just the supposedly inspired words of men.”

LSB ” I suggest caution in how you state that, for reasons just stated. Btter, I think, to say man fools himself, deceives himself--a limitation of both reason and faith, as I'm sure you believe only one faith true.
----------------
Let’s be clear. I don’t get to pick and choose who God will or won’t use for anything. He does that. My ability rests solely on the looking part. When I look, He reveals, when I don’t He does not. Am I fooling myself? Maybe but if you offer words of hope and faith and I perceive that as a good thing, the result is still the same. Remember…. Silver Lining and all. :-)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 03, 2008 11:49 AM western bondbeam writes:

lonestarblues-final in series

LSB ” St Anselm's argument goes something like this…”
-------------
Reminds me of I think, therefore I am. Interesting argument though. In the end, somebody is wrong. Would you rather be a wrong fool or a wrong non-fool (lacking a better word here)? I choose wrong fool.

LSB" But don't you put faith in your faith in Jesus?
--------------
The result of the faith is what's important. Not faith itself.


EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 03, 2008 12:09 PM western bondbeam writes:

Rick D

Rick D-“I even disagree with WB's statement regarding knowing God. The infinite is unknowable - my dim glass allows me only to make certain assumptions about His nature based on numerous revelations to me and others. From that nature, I can erect enough of a foundation to be assured about my future and be comfortable enough to get through my occasional doubts.”

-------------------
Hi Rick. I believe I was using Dsouza’s wording here in carrying the conversation through. As far as DSouzas argument, I have never actually heard him argue, or read any of his stuff except the occasional article on TH, so hard to make a full judgment there. I was merely responding to LSB as he brought up DSouza, not me.

Knowing God, Believing IN God, Believing God, God is, God exists etc…are generally the same thing to me, but do see your point in regards to not knowing the infinite. I can only imagine (Back to Anselm again) but even that which I can imagine is still lacking.

My running theme if you will is that reason and faith are both part of the God equation. Side note… my original statement on this thread had the phrase “tip of the iceberg” ….meaning there is much more to the equation as well but for this thread I have been trying to keep the context directed just at those two terms.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 03, 2008 1:19 PM lonestarblues writes:

DH

"I hope you don't see me as arguing that. If you do then I need to correct that. My use of the car example was to minimal/negligible similarity (even difference) to the previous definition of faith."

No, I understand your intent. And we have discussed the limits of analogy. But many others do--same as many secularists believe in the model behing the theory of evolution, they fall prey to believing analogies and metaphors and models are the real things they refer to.

"One might use the comparison of defining love and...."

Sure, analogy is useful. Most language is metaphoric to some extent. And it affects our outlook, our worldviews to some extent. From life is a game to game theory these are useful analogies to providing insights into certain aspects of life, but begin to believe it and play life like that and you're headed for trouble.

But, no, I understand you are using these analogies to explain something else, and that's fine.

Sorry for any misunderstanding!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 03, 2008 1:58 PM lonestarblues writes:

WB

"How can this be established except through faith since “computed on a false premise” is a conclusion based on incomplete laws and data."

It stands to reason is why, reason which is a part of our nature, and if, as you believe, God created it, we ought to use it.

But let's look at the numbers. Let's try another thought experiment. Jigsaw puzzles. A completely random, accidental puzzle--one a full entropy--would be one in which the picture side of every piece was identical, a black cat at midnight eating licorice. That would take forever and a day to piece together. But change the picture to one of a castle overlooking a city with great detail and this could be pieced together rather quickly. The picture is the laws of nature (physics, biology, etc). Things fit together in only limited patterns. --And, Rich, none of this requires intelligence. You don't need to have the boxtop picture, matching simple patterns and colors would be sufficient.

Adding laws reduces complexity, improbability, time, effort, etc.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 03, 2008 2:16 PM lonestarblues writes:

WB

"If proof is needed, then this does pose a problem for one who lacks faith. In the natural world this is an issue. “Something from nothing” is not reasonable."

Exactly. Sometimes I marvel at the lengths some go to prove their faith. It's not necessary. --This is different than trying to explain faith, there you do the best you can, and your success or failure does say anything about faith, just the ability to express it.

I don't see anyone here in this blog trying to prove their faith, just discussing it, explaining it.

"However in the supernatural world the laws are not yet known. First cause of God implies that God had to be created. Scripture tells me He was not created. Something not created needs no first cause."

But how would you know these things when they make no sense in this world and in fact violates the laws of nature? Scripture was written by men.

"If though your argument is that the natural world always existed without a first cause (which seems like the most reasonable route), how do you get there without faith? It seems your cart is passing the horse here."

First law of thermodynamics. This is accepted because evidence shows it true. It's not a matter of faith.

Go to go...

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 03, 2008 2:33 PM western bondbeam writes:

dullhammer-car talk.

Good show on NPR. (about the only one too)

Peanut Gallery? No benchwarmers here. Of course being in Maine I am certain you probably have better things to attend to.

The car/faith thing is not a big of an issue with me though. Maybe just my perspective. Jesus said Love is the most important so faith takes a back seat to Love even. Then there was the mustard seed comment. Little faith can still move mountains.

I would say a good alternative to the word faith is trust. Trust then can lead one back to the word lying and how detrimental lying can be to society. Lonestar and myself touched briefly on this earlier in the thread. Lying undermines trust which undermines faith.

Stay safe in the peanut gallery.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 03, 2008 6:39 PM lonestarblues writes:

WB

"I don’t get to pick and choose who God will or won’t use for anything."

But you don't know who, how or if He will use anything. You have faith you found the right answer, but don't know.

"Am I fooling myself? Maybe but if you offer words of hope and faith and I perceive that as a good thing, the result is still the same."

Is it? Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others see revealed the same thing. Is the result the same?

"Reminds me of I think, therefore I am."

Yes, in a way, except it's I think therefore He is. And you know that's the reverse of what is believed.

"Would you rather be a wrong fool or a wrong non-fool (lacking a better word here)? I choose wrong fool."

Pascal's Wager. What is you choose incorrectly, that is, choose the wrong god as God? What if God doesn't want faith but reason? What if God doesn't want belief but doubt?

"The result of the faith is what's important. Not faith itself."

Any means is justified by the ends? That's what Marx argued.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 04, 2008 12:04 PM western bondbeam writes:

lonestarblues

Your puzzle analagy makes sense except there is no way to know for sure which puzzle is correct. To pick the castle over the black cat takes faith. Thats what I am saying. I can use reason to get me there, but in the end I still don't know that it's correct and therefore if I choose the castle, I must use faith to do so.

I appreciate the acknowledgement on here that nobody is trying to prove their faith. Explain it yes, prove it-no. Explaining faith though is not an easy task.

LSB"But how would you know these things when they make no sense in this world and in fact violates the laws of nature? Scripture was written by men."

LSB"But you don't know who, how or if He will use anything. You have faith you found the right answer, but don't know."

LSB "Is it? Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others see revealed the same thing. Is the result the same?

LSB" Pascal's Wager. What is you choose incorrectly, that is, choose the wrong god as God? What if God doesn't want faith but reason? What if God doesn't want belief but doubt?
------------
These are all tough questions to face. I faced them using reason and faith both. Not choosing or not answering in the end is still a choice though. We don't get to NOT answer.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 04, 2008 2:19 PM dullhammer writes:

lonestarblues-- puzzling questions

In your puzzle analogy you said the picture of the castle and city stands for the laws of nature. But what does the shape of each puzzle piece stand for? Does the black puzzle have only one law-- entropy? And would the shape of the pieces in the black puzzle be unique or uniform?

It's an interesting analogy. But there seems to be some pieces missing. For me anyway.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 04, 2008 3:10 PM western bondbeam writes:

lonestarblues

Me"The result of the faith is what's important. Not faith itself."

LSB"Any means is justified by the ends? That's what Marx argued."

-----------
I thought we were discussing specifics here.

IOW discussing the results of faith in terms of the specific context of said faith, not in the broader context of "any means." Adding "any means", widens the lens of faith beyond my original intent. Didn't mean to imply otherwise.

I posted this earlier but did not seem to show up yet so this might be a double post.

Will check back soon I am sure. Enjoy the weekend folks.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 04, 2008 4:08 PM lonestarblues writes:

WB

"Your puzzle analagy makes sense except there is no way to know for sure which puzzle is correct."

Bingo. Exactly. Just so with this notion that all this came about by random chance. No, the patterns of the cut and the picture are like the laws of nature that limits possibilities.

"To pick the castle over the black cat takes faith."

Huh? You've missed the point entirely then. It was to show that even simple rules, or laws of nature, limit possibilities and thus reduce the impossible to the possible. The laws of nature are not choosen.

"I can use reason to get me there, but in the end I still don't know that it's correct and therefore if I choose the castle, I must use faith to do so."

Right, for faith, sure, problem being, faith does not establish truth, only hope for truth. It does not get you there, if truth is what you seek, except by random chance.

"Explaining faith though is not an easy task."

Having asked 100s of people to try, I suspect it can't be done.

"We don't get to NOT answer."

Is God creator and law-giver? I leave the question open. You don't have to answer.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 04, 2008 4:10 PM lonestarblues writes:

DH

"But what does the shape of each puzzle piece stand for?"

Other laws of physics. Same as the picture. he analogy is slightly different however. Random, chance shapes would be equivalent to no shape pattern at all, while patterns in the shape of the pieces would allow for relatively fast puzzle solution.

The analogy simply says simple rules over random chance limit possibilities and narrow the time for solutions.

You can't figure out a whodunnit without clues.

Nature is not random chance.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 05, 2008 12:03 AM western bondbeam writes:

lonestarblues

LSB"Bingo. Exactly. Just so with this notion that all this came about by random chance. No, the patterns of the cut and the picture are like the laws of nature that limits possibilities."

LSB"Huh? You've missed the point entirely then. It was to show that even simple rules, or laws of nature, limit possibilities and thus reduce the impossible to the possible. The laws of nature are not choosen."
-----------
You are using the analogy to say the more data we have on the puzzle, the quicker and simpler it is to put together and thus the laws of nature being what they are makes this choice for us. IOW you are claiming we don't have to choose, nature does that for us. Is that right?

Again, these are my perceptions of what I get out of your comments. Feel free to clear up any misunderstood points.

LSB "Having asked 100s of people to try, I suspect it can't be done."
---------
Hundreds? Really. Thats a lot of people (200 at least). Don't give up asking (seriously) as I have faith that somebody can get it done for you. :-)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 05, 2008 8:00 AM lonestarblues writes:

WB

"You are using the analogy to say the more data we have on the puzzle, the quicker and simpler it is to put together and thus the laws of nature being what they are makes this choice for us. IOW you are claiming we don't have to choose, nature does that for us. Is that right?"

I suppose you could consider the laws of nature data or information, Seth Lloyd, _Programming the Universe_, does in his computational model of the universe.

And, yes, physical laws determine what is possible--they don't "choose". What goes up must come down, we can't defy gravity. And that's what we're talking about here, or were. When you introduce choice then the subject changes from physical laws to moral laws, here we have choice.

me "Having asked 100s of people to try, I suspect it can't be done."

you "Hundreds? Really. Thats a lot of people (200 at least). Don't give up asking (seriously) as I have faith that somebody can get it done for you. :-)"

I ask only those who claim to know God to explain Him and faith, not those who claim to believe.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 05, 2008 8:49 PM Rich D. writes:

Hi, guys.

I've been sort of busy - had surgery for carpal tunnel syndrome on my left hand last week, and will have it on my right this Monday, so it took me a while to catch back up on this discussion. It's a two minute, 12 second operation through one port in the palm.

Before I had it, the interviewing nurse said I'd be able to play type, cook, golf right away. "How about piano?" "Sure," she said. "Good," I said - do my feet, too, so I can play the pipe organ. I can't do any of those things right now."
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 05, 2008 9:08 PM Rich D. writes:

Response to LSB

RD: "What strikes me is that even if a monkey did come up with the complete text of Hamlet, I venture that we would think less of it as a work of art knowing that it was purposeless and unintentional."

LSB: Familiar with the Turing Test? Apply the same here. Put the monkey and editor behind a curtain. When he's done, the text is put in your hands to read. Tell me how you would know it was type by monkey or man?

Sure, you show up in a car, they give you directions, a time schedule... Yep. I know the Turing Test.

Sorry, I guess that I wasn't clear. My point was knowing that the text came from a monkey and not a human would cause us to think less of it. I think that your editor (filter) already has either the rules of grammar and composition, or else is matching the output to a known result. Don't both of those require an intelligent filter? Was not the filter your postulate?

LSB: ...but with an editor rejecting what doesn't work and accepting what does, much more probable.

Now, this sounds like an intelligent editor to me. What do "accept", "reject" and "work(s)" mean?

You later use the term "pattern recognition", but who or what created the pattern? Patterns at this level imply intelligence to me. Now, I understand that many natural patterns are produced that actually create what looks like organization (e.g., crystals), but these states actually contain less information, unlike the stream of characters (letters/spaces) in Hamlet.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 05, 2008 9:15 PM Rich D. writes:

To LSB

LSB: "Faith does not establish truth.

RD: Except for clearly artificial systems, truth to me seems quite probabilistic."

LSB: Faith doesn't establish probabilities either.

I don't think I said it did. However, I think that truth in all natural sciences is no more than a probability approaching certainty.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 05, 2008 9:20 PM Rich D. writes:

Revelation

LSB: If there is a God then He would have to be revealed in everything, not just the supposedly inspired words of men.”

But we do accept that - Scripture tells us of general revelation, and that no man is without excuse.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 05, 2008 9:37 PM Rich D. writes:

Puzzles

BTW, many years ago in the UK, there were clubs of people who worked jigsaw puzzles upside down. Maybe they're still on the first one. ;-)

Anyway, I have a comments on the analogy - something has to "stir" the pieces and "save" matches, assuming that all of the pieces were there to start and that they don't drift away or get "consumed" in another puzzle. To start, does an all-black (or downside-up) puzzle have higher or lower entropy than the one with the castle? Is the entropy higher or lower when it is assembled?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 06, 2008 10:36 AM lonestarblues writes:

Rich D.

"My point was knowing that the text came from a monkey and not a human would cause us to think less of it."

And my point was to bring yours back into the topic of discussion, the analogy concerned nature's laws and how those laws limit possibilities and increase probabilities.

"Was not the filter your postulate?"

Yes, as an analogy for the laws of nature. From gravity to chemical bonding I see little active intelligence operating. Because scientific knowledge in those areas is specialized, I tried to find a more commn example as analogy. Can the analogy be used for other purposes, sure, but that's besides the point.

"Now, this sounds like an intelligent editor to me. What do "accept", "reject" and "work(s)" mean?"

In nature? DNA stores information in four chemical bases: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T). That's it, you can't randomly by chance add another. Only combinations of A, G, C, T work. Are A, G, C, T intelligent. Is DNA? Genetic laws need no intelligence.

I think you want to argue intelligence from a foregone conclusion you now need to fit facts to.

"You later use the term "pattern recognition", but who or what created the pattern? Patterns at this level imply intelligence to me. Now, I understand that many natural patterns are produced that actually create what looks like organization (e.g., crystals), but these states actually contain less information, unlike the stream of characters (letters/spaces) in Hamlet."

Even viruses and bacteria operate on pattern recognition. The human immune system, the inflammatory system operate on pattern recognition. I don't associate intelligence with pattern recognition.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 06, 2008 10:36 AM lonestarblues writes:

Rich D.

"I don't think I said it did. However, I think that truth in all natural sciences is no more than a probability approaching certainty."

And faith a pure guess.



me "If there is a God then He would have to be revealed in everything, not just the supposedly inspired words of men.”

you "But we do accept that - Scripture tells us of general revelation, and that no man is without excuse."

The Bible gets nature wrong.

Revelation comes through men to men--the chain of belief earlier discussed.



"...something has to 'stir' the pieces and 'save' matches..."

Something HAS to? I understand you hope so, by why do you think some HAS to? Remember we're talking the laws of nature. Start with something as simple as the first law of theormodynamics: Energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed.

"To start, does an all-black (or downside-up) puzzle have higher or lower entropy than the one with the castle?"

Higher, considering only the property color and patterns in pictures.

"Is the entropy higher or lower when it is assembled?"

Lower, considering only the interconnectedness of the pieces.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 06, 2008 10:36 AM lonestarblues writes:

Rich D.

Analogies are easy to stretch to the breaking point. The question is, then, is the breaking point significant. With regard to using puzzles as an analogy for the efficiency of laws in nature, no, the point had been made between one know and another known, the breaking point introduced concerns a different, irrelevant topic. In the case of faith in cars being analogous to faith in God, yes, the point is only partially made from known to known, but the significant point, understanding the unknown, remains, the breaking pint is integral to the analogy.

Analogies are also only useful to a point. Believing the analogy, or metaphor or model, is the point, misses it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 06, 2008 5:07 PM Rich D. writes:

Oops!

lonestarblues writes:
Rich D.

""My point was knowing that the text came from a monkey and not a human would cause us to think less of it."

And my point was to bring yours back into the topic of discussion, the analogy concerned nature's laws and how those laws limit possibilities and increase probabilities."

Well, I thought that I was on topic, and didn't think that I strayed. I thought I was addressing your comments on filters. Perhaps I saw and opening for discussion that you didn't intend.

Anyway, to address the laws, your argument seems to be tautological at its core. The "laws" that you refer to are purely passive and without intent. What can it mean to limit possibilities and increase probabilities other than to say that we can conceive of things that aren't or can't be by playing "what if' with our intelligence and observations? In fact, don't science fiction writers do just that most imaginatively? So, what's possible is what's possible and what isn't, isn't. With our limited knowledge, we can't be certain of all of what we deem impossible.


EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 06, 2008 8:34 PM Rich D. writes:

More on faith and cars

LSB-- "To put that kind of faith is your car starting is utter foolishness."

DH
The car analogy is deliberately trivial. It's also something I've heard you make reference to once in a while.

I think that this was my example a long time ago, so let me try to clarify it. I do not have faith that my car will start - I KNOW that it will start all things being equal. What I have faith in (lacking complete knowledge) is that all other (relevant) things are indeed equal. Indeed, when it starts, I know that all things were equal enough, and my faith was confirmed.

When it doesn't, I reason that something changed between the last time it started and immediately look for the unequal thing - the difference between the current conditions, a multidimensional space, and the prior. I think that scientists attempt to do the same when duplicating experiments, having faith that they know all of the dimensions and can create the same conditions. Einstein added a dimension to Newton's space, and we can't ever be certain that we have captured our space completely.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 06, 2008 11:33 PM LNC writes:

lonestarblues

Not sure if you are still checking this site; however, I wanted to let you know that, after some delay due to my travel schedule, I did post a response to you on Norman's blog (If I Keep Hanging Out...post). I look forward to your response.

LNC
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 13, 2008 9:43 AM Greg England writes:

Good luck with that one

There are too many people within atheism and within religion who are playing around with logical debates without grasping fundamental common sense truths of existence.

You then end up with these pointless debates that start with "There can't be a God because of X." It's like Rush says, it is what it is.

I prefer those debates between atheists and religious people about the role of religious traditions in public life.

In this case I am on the side of conservative atheists against numpties like the Archbishop of Canterbury who thinks that Sharia is an appropriate multi-cultural response to fundamentalist Islamic groups in the UK.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 13, 2008 9:44 AM Greg England writes:

Oh ...

And hello lonestar ... weren't you the blogger who introduced me to objectivism?

(existentialism without tears?)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 13, 2008 9:46 AM Greg England writes:

Last comment

Actually, having scanned through these comments, I can see that a useful and reasoned debate is taking place.

Hope I didn't intrude.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 13, 2008 3:57 PM dullhammer writes:

Hi Greg England

Nice to see you again.

The debate here is pretty much wound down. But it has been good all around. It was a carry over from previous discussion on "Why is murder wrong?" at a Mike Adams thread. Many addressed the Q, but more and more it focused between lonestarblues and Norman. It was interesting.

There was some attempt to make it more formalized but that didn't go over so well. Part of it spilled over here to my blog and part of it carried on back at Norman's blog-- mostly between lonestarblues and LNC. The thread is now over a thousand posts. But the topic in question only goes a bit over half way. The link is

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MikeSAdams/2008/03/24/is _atheism_only_a_bundle_of_sentiments?page=full&comments=tru e

(see Thursday, March, 27, 2008 6:08 PM posted by me as the end point.)


Then, chronologically speaking, you could check out posting at Norman's blog the address is

http://www.townhall.com/youropinion/comments.aspx?g=4391596 0-a928-4add-86d4-5142b07bd23b&submitted=true2d4fdd3a-b3f7-4 008-86dd-9553f3b712b1

That is if you have nothing else to do for the rest of the week. :)

And, of course, things always seem to pick up where they left off at some point in the future.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 13, 2008 4:06 PM dullhammer writes:

Slight correction

"The thread is now over a thousand posts" should read "The ADAMS thread is now over a thousand posts".
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive