Religion II

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

What other reason? How about because I speak English and that's what it's called in English, the etymology of the name has nothing to do with it.

I also sometimes use "Jesus Christ" as an expletive. That does not make me a Christian.

And the Eastern Mediterranean spoke Greek. Perhaps I misunderstood your implication regarding "Iēsous".

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

Essentially, yes. Do you recall my post early in the Religion I thread?
I spent the next 6 years doing my "research", not easy in a small Oklahoma town whose school library consists mostly of Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew books. (I think the only non-fiction book they had was The Naked Communist, the manifesto of the John Birch Society.) During my first college another student asked me right out of the blue "B

If anything, it supports my belief that our decisions rest in the will. If there is no "will" (Coyne?), the attempts to debate are unintelligible. If there is a nuance to "will" (Dennett?), I find it to be an accommodation to fit one's philosophical position.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Good.
Why is that better? I mean if he popped over to swampland someone would have to pay for travel to and from Austin, TX. Plus hotel and car rental. How is that better than you making a phone call?
I don't think he has much leisure. He's a working atheist.
I'm no one's disciple. Student maybe but not disciple. Disciples are not allowed to question.
I've impressed you a lot. You think I'm the most dangerous man alive. You probably think I'm the antichrist.


Hey, maybe you have already called the show and are not telling us.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9v_7FfN3mQU

No, no...by "over here" I meant the PA Off Topic forum. Airfare is cheaper than dirt and faster than any jet plane -- and he never has to leave home or office.

The only thing you have done for me is underwhelm me with your nonsense. Maybe you need to hang out more on skeptics' sites to see if you can improve your game.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

The overwhelming majority of these scholars are employed by the religion industry. For them to say otherwise would be analogous to someone who works in the advertising depart of the Ford Motor Company to come out and say Toyotas are the best cars. Give it time. In 20-30 years this majority may not be so overwhelming.

OK, but also predictive of mythicists to claim bias. Guys like Ehrman and O'Neill seem genuinely factually motivated. 93% of scientists are atheists, 76%? of philosophers of religion are theists. Are each swayed by evidence or entering fields they assume will buttress their previous alliances?

If one sets out to find aspects describing reality that are quantifiable, it is bound to be the case that these are the only ones they will find. but...the mind-body problem? Sensory and first person experience? Were the latter rejected by the early moderns for merely scientific reasons? I'm as suspicious of that as you are of biased historical Jesus scholarship.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by boxcar

No, no...by "over here" I meant the PA Off Topic forum. Airfare is cheaper than dirt and faster than any jet plane -- and he never has to leave home or office.

The only thing you have done for me is underwhelm me with your nonsense. Maybe you need to hang out more on skeptics' sites to see if you can improve your game.

If Actor is Johnny Dangerously, then you don't have to waste time in Triple A with Dillahunty.

[thaskalos]

When studying the creation of all visible artifacts, science agrees that the idea of them was first born in the mind of man...who then meticulously proceeded to create them. But when studying the creation of MAN...the best that science can do is state that man was created by "accident"?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

And the Eastern Mediterranean spoke Greek. Perhaps I misunderstood your implication regarding "Iēsous".

Were you not insisting that the NT was written in Hebrew?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

No, no...by "over here" I meant the PA Off Topic forum.

Why would Dillahunty post here and reach maybe a dozen people when he speaks to thousands?

Why don't you just admit that you are afraid to call because you know Matt will clean your clock and make you look foolish?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

OK, but also predictive of mythicists to claim bias. Guys like Ehrman and O'Neill seem genuinely factually motivated. 93% of scientists are atheists, 76%? of philosophers of religion are theists. Are each swayed by evidence or entering fields they assume will buttress their previous alliances?

Here's the big difference. Science is not dogmatic. In science nothing is off limits. Even a proposal that would prove that science does not work could be accepted for publication and peer review. But religion is dogmatic. Ideas that are antithetical to it's existence cannot be tolerated. In science there is no such thing as "heresy."

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

Were you not insisting that the NT was written in Hebrew?

I don't think it was me. I have studied that opinion unseriously, and in any case wouldn't insist.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

I don't think it was me. I have studied that opinion unseriously, and in any case wouldn't insist.

You're right. It was boxcar. My apologies.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Here's the big difference. Science is not dogmatic. In science nothing is off limits. Even a proposal that would prove that science does not work could be accepted for publication and peer review. But religion is dogmatic. Ideas that are antithetical to it's existence cannot be tolerated. In science there is no such thing as "heresy."

(emphasis mine)

Except of course when it comes to such "little" items as AGW, Evolution, age of the universe, age of the earth, age of man, miracles, etc. (You do know that there are environmentalist whackos out there who want AGW-deniers imprisoned, right? Does this mindset remind you of anything?)

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

Here's the big difference. Science is not dogmatic. In science nothing is off limits. Even a proposal that would prove that science does not work could be accepted for publication and peer review. But religion is dogmatic. Ideas that are antithetical to it's existence cannot be tolerated. In science there is no such thing as "heresy."

On the other hand, Sean Carroll reads as very dogmatic.

"...In modern physics, you open a quantum field theory textbook or a general relativity textbook... What you find are differential equations. This reflects the fact that the way physics is known to work these days is in terms of patterns, unbreakable rules, laws of nature. Given the world at one point in time we will tell you what happens next. There is no need for any extra metaphysical baggage, like transcendent causes, on top of that. It’s precisely the wrong way to think about how the fundamental reality works. The question you should be asking is, “What is the best model of the universe that science can come up with?” By a model I mean a formal mathematical system that purports to match on to what we observe. So if you want to know whether something is possible in cosmology or physics you ask, “Can I build a model?”

Of course there is a framework in theology, like Carroll's phyics. Within that framework, and speaking only for my own Catholicism, there is a great deal of freedom within the essential structure, as there is for children playing freely on a fenced-in bluff, or chess.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

When studying the creation of all visible artifacts, science agrees that the idea of them was first born in the mind of man...who then meticulously proceeded to create them. But when studying the creation of MAN...the best that science can do is state that man was created by "accident"?

I agree in that science can't answer "Why", and on the possible immateriality of thought, for one, struggles with "How"?

The pixels we are staring at, forming symbols on our screen, have no inherent meaning in themselves. Brain processes by themselves are meaningless patterns of electrochemical activity. But thoughts have inherent meaning. Physical systems are indeterminate, but it seems to require determinate thought to execute math and logic.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

On the other hand, Sean Carroll reads as very dogmatic.

"...In modern physics, you open a quantum field theory textbook or a general relativity textbook... What you find are differential equations. This reflects the fact that the way physics is known to work these days is in terms of patterns, unbreakable rules, laws of nature. Given the world at one point in time we will tell you what happens next. There is no need for any extra metaphysical baggage, like transcendent causes, on top of that. It’s precisely the wrong way to think about how the fundamental reality works. The question you should be asking is, “What is the best model of the universe that science can come up with?” By a model I mean a formal mathematical system that purports to match on to what we observe. So if you want to know whether something is possible in cosmology or physics you ask, “Can I build a model?”

Of course there is a framework in theology, like Carroll's phyics. Within that framework, and speaking only for my own Catholicism, there is a great deal of freedom within the essential structure, as there is for children playing freely on a fenced-in bluff, or chess.

Mr. Carroll should drop by this place as well. I would tell him unequivocally that the best model for the universe is Supernaturalism. At least this view can get out of the gate without violating any Laws of Logic. Not so much, though, with Naturalism.