What Does Religion Explain?

Discuss arguments for existence of God and faith in general. Any aspect of any orientation toward religion/spirituality, as long as it is based upon a positive open to other people attitude.

Moderator:Metacrock

User avatar
met
Posts:2813
Joined:Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm
Re: What Does Religion Explain?

Post by met » Sat Oct 15, 2016 11:03 am

Jim B. wrote:
met wrote:Px's point would then be "there isn't ANYTHING besides the QF"?

Ie, "there IS NO depth!"

Yeah as I've said a million times here, you definitely can be an atheist if you maintain there is no depth, that it's all flat, all just fluctuation. That makes sense....

One problem for him, however, could in this context be put thusly, "no, a rainbow isn't refracted light, it's a way of PERCEIVING refracted light"....
Do you think it's possible to accept depth and still be an atheist? That raises the question of "Atheist relative to which description of God?"
Yea, there are a lot of nuances. What about the kind of atheism that leans towards "mystery," often invokes some kind of panypsychicism, and people used to refer to as "nontheism" instead of atheism ... does that sort of stance accept depth?

Seems like it to me.....
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts:10046
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location:Dallas
Contact:

Re: What Does Religion Explain?

Post by Metacrock » Sun Oct 16, 2016 11:10 am

Jim B. wrote:
met wrote:Px's point would then be "there isn't ANYTHING besides the QF"?

Ie, "there IS NO depth!"

Yeah as I've said a million times here, you definitely can be an atheist if you maintain there is no depth, that it's all flat, all just fluctuation. That makes sense....

One problem for him, however, could in this context be put thusly, "no, a rainbow isn't refracted light, it's a way of PERCEIVING refracted light"....
Do you think it's possible to accept depth and still be an atheist? That raises the question of "Atheist relative to which description of God?"
Tillich said by definition its not
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
met
Posts:2813
Joined:Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: What Does Religion Explai

Post by met » Sun Oct 16, 2016 1:32 pm

Yeah, so that's FINAL!!! :oops:

No, but it does lead to some odd positions, & possibly bordering on untenable, doesn't it?


Like a common one, eg, is "atheistic naturalism + moral realism" - strikes me as kinda difficult to justify rationally ... & even though I don't like to question people's right to self-define, it does seem to me like those positions are inevitably STEPPING towards a theistic stance, minimally.


(I liked what you said in the notes on one of your blogs about Hume's "is/ought" fork being equivalent to the "contingency/ necessity" dichotomy, btw.)
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts:10046
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location:Dallas
Contact:

Re: What Does Religion Explain?

Post by Metacrock » Sun Oct 16, 2016 1:53 pm

The Pixie wrote:
Metacrock wrote:the rainbow thing is a literary device and a metaphor perhaps. If we look at it on the simplistically we might think it's just about explanation why there are rainbows,. That's too simple minded. No religious people are that banal. It's a metaphor and what it is a metaphor of is probably similar to what I'm talking about.
Sure, because we all know rainbows are due to light refracted in raindrops.

But hundreds of years ago, that was not the case. Hundreds of years ago, things like rainbows and lightning and earthquakes were attributed to God.
Do you not know what literary devices are? I said thy idea that they would tell the flood story just to answer why there are rainbows is ridiculous. What makes a rainbow works is irrelevant. The real message is God's salvation is as dependable as rainbow after rain. God controls nature God is in charge that sort o hing thiat is the point.
the point of the story about Noah is not explain there are rainbows,. maybe it was at one time but by the time it's redacted into the text it's gone though a lot of sophisticated re telling. Attributing the universe to God's creation is very different. You have no alternative, you dot not know how the universe came to be or why and the best you can do is examine the physical process but you have no way to penetrate the singularity. Because your answer removes reason and telos and satisfies itself with surface level existence and survival rather than morality and determineism rather than thinking, it's not an explanation at all, it's meaningless and irrational and abandons reason, it's merely the illusion of technique.
So your argument is that science cannot explain it? Basically God-of-the-gaps then.
Dude how can it be God of the mother fucking gaps when it's not meant to to explain mother fucking nature???, screw your head on man!!!!
Just so we all know, any time someone presents an argument that comes down to "science cannot answer this" I will call it out as God-of-the-gaps.
too bad you don't know what God of the gaps means, where did I say science doesn't know what rainbows are?
In what sense is it not one?
Think about the cause and effect here. What you have said is that "meaning and value of life" causes (are "reflected in") "christian virtues". How can an effect explain its own cause?
How do you define "love" in this context? How is love a basis for grounding axioms?


love = the will to the good of the other, So moral axioms are chosen (by God ) because they reflect the good as it pertains to the other. don't kill because it harms others, we don't steal because it deprives others, we don' cheat because wounds others ect,
Okay. So that would mean that eradicating smallpox would be morally right, and allowing it to flourish when you could stop it was morally wrong, given how smallpox harms others.

And yet God chose not to do that.

We have this other thread going on just this topic, and Jim is quite clear that love is God's over-arching moral meta-principle, but he is struggling to define love. We can see why. When a theist does define it, it becomes clear that a morality based on love would require the eradication of smallpox, if that is physically possible.

too bad you didn't pay any attention to my answers on the other thread,. I argued that God has reasons for not eliminating things and those are important reasons, God is the judge he;'s not your busboy, he runs the world not you.

Moreover, where do you gt the idea that virtue is a cause? Morality is not a cause of behavior, It's a code of conduct we choose to follow.
Can you even tell us what axioms are grounded in this way?
all moral axioms that God imposes as moral law are grounded in god's love. They all means to the end of the good of the other God's creation and imn our dealings with others our other.
The good of the other... So that would mean eradicating smallpox if physically possible.
[/quote]

unless there's a higher reason not to. We can eliminate small pox God gave us the brains to figure it out, hie doesn't do it himself he has this higher reason which I explained in that thread.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

The Pixie
Posts:852
Joined:Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Re: What Does Religion Explain?

Post by The Pixie » Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:53 am

Jim B. wrote:
In what sense is this a real explanation, where the rainbow one is not? Besides the fact that we already know the rainbow one is wrong?
because it's a different kind of explanation. You can go out in the world and falsify it. You can't do that with "God is the origin of existence."
Interesting that in science it is the other way around. In science an explanation is only considered real if you can go out in the world and falsify it.

In religion, an explanation is only considered real if you can not go out in the world and falsify it.

That is quite damning of religious explanations.
If there were a God, God would explain it. It's a philosophical decision whether or not to take the question as meaningful in the first place. Are you saying the concept of God is non-sensical or that it lacks evidence?
I am saying that the explanation lacks depth. It fails to tell us how God did it, or why God did it. It does not explain the process.
The second question is deeper! You may think it's non-sensical, but why?
Of course it is. I would expect the answer to be deeper too.

Or is you point that "God did it" is a deep answer if the question was deep?
*understanding and resolving the human problematic
reflected imn christian theology soeriology
Again, that is a claim, not an explanation.
What would you expect a legitimate God explanation to be like? Would it involve sub-atomic particles called theons and erons?
I would expect a legitimate explanation to explain what the human problem is and why there is one. The phrase "christian theology soeriology" does neither.
I agree with Metacrock that this may be a provincial way of looking at the problem. Temporally provincial I mean. Originally, religion was infused in everything, from sky-gazing to navigation to art to mating and warfare. There were no clear boundaries between these things. So of course religion would be epistemically in charge because it was in charge of everything, or at least infused in all, That doesn't mean religion was primarily about gaining knowledge of the physical world. It was about meaning and value, social cohesion, mediating the problematics and the sense of numinosity. So the "Why rainbows" asked as a proto-scientific question is not the point and never has been.
Not sure what you are saying here. Are you claiming religion never tried to explain why there are rainbows?

Surely all religion is - or at least was - attempting to explain why the world is the way it is. The ancient Greeks invoked their various gods to explain earthquakes and lightning, and indeed the origin of the world. The ancient Hebrews were not so very different. Modern theists are still doing that, but only in those areas that science has not shone the torch of enlightenment, i.e., in those areas where science cannot go. Hence:

In religion, an explanation is only considered real if you can not go out in the world and falsify it.

The Pixie
Posts:852
Joined:Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Re: What Does Religion Explain?

Post by The Pixie » Mon Oct 17, 2016 6:02 am

Jim B. wrote:
Sure, because we all know rainbows are due to light refracted in raindrops.

But hundreds of years ago, that was not the case. Hundreds of years ago, things like rainbows and lightning and earthquakes were attributed to God.
And therefore...I think you've left off the point?
And therefore Metacrock is wrong is to say it is only metaphor. Religious people at one time really that banal and simple minded, to use his terms).
God of the gaps refers to gaps in present scientific knowledge, not to things that science cannot explain. Maybe you mean "argument from ignorance"?
God-of-the-gaps is closely related to "argument from ignorance"; both apply in this case. From Wiki:

"God of the gaps" is a term used to describe observations of theological perspectives in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. The term was invented by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence.[1] Some use the phrase to refer to a form of the argument from ignorance fallacy.

A gap in present scientific knowledge would include something that science cannot explain.
You never asked me to define 'love' but to define how love as God's meta-principle operates morally. ...
You have not done that either.

The Pixie
Posts:852
Joined:Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Re: What Does Religion Explain?

Post by The Pixie » Mon Oct 17, 2016 6:07 am

met wrote:Px, since you expressed interest in this idea, note that "sin" can also be related to more Eastern concept like "error" or "illusion' (& in fact, a "miss", being "off the mark" is what "sin" literally refers to). Generally those ideas are connected thru concepts of "idolatry." If you wanna know more about (fairly mainstream) progressive X-ian ideas, since those are the kind of X-ians you're dealing with here, I'd recommend looking around X-ian psychology prof Dr. Richard Peck's website (and his books!) ... here's a couple blog articles ... I think his ideas about 'reviving the demonic' are especially interesting (see the bottom link).

http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.ca ... ssive.html

http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.ca ... devil.html
Interesting articles but I am not sure how they are relevant.
met wrote:Px's point would then be "there isn't ANYTHING besides the QF"?

Ie, "there IS NO depth!"
I use the QF just as one possible explanation to contrast to the theist position. My own position is that we do not know. There may be depth, there may not.

However, I am talking about the depth of the explanation, not the depth of the thing being explained.

The Pixie
Posts:852
Joined:Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Re: What Does Religion Explain?

Post by The Pixie » Mon Oct 17, 2016 9:00 am

Metacrock wrote:Do you not know what literary devices are? I said thy idea that they would tell the flood story just to answer why there are rainbows is ridiculous. What makes a rainbow works is irrelevant. The real message is God's salvation is as dependable as rainbow after rain. God controls nature God is in charge that sort o hing thiat is the point.
Of course the entire flood story was not invented to explain rainbows, nevertheless it clear does include that explanation. In fact there are several of these "just so" stories in Genesis:

Why do snakes crawl on their bellies?
Why do they attack people?
Why are there different languages?
Why do we cover our sexual organs?
Why is life hard?
How was the world created?
Why is it okay to enslave the Canaanites?

Sure, no one believes that that is why nowadays, and the narratives were not invented purely to answer these questions, but the narratives were contrived to include the answers, and at one time they were accepted as fact.
Dude how can it be God of the mother fucking gaps when it's not meant to to explain mother fucking nature???, screw your head on man!!!!
What? What is it explaining then?
too bad you don't know what God of the gaps means, where did I say science doesn't know what rainbows are?
"God of the gaps" is a term used to describe observations of theological perspectives in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. The term was invented by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence.[1] Some use the phrase to refer to a form of the argument from ignorance fallacy.

At one time religion explained everything. It has lost that privileged position, beaten by science. Now, all it can hope to explain is what science, for the time being anyway, cannot explain. A "God of the gaps" argument is one that says science cannot explain something, so that means it must have been God.
too bad you didn't pay any attention to my answers on the other thread,. I argued that God has reasons for not eliminating things and those are important reasons, God is the judge he;'s not your busboy, he runs the world not you.
I did not pay attention because you were spouting this sort of vacuous nonsense. Claiming there is a reason and that it is an important reason is worth exactly nothing if you cannot tell us what that reason is. You have faith that there is a reason, but that counts as nothing to someone without that faith.

The comment about God running the world is sadly typical of Christians with no answer. The issue is not whether I could run the world better, it is whether this is the world that we would expect if God existed. The argument is:

If an all-powerful, all-loving god existed, there would be no polio
There is polio
Therefore an all-powerful, all-loving god does not exist
Moreover, where do you gt the idea that virtue is a cause? Morality is not a cause of behavior, It's a code of conduct we choose to follow.
Who said it is?
all moral axioms that God imposes as moral law are grounded in god's love. They all means to the end of the good of the other God's creation and imn our dealings with others our other.
This is equally true whether God exists or not. If God was a delusion, and you merely imagined God imposed his moral laws because they are grounded in his love, you would end up with the same moral laws!

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts:10046
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location:Dallas
Contact:

Re: What Does Religion Explain?

Post by Metacrock » Mon Oct 17, 2016 9:31 am

The Pixie wrote:
Metacrock wrote:Do you not know what literary devices are? I said thy idea that they would tell the flood story just to answer why there are rainbows is ridiculous. What makes a rainbow works is irrelevant. The real message is God's salvation is as dependable as rainbow after rain. God controls nature God is in charge that sort o hing thiat is the point.
Of course the entire flood story was not invented to explain rainbows, nevertheless it clear does include that explanation. In fact there are several of these "just so" stories in Genesis:
so what? there's no expectation that we should use their answer
Why do snakes crawl on their bellies?
Why do they attack people?
Why are there different languages?
Why do we cover our sexual organs?
Why is life hard?
How was the world created?
Why is it okay to enslave the Canaanites?

elements of the story you decided to turn into questions, questions we don't need to ask and it;s not certain anyone ever did. This is the old atheist ploy i call privileging doubt, you are using doubt as proof, you are saying O look I can doubt this so that proves it's no good, your doubts is expressed in certain stupid questions you pretend the text is designed to answer but no proof it is.
Sure, no one believes that that is why nowadays, and the narratives were not invented purely to answer these questions, but the narratives were contrived to include the answers, and at one time they were accepted as fact.
you are just doing double talk, you say its not designed to ask the question then you add but it does includes the question,no it doesn't, you put it on there,

Dude how can it be God of the mother fucking gaps when it's not meant to to explain mother fucking nature???, screw your head on man!!!!
What? What is it explaining then?
the flood story is ab out how faith saves us through trials brought on by judgement. like the current political situation, if Trump were to win that would be God's judgment on america but he would keep me safe because i'm following him.
too bad you don't know what God of the gaps means, where did I say science doesn't know what rainbows are?
"God of the gaps" is a term used to describe observations of theological perspectives in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence.


yes but this is not one of then, it's not a god of the gaps just because there;s a gap.

The term was invented by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence.[1] Some use the phrase to refer to a form of the argument from ignorance fallacy.


ok so you do know what it is but you are not using it well.


At one time religion explained everything. It has lost that privileged position, beaten by science. Now, all it can hope to explain is what science, for the time being anyway, cannot explain. A "God of the gaps" argument is one that says science cannot explain something, so that means it must have been God.



I've already explained that it'snot a valid argument against the validity of belief so we dom't need to go over it again.


too bad you didn't pay any attention to my answers on the other thread,. I argued that God has reasons for not eliminating things and those are important reasons, God is the judge he;'s not your busboy, he runs the world not you.


I did not pay attention because you were spouting this sort of vacuous nonsense. Claiming there is a reason and that it is an important reason is worth exactly nothing if you cannot tell us what that reason is. You have faith that there is a reason, but that counts as nothing to someone without that faith.


you can't beat an argument by calling it names you have address the logic and you have not done so. I did clearly and distinction tell the reason if you had really the material you would know that it's obvious you did not read it,you assume it's not because you are afraid to be proved wrong.

The comment about God running the world is sadly typical of Christians with no answer. The issue is not whether I could run the world better, it is whether this is the world that we would expect if God existed.


Invalid answer. You are in no position to make such observations because your hatred of God is such you would say that to an answer, you would judge state of affairs to be no what you would expect because you are not will to accept God on any terms.

Moreover, jugging various states of affairs according to expectation s a matter of probability but there's no basis for comparison between states of affairs in a God universe and a Godless one so there's no basis for probability in relation to God talk.


The argument is:

If an all-powerful, all-loving god existed, there would be no polio
There is polio
Therefore an all-powerful, all-loving god does not exist
Moreover, where do you gt the idea that virtue is a cause? Morality is not a cause of behavior, It's a code of conduct we choose to follow.

Who said it is?


that is disprove by the premise of my argument, there would be if God has the considerations I laid out,

Meta: all moral axioms that God imposes as moral law are grounded in god's love. They all means to the end of the good of the other God's creation and imn our dealings with others our other.



PX This is equally true whether God exists or not. If God was a delusion, and you merely imagined God imposed his moral laws because they are grounded in his love, you would end up with the same moral laws!
[/quote]


that is an argument you have to prove., there's no reason to think nature could produce love without God; no need for it.

even so thie idea that we could produce the ideas of love without God is not proof there is no God. that i not a disproof of any argument I make.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

Jim B.
Posts:1445
Joined:Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am

Re: What Does Religion Explain?

Post by Jim B. » Mon Oct 17, 2016 1:39 pm

Metacrock wrote:
Jim B. wrote:
met wrote:Px's point would then be "there isn't ANYTHING besides the QF"?

Ie, "there IS NO depth!"

Yeah as I've said a million times here, you definitely can be an atheist if you maintain there is no depth, that it's all flat, all just fluctuation. That makes sense....

One problem for him, however, could in this context be put thusly, "no, a rainbow isn't refracted light, it's a way of PERCEIVING refracted light"....
Do you think it's possible to accept depth and still be an atheist? That raises the question of "Atheist relative to which description of God?"
Tillich said by definition its not
Doesn't that seem a little too formulaic?

Post Reply