'God-breathed' = 'God-recommended'?

[AndyHB]

I don't recall any great progress in cooking in Jesus' time.  Wasn't it just as possible for people to get gastroenteritis then as it would have been in the OT.

The original rules were given to a people who were wandering around in the desert.  By the time of Christ, they were living in fixed locations much as we do now.  I would be extremely surprised if their cooking practices and with it the efficacy of their cooking equipment had not improved out of sight in the intervening centuries, Martin.
Just think of the equipment you can use whilst trekking or camping (and have to carry on your own back) and what we have in most of our houses today.

That's just what occurred to me.  We say that God's rules made sense because pork goes off, but then S.Peter comes along and invents fridges....

Who is talking about refrigeration, Boudi?  We're talking about cooking facilities.  As for who was Peter to go against the rules - well, he didn't, did he.  He had to be told to do so by God in a vision - which was also a picture of who the Jewish Christians were to accept as 'clean' (acceptable as fellow believers) and who not.

[AndyHB]

I think, in its context, the Acts passage is intended to be only about the Gentiles but it's too minor a point to worry about.

I'd disagree that is too minor a point to worry about.  If it was purely a metaphor regarding Gentile believers (not Gentiles as a whole), why is there so much about the cancelling of 'the law' throughout the NT.

I think Jesus' remarks are intended to make people think about the actions of the heart, and I agree that Jesus is contradicting the law - which is interesting because, if he made those remarks, then he did so before he was crucified, that is, before he had made any once for all sacrifice which, so say, removed the obligation to follow the law.

I'm not sure that I'd agree with Andrew about the 'cancelling' point.  I'd see the whole passage in Matthew 15 as reiterating out the reality behind the law, not the minutiae that had been loaded onto the legislation over centuries of Pharisaical interpretation.  After all, the passage in Matthew 15 is within the context of Jesus' criticising the Pharisees of hypocrisy as regards 'keeping the law'

Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, 'Honour your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.' But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is 'devoted to God,' they are not to 'honour their father or mother' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

   'These people honour me with their lips,
   but their hearts are far from me.
   They worship me in vain;
   their teachings are merely human rules.'

Jesus called the crowd to him and said, 'Listen and understand. What goes into someone's mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them."

The phrasing and placing of the final paragraph shows that this is meant to follow on from what Jesus said to the Pharisees - not be a isolated, stand alone comment.

[AndyHB]

If a person has faith in something, it's reasonable to point out that they believe it exists. Well.. why? What factors, to begin with, make them believe that the thing exists to have faith in?

Tabba, I think the problem is that much of the evidence is personal experience, which can't be scientifically proven, while other evidence is so abstract as to be impossible to pin down concretely.

For instance, some years ago I shared that my ankle had been healed following prayer.  Now, I didn't have medical evidence to back this up - no before and after X-ray or medical report, but I know that after some 20 years of limited range of mobility in the ankle following an accident, that mobility became normal again following the prayer - and others in my family, such as my wife, were able to confirm this; and it remains normal to this day, 15 years later.

Equally, there are issues that science not only doesn't answer, but has tried to answer without success which indicate that there is something outside of purely scientific/biological evolution at work in our world.  For instance, just why do X and Y love each other?  We're constantly being told that we have to be compatible with a partner, that we have to share interests, etc. for a relationship to survive - yet we can all think of couples who not only survive but actively thrive despite having totally diverse interests and activities.

[Tabba]

Hi, AndyHB. Thanks for your post.

Tabba, I think the problem is that much of the evidence is personal experience, which can't be scientifically proven, while other evidence is so abstract as to be impossible to pin down concretely.

I would say that the problem comes into play when nothing, in relation to a god entity, is proven to exist with scientific means. Ever.

One would think that at least something could be shown to exist.

Ok, so you say that your ankle was healed after praying. Can anyone be certain that it was prayer that caused a healing? Nope. People believe that it was, but they cannot evidence, even to themselves, that it was a direct result of supernatural intervention by means of prayer-response.
Can anyone be certain that it was a christian god that answered their prayer as opposed to, say, a Hindu god? Nope. People believe by faith that it was, which, again, is circular reasoning.

There is always the possibility that your own body healed itself. This is normal, natural and easily explainable using scientific methodology. Our bodies, after all, are self-healing machines, much of the time. Only a believer would attribute it to their god, which is that faith-based circular reasoning again. I couldn't find that any more reliable an explanation than believing that the Flying Spaghetti Monster healed my hearing problem last year. However, I prayed to no god, yet it healed anyway.

Equally, there are issues that science not only doesn't answer, but has tried to answer without success which indicate that there is something outside of purely scientific/biological evolution at work in our world.

Is it more likely, or reasonable, to note that science cannot YET answer these questions, or that this is empirical evidence that there is a supernatural entity at work?

If science has reached its ultimate level of understanding and has no more possible answers to find or discoveries to make, then perhaps that claim may be more appropriate. Of course, science is an evolving entity that does not claim to know everything at this time. Often, some theists tend to apply the special-pleading fallacy to support their own faith-beliefs.

For instance, just why do X and Y love each other?

One [falsifiable] explanation would be that hormonal changes happen, brought about by conscious/sub-conscious awareness, causing feelings of love. An evolutionary argument suggests that love is necessary for bonding to facilitate procreation in order for the species to survive.

There are bona fide alternatives to claiming that it can only be the end result of a god at work in the world.

We're constantly being told that we have to be compatible with a partner, that we have to share interests, etc. for a relationship to survive - yet we can all think of couples who not only survive but actively thrive despite having totally diverse interests and activities.

I would say that those who tell us this (which, I agree they do) are merely representing their own opinion on matters.

I think it's also fair to note that many couples who are very similar and have the same interests do not love each other for more than the initial 6 months required for procreation. And, thus, they split up before making a long-term commitment.


In my experience, I find that the god-argument is too quickly offered as an explanation for things that can easily be explained with scientific evidence.

I'd be excited to be proven wrong as I'd love to know if a god really does exist.


Thanks again for your post, Andy.

[AndyHB]

I would say that the problem comes into play when nothing, in relation to a god entity, is proven to exist with scientific means. Ever.

If that's the case, then I think most of life doesn't exist, Tabba.  After all, can you scientifically prove to me that I love my wife, or my daughters; or prove scientifically why I enjoy helping develop a heritage railway?  There is far too much in life that has no scientific evidence - yet we know to exist - for your explanation to hold water.

There is always the possibility that your own body healed itself. This is normal, natural and easily explainable using scientific methodology. Our bodies, after all, are self-healing machines, much of the time. Only a believer would attribute it to their god, which is that faith-based circular reasoning again. I couldn't find that any more reliable an explanation than believing that the Flying Spaghetti Monster healed my hearing problem last year. However, I prayed to no god, yet it healed anyway.

There is that possibility, Tabba, except that the circumstances of the injury were such that such a healing would have been scientifically impossible, or so I was told after the event by doctors.  Following the accident one of the tendons, torn in the accident, reattached itself out of place, thus creating the reduced mobility.  Several doctors, prior to the event I am describing asked me whether I was happy as i was, or whether I wanted to have it surgically repositioned.

As for whether it was Hindu, opposed to a Christian 'god', I wasn't aware that any sacrifices had been offered, as would normally be the case in any Hindu 'healing'.  Rather, the prayer had been specifically directed to the Christian God.  The fact that the change was all-but instantaneous indicates to me that (i) this was an answer to that specific prayer and (ii) that this was not some natural healing by my own body.

Is it more likely, or reasonable, to note that science cannot YET answer these questions, or that this is empirical evidence that there is a supernatural entity at work?

To tell you the truth, I'd have to answer this question with 'Neither'.  As I said before, most of the evidence is of a personal nature and thereby almost impossible to replicate.

If science has reached its ultimate level of understanding and has no more possible answers to find or discoveries to make, then perhaps that claim may be more appropriate. Of course, science is an evolving entity that does not claim to know everything at this time.

Similarly, as most scientists acknowledge, for every answer they find, they find 2 or 3 new questions.  It would seem likely to me that, if science was what some scientists claim it to be, then rather than finding more new questions that new answers, it would be reducing the number of questions that we ask.

For instance, just why do X and Y love each other?

One [falsifiable] explanation would be that hormonal changes happen, brought about by conscious/sub-conscious awareness, causing feelings of love. An evolutionary argument suggests that love is necessary for bonding to facilitate procreation in order for the species to survive.

But why is there any need for bonding?  After all, there are plenty of animals who not only do not bond other than to have intercourse, but who then completely ignore their offspring.  These species continue to this day, suggesting that this isn't an evolutionary need.

There are bona fide alternatives to claiming that it can only be the end result of a god at work in the world.

I would say that those who tell us this (which, I agree they do) are merely representing their own opinion on matters.

So, are you saying that scientists - who are often the ones telling us this - can be wrong, or biased or even non-objective?

In my experience, I find that the god-argument is too quickly offered as an explanation for things that can easily be explained with scientific evidence.

I'd be excited to be proven wrong as I'd love to know if a god really does exist.

I tend to find that the 'god-argument' is too quickly offered as an explanation for things that can't easily be explained with scientific evidence.  At the same time, I find that many scientific expplanations don't actually answer the question i have asked - but answer a question that the scientist wants me to have asked, or thought I asked.

For instance, I regularly ask - here and elsewhere - why humanity exists.  Almost invariably, I am told that it exists as a result of evolution - and well it might, except that this has actually answered the question 'How?' rather than 'Why?'

[Boudi]

I do thi9nk it's perfectly possible to believe in something, and have faith in its existence without knowing the ins and outs, but at the same time, it can be exasperating!

I have faith in the brakes on my car, yet I don't have a clue as to why or how they work, and that's just physical, and physics....nothing complicated such as the mind!

[Tabba]

Thanks for your reply, Andy.

I would say that the problem comes into play when nothing, in relation to a god entity, is proven to exist with scientific means. Ever.

If that's the case, then I think most of life doesn't exist, Tabba.

Life exists, and can be proven to exist whereas god cannot be proven to exist (at least not so far). Because we cannot prove B does not automatically follow that, therefore, A does not exist either. That's somewhat unreliable logic.

After all, can you scientifically prove to me that I love my wife, or my daughters;

IF you do, then we can certainly find plenty of credible, observable evidence of that, yes. We can collate evidence by means of studying your behavioural patterns and actions towards them. We could also measure, in the same way, whether or not you hated them, since your actions would be on the opposite end of that scale. Love is not just a bio-chemical feeling contained within the body of the 'lover'. Outward, physical signs can be seen, measured and felt by the recipients of the love, or the hate.
We could also measure your brain-chemistry when you're thinking of them, compared to when you're thinking of someone you do not love.

or prove scientifically why I enjoy helping develop a heritage railway?

Yes. By observation of personal, past experiences. It can easily be shown that human being preferences can and are formed by external stimuli.

There is far too much in life that has no scientific evidence - yet we know to exist - for your explanation to hold water.

Such as? *And you have to present actual items that we can examine under scrutiny.

Love, also, can be proven to exist. It's a common logical error to believe that it cannot. When a person is in love, large amounts of neuro-chemicals can be measured to exist within the body (oxytocin, for example). We can measure and observe the difference between two humans who love each other and two who do not. Further, the physical feelings of love are, for the most part, commonly shared between all people. Actions of love between humans can, consistently, be observed and measured.

I've found that many theists often use the "love cannot be proven to exist" argument without really stopping and looking at how it undermines itself.

There is always the possibility that your own body healed itself. 

There is that possibility, Tabba, except that the circumstances of the injury were such that such a healing would have been scientifically impossible, or so I was told after the event by doctors.

Ok. But we know from experience that many doctors claim that an injury will not self-heal, only to find that they were wrong. So, scientifically, it is possible, and evidenced all the time. We cannot begin the thinking process on the assumption that doctors are always right. It's fallacious logic and fails to deliver reliable end results.

As for whether it was Hindu, opposed to a Christian 'god', I wasn't aware that any sacrifices had been offered, as would normally be the case in any Hindu 'healing'.  Rather, the prayer had been specifically directed to the Christian God.

Ok. Can you explain why so many people from other religions claim that their god healed them, when they clearly do not believe in or pray to the christian god?

The fact that the change was all-but instantaneous indicates to me that (i) this was an answer to that specific prayer and (ii) that this was not some natural healing by my own body.

It could easily be explained by an injury that was incrementally healing over time, such that you didn't notice the small transitions to a full healing. I respect your right to believe otherwise, as the experience was personal to you, however, there are other explanations that have a scientific explanation behind them.

Similarly, as most scientists acknowledge, for every answer they find, they find 2 or 3 new questions.  It would seem likely to me that, if science was what some scientists claim it to be, then rather than finding more new questions that new answers, it would be reducing the number of questions that we ask.

Of course they do. If they didn't, the only alternative reality would be an instant, complete knowledge of everything! For science to be [only] reducing questions is a logical fallacy based on a starting-point that they have all the questions already laid out. Why do you presume that this would be the case? We are still relatively early-on in our search for answers to our ever increasing set of questions. It's perfectly natural that we do not have ALL of the questions to hand to begin with.

But why is there any need for bonding?

Can you imagine what human civilisation would be like today if we hadn't been bonding all along? Would we even have survived this long? There's one fundamental human need right there.

After all, there are plenty of animals who not only do not bond other than to have intercourse, but who then completely ignore their offspring.

Sure, and those are different species. Many species do not fly, either. Yet, for birds, it carries with it certain evolutionary advantages. Life is varied. Species that can not adapt to their environment do not survive in the long term. One animal species cannot always be compared to another.

These species continue to this day, suggesting that this isn't an evolutionary need.

Those species do not need to bond long-term. We're also overlooking the possibility that they will evolve to bond in the future.

So, are you saying that scientists - who are often the ones telling us this - can be wrong, or biased or even non-objective?

] I wasn't saying that in my comment that you're questioning, but for your convenience, I'll state right now that, yes, most definitely, some scientists do all of the above. And far worse!

In my opinion, blindly believing what 'the scientists' tell us is just as dangerous as believing what a religious fundie tells us.
We can, of course, question everything we are told and, indeed, question what we believe by faith or from plain old ignorance. I think that's healthy.

I tend to find that the 'god-argument' is too quickly offered as an explanation for things that can't easily be explained with scientific evidence.  At the same time, I find that many scientific expplanations don't actually answer the question i have asked - but answer a question that the scientist wants me to have asked, or thought I asked.

Sure. That'll happen in life. Just like it'll happen at church when we ask our religious leaders for information. The moral of that tale is 'don't believe everything you are told to believe'.

or instance, I regularly ask - here and elsewhere - why humanity exists.  Almost invariably, I am told that it exists as a result of evolution - and well it might, except that this has actually answered the question 'How?' rather than 'Why?'

I agree. Science does focus on the 'how', and not necessarily on the 'why'.

And within that question of 'why'.. there are many exciting and mysterious things to explore. Looking at them from a religious position is one way to approach the question, or one could simply look at it from a scientific or philosophical question. One could, also, just accept that there may be no reason at all.

Some might answer it "because god made us to love him". Though, this opens up another can of worms. Some others may say "because the universe is experiencing itself". Yet others may say "there is no why.. existence cannot be fathomed by our puny minds".

The jury is still out on the answer to such a question. Maybe we'll never know 'why' the universe and all that it's made of is here'. I?m looking forward to exploring it during my time here. I do find it such an interesting question to ask, regardless of the mechanics or philosophy behind it.

 
However, for me, in my search for some answers to my own little existence, I find the ramblings of ignorant, male-chauvinist goat-herders from thousands of years ago to be rather an unreliable source of answers to that extremely complex and wonderful question.

[Martin]

That's somewhat unreliable logic.

Yep - you'll get a lot of that from Andy.

For me, God is Love. By that I mean that perfect Love is the superlative that I would like to ascribe to God. That, for me eliminates the possibility of a God of power and might - not that Love doesn't have a power of sorts, but it achieves the changes that it brings about, by persuasion rather than coercion. Love, by its very nature, cannot force or compel.

I think that Christianity needs to abandon the god who fixes things by intervening, miraculously in nature. I don't think that sort of a god is tenable any longer in our scientific age.

[JJ]

 
However, for me, in my search for some answers to my own little existence, I find the ramblings of ignorant, male-chauvinist goat-herders from thousands of years ago to be rather an unreliable source of answers to that extremely complex and wonderful question.

very good postings Professor Penrose. 

[AndyHB]

Life exists, and can be proven to exist whereas god cannot be proven to exist (at least not so far). Because we cannot prove B does not automatically follow that, therefore, A does not exist either. That's somewhat unreliable logic.

But in a way, that is precisely what you are doing, Tabba - you are arguing that whilst some things can't be proved evidentially, they clearly exist, but because God can't be proven evidentially, he can't exist - and non-sequitur argument.

Love is not just a bio-chemical feeling contained within the body of the 'lover'. Outward, physical signs can be seen, measured and felt by the recipients of the love, or the hate.
We could also measure your brain-chemistry when you're thinking of them, compared to when you're thinking of someone you do not love.

Often the outward, physical signs can be faked, Tabba.  It is amazing how many stories of broken relationships revolve around people having no idea from their partner's or friend's behaviour that they didn't love them/love them any longer.  Brain-chemistry around love is, I'm told, very similar to that involved in liking strongly - but not loving.  Obviously, love/like compared to hate may well be obvious - though I'm told that strong emotions like love and hate are also remarkably similar in many ways.

or prove scientifically why I enjoy helping develop a heritage railway?

Yes. By observation of personal, past experiences. It can easily be shown that human being preferences can and are formed by external stimuli.

I had very little interest in railways until I was about 40, Tabba - had other interests which then became impossible to enjoy because of being away from places they could be followed.  I also notice that you are happy to take observations of personal. past experiences into account in this kind of context, but not when it comes to the existence or otherwise of God!

There is far too much in life that has no scientific evidence - yet we know to exist - for your explanation to hold water.

Such as? *And you have to present actual items that we can examine under scrutiny.

OK, here's a topical one - why do so many weather forecasts for 'tomorrow' change by the time it's 'today'?  On a more serious note,

Love, also, can be proven to exist. It's a common logical error to believe that it cannot.

  As mentioned above the two extremes of emotion, such as love and hate, actually produce remarkably similar chemical responses.

I've found that many theists often use the "love cannot be proven to exist" argument without really stopping and looking at how it undermines itself.

No, most theists who use this argument do so because they appreciate that there is insufficient difference between the scientific/chemical responses of strong emotions to prove one or the other.

We cannot begin the thinking process on the assumption that doctors are always right. It's fallacious logic and fails to deliver reliable end results.

I'm glad that you accept that scientists are not infallible.  There are one or two here who find that hard to admit.  As for the issue of my injury, I believe that it would have been impossible for the tendon to instantaneously detach and reattach naturally without (i) some sort of catalyst and (ii) some degree of pain.  After all, it had taken several weeks to reattach after the original damage, and did so because the damage had not been picked up initially because the doctors were more concerned with the fact that my other ankle was actually broken.

I have to go out now, Tabba, but will respond to the rest of your post later.

[tranchiebabe]

Even when I was a 'born again', all those many years ago, in the back of my mind there was always doubt. When I could no longer keep the doubts at bay my faith slipped away.

[JJ]

quote AHB


Often the outward, physical signs can be faked, Tabba.  It is amazing how many stories of broken relationships revolve around people having no idea from their partner's or friend's behaviour that they didn't love them/love them any longer.  Brain-chemistry around love is, I'm told, very similar to that involved in liking strongly - but not loving.  Obviously, love/like compared to hate may well be obvious - though I'm told that strong emotions like love and hate are also remarkably similar in many ways.


Real love has a high level of oxytocin associated with it - and I would dispute that love and hate are similar in any way other than the level of intensity of those feelings.  Hate is not a pure emotion - it seems to be underlined with fear.  Cortisol is associated with hate and fear.  We are creatures of our chemistry and I'm willing to bet that your interest in trains at 40 was because of the build up of a need for a focus for pleasure seeking and you found it in trains because something surrounding the culture of trains ticked all the boxes.  It was the last place you looked, not that you found perfection.  Had it not been satisfying, the search would have gone on.  As it does with me.  Crochet just doesn't cut it.

[AndyHB]

Crochet just doesn't cut it.

Sorry, JJ, I can't believe that!!    But science still can't tell me why I found it satisfying.  Yes, I suppose that the fact that I was brought up a stone's throw away from Paddington Station in the steam-engine days might have something to do with it, as might the fact that my brother and I had a sizeable model train layout as lads, though he took it far more seriously than me (and still does), whilst I was more into the Minic that worked in tandem with the rails.

[JJ]

OTOH

[Tabba]

I have to go out now, Tabba, but will respond to the rest of your post later.

No problem, Andy. We're all living busy lives these days. I'll wait for your complete response before addressing your rebuttals.


T