The Nature Of God:

[jak731]

If it's invisible then why does it matter if it is pink? Did the elephant tell you it was pink? If so then why are you taking the word of an invisible talking elephant?

Personally I'm agnostic about your pink invisible (and possibly talking) elephant, it may exist and it may not but I have no proof regarding its veracity so I do not dismiss it (except that you've just admitted to making things up) and perhaps more importantly I don't need to care about it as it impacts on my life not one single iota.

Of course it is an absurd suggestion and I was merely using it as an example to highlight how absurd it is that people think they know how 'god' wants them to run their lives. In principle it cannot be dismissed but at the same time it can be used to justify anything, which is wrong imo. The point of my example was to show that any non dismissable argument no matter how silly can be constructed. Does this mean we should give credit to such arguments whether they affect your life or not?

The other problem with such arguments is since they are not testable they are open to change with no justification. Other people are entitled to their beliefs but I cannot understand why so many people would want to run their lives according to a fallacy. I certainly do not.

I think most religious people (generalising here i know but i think it holds for the vast majority) are religious because their family is. It's ingrained into their minds from a young age and becomes beyond reproach.

 

[Gaidin109]

I thought that heresy was a fairly defined term i.e. it is heretical to believe position X as it goes against the Bible, in which case a Christian is probably reasonably well placed to confirm or deny that aspect of it. Whether you accept them as speaking for a broad base of Christians is something else entirely.

I'd also say you've got the right to tell others what to believe (right to free speech and all that) but not the right to compel others to believe in what you suggest (that would interfere with their right to freedom of belief), subtle difference perhaps but quite an important one.

Heresy has a wide meaning which changes depending upon which canon of belief happens to be in vogue at any given time. This is why it is less defined that you think. Each creed of christianity in particular defines what is specifically heretical to its belief structure, this also changes depending upon the interpretation of doctrine, which is why I say its a fallacy. 'It may be heretical today, but maybe not tomorrow', for example. Heresy has been used to perpetrate ideology of individuals as much as protection of canon.

As to the second point, You are correct, I reacted to someone telling me what to think, when in hindsight without reading the Book first I shouldnt comment.

 

[semi-pro waster]

Are you really agnostic in this particular context? If so, then you do not lean one inch towards it's existence or nonexistence. You're honestly 100% impartial to the existence of said elephant?

It's one of the huge misunderstandings regarding the term atheist, it means that one operates one's life under the idea that no God(s) exist. Agnosticism is being totally in between, 50/50 regarding belief or unbelief and you literally have no inclination either way. As an atheist, I do not know that there is no God (to me there is no entity to be neither proved nor disproved), yet I operate my life assuming that there isn't one.

Strictly speaking I'm an apathetic agnostic - I don't have the evidence to say whether there is a god or not and I don't care because as near as I can tell the question doesn't impact on my life apart from when I engage in these debates.

If we assume for a second that jak731 hadn't just admitted that he was about to make things up then yep, I'd be agnostic about the invisible pink elephant, it has been set up so there are no tests that can be done to determine its existence and I see no reason to care if it does or doesn't exist therefore I don't profess belief one way or the other about it.

 

[Gaidin109]

If it's invisible then why does it matter if it is pink? Did the elephant tell you it was pink? If so then why are you taking the word of an invisible talking elephant?

Personally I'm agnostic about your pink invisible (and possibly talking) elephant, it may exist and it may not but I have no proof regarding its veracity so I do not dismiss it (except that you've just admitted to making things up) and perhaps more importantly I don't need to care about it as it impacts on my life not one single iota.

I am of the opinion that you could dismiss an invisible language capable pink elephant as improbable, due to the elephants vocal ability making it unable to talk, this being verifiable by science. Also the fact that the elephant would have the ability to bend light in such a way to make it invisible would be highly improbable either. Also to have colour would denote it was not invisible at all and thus can be dismissed as proven fallacy. Unless its a semi-invisible elephant with telepathy of course.

 

[jak731]

Really? Yes, the only 'science' with any 'proof' is mathematics, but it is not unreasonable at all to dismiss something which nobody has ever documented or observed. With all of our incredible observations, we haven't seen elephants fly, and we have no evidence of any invisible large mammal, so its logical to reasonably say that it doesn't exist. This differs from the idea of a god since, as aforementioned, you might not be able to measure a god via observation if it exists outside of our space and time, which is a fair point.

It is not a fair point though, as it is just as made up as the statement about elephants. The elephant may exist outside of space and time. Any untestable statement which is made up can be changed arbitrarily and is ultimately meaningless.

When people ask me if evolution is factual or true, I retort with 'the chance of evolution, as we currently understand it, being factual is of the same likelihood as the sun rising tomorrow'.

I think people can get too carried away with the 'you cannot prove anything' stance.

Precisely, science leaves everything open to be rewritten, but only if new hard evidence comes to the fore that reinforces a new theory over an old one. Science is not dogmatic at all. Religion on the other hand is very dogmatic, you are not allowed to question anything.

 

[Nitefly]

It is not a fair point though, as it is just as made up as the statement about elephants. The elephant may exist outside of space and time. Any untestable statement which is made up can be changed arbitrarily and is ultimately meaningless.

If said elephant was outside of our space and time, then I couldn't comment of its existence, except I would still find it unlikely on the basis of what it actual was:

a) An elephant, of all things
b) Pink, of all colours
c) One that could 'fly', whatever this means outside of space!

I have no idea what a god or creature would be like outside of space or time. It's a bit like presenting you with a brown box and informing you that you might or might not be something inside, without allowing you to open the box or touch it.

Of all the infinite descriptions, would it be likely to be a man of unprecedented power with a huge curly beard? Probably not, on the basis of how random that would seemingly be. Could it simply be a pink, flying elephant? Again, that would be incredibly obscure and random.

The only intelligent statement that you could make about the content of the box, without faith, is 'I do not know and I cannot make an educated guess'.

Hence I do not know what might exist in that dimension, if it even does exist, but I find it difficult to assure myself that it is of one particular description in particular.

 

[semi-pro waster]

Really? Yes, the only 'science' with any 'proof' is mathematics, but it is not unreasonable at all to dismiss something which nobody has ever documented or observed. With all of our incredible observations, we haven't seen elephants fly, and we have no evidence of any invisible large mammal, so its logical to reasonably say that it doesn't exist. This differs from the idea of a god since, as aforementioned, you might not be able to measure a god via observation if it exists outside of our space and time, which is a fair point.

When people ask me if evolution is factual or true, I retort with 'the chance of evolution, as we currently understand it, being factual is of the same likelihood as the sun rising tomorrow'.

I think people can get too carried away with the 'you cannot prove anything' stance.

"Reasonable to say" and definitive proof are two separable concepts though. While we've explored a significant portion of the World we do not know everything about all of it, I'm not suggesting it is likely there is an invisible pink elephant, it's merely a possibility (and not a very likely one at that) but what I am saying is that I simply don't care if such a creature exists provided it doesn't impact on me in any way - if said elephant stood on my toe then I'd have good cause to be interested in it, not least because I wouldn't see it coming.

While it is reasonable to say the elephant in question doesn't exist for a variety of reasons I don't wish to try and prove it, the question has been set up so there are no tests that can be conducted for it (or there would be if it was only a question of sight and we weren't allowed to test for the space taken up by the elephant) but I've got no reason to worry about it beyond that so I do not consider it again.

Heresy has a wide meaning which changes depending upon which canon of belief happens to be in vogue at any given time. This is why it is less defined that you think. Each creed of christianity in particular defines what is specifically heretical to its belief structure, this also changes depending upon the interpretation of doctrine, which is why I say its a fallacy. 'It may be heretical today, but maybe not tomorrow', for example. Heresy has been used to perpetrate ideology of individuals as much as protection of canon.

As to the second point, You are correct, I reacted to someone telling me what to think, when in hindsight without reading the Book first I shouldnt comment.

What constitutes heresy and to what degree would depend on which branch of Christianity you referred to. It isn't just "x is against the Bible" therefore it's heresy. The Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox churches each have their own dogma/tradition/interpretations and as such will view dissenting opinions differently. Papal infallibility is part of the Catholic church and is rejected by the other branches of Christianity.

I would hazard to guess that the churches often contradict each other when it comes to a belief consituting heresy.

At many times in history the Churches themselves have debated issues such as the trinity, the nature of Christ and the difference between the God of the Old Testament and that of the New Testament. Heresy like a lot of other church doctrine changes as time goes by, acts that were once considered sinful become acceptable... One could even say the church and it's doctrine evolve, in the sense of adapation, to the circumstances it finds itself in. E.g. persecuted sect, fad for Roman nobles, divine leader of the Western world, irrelevance.

Both of you are broadly saying the same thing which was why in my comment I put that whether you felt the Christian in question spoke to a broad base of Christianity is another question entirely. I understand that heresy is defined differently by different branches of the church but a Christian is probably the best placed to tell you if it is heretical according to their interpretation, if you want to compare that to the interpretations of other Christians then decide which you agree with that's fair enough.

Of course it is an absurd suggestion and I was merely using it as an example to highlight how absurd it is that people think they know how 'god' wants them to run their lives. In principle it cannot be dismissed but at the same time it can be used to justify anything, which is wrong imo. The point of my example was to show that any non dismissable argument no matter how silly can be constructed. Does this mean we should give credit to such arguments whether they affect your life or not?

I give credit to the arguments in that I think people should be allowed to believe what they like providing it is not directly hurting anyone else. If they don't affect my life and particularly not in any negative way I don't see why I should worry about them.

The other problem with such arguments is since they are not testable they are open to change with no justification. Other people are entitled to their beliefs but I cannot understand why so many people would want to run their lives according to a fallacy. I certainly do not.

I think most religious people (generalising here i know but i think it holds for the vast majority) are religious because their family is. It's ingrained into their minds from a young age and becomes beyond reproach.

What is the fallacy here? Remember that just because you do not believe in something doesn't automatically make it wrong.

 

[Gaidin109]

It is not a fair point though, as it is just as made up as the statement about elephants. The elephant may exist outside of space and time. Any untestable statement which is made up can be changed arbitrarily and is ultimately meaningless.

You seem (I may be wrong, not catching the whole thread of this converstion) that science deals in absolutes to reach conclusions. It does not, it deals with probabilty, Is the Elephant likely to exist outside space-time etc, is highly improbable with what we know about elephants and physics at this time. So the elephant does not exist in all probability, Science allows for the addition of more information and probable outcomes to revise this conclusion at a latter time. This can be applied to the existence of God, its improbable, but not impossible so cannot be discounted entirely. Theoretical Physics deals with improbables and theoretical constructs all the time, Higgs Boson been apt for this topic. God fills that void in understanding, as we get more understanding so God is either superceded or proven depending on the evidence.

Precisely, science leaves everything open to be rewritten, but only if new hard evidence comes to the fore that reinforces a new theory over an old one. Science is not dogmatic at all. Religion on the other hand is very dogmatic, you are not allowed to question anything.

Religion is not God, religion is mans way of trying to understand what it cannot. Its man that is dogmatic in its application of belief of God, not whether God is real, or what form it may be.

 

[Gaidin109]

Both of you are broadly saying the same thing which was why in my comment I put that whether you felt the Christian in question spoke to a broad base of Christianity is another question entirely. I understand that heresy is defined differently by different branches of the church but a Christian is probably the best placed to tell you if it is heretical according to their interpretation, if you want to compare that to the interpretations of other Christians then decide which you agree with that's fair enough.

Point taken, until I have read the book in question and know more of the canon of the Christian involved I cannot comment on the veracity of his conclusion. I retract the statement.

 

[jak731]

What is the fallacy here? Remember that just because you do not believe in something doesn't automatically make it wrong.

The fallacy is the dogmatic doctrine of all the major religions, which the majority of humanity live their lives by. As I have already said I am agnostic with regards to the existence of a god, I think you are too from what you have said. My point is that although I can't prove or disprove the existence of god it's existence or non-existence is not quantifiable and at the end of the day has no impact on my life and imho shouldn't on anyone else's.

You seem (I may be wrong, not catching the whole thread of this converstion) that science deals in absolutes to reach conclusions. It does not, it deals with probability , Is the Elephant likely to exist outside space-time etc, is highly improbable with what we know about elephants and physics at this time. So the elephant does not exist in all probability, Science allows for the addition of more information and probable outcomes to revise this conclusion at a latter time. This can be applied to the existence of God, its improbable, but not impossible so cannot be discounted entirely. Theoretical Physics deals with improbables and theoretical constructs all the time, Higgs Boson been apt for this topic. God fills that void in understanding, as we get more understanding so God is either superceded or proven depending on the evidence.

I know science does not deal in absolutes, but it does look at what is the best answer today and strives to improve understanding. This seems like the best course of action to me. The higgs boson is not a comparable hypothesis to that of god, for the reason that the existence of the higgs boson is testable. When the LHC finally works at full power long enough to get results in, we will know whether it exists or not with reasonable certainty. We will change or improve our hypothesis either way and move on. Since the existence of god can never be proved or disproved, it is not a hypothesis that can get you anywhere or bring new knowledge.

Religion is not God, religion is mans way of trying to understand what it cannot. Its man that is dogmatic in its application of belief of God, not whether God is real, or what form it may be.

Billions of people follow monotheistic religions whose main belief is that there is a God. They then structure belief systems around what they think this god wants of us. They pray, worship and give sacrifices to this god. If you take religion out of the equation the existence of a god is neither here nor there in how it affects us.

 

[wozencl]

I thought that heresy was a fairly defined term i.e. it is heretical to believe position X as it goes against the Bible, in which case a Christian is probably reasonably well placed to confirm or deny that aspect of it. Whether you accept them as speaking for a broad base of Christians is something else entirely.

Both of you are broadly saying the same thing which was why in my comment I put that whether you felt the Christian in question spoke to a broad base of Christianity is another question entirely. I understand that heresy is defined differently by different branches of the church but a Christian is probably the best placed to tell you if it is heretical according to their interpretation, if you want to compare that to the interpretations of other Christians then decide which you agree with that's fair enough.

I am not trying to be pedantic but you are saying two rather different things in those posts. Concerning the first, you start by saying - I'm paraphrasing - "heresy that is a belief that goes against the Bible" and then finish by saying a Christian would be well placed to confirm or deny that aspect of it. By it you are referring to the ability to confirm or deny "position x goes against the Bible", surely? Your original statement is incorrect and therefore your subsequent conclusion is wrong as well.

Your second post is unclear to me.

"a Christian is probably the best placed to tell you if it is heretical according to their interpretation, if you want to compare that to the interpretations of other Christians then decide which you agree with that's fair enough."

Do you mean a single person's interpretation? If that's the case then the person's personal interpretation cannot differ from accepted custom or it too would, by definition, be heresy.
If, however, you mean they would be well placed to tell you if it was heretical according to their branch of Christianity then you should really say so. It gets a little hard to follow when you use "a Christian" ambiguously, to me "a Christian" could be any member of the Anglican, Protestant Catholic or Orthodox churches and they are going to have differing, sometimes widly, views.

 

[semi-pro waster]

I am not trying to be pedantic but you are saying two rather different things in those posts. Concerning the first, you start by saying - I'm paraphrasing - "heresy that is a belief that goes against the Bible" and then finish by saying a Christian would be well placed to confirm or deny that aspect of it. By it you are referring to the ability to confirm or deny "position x goes against the Bible", surely? Your original statement is incorrect and therefore your subsequent conclusion is wrong as well.

I fear this one is going to go round in circles but nevermind. The original post that I was replying to was to the effect that they would not take a Christians viewpoint on what constitutes heresy - I'm asking who better than a Christian to determine what is heretical? Then subsequently in my first comment I've pointed out that what one Christian believes may not be what another believes on the subject of heresy therefore you've got to weight according to whether you feel they speak for the majority (and therefore accepted definition of heresy). I could perhaps have expanded this to make it clearer but I didn't think it necessary at the time c'est la vie.

Your second post is unclear to me.

"a Christian is probably the best placed to tell you if it is heretical according to their interpretation, if you want to compare that to the interpretations of other Christians then decide which you agree with that's fair enough."

Do you mean a single person's interpretation? If that's the case then the person's personal interpretation cannot differ from accepted custom or it too would, by definition, be heresy.
If, however, you mean they would be well placed to tell you if it was heretical according to their branch of Christianity then you should really say so. It gets a little hard to follow when you use "a Christian" ambiguously, to me "a Christian" could be any member of the Anglican, Protestant Catholic or Orthodox churches and they are going to have differing, sometimes widly, views.

Certainly Christians have different viewpoints, it's one of the few things you can guarantee that many will differ in the branch they follow. I wasn't defining which branch of Christianity I was referring to because I'm not referring to any specific one, to do so would suggest that I believed one to be more correct than the others - personally I don't feel that Anglicans are more correct than Protestants or Catholics etc.

For the sake of clarity though I mean a Christian is best placed to tell you the interpretation of what constitutes heresy in their particular branch of the religion.

 

[Gaidin109]

I know science does not deal in absolutes, but it does look at what is the best answer today and strives to improve understanding. This seems like the best course of action to me. The higgs boson is not a comparable hypothesis to that of god, for the reason that the existence of the higgs boson is testable. When the LHC finally works at full power long enough to get results in, we will know whether it exists or not with reasonable certainty. We will change or improve our hypothesis either way and move on. Since the existence of god can never be proved or disproved, it is not a hypothesis that can get you anywhere or bring new knowledge.

Its comparable because, the technology to prove or disprove Higgs Boson was not available when the Higgs mechanism was first theorised. As science has progressed so has our understanding, to the point when we may or may not be able to prove this Theory. God can be proven or disproven the same way, To say the existence of God can never be proven or disproven is wrong. For example, what if in the future we make contact with a species that prove to be what our ancestors though of as God, or science comes up with proof of a Universal Conciousness which could also be interpreted as God. Just because we do not understand something or have no proof of something, does not automatically mean that it cannot be. God may not be what we expect, if he exists at all. The reason for the thread.

 

[Fantom]

Feynman

I want to learn more from this fellow, inspiring how his mind works

 

[Fantom]

I want to learn more from this fellow, inspiring how his mind works

Just ordered "Surely you are joking mr Feynman" looking forward to some interesting reading!

 

[Vonhelmet]

What constitutes heresy and to what degree would depend on which branch of Christianity you referred to. It isn't just "x is against the Bible" therefore it's heresy.

Hence why I said that the vast, vast majority of Christians who know anything about what they believe would reject the book.

 

[p4radox]

Just ordered "Surely you are joking mr Feynman" looking forward to some interesting reading!

It's brilliant.

 

[wozencl]

Hence why I said that the vast, vast majority of Christians who know anything about what they believe would reject the book.

Ok...

I wasn't replying to you and I am not sure what this book is and thus have no idea of it's content. To be frank as soon as I read "you should get 'Conversations with God'" in a post I skip it - I am going to guess it's someone's ramblings about how they've discovered how God truly wants us to live. I find religion fascinating in a historical sense but I am not really interested in Jim from Ohio's account of what God means to him.

My reply was to semi-pro waster's point about heresy and the definition of it he used, more specifically "i.e. believing in position x which goes against the Bible". We've since established that he was replying to a particular point and that he did not wish to imply that all Christians share the same views on what constitutes heresy. The posts I made were meant to convey the differences in doctrine that have occured within and between churches.

As for the Christians who "know anything about what they believe" it would appear, judging by this thread at least, that they a few and far between.

 

[taz488]

there is no god.

oh wait, was i supposed to say that?

 

[semi-pro waster]

Just ordered "Surely you are joking mr Feynman" looking forward to some interesting reading!

He was a truly fascinating man, if you like that one you may also like to consider "What Do You Care What Other People Think?" - I didn't enjoy it quite as much as it was a bit less jovial in tone but in a way it was probably more revealing about his character.