For the context of the following comments please click on the hyperlinks above them.
(Continuing from previous post … The following conversations are from the Patheos hosted blog – “Rational Doubt” – Guest blogger is an Mary Johnson. She is a ex-nun who lost her faith and now considers herself an atheist.)
Otto – “(quoting from my butterfly response to Pofarmer) ‘OK, yes this is a trope that I use way too much. But no-one ever bothers to address it. (so I persist)’
Wrong, it is addressed. It is addressed by biologists and entomologists. The philosophical question it brings up are addressed as well. And regardless of whether or not you feel they have adequately answered the issue(s) to your satisfaction I see no reason to conclude ‘therefore god’. That does not answer the issues any better and in my opinion sets us back (both personally and socially) by attempting to smuggle in an unfounded conclusion.”
“I see no reason to conclude ‘therefore god’. That does not answer the issues any better…”
Nor does it conclude “therefore no God”. In fact based on the line of reasoning that brings me to suggest it, and my own understanding of how, and how not to understand the nature of God, it is a real gem.
“.. and in my opinion sets us back (both personally and
socially) by attempting to smuggle in an unfounded conclusion.”
It was not a conclusion as presented, but rather a question meant to nudge the reader into position to understand my frame of reference. (And also possibly spark a sense of wonder and even reverence. Sans the need to conquer it with a new model or theory.)
I will also note that once again I’m being referred to some external authority as regards the above question. Does it mean that you have been convinced of something yourself? If so what?
Personally, I’m hoping that you will ask yourself, “Why would a man’s cultivation of a sense for the undivided whole, in anyway interfere with the quest of science for specific knowledge of it’s parts?”
I could go on but don’t want to wear out my welcome.
Otto – “I have not concluded ‘therefore no god’…just no evidence that points in that direction.”
But I have, and so butt heads with y’all because what is obvious to me is not to you. Why? What is different? Why does it matter? etc.
Otto – “Also I am not pointing you to an external authority, I am rebutting your claim that your question is not being addressed.”
And yet you have not bothered to apply it to the question in the context of this conversation. I have no idea why it’s potency is not recognized. Or why my sense of it may be misguided.
This is the gist of my lament.. “But no-one ever bothers to address it. (so I persist)”
Otto – “Not understanding the mechanism butterflies use to navigate is no different than a man 2000 years ago not understanding the mechanism that produces lightning.”
At the very least, here is a working definition of God. “The Uncarved Block”.
You do understand that there is an infinitude of nuance to be teased out of THIS. Out of the REAL. And no matter how much we “know” the pool is in no way diminished or even changed.
This is *my* working definition of God.
Otto – “The question I hope you ask yourself is ‘why would an undivided whole necessitate god?’ “
You misunderstand (I hope not for stubbornly political reasons). I’m saying that anything less would be a false god. Or at least an unnecessarily primitive conceptualization.
Otto – “It could turn out to be case but at this point I only see that answer as unsatisfying and lacking.”
That is because this is not your field of interest.
Otto – “New models and theories of the workings add to my awe and wonder, they don’t detract from them.”
Me as well, but nothing really changes. We refine our conceptions. This is evolution.
Otto – “(quoting me) ‘This is *my* working definition of God.’
Defining god with mushy terms and concepts that seem to be intentionally framed in such a way that they can never be vetted, verified, demonstrated or falsified may be useful to you but it doesn’t further our collective understanding and knowledge one iota.”
Kevin Osborne responding to Otto – “Actually you can experiment with awareness and creation which are the components of God within this place. You can make the simple experiment of taking another viewpoint completely. It seems easy but is not because of the setup that encourages a severe limit on one’s reality. There are thousands of books which undertake to explain such but one must be wiling to learn in order to do so.”
Otto responding to Kevin Osborne – “(quoting Kevin Osborne) ‘Actually you can experiment with awareness and creation which are the components of God within this place.’
You would need to demonstrate that this statement is factual first. Why should I (or anyone) just stipulate that premise?
(quoting Kevin Osbourne) ‘There are thousands of books which undertake to explain such but one must be wiling to learn in order to do so.’
There are thousands of books on astrology. psychics. phrenology, reading tea leaves, etc. Having books written on a subject does not make the subject valid. Stating that one must be willing to *learn* in order for the information to make sense is a crock…it is condescending and insulting. That type of reasoning is a sure path to gullibility.”
He was not saying that “you ” must be willing to *learn* in order for the information to make sense”. But, be willing to engage in the exercise described. i.e actually get out of the way and see what the person is talking about.
It occurs to me that Einstein’s theories might have seemed like a crock if I didn’t trust qualified people to explain it to me.
or .. perhaps gone to the trouble of leaning the math. (which is not likely to happen.)
Either way, I rely on willingness and faith until the epiphany of understanding the thing itself.
You don’t seem to realize that we are saying the same thing?
Otto – “Qualified people explaining it is not enough..”
brmckay – ” I rely on willingness and faith until the epiphany of understanding the thing itself.”
Your dismissal of my statement as a sign of gullibility is “proof” that your agenda (dogma) has skewed your understanding of my side of this discussion.
“The assumption that I have not investigated the baseless assertions you and Kevin espouse is bad one.”
“baseless assertions” is an assumption.
His reference to the thousands of books (observation, testimony) combined with his experience (replication), should be a reasonably sufficient starting point to “investigate” the matter without the prerequisite ideological spin (there is no God).
In order to perceive proof you have to prepared the experiment with integrity.
In the case of proof of God, or enlightenment, the ground of the experiment is your own being. No way around that. Waiting for a priesthood of elite scientists for confirmation, just adds to the pile of books about it.
Kevin Osborne responding to Otto – “You will know someday. Be well.”
Otto responding to Kevin Osborne – “I can tell you exactly the day I will ‘know’ it…when it can be demonstrated and replicated.”
Well….demonstrate it then.
Otto – “I have never been able to. Nor has anyone else… which is why we are having this discussion.”
Upon what are you basing this incredibly broad statement?
What criteria have you applied? What are your expectations? Who’s testimony or life example have you investigated?
What are you looking for, Some sort of mathematical formula?
I suspect that we’ve probably reached the limit of what we can hope to accomplish. I’m willing to give it a rest if you are.
[note: Unfortunately, we don’t “give it a rest” just yet. To be continued…]