![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 34 to 58 of 126. Go back in thread:
Posted by Noa on November 13, 1999, at 23:05:29
In reply to Re: Depression, Evolution , posted by Bob on November 13, 1999, at 21:54:17
This calls to mind the book, Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers, which is a great book about stress in animals and humans. Perhaps problems cause us to die young because they are chronic, social problems, and our responses to stress are still better suited for the running-for-your-life-acute-stress-reaction type stress, like the zebra about to be eaten by the lion, or the lion whose cubs will die if she doesn't capture that zebra. Chronic exposure to stress hormones do make our bodies sick. Even shrinks our seahorses (hippocampi).
Posted by CC on November 14, 1999, at 2:27:30
In reply to Re: Depression, Evolution , posted by Bob on November 13, 1999, at 21:54:17
> First of all, the most profound thing I've got to say about everything between this and my last post is "wow!". Might as well keep it simple -- no extended description would do it justice.
>
> Thanks CC and A on the H&H info.
>
> E, I wouldn't limit atheists by decribing them all as empiricists (testable hypotheses as the path to all that is knowable). Then again, I've known a number of atheists who give empiricism a bad name, and it certainly doesn't need any help on that.
>
> It's not that faith is incompatible with empiricism, but that they are incommensurate systems. Their "primitive" assumptions are rooted in non-intersecting aspects of our experience.
>
> I'd go farther than others here, I think, in just how divorced from "proof" true faith is. If what I hold true by faith has any correlation to what is taught by any book or any minister, I cannot accept that external source as corroboration for what I believe. If anything, pardon me for the hubris, I'd say the reverse is true -- that the traditional teachings still have validity because the faith of contemporary individuals who look inside provide the evidence. Not so much that we invent god, but rather that god is continually renewed and reinvented through us.
>
> Along the same lines, I'd say those who need to demonstrate proofs of the literal interpretations of religious texts have no faith whatsoever. Knowing the exact date of creation does nothing to explain why it works as it does, just as achieving a grand unification theory of everything [sic] cannot explain why it is in the first place.
>
> But CC had a question:
> do you think "man" is capable of solving the problems currently facing us?
>
> If god poses questions for us to which god already knows the answer, then what's the point? If god "cheats" and helps us answer those questions, then why bother with us? My wager is that god has no idea whether we can solve the problems we face, and that's why god put us here in the first place. I think god took his best shot, cut us loose, and if we can ascertain just in what aspect of god's image we have been created and if we can stick with it, we have a pretty good shot.
>
> I mean, if you were god (and I'm not talking just to Adam here =^P ), would you jump ahead to the end of the book, or would you let the mystery unfold?
>
> Who says the end is even written, anyway?
> (Yeah, I know, Saint Augustine for one...)
>
> BobWell,
I'd go farther than others here, I think, in just how divorced from "proof" true faith is. If
what I hold true by faith has any correlation to what is taught by any book or any
minister, I cannot accept that external source as corroboration for what I believe.by analogy, suppose I had a patient with OCD who seemed to respond well to luvox. I then consulted the literature to see if other people reported similiar findings. And later, I attended a Psychiatrist convention and discussed my observations with other psychiatrists and they reported similiar results. Would my belief in luvox's effectiveness be reinforced?
If
anything, pardon me for the hubris, I'd say the reverse is true -- that the traditional
teachings still have validity because the faith of contemporary individuals who look
inside provide the evidence. Not so much that we invent god, but rather that god is
continually renewed and reinvented through us.Here your working assumption seems to be that the Scriptures have no merit of their own, and that people just read into them what they want to see. And then there is prophesy, which although it isn't iron clad science, is pretty compelling evidence of God or precognition, for those familiar with the Scriptures anyway.
Along the same lines, I'd say those who need to demonstrate proofs of the literal
interpretations of religious texts have no faith whatsoever. Knowing the exact date of
creation does nothing to explain why it works as it does, just as achieving a grand
unification theory of everything [sic] cannot explain why it is in the first place.The intent of people trying to prove the literal interpretation of Scripture would be hard to know for someone outside that Faith and most of them probably aren't to concerned why apples fall from trees etc.. And the origin of the universe is still a pretty strong argument for the existance of God.
But CC had a question:
do you think "man" is capable of solving the problems currently facing us?If god poses questions for us to which god already knows the answer, then what's the
point? If god "cheats" and helps us answer those questions, then why bother with us?
My wager is that god has no idea whether we can solve the problems we face, and
that's why god put us here in the first place. I think god took his best shot, cut us
loose, and if we can ascertain just in what aspect of god's image we have been created
and if we can stick with it, we have a pretty good shot.First, you seem to be assuming that "God" created the problems we are stuck with, and given the enormity of the problems, do you think man can figure his way out of them, without God's help? If you do I don't share your optimism, and would it be too much to ask if I could store some spent plutonium in you garage? Whether or not God is bored because he knows everything, we don't know whats going to happen next, or could we look it up in the literature??
I mean, if you were god (and I'm not talking just to Adam here =^P ), would you jump
ahead to the end of the book, or would you let the mystery unfold?If you are curious how things end, you could look at the last few chapters of Revelations.
Posted by Adam on November 14, 1999, at 3:11:52
In reply to Re: Depression, Evolution...(??for Adam), posted by CarolAnn on November 13, 1999, at 15:31:20
I was also a Religious Studies major in college. It was an insane thing to do. To get all those classes in, be bio/pre-med and attept to
stick a chemistry minor in there too (one class shy, damnit) just about killed me sometimes, but I still loved it.Anyway, I need to look up stuff in a lot of my old texts these days, but I'm pretty sure of the following:
Eschatology: Means "study of the end". Beliefs about the ultimate destiny of humankind as directed by God.
Paraclete: The presence of Christ after his death and ressurection, or the "Holy Spirit." I think it means "the comforter."
Parousia: The second coming of Christ, in the context of the standard Christian concept of the apocalypse.> Adam, How do you know so much about the bible, especially all those biblical terms. I thought I had read it pretty thouroughly, but I never heard of the following:
> eschatology - Paraclete - Parousia
> If you wouldn't mind, I'd love an exact definition of each of these. Thanx, CarolAnn
Posted by CarolAnn on November 14, 1999, at 8:48:24
In reply to Re: Depression, Evolution , posted by Bob on November 13, 1999, at 21:54:17
> It's not that faith is incompatible with empiricism, but that they are incommensurate systems. Their "primitive" assumptions are rooted in non-intersecting aspects of our experience.
>
> Along the same lines, I'd say those who need to demonstrate proofs of the literal interpretations of religious texts have no faith whatsoever.> Who says the end is even written, anyway?
> (Yeah, I know, Saint Augustine for one...)<<<
Hey Bob, gosh we seem to have alot of the same ideas regarding Faith. Along these lines are three posts(of mine) that I wonder if you've read?:"God ect. more heaven and hell"
"Depression, Evolution(to Elizabeth)"
And, "I'm so sorry Elizabeth, I mis-spoke"
On another tangent:
I'd love to have your opinion on my post,"Question for everyone..." Thanks! CarolAnn
Posted by Been There on November 14, 1999, at 9:46:20
In reply to Re: Depression, Evolution...(??for Adam), posted by Adam on November 14, 1999, at 3:11:52
Awhile ago my husband worked with several POW's
from Vietnam who were creating a "what to do if
captured" program for pilots/infantry/ or any
combat personnel. When asked what kept these guys
going, several imprisoned for more than 5 years,
each one answered the same: SOME type of belief system.
For some it was their religion or a spreme being.
Others had no formal religion (before or after) but rallied themselves
each day with patriotism. Still others were determined to see their
families again. The guys with real "attitude" or self-bravado were
usually killed fairly soon after capture or succombed to the
beatings, torture, lack of food/medicine, etc. (So much for
John Wayne fantasies)
For me, this is simply a microcosm of life at this
moment in time on this planet in this galaxy... Don't
we ALL take a beating sometime? It doesn't matter if you
believe life began with two white,adult Hebrew-speaking
persons and a talking snake or fairy dust that exploded
a googleplex ago and we're actually sitting on the 9 ball in
some great cosmic pool table. Just take your shot!
Posted by stranger on November 14, 1999, at 12:53:58
In reply to What is faith?, posted by Been There on November 14, 1999, at 9:46:20
Some of you really put yourselves on the highest of pedestals imagining you know this or that about god or that if there is a god it cares so much about you or your affairs.
The version of god you were almost certainly raised on is that of the bible, and that god is perhaps the most sadistic and demented creature in all of human literature.Suggestion:
Stop trying to impose your version of order on an incredibly complex world.
So many things that have perplexed us have at one time or another been attributed to the supernatural. Like mental illness - obviously evidence of the presence of some supernatural force.Don't be afraid to say I don't know. It doesn't hurt so bad.
Posted by CarolAnn on November 14, 1999, at 13:23:08
In reply to A rant with no apologies, posted by stranger on November 14, 1999, at 12:53:58
> Suggestion:
> Stop trying to impose your version of order on an incredibly complex world.
> > Don't be afraid to say I don't know. It doesn't hurt so bad.<<<<<
Dear Stranger--It seems to me that hardly any of these posts are about "imposing" any particular beliefs. Most of them are just discussing the topic by *sharing* their ideas. My posts, particularly, are not meant to be any sort of imposition. Quite the opposite, the main point of *all* of my posts is that each individual should use their own experiences and knowledge to make the *choice* of what they are going to believe. This message is particularly clear in the following four posts:
First--"Depression,Evolution...Sorry about above"-This post is signed-CarolAnn(The nut formerly known as Carol).
Second--"Depression,Evolution(to Elizabeth)"
Third--"God ect...more heaven and hell"-(this post actually contains the words,"...we'll never know")"
fourth--"I'm so sorry,Elizabeth I mis-spoke"Anyway, if you read those four in that order, you'll get my drift. Hopefully, you will see that we're not really trying to "Convert" anyone, we're all just having interesting "Conver"sation.
Hope you're not offended, CarolAnn.
Posted by Bob on November 14, 1999, at 14:21:15
In reply to Re: Depression, Evolution , posted by CC on November 14, 1999, at 2:27:30
> [Me] ...If what I hold true by faith has any correlation to what is taught by any book or any minister, I cannot accept that external source as corroboration for what I believe.
> [CC] by analogy, suppose I had a patient with OCD who seemed to respond well to luvox. I then consulted the literature to see if other people reported similiar findings. And later, I attended a Psychiatrist convention and discussed my observations with other psychiatrists and they reported similiar results. Would my belief in luvox's effectiveness be reinforced?(1) The analogy doesn't apply. Scientific rules of being and knowing are different from those of faith. You're comparing apples and oranges. All the same, all of those anecdotal supports for luvox may reinforce my belief in luvox's effectiveness after all, but I'd hardly be basing my "trust" in luvox through a scientific process of coming to know.
> [Me]... the traditional teachings still have validity because the faith of contemporary individuals who look inside provide the evidence. Not so much that we invent god, but rather that god is continually renewed and reinvented through us.
> [CC] Here your working assumption seems to be that the Scriptures have no merit of their own...(2) Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.
>[CC] and that people just read into them what they want to see.
(3) What stops anyone from doing so anyway? Even if god wrote exactly what god meant in any or all of the foundational religious tomes out there, using each author as god's own instrument, there remains the problem of interpretation by those of us not so blessed as to have god reading back inside of us what god wrote in the first place. On the other hand, there are those who believe that god does exist in each of us and it is through aspiration, through the listening to and realization of that voice that faith is gained and scriptures become meaningful.
> [CC]And then there is prophesy, which although it isn't iron clad science, is pretty compelling evidence of God or precognition
(4) Prophesy is not science of any kind. On the other hand, our complete lack of understanding of the nature of time, particularly its dimensionality, does not rule out a scientific explanation for what gets described as prophecy. The phenomena categorized as prophecy may one day have an empirical explanation, and prophecy (as something that is akin to scientific understanding) may takes its place with spontaneous generation, the transmutation of elements, the caloric theory of heat, and the flat earth theory.
> [Me] Along the same lines, I'd say those who need to demonstrate proofs of the literal interpretations of religious texts have no faith whatsoever.
> [CC] ... the origin of the universe is still a pretty strong argument for the existance of God.(5) So why belittle the argument by trying to affix dates to events? To seek evidence of god in evidence of the Great Flood or the Ark of the Covenant is to admit your faith is insufficient; particularly if you need to turn to worldly explanations to support it. If you need material evidence of the hand of god in the material world, then meditate on a spider's web or the face of a newborn for a while, but don't waste anyone's time trying to prove the spiritual message in any book of god through such "historical" proofs as finding the wreck of Noah's Ark.
> [CC] First, you seem to be assuming that "God" created the problems we are stuck with...
(6) In coming to know the material world, we often find that the answer to one questions raises even more questions. So yes, in creating this world, god created both the potential for its problems and its wonders. (That is, if you believe that god created the universe in the first place.) But I never said anything about being stuck with these problems. My faith has no place for such pessimism.
> [CC] ... and given the enormity of the problems, do you think man can figure his way out of them, without God's help?
(7) God created us in god's own image, or so we are told. Shouldn't that be enough? I think god's provided all the help that is both necessary and sufficient.
> [CC]If you do I don't share your optimism, and would it be too much to ask if I could store some spent plutonium in you garage?
(8) Would you base an argument on the qualities of faith on reduction to the absurd? If you believed in god's message and had the faith to back it up, would you ever **seriously** even consider asking that question?
> [CC]... we don't know whats going to happen next, or could we look it up in the literature?? If you are curious how things end, you could look at the last few chapters of Revelations.
(9) That much of the bible I have read. It's pretty good propaganda for keeping the masses in their place underneath the clergy. As for the apocalyptic visions of various organized religions, I think they say more about humanity's infidelity in seeing god's vision for us than about that vision itself. An abortion of this universe reflects just as poorly on god's imperfections as it does on god's creation. I'd prefer to believe that god has more faith in us than we place either in god or in ourselves.
(so, I wonder that this conversation has to do with depression and evolution ... ;^)
Bob
Posted by Bob on November 14, 1999, at 15:18:38
In reply to Re: Depression, Evolution (To Bob...), posted by CarolAnn on November 14, 1999, at 8:48:24
Okay CarolAnn, since you asked ...
> ["God ect. more heaven and hell"]
I think that whatever can be taken literally of any religious text is so fundamental and simple that our natural urge to embellish hides the meaning fairly quickly, if we ever come to a state of such simplicity that we can even glimpse the literal. Otherwise, yes, I also agree that if someone out there was keeping score on how many sins have been committed using god's words as justification as opposed to how many sins have been prevented using the same criteria, the sins would be winning in a blow-out. Let's hope it's quality and not quantity that matters.Religious books may be fine teachers (of both the right and the wrong interpretations of god), but they have no value without faith in the first place. And I think that faith is found from within, not from without. That's why accountability is more important to me than any sort of ritual cleansing from without or external admission of guilt.
The idea of being put right back here into the same situation if one commits suicide is interesting, but I don't think that retribution (and I believe that's exactly what it would be, for someone to send another intentionally into pain as a punishment for taking a faulty path out of that pain) is something god cares too much for. My article of faith that helps keep me from taking my own life is the thought of the pain that killing myself would cause god and how god would forgive me all the same. Sometimes, we choose not to take our own lives due to the pain we would cause a loved one. Now there's a vision of hell for you -- trying to imagine the pain you would cause god and the guilt that would cause. I haven't found an earthly pain worth that much grief.
"Dogma" reminds me of the new film coming out. First Cardinal O'Connor condemning the exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum of Art, and now the Catholic League with all its wild comments about "Dogma". I mean, these are no Holocausts -- no individuals are being singled out because of their beliefs. Even if they ARE an attack on the RC Church, perhaps the RC Church needs to be challenged now and then (as any other religious organization), particularly if they get so defensive. But one thing I know is true -- god needs no protection ... instead, if YOUR faith is challenged, then look to yourself. John Cardinal O'Connor, where is your faith?
Or, as Howard Jones put it --
"And if they were not meant to be
Well, don't you think they wouldn't be?"
> "Depression, Evolution(to Elizabeth)"If any scientist, particularly those who claim to be such since 1900 or so, ascribes to absolute scientific truths, then that person is lying about being a scientist. The positivists tried to come up with an ontology/epistemology (theory of being/theory of knowing) that could "prove" statements to be true. Karl Popper basically struck the first fatal blow to such philosophy, but it rings so true with our common sense ways of knowing that positivism ain't quite dead yet. Still, science functions primarily on not a theory of verification, but one of falsification. Nothing can be proven true; it can only be supported until something comes along to prove it false and under what conditions it is so.
This is also the basis for my claim about faith and science being incommensurate systems. Faith is concerned with what is accepted as true. Science is concerned with what is not demonstrably false and, perhaps even moreso, with what *is* demonstrably false. The two are nowhere near different sides of the same coin.
As for relativity, quantum mechanics, and the big bang theory ... well, there have been many indications of support for their basic ideas, but the details are constantly being revised.
>["I'm so sorry Elizabeth, I mis-spoke"]
I do agree with your equating atheists and christians (or followers of any (dis)organized religion or cult) if their belief is based solely upon the words of others. That isn't belief, it isn't faith ... it's "knowledge" of one sort or another.> On another tangent:
> This is getting to be such a long thread. Anyone sufficiently interested in the topic to go down and start again with a new thread?I'd say the masses have voted. But I'll add a word in a separate post.
Bob
Posted by Bob on November 14, 1999, at 15:21:36
In reply to Question for all of you...., posted by CarolAnn on November 13, 1999, at 16:14:36
... forward into the new section! Quite a few on the names on this thread are those who agreed with what a pain it is to have long threads pulled out of old archives into the latest version of Babble.
Now, I only hope I haven't been reading so long that Dr. Bob's already done the archiving!!!
Bob
> This is getting to be such a long thread. Anyone sufficiently interested in the topic to go down and start again with a new thread?
> I really hope so, I love this discussion.CarolAnn
Posted by Bob on November 14, 1999, at 15:32:38
In reply to Re: A rant with no apologies(to the stranger), posted by CarolAnn on November 14, 1999, at 13:23:08
> > Suggestion:
> > Stop trying to impose your version of order on an incredibly complex world.I'd also like to point out that most of those who try to impose some order on the world, unless one is in charge of the crusade, aren't imposing *their own* version of order.
I do agree with you last point: one of the most powerful thing a teacher can do is say "I don't know" to a student's question. Even ore powerful are the words "Why don't you go find that out for yourself, then come back and teach me."
Bob
Posted by stranger on November 14, 1999, at 16:36:54
In reply to Re: A rant with no apologies(to the stranger), posted by CarolAnn on November 14, 1999, at 13:23:08
CarolAnn, I never meant that you or anyone else impose your beliefs on others.
I'm talking about the way theists and other supernaturalists force things to MAKE SENSE in your own head by inventing god or any other supernatural explanation for things that we can't understand (yet) through natural means.
I just meant to add to this discussion the idea that belief in the supernatural is the result of fear of the unknown (what happens after death, the meaning of life).
Rather than accepting the mystery and the pain that often comes with it, supernaturalists invent explanations. And if the explanation sounds ludicrous, they of course have the built in argument - "God (or whatever) works in mysterious ways."
It's nothing more than postulation. Rather than just saying life and mother nature are full of mysteries, we say life and mother nature do make sense because god (or whatever) has a plan/meaning in mind. We just can't see it because god (or whatever) is full of mystery.
Either way we end with mystery. Why create the extra character? It just bogs down the story (life).
Posted by CC on November 14, 1999, at 19:06:37
In reply to Re: Depression, Evolution (CC), posted by Bob on November 14, 1999, at 14:21:15
> > [Me] ...If what I hold true by faith has any correlation to what is taught by any book or any minister, I cannot accept that external source as corroboration for what I believe.
> > [CC] by analogy, suppose I had a patient with OCD who seemed to respond well to luvox. I then consulted the literature to see if other people reported similiar findings. And later, I attended a Psychiatrist convention and discussed my observations with other psychiatrists and they reported similiar results. Would my belief in luvox's effectiveness be reinforced?
>
> (1) The analogy doesn't apply. Scientific rules of being and knowing are different from those of faith. You're comparing apples and oranges. All the same, all of those anecdotal supports for luvox may reinforce my belief in luvox's effectiveness after all, but I'd hardly be basing my "trust" in luvox through a scientific process of coming to know.
>
> > [Me]... the traditional teachings still have validity because the faith of contemporary individuals who look inside provide the evidence. Not so much that we invent god, but rather that god is continually renewed and reinvented through us.
> > [CC] Here your working assumption seems to be that the Scriptures have no merit of their own...
>
> (2) Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.
>
> >[CC] and that people just read into them what they want to see.
>
> (3) What stops anyone from doing so anyway? Even if god wrote exactly what god meant in any or all of the foundational religious tomes out there, using each author as god's own instrument, there remains the problem of interpretation by those of us not so blessed as to have god reading back inside of us what god wrote in the first place. On the other hand, there are those who believe that god does exist in each of us and it is through aspiration, through the listening to and realization of that voice that faith is gained and scriptures become meaningful.
>
> > [CC]And then there is prophesy, which although it isn't iron clad science, is pretty compelling evidence of God or precognition
>
> (4) Prophesy is not science of any kind. On the other hand, our complete lack of understanding of the nature of time, particularly its dimensionality, does not rule out a scientific explanation for what gets described as prophecy. The phenomena categorized as prophecy may one day have an empirical explanation, and prophecy (as something that is akin to scientific understanding) may takes its place with spontaneous generation, the transmutation of elements, the caloric theory of heat, and the flat earth theory.
>
> > [Me] Along the same lines, I'd say those who need to demonstrate proofs of the literal interpretations of religious texts have no faith whatsoever.
> > [CC] ... the origin of the universe is still a pretty strong argument for the existance of God.
>
> (5) So why belittle the argument by trying to affix dates to events? To seek evidence of god in evidence of the Great Flood or the Ark of the Covenant is to admit your faith is insufficient; particularly if you need to turn to worldly explanations to support it. If you need material evidence of the hand of god in the material world, then meditate on a spider's web or the face of a newborn for a while, but don't waste anyone's time trying to prove the spiritual message in any book of god through such "historical" proofs as finding the wreck of Noah's Ark.
>
> > [CC] First, you seem to be assuming that "God" created the problems we are stuck with...
>
> (6) In coming to know the material world, we often find that the answer to one questions raises even more questions. So yes, in creating this world, god created both the potential for its problems and its wonders. (That is, if you believe that god created the universe in the first place.) But I never said anything about being stuck with these problems. My faith has no place for such pessimism.
>
> > [CC] ... and given the enormity of the problems, do you think man can figure his way out of them, without God's help?
>
> (7) God created us in god's own image, or so we are told. Shouldn't that be enough? I think god's provided all the help that is both necessary and sufficient.
>
> > [CC]If you do I don't share your optimism, and would it be too much to ask if I could store some spent plutonium in you garage?
>
> (8) Would you base an argument on the qualities of faith on reduction to the absurd? If you believed in god's message and had the faith to back it up, would you ever **seriously** even consider asking that question?
>
> > [CC]... we don't know whats going to happen next, or could we look it up in the literature?? If you are curious how things end, you could look at the last few chapters of Revelations.
>
> (9) That much of the bible I have read. It's pretty good propaganda for keeping the masses in their place underneath the clergy. As for the apocalyptic visions of various organized religions, I think they say more about humanity's infidelity in seeing god's vision for us than about that vision itself. An abortion of this universe reflects just as poorly on god's imperfections as it does on god's creation. I'd prefer to believe that god has more faith in us than we place either in god or in ourselves.
>
> (so, I wonder that this conversation has to do with depression and evolution ... ;^)
>
> BobIn response,
"> [Me] ...If what I hold true by faith has any correlation to what is taught by any book
or any minister, I cannot accept that external source as corroboration for what I
believe.
> [CC] by analogy, suppose I had a patient with OCD who seemed to respond well
to luvox. I then consulted the literature to see if other people reported similiar findings.
And later, I attended a Psychiatrist convention and discussed my observations with
other psychiatrists and they reported similiar results. Would my belief in luvox's
effectiveness be reinforced?(1) The analogy doesn't apply. Scientific rules of being and knowing are different from
those of faith. You're comparing apples and oranges. All the same, all of those
anecdotal supports for luvox may reinforce my belief in luvox's effectiveness after all,
but I'd hardly be basing my "trust" in luvox through a scientific process of coming to
know."faith does not have to be in any "mystical" thing, you could have faith in science or humanism, that is you believe in them or their validity or have confidence in them. The analogy is about reinforced belief. Scientific rules or not, I am talking about reinforcement of experiencial observations. If you want to deify science thats your perogative.
"> [Me]... the traditional teachings still have validity because the faith of contemporary
individuals who look inside provide the evidence. Not so much that we invent god, but
rather that god is continually renewed and reinvented through us.
> [CC] Here your working assumption seems to be that the Scriptures have no merit
of their own...(2) Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying."
Well you are free to have your own opinion.
">[CC] and that people just read into them what they want to see.
(3) What stops anyone from doing so anyway? Even if god wrote exactly what god
meant in any or all of the foundational religious tomes out there, using each author as
god's own instrument, there remains the problem of interpretation by those of us not so
blessed as to have god reading back inside of us what god wrote in the first place. On
the other hand, there are those who believe that god does exist in each of us and it is
through aspiration, through the listening to and realization of that voice that faith is
gained and scriptures become meaningful."You can read anything into anything. This has nothing to do with the validity of the text. The idea that God exists in or influences everybody is not, as far as I know, inconsistent with Christian belief.
"> [CC]And then there is prophesy, which although it isn't iron clad science, is pretty
compelling evidence of God or precognition(4) Prophesy is not science of any kind. On the other hand, our complete lack of
understanding of the nature of time, particularly its dimensionality, does not rule out a
scientific explanation for what gets described as prophecy. The phenomena
categorized as prophecy may one day have an empirical explanation, and prophecy
(as something that is akin to scientific understanding) may takes its place with
spontaneous generation, the transmutation of elements, the caloric theory of heat, and
the flat earth theory."Well maybe it seems farfetched, but no more so than a time machine. And the idea that it is antiquated nonsense is your opinion. I think you have way too much "faith" in science.
"> [Me] Along the same lines, I'd say those who need to demonstrate proofs of the
literal interpretations of religious texts have no faith whatsoever.
> [CC] ... the origin of the universe is still a pretty strong argument for the existance of
God.(5) So why belittle the argument by trying to affix dates to events? To seek evidence of
god in evidence of the Great Flood or the Ark of the Covenant is to admit your faith is
insufficient; particularly if you need to turn to worldly explanations to support it. If you
need material evidence of the hand of god in the material world, then meditate on a
spider's web or the face of a newborn for a while, but don't waste anyone's time trying
to prove the spiritual message in any book of god through such "historical" proofs as
finding the wreck of Noah's Ark.> [Me] Along the same lines, I'd say those who need to demonstrate proofs of the
literal interpretations of religious texts have no faith whatsoever.
> [CC] ... the origin of the universe is still a pretty strong argument for the existance of
God.(5) So why belittle the argument by trying to affix dates to events? To seek evidence of
god in evidence of the Great Flood or the Ark of the Covenant is to admit your faith is
insufficient; particularly if you need to turn to worldly explanations to support it. If you
need material evidence of the hand of god in the material world, then meditate on a
spider's web or the face of a newborn for a while, but don't waste anyone's time trying
to prove the spiritual message in any book of god through such "historical" proofs as
finding the wreck of Noah's Ark."Well faith tends to need periodic reinforcement. And maybe they thought finding historical evidence to back up the Scripture might help facilitate the conversion of the secular world.
"> [CC] First, you seem to be assuming that "God" created the problems we are stuck
with...(6) In coming to know the material world, we often find that the answer to one
questions raises even more questions. So yes, in creating this world, god created both
the potential for its problems and its wonders. (That is, if you believe that god created
the universe in the first place.) But I never said anything about being stuck with these
problems. My faith has no place for such pessimism.> [CC] ... and given the enormity of the problems, do you think man can figure his
way out of them, without God's help?(7) God created us in god's own image, or so we are told. Shouldn't that be enough? I
think god's provided all the help that is both necessary and sufficient."Well it is my opinion that we are where we are because of a lot of mostly bad choices made by exercising our free will. God tried to give us guidance that we to often ignored. What do you have "faith" in that allows no room for pessimism? And what exactly is meant by "we are created in God's image" isn't clearly defined.
"> [CC]If you do I don't share your optimism, and would it be too much to ask if I
could store some spent plutonium in you garage?(8) Would you base an argument on the qualities of faith on reduction to the absurd? If
you believed in god's message and had the faith to back it up, would you ever
**seriously** even consider asking that question?"This was a joke alluding to one very serious problem mankind is faced with, what to do with all the nuclear waste. As far as I know they haven't figure out what to do with the bulk of it. And you have the greenhouse effect, the depletion of the ozone layer, the possibility of nuclear war, and the degeneration of the media. These problems seem to me pretty unmanageable, and if we could get help from God, we would be fools not to take it.
"> [CC]... we don't know whats going to happen next, or could we look it up in the
literature?? If you are curious how things end, you could look at the last few chapters
of Revelations.(9) That much of the bible I have read. It's pretty good propaganda for keeping the
masses in their place underneath the clergy. As for the apocalyptic visions of various
organized religions, I think they say more about humanity's infidelity in seeing god's
vision for us than about that vision itself. An abortion of this universe reflects just as
poorly on god's imperfections as it does on god's creation. I'd prefer to believe that
god has more faith in us than we place either in god or in ourselves.(so, I wonder that this conversation has to do with depression and evolution ... ;^)"
Shame on the clergy for discouraging evil, immorality, socially destructive or irresponsible behavior. The "Church" can augment psychotherapy or sometimes replace psychological treatment. I personally would feel more comfortable confiding in a Priest than a Psychiatrist, its a matter of trust. I am not however advocating an abandonment of psychological medical treatment. And religion is the main opposition of evolution, isn't it?
Posted by Bob on November 14, 1999, at 19:59:22
In reply to Re: Depression, Evolution (CC), posted by CC on November 14, 1999, at 19:06:37
> faith does not have to be in any "mystical" thing, you could have faith in science or humanism, that is you believe in them or their validity or have confidence in them. The analogy is about reinforced belief. Scientific rules or not, I am talking about reinforcement of experiencial observations. If you want to deify science thats your perogative.
I was arguing quite the opposite -- the last thing science needs is to be deified. The same goes for Faith with a capital F. If Faith in god isn't mystical or spiritual, then I say it is not Faith but faith in the teachings of an authority, such as a clergy. Empiricizing Faith is as undermining as deifying Science.
> You can read anything into anything. This has nothing to do with the validity of the text. The idea that God exists in or influences everybody is not, as far as I know, inconsistent with Christian belief.
So if the God of Christ lives within us, why would we need to rely on the words of men to teach us Truth? If you are in touch with your Faith, then IT validates what you read from others, not the other way around. Faith comes from First-Hand "experience" if it comes from within, second-hand at best if from without.
> Well maybe it seems farfetched, but no more so than a time machine. And the idea that it is antiquated nonsense is your opinion. I think you have way too much "faith" in science.
You're reading too much into the text. For now, prophecy is as mysterious as why life exists on Earth and not Mars or Venus, as Earth's environment was once as hostile as either. There is no explanation that can explain prophecy through some other means, so there's no basis for calling it antiquated nonsense.
And as a scientist, I have no faith in science. I may trust well-documented and replicated explanations and I may have hope in the trajectories of understanding what we know today suggest, but Science is far too narrow a means of knowing the world to put any faith in.
And again, to keep the apples and the oranges separate, I find no Faith in Science, nor do I look to Science to prove my Faith. They exist in difference spaces of knowing.
> Well faith tends to need periodic reinforcement.
And I still say that looking outside of yourself to reinforce your Faith means you're looking in the wrong place.
> Well it is my opinion that we are where we are because of a lot of mostly bad choices made by exercising our free will.
And each bad choice of Man compounds the bad choice of God that allows such to happen in the first place, does it not?
oops ... the X-Files is on ... gotta get my priorities straight. Nice chatting with you, CC
Bob
Posted by CC on November 14, 1999, at 22:54:32
In reply to Re: Depression, Evolution (CC), posted by Bob on November 14, 1999, at 19:59:22
Just a few comments,
"Empiricizing
Faith"Everything in the outside world that reinforces your faith or strenghtens it is like empirical data that would strenghten a scientific theory except that it is a personal thing that does not readily yield to scientific prodding. Of course I only have my own personal experiences to base this on.
"So if the God of Christ lives within us, why would we need to rely on the words of
men to teach us Truth? "In isolation from a larger body of "believers", and given that there is a spiritual adversary, in Christianity Satan, even though you may have some spiritual insight, your adversary is there to confuse you, and people have been known to come up with some weird ideas. So outside influence would hopefully set these people straight, not to imply that anyone has all the answers.
Another analogy might be, if people are born with a natural instinct to procreate, why do we need sex-education? They have all the necessary information in their being, why would they need anything else?"And as a scientist, I have no faith in science."
I think you do have faith in science though you might call it something else. If you didn't "believe" science gives an accurate representation of reality, why would you bother with it? Its a systematic representation that you hold to be the most valid model available, and you have confidence in it. Not that you worship or revere it. For me this is pretty much synonymous with "faith".
"And I still say that looking outside of yourself to reinforce your Faith means you're
looking in the wrong place."This idea is probably incompatible with Christianity. Christianity encourages fellowship and for us to consider ourselves part of a larger "body". Various things can strengthen one's faith and a lot of them come from day to day experiences, from outside the "self".
"the bad choice of God "
We believe in a "perfect" God.
"oops ... the X-Files is on ..."
I believe it was a good episode, did they take a chunk of Mulder's brain out!?
Posted by Elizabeth on November 14, 1999, at 23:00:16
In reply to Re: Depression, Evolution (CC), posted by CC on November 13, 1999, at 16:59:42
> If you could prove God exists, there would be no need for "faith".
Well, exactly; it's an untestable hypothesis. (And do we really have need for it? Laplace didn't....)
> I think Christians generally beleive that without faith, nothing can be accomplished.
Plenty of people have accomplished great things without needing to appeal to an object of religious faith.
> The good thing about Mainstream Christianity is that you have something besides your own personal experiences to guide you, the Scripture and the hierarchical higher ups.
Appeals to authority aren't inherently bad, but I think it is a good idea to look at where the authorities' opinions came from. If you can't find good reasons there, then arguably they should not really be considered "authorities."
> What about my question, do you think "man" is capable of solving the problems currently facing us?
An answer to this rather broad question would require a lengthy dissertation! Briefly, though, I don't necessarily expect all problems to be solved by humanity, certainly not in my lifetime.
One question is, is it possible for people to *accept* that some problems will go unsolved? (Any Buddhists out there?)
Posted by Elizabeth on November 14, 1999, at 23:16:41
In reply to I'm so sorry Elizabeth, I mis-spoke, posted by CarolAnn on November 13, 1999, at 16:28:36
> I didn't mean to equate Atheism with religion.
I know. What I meant might be summarized by saying that "atheism" should not be capitalized - it's not a "movement," a religion, a political party, any of these things.
For me it is a matter of skepticism (with a pinch of Occam's razor thrown in): I have found no reason to suppose that there are supernatural beings, so I do not include the supernatural in my beliefs or world view. The existence of supernatural forces seems an unlikely explanation for what can be explained by causes that are natural.
> So, if a person is an atheist based on only what they have been told by other athiests, it is the same thing as a person who is a christian based only on what they have been told by other christians.
And as I said, there is no atheist pope.
Posted by Adam on November 15, 1999, at 0:22:41
In reply to Re: Depression, Evolution (CC), posted by Elizabeth on November 14, 1999, at 23:00:16
> One question is, is it possible for people to *accept* that some problems will go unsolved? (Any Buddhists out there?)Though I am not a Buddhist, I expect a learned Buddhist might answer that all problems have an ultimate (if not direct) solution
in the extinction of the self (which can only be fully achieved through Moksa, or Enlightenment). After that "problems" cease
to be problems; once one has achieved Nirvana, there is no concious mind to percieve them as such.
Posted by CC on November 15, 1999, at 0:46:13
In reply to Re: Depression, Evolution (CC), posted by Elizabeth on November 14, 1999, at 23:00:16
"Well, exactly; it's an untestable hypothesis. (And do we really have need for it?
Laplace didn't....)"
Untestable from a scientific viewpoint, not necessarily from a personal viewpoint. Laplace can worry about how to transform an equation from the time domain to the frequency domain for all I care."Plenty of people have accomplished great things without needing to appeal to an
object of religious faith."This is part of Christian doctrine, maybe it should read "nothing of any real consequence".
"Appeals to authority aren't inherently bad, but I think it is a good idea to look at where
the authorities' opinions came from. If you can't find good reasons there, then arguably
they should not really be considered "authorities.""These "authorities" have had 2000 years+ of study to base their ideas on, thats good enough for me.
"An answer to this rather broad question would require a lengthy dissertation! Briefly,
though, I don't necessarily expect all problems to be solved by humanity, certainly not
in my lifetime."Do you think that mankinds survival as a species over the next 100 years is likely?
"One question is, is it possible for people to *accept* that some problems will go
unsolved? (Any Buddhists out there?) "Sorry bud, I can't help you there.
Posted by Bob on November 15, 1999, at 10:34:10
In reply to Re: Depression, Evolution (CC), posted by CC on November 14, 1999, at 22:54:32
> "oops ... the X-Files is on ..."
>
> I believe it was a good episode, did they take a chunk of Mulder's brain out!?Certainly looks like they did ... maybe all that hyperactive frontal lobe graymatter is now in the CSM's head. Hmmm ... but left or right lobe? Looks like this should be moved to Noa's thread on laterality of function....
b
Posted by bigbertha on November 15, 1999, at 22:40:50
In reply to Re: Depression, Evolution 2E, posted by CC on November 15, 1999, at 0:46:13
>Elizabeth:
>"Appeals to authority aren't inherently bad, but I think it is a good idea to look at where
the authorities' opinions came from. If you can't find good reasons there, then arguably
they should not really be considered "authorities."">CC:
These "authorities" have had 2000 years+ of study to base their ideas on, thats good enough for me.
Well that might work for you but let's look at some people who had
opposing views having "real" consequences:1. Probably THE biggest thorn in Jesus' side (no pun intended!)
was the authorities better known as the Pharisies, Sudduccies,etc.
Learned men naturally became the "authorities", because reading/writing
skills were taught on a limited basis. And what happens when access to info
is restricted? Control. The Starchamber sets the rules (see the Book of Numbers!)
because they know challenges will be few. As I recall, Jesus blasted them for
just this thing - creating imposssible rules that THEY themselves didn't follow.
And look what happened at HIS annual review!2. Martin Luther challenged the Catholic Church authorities on their interpretation
of the New Testatment. Although a firebrand, he didn't set out to cause the rupture
but after much debate he realized he had to "walk the walk". Oh yes, there was also
that thing about selling indulgences, and other clerical liberties with the "rules",
but again that's what happens when checks and balances are missing.
3.Women Suffragettes, Ghandi, ML King, Rosa Parks, etc, etc,
took at the racist "ideas" that had been studied by "learned
authorities" who established "their" rules and said "I don't think so!"CC, I'm certain you'll think of many examples. but as JLennon said:
"Whatever gets you through this life..."
Posted by CC on November 15, 1999, at 23:52:52
In reply to See No Evil?, posted by bigbertha on November 15, 1999, at 22:40:50
These people all had faith in something, didn't they? The Beatles at one time thought they were more popular than Christ. Do you now any Beatlist that practice Beatlism?
Posted by Elizabeth on November 16, 1999, at 3:05:41
In reply to Re: See No Evil?, posted by CC on November 15, 1999, at 23:52:52
> These people all had faith in something, didn't they? The Beatles at one time thought they were more popular than Christ. Do you now any Beatlist that practice Beatlism?
I think my sister may fall into that category!
Posted by CarolAnn on November 16, 1999, at 9:15:19
In reply to the Beatles, posted by Elizabeth on November 16, 1999, at 3:05:41
Yes...I do like Sonny & Cher(even though they're wwaaayyyy before my time, okay maybe only slightly "way" before).
Anyway, are we suuurrrre we don't want to go to a new thread on this discussion?
If anyone does want to start again, please take the initiative. I'm just too darn co-dependent to rock the boat!
It just seem as if there is always a reply to be made, with every possible *last* post. CarolAnn
Posted by Elizabeth on November 17, 1999, at 2:58:45
In reply to Re: Depression, Evolution (to Elizabeth), posted by CarolAnn on November 13, 1999, at 16:10:11
Sorry I seem to have missed this one. Am responding now.
> Well, yes Elizabeth, but there are many scientific hypotheses and theorys that are considered to be absolute truths, even with no real way to test them.
I wonder what you consider to constitute "evidence." Really none of the examples you give is at all comparable to mystical claims. To wit:
The big bang heory is based on the fact (observed) that galaxies are moving away from each other at a speed that increases with distance. The most reasonable interpretation of
this observation is that, from any position in
the universe, galaxies are moving away from each other in the same way.This is consistent with the predictions of Einstein's general theory of relativity and
the cosmology he based on it: the universe is expanding. GR is not only consistent with the BB theory, it's also consistent with another theory, the steady-state theory, which says that the universe is eternal, but that new matter is created from nothing in between the galaxies as they separate. This ultimately forms new galaxies, so according to SS, the universe
looks pretty much the same from whatever point in space it is being observed from, but also from whatever point in time. The SS theory is the only
serious rival to the BB presented so far. It fails miserably: far-away galaxies show clear evidence of evolution: early galaxies are ragged and scraggly, and there are more radio galaxies and quasars at great distances than there are in
our region of the universe. So the universe doesn't look even roughly the same no matter when you look. Furthermore, the cosmic background radiation cannot be interpreted in any way suggested by SS or any other conceivable theory, whereas, as was shown definitely in 1990, ALL the observational evidence falls precisely on the curve predicted by the BB. Furthermore again, the
amount of helium and deuterium (heavy hydrogen) predicted by BB is equal to the amount found in the universe today, if you into account the (calculable) amount of helium produced from hydrogen in stars. If that's not enough, since the 1970's BB has been combined with the new physical theories of the elementary particles
(electroweak theory and quantum chromodynamics) to give a much more powerful theory that makes it possible to calculate in detail the processes that occurred in the first seconds after BB. Those physical theories are supported by
overwhelming evidence - many different experiments, all favoring the theories - and all that evidence also supports the theory combined
with them - namely, BB.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.