Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
Terry Eagleton has come out with a new book, called "Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate", that's already getting glowing reviews from publications like Salon.
And I was having a discussion with an atheist, who claimed that Terry Eagleton God concept is a conception shared only by a marginal amount of theist, even though Eagleton claims it as the mainstream conception. I agree with Eagleton, that the mainstream understanding of God is along his lines, but perhaps I'm wrong. SO I snipped out the relevant portions of his review of the God Delusion, and was curious to know how TEs (who I say are fair reps of mainline theism) and Creationisit (who I say are fair reps of fundementalist, and many evangelical circles), thought of Eagleton's snipped out thoughts here, if they take gripes with it, or find it to be a good representative of their own conception:
"Dawkins holds that the existence or non-existence of God is a scientific hypothesis which is open to rational demonstration. Christianity teaches that to claim that there is a God must be reasonable, but that this is not at all the same thing as faith. Believing in God, whatever Dawkins might think, is not like concluding that aliens or the tooth fairy exist. God is not a celestial super-object or divine UFO, about whose existence we must remain agnostic until all the evidence is in." [...]
His transcendence and invisibility are part of what he is, which is not the case with the Loch Ness monster. This is not to say that religious people believe in a black hole, because they also consider that God has revealed himself: not, as Dawkins thinks, in the guise of a cosmic manufacturer even smarter than Dawkins himself, but for Christians at least, in the form of" Jesus Christ [...]
"This, not some super-manufacturing, is what is traditionally meant by the claim that God is Creator. He is what sustains all things in being by his love; and this would still be the case even if the universe had no beginning. To say that he brought it into being ex nihilo is not a measure of how very clever he is, but to suggest that he did it out of love rather than need...."
"The Creation is the original acte gratuit. God is an artist who did it for the sheer love or hell of it, not a scientist at work on a magnificently rational design that will impress his research grant body no end.
Because the universe is God’s, it shares in his life, which is the life of freedom. This is why it works all by itself, and why science and Richard Dawkins are therefore both possible. The same is true of human beings: God is not an obstacle to our autonomy and enjoyment but, as Aquinas argues, the power that allows us to be ourselves. Like the unconscious, he is closer to us than we are to ourselves. He is the source of our self-determination, not the erasure of it. To be dependent on him, as to be dependent on our friends, is a matter of freedom and fulfilment. Indeed, friendship is the word Aquinas uses to characterise the relation between God and humanity."
__________________ Homer, the aged poet: Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman.
"the main question that troubled me greatly all my life was the existence of god. And now I have a clear and sacred symbol of my faith and it’s very simple. It’s Jesus Christ. And I believe that there is nothing (and nothing can be) more beautiful, profound, sensible and perfect than he is”
~Dostoevsky
Last edited by theIdi0t; 29th April 2009 at 03:53 AM.
The existence or non-existence of God is a scientific hypothesis which is open to rational demonstration.
Edit: Quote in above post changed to represent that this is Dawkins' view. I still say it's wrong. lol.
Sorry, I gotta stop it right there.
God is NOT DISCOVERABLE BY SCIENCE. period. end of story.
God is supernatural. Science is, and can only ever be, the study of the natural. God is not a hypothesis, or anything of the sort. Science can't touch Him.
Also, as a joke... "Thou shalt not put the Lord, thy God, to the test." We wouldn't be allowed to do science on Him anyways. (chuckle).
The Creation is the original acte gratuit. God is an artist who did it for the sheer love or hell of it, not a scientist at work on a magnificently rational design that will impress his research grant body no end.
Now, this is true. God did create the universe, and He did it out of love. Now, whether or not the Creation is the literal Genesis accounts is another case.
Metherion
__________________ Oh, for the love of Pete!
PETE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS!!!!
And, because I won't write anything I'm not willing to attach my name to...
Metherion
Last edited by metherion; 29th April 2009 at 04:29 AM.
That was my fault, i snipped out the beginning of that sentence that said Dawkins holds that position, not Eagleton, it should have read:
"Dawkins holds that the existence or non-existence of God is a scientific hypothesis which is open to rational demonstration."
And Eagleton argues against this claim, but I accidently snipped out the "Dawkins holds that" part.
I fixed in the OP, already, sorry for the confusion.
__________________ Homer, the aged poet: Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman.
"the main question that troubled me greatly all my life was the existence of god. And now I have a clear and sacred symbol of my faith and it’s very simple. It’s Jesus Christ. And I believe that there is nothing (and nothing can be) more beautiful, profound, sensible and perfect than he is”
~Dostoevsky
God is NOT DISCOVERABLE BY SCIENCE. period. end of story.
If science is the study of the natural world, and God is supernatural, then He too could be discovered through science. Things, such as miracles, could happen that outright disobey the known laws of the universe. For example, if someone broke their leg and the bone was protruding out through their skin, then someone may pray for healing. If that bone and skin healed before people's very eyes, with documented proof of it happening, then God's action becomes a case of scientific inquiry because this breaks several known laws of the universe, and science must admit the possibility of a supernatural force. For God to be a personal God means He must interject every now and then to break the laws of the universe, which would be something that could be scientifically observed. Some may say that God uses natural processes for all of His work, but if God always used natural processes to do His work, then how is He any different from a deistic or pantheistic view?
I haven't had a lot of discussion on this topic so I'm eager for some criticism.
__________________ For free printable drum lessons with audio check out my website. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
If science is the study of the natural world, and God is supernatural, then He too could be discovered through science. Things, such as miracles, could happen that outright disobey the known laws of the universe. For example, if someone broke their leg and the bone was protruding out through their skin, then someone may pray for healing. If that bone and skin healed before people's very eyes, with documented proof of it happening, then God's action becomes a case of scientific inquiry because this breaks several known laws of the universe, and science must admit the possibility of a supernatural force.
Science cannot admit or deny the possibility of a supernatural force, anymore so than mathematics can, or a game of Halo can. At best science can claim that they have no possible explanation of such a case at all, that is, it's beyond their reach to make a possible claim regarding it. Science is limited to giving only natural explanations, just like mathematics is limited to giving only mathematics explanations. Giving us supernatural explanations is something that science cannot do.
__________________ Homer, the aged poet: Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman.
"the main question that troubled me greatly all my life was the existence of god. And now I have a clear and sacred symbol of my faith and it’s very simple. It’s Jesus Christ. And I believe that there is nothing (and nothing can be) more beautiful, profound, sensible and perfect than he is”
~Dostoevsky
Science cannot admit or deny the possibility of a supernatural force, anymore so than mathematics can, or a game of Halo can. At best science can claim that they have no possible explanation of such a case at all, that is, it's beyond their reach to make a possible claim regarding it. Science is limited to giving only natural explanations, just like mathematics is limited to giving only mathematics explanations. Giving us supernatural explanations is something that science cannot do.
Yet current scientific theories do admit to the possibility of existences outside of this universe. Parallel universes could be considered supernatural, since they are not a part of this natural universe. Gravity is a weak force in the universe, but it has been suggested that it is actually just as strong as the other forces. The reason that it seems weaker to us is that the gravatons escape to parallel universes. If this idea gains more evidence, then some of that evidence would be that gravatons enter our universe from "outside" of it. This is all part of the scientific domain. If God intervened to perform a miracle, then something from "outside" of this universe is causing it to happen, which would be a scientific issue just the same as any M-theory or multiverse theory that's out there.
__________________ For free printable drum lessons with audio check out my website. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
That was my fault, i snipped out the beginning of that sentence that said Dawkins holds that position, not Eagleton, it should have read:
"Dawkins holds that the existence or non-existence of God is a scientific hypothesis which is open to rational demonstration."
And Eagleton argues against this claim, but I accidently snipped out the "Dawkins holds that" part.
I fixed in the OP, already, sorry for the confusion.
Thanks for the mix up. And my statement still stands, I'm not gonna retract it just coz someone else said what I'm critiquing.
Yet current scientific theories do admit to the possibility of existences outside of this universe. Parallel universes could be considered supernatural, since they are not a part of this natural universe. Gravity is a weak force in the universe, but it has been suggested that it is actually just as strong as the other forces. The reason that it seems weaker to us is that the gravatons escape to parallel universes. If this idea gains more evidence, then some of that evidence would be that gravatons enter our universe from "outside" of it. This is all part of the scientific domain. If God intervened to perform a miracle, then something from "outside" of this universe is causing it to happen, which would be a scientific issue just the same as any M-theory or multiverse theory that's out there.
Ah, but you see, if gravitons WERE escaping to a parallel universe, then those parallel universes would be natural. They are natural things that interact in known and measurable ways with our own, in this case stealing gravitons. Or donating them. Or both. Correlations to this might be found and possibly related to quantum mechanics. In that case, the gravitons which are inside and part of this universe would be acting according to (currently unknown) natural laws which govern their behavior. Even if we could never use the same process to go there or send anything there or even interact with said parallel universe, it would still be scientific, because of the measurable, predictable, etc role it has interacting with ours.
God, on the other hand, is a supernatural being with free will that can bend and break natural laws at will and for any reason with no necessary pattern, etc. There are no God tests, no God predictions, etc, and never will be because God can make them fail without us ever knowing.
On the other hand, tests we may have that involve a parallel universe or several could have definite criteria that would always respond yes or no, or with numbers, etc. There is no 'it can exist, but can choose not to be detected because of X.' With God, there is. God can exist and still choose to make whatever test we have fail to maintain us needing faith. After all, if He could be scientifically proven, nobody would NEED faith.
Metherion
__________________ Oh, for the love of Pete!
PETE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS!!!!
And, because I won't write anything I'm not willing to attach my name to...
Yet current scientific theories do admit to the possibility of existences outside of this universe. Parallel universes could be considered supernatural, since they are not a part of this natural universe.
Well, and I'd say your very loosely using the term, in a way must people would not agree with it.
supernatural |ˌsoōpərˈna ch (ə)rəl|
adjective
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature :
A parallel universe if it existed, is not beyond potential scientific understanding.
As, you can see with the definition of supernatural, that we are speaking of something beyond science, beyond the means of science to deny or claim.
__________________ Homer, the aged poet: Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman.
"the main question that troubled me greatly all my life was the existence of god. And now I have a clear and sacred symbol of my faith and it’s very simple. It’s Jesus Christ. And I believe that there is nothing (and nothing can be) more beautiful, profound, sensible and perfect than he is”
~Dostoevsky
supernatural |ˌsoōpərˈna ch (ə)rəl|
adjective
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature :
A parallel universe if it existed, is not beyond potential scientific understanding.
As, you can see with the definition of supernatural, that we are speaking of something beyond science, beyond the means of science to deny or claim.
AHA! You flipped the switch in my mind that was what I was trying to get at in my previous post.
Parallel universes might not operate on OUR natural laws, but they WOULD BE operating on their inherent natural laws. On the other hand, God is constrained by no laws. He's God.
Metherion
__________________ Oh, for the love of Pete!
PETE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS!!!!
And, because I won't write anything I'm not willing to attach my name to...
If science is the study of the natural world, and God is supernatural, then He too could be discovered through science. Things, such as miracles, could happen that outright disobey the known laws of the universe. For example, if someone broke their leg and the bone was protruding out through their skin, then someone may pray for healing. If that bone and skin healed before people's very eyes, with documented proof of it happening, then God's action becomes a case of scientific inquiry because this breaks several known laws of the universe, and science must admit the possibility of a supernatural force.
First, there would have to be an actual documented instance of this---and I don't know of any.
But even then, how do you know it breaks any natural law? I grant that it is not explainable by any known law, but that doesn't mean there is no natural explanation. It just means that we don't know of any natural explanation.
Second, whether or not it broke any natural law, how do you know the prayer for healing had anything to do with it? How could it be determined scientifically that prayer had any effect. Perhaps the healing would have occurred even if no one had prayed.
For God to be a personal God means He must interject every now and then to break the laws of the universe, which would be something that could be scientifically observed. Some may say that God uses natural processes for all of His work, but if God always used natural processes to do His work, then how is He any different from a deistic or pantheistic view?
I don't agree that God must every now and then break laws of the universe---which is not quite the same thing as saying he never did. But God is never compelled to break the laws of the universe.
The God of theists differs from the deist God in that the deist God never imposes his will on the universe. The theist God may work through natural processes, but still imposes his own purposes on the outcomes of natural processes. I think where you are hung up is in thinking the only way God can affect nature is by acting against it rather than with it. But that would be like saying that a sculptor could only create by fighting with the marble instead of by using its properties. The true artist is one who knows his/her material and its capacities so well they are able to shape it according to the artist's purpose by using its own nature, not by violating its nature. Is not the omniscient and omnipotent creator of the world also the most adept at using what he created simultaneously according to its own nature and according his own purposes? Indeed would he not create its nature to be conformable to his purposes?
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
Linear Mode
