A new Q & A fresh start

[TheBeardedDude]

My old Q & A thread seems to have died off, I suspect it may be in part to people not wanting to slug through all of it and think I am not asking for some new participants.

So, any takers?

Similar disclaimer to last time, I am looking to learn about christians, their beliefs, the questions they ask, how they ask them, how they respond to answer, and how they answer questions poised to them.

I am not looking for some dishonest double-speak or hidden agenda.

It should pretty informal, you ask a question and then we discuss the answer and when we exhausted that then I ask a question.

Since I am doing the inviting, I give the first question to whomsoever may wish to ask it.

 

[Ianus]

Ask away

 

[TheBeardedDude]

Ask away

I intended for it to be a Q & A about religion with a theist. I'm not sure what questions to ask you.

 

[Iosias]

I am game, what did you wish to ask?

 

[TheBeardedDude]

I am game, what did you wish to ask?

How do you distinguish god's wishes, from your own?

 

[Iosias]

Well I don't think that God tells me what to do, rather God is the source of life, he is the source of love, and thus I seek to orientate my life in accordance with love, to coin Spong - we are to love wastefully.

 

[TheBeardedDude]

Well I don't think that God tells me what to do, rather God is the source of life, he is the source of love, and thus I seek to orientate my life in accordance with love, to coin Spong - we are to love wastefully.

An admirable goal to live one's life for love for sure. Interesting.

I guess I wonder what you think generates the feeling of love then? We know about the biology of our brains well enough to know it is a chemical reaction, how does this fit in with this worldview?

 

[Iosias]

We know about the biology of our brains well enough to know it is a chemical reaction, how does this fit in with this worldview?

The source of love I would say is God who is love, but the mechanics of how we love as biological beings I'd leave to the neuroscientists. Explaining how love comes about says nothing about whether love is true. But, by love I suppose I mean more than simply the feeling we call 'love', but is more broader than that.

 

[TheBeardedDude]

The source of love I would say is God who is love, but the mechanics of how we love as biological beings I'd leave to the neuroscientists. Explaining how love comes about says nothing about whether love is true. But, by love I suppose I mean more than simply the feeling we call 'love', but is more broader than that.

Interesting.

Any questions my way?

 

[Iosias]

What is your main reason for self-identifying as an atheist, i.e. why do you deny the existence of God?

 

[TheBeardedDude]

What is your main reason for self-identifying as an atheist, i.e. why do you deny the existence of God?

I've never heard a definition for god that either had evidence to corroborate its existence or wasn't merely the substitution of the word "god" in place of an already established existing thing.

Such as your definition of saying that god is the source of love. That is what I call the brain (although I might also make the concession that this is the place from which each individual constructs god in their own image)

 

[juvenissun]

How do you distinguish god's wishes, from your own?

First thing for sure. If you do not believe in God, then it is your own.

 

[Eudaimonist]

First thing for sure. If you do not believe in God, then it is your own.

Not necessarily. It could be space aliens.

And you are limiting God here. If God exists, there nothing to prevent God from planting wishes into people.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Iosias]

I've never heard a definition for god that either had evidence to corroborate its existence or wasn't merely the substitution of the word "god" in place of an already established existing thing.

Such as your definition of saying that god is the source of love. That is what I call the brain (although I might also make the concession that this is the place from which each individual constructs god in their own image)

Interesting, your question now I think

 

[TheBeardedDude]

First thing for sure. If you do not believe in God, then it is your own.

It would seem to be your own no matter what.

 

[TheBeardedDude]

Interesting, your question now I think

Gracias.

Do you think all the world's religions could possibly be true?

(as an aside to that one, do you believe in hell as a place of eternal torment?)

 

[Iosias]

Do you think all the world's religions could possibly be true?

Yes

do you believe in hell as a place of eternal torment?

No

That was easy

 

[TheBeardedDude]

Yes



No

That was easy

Cool. I am assuming that if you think all the world's religions could be true, you don't mean via literal interpretations of them and that you believe they all contain some element of truth? (as the biggest today are mutually exclusive in their strictest and literal sense)



No hell sounds more in line with what a loving being might propose. Believe in an afterlife at all?



And feel free to throw a question my way whenever you like. We don't have to make it a formal back and forth each time.

 

[Iosias]

Cool. I am assuming that if you think all the world's religions could be true, you don't mean via literal interpretations of them and that you believe they all contain some element of truth? (as the biggest today are mutually exclusive in their strictest and literal sense)

My understanding is that God exists, but each religion is a humanly constructed reaction of an experience of God. I think I'd echo Hick's work in The Fifth Dimension.

Believe in an afterlife at all?

Yes, but unsure what it would be like in that I don't believe we move from being to non-being, but perhaps a new form of being? I'd echo Hans Kung on this.

My questions:

1. What is your definition of God?
2. Do you believe that there is anything beyond the physical or can everything be explained by science? Is love real even though we can explain its biological mechanism?
3. How do we know, i.e. what is your epistemology?

 

[TheBeardedDude]

My understanding is that God exists, but each religion is a humanly constructed reaction of an experience of God. I think I'd echo Hick's work in The Fifth Dimension.



Yes, but unsure what it would be like in that I don't believe we move from being to non-being, but perhaps a new form of being? I'd echo Hans Kung on this.

My questions:

1. What is your definition of God?
2. Do you believe that there is anything beyond the physical or can everything be explained by science? Is love real even though we can explain its biological mechanism?
3. How do we know, i.e. what is your epistemology?

1. I look at the definitions that are out there already. I believed (at one time) in the literal Christian god of the bible, then some permutation of this god that may not have been physical, then I believed that god may be some energy or thing outside the universe, then I thought maybe god was the universe. The definitions just kept whittling down until I realized I believed in the existence of the universe and why call that god?

2. I'm assuming by "the physical" you mean the universe. If so, I have no idea if anything can exist beyond the universe, but I hold the position that this is highly unlikely as it has never been demonstrated to be plausible. If I see evidence of this, I'll change my stance (some preliminary information may suggest a multiverse? I have no idea what to think of that at present)

I also don't know if science can provide an answer to everything. For starters, I don't know that knowledge is a finite quantity. If it isn't, then there is nothing that could ever help us to understand it all and no one that could know it all. If all the information that is out there is finite, I'm not sure any species will ever exist long enough to learn it all.

As for love, what about it being a biological mechanism would make it any less real? Or important? The love I have for my wife and son is a chemical reaction in my brain, and not only do I find that fascinating but empowering in a sense. I am a collection of chemicals that interact with one another and that interact with other beings. I am the universe trying to understand itself. I find that to be quite extraordinary. From the non-living, comes the living.

3. We don't know. We believe things when we have sufficient information and evidence to believe it. I like Gould's answer here

"In science, fact can only mean confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms." [Stephen J. Gould]