Fundamentalism and Intellectualism

[redwards]

I have to disagree with you here. Supernatural means "beyond nature." Unless Jesus used a natural mechanism to turn water into wine (much like winemakers use natural processes to turn fruit juice into wine), then what he did was "supernatural." I am unaware of any natural process that can turn pure water into wine. This is what Jesus was reported to do.

I'm similarly unaware of of any supernatural process by which pure water can be turned into wine. For that matter, I'm unaware of any supernatural process of any kind. If Jesus did in fact transmute water into a different substance, I would be forced to observe that the natural properties of that substance had changed, and conclude that this process, occurring in the natural world, was in fact natural.

I'm more inclined to conclude that it's a myth, and that hypothesizing about the process is pointless.

 

[Catherineanne]

My experience has been that Fundies, in general, are at least somewhat anti-intelliectual. Science is seen as "Man's Knowledge" and is always trumped by "God's Kowledge," as revealed through scripture. The joke is that both science and The Bible are works of Man. In addition, it is a particular interpretation of scripture that they claim is "God's Word," even though different people can interpret scripture differently.

This is fundie double speak.

Man's knowledge = what others think

God's knowledge = what I think

God's Word = what I say about anything at all, with or without a spurious Bible reference thrown in for good measure

 

[redwards]

This is fundie double speak.

Man's knowledge = what others think

God's knowledge = what I think

God's Word = what I say about anything at all, preferably with a spurious Bible reference thrown in for good measure

For a theist, you sound awfully rational.

 

[Catherineanne]

I have to disagree with you here. Supernatural means "beyond nature." Unless Jesus used a natural mechanism to turn water into wine (much like winemakers use natural processes to turn fruit juice into wine), then what he did was "supernatural." I am unaware of any natural process that can turn pure water into wine. This is what Jesus was reported to do.

It was not supernatural. It was just quicker.

Changing water into an MP3 player would be supernatural. Water into wine is natural.

 

[Catherineanne]

For a theist, you sound awfully rational.

Sorry about that.

 

[Hespera]

I will disagree with your interpretation of the definition of intellectual as you are applying it.

I am an engineer. My professional life relies on solving intellectual problems. I don't solely rely on emotion as the basis of my faith. I have spend countless hours studying many aspects of it. In my opinion, the supernatural is tightly woven with the natural so I don't immediately discount it which account for my OEC belief.

I think my definition is exactly right on with regard to those areas that you dont apply any intellectual standards. Belief in the supernatural, and emotion as a basis for faith being good examples. How do you apply intellectual standards to the study of something that cant be cetected or in any way shown to exist? (not meaning faith, whatever that is exactly, it does seem to exist)

And again, its not 'immediate" or "automatic" rejection of the supernatural!!!!! It is a what, was it you said, judicial weighing of evidence? Zero evidence means I dont believe it till I see evidence!

 

[Catherineanne]

I'm more inclined to conclude that it's a myth, and that hypothesizing about the process is pointless.

It is not pointless if you happen to have a jug of water and a couple of bottles of decent wine handy. Then it is a good excuse for a practical experiment in the efficacy of prayer of the 'faith as small as a mustard seed' variety.

Without the wine, not so much fun.

If Jesus did in fact transmute water into a different substance, I would be forced to observe that the natural properties of that substance had changed, and conclude that this process, occurring in the natural world, was in fact natural.

Quite right. A supernatural Jesus is a scarey prospect.

 

[Hespera]

It is not pointless if you happen to have a jug of water and a couple of bottles of decent wine handy. Then it is a good excuse for a practical experiment in the efficacy of prayer of the 'faith as small as a mustard seed' variety.

Without the wine, not so much fun.

They say the Pilgrims landed where they did in part because they had run out of beer. Anyone know it that might be true?

 

[corvus_corax]

They say the Pilgrims landed where they did in part because they had run out of beer. Anyone know it that might be true?

From The Straight Dope

 

[Bombila]

I am not sure where this word supernatural comes from. Christianity is not about the supernatural, but about the natural.

Christ did not fly around the world in red underpants, he changed water into wine. Nature/God changes water into wine every day.

God's miracles are not about the supernatural. They are about what God does every day. They are about nature, and about life.

Nature generally demands the addition of something like fruit and something like yeast to water before any wine can appear.

 

[Catherineanne]

From The Straight Dope

You heard right, more or less: The Mayflower colonists decided to settle at Plymouth because they were running low on beer.

They leave Southampton, travel across the Atlantic and land at Plymouth.

What are the chances of that?

It reminds me of William the Bastard fighting King Harold at a place called, would you believe, Battle.

Not to mention the Duke of Wellington fighting Napolean at a village in the middle of nowhere, which just happened to be named after his favourite railway station.

My daughter just reminded me of another one. Tobias Furneaux sailed right round the world, only to land at the Furneaux Islands.

And they say there is no God.

 

[Catherineanne]

Nature generally demands the addition of something like fruit and something like yeast to water before any wine can appear.

The gospels are silent about the addition of fruit and a fermenting agent. They don't say it was there, and they don't say it wasn't.

What they say is that several containers were filled with water, and then fine wine was poured out of them.

As with Genesis, we are told the beginning and the end, but some of the bits in the middle are not so clear. However, whatever the process, it is not what I would call supernatural. Supernatural is breaking the laws of nature, not just speeding them up a bit.

Others may think differently, of course. That is up to them.

 

[Hentenza]

Ok then prove there is no bigfoot. You know what I meant.

As for what you said about theories....

Theories are based on data, and subject to falsification.

The problem for creationism to even qualify as a theory is that it
a) has not data
b) is magic-based and as such not subject to falsification.

If you want to use the reasonable doubt model, i have reasonable doubts about creationism since it has no data to confirm it. Evolution has a real edge there!

I also doubt the existence of other things for which there is no evidence and no way to detect their existence.

Can you cite a single theory of origins that is falsifiable?

Again, evolution does not posit origins.

 

[Hentenza]

And back at you.... I'd say that those who do accept the supernatural, automatically or otherwise, on the basis of no evidence whatever are not being detectably intellectual to any degree at all.

Who says there is no evidence? I see plenty of evidence for a creator in nature.

 

[Bombila]

The gospels are silent about the addition of fruit and a fermenting agent. They don't say it was there, and they don't say it wasn't.

What they say is that several containers were filled with water, and then fine wine was poured out of them.

As with Genesis, we are told the beginning and the end, but some of the bits in the middle are not so clear. However, whatever the process, it is not what I would call supernatural. Supernatural is breaking the laws of nature, not just speeding them up a bit.

Others may think differently, of course. That is up to them.

I could actually hazard, if I thought the story was an actual record of a real event, that what was in the containers originally was wine, reduced by dehydration to a syrup or gel at the bottom. Water added to that might dissolve it, resulting in a wine flavoured cordial. Given the guests had already drunk all the wine provided by the host, it's unlikely they were in any condition to judge either the quality or alcohol content of this 'new wine' made by Jesus.

 

[Catherineanne]

Can you cite a single theory of origins that is falsifiable?

Again, evolution does not posit origins.

Personally, I find 'barking mad' and 'sane' much more meaningful as categories.

 

[redwards]

Can you cite a single theory of origins that is falsifiable?

Again, evolution does not posit origins.

Certainly. Any particular hypothesis regarding earthly abiogenesis would be utterly shaken by the discovery of extraterrestrial eukaryotes.

 

[Catherineanne]

I could actually hazard, if I thought the story was an actual record of a real event, that what was in the containers originally was wine, reduced by dehydration to a syrup or gel at the bottom. Water added to that might dissolve it, resulting in a wine flavoured cordial. Given the guests had already drunk all the wine provided by the host, it's unlikely they were in any condition to judge either the quality or alcohol content of this 'new wine' made by Jesus.

That works fine as well. Anything you like, as long as the Lord is not in red undies.

 

[Bombila]

Who says there is no evidence? I see plenty of evidence for a creator in nature.

I suppose you will only cite the effects of 'The Fall', but nature provides some pretty horrific examples of creation in the form of parasites, prey animals eaten alive by predators, natural poisons which cause the eater to die in agony, and so on.

I've always thought it far easier to consider the possibility of a benevolent God if you admit to evolution being the method of creation. Lets the deity off the hook for a lot of dismal realities.

 

[Hentenza]

Please provide the reasoning behind your opinion...

Simply because exceptions to laws have a heuristic value. They are goads to progress in our understanding of the universe. It is not necessary to believe that all exceptions to known law call for another natural law to explain it. Some scientific understanding is based on regular and repeated events, one must be able to show how the exception is repeatable before one can claim that it has a natural cause rather than a supernatural one. Origins is a forensic science given that it is a singular event, hence an exception, not being repeatable.