Godlessness and choice

[Dave Ellis]

Actually some well respected neurologists DO agree with my conclusions. Dr. John Eccles, Dr. Mario Beauregard, and Dr. Daniel Robinson to name a few.

Link their work

 

[bhsmte]

The data is collected via the five senses.
The data is interpreted via reason.

They use their eyes to examine distant stars through a telescope, or micro organisms in a slide under a microscope.

They use the sense of touch to feel the electricity moving through a current.

They use their sense of smell when studying sulfuric compounds

They use their sense of hearing to listen to potential broadcasts emanating from deep space.

They use their mind to reason that certain sensory input gives true insight into the nature of a world that exists independently of them.

Do you agree?

If your desire is to compare how science arrives at conclusions and the processes used for the same, is equivalent to how faith beliefs are arrived at, I would quit while you are behind.

 

[anonymous person]

If your desire is to compare how science arrives at conclusions and the processes used for the same, is equivalent to how faith beliefs are arrived at, I would quit while you are behind.

Well right now, I want to see if you agree with me when I say that scientists rely on, trust in, commit to the deliverance of their five senses when conducting research. Do you agree with what I said?

 

[bhsmte]

Well right now, I want to see if you agree with me when I say that scientists rely on, trust in, commit to the deliverance of their five senses when conducting research. Do you agree with what I said?

Anything humans do will involve utilization of senses. Now, there are means to test and verify observations, based on the method utilized to do the same. We know what method science uses to test observations and to examine data, which is repeatable in controlled environments. Go ahead and compare how science reaches conclusions and the methods used to verify results with faith beliefs, this should be interesting, especially considering how many different conclusions humans reach in regards to faith beliefs, the world over.

 

[anonymous person]

Anything humans do will involve utilization of senses. Now, there are means to test and verify observations, based on the method utilized to do the same. We know what method science uses to test observations and to examine data, which is repeatable in controlled environments. Go ahead and compare how science reaches conclusions and the methods used to verify results with faith beliefs, this should be interesting, especially considering how many different conclusions humans reach in regards to faith beliefs, the world over.

You say that anything humans do will involve utilization of the senses. This includes testing and verifying observations.

Now my point in asking you these questions is to get you to understand that exactly what you said is true. Anything humans do will involve utilization of our senses.

We trust in and rely on and depend on and commit to what our senses tell us about the world. But we can't provide empirical evidence that our senses are giving us a true account of reality without assuming that they are, which leads to arguing in a circle.

Any appeal to the reliability of the senses will involve using those same senses.

Thus it is clear from this that we all are capable, and indeed do so all the time, of exercising faith in the sense of trusting in, relying on, depending on, and committing to something even though we cannot verify empirically or objectively, the trustworthiness of that in which we trust.

So no, I cannot prove empirically that Jesus rose bodily from the dead. I can't prove empirically many things that I yet still have good reasons to trust in.

You exercise faith each and every day you wake up. God has so designed us and the world in which we live as to make living by faith an integral part of our existence so as to remove the excuse from us of not being able to accept something on faith.

 

[Dave Ellis]

You say that anything humans do will involve utilization of the senses. This includes testing and verifying observations.

Now my point in asking you these questions is to get you to understand that exactly what you said is true. Anything humans do will involve utilization of our senses.

We trust in and rely on and depend on and commit to what our senses tell us about the world. But we can't provide empirical evidence that our senses are giving us a true account of reality without assuming that they are, which leads to arguing in a circle.

Any appeal to the reliability of the senses will involve using those same senses.

Thus it is clear from this that we all are capable, and indeed do so all the time, of exercising faith in the sense of trusting in, relying on, depending on, and committing to something even though we cannot verify empirically or objectively, the trustworthiness of that in which we trust.

So no, I cannot prove empirically that Jesus rose bodily from the dead. I can't prove empirically many things that I yet still have good reasons to trust in.

You exercise faith each and every day you wake up. God has so designed us and the world in which we live as to make living by faith an integral part of our existence so as to remove the excuse from us of not being able to accept something on faith.

So basically your argument rests on us not being able to perceive reality.

This is a spectacularly weak argument. Is it possible we live in the matrix? Maybe. However we have no reason to believe that we do.

Relying on our senses which have shown fairly reliable results in most cases doesn't require faith.

 

[bhsmte]

You say that anything humans do will involve utilization of the senses. This includes testing and verifying observations.

Now my point in asking you these questions is to get you to understand that exactly what you said is true. Anything humans do will involve utilization of our senses.

We trust in and rely on and depend on and commit to what our senses tell us about the world. But we can't provide empirical evidence that our senses are giving us a true account of reality without assuming that they are, which leads to arguing in a circle.

Any appeal to the reliability of the senses will involve using those same senses.

Thus it is clear from this that we all are capable, and indeed do so all the time, of exercising faith in the sense of trusting in, relying on, depending on, and committing to something even though we cannot verify empirically or objectively, the trustworthiness of that in which we trust.

So no, I cannot prove empirically that Jesus rose bodily from the dead. I can't prove empirically many things that I yet still have good reasons to trust in.

You exercise faith each and every day you wake up. God has so designed us and the world in which we live as to make living by faith an integral part of our existence so as to remove the excuse from us of not being able to accept something on faith.

The reliability of what the senses observe, can be tested and confirmed by using the scientific method. That is why science works and you enjoy the benefits of science, every hour of every day.

 

[bhsmte]

You say that anything humans do will involve utilization of the senses. This includes testing and verifying observations.

Now my point in asking you these questions is to get you to understand that exactly what you said is true. Anything humans do will involve utilization of our senses.

We trust in and rely on and depend on and commit to what our senses tell us about the world. But we can't provide empirical evidence that our senses are giving us a true account of reality without assuming that they are, which leads to arguing in a circle.

Any appeal to the reliability of the senses will involve using those same senses.

Thus it is clear from this that we all are capable, and indeed do so all the time, of exercising faith in the sense of trusting in, relying on, depending on, and committing to something even though we cannot verify empirically or objectively, the trustworthiness of that in which we trust.

So no, I cannot prove empirically that Jesus rose bodily from the dead. I can't prove empirically many things that I yet still have good reasons to trust in.

You exercise faith each and every day you wake up. God has so designed us and the world in which we live as to make living by faith an integral part of our existence so as to remove the excuse from us of not being able to accept something on faith.

No, I don't exercise faith all the time. If I buy a lotto ticket or am watching my favorite team play, I will be relying on faith that I win.

In regards to daily life where I have a track record of verifiable reliability, I use trust, not faith.

 

[anonymous person]

So basically your argument rests on us not being able to perceive reality.

No. My argument rests on the fact that we trust in the deliverances of our senses, even though we cannot empirically prove their deliverances are of what reality really is.

This is a spectacularly weak argument. Is it possible we live in the matrix? Maybe. However we have no reason to believe that we do.

Well, I am not arguing that it' possible that our senses are faulty, but just that we cannot empirically verify their veridicality. I can wholeheartedly agree with you, that in general we have no good reasons to doubt their veridicality. However, this in no way amounts to an empirical proof of their veridicality. We trust in them, rely on them, committ to hold as true those things which they give us without being able to objectively test them and validate them and empirically verify them.

Relying on our senses which have shown fairly reliable results in most cases doesn't require faith.

You can't empirically verify their reliability without assuming their reliability, for one would have to assume they were reliable to use them in any emprical endeavor to verify them, for it is our senses that we use when we engage in any empirical activity.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I see, so in your mind Jesus was no more important or prominent than John the Baptist. Gotcha.

Perhaps it might be construed in a certain way that I think something like what you've insinuated, but I wouldn't quite put it that way. In fact, I'd probably “put it” a bit more like F.F. Bruce (1969) did nearly fifty years ago:

When we are asked what “collateral proof” exists of the life of Jesus Christ, would it be unfair to begin by asking another question? In which contemporary writers – in which writers who flourished, say, during the first fifty years after the death of Christ-- would you expect to find collateral evidence you are looking for? Well, perhaps it would be rather unfair, as the man in the street can hardly be expected to know who was writing in the Graeco-Roman world during those fifty years; the classical student himself has to scratch his head in an attempt to remember who they were. For it is surprising how few writings, comparatively speaking, have survived from those years of a kind which might even be remotely expected to mention Christ. (I except, for the present, the letters of Paul and several other New Testament writings.) [emphasis mine] (as cited in McDowell & Wilson, 1988, p. 17).​

So, taking this assessment of F.F. Bruce and adding it to the literary, historical fact I mentioned previously regarding the comparison of Philo to Josephus [back up at post #462], then I'd say I don't realistically expect Philo to have cared much that Jesus walked the streets of Jerusalem, at least not in a positive way. He obviously didn't mention John the Baptist, or any other significant figure related to Christianity for that matter, and he very well could have written something, even a few tidbits like Josephus did, without making too much of a fuss in doing so.

No, I think it's rather more prudent to assess the history of what “really” went down during that 1st century hush around Jesus by saying that, whatever really happened, it was likely something Philo didn't feel compelled to “spread around.” No, it was probably better, from his point of view, to let a heretical, fledgling movement started by a dead Christ also die a natural social death. Why give it further consideration among other minds or other later generations by mentioning it at all? Best to leave the dead to silence and … allow them to fade away into the dusty gutters of history and disappear all together.

It's just that, as you and I both know, Jesus didn't disappear from the collective conscience of the world. Oh, well.

And that is basically how I see it. We shouldn't expect Philo to definitely have written about someone he more than likely wished to disappear off the radar of the Jewish community. This is probably the case as well with many other writers of that same time period, whether they were Jew or Gentile; they had more important things to discuss. So, if there are any who should be running through the streets screaming, “Philo didn't write about Jesus!!! Philo didn't write about Jesus!!!,” it should probably be Christians who do so, not atheists.

Need I say more? Well, don't be surprised if I can ...

Reference

McDowell, Josh, & Wilson, Bill. (1988). He walked among us: Evidence for the historical Jesus. San Bernadino, CA: Here's Life Publishing.

 

[anonymous person]

The reliability of what the senses observe, can be tested and confirmed by using the scientific method. That is why science works and you enjoy the benefits of science, every hour of every day.

You don't get it.

We use our senses when we do science. So you can't say science demonstrates their reliabilty. Science, in order to be done, must assume their reliability.

You can't prove the reliability of something by using the thing you are attempting to show is reliable without arguing in a circle.

It would be like me saying the bible is reliable because the bible is reliable. That's circular.

You take it on faith that your reasoning abilities and the deliverances of your senses are presenting you with an accurate account of reality. You can't prove this empirically, nor can you step outside of them and be objective to ascertain their veridicality. You believe in science, your senses, and your reasoning abilities on faith.

 

[anonymous person]

No, I don't exercise faith all the time. If I buy a lotto ticket or am watching my favorite team play, I will be relying on faith that I win.

In regards to daily life where I have a track record of verifiable reliability, I use trust, not faith.

Well, if you will recall earlier, I stated that faith as used in the bible is trusting in something or someone, relying on something or someone depending on something or someone, namely God and His promises. It is not wishful thinking, or crossing your fingers and believing in something blindly.

So when you say you trust in the reliability of your senses, or science, then you are taking their reliabilty on faith in the sense that you trust in them without being able to empirically verify them.

 

[bhsmte]

Well, if you will recall earlier, I stated that faith as used in the bible is trusting in something or someone, relying on something or someone depending on something or someone, namely God and His promises. It is not wishful thinking, or crossing your fingers and believing in something blindly.

So when you say you trust in the reliability of your senses, or science, then you are taking their reliabilty on faith in the sense that you trust in them without being able to empirically verify them.

We use the terms; faith and trust differently.

 

[bhsmte]

You don't get it.

We use our senses when we do science. So you can't say science demonstrates their reliabilty. Science, in order to be done, must assume their reliability.

You can't prove the reliability of something by using the thing you are attempting to show is reliable without arguing in a circle.

It would be like me saying the bible is reliable because the bible is reliable. That's circular.

You take it on faith that your reasoning abilities and the deliverances of your senses are presenting you with an accurate account of reality. You can't prove this empirically, nor can you step outside of them and be objective to ascertain their veridicality. You believe in science, your senses, and your reasoning abilities on faith.

You are wrong. The scientific method has a means of filtering out garbage and is self correcting when new evidence comes to light. Religious beliefs, not so much.

 

[anonymous person]

We use the terms; faith and trust differently.

No doubt. That's my point!

Biblical faith and trust are synonymous. Simply do a word study on the Greek word for faith.

I hate to break it to you, but I don't advocate having blind faith in anything, nor do I advocate the closing of one's eyes and crossing one's fingers and wishing for something to be true. Wishful thinking, blind leap in the dark, and believing something for which there is no evidence are all conceptions of faith that stand at odds with the biblical conception of faith.

 

[anonymous person]

You are wrong. The scientific method has a means of filtering out garbage and is self correcting when new evidence comes to light. Religious beliefs, not so much.

I am not arguing that the scientific method does not have a means of filtering out garbage or that it is not self correcting.

Sure it can do that and be that. But SCIENTISTS use their senses to do the filtering and correcting, trusting in their veridicality without being able to prove it.

In addition, you are comparing an empirical method of research with beliefs. That's comparing apples and oranges.

 

[bhsmte]

I am not arguing that the scientific method does not have a means of filtering out garbage or that it is not self correcting.

Sure it can do that and be that. But SCIENTISTS use their senses to do the filtering and correcting, trusting in their veridicality without being able to prove it.

In addition, you are comparing an empirical method of research with beliefs. That's comparing apples and oranges.

And, the above is why humans have so many different variations of faith beliefs, with each person wanting to think they have it right. It is this way because, faith beliefs are heavily driven by; social environment, parents and how life experiences impact one's psyche. 2/3 of the worlds population disagree with your faith belief and with scientists, you get consensus, because positions can be objectively tested.

So, you are right, the reliability of faith beliefs are not comparable, to the reliability of science.

 

[anonymous person]

And, the above is why humans have so many different variations of faith beliefs, with each person wanting to think they have it right. It is this way because, faith beliefs are heavily driven by; social environment, parents and how life experiences impact one's psyche. 2/3 of the worlds population disagree with your faith belief and with scientists, you get consensus, because positions can be objectively tested.

So, you are right, the reliability of faith beliefs are not comparable, to the reliability of science.

Except I didn't make that argument. I am not arguing that the reliability of beliefs we hold on faith are incomparable to the reliability of science.

I am arguing that it is a matter of faith to think that science can tell us anything at all about reality.

I wholeheartedly agree that in general, science can tell us much about reality because I take it on faith that a rational mind is back of the natural order of things, who created the world, us, and our senses and that they are veridical, and that God desires us to know about the world He made so that this knowledge points to Him.

Nor does it trouble me that people disagree with this view I hold, for my views are rooted and grounded in falsifiable, historical events which are open to investigation, verification, and scrutinization.

My worldview encompasses all of life and is a conceptual system, not just a collection of theological bits and pieces to be debated, and it is internally consistent as well.

Appealing to the ability of positions to be objectively tested once again assumes that scientists can even know anything as it really is, and this is simply taken on faith, faith that our senses are functioning properly and are reliable.

Evidence for Christianity is subject to being objectively tested. Evidence from archaeology, geology, anthropology, history, textual criticism, etc. etc, has led to a consensus of literally billions of people, that Christianity is true.

What you do with this evidence will ultimately be a choice you make and that choice will be influenced by any number of factors, life experiences, social environment, impact on one's psyche, etc. etc.

 

[bhsmte]

Except I didn't make that argument. I am not arguing that the reliability of beliefs we hold on faith are incomparable to the reliability of science.

I am arguing that it is a matter of faith to think that science can tell us anything at all about reality.

I wholeheartedly agree that in general, science can tell us much about reality because I take it on faith that a rational mind is back of the natural order of things, who created the world, us, and our senses and that they are veridical, and that God desires us to know about the world He made so that this knowledge points to Him.

Nor does it trouble me that people disagree with this view I hold, for my views are rooted and grounded in falsifiable, historical events which are open to investigation, verification, and scrutinization.

My worldview encompasses all of life and is a conceptual system, not just a collection of theological bits and pieces to be debated, and it is internally consistent as well.

Appealing to the ability of positions to be objectively tested once again assumes that scientists can even know anything as it really is, and this is simply taken on faith, faith that our senses are functioning properly and are reliable.

Evidence for Christianity is subject to being objectively tested. Evidence from archaeology, geology, anthropology, history, textual criticism, etc. etc, has led to a consensus of literally billions of people, that Christianity is true.

What you do with this evidence will ultimately be a choice you make and that choice will be influenced by any number of factors, life experiences, social environment, impact on one's psyche, etc. etc.

Like I said, you use the term faith much differently than I.

That's cool, use it however you like.

 

[anonymous person]

Like I said, you use the term faith much differently than I.

That's cool, use it however you like.

Except that I don't have the right to use it however I like if my desire is to be faithful to how the biblical authors used it.

If I am reading Bertrand Russell's works, and therein find some term I wish to use in a discussion about his views on a particular subject involving that term, I am obligated to use the term as he used it. If not, I am misrepresenting, mischaracterizing his work and will be found as one who has been unfaitful to it.

Likewise, if I am discussing with you the term faith as it is understood in the Christian worldview, I have to use it the way the biblical authors used it and none of them held to this caricature of faith that is floating around among atheists and science popularizers as being some irrational blind leap in the dark wishful thinking cross your fingers and hope it is true even though there is no reason to think so type of faith. Heck, the biblical authors and myself would agree with you and these atheists and popularizers that such faith is bad, not good.

I think the main thing I want you to do is just to readjust your view a little on what science requires before it can even get off the ground and that is a commitment to certain things which simply can't be empirically proven or objectively verified. That will then open the door for us to progress forward.